Emergency Management for Higher Education Grant Program, 16624-16629 [2010-7421]
Download as PDF
16624
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 62 / Thursday, April 1, 2010 / Notices
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Emergency Management for Higher
Education Grant Program
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance
(CFDA) Number: 84.184T.
AGENCY: Office of Safe and Drug-Free
Schools, Department of Education.
ACTION: Notice of final priorities and
requirements.
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES2
SUMMARY: The Assistant Deputy
Secretary for Safe and Drug-Free
Schools announces priorities and
requirements for the Emergency
Management for Higher Education
(EMHE) grant program. The Assistant
Deputy Secretary may use one or more
of these priorities and requirements for
competitions in fiscal year (FY) 2010
and later years.
We intend these priorities and
requirements to provide Federal
financial assistance to institutions of
higher education (IHEs) to develop, or
review and improve, and fully integrate
their campus-based all-hazards
emergency management planning
efforts. We intend grant awards under
these priorities and requirements to
increase the capacity of IHEs to prevent/
mitigate, prepare for, respond to, and
recover from the full range of emergency
events.
DATES: Effective Date: These priorities
and requirements are effective May 3,
2010.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tara
Hill, U.S. Department of Education, 400
Maryland Avenue, SW., room 10088,
PCP, Washington, DC 20202–6450.
Telephone: (202) 245–7860 or by e-mail:
tara.hill@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:
Purpose of Program: EMHE grants
support efforts by IHEs to develop, or
review and improve, and fully integrate
campus-based all-hazards emergency
management planning efforts within the
framework of the four phases of
emergency management (PreventionMitigation, Preparedness, Response, and
Recovery).
Congress appropriated initial funding
for the EMHE grant competition in FY
2008 following the tragic shooting at
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State
University in 2007. That and other past
emergencies, such as the events of
September 11, 2001, Hurricanes Katrina
and Rita, and the tragic shooting at
Northern Illinois University, reinforce
the need for colleges and universities to
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:46 Mar 31, 2010
Jkt 220001
prepare for the full range of emergency
events that may affect their campus
communities. The EMHE grant program
provides funds to IHEs to establish or
enhance an emergency management
planning process that integrates the
various components and departments of
each IHE; focuses on reviewing,
strengthening, and institutionalizing allhazards emergency management plans;
fosters partnerships with local and State
community partners; supports
vulnerability assessments; encourages
training and drilling on the emergency
management plan across the campus
community; and requires IHEs to
develop a written plan for preventing
violence on campus by assessing and
addressing the mental health needs of
students, faculty, and staff who may be
at risk of causing campus violence by
harming themselves or others.
Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 7131.
We published a notice of proposed
priorities and requirements in the
Federal Register on December 4, 2009
(74 FR 63740). That notice contained
background information and our reasons
for proposing the particular priorities
and requirements.
Except for minor editorial and
technical revisions, there is only one
significant difference between the
proposed priorities and requirements
and these final priorities and
requirements. Specifically, based on
public comment, we have added an
element to the priority that will require
applicants to develop or update a
written campus-wide continuity of
operations plan that would enable the
campus to maintain and/or restore key
educational, business, and other
essential functions following an
emergency.
Public Comment: In response to our
invitation in the notice of proposed
priorities and requirements, four parties
submitted comments on proposed
priority 1 and on the proposed
requirements. No comments were
received on proposed priority 2.
Generally, we do not address
technical and other minor changes, or
suggested changes we are not authorized
to make under the applicable statutory
authority. In addition we do not address
general comments that raised concerns
not directly related to the proposed
priorities or requirements.
Analysis of Comments and Changes:
An analysis of the comments and of any
changes in the priorities and
requirements since publication of the
notice of proposed priorities and
requirements follows.
Priority 1—Institutions of Higher
Education (IHE) Projects Designed to
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
Develop, or Review and Improve, and
Fully Integrate Campus-Based AllHazards Emergency Management
Planning Efforts
Comment: One commenter observed
that the EMHE notice of proposed
priorities and requirements was
published in the Federal Register in
advance of the enactment of the FY
2010 appropriation for the Department.
The commenter referenced language in
the Appropriations Committee Reports
filed in the U.S. House of
Representatives and the U.S. Senate
concerning the funding provided for
emergency management for institutions
of higher education, including examples
of activities (such as risk assessment,
training, and the purchase of hardware
and software) that might be funded with
these appropriated funds. The
commenter requested that the
Department consider the language in
these Congressional reports in
establishing the final priorities and
requirements for this competition.
Discussion: We have reviewed the
language in the Conference Report
accompanying the Department’s 2010
appropriations act, as well as the
language included in the related House
and Senate Appropriations Committee
reports (House Report 111–220 and
Senate Report 111–66, accompanying
H.R. 3293, respectively). We believe that
the EMHE grant priorities and
requirements are consistent with the
guidance provided by both the House
and the Senate in these documents.
Activities such as risk assessments,
training, and the purchase of hardware
and software are all considered
allowable activities under the EMHE
program. Accordingly, we believe that
the final priorities and requirements are
consistent with Congressional guidance,
while offering applicants the flexibility
to design and propose projects that
incorporate a wide range of activities to
address their institutions’ needs.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter expressed
concern that the proposed priority
would not permit applicants to receive
support for addressing any violent
activity occurring on campuses. The
commenter recommended adding a
priority that would broaden the scope of
the program to address any risks and
threats that come under the jurisdiction
of campus law enforcement and
emergency managers, and that the
program provide support for training
and activities designed to address a
broad range of campus problems
including sexual assault, arson, robbery,
harassment, simple assault, binge
drinking, and drug use.
E:\FR\FM\01APN2.SGM
01APN2
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 62 / Thursday, April 1, 2010 / Notices
Discussion: We agree with the
commenter that IHEs face significant
challenges in dealing with many forms
of violent activity that occur on their
campuses. However, the EMHE grant
program is designed to provide support
for initiatives in emergency
preparedness for IHEs, and is not
intended to address or prevent all
discrete acts of violence. Mitigating
violent activity may certainly be an
outcome of an all-hazards approach to
emergency management; however, the
primary focus of EMHE is to assist
campuses with planning for, responding
to, and recovering from major
emergencies and disasters.
Given the relatively small amount of
available funding for this program and
the limited number of grants awarded
under the EMHE program to date,
providing a significantly broader focus
for the program at this time would
significantly reduce the ability of the
program to meet its primary purpose of
assisting IHEs in developing or
enhancing their emergency
preparedness capacity.
We note that the Department also
administers another discretionary grant
competition that is intended to respond
more directly to the concerns of violent
behavior on campus. Specifically, the
Grant Competition to Prevent High-Risk
Drinking or Violent Behavior Among
College Students (CFDA Number
84.184H) provides funds to develop,
enhance, implement, and evaluate
campus-based and/or community-based
prevention strategies to reduce high-risk
drinking or violent behavior among
college students. For additional
information on this program please
visit: https://www2.ed.gov/programs/
dvphighrisk/.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter noted that
element (7) in the proposed priority
identifies students, faculty, and staff as
individuals who pose a risk of violent
behavior, but that others, including
visitors to campus, also pose such a risk.
The commenter suggested adding a
priority addressing violence that is not
related to mental health issues of oncampus individuals.
Discussion: We acknowledge that
violent acts can be caused by any
number of different factors in addition
to mental illness or other mental health
issues. However, House Report 110–231,
issued on July 13, 2007, in conjunction
with the FY 2008 appropriations bill for
the Department that initially included
funding for the EMHE program,
explicitly stated that funds for new
awards for IHEs should be used to
develop and implement emergency
management plans for preventing
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:46 Mar 31, 2010
Jkt 220001
campus violence (including assessing
and addressing the mental health needs
of students) and for responding to
threats and incidents of violence or
natural disaster in a manner that
ensures the safety of the campus
community. The language in the
proposed priority is not intended to
limit the ability of campuses to consider
a broader range of causes of violent
behavior; rather, we intend it to ensure
that, at a minimum, all EMHE grant
recipients consider the potential role of
mental health issues in campus
violence. The language in the priority
links the issue of identifying and
addressing mental health issues with
students, staff, and faculty because there
are members of a campus community
who may be able to observe warning
signs and symptoms of mental health
issues in these populations and use
systems established by the IHE to
initiate assessments or other appropriate
procedures. IHEs cannot be expected to
develop and maintain similarly
comprehensive procedures for all shortterm visitors to the campus setting.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter requested
that funding under this program be
available to establish a police agency on
campus.
Discussion: While we recognize that
many IHEs need to establish or support
police or security forces on their
campuses, we believe that this activity
is outside the scope of this grant
program. This program is designed to
provide support for emergency
management and overall preparedness
initiatives for IHEs.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter suggested
that rather than requiring applicants to
respond to a prescriptive list of
priorities and requirements, the
Department should allow applicants to
submit applications that propose
individual approaches consistent with
their institution’s unique needs and
emergency management challenges. In
particular, the commenter
recommended that the language related
to infectious disease planning (proposed
priority element number (6)) and mental
health needs of campuses (proposed
priority element number (7)) be
modified to allow institutions to
propose individual solutions based on
differing institutional needs and
capacities.
Discussion: We agree with the
commenter that applicants should have
the flexibility to design EMHE projects
that respond to the unique needs of each
campus. We believe the priorities are
written in a way that will provide
applicants with a significant amount of
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
16625
flexibility in identifying and addressing
specific vulnerabilities and hazards that
may be unique to each institution.
However, in administering this
program, we seek to balance this needed
flexibility with the need to ensure that
IHEs receiving support under the
program are addressing at least a core
set of hazards that we have identified as
important to the Federal interest. The
core list of hazards includes those
related to infectious diseases and the
mental health needs of students, staff,
and faculty who may be at risk of
causing violence on campus.
Under this priority, IHEs still retain
the flexibility to identify and address
any unique emergency management
issues or hazards identified as part of
their vulnerability assessment. Further,
eligibility for an EMHE grant is not
affected for IHEs that have already
addressed the required hazards or
vulnerabilities identified by the
Department before receiving a grant.
Those entities need only commit to
review emergency management plans
for these required vulnerabilities during
the grant period and to updating those
plans as dictated by any relevant
advances in the field or changes in local
needs or concerns.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter suggested
that we revisit our method for
categorizing applicant institutions based
on size. The commenter suggested that
the categories used in the 2008 EMHE
application enabled many relatively
small institutions to be included in the
‘‘large’’ category, thereby enabling
‘‘small’’ institutions to request the same
estimated funding level the Department
identified for ‘‘large’’ institutions. The
commenter recommended that
additional funding tiers be established
and that a specific category for very
large institutions be created.
Discussion: We agree that changing
the method for categorizing institutions
by size would help to better align
recommended funding amounts with
institutional needs. We considered this
comment, and our experience in
implementing this program over the
past two years, and for the FY 2010
competition we will change the method
for establishing recommended grant
award amounts. The new approach
relies on student enrollment
information (instead of number of
facilities per campus) and establishes a
category for very large institutions.
Because IHEs are diverse entities that
face a broad range of different
challenges in the emergency
management arena, we have elected not
to establish through this notice of final
priorities and requirements enforceable
E:\FR\FM\01APN2.SGM
01APN2
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES2
16626
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 62 / Thursday, April 1, 2010 / Notices
maximum grant award amounts for
categories of IHEs. Instead, we are
including revised recommended grant
award amounts in the notice inviting
applications (NIA) for the EMHE
program. We believe that this approach
will provide appropriate flexibility for
IHEs to develop projects that are of a
scope that meets their unique
emergency management needs while
still providing helpful information for
applicants about the approximate
project scope and grant award sizes that
we anticipate supporting.
Changes: No changes are being made
to the final priorities and requirements.
The change in the categorization of
institutions described in the preceding
paragraphs is reflected in the notice
inviting applications for this
competition, published elsewhere in
this issue of the Federal Register.
Comment: One commenter
recommended two changes to the
proposed priority that would further
emphasize the importance of continuity
planning and the restoration of a
learning environment following an
emergency. The commenter requested
that language be added to both proposed
priority elements (1) and (4) to
specifically emphasize the importance
of continuity planning.
Discussion: We agree that ensuring
that institutions have a plan for
continuing to provide key services (for
example education, payroll, health
support, and food services) following an
emergency is a critical concern for the
higher education community. The
Department has worked with local
school districts and IHE campuses over
the past several years to help them
strategize on ways to restore the
learning environment following an
emergency. Particularly following
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, and given
the recent influenza pandemic, we have
been actively involved in developing
resources to assist educational
institutions at all levels in their
continuity planning efforts.
We agree with the commenter that
planning for the continuation of
educational and other services following
an emergency should be included as a
component in an IHE’s emergency
management planning efforts, and will
revise the priority to reflect this
emphasis.
Changes: We have revised the priority
by adding an additional element that
will require applicants to develop or
update a written campus-wide
continuity of operations plan that would
enable the campus to maintain and/or
restore key educational, business, and
other essential functions as quickly as
possible following an emergency.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:46 Mar 31, 2010
Jkt 220001
Requirements for Partner Agreements
and Completed Memoranda of
Agreements
Comment: One commenter observed
that the capacity of law enforcement
and mental health entities varies greatly
from one community and one
institution to another. For example, in
one community the IHE law
enforcement agency may be the primary
emergency services provider for the
community-at-large, whereas in another
community the IHE may be largely or
completely dependent on the local or
State police departments for emergency
services. The commenter observed that
it may not always be appropriate for an
IHE to have a partner agreement with
the local law enforcement agency or a
local mental health provider,
particularly when the campus itself is
the primary provider of emergency law
enforcement or mental health services.
The commenter recommended that an
IHE not be required to enter into
agreements with community-based law
enforcement and mental health entities
if the IHE is responsible for furnishing
its own services in these areas.
Discussion: We agree with the
commenter that there is tremendous
diversity in the size and location of IHEs
across the country and that IHEs have
various levels of institutional capacity
to respond to emergencies within their
communities. We also acknowledge that
in some situations it is an employee or
agent of the IHE who is the lead
incident commander and who
ultimately assists local or State partners
in their response activities.
The EMHE requirements are not
intended to prescribe what the
appropriate role and relationships
should be between an IHE and its
community partners. Instead, the
requirements are designed to help foster
communication and the establishment
of relationships between the various
potential responders to any incident,
and to ensure that those relationships
are established and solidified before any
emergency event occurs. We expect that
the roles and responsibilities articulated
in both the partner agreements and the
memoranda of agreements will vary
greatly based on the relationship
between each applicant IHE and its
surrounding community. Our intent in
proposing the requirement is to ensure
that IHEs and their surrounding
community partners are communicating
with each other and coordinating their
efforts, and not to prescribe what those
efforts or relationships should entail.
Further, the requirements to establish
partner agreements and memoranda of
understanding are not intended to limit
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
the roles an IHE may perform in a
community response. Rather, the
requirements are intended to ensure that
all grantees ultimately establish solid
working relationships with their key
partners and that they know what the
various roles and responsibilities of
each partner (including the IHE) might
be in the event of an emergency. An
application from a campus where the
applicant IHE serves as the primary
emergency services provider for the
local community should indicate that in
its partner agreements. It is the
demonstration and documentation of an
established and ongoing relationship
that is key to these requirements.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter identified
the recovery of indirect costs from
EMHE grants as a concern because these
costs do not support direct project
activities. The commenter also
expressed concern that peer reviewers
might find indirect cost rates for
research institutions inappropriately
high, which may have limited the
number of research institutions that
have been successful in receiving EMHE
grants. The commenter suggested that
we should include a requirement that
would limit the percentage of indirect
costs that may be recovered from an
EMHE grant.
Discussion: Generally, the Federal
Government permits grant recipients to
recover indirect costs for costs
associated with their federally funded
grant projects. This recovery is typically
based on a rate determined by a
cognizant agency that takes into account
the indirect costs involved in
implementing grant activities. Costs in
an indirect cost pool may include such
items as utility costs, building
maintenance services, general insurance
costs, and the cost of staff who assist
with administrative functions such as
hiring, payroll services, or other similar
activities. The indirect cost rate is
determined through a process of
negotiation with the institution’s
cognizant agency and is designed to be
an accurate reflection of the actual
indirect costs associated with
conducting programming at that
institution. IHEs frequently are assigned
several indirect cost rates as a result of
the negotiation process; these rates
reflect differences in indirect costs
associated with different kinds of
project activities. For example, IHEs
may be assigned a rate for research
grants, a rate for grants implemented at
a facility other than a campus facility
(for example, at a hospital or research
laboratory), or a rate for other sponsored
projects.
E:\FR\FM\01APN2.SGM
01APN2
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 62 / Thursday, April 1, 2010 / Notices
While recovery of indirect costs
reduces the amount of funding that can
be used to support direct grant
activities, establishing a cap on indirect
cost recovery that is lower than that
permitted by an IHE’s negotiated rate
means that the IHE will need to identify
other grant or institutional resources to
help pay for the indirect costs
consumed by implementing an EMHE
project. Establishing an arbitrary cap for
indirect costs could affect an IHE’s
ability to implement its EMHE project if
the IHE does not have institutional or
other resources to pay these indirect
costs, and may make it impossible for
some IHEs to compete for or accept an
EMHE grant.
Because EMHE projects are not
research projects, we do not permit
EMHE grantees to recover indirect costs
at the higher established research
project rate. Typically, applicants for
the EMHE program request recovery of
costs based on the indirect cost rate for
other on-campus programs, or other
sponsored programs, at their IHE.
The issue of indirect costs is not an
issue that peer reviewers evaluate when
they read and score an application. The
selection criteria used for the EMHE
competition do not include any criteria
that require peer reviewers to evaluate
the adequacy or reasonableness of the
grant budget proposed by the applicant.
Changes: None.
Final Priorities:
These priorities are:
Priority 1—Institutions of Higher
Education (IHE) Projects Designed to
Develop, or Review and Improve, and
Fully Integrate Campus-Based AllHazards Emergency Management
Planning Efforts
The Assistant Deputy Secretary for
Safe and Drug-Free Schools establishes
a priority that supports IHE projects
designed to develop, or review and
improve, and fully integrate campusbased all-hazards emergency
management planning efforts. A
program funded under this priority
must use the framework of the four
phases of emergency management
(Prevention-Mitigation, Preparedness,
Response, and Recovery) to:
(1) Develop, or review and improve,
and fully integrate a campus-wide allhazards emergency management plan
that takes into account threats that may
be unique to the campus;
(2) Train campus staff, faculty, and
students in emergency management
procedures;
(3) Coordinate with local and State
government emergency management
efforts;
(4) Ensure coordination of planning
and communication across all relevant
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:46 Mar 31, 2010
Jkt 220001
components, offices, and departments of
the campus;
(5) Develop a written plan with
emergency protocols that include the
medical, mental health, communication,
mobility, and emergency needs of
persons with disabilities, as well as for
those individuals with temporary
special needs or other unique needs
(including those arising from language
barriers or cultural differences);
(6) Develop or update a written plan
that prepares the campus for infectious
disease outbreaks with both short-term
implications for planning (e.g.,
outbreaks caused by methicillinresistant Staphylococcus aureus
(MRSA) or food-borne illnesses) and
long-term implications for planning
(e.g., pandemic influenza);
(7) Develop or enhance a written plan
for preventing violence on campus by
assessing and addressing the mental
health needs of students, staff, and
faculty who may be at risk of causing
violence by harming themselves or
others; and
(8) Develop or update a written
campus-wide continuity of operations
plan that would enable the campus to
maintain and/or restore key educational,
business, and other essential functions
following an emergency.
Priority 2—Priority for Applicants That
Have Not Previously Received a Grant
Under The EMHE Program (CFDA
Number 84.184T)
Under this priority we give priority to
applications from IHEs that have not
previously received a grant under this
program (CFDA Number 84.184T). An
applicant that has received services
under this program directly, or as a
partner in a consortium application
under this program, would not meet this
priority. Under a consortium
application, all members of the IHE
consortium must meet this criterion in
order for the applicant to meet this
priority.
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
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
16627
(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)).
Final Requirements:
Partner Agreements: To be considered
for a grant award, an applicant must
include in its application two partner
agreements. One partner agreement
must detail coordination with, and
participation of, a representative of the
appropriate level of local or State
government for the locality in which the
IHE to be served by the project is
located (for example, the mayor, city
manager, or county executive). The
second partner agreement must detail
coordination with, and participation of,
a representative from a local or State
emergency management coordinating
body (for example, the head of the local
emergency planning council that would
be involved in coordinating a large-scale
emergency response effort in the
campus community). Both agreements
must include the name of the partner
organization, an indication of whether
the partner represents the local or State
government or the local or State
emergency management coordinating
body, and a description of the respective
partner as well as a description of the
partner’s roles and responsibilities in
supporting the EMHE grant and in
strengthening emergency management
planning efforts for the IHE. Each
partner agreement must also include a
description of the roles and
responsibilities of the IHE in grant
implementation and partner
coordination. A signature from an
authorized representative of the IHE and
each of the two required partners
acknowledging the relationship and the
agreements must be included in the
application. If either or both of the two
required partners is not present in an
applicant’s community, or cannot
feasibly participate, the agreements
must explain the absence of each
missing partner.
Applications that fail to include either
of the two required partner agreement
forms, including information on
partners’ roles and responsibilities (or
an explanation documenting that
partner’s absence in the community),
along with the required signatures, will
not be considered for funding.
Each consortium applicant (an
applicant submitting on behalf of
E:\FR\FM\01APN2.SGM
01APN2
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES2
16628
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 62 / Thursday, April 1, 2010 / Notices
multiple IHEs) and any applicant
applying on behalf of multiple
campuses (including one or more
satellite or extension campuses within
its own institution or its consortium of
IHEs) must submit a complete set of
partner agreements with appropriate
signatures from the authorized
representative and the two required
partners noted earlier for each campus
proposed to be receiving services under
its EMHE project.
Although this program requires
partnerships with other parties,
administrative direction and fiscal
control for the project must remain with
the IHE.
Completed Memoranda of
Agreements: All IHEs supported by the
EMHE program must use the grant
period to create, or review and update,
and sign, a memorandum of agreement
(MOA) with each of the following four
partners: local or State emergency
management coordinating body, local
government, primary off-campus public
health provider, and primary offcampus mental health services provider.
Each applicant under the EMHE
program must include an assurance
with its application that the IHE will
establish these MOAs during the project
period. MOAs must be completed for
each campus to be served by the EMHE
project. Completed MOAs will be
requested at the end of the project
period with the Final Report
submission.
Coordination with State or Local
Homeland Security Plan: All emergency
management plans created or enhanced
using funding under this program must
be coordinated with the Homeland
Security Plan of the State or locality in
which the IHE is located. To ensure that
emergency services are coordinated, and
to avoid duplication of effort within
States and localities, an applicant must
include in its application an assurance
that the IHE will coordinate with, and
follow, the requirements of its State or
local Homeland Security Plan for
emergency services and initiatives.
Implementation of the National
Incident Management System (NIMS):
Each applicant must agree to implement
its grant in a manner consistent with the
implementation of the NIMS in its
community. An applicant must include
in its application an assurance that it
has met, or will complete, all current
NIMS requirements by the end of the
grant period.
Implementation of the NIMS is a
dynamic process that will continue to
evolve over time. In order to receive
Federal preparedness funding under the
EMHE program, each IHE must
cooperate with the efforts of its
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:46 Mar 31, 2010
Jkt 220001
community to meet the minimum NIMS
requirements established for each fiscal
year. Because the Department of
Homeland Security’s (DHS)
determination of NIMS requirements
may change from year to year, an
applicant must refer to the most recent
list of NIMS requirements published by
DHS when submitting its application. In
any notice inviting applications, the
Department will provide applicants
with information necessary to access the
most recent DHS list of NIMS
requirements.
Note: The responsibilities and procedures
of any campus-based security office or law
enforcement agency and the elements of the
campus emergency management plan must
be considered in conjunction with the local
community’s emergency operations plan
(EOP) and the capacity and responsibility of
local fire and rescue departments, emergency
medical service providers, crisis center/
hotlines, and law enforcement agencies that
may be called to assist the IHE in a largescale disaster. IHEs’ participation in the
NIMS preparedness program of the local
government is essential in ensuring that firstresponder services are delivered in a timely
and effective manner. Additional information
about NIMS and NIMS implementation is
available at: https://www.fema.gov/
emergency/nims/
ImplementationGuidanceStakeholders.shtm
and https://www.fema.gov/emergency/nims/
index.shtm.
IHEs that have previously received
Federal preparedness funding and are,
therefore, already NIMS-compliant
should indicate that in the assurance
form.
Eligibility: To be considered for an
award under this competition, an
applicant must be considered an IHE, or
a consortia thereof. An IHE, for the
purposes of this competition, is defined
as: an educational institution in any
State that—
(1) Admits as regular students only
persons having a certificate of
graduation from a school providing
secondary education, or the recognized
equivalent of such a certificate or
persons who meet the requirements of
section 484(d)(3) of the Higher
Education Act of 1965, as amended;
(2) Is legally authorized within such
State to provide a program of education
beyond secondary education;
(3) Provides an educational program
for which the institution awards a
bachelor’s degree or provides not less
than a 2-year program that is acceptable
for full credit toward such a degree or
awards a degree that is acceptable for
admission to a graduate or professional
degree program, subject to review and
approval by the Secretary;
(4) Is a public or other nonprofit
institution; and
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
(5) Is accredited by a nationally
recognized accrediting agency or
association or, if not so accredited, is an
institution that has been granted
preaccreditation status by such an
agency or association that has been
recognized by the Secretary for the
granting of preaccreditation status, and
the Secretary has determined that there
is satisfactory assurance that the
institution will meet the accreditation
standards of such an agency or
association within a reasonable time.
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 and
requirements, 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 final
regulatory action.
The potential costs associated with
this final 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 final regulatory
action, we have determined that the
benefits of the final priorities and
requirements justify the costs.
We have determined, also, that this
final regulatory action does not unduly
interfere with State, local, and tribal
governments in the exercise of their
governmental functions.
Discussion of Costs and Benefits:
We fully discussed the costs and
benefits of this regulatory action in the
notice of proposed priorities and
requirements. After review, we
determined that there will be no
substantial additional costs to the
grantee as a result of the addition of the
new priority element related to
continuity planning. An ultimate goal of
the EMHE program is to decrease the
resulting costs to IHEs in terms of lost
resources, facilities, time, and
causalities that may result from an
actual emergency and the new priority
element directly supports this goal.
Further, the costs to support this
activity may be included in an
applicant’s proposed EMHE budget.
Accordingly, the addition of this
element to this final priority is
determined to have no additional costs
to the grantees.
E:\FR\FM\01APN2.SGM
01APN2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 62 / Thursday, April 1, 2010 / Notices
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: https://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: https://www.gpoaccess.gov/nara/
index.html.
Dated: March 29, 2010.
Kevin Jennings,
Assistant Deputy Secretary for Safe and DrugFree Schools.
[FR Doc. 2010–7421 Filed 3–31–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools
Overview Information; Emergency
Management for Higher Education
Grant Program; Notice Inviting
Applications for New Awards for Fiscal
Year (FY) 2010
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES2
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance
(CFDA) Number: 84.184T.
Dates:
Applications Available: April 1, 2010.
Deadline for Transmittal of
Applications: May 12, 2010.
Deadline for Intergovernmental
Review: July 12, 2010.
Full Text of Announcement
I. Funding Opportunity Description
Purpose of Program: EMHE grants
support efforts by institutions of higher
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:46 Mar 31, 2010
Jkt 220001
education (IHEs) to develop, or review
and improve, and fully integrate,
campus-based all-hazards emergency
management planning efforts within the
framework of the four phases of
emergency management (PreventionMitigation, Preparedness, Response, and
Recovery).
Priorities: These priorities are from
the notice of final priorities and
requirements for this program,
published elsewhere in this issue of the
Federal Register.
Absolute Priorities: For FY 2010 and
any subsequent year in which we make
awards from the list of unfunded
applicants from this competition, these
priorities are absolute priorities. Under
34 CFR 75.105(c)(3) we consider only
applications that meet these priorities.
These priorities are:
Priority 1—Institutions of Higher
Education (IHE) Projects Designed To
Develop, or Review and Improve, and
Fully Integrate Campus-Based AllHazards Emergency Management
Planning Efforts.
Under this priority, we support IHE
projects designed to develop, or review
and improve, and fully integrate
campus-based all-hazards emergency
management planning efforts. A
program funded under this priority
must use the framework of the four
phases of emergency management
(Prevention-Mitigation, Preparedness,
Response, and Recovery) to:
(1) Develop, or review and improve,
and fully integrate a campus-wide allhazards emergency management plan
that takes into account threats that may
be unique to the campus;
(2) Train campus staff, faculty, and
students in emergency management
procedures;
(3) Coordinate with local and State
government emergency management
efforts;
(4) Ensure coordination of planning
and communication across all relevant
components, offices, and departments of
the campus;
(5) Develop a written plan with
emergency protocols that include the
medical, mental health, communication,
mobility, and emergency needs of
persons with disabilities, as well as for
those individuals with temporary
special needs or other unique needs
(including those arising from language
barriers or cultural differences);
(6) Develop or update a written plan
that prepares the campus for infectious
disease outbreaks with both short-term
implications for planning (e.g.,
outbreaks caused by methicillinresistant Staphylococcus aureus
(MRSA) or food-borne illnesses) and
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
16629
long-term implications for planning
(e.g., pandemic influenza);
(7) Develop or enhance a written plan
for preventing violence on campus by
assessing and addressing the mental
health needs of students, staff, and
faculty who may be at risk of causing
violence by harming themselves or
others; and
(8) Develop or update a written
campus-wide continuity of operations
plan that would enable the campus to
maintain and/or restore key educational,
business, and other essential functions
following an emergency.
Priority 2—Priority for Applicants That
Have Not Previously Received a Grant
Under The EMHE Program (CFDA
84.184T).
Under this priority we give priority to
applications from IHEs that have not
previously received a grant under this
program (CFDA number 84.184T). An
applicant that has received services
under this program directly, or as a
partner in a consortium application
under this program, would not meet this
priority. Under a consortium
application, all members of the IHE
consortium must meet this criterion in
order for the applicant to meet this
priority.
Final Requirements: These
requirements are from the notice of final
priorities and requirements published
elsewhere in this issue of the Federal
Register. The following requirements
apply to all applications submitted
under this competition:
1. Partner Agreements: To be
considered for a grant award, an
applicant must include in its
application two partner agreements.
One partner agreement must detail
coordination with, and participation of,
a representative of the appropriate level
of local or State government for the
locality in which the IHE to be served
by the project is located (for example,
the mayor, city manager, or county
executive). The second partner
agreement must detail coordination
with, and participation of, a
representative from a local or State
emergency management coordinating
body (for example, the head of the local
emergency planning council that would
be involved in coordinating a large-scale
emergency response effort in the
campus community). Both agreements
must include the name of the partner
organization, an indication of whether
the partner represents the local or State
government or the local or State
emergency management coordinating
body, and a description of the respective
partner as well as a description of the
partner’s roles and responsibilities in
supporting the EMHE grant and in
E:\FR\FM\01APN2.SGM
01APN2
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 62 (Thursday, April 1, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16624-16629]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-7421]
[[Page 16623]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part III
Department of Education
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Emergency Management for Higher Education Grant Program; Notices
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 62 / Thursday, April 1, 2010 /
Notices
[[Page 16624]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Emergency Management for Higher Education Grant Program
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number: 84.184T.
AGENCY: Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools, Department of Education.
ACTION: Notice of final priorities and requirements.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Assistant Deputy Secretary for Safe and Drug-Free Schools
announces priorities and requirements for the Emergency Management for
Higher Education (EMHE) grant program. The Assistant Deputy Secretary
may use one or more of these priorities and requirements for
competitions in fiscal year (FY) 2010 and later years.
We intend these priorities and requirements to provide Federal
financial assistance to institutions of higher education (IHEs) to
develop, or review and improve, and fully integrate their campus-based
all-hazards emergency management planning efforts. We intend grant
awards under these priorities and requirements to increase the capacity
of IHEs to prevent/mitigate, prepare for, respond to, and recover from
the full range of emergency events.
DATES: Effective Date: These priorities and requirements are effective
May 3, 2010.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tara Hill, U.S. Department of
Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., room 10088, PCP, Washington, DC
20202-6450. Telephone: (202) 245-7860 or by e-mail: tara.hill@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:
Purpose of Program: EMHE grants support efforts by IHEs to develop,
or review and improve, and fully integrate campus-based all-hazards
emergency management planning efforts within the framework of the four
phases of emergency management (Prevention-Mitigation, Preparedness,
Response, and Recovery).
Congress appropriated initial funding for the EMHE grant
competition in FY 2008 following the tragic shooting at Virginia
Polytechnic Institute and State University in 2007. That and other past
emergencies, such as the events of September 11, 2001, Hurricanes
Katrina and Rita, and the tragic shooting at Northern Illinois
University, reinforce the need for colleges and universities to prepare
for the full range of emergency events that may affect their campus
communities. The EMHE grant program provides funds to IHEs to establish
or enhance an emergency management planning process that integrates the
various components and departments of each IHE; focuses on reviewing,
strengthening, and institutionalizing all-hazards emergency management
plans; fosters partnerships with local and State community partners;
supports vulnerability assessments; encourages training and drilling on
the emergency management plan across the campus community; and requires
IHEs to develop a written plan for preventing violence on campus by
assessing and addressing the mental health needs of students, faculty,
and staff who may be at risk of causing campus violence by harming
themselves or others.
Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 7131.
We published a notice of proposed priorities and requirements in
the Federal Register on December 4, 2009 (74 FR 63740). That notice
contained background information and our reasons for proposing the
particular priorities and requirements.
Except for minor editorial and technical revisions, there is only
one significant difference between the proposed priorities and
requirements and these final priorities and requirements. Specifically,
based on public comment, we have added an element to the priority that
will require applicants to develop or update a written campus-wide
continuity of operations plan that would enable the campus to maintain
and/or restore key educational, business, and other essential functions
following an emergency.
Public Comment: In response to our invitation in the notice of
proposed priorities and requirements, four parties submitted comments
on proposed priority 1 and on the proposed requirements. No comments
were received on proposed priority 2.
Generally, we do not address technical and other minor changes, or
suggested changes we are not authorized to make under the applicable
statutory authority. In addition we do not address general comments
that raised concerns not directly related to the proposed priorities or
requirements.
Analysis of Comments and Changes: An analysis of the comments and
of any changes in the priorities and requirements since publication of
the notice of proposed priorities and requirements follows.
Priority 1--Institutions of Higher Education (IHE) Projects Designed to
Develop, or Review and Improve, and Fully Integrate Campus-Based All-
Hazards Emergency Management Planning Efforts
Comment: One commenter observed that the EMHE notice of proposed
priorities and requirements was published in the Federal Register in
advance of the enactment of the FY 2010 appropriation for the
Department. The commenter referenced language in the Appropriations
Committee Reports filed in the U.S. House of Representatives and the
U.S. Senate concerning the funding provided for emergency management
for institutions of higher education, including examples of activities
(such as risk assessment, training, and the purchase of hardware and
software) that might be funded with these appropriated funds. The
commenter requested that the Department consider the language in these
Congressional reports in establishing the final priorities and
requirements for this competition.
Discussion: We have reviewed the language in the Conference Report
accompanying the Department's 2010 appropriations act, as well as the
language included in the related House and Senate Appropriations
Committee reports (House Report 111-220 and Senate Report 111-66,
accompanying H.R. 3293, respectively). We believe that the EMHE grant
priorities and requirements are consistent with the guidance provided
by both the House and the Senate in these documents. Activities such as
risk assessments, training, and the purchase of hardware and software
are all considered allowable activities under the EMHE program.
Accordingly, we believe that the final priorities and requirements are
consistent with Congressional guidance, while offering applicants the
flexibility to design and propose projects that incorporate a wide
range of activities to address their institutions' needs.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter expressed concern that the proposed priority
would not permit applicants to receive support for addressing any
violent activity occurring on campuses. The commenter recommended
adding a priority that would broaden the scope of the program to
address any risks and threats that come under the jurisdiction of
campus law enforcement and emergency managers, and that the program
provide support for training and activities designed to address a broad
range of campus problems including sexual assault, arson, robbery,
harassment, simple assault, binge drinking, and drug use.
[[Page 16625]]
Discussion: We agree with the commenter that IHEs face significant
challenges in dealing with many forms of violent activity that occur on
their campuses. However, the EMHE grant program is designed to provide
support for initiatives in emergency preparedness for IHEs, and is not
intended to address or prevent all discrete acts of violence.
Mitigating violent activity may certainly be an outcome of an all-
hazards approach to emergency management; however, the primary focus of
EMHE is to assist campuses with planning for, responding to, and
recovering from major emergencies and disasters.
Given the relatively small amount of available funding for this
program and the limited number of grants awarded under the EMHE program
to date, providing a significantly broader focus for the program at
this time would significantly reduce the ability of the program to meet
its primary purpose of assisting IHEs in developing or enhancing their
emergency preparedness capacity.
We note that the Department also administers another discretionary
grant competition that is intended to respond more directly to the
concerns of violent behavior on campus. Specifically, the Grant
Competition to Prevent High-Risk Drinking or Violent Behavior Among
College Students (CFDA Number 84.184H) provides funds to develop,
enhance, implement, and evaluate campus-based and/or community-based
prevention strategies to reduce high-risk drinking or violent behavior
among college students. For additional information on this program
please visit: https://www2.ed.gov/programs/dvphighrisk/.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter noted that element (7) in the proposed
priority identifies students, faculty, and staff as individuals who
pose a risk of violent behavior, but that others, including visitors to
campus, also pose such a risk. The commenter suggested adding a
priority addressing violence that is not related to mental health
issues of on-campus individuals.
Discussion: We acknowledge that violent acts can be caused by any
number of different factors in addition to mental illness or other
mental health issues. However, House Report 110-231, issued on July 13,
2007, in conjunction with the FY 2008 appropriations bill for the
Department that initially included funding for the EMHE program,
explicitly stated that funds for new awards for IHEs should be used to
develop and implement emergency management plans for preventing campus
violence (including assessing and addressing the mental health needs of
students) and for responding to threats and incidents of violence or
natural disaster in a manner that ensures the safety of the campus
community. The language in the proposed priority is not intended to
limit the ability of campuses to consider a broader range of causes of
violent behavior; rather, we intend it to ensure that, at a minimum,
all EMHE grant recipients consider the potential role of mental health
issues in campus violence. The language in the priority links the issue
of identifying and addressing mental health issues with students,
staff, and faculty because there are members of a campus community who
may be able to observe warning signs and symptoms of mental health
issues in these populations and use systems established by the IHE to
initiate assessments or other appropriate procedures. IHEs cannot be
expected to develop and maintain similarly comprehensive procedures for
all short-term visitors to the campus setting.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter requested that funding under this program be
available to establish a police agency on campus.
Discussion: While we recognize that many IHEs need to establish or
support police or security forces on their campuses, we believe that
this activity is outside the scope of this grant program. This program
is designed to provide support for emergency management and overall
preparedness initiatives for IHEs.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter suggested that rather than requiring
applicants to respond to a prescriptive list of priorities and
requirements, the Department should allow applicants to submit
applications that propose individual approaches consistent with their
institution's unique needs and emergency management challenges. In
particular, the commenter recommended that the language related to
infectious disease planning (proposed priority element number (6)) and
mental health needs of campuses (proposed priority element number (7))
be modified to allow institutions to propose individual solutions based
on differing institutional needs and capacities.
Discussion: We agree with the commenter that applicants should have
the flexibility to design EMHE projects that respond to the unique
needs of each campus. We believe the priorities are written in a way
that will provide applicants with a significant amount of flexibility
in identifying and addressing specific vulnerabilities and hazards that
may be unique to each institution.
However, in administering this program, we seek to balance this
needed flexibility with the need to ensure that IHEs receiving support
under the program are addressing at least a core set of hazards that we
have identified as important to the Federal interest. The core list of
hazards includes those related to infectious diseases and the mental
health needs of students, staff, and faculty who may be at risk of
causing violence on campus.
Under this priority, IHEs still retain the flexibility to identify
and address any unique emergency management issues or hazards
identified as part of their vulnerability assessment. Further,
eligibility for an EMHE grant is not affected for IHEs that have
already addressed the required hazards or vulnerabilities identified by
the Department before receiving a grant. Those entities need only
commit to review emergency management plans for these required
vulnerabilities during the grant period and to updating those plans as
dictated by any relevant advances in the field or changes in local
needs or concerns.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter suggested that we revisit our method for
categorizing applicant institutions based on size. The commenter
suggested that the categories used in the 2008 EMHE application enabled
many relatively small institutions to be included in the ``large''
category, thereby enabling ``small'' institutions to request the same
estimated funding level the Department identified for ``large''
institutions. The commenter recommended that additional funding tiers
be established and that a specific category for very large institutions
be created.
Discussion: We agree that changing the method for categorizing
institutions by size would help to better align recommended funding
amounts with institutional needs. We considered this comment, and our
experience in implementing this program over the past two years, and
for the FY 2010 competition we will change the method for establishing
recommended grant award amounts. The new approach relies on student
enrollment information (instead of number of facilities per campus) and
establishes a category for very large institutions.
Because IHEs are diverse entities that face a broad range of
different challenges in the emergency management arena, we have elected
not to establish through this notice of final priorities and
requirements enforceable
[[Page 16626]]
maximum grant award amounts for categories of IHEs. Instead, we are
including revised recommended grant award amounts in the notice
inviting applications (NIA) for the EMHE program. We believe that this
approach will provide appropriate flexibility for IHEs to develop
projects that are of a scope that meets their unique emergency
management needs while still providing helpful information for
applicants about the approximate project scope and grant award sizes
that we anticipate supporting.
Changes: No changes are being made to the final priorities and
requirements. The change in the categorization of institutions
described in the preceding paragraphs is reflected in the notice
inviting applications for this competition, published elsewhere in this
issue of the Federal Register.
Comment: One commenter recommended two changes to the proposed
priority that would further emphasize the importance of continuity
planning and the restoration of a learning environment following an
emergency. The commenter requested that language be added to both
proposed priority elements (1) and (4) to specifically emphasize the
importance of continuity planning.
Discussion: We agree that ensuring that institutions have a plan
for continuing to provide key services (for example education, payroll,
health support, and food services) following an emergency is a critical
concern for the higher education community. The Department has worked
with local school districts and IHE campuses over the past several
years to help them strategize on ways to restore the learning
environment following an emergency. Particularly following Hurricanes
Katrina and Rita, and given the recent influenza pandemic, we have been
actively involved in developing resources to assist educational
institutions at all levels in their continuity planning efforts.
We agree with the commenter that planning for the continuation of
educational and other services following an emergency should be
included as a component in an IHE's emergency management planning
efforts, and will revise the priority to reflect this emphasis.
Changes: We have revised the priority by adding an additional
element that will require applicants to develop or update a written
campus-wide continuity of operations plan that would enable the campus
to maintain and/or restore key educational, business, and other
essential functions as quickly as possible following an emergency.
Requirements for Partner Agreements and Completed Memoranda of
Agreements
Comment: One commenter observed that the capacity of law
enforcement and mental health entities varies greatly from one
community and one institution to another. For example, in one community
the IHE law enforcement agency may be the primary emergency services
provider for the community-at-large, whereas in another community the
IHE may be largely or completely dependent on the local or State police
departments for emergency services. The commenter observed that it may
not always be appropriate for an IHE to have a partner agreement with
the local law enforcement agency or a local mental health provider,
particularly when the campus itself is the primary provider of
emergency law enforcement or mental health services. The commenter
recommended that an IHE not be required to enter into agreements with
community-based law enforcement and mental health entities if the IHE
is responsible for furnishing its own services in these areas.
Discussion: We agree with the commenter that there is tremendous
diversity in the size and location of IHEs across the country and that
IHEs have various levels of institutional capacity to respond to
emergencies within their communities. We also acknowledge that in some
situations it is an employee or agent of the IHE who is the lead
incident commander and who ultimately assists local or State partners
in their response activities.
The EMHE requirements are not intended to prescribe what the
appropriate role and relationships should be between an IHE and its
community partners. Instead, the requirements are designed to help
foster communication and the establishment of relationships between the
various potential responders to any incident, and to ensure that those
relationships are established and solidified before any emergency event
occurs. We expect that the roles and responsibilities articulated in
both the partner agreements and the memoranda of agreements will vary
greatly based on the relationship between each applicant IHE and its
surrounding community. Our intent in proposing the requirement is to
ensure that IHEs and their surrounding community partners are
communicating with each other and coordinating their efforts, and not
to prescribe what those efforts or relationships should entail.
Further, the requirements to establish partner agreements and
memoranda of understanding are not intended to limit the roles an IHE
may perform in a community response. Rather, the requirements are
intended to ensure that all grantees ultimately establish solid working
relationships with their key partners and that they know what the
various roles and responsibilities of each partner (including the IHE)
might be in the event of an emergency. An application from a campus
where the applicant IHE serves as the primary emergency services
provider for the local community should indicate that in its partner
agreements. It is the demonstration and documentation of an established
and ongoing relationship that is key to these requirements.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter identified the recovery of indirect costs
from EMHE grants as a concern because these costs do not support direct
project activities. The commenter also expressed concern that peer
reviewers might find indirect cost rates for research institutions
inappropriately high, which may have limited the number of research
institutions that have been successful in receiving EMHE grants. The
commenter suggested that we should include a requirement that would
limit the percentage of indirect costs that may be recovered from an
EMHE grant.
Discussion: Generally, the Federal Government permits grant
recipients to recover indirect costs for costs associated with their
federally funded grant projects. This recovery is typically based on a
rate determined by a cognizant agency that takes into account the
indirect costs involved in implementing grant activities. Costs in an
indirect cost pool may include such items as utility costs, building
maintenance services, general insurance costs, and the cost of staff
who assist with administrative functions such as hiring, payroll
services, or other similar activities. The indirect cost rate is
determined through a process of negotiation with the institution's
cognizant agency and is designed to be an accurate reflection of the
actual indirect costs associated with conducting programming at that
institution. IHEs frequently are assigned several indirect cost rates
as a result of the negotiation process; these rates reflect differences
in indirect costs associated with different kinds of project
activities. For example, IHEs may be assigned a rate for research
grants, a rate for grants implemented at a facility other than a campus
facility (for example, at a hospital or research laboratory), or a rate
for other sponsored projects.
[[Page 16627]]
While recovery of indirect costs reduces the amount of funding that
can be used to support direct grant activities, establishing a cap on
indirect cost recovery that is lower than that permitted by an IHE's
negotiated rate means that the IHE will need to identify other grant or
institutional resources to help pay for the indirect costs consumed by
implementing an EMHE project. Establishing an arbitrary cap for
indirect costs could affect an IHE's ability to implement its EMHE
project if the IHE does not have institutional or other resources to
pay these indirect costs, and may make it impossible for some IHEs to
compete for or accept an EMHE grant.
Because EMHE projects are not research projects, we do not permit
EMHE grantees to recover indirect costs at the higher established
research project rate. Typically, applicants for the EMHE program
request recovery of costs based on the indirect cost rate for other on-
campus programs, or other sponsored programs, at their IHE.
The issue of indirect costs is not an issue that peer reviewers
evaluate when they read and score an application. The selection
criteria used for the EMHE competition do not include any criteria that
require peer reviewers to evaluate the adequacy or reasonableness of
the grant budget proposed by the applicant.
Changes: None.
Final Priorities:
These priorities are:
Priority 1--Institutions of Higher Education (IHE) Projects Designed to
Develop, or Review and Improve, and Fully Integrate Campus-Based All-
Hazards Emergency Management Planning Efforts
The Assistant Deputy Secretary for Safe and Drug-Free Schools
establishes a priority that supports IHE projects designed to develop,
or review and improve, and fully integrate campus-based all-hazards
emergency management planning efforts. A program funded under this
priority must use the framework of the four phases of emergency
management (Prevention-Mitigation, Preparedness, Response, and
Recovery) to:
(1) Develop, or review and improve, and fully integrate a campus-
wide all-hazards emergency management plan that takes into account
threats that may be unique to the campus;
(2) Train campus staff, faculty, and students in emergency
management procedures;
(3) Coordinate with local and State government emergency management
efforts;
(4) Ensure coordination of planning and communication across all
relevant components, offices, and departments of the campus;
(5) Develop a written plan with emergency protocols that include
the medical, mental health, communication, mobility, and emergency
needs of persons with disabilities, as well as for those individuals
with temporary special needs or other unique needs (including those
arising from language barriers or cultural differences);
(6) Develop or update a written plan that prepares the campus for
infectious disease outbreaks with both short-term implications for
planning (e.g., outbreaks caused by methicillin-resistant
Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) or food-borne illnesses) and long-term
implications for planning (e.g., pandemic influenza);
(7) Develop or enhance a written plan for preventing violence on
campus by assessing and addressing the mental health needs of students,
staff, and faculty who may be at risk of causing violence by harming
themselves or others; and
(8) Develop or update a written campus-wide continuity of
operations plan that would enable the campus to maintain and/or restore
key educational, business, and other essential functions following an
emergency.
Priority 2--Priority for Applicants That Have Not Previously Received a
Grant Under The EMHE Program (CFDA Number 84.184T)
Under this priority we give priority to applications from IHEs that
have not previously received a grant under this program (CFDA Number
84.184T). An applicant that has received services under this program
directly, or as a partner in a consortium application under this
program, would not meet this priority. Under a consortium application,
all members of the IHE consortium must meet this criterion in order for
the applicant to meet this priority.
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)).
Final Requirements:
Partner Agreements: To be considered for a grant award, an
applicant must include in its application two partner agreements. One
partner agreement must detail coordination with, and participation of,
a representative of the appropriate level of local or State government
for the locality in which the IHE to be served by the project is
located (for example, the mayor, city manager, or county executive).
The second partner agreement must detail coordination with, and
participation of, a representative from a local or State emergency
management coordinating body (for example, the head of the local
emergency planning council that would be involved in coordinating a
large-scale emergency response effort in the campus community). Both
agreements must include the name of the partner organization, an
indication of whether the partner represents the local or State
government or the local or State emergency management coordinating
body, and a description of the respective partner as well as a
description of the partner's roles and responsibilities in supporting
the EMHE grant and in strengthening emergency management planning
efforts for the IHE. Each partner agreement must also include a
description of the roles and responsibilities of the IHE in grant
implementation and partner coordination. A signature from an authorized
representative of the IHE and each of the two required partners
acknowledging the relationship and the agreements must be included in
the application. If either or both of the two required partners is not
present in an applicant's community, or cannot feasibly participate,
the agreements must explain the absence of each missing partner.
Applications that fail to include either of the two required
partner agreement forms, including information on partners' roles and
responsibilities (or an explanation documenting that partner's absence
in the community), along with the required signatures, will not be
considered for funding.
Each consortium applicant (an applicant submitting on behalf of
[[Page 16628]]
multiple IHEs) and any applicant applying on behalf of multiple
campuses (including one or more satellite or extension campuses within
its own institution or its consortium of IHEs) must submit a complete
set of partner agreements with appropriate signatures from the
authorized representative and the two required partners noted earlier
for each campus proposed to be receiving services under its EMHE
project.
Although this program requires partnerships with other parties,
administrative direction and fiscal control for the project must remain
with the IHE.
Completed Memoranda of Agreements: All IHEs supported by the EMHE
program must use the grant period to create, or review and update, and
sign, a memorandum of agreement (MOA) with each of the following four
partners: local or State emergency management coordinating body, local
government, primary off-campus public health provider, and primary off-
campus mental health services provider. Each applicant under the EMHE
program must include an assurance with its application that the IHE
will establish these MOAs during the project period. MOAs must be
completed for each campus to be served by the EMHE project. Completed
MOAs will be requested at the end of the project period with the Final
Report submission.
Coordination with State or Local Homeland Security Plan: All
emergency management plans created or enhanced using funding under this
program must be coordinated with the Homeland Security Plan of the
State or locality in which the IHE is located. To ensure that emergency
services are coordinated, and to avoid duplication of effort within
States and localities, an applicant must include in its application an
assurance that the IHE will coordinate with, and follow, the
requirements of its State or local Homeland Security Plan for emergency
services and initiatives.
Implementation of the National Incident Management System (NIMS):
Each applicant must agree to implement its grant in a manner consistent
with the implementation of the NIMS in its community. An applicant must
include in its application an assurance that it has met, or will
complete, all current NIMS requirements by the end of the grant period.
Implementation of the NIMS is a dynamic process that will continue
to evolve over time. In order to receive Federal preparedness funding
under the EMHE program, each IHE must cooperate with the efforts of its
community to meet the minimum NIMS requirements established for each
fiscal year. Because the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS)
determination of NIMS requirements may change from year to year, an
applicant must refer to the most recent list of NIMS requirements
published by DHS when submitting its application. In any notice
inviting applications, the Department will provide applicants with
information necessary to access the most recent DHS list of NIMS
requirements.
Note: The responsibilities and procedures of any campus-based
security office or law enforcement agency and the elements of the
campus emergency management plan must be considered in conjunction
with the local community's emergency operations plan (EOP) and the
capacity and responsibility of local fire and rescue departments,
emergency medical service providers, crisis center/hotlines, and law
enforcement agencies that may be called to assist the IHE in a
large-scale disaster. IHEs' participation in the NIMS preparedness
program of the local government is essential in ensuring that first-
responder services are delivered in a timely and effective manner.
Additional information about NIMS and NIMS implementation is
available at: https://www.fema.gov/emergency/nims/ImplementationGuidanceStakeholders.shtm and https://www.fema.gov/emergency/nims/index.shtm.
IHEs that have previously received Federal preparedness funding and
are, therefore, already NIMS-compliant should indicate that in the
assurance form.
Eligibility: To be considered for an award under this competition,
an applicant must be considered an IHE, or a consortia thereof. An IHE,
for the purposes of this competition, is defined as: an educational
institution in any State that--
(1) Admits as regular students only persons having a certificate of
graduation from a school providing secondary education, or the
recognized equivalent of such a certificate or persons who meet the
requirements of section 484(d)(3) of the Higher Education Act of 1965,
as amended;
(2) Is legally authorized within such State to provide a program of
education beyond secondary education;
(3) Provides an educational program for which the institution
awards a bachelor's degree or provides not less than a 2-year program
that is acceptable for full credit toward such a degree or awards a
degree that is acceptable for admission to a graduate or professional
degree program, subject to review and approval by the Secretary;
(4) Is a public or other nonprofit institution; and
(5) Is accredited by a nationally recognized accrediting agency or
association or, if not so accredited, is an institution that has been
granted preaccreditation status by such an agency or association that
has been recognized by the Secretary for the granting of
preaccreditation status, and the Secretary has determined that there is
satisfactory assurance that the institution will meet the accreditation
standards of such an agency or association within a reasonable time.
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 and
requirements, 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 final regulatory
action.
The potential costs associated with this final 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 final regulatory action, we have
determined that the benefits of the final priorities and requirements
justify the costs.
We have determined, also, that this final regulatory action does
not unduly interfere with State, local, and tribal governments in the
exercise of their governmental functions.
Discussion of Costs and Benefits:
We fully discussed the costs and benefits of this regulatory action
in the notice of proposed priorities and requirements. After review, we
determined that there will be no substantial additional costs to the
grantee as a result of the addition of the new priority element related
to continuity planning. An ultimate goal of the EMHE program is to
decrease the resulting costs to IHEs in terms of lost resources,
facilities, time, and causalities that may result from an actual
emergency and the new priority element directly supports this goal.
Further, the costs to support this activity may be included in an
applicant's proposed EMHE budget. Accordingly, the addition of this
element to this final priority is determined to have no additional
costs to the grantees.
[[Page 16629]]
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: https://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: https://www.gpoaccess.gov/nara/.
Dated: March 29, 2010.
Kevin Jennings,
Assistant Deputy Secretary for Safe and Drug-Free Schools.
[FR Doc. 2010-7421 Filed 3-31-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P