12522 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 16, 2010 / Notices 

1 Department of Health and Human Services. 

Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion. 

2008 Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans. 

Washington, DC, 2008. The 2008 Physical Activity 

Guidelines for Americans recommends 60 minutes 

of physical activity per day for children and 

adolescents, which should include moderate to 

vigorous aerobic activity, as well as age-appropriate 

muscle and bone strengthening activities. 

2Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 

Youth Risk Behavior Survey, 2007. Accessed online 

at http://www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth. The question 

on physical activity asks about doing any kind of 

physical activity that increased their heart rate and 

made them breathe hard some of the time for a total 

of at least 60 minutes per day on five or more of 

the seven days before the survey. The question on 

nutritional intake asks students to report if the 

student ate fruits and vegetables (100 percent fruit 

juices, fruit, green salad, potatoes [excluding French 

fries, fried potatoes, or potato chips], carrots, or 

other vegetables) five or more times per day during 

the seven days before the survey. 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

Carol M. White Physical Education 

Program 

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance 

(CFDA) Number: 84.215F. 

AGENCY: Office of Safe and Drug-Free 

Schools, Department of Education. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed priorities, 

requirements, and definitions. 

SUMMARY: The Assistant Deputy 

Secretary for Safe and Drug-Free 

Schools proposes priorities, 

requirements, and definitions for the 

Carol M. White Physical Education 

Program (PEP). The Assistant Deputy 

Secretary may use one or more of these 

priorities, requirements, and definitions 

for competitions in fiscal year (FY) 2010 

and later years. We take this action to 

align PEP projects more closely with 

best practices and research related to 

improving children’s health and fitness. 

Under the proposed requirements, new 

projects would be required to address a 

variety of mechanisms and approaches 

for improving students’ physical activity 

and eating habits and improve students’ 

ability to meet their State physical 

education standards. 

DATES: We must receive your comments 

on or before April 15, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: Address all comments about 

this notice to Carlette Huntley, U.S. 

Department of Education, 550 12th 

Street, SW., Room 10071, Washington, 

DC 20202–6450. If you prefer to send 

your comments through e-mail, use the 

following address: 

carlette.huntley@ed.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Carlette Huntley. 

Telephone: (202) 245–7871 or by 

e-mail: carlette.huntley@ed.gov. 

If you use a telecommunications 

device for the deaf (TDD), call the 

Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 

1–800–877–8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Invitation to Comment: We invite you 

to submit comments regarding this 

notice. To ensure that your comments 

have maximum effect in developing the 

notice of final priorities, requirements, 

and definitions, we urge you to identify 

clearly the specific proposed priority, 

requirement, or definition that each 

comment addresses. 

We invite you to assist us in 

complying with the specific 

requirements of Executive Order 12866 

and its overall requirement of reducing 

regulatory burden that might result from 

these proposed priorities, requirements, 

and definitions. Please let us know of 

any further ways we could reduce 

potential costs or increase potential 

benefits while preserving the effective 

and efficient administration of the 

program. 

During and after the comment period, 

you may inspect all public comments 

about this notice in room 10096, 550 

12th Street, SW., Washington, DC, 

between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:00 

p.m., Washington, DC time, Monday 

through Friday of each week except 

Federal holidays. 

Assistance to Individuals with 

Disabilities in Reviewing the 

Rulemaking Record: On request we will 

provide an appropriate accommodation 

or auxiliary aid to an individual with a 

disability who needs assistance to 

review the comments or other 

documents in the public rulemaking 

record for this notice. If you want to 

schedule an appointment for this type of 

accommodation or auxiliary aid, please 

contact the person listed under FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. 

Purpose of Program: The purpose of 

PEP is to initiate, expand, and improve 

physical education for students in 

grades K–12. 

Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 7261– 

7261f. 

Applicable Program Regulations: 34 

CFR part 299. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

General: We propose a new direction 

to strengthen and enhance PEP and to 

support a broader, strategic vision for (a) 

encouraging the development of lifelong 

healthy habits, and (b) improving 

nutrition and physical education 

programming and policies in schools 

and communities to prevent obesity and 

to decrease the number of children who 

are overweight or obese. This new 

direction will focus on increasing 

opportunities for students to be 

physically active and practice good 

nutritional habits in and out of school. 

PEP’s new direction would apply 

lessons learned and best practices based 

on research and program evaluation that 

were not available during PEP’s earlier 

years. With this new direction, we seek 

to provide funding to districts and 

community-based organizations in 

communities that plan to implement 

comprehensive, integrated physical 

activity and nutrition programs and 

policies that are reinforced in and by the 

community. By promoting sequential, 

research-based physical education and 

instruction in healthy eating and 

implementing policies to encourage 

physical activity and healthy eating, we 

expect PEP projects to result in students 

developing important skills, knowledge, 

and behaviors that will translate into 

healthy habits that will carry into 

adulthood. Research demonstrates that 

active, healthy youth are more likely to 

become active, healthy adults. 

Proposed Priorities: 

This notice contains three proposed 

priorities. One is proposed as an 

absolute priority and two are proposed 

as competitive priorities. 

Proposed Absolute Priority—Programs 

Designed To Create Quality Physical 

Education Programs 

Background: 

Over the last decade, health and 

education professionals, as well as 

States and communities, have been 

increasingly concerned about changing 

health and behavior patterns related to 

physical activity, nutrition, and weight 

status. While a healthy lifestyle can help 

prevent a host of serious health 

outcomes, including heart disease and 

diabetes, data show that a large 

percentage of youth are sedentary and 

neither active enough nor have a 

healthy diet. Only about 17 percent of 

high school students meet the current 

recommendations for physical activity.1

In a recent study, about one-quarter of 

high school students reported that they 

used a computer or played computer or 

video games more than three hours a 

day and about 35 percent of high school 

students reported watching television 

three or more hours per day on an 

average school day. Only 21 percent of 

high school students reported eating 

five or more fruits or vegetables each 

day in the previous week.2 These 

behaviors have contributed to a rise in 

overweight and obese youth, with recent 

studies indicating that 17 percent of 6– 

11 year-olds and 17.6 percent of 12–19 

year-olds are considered obese. 

Furthermore, 33 percent of 6–11 year 

olds and 34 percent of 12–19 year olds 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 16, 2010 / Notices 12523 

3 ‘‘Overweight’’ is defined as at or above the 85th 

percentile and ‘‘obese’’ is defined as at or above the 

95th percentile on BMI-for-age growth charts. 

4Ogden C, Carroll M, Flegal K. High body mass 

index for age among US children and adolescents, 

2003–2006. JAMA. 2008;299(20): 2410–2405. 

5 Institute of Medicine. Preventing Childhood 

Obesity: Health in the Balance. Washington, DC: 

The National Academies Press, 2005. 

6States that do not have their own physical 

education standards may use another State’s 

standards. 

7Freedman D, Zuguo M, Srinivasan S, Berenson 

G, Dietz W. Cardiovascular risk factors and excess 

adiposity among overweight children and 

adolescents: The Bogalusa Heart Study. J Pediatr. 

2007;150(1): 12–17. 

8U.S. Surgeon General. Overweight and obesity: 

Health consequences. Rockville, MD, 2001. 

Accessed at http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/topics/ 

obesity/on October 14, 2009. 

9Finkelstein E, Trogdon J, Cohen J, and Dietz W. 

Annual medical spending attributable to obesity: 

Payer-and service-specific estimates. Health Affairs. 

2009; 28(5): w822–w831. 

10National health objectives can be found in 

Healthy People, 2010, accessed at http:// 

www.healthypeople.gov/Document/html/uih/ 

uih_bw/uih_4.htm#overandobese on October 15, 

2009. 

are overweight; 3 these rates have 

roughly doubled since 1980.4

Schools are most likely to have an 

impact on student physical activity and 

dietary behaviors when they provide 

students with a quality physical 

education program, nutrition instruction 

and a healthy nutrition environment, 

and multiple opportunities and settings 

that promote and practice physical 

activity and healthy eating.5 PEP’s 

authorizing statute identifies six 

program elements that may be included 

in funded projects, and that, when 

undertaken together, characterize a 

quality program in physical education 

and nutrition education. The six 

program elements are designed to 

provide the cognitive, instructional, and 

experiential components that promote 

the adoption of lifelong healthy habits, 

as well as enhanced cooperative and 

social skills for students, and ongoing 

professional development for teachers 

and staff. The program elements are: (1) 

Fitness education and assessment to 

help students understand, improve, or 

maintain their physical well-being; (2) 

instruction in a variety of motor skills 

and physical activities designed to 

enhance the physical, mental, and social 

or emotional development of every 

student; (3) development of, and 

instruction in, cognitive concepts about 

motor skills and physical fitness that 

support a lifelong healthy lifestyle; (4) 

opportunities to develop positive social 

and cooperative skills through physical 

activity participation; (5) instruction in 

healthy eating habits and good 

nutrition; and (6) opportunities for 

professional development for teachers of 

physical education to stay abreast of the 

latest research, issues, and trends in the 

field of physical education. 

Historically, the Department has 

required applicants for PEP grants to 

address at least one of the six elements. 

Beginning in 2004, we sought to refocus the program to include efforts that 

strategically support the promotion of 

lifelong healthy habits. We have funded 

six cohorts of grantees under this 

particular framework and, through our 

observations, reviews of project reports, 

work with grantees, and consultation 

with other Federal agencies and nongovernmental partners, have concluded 

that additional changes are necessary to 

strengthen the program, better align it 

with the latest research and best 

practices in the field, and fund 

programs that are most likely to be 

sustainable following the period of 

Federal funding. 

We believe that requiring applicants 

to create programs and policies that 

address element 5, regarding nutrition 

instruction, plus at least one of the other 

elements related to physical activity 

will result in the development and 

implementation of approaches that go 

beyond instruction in physical 

education or fulfillment of physical 

education equipment needs, which have 

been the historical foci of PEP-funded 

projects. A combined focus on both 

nutrition and physical activity and 

physical education programming, 

curricula, and related equipment 

necessary for implementation, along 

with changes to related physical activity 

and nutrition policies, provide the basis 

for an initiative that goes beyond 

implementing a specific curriculum or 

using a particular piece or set of 

physical education equipment. Instead, 

this requirement will encourage 

applicants to consider the range of 

approaches necessary to promoting 

healthy habits within two broad 

categories, instruction in healthy eating 

and physical activity or physical 

education, while allowing applicants to 

design programs that best meet their 

identified gaps and needs and enhance 

their identified assets in as 

comprehensive a manner as possible. 

Proposed Absolute Priority: 

Under this proposed priority, an 

applicant would be required to develop, 

expand, or improve its physical 

education program and address its 

State’s physical education standards 6

by undertaking the following activities: 

(1) Instruction in healthy eating habits 

and good nutrition and (2) physical 

fitness activities that must include at 

least one of the following: (a) Fitness 

education and assessment to help 

students understand, improve, or 

maintain their physical well-being; (b) 

instruction in a variety of motor skills 

and physical activities designed to 

enhance the physical, mental, and social 

or emotional development of every 

student; (c) development of, and 

instruction in, cognitive concepts about 

motor skills and physical fitness that 

support a lifelong healthy lifestyle; (d) 

opportunities to develop positive social 

and cooperative skills through physical 

activity participation; or (e) 

opportunities for professional 

development for teachers of physical 

education to stay abreast of the latest 

research, issues, and trends in the field 

of physical education. 

Proposed Competitive Preference 

Priority 1—Collection of Body Mass 

Index Measurement Background: 

Over the last several years, with 

increasing attention focused on the 

childhood obesity epidemic, several 

States and municipalities have begun 

using the Body Mass Index (BMI) to 

create awareness of the extent of weight 

problems in their State or municipality. 

Collecting data on BMI can identify the 

percentages of students in the 

population who are obese, overweight, 

normal weight, and underweight. 

Childhood obesity is associated with 

cardiovascular disease risk factors, 

including high blood pressure, high 

cholesterol, and impaired fasting 

glucose.7 Obese young people are more 

likely than children of normal weight to 

become overweight or obese adults and, 

therefore, more at risk for associated 

health problems during adulthood, 

including heart disease, type 2 diabetes, 

stroke, several types of cancer, and 

osteoarthritis.8 Additionally, researchers 

estimate that medical costs of the 

obesity epidemic may total as much as 

$147 billion annually.9

Several States and municipalities 

have started using BMI as an approach 

to identifying the percentage of youth in 

the population who are obese, 

overweight, normal weight, and 

underweight. These data, in the 

aggregate, can be used to describe the 

weight status over time in the student 

population; monitor progress toward 

achieving national health objectives 10; 

and monitor the effects of school-based 

physical activity and nutrition policies 

and programs. 

BMI is a tool for assessing weight 

status that is relatively easy to use and 

correlates with body fat. The BMI is 

based on a calculation using weight and 

height (kg/m 2). Although the same 

formula is used for adults, children, and 

adolescents, weight status for children 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
12524 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 16, 2010 / Notices 

11 Krebs NF et al. Assessment of child and 

adolescent overweight and obesity. Pediatrics. 

2007;120:S193–S228. 

12Freedman D, Wang, J, Thornton J, Mei Z, 

Sopher A, Pierson R, Dietz W, and Horlick M. 

Classification of Body Mass Index-for-Age 

Categories Among Children. Archives of Pediatrics 

and Adolescent Medicine. 2009;163(9):805–811. 

13Additional assessments and tests could include 

a patient’s medical history, family history, diet, 

physical activity habits, and blood pressure and 

laboratory tests, such as cholesterol levels. 

and adolescents is determined by 

plotting BMI by age on a sex-specific 

growth chart, created by the Centers for 

Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 

and presented as a BMI-for-age 

percentile (http://www.cdc.gov/ 

growthcharts). For children and 

adolescents, the weight status categories 

are ‘‘underweight’’ (BMI less than the 5th 

percentile), ‘‘healthy weight’’ (BMI is 

greater than the 5th percentile but less 

than the 85th percentile), ‘‘overweight’’ 

(BMI is greater than the 85th percentile 

and less than the 95th percentile) and 

‘‘obese’’ (BMI is greater than the 95th 

percentile). The BMI-for-age percentiles 

identified by the CDC are the 

recommended method of reporting size 

and growth patterns among children in 

the United States.11

As BMI is a measure of weight status 

at only one point in time, it is important 

for students, families, and policymakers to consider trends in BMI data 

rather than taking action based on one 

measurement point. For children and 

teens, BMI is used as a screening tool, 

not a diagnostic tool, which means that 

it can suggest that a child may have a 

weight concern but it is not a tool that 

will determine that the child’s weight 

status is a problem.12 A trained medical 

care provider would need to perform 

other follow-up assessments and tests 13

to determine if the student actually has 

excess body fat or other health risks 

related to obesity. 

To understand a BMI score more 

accurately, practitioners often also look 

at other measures, such as assessments 

of fitness levels, physical activity levels, 

and nutritional intake. For policymakers, looking at prevalence and 

trends in obesity among youth at the 

school, district, and/or community 

levels (as measured by the BMI) can 

create awareness of the overall 

population’s health and fitness, and 

provide an impetus to improve policies, 

practices, and services. 

Program planners should carefully 

consider the issues related to 

undertaking a BMI assessment program 

in a school or a school-related setting, 

and should first define the intent of 

their assessment program and the 

desired outcomes they wish to achieve 

by undertaking BMI assessment. 

Program planners should consider how 

these efforts would be understood and 

accepted by the community. Planners 

should also consider how the 

information would be used in the 

context of the other required measures 

for this program (see the 

REQUIREMENTS section of this notice) 

and as part of the fitness assessments 

that applicants may propose in response 

to this program element in Proposed 

Absolute Priority 1. When presented 

with complementary measures of 

fitness, physical activity, nutritional 

habits, and behaviors to be addressed 

through PEP, these measures provide 

not only a means for assessing the 

health and fitness of the student 

population, but also ideas about 

program and policy components that 

require improvement and the ability to 

monitor changes to these indicators over 

time. 

Grantees that receive funds under this 

priority would be required to provide 

parents with the choice to have their 

child opt out of this assessment as part 

of the development and implementation 

of their BMI measurement practice, and 

to inform parents of this choice. 

Additionally, unless the BMI 

assessment is permitted or required by 

State law, local educational agency 

(LEA) applicants must develop policies 

in consultation with parents that 

provide reasonable notice of the 

applicant’s plan to collect BMI data, in 

compliance with the Protection of Pupil 

Rights Amendment (PPRA), 20 U.S.C. 

1232h. 

Planners should also consider the 

timing and flow of students into the 

assessment site to have their BMI 

measured, how the measurement would 

be performed, the equipment needed to 

carry out the assessment, who would 

perform the assessment, and how data 

would be calculated, recorded, and 

protected. These procedures should 

adhere to the best available scientific 

practices and procedures. 

If program planners intend to provide 

information to parents about their 

children, planners should consider if 

and how they would be able to access 

follow-up testing or treatment by a 

heath care provider, and might create a 

referral system for youth who are 

identified as obese, overweight, or 

underweight. If the information will be 

shared with parents, planners should 

provide a clear and respectful 

explanation of the BMI results and a list 

of the appropriate actions. Resources are 

available to help schools implement 

these kinds of activities in the safest and 

most effective way possible, including 

CDC’s Children’s BMI Tool for Schools, 

which can be accessed at: http:// 

www.cdc.gov/healthyweight/assessing/ 

bmi/childrens_bmi/ 

tool_for_schools.html. 

Proposed Competitive Preference 

Priority: 

We propose giving a competitive 

preference priority to applicants that 

agree to implement aggregate BMI data 

collection, and use it as part of a 

comprehensive assessment of health 

and fitness for the purposes of 

monitoring the weight status of their 

student population across time. 

Applicants would be required to sign a 

Program-Specific Assurance that would 

commit them to: 

(a) Use the CDC’s BMI-for-age growth 

charts to interpret BMI results (http:// 

www.cdc.gov/growthcharts); 

(b) Create a plan to develop and 

implement a protocol that would 

include parents in the development of 

their BMI assessment and data 

collection policies, including a 

mechanism to allow parents to provide 

feedback on the policy. Applicants 

would be required to detail the 

following required components in their 

aggregate BMI data collection protocol: 

The proposed method for measuring 

BMI, who would perform the BMI 

assessment (i.e., staff members trained 

to obtain accurate and reliable height 

and weight measurements), the 

frequency of reporting, the planned 

equipment to be used, methods for 

calculating the planned sampling frame 

(if the applicant would use sampling), 

the policies used to ensure student 

privacy during measurement, how the 

data would be secured to protect 

student confidentiality, who would 

have access to the data, how long the 

data will be kept, and what will happen 

to the data after that time. Applicants 

that intend to inform parents of their 

student’s weight status must include 

plans for notifying parents of that status, 

and must include their plan for ensuring 

that resources are available for safe and 

effective follow-up with trained medical 

care providers; 

(c) Create a plan to notify parents of 

the BMI assessment and to allow 

parents to opt out of the BMI assessment 

and reasonable notification of their 

choice to opt out. Unless the BMI 

assessment is permitted or required by 

State law, LEA applicants would be 

required to detail their policies for 

providing reasonable notice of the 

adoption or continued use of such 

policies directly to the parents of the 

students enrolled in the LEA’s schools 

served by the agency. At a minimum, 

the LEA would have to provide such 

notice at least annually, at the beginning 

of the school year and within a 

reasonable period of time after any 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 16, 2010 / Notices 12525 

14LEAs are subject to the Family Educational 

Rights and Privacy Act and must de-identify 

education records based on regulations issued by 

the Department of Education in December, 2008. 

More information can be found at: http:// 

www.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/fpco/pdf/ 

ferparegs.pdf. CBO applicants should follow all 

applicable Federal, State, and local privacy laws 

and regulations regarding the de-identification of 

personal data. 

15 Institute of Medicine. Preventing Childhood 

Obesity: Health in the Balance. Washington, DC: 

The National Academies Press, 2005. 

16 IOM (Institute of Medicine) and National 

Research Council. 2009. Local Government Actions 

to Prevent Childhood Obesity. Washington, DC: The 

National Academies Press. 

substantive change in such policies, 

pursuant to the Protection of Pupil 

Rights Amendment, 20 U.S.C. Section 

1232h(c)(2)(A); and 

(d) De-identify the student 

information (such as by removing the 

student’s name and any identifying 

information from the record and 

assigning a record code 14), aggregate the 

BMI data to the school or district level, 

and make the aggregate data publicly 

available and easily accessible to the 

public annually. Applicants would need 

to describe their plan for the level of 

reporting they plan to use, depending 

on the size of the population, such as at 

the district level or the school level. 

Applicants would also be required to 

detail in their application their plan for 

how these data will be used in 

coordination with other required data 

for the program, such as fitness, 

physical activity, and nutritional intake 

measures, and how the combination of 

these measures will be used to improve 

physical education programming and 

policy. 

On June 18, 1991, 17 Federal 

Departments and Agencies, including 

the Department of Education, adopted a 

common set of regulations known as the 

Federal Policy for the Protection of 

Human Subjects or ‘‘Common Rule.’’ See 

34 CFR Part 97. Applicants that engage 

in BMI data collection may be subject to 

the U.S. Department of Education’s 

Protection of Human Subjects 

regulations if the data are used in 

research funded by the Federal 

government or for any future research 

conducted by an institution that has 

adopted the Federal policy for all 

research of that institution. The 

regulations define research as ‘‘a 

systematic investigation, including 

research development, testing and 

evaluation, designed to develop or 

contribute to generalizable knowledge. 

Activities which meet this definition 

constitute research for purposes of this 

policy, whether or not they are 

conducted or supported under a 

program which is considered research 

for other purposes. For example, some 

demonstration and service programs 

may include research activities.’’ 34 CFR 

97.102(d). Information on Human 

Subjects requirements is found at: 

http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ 

ocfo/humansub.html. 

Applications that do not provide a 

Program-Specific Assurance signed by 

an Authorized Representative 

committing the applicant to completing 

the tasks above during their project 

period would not be eligible for 

competitive preference points. 

In implementing this proposed 

priority, we would encourage applicants 

to consult with their partners to 

determine if and how any of the 

partners could contribute to the data 

collection, reporting, or potential 

referral processes. 

Proposed Competitive Preference 

Priority 2—Partnerships Between 

Applicants and Supporting Community 

Entities 

Background: 

Most research demonstrates that to 

effectively change social norms and 

behaviors, coordinated, multicomponent approaches and policies are 

necessary.15 As part of a comprehensive 

approach to encouraging youth to be 

more physically active and eat healthier 

foods, schools and communities should 

have common and consistent policies, 

practices, and expectations for healthy 

eating and physical activity and provide 

the opportunity for healthy lifestyle 

choices in all settings in which a child 

spends time, throughout the student’s 

day, including before, during, and after 

school, as well as on weekends, 

holidays, and vacations.16

This type of community effort 

requires a sustained commitment from 

LEAs and schools, local government, 

community-based organizations (CBOs), 

the health sector, businesses, parents, 

and community members. Schools have 

a critical role to play in teaching 

students about physical activity, fitness, 

and healthy choices, and providing 

opportunities to practice making 

healthy choices throughout the day. But 

students spend a significant amount of 

time outside of school, which makes it 

important to implement a consistent 

community approach that reinforces 

and supports lessons and messages that 

are taught and learned in schools. For 

example, CBOs, particularly those CBOs 

that provide before- or after-school or 

summer programs, can play an 

important role in supplementing the 

skills and concepts that students learn 

in school. CBOs can also help LEAs 

target specific populations of students 

who may be underserved or at higher 

risk of becoming overweight or obese, or 

provide additional expertise in such 

areas as nutrition instruction. 

We have found that CBOs that have 

received PEP grants function optimally 

when they work collaboratively with 

one or more schools in the area served 

by the project. Grantees that conduct 

their projects separately from a school’s 

or an LEA’s efforts are often less familiar 

with State standards for physical 

education and, as a result, struggle to 

develop projects that help students meet 

or exceed these standards. Some CBOs 

also find it challenging to attract 

students to their programs, maintain the 

students’ attendance at their programs, 

and deliver services that complement 

those that schools are already providing. 

A partnership between a CBO and an 

LEA or school should help ensure that 

these challenges will be addressed. 

Although some current grantees’ 

communities may be engaged in efforts 

to improve physical activity and 

nutrition, these efforts are not always 

coordinated with the PEP grant, often 

resulting in disjointed and inconsistent 

efforts to improve physical activity and 

nutrition policy and programs in 

schools and communities. Thus, a more 

coordinated effort would improve the 

community’s ability to positively affect 

youth physical activity participation, 

childhood nutrition, and fitness, and 

prevent and reduce the trends of 

overweight and obese youth by 

fundamentally changing the policies 

and practices of the settings where 

children spend their time before, 

during, and after school. 

We also believe that a formal 

partnership agreement will 

institutionalize this collaboration and 

ensure that local leadership is 

committed to investing in these efforts. 

Applicants might leverage these formal 

partnerships to secure the required 

matching funds for a PEP grant, such as 

through donated time, expertise, and 

other resources. Further, partners from 

public health agencies might also 

increase applicants’ awareness of best 

practices and research-based approaches 

in the public health field, as well as 

connect applicants to other related 

efforts in the community and to 

potential funding streams, which could 

increase the likelihood of the PEP 

project being sustained after the end of 

Federal funding. 

Proposed Competitive Preference 

Priority: 

We propose giving a competitive 

preference priority to an applicant that 

includes in its application an agreement 

that details the participation of required 

partners, as defined in this notice. The 

agreement would have to include a 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
12526 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 16, 2010 / Notices 

description of: (1) Each partner’s roles 

and responsibilities in the project; (2) if 

and how each partner will contribute to 

the project, including any contribution 

to the local match; (3) an assurance that 

the application was developed after 

timely and meaningful consultation 

between the required parties, as defined 

in this notice; and (4) a commitment to 

work together to reach the desired goals 

and outcomes of the project. The partner 

agreement would be required to be 

signed by the Authorized Representative 

of each of the required partners and by 

other partners as available and 

appropriate. 

For an LEA applicant, we propose 

that this partnership agreement must 

include: (1) The LEA; (2) at least one 

CBO; (3) a local public health entity, as 

defined in this notice; (4) the LEA’s food 

service or child nutrition director; and 

(5) the head of the local government, as 

defined in this notice. 

For a CBO applicant, we propose that 

the partnership agreement must include: 

(1) The CBO; (2) a local public health 

entity, as defined in this notice; (3) a 

local organization supporting nutrition 

or healthy eating, as defined in this 

notice; (4) the head of the local 

government, as defined in this notice; 

and (5) the LEA from which the largest 

number of students expected to 

participate in the CBO’s project attend. 

If the CBO applicant is a school, such 

as a parochial or other private school, 

the applicant would need to describe its 

school as part of the partnership 

agreement but would not be required to 

provide an additional signature from a 

different LEA or school. A CBO 

applicant that is a school and serves its 

own population of students would be 

required also to include another 

community CBO as part of its 

partnership and include the head of that 

CBO as a signatory on the partnership 

agreement. 

Although partnerships with other 

parties are required, the eligible 

applicant would have to retain the 

administrative and fiscal control of the 

project. 

Types of Priorities: 

When inviting applications for a 

competition using one or more 

priorities, we designate the type of each 

priority as absolute, competitive 

preference, or invitational through a 

notice in the Federal Register. The 

effect of each type of priority follows: 

Absolute priority: Under an absolute 

priority, we consider only applications 

that meet the priority (34 CFR 

75.105(c)(3)). 

Competitive preference priority: 

Under a competitive preference priority, 

we give competitive preference to an 

application by (1) awarding additional 

points, depending on the extent to 

which the application meets the priority 

(34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i)); or (2) selecting 

an application that meets the priority 

over an application of comparable merit 

that does not meet the priority (34 CFR 

75.105(c)(2)(ii)). 

Invitational priority: Under an 

invitational priority, we are particularly 

interested in applications that meet the 

priority. However, we do not give an 

application that meets the priority a 

preference over other applications (34 

CFR 75.105(c)(1)). 

Proposed Requirements: 

Background: 

The Department believes that the 

following proposed requirements will 

result in PEP projects that are more 

likely to have an impact on children’s 

health, fitness levels, and dietary habits. 

Proposed Requirements: 

The Assistant Deputy Secretary for 

Safe and Drug-Free Schools proposes 

the following requirements for this 

program. We may apply one or more of 

these requirements in any year in which 

this program is in effect. 

Proposed Requirement 1—Align Project 

Goals With Identified Needs Using the 

School Health Index 

Background: 

In order to ensure that PEP projects 

meet the needs of the schools and 

communities they are intended to serve, 

it is critical that the nutrition and 

physical education program needs, as 

well as the policies that support them, 

be assessed. The CDC’s Division of 

Adolescent and School Health has 

developed the School Health Index 

(SHI), a self-assessment and planning 

tool that schools can use to assess their 

student health policies and programs 

and their ‘‘school health environment.’’ 

The SHI includes eight self-assessment 

modules: (1) School Health and Safety 

Policies and Environment; (2) Health 

Education; (3) Physical Education and 

Other Physical Activity Programs; (4) 

Nutrition Services; (5) Health Services; 

(6) Counseling, Psychological, and 

Social Services; (7) Health Promotion 

for Staff; and (8) Family and Community 

Involvement. The SHI enables schools 

to develop an action plan for improving 

student health, which can be 

incorporated into the School Health 

Improvement Plan. 

CDC has developed two forms of the 

SHI, one for elementary schools and one 

for middle and high schools. Although 

much of the content is identical on 

each, there are some differences that 

reflect the developmental differences 

between elementary school students and 

middle and high school students. 

Completing the SHI allows a school to 

assess its health policies and practices 

and to compare those policies and 

practices with national standards and 

recommendations. The CDC estimates 

that undertaking the Physical Education 

and Other Physical Activity Programs 

and Nutrition Services SHI modules 

will take approximately one to three 

hours. For more information about the 

SHI, please see http://www.cdc.gov/ 

healthyyouth/SHI. 

In the context of PEP, we believe that 

the SHI will provide applicants with a 

framework for assessing their strengths 

and weaknesses, which can then be 

used to design programs based on 

identified gaps and plans to address 

these gaps. We have found that many 

PEP applicants have not undertaken this 

type of self-assessment prior to 

submitting their grant applications and, 

not having done so, have created 

programs and policies that are not 

responsive to their site’s needs or 

aligned with best practices in the field. 

Because the SHI must be done at the 

school-building level, CBOs cannot 

undertake the SHI without the support 

and participation of a school or LEA. 

Therefore, we suggest that CBO 

applicants collaborate with an identified 

school or LEA partner to complete the 

physical activity and nutrition questions 

in modules 1–4 of the SHI. 

To meet this requirement, CBO 

applicants that do not collaborate with 

an LEA or school may propose and use 

a local needs assessment tool that 

analyzes the physical activity and 

nutrition environments at the 

community level and, ideally, at the 

CBO site itself. The CBO applicant 

would need to specify the local needs 

assessment tool used, as well as the 

results of the assessment. The 

applicant’s program must be designed to 

address the needs and gaps identified 

through the needs assessment. 

Proposed Requirement: 

We propose that applicants be 

required to complete the physical 

activity and nutrition questions in 

Modules 1–4 of the CDC’s SHI selfassessment tool and to develop project 

goals and plans that address the 

identified needs. Modules 1–4 are 

School Health and Safety Policies and 

Environment, Health Education, 

Physical Activity and Other Physical 

Activity Programs, and Nutrition 

Services. The applicant would use the 

SHI self-assessment to develop a School 

Health Improvement Plan focused on 

improving these issues, and design an 

initiative that addresses their identified 

gaps and weaknesses. Applicants would 

be required to include their Overall 

Score Card for the questions answered 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 16, 2010 / Notices 12527 

17 Institute of Medicine. Preventing Childhood 

Obesity: Health in the Balance. Washington, DC: 

The National Academies Press, 2005. 

18 Ibid. 

19Peterson D, Zeger S, Remington P, Anderson P. 

The effect of state cigarette tax increases on 

cigarette sales, 1985–1988. American Journal of 

Public Health. 82(1): 94–96. 

20French S, Story M, Breitlow K, Baxter J, 

Hannan P, Snyder M. Pricing and promotion effects 

on low-fat vending and snack purchases: The 

CHIPS study. American Journal of Public Health. 

91(1): 112–117. 

21 ‘‘Competitive foods’’ are defined as any foods 

and beverages sold at a school separately from the 

US Department of Agriculture’s school meal 

programs. 

22 Institute of Medicine. 2010, School Meals: 

Building Blocks for Healthy Children. Washington, 

DC: The National Academies Press. 

in modules 1–4 in their application, and 

correlate their School Health 

Improvement Plan to their project 

design. Grantees would also be required 

to complete the same modules of the 

SHI at the end of the project period and 

submit the Overall Score Card from the 

second assessment in their final reports 

to demonstrate SHI completion and 

program improvement as a result of PEP 

funding. 

If a CBO applicant (unless the CBO is 

a school) is in a partner agreement with 

an LEA or school, it would be required 

to collaborate with its partner or 

partners to complete modules 1–4 of the 

SHI. 

Alternatively, if the CBO has not 

identified a school or LEA partner, the 

CBO would be required to use an 

alternative needs assessment tool to 

assess the nutrition and physical 

activity environment in the community 

for children. CBO applicants would be 

required to include their overall 

findings from the community needs 

assessment and correlate their findings 

with their project design. Grantees 

would also be required to complete the 

same needs assessment at the end of 

their project and submit their findings 

in their final reports to demonstrate the 

completion of the assessment and 

program involvement as a result of PEP 

funding. 

Proposed Requirement 2—Nutritionand Physical Activity-Related Policies 

Background: 

In recent years, research has shown 

that interventions to change behaviors 

and develop healthy habits, including 

physical activity and healthy eating, 

cannot rely on instruction alone.17

Although interventions that focus on a 

single element of PEP may produce 

positive behavior changes, they 

typically result in smaller effects than 

those produced by comprehensive, 

multi-sector interventions that include 

changes to programs and curricula and 

create or enhance policies encouraging 

physical activity and healthy eating 

choices.18 Applicants can identify 

physical activity and nutrition policies 

to address using their State’s standards 

for physical education and the results 

from their SHI assessment. 

Research also shows that policy 

interventions and environmental 

changes can promote desirable 

behaviors and discourage negative 

behaviors.19 20 To encourage students to 

eat more healthy foods in and out of 

school, policies might include those 

governing the sale of ‘‘competitive 

foods’’ 21 at school, and food placement 

and pricing in cafeterias; policies on 

vending machines and on food sold as 

fundraisers; developing partnerships 

with farms or farmers’ markets; adopting 

the recent Institute of Medicine 

recommendations for school meals that 

include more fruits and vegetables, 

whole grains, and low-fat dairy 

products ; 22 or creating school or 

community gardens. 

Physical activity-related policy 

improvements that might enhance the 

applicant’s programs include, but are 

not limited to: staffing policies that 

enable a physical educator to 

coordinate, plan, and direct the 

comprehensive program related to all 

physical activity efforts in the school, 

including those related to policy; 

integrating physical activity into the 

classroom to foster learning and 

increase children’s physical activity; 

removing barriers to enable children to 

walk or bike to school or in the 

community; encouraging time for recess; 

developing and implementing joint-use 

agreements for use of facilities or 

equipment between schools and 

communities or community groups; 

providing supervision of play areas 

during out-of-school time; altering bus 

schedules to facilitate after-school 

program participation; establishing time 

requirements for physical education; 

requiring certification and professional 

development for physical education 

teachers; setting class size limits; and 

reviewing the use of waivers that allow 

students to opt out of physical 

education class. 

Proposed Requirement: 

We propose that grantees be required 

to develop, update, or enhance physical 

activity policies and food- and 

nutrition-related policies that promote 

healthy eating and physical activity 

throughout students’ everyday lives, as 

part of their PEP projects. Applicants 

would describe in their application their 

current policy framework, areas of 

focus, and the planned process for 

policy development, implementation, 

review, and monitoring. Grantees would 

be required to detail at the end of their 

project period in their final reports the 

physical activity and nutrition policies 

selected and how the policies improved 

through the course of the project. 

Applicants would be required to sign 

a Program-Specific Assurance that 

commits them to developing, updating, 

or enhancing these policies during the 

project period. Applicants that do not 

submit such a Program-Specific 

Assurance signed by the applicant’s 

Authorized Representative would be 

ineligible for the competition. 

Proposed Requirement 3—Linkage 

With Local Wellness Policies 

Background: 

The local wellness policy provision of 

the Child Nutrition Act of 2004 (Pub. L. 

108–265) requires that each LEA 

participating in a program authorized by 

the Richard B. Russell National School 

Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1751 et seq.) or the 

Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 

1771 et seq.) have a local wellness 

policy beginning in school year 2006– 

2007. 

Under these provisions, a local 

wellness policy, at a minimum, includes 

goals for nutrition education, physical 

activity, and other school-based 

activities designed to promote student 

wellness; nutrition guidelines for all 

foods available on each school campus; 

guidelines for reimbursable school 

meals that are no less restrictive than 

the U.S. Department of Agriculture 

(USDA) regulations and guidelines; and 

a plan for measuring implementation, 

including designation of one or more 

persons at the LEA or school level 

charged with operational responsibility 

for ensuring that the school meets the 

local wellness policies. In addition, 

parents, students, and various other 

‘‘stakeholders’’ must be involved in the 

development of the local wellness 

policy. 

Proposed Requirement: 

We propose that applicants that are 

participating in a program authorized by 

the Richard B. Russell National School 

Lunch Act or the Child Nutrition Act of 

1966 must describe in their applications 

their school district’s established local 

wellness policy and how the proposed 

PEP project will align with and support, 

complement, and enhance the 

implementation of the applicant’s local 

wellness policy. The LEA’s local 

wellness policy should address all 

requirements in the Child Nutrition Act 

of 2004. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
12528 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 16, 2010 / Notices 

We propose that CBO applicants 

describe in their applications how their 

proposed projects will enhance or 

support the intent of the local wellness 

policies of their LEA partner(s), if they 

are working in a partnership. 

If an applicant or a member of its 

partnership does not participate in the 

school lunch program authorized by the 

Richard B. Russell National School 

Lunch Act or the Child Nutrition Act of 

1966, it would not necessarily have a 

local wellness policy and, thus, would 

not be required to meet this requirement 

or adopt a local wellness policy. 

However, we would encourage such 

applicants to develop and adopt a local 

wellness policy, consistent with the 

provisions in the Richard B. Russell 

National School Lunch Act or the Child 

Nutrition Act of 1966 in conjunction 

with its PEP project. 

Applicants would be required to sign 

a Program-Specific Assurance that 

commits them to align their PEP project 

with the district’s Local Wellness 

Policy, if applicable. Applicants that do 

not submit a Program Specific 

Assurance signed by the applicant’s 

Authorized Representative would be 

ineligible for the competition. 

Proposed Requirement 4—Linkages 

With Federal, State, and Local 

Initiatives 

Background: 

We believe that projects should 

conduct their activities in a manner that 

is coordinated, to the extent possible, 

with other, similar ongoing or planned 

State or local health and wellness 

initiatives. 

For example, PEP projects, through 

their support of physical activity and 

nutrition instruction initiatives, 

complement the CDC’s Coordinated 

School Health framework. This 

framework is a systemic model that 

integrates the basic, minimum 

components necessary for promoting the 

health and safety of students in schools. 

There are eight components of the 

Coordinated School Health Program: (1) 

Health Education; (2) Physical 

Education; (3) Health Services; (4) 

Nutrition Services; (5) Counseling and 

Psychological Services; (6) Healthy 

School Environments; (7) Health 

Promotion for Staff; and (8) Family and 

Community Involvement. 

PEP projects could also complement 

the USDA’s Team Nutrition initiative, 

which provides training and technical 

assistance for food service professionals, 

nutrition instruction for children and 

their caregivers, and school and 

community support for creating healthy 

school environments that are conducive 

to healthy eating and physical activity. 

More information on Team Nutrition 

can be found at: http:// 

www.teamnutrition.usda.gov. 

The U.S. Department of Health and 

Human Services (HHS) will also be 

providing funds to local public health 

departments to create community-level 

interventions to address obesity trends 

in both adults and children. This 

initiative funded under the American 

Recovery and Reinvestment Act, 

specifically the ‘‘Recovery Act 

Communities Putting Prevention to 

Work—Community Initiative,’’ focuses 

on developing and promoting 

partnerships, programmatic support, 

community mentoring, and evaluation 

to achieve the following prevention 

outcomes: (1) Increased levels of 

physical activity; (2) improved 

nutrition; (3) decreased overweight/ 

obesity prevalence; (4) decreased 

smoking prevalence and decreasing teen 

smoking initiation; and (5) decreased 

exposure to second-hand smoke. More 

information on this program can be 

found at: http://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/ 

recovery/. Applications for grants under 

this HHS program were due December 

1, 2009, but grantees are not likely to be 

announced until after PEP’s application 

period would close. As such, PEP 

applicants would only have to agree to 

coordinate efforts funded under this 

HHS program with activities funded by 

PEP should their communities receive 

both grants. 

Many other Federal, State, and local 

initiatives also work to promote healthy 

nutrition and physical activity and, if 

applicable, should be coordinated with 

PEP project efforts. These other 

programs include, but are not limited to, 

Alliance for a Healthier Generation 

(http://www.healthiergeneration.org/), 

Farm-to-School initiatives (http:// 

www.farmtoschool.org/), the YMCA’s 

Pioneering Healthier Communities 

(http://www.ymca.net/ 

activateamerica/), Action for Healthy 

Kids State or local teams (http:// 

www.actionforhealthykids.org/), and 

USDA’s HealthierUS School Challenge 

(http://www.fns.usda.gov/tn/ 

healthierus/index.html). 

Proposed Requirement: 

We propose that if an applicant is 

implementing the CDC’s Coordinated 

School Health program, it be required to 

coordinate project activities with that 

initiative and describe in its application 

how the proposed PEP project will be 

coordinated and integrated with the 

program. 

We propose that if an applicant 

receives funding under the USDA’s 

Team Nutrition initiative (Team 

Nutrition Training Grants), the 

applicant must describe in its 

application how the proposed PEP 

project supports the efforts of this 

initiative. 

We propose that an applicant for a 

PEP project in a community that 

receives a grant under the Recovery Act 

Communities Putting Prevention to 

Work—Community Initiative must agree 

to coordinate its PEP project efforts with 

those under the Recovery Act 

Communities Putting Prevention to 

Work-Community Initiative. 

We propose that applicants and PEPfunding projects must complement, 

rather than duplicate, existing, ongoing 

or new efforts whose goals and 

objectives are to promote physical 

activity and healthy eating or help 

students meet their State standards for 

physical education. 

Applicants would be required to sign 

a Program-Specific Assurance that 

commits them to align their PEP project 

with the Coordinated School Health 

program, Team Nutrition Training 

Grant, Recovery Act Communities 

Putting Prevention to Work- Community 

Initiative, or any other similar Federal, 

State, or local initiatives. Applicants 

that do not submit a Program Specific 

Assurance signed by the applicant’s 

Authorized Representative would be 

ineligible for the competition. 

Proposed Requirement 5—Updates to 

Physical Education and Nutrition 

Instruction Curricula 

Background: 

Having a strong and appropriate 

curriculum is critical to ensuring that 

students develop and practice new 

skills. Historically, many PEP grantees 

purchased or designed new curricula 

before they had fully assessed the needs 

of their population or the capacity of 

their staff to implement that curriculum. 

In our experience, most PEP grantees do 

not implement a systematic, sequential 

nutrition instruction curriculum, but, 

rather, rely on one-time nutrition 

modules to provide instruction on 

healthy eating. 

The CDC’s Physical Education 

Curriculum Analysis Tool (PECAT) 

helps LEAs and others conduct a clear, 

complete, and consistent analysis of 

written physical education curricula, 

based upon national physical education 

standards. This free tool helps LEAs 

analyze written physical education 

curricula and can serve as a guide in 

developing or identifying a curriculum 

aligned with the LEA’s goals and 

objectives for physical education 

programs that help them make progress 

toward meeting State standards for 

physical education. 

The CDC’s Health Education 

Curriculum Analysis Tool (HECAT) is a 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 16, 2010 / Notices 12529 

similar free tool, comparable to the 

PECAT, used to assess health education 

curricula, and is intended to help LEAs, 

schools, and others conduct a clear, 

complete, and consistent analysis of 

health education curricula based on the 

National Health Education Standards 

and CDC’s Characteristics of Effective 

Health Education Curricula. The 

HECAT results can help LEAs or CBOs 

select or develop appropriate and 

effective health education curricula and 

improve the delivery of health 

education. The HECAT can be 

customized to meet local needs and 

conform to the State or LEA curriculum 

requirements. The HECAT’s healthy 

eating module can be used to determine 

the extent to which curricula are likely 

to enable students to master the 

essential concepts and skills that 

promote healthy eating. 

Proposed Requirement: 

We propose that applicants that plan 

to use grant-related funds, including 

Federal and non-Federal matching 

funds, to create, update, or enhance 

their physical education or nutrition 

education curricula be required to use 

the Physical Education Curriculum 

Analysis Tool (PECAT) and submit their 

overall PECAT scorecard, and the 

curriculum improvement plan from 

PECAT. We also propose that applicants 

that plan to use grant-related funds, 

including Federal and non-Federal 

matching funds to create, update, or 

enhance their nutrition instruction in 

health education be required to 

complete the healthy eating module of 

the Health Education Curriculum 

Analysis Tool (HECAT). Applicants 

must use the curriculum improvement 

plan from the PECAT to identify 

curricular changes to be addressed 

during the funding period. Applicants 

must also describe how the HECAT 

assessment would be used to guide 

nutrition instruction curricular changes. 

If an applicant is not proposing to use 

grant-related funds for physical 

education or nutrition instruction 

curricula, it would not need to use these 

tools. 

Proposed Requirement 6—Equipment 

Purchases 

Background: 

We have found that some PEP 

grantees have used a significant portion 

of their PEP funds to purchase physical 

education equipment but that the use of 

this equipment is not always tied to a 

quality physical education program. 

Although equipment purchases may be 

essential to the project, these purchases 

alone do not constitute a comprehensive 

program. We have also found that PEP 

grantees have not always tied the use of 

that equipment to their physical 

education curriculum or physical 

education State standards. Because the 

needs of students or staff may not have 

been considered before equipment was 

purchased, we have found that 

equipment purchased under this 

program did not always complement 

ongoing instructional efforts, was not 

part of a sustainable program, and was 

sometimes used neither throughout the 

duration of the PEP program nor after 

the grant period ended. 

Proposed Requirement: 

We propose that purchases of 

equipment with PEP funds or related to 

grant activities (including equipment 

purchased with funds offered to meet 

the program’s matching requirement) 

must be aligned with the curricular 

components of the applicant’s physical 

education and nutrition program. 

Applicants must commit to aligning the 

students’ use of the equipment with PEP 

elements applicable to their projects, 

identified in priority 1, and any 

applicable curricula by signing a 

Program Specific Assurance. Applicants 

that do not submit a Program Specific 

Assurance signed by the applicant’s 

Authorized Representative would be 

ineligible for the competition. 

Proposed Requirement 7—Increasing 

Transparency and Accountability 

Background: 

Another critical component to 

program success is ensuring that 

projects are meeting their desired goals 

by increasing ‘‘transparency’’ and 

accountability to parents, students, 

policy-makers, and the community. 

Regularly sharing information with 

parents about the work of the grantee 

would help them understand and 

reinforce lessons learned before, during, 

and after school, and would encourage 

students to make healthy choices. 

Sharing information with local policymakers should result in increased 

accountability and help policy-makers 

understand the challenges children face 

in making healthy choices. This 

increased level of accountability, in 

turn, would encourage local policymakers to invest in promising programs 

and make budget and policy decisions 

that would complement, support, and 

enhance each project’s efforts. 

Program information provided to the 

community would include programrelated measures related to the changes 

made by the LEAs or CBOs and could 

potentially be compared to those made 

in other communities. Additionally, 

reports to parents of students under 18 

years old would include information on 

the progress of their child on measures 

related to that child’s fitness and 

nutrition. 

Proposed Requirement: 

We propose that grantees create or use 

existing reporting mechanisms to 

provide information on students’ 

progress, in the aggregate, on the key 

program indicators, as described in this 

notice and required under the 

Government Performance and Results 

Act, as well as on any unique projectlevel measures proposed in the 

application. Grantees that are 

educational agencies or institutions 

would be subject to applicable Federal, 

State, and local privacy provisions, 

including the Family Educational Rights 

and Privacy Act—a law that generally 

prohibits the non-consensual disclosure 

of personally identifiable information in 

a student’s education record. All 

grantees must comply with applicable 

Federal, State, and local privacy 

provisions. The aggregate-level 

information should be easily accessible 

by the public, such as posted on the 

grantee’s or a partner’s Web site. 

Applicants would be required to 

describe in their application the 

planned method for reporting. 

Applicants would be required to 

commit to reporting information to the 

public, including parents of students 

under 18 years old, by signing a 

Program Specific Assurance. Applicants 

that do not submit a Program Specific 

Assurance signed by the applicant’s 

Authorized Representative would be 

ineligible for the competition. 

Proposed Requirement 8—Participation 

in a National Evaluation 

Background: 

We have funded nine cohorts under 

the PEP program but have not yet 

undertaken a national evaluation to 

assess how the program has been 

implemented across sites. In 2008, the 

Department initiated a national 

evaluation effort to assess the PEP’s 

processes and outcomes. The evaluation 

will use the grantees funded in FY 2010 

for a national evaluation, and will 

follow this cohort through at least two 

years of implementation. We continue 

to collaborate with the contractor to 

identify an appropriate study design, 

which will be developed based on the 

final priorities and design of the FY 

2010 PEP competition. 

Proposed Requirement: 

The applicant must provide 

documentation of its commitment to 

participate in the U.S. Department of 

Education’s evaluation. An LEA 

applicant must include a letter from the 

research office or research board 

approving its participation in the 

evaluation (if approval is needed), and 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
12530 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 16, 2010 / Notices 

23 Department of Health and Human Services. 

Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion. 

2008 Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans. 

Washington, DC, 2008. 

24Students will be instructed on how to wear the 

pedometer and will be asked to place the pedometer 

on in the morning and remove the pedometer in the 

evening, during bathing/showering, or when they 

are swimming. Students can be introduced to 

pedometers and provided an orientation to 

pedometers during physical education. This phase 

exposes them to how pedometers work, allows 

them to explore moving with a pedometer, provides 

them the opportunity to put the pedometer on, and 

allows the PE teacher or physical activity leader to 

emphasize that pedometers are like any PE 

equipment that must be returned. 

25Craig C, Tudor-Locke C, Cragg S, Cameron C. 

Process and treatment of pedometer data collection 

for youth: The Canadian Physical Activity Levels 

among Youth Study. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 2010; 

42(3): 430–435. 

26Tudor-Locke C, Lee S, Morgan C, Beighle A, 

Pangrazi R. Children’s pedometer-determined 

physical activity during the segmented school day. 

Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 2006; 38(10): 1732–1738. 

27LeMasurier G, Beighle A, Corbin C, Barst P, 

Morgan C, Pangrazi R, Wilde B, Vincent S. 

Pedometer-determined physical activity levels of 

youth. Journal of Physical Activity and Health. 

2005; 2: 159–168. 

28The Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention, Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS). 

More information on the YRBS can be found at 

http://www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth. 

a letter from the Authorized 

Representative agreeing to participate in 

the evaluation. 

Proposed Requirement 9—Required 

Performance Measures and Data 

Collection Methodology 

Background: 

Since 2006, PEP grantees have been 

required to report on two performance 

measures, established under the 

Government Performance and Results 

Act (GPRA). The PEP GPRA measures 

have been: (1) The percentage of 

elementary school students who engage 

in 150 minutes of moderate to vigorous 

physical activity per week; and (2) The 

percentage of middle and/or high school 

students who engage in 225 minutes of 

moderate to vigorous physical activity 

per week. 

Although these GPRA measures are a 

marked improvement from past GPRA 

measures under this program, they are 

not consistent with the physical activity 

guidelines that recommend 60 minutes 

of daily physical activity for children 

and adolescents.23 In addition, we have 

also found that grantees collect and 

report their data in a variety of ways, 

which makes data aggregation and 

comparability across and between 

cohorts difficult. 

The proposed changes to the PEP 

program, as described in this notice, 

would require a broader set of indicators 

to reflect the full range of activities to 

be undertaken. Therefore, we propose 

new GPRA measures that would provide 

comprehensive data on the following: 1. 

Physical activity levels; 2. Fitness 

levels; and 3. Nutritional habits of 

students involved in the PEP program. 

The proposed measures would require 

that districts aggregate data at the 

district and school level to facilitate 

program evaluation, rather than the 

assessment of individual students. 

In addition to proposing new GPRA 

performance measures, this notice 

proposes a standard data collection 

methodology for each new proposed 

GPRA measure. The data collection 

methodologies proposed here are 

considered valid by researchers in the 

fields of physical activity and nutrition. 

The first new GPRA measure is the 

extent to which grantees increase the 

number of students who are physically 

active for at least 60 minutes a day. The 

proposed methods for assessing this 

proposed GPRA measure are pedometry 

for students in grades K–12 and an 

additional self-report questionnaire for 

students in grades 5–12. Students would 

wear pedometers all day for four 

consecutive days (K–6), and eight 

consecutive days for students in 7th– 

12th grades.24 One of the measurement 

days must be a weekend day. This data 

collection methodology is a valid and 

reliable protocol for assessing children’s 

physical activity throughout the day, 

and has been used for many years in 

many settings with large numbers of 

students.25 26 27 Using pedometers 

would provide the number of steps 

students accumulate during the day and 

the number of minutes of students’ 

activity during the day, using specific 

formulas to convert steps counts into 

minutes of physical activity. In 

addition, students in grades 5–12 would 

complete the three-day physical activity 

recall. This self-report would ask 

students to evaluate their activity based 

on each 30-minute period between 7:00 

a.m. and 10:30 p.m. based on activity 

type, intensity, and length of time. A 

self-report measure is a reliable, costeffective means of gathering information 

from participants in this age range and 

provides important qualitative 

information that can be used to inform 

or modify the physical activity program. 

The second proposed GPRA 

performance measure is student fitness 

levels. We propose that grantees 

measure fitness levels by assessing a 

student’s cardiorespiratory or aerobic 

capacity fitness using the 20-meter 

shuttle run. Specifically, grantees would 

assess the number of students in middle 

and high school who achieve ageappropriate cardiovascular fitness levels 

using the 20-meter shuttle run. 

Researchers have determined that this 

type of assessment reliably measures a 

student’s cardiovascular fitness, a key 

health and fitness measure. 

The third proposed GPRA measure 

would focus on students’ nutritional 

habits by assessing daily fruit and 

vegetable consumption. This measure 

would not only reflect changes in 

students’ behaviors and their 

internalization of lessons learned, but 

potentially also changes to the offerings 

available to students as a result of the 

PEP program’s focus on changes to 

nutrition policies. 

We propose that grantees assess 

nutritional habits for high school 

students by administering five 

designated fruit and vegetable questions 

from the Youth Risk Behavior Survey.28

We are seeking comment on how 

grantees could accurately assess 

nutritional habits of elementary and 

middle school students. 

We propose that all grantees use the 

methodologies described so that we can 

collect consistent data from all grantees 

about program success and improve the 

quality of the PEP program evaluation. 

In addition, Department staff would be 

more easily able to provide technical 

assistance to grantees on the proposed 

data collection methodologies. 

Many districts are already using these 

indicators and methodologies. If LEAs 

or communities are using the 

methodologies described, they may use 

their existing systems to capture and 

report on these indicators for their 

proposed PEP project. 

Proposed Requirement: 

Grantees would be required to collect 

and report data on three GPRA measures 

using uniform data collection methods. 

Measure one would assess physical 

activity levels: The number of students 

that engage in 60 minutes of daily 

physical activity. Grantees would be 

required to use pedometers for students 

in grades K–12 and an additional 3-Day 

Physical Activity Recall (3DPAR) 

instrument to collect data on students in 

grades 5–12. 

Measure two would focus on student 

fitness levels: The number of students 

who achieve age-appropriate 

cardiovascular fitness levels. Grantees 

would be required to use the 20-meter 

shuttle run to assess cardiovascular 

fitness in middle and high school 

students. 

Measure three would require grantees 

to measure the percentage of students 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 16, 2010 / Notices 12531 

served by the grant who consumed fruit 

two or more times per day and 

vegetables three or more times per day. 

Programs serving high school students 

would be required to use the nutritionrelated questions from the Youth Risk 

Behavior Survey to determine the 

number of students who meet these 

goals. We request comment on how 

grantees serving elementary and/or 

middle students might assess nutritional 

intake by, for example, using a set of 

questions similar to those in the Youth 

Risk Behavior Survey, to assess 

nutritional intake of these students. 

Depending on the comments received, 

we may recommend or require a specific 

methodology to be used with 

elementary and middle school students 

to assess nutritional intake for these 

students. 

For each measure, grantees would be 

required to collect and aggregate data 

from four discrete data collection 

periods throughout each year. During 

the first year, grantees would have an 

additional data collection period prior 

to program implementation to collect 

baseline data. 

Proposed Definitions: 

Background: 

We are proposing the following 

definitions to describe the specific and 

appropriate partners whose 

participation would be most likely to 

result in enhanced program 

implementation and sustainability and 

that applicants will designate in their 

applications. 

Proposed Definitions: 

The Assistant Deputy Secretary for 

Safe and Drug-Free Schools proposes 

the following definition for this 

program. 

We may apply one or more of these 

definitions in any year in which this 

program is in effect. 

Organization supporting nutrition or 

healthy eating means a local public or 

private non-profit school, health-related 

professional organization, or local 

business that has demonstrated interest 

and efforts in promoting student health 

or nutrition. This term would include, 

but not be limited to LEAs (particularly 

an LEA’s school food or child nutrition 

director), grocery stores, supermarkets, 

restaurants, corner stores, farmers’ 

markets, farms, other private businesses, 

hospitals, institutions of higher 

education, Cooperative Extension 

Service and 4H Clubs, and community 

gardening organizations, when such 

entities have demonstrated a clear intent 

to promote student health and nutrition 

or have made tangible efforts to do so. 

This definition would not include 

representatives from trade associations 

or representatives from any organization 

representing any producers or marketers 

of food or beverage product(s). 

Head of local government means the 

party responsible for the civic 

functioning of the county, city, town, or 

municipality and includes, but is not 

limited to, the mayor, city manager, or 

county executive. 

Local public health entity means an 

administrative or service unit of local or 

State government concerned with health 

and carrying some responsibility for the 

health of a jurisdiction smaller than the 

State (except that for Rhode Island and 

Hawaii, because these States’ health 

departments operate on behalf of local 

public health and have no sub-State 

units, the definition would apply to the 

State health department). 

Final Priorities, Requirements, and 

Definitions: 

We will announce the final priorities, 

requirements, and definitions in a 

notice in the Federal Register. We will 

determine the final priorities, 

requirements, and definitions after 

considering responses to this notice and 

other information available to the 

Department. This notice does not 

preclude us from proposing additional 

priorities, requirements, definitions, or 

selection criteria, subject to meeting 

applicable rulemaking requirements. 

Note: This notice does not solicit 

applications. In any year in which we choose 

to use one or more of these priorities, 

requirements, and definitions, we invite 

applications through a notice in the Federal 

Register. 

Executive Order 12866: This notice 

has been reviewed in accordance with 

Executive Order 12866. Under the terms 

of the order, we have assessed the 

potential costs and benefits of this 

proposed regulatory action. 

The potential costs associated with 

this proposed regulatory action are 

those resulting from statutory 

requirements and those we have 

determined as necessary for 

administering this program effectively 

and efficiently. 

In assessing the potential costs and 

benefits—both quantitative and 

qualitative—of this proposed regulatory 

action, we have determined that the 

benefits of the proposed priorities, 

requirements, and definitions justify the 

costs. 

We have determined, also, that this 

proposed regulatory action does not 

unduly interfere with State, local, and 

tribal governments in the exercise of 

their governmental functions. 

Discussion of Costs and Benefits: The 

potential costs associated with the 

proposed priorities and requirements 

are minimal while the potential benefits 

are significant. 

Grantees may anticipate costs in 

developing their partnerships and time 

spent in developing infrastructure for 

supporting integrated, comprehensive 

programming and policies, and building 

data and accountability systems and 

processes. Additional costs associated 

with developing a structure and system 

for conducting and analyzing BMI 

include identifying staff who can 

conduct the assessment, creating and 

implementing processes, and 

identifying methods for dissemination. 

The benefits include creating a 

comprehensive, coordinated program 

that is likely to be sustained after the 

end of the project period. Creating and 

leveraging community partners will 

allow grantees to amplify their project 

efforts and to increase the likelihood 

that the activities will become 

institutionalized. Grantees and the 

Department will also benefit from the 

improved focus on outcomes and 

accountability by uniformly tracking 

student-level indicators over time. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification 

The Secretary certifies that this 

proposed regulatory action will not have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

The small entities that this proposed 

regulatory action will affect are small 

LEAs or nonprofit organizations 

applying for and receiving funds under 

this program. The Secretary believes 

that the costs imposed on applicants by 

the proposed priorities, requirements, 

and definitions would be limited to 

paperwork burden related to preparing 

an application and that the benefits of 

implementing these proposals would 

outweigh any costs incurred by 

applicants. 

Participation in this program is 

voluntary. For this reason, the proposed 

priorities, requirements, and definitions 

would impose no burden on small 

entities in general. Eligible applicants 

would determine whether to apply for 

funds, and have the opportunity to 

weigh the requirements for preparing 

applications, and any associated costs, 

against the likelihood of receiving 

funding and the requirements for 

implementing projects under the 

program. Eligible applicants most likely 

would apply only if they determine that 

the likely benefits exceed the costs of 

preparing an application. The likely 

benefits include the potential receipt of 

a grant as well as other benefits that may 

accrue to an entity through its 

development of an application, such as 

the use of that application to spur 

improvement in physical education 

planning without additional Federal 

funding. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
12532 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 16, 2010 / Notices 

The U.S. Small Business 

Administration Size Standards defines 

as ‘‘small entities’’ for-profit or nonprofit 

institutions with total annual revenue 

below $7,000,000 or, if they are 

institutions controlled by small 

governmental jurisdictions (that are 

comprised of cities, counties, towns, 

townships, villages, school districts, or 

special districts), with a population of 

less than 50,000. The Urban Institute’s 

National Center for Charitable Statistics 

reported that of 203,635 nonprofit 

organizations that had an educational 

mission and reported revenue to the IRS 

by July 2009, 200,342 (or about 98 

percent) had revenues of less than $5 

million. In addition, there are 12,484 

LEAs in the country that meet the 

definition of small entity. However, 

given program history, the Secretary 

believes that only a small number of 

these entities would be interested in 

applying for funds under this program, 

thus reducing the likelihood that the 

proposals contained in this notice 

would have a significant economic 

impact on small entities. 

Further, the proposed action may help 

small entities determine whether they 

have the interest, need, or capacity to 

implement activities under the program 

and, thus, prevent small entities that do 

not have such an interest, need, and 

capacity from absorbing the burden of 

applying. 

This proposed regulatory action 

would not have a significant economic 

impact on small entities once they 

receive a grant because they would be 

able to meet the costs of compliance 

using the funds provided under this 

program and with any funds they might 

obtain from external parties to fulfill the 

matching requirements of the program. 

The Secretary invites comments from 

small nonprofit organizations and small 

LEAs as to whether they believe this 

proposed regulatory action would have 

a significant economic impact on them 

and, if so, requests evidence to support 

that belief. 

Intergovernmental Review: This 

program is subject to Executive Order 

12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR 

part 79. One of the objectives of the 

Executive order is to foster an 

intergovernmental partnership and a 

strengthened federalism. The Executive 

order relies on processes developed by 

State and local governments for 

coordination and review of proposed 

Federal financial assistance. 

This document provides early 

notification of our specific plans and 

actions for this program. 

Accessible Format: Individuals with 

disabilities can obtain this document in 

an accessible format (e.g., braille, large 

print, audiotape, or computer diskette) 

on request to the program contact 

person listed under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT. 

Electronic Access to This Document: 

You can view this document, as well as 

all other documents of this Department 

published in the Federal Register, in 

text or Adobe Portable Document 

Format (PDF) on the Internet at the 

following site: http://www.ed.gov/news/ 

fedregister. 

To use PDF you must have Adobe 

Acrobat Reader, which is available free 

at this site. 

Note: The official version of this document 

is the document published in the Federal 

Register. Free Internet access to the official 

edition of the Federal Register and the Code 

of Federal Regulations is available on GPO 

Access at: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/nara/ 

index.html. 

Dated: March 11, 2010. 

Kevin Jennings, 

Assistant Deputy Secretary for Safe and DrugFree Schools. 

[FR Doc. 2010–5736 Filed 3–15–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[FRL–9124–3] 

FY2010 Supplemental Funding for 

Brownfields Revolving Loan Fund 

(RLF) Grantees 

Correction 

In notice document 2010–4965 

beginning on page 10793 in the issue of 

Tuesday, March 9, 2010, make the 

following correction: 

On page 10793, in the second column, 

under SUMMARY, in the second 

paragraph, in the sixth line ‘‘insert date 

30 days from date of publication’’ 

should read ‘‘April 8, 2010’’. 

[FR Doc. C1–2010–4965 Filed 3–15–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 1505–01–D 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

International Energy Agency Meetings 

AGENCY: Department of Energy. 

ACTION: Notice of meetings. 

SUMMARY: The Industry Advisory Board 

(IAB) to the International Energy 

Agency (IEA) will meet on March 23, 

2010, at the headquarters of the IEA in 

Paris, France, in connection with a joint 

meeting of the IEA’s Standing Group on 

Emergency Questions (SEQ) and the 

IEA’s Standing Group on the Oil Market 

on March 23, and on March 24 in 

connection with a meeting of the SEQ 

on March 24. 

DATES: March 23–24, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: 9, rue de la Fe ́de ́ration, 

Paris, France. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Diana D. Clark, Assistant General for 

International and National Security 

Programs, Department of Energy, 1000 

Independence Avenue, SW., 

Washington, DC 20585, 202–586–3417. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In 

accordance with section 252(c)(1)(A)(i) 

of the Energy Policy and Conservation 

Act (42 U.S.C. 6272(c)(1)(A)(i)) (EPCA), 

the following notice of meeting is 

provided: 

Meetings of the Industry Advisory 

Board (IAB) to the International Energy 

Agency (IEA) will be held at the 

headquarters of the IEA, 9, rue de la 

Fe ́de ́ration, Paris, France, on March 23, 

2010, beginning at 9:30 a.m. and on 

March 24 beginning at 9:30 a.m. The 

purpose of this notice is to permit 

attendance by representatives of U.S. 

company members of the IAB at a joint 

meeting of the IEA’s Standing Group on 

Emergency Questions (SEQ) and the 

IEA’s Standing Group on the Oil Market 

(SOM) on March 23 beginning at 9:30 

a.m. at the same location, and at a 

meeting of the SEQ on March 24 

beginning at 9:30 a.m. The IAB will also 

hold a preparatory meeting among 

company representatives at the same 

location at 8:30 a.m. on March 24. The 

agenda for this preparatory meeting is to 

review the agenda for the SEQ meeting 

commencing at 9:30 a.m. on March 24 

and to discuss the possibility of 

disbanding the Industry Supply 

Advisory Group (ISAG). 

The agenda of the joint SEQ/SOM 

meeting on March 23 is under the 

control of the SEQ and the SOM. It is 

expected that the SEQ and the SOM will 

adopt the following agenda: 

1. Adoption of the Agenda. 

2. The 2011–2012 Program of Work 

for the SOM and SEQ. 

3. The Current Oil Market Situation. 

4. Preparation for the International 

Energy Forum Meeting (Cancun, 

Mexico). 

5. Update on the Gas Market. 

6. Reports on Workshops Held 

Abroad. 

—Workshop on Price Formation (Tokyo, 

February 2010) 

—Global Oil and Gas Market Dynamics 

and Outlook (Beijing, October 2009) 

—Global Oil Markets and Security (New 

Delhi, October 2009) 

7. Report on Study on Fuel Switching. 

8. Report on Study on Natural Gas 

Liquids. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES