Emergency Response and Crisis Management Grant Program, 10482-10486 [E6-2843]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
10482
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 40 / Wednesday, March 1, 2006 / Notices
(ii) The percentage of students served
by the grant who engage in 225 minutes
of moderate to vigorous physical
activity per week (middle and high
school students).
(b) Cost Per Outcome Measure
(Efficiency):
The cost (based on the amount of the
grant award) per student who achieves
the level of physical activity required to
meet the physical activity measure
above (150 minutes of moderate to
vigorous physical activity per week for
elementary school students, and/or 225
minutes of moderate to vigorous
physical activity per week for middle
and high school students).
These measures constitute the
Department’s indicators of success for
this program. Consequently, applicants
for a grant under this program are
advised to give careful consideration to
these measures in formulating their
approach and evaluation of their
proposed project. If funded, applicants
will be asked to collect and report data
in their annual and final performance
reports about progress toward these
measures.
Additional information concerning
these measures is available in the
application package for this
competition.
VII. Agency Contacts
For Further Information Contact:
Monica Woods or Lisa Clayton, U.S.
Department of Education, 400 Maryland
Avenue, SW., Room 3E332, Washington,
DC 20202–6450. Telephone: 202–260–
3954 or by e-mail:
Monica.Woods@ed.gov or
Lisa.Clayton@ed.gov.
If you use a telecommunications
device for the deaf (TDD), you may call
the Federal Relay Service (FRS) at 800–
877–8339.
Individuals with disabilities may
obtain this document in an alternative
format (e.g., Braille, large print,
audiotape, or computer diskette) on
request to the program contact persons
listed in this section.
wwhite on PROD1PC61 with NOTICES
VIII. Other Information
Electronic Access to This Document:
You may 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: https://www.ed.gov/news/
fedregister.
To use PDF you must have Adobe
Acrobat Reader, which is available free
at this site. If you have questions about
using PDF, call the U.S. Government
Printing Office (GPO), toll free, at 1–
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:25 Feb 28, 2006
Jkt 208001
888–293–6498; or in the Washington,
DC area at 202–512–1530.
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: https://www.gpoaccess.gov/nara/
index.html.
Dated: February 23, 2006.
Deborah A. Price,
Assistant Deputy Secretary for Safe and DrugFree Schools.
[FR Doc. E6–2832 Filed 2–28–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4001–01–P
Sara
Strizzi. Telephone: (303) 346–0924 or
via Internet: sara.strizzi@ed.gov.
If you use a telecommunications
device for the deaf (TDD), you may call
the Federal Relay Service (FRS) at 1–
888–877–8339.
Individuals with disabilities may
obtain this document in an alternative
format (e.g., Braille, large print,
audiotape, or computer diskette) on
request to the contact person listed
under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Invitation To Comment
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Emergency Response and Crisis
Management Grant Program
Office of Safe and Drug-Free
Schools, Department of Education.
ACTION: Notice of proposed priorities
and application requirements.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The Assistant Deputy
Secretary for Safe and Drug-Free
Schools proposes two priorities and two
application requirements under the
Emergency Response and Crisis
Management (ERCM) Grant program.
We may use one or more of these
priorities and application requirements
for competitions in Fiscal Year (FY)
2006 and later years. We also may use
the priority and application
requirements developed in FY 2005,
and published in the Federal Register
on June 21, 2005 (70 FR 35652), for
competitions in FY 2006 and later years.
We take this action to focus Federal
financial assistance on supporting
grants to local educational agencies
(LEAs) that are at high risk for crisis
situations, as well as those that have not
yet received funding under this
program. This action is also intended to
modify an application requirement the
Department established in FY 2005 for
LEAs to support the implementation of
the National Incident Management
System (NIMS) and to propose an
additional application requirement for
LEAs to develop written plans to
address outbreaks of infectious diseases.
DATES: We must receive your comments
on or before March 31, 2006.
ADDRESSES: Address all comments about
the proposed priorities and application
requirements to Sara Strizzi, U.S.
Department of Education, 400 Maryland
Avenue, SW., room 3E320, Washington,
DC 20202–6450. If you prefer to send
your comments through the Internet,
use the following address:
sara.strizzi@ed.gov.
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
We invite you to submit comments
regarding the proposed priorities and
application requirements. To ensure
that your comments have maximum
effect in developing the notice of final
priorities and application requirements,
we urge you to identify clearly the
specific proposed priority or application
requirement 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
the proposed priorities and application
requirements. Please let us know of any
further opportunities we should take to
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 the proposed priorities and
application requirements in room
3E320, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW.,
Washington, DC, between the hours of
8:30 a.m. and 4 p.m., Eastern time,
Monday through Friday of each week
except Federal holidays.
Assistance to Individuals With
Disabilities in Reviewing the
Rulemaking Record
On request, we will supply an
appropriate aid, such as a reader or
print magnifier, to an individual with a
disability who needs assistance to
review the comments or other
documents in the public rulemaking
record for the proposed priorities and
application requirements. If you want to
schedule an appointment for this type of
aid, please contact the person listed
under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT.
Background: The events of September
11, 2001, and more recently, Hurricanes
Katrina and Rita, reinforce the need for
schools and communities to plan for
E:\FR\FM\01MRN1.SGM
01MRN1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 40 / Wednesday, March 1, 2006 / Notices
traditional crises and emergencies, as
well as possible terrorist attacks or other
catastrophic events. We propose
additional priorities for the ERCM Grant
program under the Safe and Drug-Free
Schools and Communities National
Programs to target assistance to highthreat areas and LEAs that have not yet
received funding under this program.
We also propose (1) to modify the
application requirement that we
established in FY 2005 for LEAs to
support the implementation of NIMS at
the local level and (2) to establish a new
application requirement for LEAs to
develop a plan to mitigate the effects of
infectious diseases.
We will announce the final priorities
and application requirements in a notice
in the Federal Register. We will
determine the final priorities and
application requirements after
considering responses to this notice and
other information available to the
Department. This notice does not
preclude us from proposing or using
additional priorities or application
requirements, subject to meeting
applicable rulemaking requirements.
Note: This notice does not solicit
applications. In any year in which we choose
to use the proposed priorities and application
requirements, we invite applications through
a notice in the Federal Register.
Priorities
Proposed Priority 1—Competitive
Preference Priority for LEAs That Have
Not Previously Received a Grant Under
the ERCM Program and Are Located in
an Urban Areas Security Initiative
Jurisdiction
Background
In FY 2003, the Department of
Homeland Security established the
Urban Areas Security Initiative (UASI)
program to focus Federal preparedness
resources on the unique planning,
equipment, training, and exercise needs
of high-threat, high-density urban areas.
The intent of the UASI program is to
create a sustainable national model
program that will enhance security and
overall preparedness in order to
prevent, respond to, and recover from
acts of terrorism. Jurisdictions included
in the UASI program are determined by
a formula using a combination of
current threat estimates, critical assets
within the specific urban area, and
population density.
The Governor of each State has
designated a State Administrative
Agency (SAA) as the entity responsible
for applying for, and administering,
funds under the Department of
Homeland Security Grant Program
(which includes the UASI program).
The SAA is also responsible for defining
the geographic borders for jurisdictions
included in the UASI program.
Jurisdictions included in the UASI
program for FY 2006 are included in the
following chart. Additional guidance on
jurisdiction definitions can be found at:
https://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/odp/docs/
info200.pdf.
Previously designated urban
areas included
State
Candidate urban area
Geographic area captured in the data count
AZ ....................
Phoenix Area ..........................
CA ....................
Anaheim/Santa Ana Area .......
Chandler, Gilbert, Glendale, Mesa, Peoria, Phoenix, Scottsdale, Tempe, and a 10-mile buffer extending from the border of the combined area.
Anaheim, Costa Mesa, Garden Grove, Fullerton, Huntington
Beach, Irvine, Orange, Santa Ana, and a 10-mile buffer
extending from the border of the combined area.
Berkeley, Daly City, Fremont, Hayward, Oakland, Palo Alto,
Richmond, San Francisco, San Jose, Santa Clara, Sunnyvale, Vallejo, and a 10-mile buffer extending from the border of the combined area.
Burbank, Glendale, Inglewood, Long Beach, Los Angeles,
Pasadena, Santa Clarita, Santa Monica, Torrance, Simi
Valley, Thousand Oaks, and a 10-mile buffer extending
from the border of the combined area.
Elk Grove, Sacramento, and a 10-mile buffer extending from
the border of the combined area.
Chula Vista, Escondido, San Diego, and a 10-mile buffer extending from the border of the combined area.
Arvada, Aurora, Denver, Lakewood, Westminster, Thornton,
and a 10-mile buffer extending from the border of the
combined area.
National Capital Region and a 10-mile buffer extending from
the border of the combined area.
Fort Lauderdale, Hollywood, Miami Gardens, Miramar, Pembroke Pines, and a 10-mile buffer extending from the border of the combined area.
Jacksonville and a 10-mile buffer extending from the city
border.
Hialeah, Miami, and a 10-mile buffer extending from the border of the combined area.
Orlando and a 10-mile buffer extending from the city border
Clearwater, St. Petersburg, Tampa, and a 10-mile buffer extending from the border of the combined area.
Atlanta and a 10-mile buffer extending from the city border ..
Honolulu and a 10-mile buffer extending from the city border
Chicago and a 10-mile buffer extending from the city border
Indianapolis and a 10-mile buffer extending from the city
border.
Louisville and a 10-mile buffer extending from the city border
Baton Rouge and a 10-mile buffer extending from the city
border.
New Orleans and a 10-mile buffer extending from the city
border.
Bay Area .................................
Los Angeles/Long Beach Area
Sacramento Area ...................
San Diego Area ......................
CO ....................
Denver Area ...........................
DC ....................
National Capital Region .........
FL .....................
Fort Lauderdale Area .............
Jacksonville Area ...................
Miami Area .............................
Orlando Area ..........................
Tampa Area ............................
wwhite on PROD1PC61 with NOTICES
GA ....................
HI .....................
IL ......................
IN .....................
Atlanta Area ............................
Honolulu Area .........................
Chicago Area ..........................
Indianapolis Area ....................
KY ....................
LA .....................
Louisville Area ........................
Baton Rouge Area ..................
New Orleans Area ..................
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:25 Feb 28, 2006
Jkt 208001
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
10483
E:\FR\FM\01MRN1.SGM
01MRN1
Phoenix, AZ
Anaheim, CA; Santa Ana, CA
San Francisco, CA; San Jose,
CA; Oakland, CA
Los Angeles, CA; Long
Beach, CA
Sacramento, CA
San Diego, CA
Denver, CO
National Capital Region, DC
N/A
Jacksonville, FL
Miami, FL
Orlando, FL
Tampa, FL
Atlanta, GA
Honolulu, HI
Chicago, IL
Indianapolis, IN
Louisville, KY
Baton Rouge, LA
New Orleans, LA
10484
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 40 / Wednesday, March 1, 2006 / Notices
Previously designated urban
areas included
State
Candidate urban area
Geographic area captured in the data count
MA ....................
Boston Area ............................
MD ...................
Baltimore Area ........................
MI .....................
Detroit Area ............................
MN ...................
Twin Cities Area .....................
MO ...................
Kansas City Area ...................
NC ....................
NE ....................
NJ .....................
St. Louis Area .........................
Charlotte Area ........................
Omaha Area ...........................
Jersey City/Newark Area ........
NV ....................
Las Vegas Area ......................
NY ....................
Buffalo Area ............................
New York City Area ................
OH ....................
Cincinnati Area .......................
Boston, Cambridge, and a 10-mile buffer extending from the
border of the combined area.
Baltimore and a 10-mile buffer extending from the city border.
Detroit, Sterling Heights, Warren, and a 10-mile buffer extending from the border of the combined area.
Minneapolis, St. Paul, and a 10-mile buffer extending from
the border of the combined entity.
Independence, Kansas City (KS), Kansas City (MO), Olathe,
Overland Park, and a 10-mile buffer extending from the
border of the combined area.
St. Louis and a 10-mile buffer extending from the city border
Charlotte and a 10-mile buffer extending from the city border
Omaha and a 10-mile buffer extending from the city border
Elizabeth, Jersey City, Newark, and a 10-mile buffer extending from the border of the combined area.
Las Vegas, North Las Vegas, and a 10-mile buffer extending
from the border of the combined entity.
Buffalo and a 10-mile buffer extending from the city border ..
New York City, Yonkers, and a 10-mile buffer extending
from the border of the combined area.
Cincinnati and a 10-mile buffer extending from the city border.
Cleveland and a 10-mile buffer extending from the city border.
Columbus and a 10-mile buffer extending from the city border.
Oregon, Toledo, and a 10-mile buffer extending from the
border of the combined area.
Norman, Oklahoma City, and a 10-mile buffer extending
from the border of the combined area.
Portland, Vancouver, and a 10-mile buffer extending from
the border of the combined area.
Philadelphia and a 10-mile buffer extending from the city
border.
Pittsburgh and a 10-mile buffer extending from the city border.
Memphis and a 10-mile buffer extending from the city border
Arlington, Carrollton, Dallas, Fort Worth, Garland, Grand
Prairie, Irving, Mesquite, Plano, and a 10-mile buffer extending from the border of the combined area.
Houston, Pasadena, and a 10-mile buffer extending from the
border of the combined entity.
San Antonio and a 10-mile buffer extending from the city
border.
Bellevue, Seattle, and a 10-mile buffer extending from the
border of the combined area.
Milwaukee and a 10-mile buffer extending from the city border.
Cleveland Area .......................
Columbus Area .......................
Toledo Area ............................
OK ....................
Oklahoma City Area ...............
OR ....................
Portland Area .........................
PA ....................
Philadelphia Area ...................
Pittsburgh Area .......................
TN ....................
TX ....................
Memphis Area ........................
Dallas/Fort Worth/Arlington
Area.
Houston Area .........................
San Antonio Area ...................
Seattle Area ............................
WI .....................
wwhite on PROD1PC61 with NOTICES
WA ...................
Milwaukee Area ......................
Ensuring that LEAs are adequately
prepared for multiple hazards is a
significant national concern. LEAs
located in vulnerable, high-density areas
have unique crisis planning needs.
While many LEAs in UASI jurisdictions
have received funding under this
program in prior years, there are a
number of LEAs located in UASI
jurisdictions that have not received the
resources needed to improve and
enhance their emergency response
plans. In order to help meet the needs
of these LEAs, we propose a competitive
preference priority for LEAs that have
not previously received a grant under
this program and are located within
UASI jurisdictions.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:25 Feb 28, 2006
Jkt 208001
Priority: Under this priority, we give
a competitive preference to applications
from local educational agencies (LEAs)
that (1) have not yet received a grant
under this program and (2) are located
in whole or in part within Urban Areas
Security Initiative (UASI) jurisdictions,
as determined by the U.S. Department of
Homeland Security (DHS). An applicant
must meet both of these criteria in order
to receive the competitive preference.
Under a consortium application, all
members of the LEA consortium need to
meet both criteria to be eligible for the
preference.
Because DHS’ determination of UASI
jurisdictions may change from year to
year, applicants under this priority must
refer to the most recent list of UASI
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Boston, MA
Baltimore, MD
Detroit, MI
Minneapolis, MN; St. Paul,
MN
Kansas City, MO
St. Louis, MO
Charlotte, NC
Omaha, NE
Jersey City, NJ; Newark, NJ
Las Vegas, NV
Buffalo, NY
New York, NY
Cincinnati, OH
Cleveland, OH
Columbus, OH
Toledo, OH
Oklahoma City, OK
Portland, OR
Philadelphia, PA
Pittsburgh, PA
Memphis, TN
Dallas, TX; Fort Worth, TX;
Arlington, TX
Houston, TX
San Antonio, TX
Seattle, WA
Milwaukee, WI
jurisdictions published by DHS when
submitting their applications. In any
notice inviting applications using this
priority, the Department will provide
applicants with information necessary
to access the most recent DHS list of
UASI jurisdictions.
Proposed Priority 2—Competitive
Preference Priority for Applicants That
Have Not Previously Received a Grant
Under The ERCM Program
Background
Ensuring that schools are prepared to
address crisis situations that may arise
from multiple hazards, including manmade and natural, is an issue of national
importance. Since FY 2003, 336 LEAs
E:\FR\FM\01MRN1.SGM
01MRN1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 40 / Wednesday, March 1, 2006 / Notices
have received funding under the ERCM
grant program to improve and enhance
their emergency response plans.
However, this represents a small
percentage of the total number of LEAs
within the United States. To address the
crisis planning needs of LEAs that have
not previously received funding under
this program, we propose a competitive
preference priority for applicants that
have not yet received a grant under this
program.
By awarding previously unfunded
LEAs a competitive preference, we hope
to ensure that ERCM grant funds reach
greater numbers of schools and students
whose crisis planning needs have not
previously been addressed.
Priority: Under this priority, we give
competitive preference to applications
from local educational agencies (LEAs)
that have not previously received a
grant under this program. Applicants
that have received funding under this
program directly, or as the lead agency
or as a partner in a consortium
application under this program will not
receive competitive preference under
this priority.
wwhite on PROD1PC61 with NOTICES
Application Requirements
We propose (1) to modify the
application requirement that we
established in FY 2005 for LEAs to
support the implementation of NIMS at
the local level and (2) to establish a new
application requirement for LEAs to
develop a plan to mitigate the effects of
infectious diseases.
1. Implementation of the National
Incident Management System
Background: In accordance with
Homeland Security Presidential
Directive/HSPD–5, the NIMS provides a
consistent approach for Federal, State,
and local governments to work
effectively and efficiently together to
prepare for, prevent, respond to, and
recover from domestic incidents,
regardless of cause, size, or complexity.
Implementation of the NIMS is a
dynamic process that will continue to
evolve over time. In order to receive
Federal preparedness funding, LEAs
must cooperate with the efforts of their
communities to meet the minimum
NIMS requirements established for each
fiscal year. We established an
application requirement for LEAs to
implement the NIMS in FY 2005.
Because of the dynamic nature of the
NIMS, we believe certain changes to
that requirement are necessary.
Requirement: Applicants must agree
to implement their grant in a manner
consistent with the implementation of
the NIMS in their communities.
Applicants must include in their
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:25 Feb 28, 2006
Jkt 208001
applications an assurance that they have
met, or will complete, all current NIMS
requirements by the end of the grant
period.
Because DHS’ determination of NIMS
requirements may change from year to
year, applicants must refer to the most
recent list of NIMS requirements
published by DHS when submitting
their applications. In any notice inviting
applications, the Department will
provide applicants with information
necessary to access the most recent DHS
list of NIMS requirements.
Note: An LEA’s NIMS compliance must be
achieved in close coordination with the local
government and with recognition of the first
responder capabilities held by the LEA and
the local government. As LEAs are not
traditional response organizations, first
responder services will typically be provided
to LEAs by local fire and rescue departments,
emergency medical service providers, and
law enforcement agencies. This traditional
relationship must be acknowledged in
achieving NIMS compliance in an integrated
NIMS compliance plan for the local
government and the LEA. LEA participation
in the NIMS preparedness program of the
local government is essential in ensuring that
first responder services are delivered to
schools in a timely and effective manner.
Additional information about NIMS
implementation and requirements is
available at https://www.fema.gov/nims.
2. Infectious Disease Plan
Background: Infectious diseases pose
a significant threat for the school
environment. In addition to common
infectious diseases, such as stomach
viruses, seasonal influenza, infestation
with lice/scabies, and viral meningitis,
health professionals from the
Department of Health and Human
Services have warned of a new threat
attributed to Avian Influenza A (H5N1).
The H5N1 virus poses a risk for
worldwide infection. In addition to
causing widespread illness, an
especially severe influenza pandemic
could result in widespread school
closings, absenteeism, and disruptions
to the learning environment in general.
Whether or not a pandemic strikes,
seasonal influenza and other infectious
diseases continue to pose a concern
with respect to the health of students as
well as the optimal functioning of
schools. Although it may be difficult to
prevent a widespread pandemic or other
infectious disease outbreak, the effects
can be mitigated through proper
prevention and planning strategies.
Requirement: To be considered for a
grant award, applicants must agree to
develop a written plan designed to
prepare the LEA for a possible
infectious disease outbreak, such as
pandemic influenza. Plans must address
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
10485
the four phases of crisis planning
(Mitigation/Prevention, Preparedness,
Response, and Recovery) and include a
plan for disease surveillance (systematic
collection and analysis of data which
lead to action being taken to prevent
and control a disease), school closure
decision making, business continuity
(processes and procedures established
to ensure that essential functions can
continue during and after a disaster),
and continuation of educational
services.
Executive Order 12866
This notice of proposed priorities and
application requirements 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 regulatory
action.
The potential costs associated with
the notice of proposed priorities and
application requirements 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 notice of proposed
priorities and application requirements,
we have determined that the benefits of
the proposed priorities and application
requirements justify the costs.
We have also determined that this
regulatory action does not unduly
interfere with State, local, and tribal
governments in the exercise of their
governmental functions.
Summary of Potential Costs and
Benefits
The potential costs associated with
the proposed priorities and application
requirements are minimal while the
benefits are significant.
Grantees may anticipate costs in
achieving NIMS compliance. Costs may
also be incurred in the development of
a written infectious disease plan.
However, these costs may be included
in the grant budget and, therefore, will
have little financial impact on the
applicant.
The benefit of the proposed priorities
and application requirements is that
grantees that develop a comprehensive
emergency response and crisis
management plan that includes training
and that is implemented in coordination
with community partners may mitigate
the financial and human impact of a
crisis in their district.
Intergovernmental Review
This program is subject to Executive
Order 12372 and the regulations in 34
E:\FR\FM\01MRN1.SGM
01MRN1
10486
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 40 / Wednesday, March 1, 2006 / Notices
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.
Electronic Access to This Document
You may view this document, as well
as all other Department of Education
documents published in the Federal
Register, in text or Adobe Portable
Document Format (PDF) on the Internet
at the following site: https://www.ed.gov/
news/fedregister.
To use PDF you must have Adobe
Acrobat Reader, which is available free
at this site. If you have questions about
using PDF, call the U.S. Government
Printing Office (GPO), toll free, at 1–
888–293–6498; or in the Washington,
DC, area, at (202) 512–1530.
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: https://www.gpoaccess.gov/nara/
index.html.
(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance
Number 84.184E—Emergency Response and
Crisis Management Grant program)
Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 7131.
Dated: February 23, 2006.
Deborah A. Price,
Assistant Deputy Secretary for Safe and DrugFree Schools.
[FR Doc. E6–2843 Filed 2–28–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000–01–P
ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION
Sunshine Act; Notice of Meeting
United States Election
Assistance Commission.
ACTION: Notice of public meeting
agenda.
AGENCY:
Tuesday, March 14,
2006, 10 a.m.–1 p.m.
PLACE: U.S. Election Assistance
Commission, 1225 New York Ave., NW.,
Suite 1100, Washington, DC 2005
(Metro Stop: Metro Center).
AGENDA: The Commission will receive
presentations on the National Voter
Registration Act and will receive
updates on other administrative matters.
This meeting will be open to the
public.
wwhite on PROD1PC61 with NOTICES
DATE AND TIME:
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:25 Feb 28, 2006
Jkt 208001
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Bryan Whitener, Telephone: (202) 566–
3100.
Thomas R. Wilkey,
Executive Director, U.S. Election Assistance
Commission.
[FR Doc. 06–1956 Filed 2–27–06; 12:44 pm]
BILLING CODE 6820–KF–M
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
‘‘eLibrary’’ link and is available for
review in the Commission’s Public
Reference Room in Washington, DC.
There is an ‘‘eSubscription’’ link on the
Web site that enables subscribers to
receive e-mail notification when a
document is added to a subscribed
docket(s). For assistance with any FERC
Online service, please e-mail
FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov, or call
(866) 208–3676 (toll free). For TTY, call
(202) 502–8659.
Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6–2863 Filed 2–28–06; 8:45 am]
Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission
[Docket No. RP06–227–000]
BILLING CODE 6717–01–P
ANR Pipeline Company; Notice of
Tariff Filing
February 22, 2006.
Take notice that on February 17, 2006
ANR Pipeline Company (ANR),
tendered for filing as part of its FERC
Gas Tariff, Second Revised Volume No.
1, Twenty Second Revised Sheet No. 19
and Twelfth Revised Sheet No. 68H, to
be effective April 1, 2006.
ANR states that it has submitted these
sheets to comply with the annual fuel
re-determination provisions of sections
1.68 and 37 of the GT&C of ANR’s FERC
Gas tariff.
Any person desiring to intervene or to
protest this filing must file in
accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of
the Commission’s Rules of Practice and
Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214). Protests will be considered by
the Commission in determining the
appropriate action to be taken, but will
not serve to make protestants parties to
the proceeding. Any person wishing to
become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as
appropriate. Such notices, motions, or
protests must be filed in accordance
with the provisions of Section 154.210
of the Commission’s regulations (18 CFR
154.210). Anyone filing an intervention
or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant. Anyone
filing an intervention or protest on or
before the intervention or protest date
need not serve motions to intervene or
protests on persons other than the
Applicant.
The Commission encourages
electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the
‘‘eFiling’’ link at https://www.ferc.gov.
Persons unable to file electronically
should submit an original and 14 copies
of the protest or intervention to the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
This filing is accessible on-line at
https://www.ferc.gov, using the
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission
[Docket Nos. CP06–66–000, CP06–67–000,
CP06–68–000]
Port Barre Investments, L.L.C. (d/b/a
Bobcat Gas Storage); Notice of
Application
February 23, 2006.
On February 15, 2006, in Docket Nos.
CP06–66–000, CP06–67–000 and CP06–
68–000, Port Barre Investments, L.L.C.
(d/b/a Bobcat Gas Storage (Bobcat)),
pursuant to section 7(c) of the Natural
Gas Act, as amended, and sections 157
Subparts A and F, and section 284
Subpart G of the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission’s (Commission)
regulations, filed requests for:
authorization to construct, own, and
operate the Bobcat Gas Storage Project;
a Subpart F construction, operation and
abandonment blanket certificate (CP06–
67–000); and, for a Subpart G
transportation blanket certificate (CP06–
68–000). Bobcat also seeks: approval of
its pro forma tariff; authorization to
charge market-based rates for the
proposed storage services; and waiver of
certain Commission regulations.
Further, Bobcat asks that the
Commission issue requested
authorizations by July 15, 2006, so that
construction may begin by September
2006 and initial storage operations can
commence by the winter 2007 heating
season. Start-up in this timeframe also
would coincide with proposed inservice dates of certain Gulf Coast
region liquefied natural gas import
terminals.
The new, high-deliverability storage
facility would be located in St. Landry
Parish, Louisiana in close proximity to
Eunice, Louisiana and the Henry Hub.
The facility would have
interconnections with five interstate and
E:\FR\FM\01MRN1.SGM
01MRN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 40 (Wednesday, March 1, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10482-10486]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-2843]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Emergency Response and Crisis Management Grant Program
AGENCY: Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools, Department of Education.
ACTION: Notice of proposed priorities and application requirements.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Assistant Deputy Secretary for Safe and Drug-Free Schools
proposes two priorities and two application requirements under the
Emergency Response and Crisis Management (ERCM) Grant program. We may
use one or more of these priorities and application requirements for
competitions in Fiscal Year (FY) 2006 and later years. We also may use
the priority and application requirements developed in FY 2005, and
published in the Federal Register on June 21, 2005 (70 FR 35652), for
competitions in FY 2006 and later years. We take this action to focus
Federal financial assistance on supporting grants to local educational
agencies (LEAs) that are at high risk for crisis situations, as well as
those that have not yet received funding under this program. This
action is also intended to modify an application requirement the
Department established in FY 2005 for LEAs to support the
implementation of the National Incident Management System (NIMS) and to
propose an additional application requirement for LEAs to develop
written plans to address outbreaks of infectious diseases.
DATES: We must receive your comments on or before March 31, 2006.
ADDRESSES: Address all comments about the proposed priorities and
application requirements to Sara Strizzi, U.S. Department of Education,
400 Maryland Avenue, SW., room 3E320, Washington, DC 20202-6450. If you
prefer to send your comments through the Internet, use the following
address: sara.strizzi@ed.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sara Strizzi. Telephone: (303) 346-
0924 or via Internet: sara.strizzi@ed.gov.
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), you may
call the Federal Relay Service (FRS) at 1-888-877-8339.
Individuals with disabilities may obtain this document in an
alternative format (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, or computer
diskette) on request to the contact person listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Invitation To Comment
We invite you to submit comments regarding the proposed priorities
and application requirements. To ensure that your comments have maximum
effect in developing the notice of final priorities and application
requirements, we urge you to identify clearly the specific proposed
priority or application requirement 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 the proposed
priorities and application requirements. Please let us know of any
further opportunities we should take to 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 the proposed priorities and application requirements in
room 3E320, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., Washington, DC, between the hours
of 8:30 a.m. and 4 p.m., Eastern time, Monday through Friday of each
week except Federal holidays.
Assistance to Individuals With Disabilities in Reviewing the Rulemaking
Record
On request, we will supply an appropriate aid, such as a reader or
print magnifier, to an individual with a disability who needs
assistance to review the comments or other documents in the public
rulemaking record for the proposed priorities and application
requirements. If you want to schedule an appointment for this type of
aid, please contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT.
Background: The events of September 11, 2001, and more recently,
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, reinforce the need for schools and
communities to plan for
[[Page 10483]]
traditional crises and emergencies, as well as possible terrorist
attacks or other catastrophic events. We propose additional priorities
for the ERCM Grant program under the Safe and Drug-Free Schools and
Communities National Programs to target assistance to high-threat areas
and LEAs that have not yet received funding under this program. We also
propose (1) to modify the application requirement that we established
in FY 2005 for LEAs to support the implementation of NIMS at the local
level and (2) to establish a new application requirement for LEAs to
develop a plan to mitigate the effects of infectious diseases.
We will announce the final priorities and application requirements
in a notice in the Federal Register. We will determine the final
priorities and application requirements after considering responses to
this notice and other information available to the Department. This
notice does not preclude us from proposing or using additional
priorities or application requirements, subject to meeting applicable
rulemaking requirements.
Note:
This notice does not solicit applications. In any year in which
we choose to use the proposed priorities and application
requirements, we invite applications through a notice in the Federal
Register.
Priorities
Proposed Priority 1--Competitive Preference Priority for LEAs That Have
Not Previously Received a Grant Under the ERCM Program and Are Located
in an Urban Areas Security Initiative Jurisdiction
Background
In FY 2003, the Department of Homeland Security established the
Urban Areas Security Initiative (UASI) program to focus Federal
preparedness resources on the unique planning, equipment, training, and
exercise needs of high-threat, high-density urban areas. The intent of
the UASI program is to create a sustainable national model program that
will enhance security and overall preparedness in order to prevent,
respond to, and recover from acts of terrorism. Jurisdictions included
in the UASI program are determined by a formula using a combination of
current threat estimates, critical assets within the specific urban
area, and population density.
The Governor of each State has designated a State Administrative
Agency (SAA) as the entity responsible for applying for, and
administering, funds under the Department of Homeland Security Grant
Program (which includes the UASI program). The SAA is also responsible
for defining the geographic borders for jurisdictions included in the
UASI program. Jurisdictions included in the UASI program for FY 2006
are included in the following chart. Additional guidance on
jurisdiction definitions can be found at: https://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/
odp/ docs/info200. pdf.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Geographic area captured in Previously designated
State Candidate urban area the data count urban areas included
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AZ................................. Phoenix Area.......... Chandler, Gilbert, Phoenix, AZ
Glendale, Mesa, Peoria,
Phoenix, Scottsdale,
Tempe, and a 10-mile
buffer extending from the
border of the combined
area.
CA................................. Anaheim/Santa Ana Area Anaheim, Costa Mesa, Garden Anaheim, CA; Santa
Grove, Fullerton, Ana, CA
Huntington Beach, Irvine,
Orange, Santa Ana, and a
10-mile buffer extending
from the border of the
combined area.
Bay Area.............. Berkeley, Daly City, San Francisco, CA; San
Fremont, Hayward, Oakland, Jose, CA; Oakland, CA
Palo Alto, Richmond, San
Francisco, San Jose, Santa
Clara, Sunnyvale, Vallejo,
and a 10-mile buffer
extending from the border
of the combined area.
Los Angeles/Long Beach Burbank, Glendale, Los Angeles, CA; Long
Area. Inglewood, Long Beach, Los Beach, CA
Angeles, Pasadena, Santa
Clarita, Santa Monica,
Torrance, Simi Valley,
Thousand Oaks, and a 10-
mile buffer extending from
the border of the combined
area.
Sacramento Area....... Elk Grove, Sacramento, and Sacramento, CA
a 10-mile buffer extending
from the border of the
combined area.
San Diego Area........ Chula Vista, Escondido, San San Diego, CA
Diego, and a 10-mile
buffer extending from the
border of the combined
area.
CO................................. Denver Area........... Arvada, Aurora, Denver, Denver, CO
Lakewood, Westminster,
Thornton, and a 10-mile
buffer extending from the
border of the combined
area.
DC................................. National Capital National Capital Region and National Capital
Region. a 10-mile buffer extending Region, DC
from the border of the
combined area.
FL................................. Fort Lauderdale Area.. Fort Lauderdale, Hollywood, N/A
Miami Gardens, Miramar,
Pembroke Pines, and a 10-
mile buffer extending from
the border of the combined
area.
Jacksonville Area..... Jacksonville and a 10-mile Jacksonville, FL
buffer extending from the
city border.
Miami Area............ Hialeah, Miami, and a 10- Miami, FL
mile buffer extending from
the border of the combined
area.
Orlando Area.......... Orlando and a 10-mile Orlando, FL
buffer extending from the
city border.
Tampa Area............ Clearwater, St. Petersburg, Tampa, FL
Tampa, and a 10-mile
buffer extending from the
border of the combined
area.
GA................................. Atlanta Area.......... Atlanta and a 10-mile Atlanta, GA
buffer extending from the
city border.
HI................................. Honolulu Area......... Honolulu and a 10-mile Honolulu, HI
buffer extending from the
city border.
IL................................. Chicago Area.......... Chicago and a 10-mile Chicago, IL
buffer extending from the
city border.
IN................................. Indianapolis Area..... Indianapolis and a 10-mile Indianapolis, IN
buffer extending from the
city border.
KY................................. Louisville Area....... Louisville and a 10-mile Louisville, KY
buffer extending from the
city border.
LA................................. Baton Rouge Area...... Baton Rouge and a 10-mile Baton Rouge, LA
buffer extending from the
city border.
New Orleans Area...... New Orleans and a 10-mile New Orleans, LA
buffer extending from the
city border.
[[Page 10484]]
MA................................. Boston Area........... Boston, Cambridge, and a 10- Boston, MA
mile buffer extending from
the border of the combined
area.
MD................................. Baltimore Area........ Baltimore and a 10-mile Baltimore, MD
buffer extending from the
city border.
MI................................. Detroit Area.......... Detroit, Sterling Heights, Detroit, MI
Warren, and a 10-mile
buffer extending from the
border of the combined
area.
MN................................. Twin Cities Area...... Minneapolis, St. Paul, and Minneapolis, MN; St.
a 10-mile buffer extending Paul, MN
from the border of the
combined entity.
MO................................. Kansas City Area...... Independence, Kansas City Kansas City, MO
(KS), Kansas City (MO),
Olathe, Overland Park, and
a 10-mile buffer extending
from the border of the
combined area.
St. Louis Area........ St. Louis and a 10-mile St. Louis, MO
buffer extending from the
city border.
NC................................. Charlotte Area........ Charlotte and a 10-mile Charlotte, NC
buffer extending from the
city border.
NE................................. Omaha Area............ Omaha and a 10-mile buffer Omaha, NE
extending from the city
border.
NJ................................. Jersey City/Newark Elizabeth, Jersey City, Jersey City, NJ;
Area. Newark, and a 10-mile Newark, NJ
buffer extending from the
border of the combined
area.
NV................................. Las Vegas Area........ Las Vegas, North Las Vegas, Las Vegas, NV
and a 10-mile buffer
extending from the border
of the combined entity.
NY................................. Buffalo Area.......... Buffalo and a 10-mile Buffalo, NY
buffer extending from the
city border.
New York City Area.... New York City, Yonkers, and New York, NY
a 10-mile buffer extending
from the border of the
combined area.
OH................................. Cincinnati Area....... Cincinnati and a 10-mile Cincinnati, OH
buffer extending from the
city border.
Cleveland Area........ Cleveland and a 10-mile Cleveland, OH
buffer extending from the
city border.
Columbus Area......... Columbus and a 10-mile Columbus, OH
buffer extending from the
city border.
Toledo Area........... Oregon, Toledo, and a 10- Toledo, OH
mile buffer extending from
the border of the combined
area.
OK................................. Oklahoma City Area.... Norman, Oklahoma City, and Oklahoma City, OK
a 10-mile buffer extending
from the border of the
combined area.
OR................................. Portland Area......... Portland, Vancouver, and a Portland, OR
10-mile buffer extending
from the border of the
combined area.
PA................................. Philadelphia Area..... Philadelphia and a 10-mile Philadelphia, PA
buffer extending from the
city border.
Pittsburgh Area....... Pittsburgh and a 10-mile Pittsburgh, PA
buffer extending from the
city border.
TN................................. Memphis Area.......... Memphis and a 10-mile Memphis, TN
buffer extending from the
city border.
TX................................. Dallas/Fort Worth/ Arlington, Carrollton, Dallas, TX; Fort
Arlington Area. Dallas, Fort Worth, Worth, TX; Arlington,
Garland, Grand Prairie, TX
Irving, Mesquite, Plano,
and a 10-mile buffer
extending from the border
of the combined area.
Houston Area.......... Houston, Pasadena, and a 10- Houston, TX
mile buffer extending from
the border of the combined
entity.
San Antonio Area...... San Antonio and a 10-mile San Antonio, TX
buffer extending from the
city border.
WA................................. Seattle Area.......... Bellevue, Seattle, and a 10- Seattle, WA
mile buffer extending from
the border of the combined
area.
WI................................. Milwaukee Area........ Milwaukee and a 10-mile Milwaukee, WI
buffer extending from the
city border.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ensuring that LEAs are adequately prepared for multiple hazards is
a significant national concern. LEAs located in vulnerable, high-
density areas have unique crisis planning needs. While many LEAs in
UASI jurisdictions have received funding under this program in prior
years, there are a number of LEAs located in UASI jurisdictions that
have not received the resources needed to improve and enhance their
emergency response plans. In order to help meet the needs of these
LEAs, we propose a competitive preference priority for LEAs that have
not previously received a grant under this program and are located
within UASI jurisdictions.
Priority: Under this priority, we give a competitive preference to
applications from local educational agencies (LEAs) that (1) have not
yet received a grant under this program and (2) are located in whole or
in part within Urban Areas Security Initiative (UASI) jurisdictions, as
determined by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS). An
applicant must meet both of these criteria in order to receive the
competitive preference. Under a consortium application, all members of
the LEA consortium need to meet both criteria to be eligible for the
preference.
Because DHS' determination of UASI jurisdictions may change from
year to year, applicants under this priority must refer to the most
recent list of UASI jurisdictions published by DHS when submitting
their applications. In any notice inviting applications using this
priority, the Department will provide applicants with information
necessary to access the most recent DHS list of UASI jurisdictions.
Proposed Priority 2--Competitive Preference Priority for Applicants
That Have Not Previously Received a Grant Under The ERCM Program
Background
Ensuring that schools are prepared to address crisis situations
that may arise from multiple hazards, including man-made and natural,
is an issue of national importance. Since FY 2003, 336 LEAs
[[Page 10485]]
have received funding under the ERCM grant program to improve and
enhance their emergency response plans. However, this represents a
small percentage of the total number of LEAs within the United States.
To address the crisis planning needs of LEAs that have not previously
received funding under this program, we propose a competitive
preference priority for applicants that have not yet received a grant
under this program.
By awarding previously unfunded LEAs a competitive preference, we
hope to ensure that ERCM grant funds reach greater numbers of schools
and students whose crisis planning needs have not previously been
addressed.
Priority: Under this priority, we give competitive preference to
applications from local educational agencies (LEAs) that have not
previously received a grant under this program. Applicants that have
received funding under this program directly, or as the lead agency or
as a partner in a consortium application under this program will not
receive competitive preference under this priority.
Application Requirements
We propose (1) to modify the application requirement that we
established in FY 2005 for LEAs to support the implementation of NIMS
at the local level and (2) to establish a new application requirement
for LEAs to develop a plan to mitigate the effects of infectious
diseases.
1. Implementation of the National Incident Management System
Background: In accordance with Homeland Security Presidential
Directive/HSPD-5, the NIMS provides a consistent approach for Federal,
State, and local governments to work effectively and efficiently
together to prepare for, prevent, respond to, and recover from domestic
incidents, regardless of cause, size, or complexity.
Implementation of the NIMS is a dynamic process that will continue
to evolve over time. In order to receive Federal preparedness funding,
LEAs must cooperate with the efforts of their communities to meet the
minimum NIMS requirements established for each fiscal year. We
established an application requirement for LEAs to implement the NIMS
in FY 2005. Because of the dynamic nature of the NIMS, we believe
certain changes to that requirement are necessary.
Requirement: Applicants must agree to implement their grant in a
manner consistent with the implementation of the NIMS in their
communities. Applicants must include in their applications an assurance
that they have met, or will complete, all current NIMS requirements by
the end of the grant period.
Because DHS' determination of NIMS requirements may change from
year to year, applicants must refer to the most recent list of NIMS
requirements published by DHS when submitting their applications. In
any notice inviting applications, the Department will provide
applicants with information necessary to access the most recent DHS
list of NIMS requirements.
Note: An LEA's NIMS compliance must be achieved in close
coordination with the local government and with recognition of the
first responder capabilities held by the LEA and the local
government. As LEAs are not traditional response organizations,
first responder services will typically be provided to LEAs by local
fire and rescue departments, emergency medical service providers,
and law enforcement agencies. This traditional relationship must be
acknowledged in achieving NIMS compliance in an integrated NIMS
compliance plan for the local government and the LEA. LEA
participation in the NIMS preparedness program of the local
government is essential in ensuring that first responder services
are delivered to schools in a timely and effective manner.
Additional information about NIMS implementation and requirements is
available at https://www.fema.gov/nims.
2. Infectious Disease Plan
Background: Infectious diseases pose a significant threat for the
school environment. In addition to common infectious diseases, such as
stomach viruses, seasonal influenza, infestation with lice/scabies, and
viral meningitis, health professionals from the Department of Health
and Human Services have warned of a new threat attributed to Avian
Influenza A (H5N1). The H5N1 virus poses a risk for worldwide
infection. In addition to causing widespread illness, an especially
severe influenza pandemic could result in widespread school closings,
absenteeism, and disruptions to the learning environment in general.
Whether or not a pandemic strikes, seasonal influenza and other
infectious diseases continue to pose a concern with respect to the
health of students as well as the optimal functioning of schools.
Although it may be difficult to prevent a widespread pandemic or other
infectious disease outbreak, the effects can be mitigated through
proper prevention and planning strategies.
Requirement: To be considered for a grant award, applicants must
agree to develop a written plan designed to prepare the LEA for a
possible infectious disease outbreak, such as pandemic influenza. Plans
must address the four phases of crisis planning (Mitigation/Prevention,
Preparedness, Response, and Recovery) and include a plan for disease
surveillance (systematic collection and analysis of data which lead to
action being taken to prevent and control a disease), school closure
decision making, business continuity (processes and procedures
established to ensure that essential functions can continue during and
after a disaster), and continuation of educational services.
Executive Order 12866
This notice of proposed priorities and application requirements 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
regulatory action.
The potential costs associated with the notice of proposed
priorities and application requirements 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 notice of proposed priorities and application
requirements, we have determined that the benefits of the proposed
priorities and application requirements justify the costs.
We have also determined that this regulatory action does not unduly
interfere with State, local, and tribal governments in the exercise of
their governmental functions.
Summary of Potential Costs and Benefits
The potential costs associated with the proposed priorities and
application requirements are minimal while the benefits are
significant.
Grantees may anticipate costs in achieving NIMS compliance. Costs
may also be incurred in the development of a written infectious disease
plan. However, these costs may be included in the grant budget and,
therefore, will have little financial impact on the applicant.
The benefit of the proposed priorities and application requirements
is that grantees that develop a comprehensive emergency response and
crisis management plan that includes training and that is implemented
in coordination with community partners may mitigate the financial and
human impact of a crisis in their district.
Intergovernmental Review
This program is subject to Executive Order 12372 and the
regulations in 34
[[Page 10486]]
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.
Electronic Access to This Document
You may view this document, as well as all other Department of
Education documents published in the Federal Register, in text or Adobe
Portable Document Format (PDF) on the Internet at the following site:
https://www.ed.gov/news/fedregister.
To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available
free at this site. If you have questions about using PDF, call the U.S.
Government Printing Office (GPO), toll free, at 1-888-293-6498; or in
the Washington, DC, area, at (202) 512-1530.
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: https://www.gpoaccess.
gov/nara/.
(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number 84.184E--Emergency
Response and Crisis Management Grant program)
Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 7131.
Dated: February 23, 2006.
Deborah A. Price,
Assistant Deputy Secretary for Safe and Drug-Free Schools.
[FR Doc. E6-2843 Filed 2-28-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
