Final Priorities, Requirements, and Definitions-Mental Health Service Professional Demonstration Grant Program, 60083-60092 [2022-21633]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 191 (Tuesday, October 4, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 60083-60092]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-21633]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

34 CFR Chapter II

[Docket ID ED-2022-OESE-0094]


Final Priorities, Requirements, and Definitions--Mental Health 
Service Professional Demonstration Grant Program

AGENCY: Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, Department of 
Education.

ACTION: Final priorities, requirements, and definitions.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Department of Education (Department) announces final 
priorities, requirements, and definitions under the Mental Health 
Service Professional Demonstration Grant Program (MHSP), Assistance 
Listing Number 84.184X. We may use one or more of these priorities, 
requirements, and definitions for competitions in fiscal year (FY) 2022 
and later years. These final priorities, requirements, and definitions 
are designed to allow the Department to provide competitive grants to 
support and demonstrate innovative partnerships between one or more 
high need local educational agencies (LEAs) (as defined in this 
notice,) or a State educational agency (SEA) on behalf of one or more 
high-need LEAs, and an eligible Institution of Higher Education 
(eligible IHEs) (as defined in this notice) to train school-based 
mental health services providers (services providers) for employment in 
schools and local educational agencies (LEAs). The goal of the program 
is to increase the number and diversity of high-quality, trained 
providers available to address the shortages of mental health services 
professionals in schools served by high-need LEAs.

DATES: These priorities, requirements, and definitions are effective 
November 3, 2022.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tawanda Avery, U.S. Department of 
Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Room 3E357, Washington, DC 20202. 
Telephone: (202) 987-1782. Email: [email protected].
    If you are deaf, hard of hearing, or have a speech disability and 
wish to access telecommunications relay services, please dial 7-1-1.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Executive Summary

    Purpose of This Regulatory Action: As defined by the Centers for 
Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), ``Mental health includes our 
emotional, psychological, and social well-being. It affects how we 
think, feel, and act. It also helps determine how we handle stress, 
relate to others, and make healthy choices. Mental health is important 
at every stage of life, from childhood and adolescence through 
adulthood.'' \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. www.cdc.gov/mentalhealth/learn/index.htm. Accessed on September 17, 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Support for the mental health of children and youth advances 
educational opportunities by creating conditions where students can 
fully engage in learning. The Novel Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) 
pandemic presented additional challenges to the well-being of children 
and youth. The disruption to routines, relationships, and the learning 
environment for many has led to increased stress and trauma, social 
isolation, and anxiety that can have both immediate and long-term 
adverse impacts on the physical, social, emotional, and academic well-
being of children and youth.
    These final priorities, requirements, and definitions aim to 
address these challenges by increasing the number of school-based 
mental health services providers in high-need LEAs, increasing the 
number of services providers from diverse backgrounds or from the 
communities they serve, and ensuring that all services providers are 
trained in inclusive practices, including supporting services providers 
in ensuring access to services for children and youth who are English 
learners.
    Summary of the Major Provisions of This Regulatory Action: Through 
this regulatory action, we establish four priorities, program and 
application requirements, and definitions. You may find further details 
on these provisions in the Final Priorities, Final

[[Page 60084]]

Requirements and Final Definitions sections of this notice.
    Costs and Benefits: The final priorities, requirements, and 
definitions will impose minimal costs on entities that seek assistance 
through the MHSP program. Application submissions and participation in 
this program are voluntary. The Secretary believes that the costs 
imposed on applicants by the final priorities are limited to paperwork 
burden related to preparing an application for an MHSP grant 
competition that uses one or more of the final priorities. Because the 
costs of carrying out activities will be paid for with program funds, 
the costs of implementation will not be a burden for any eligible 
applicants, including small entities. We believe that the benefits of 
this regulatory action outweigh any associated costs because it will 
result in the submission of a greater number of high-quality 
discretionary grant applications likely to result in the achievement of 
program objectives.
    Purpose of Program: The MHSP program provides competitive grants to 
support and demonstrate innovative partnerships to train school-based 
mental health services providers (as defined in section 4102 of the 
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended (ESEA)) for 
employment in schools and LEAs. The goal of this program is to increase 
the number and diversity of high-quality, trained providers to address 
the shortages of mental health services professionals in schools served 
by high-need LEAs. The partnerships must include (1) one or more high-
need LEAs or a State educational agency (SEA) on behalf of one or more 
high-need LEAs and (2) one or more eligible IHEs. Partnerships must 
provide opportunities to place postsecondary education graduate 
students in school-based mental health fields into high-need schools 
served by the participating high-need LEAs to complete required field 
work, credit hours, internships, or related training necessary to 
complete their degree or obtain a credential as a school-based mental 
health services provider. In addition to the placement of graduate 
students, grantees may also use these funds to develop mental health 
career pathways as early as secondary school, through career and 
technical education opportunities, or through paraprofessional support 
degree programs at local community or technical colleges.
    Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 7281.
    We published a notice of proposed priorities, requirements, and 
definitions (NPP) in the Federal Register on August 2, 2022 (87 FR 
47159). The NPP contained background information and our reasons for 
proposing the priorities, requirements, and definitions. As discussed 
in the Analysis of Comments and Changes section, we made substantive 
changes to Priorities 1-3, we added a fourth priority, and we made both 
substantive and editorial changes to the application requirements and 
definitions.
    Public Comment: In response to our invitation in the NPP, 12 
parties submitted comments that, in total, addressed all of the 
proposed priorities, requirements, and definitions. One comment was not 
relevant to the proposed priorities, requirements, or definitions and 
is not included in the discussions below. We do not address general 
comments that raise concerns not directly related to the proposed 
priorities, requirements, or definitions. Generally, we do not address 
technical and other minor changes, or suggested changes that the law 
does not authorize us to make under the applicable statutory authority. 
However, we made a change to clarify a technical error in the NPP where 
we used two different terms in two definitions that are intended to be 
linked. Specifically, we are replacing ``low-income families'' with 
``low-income backgrounds'' in the definition of ``high-need LEA.'' This 
change provides consistency with the use of the term ``low-income 
backgrounds'' in the definitions of ``high-need school'' and 
``students/children from low-income backgrounds.''
    Analysis of Comments and Changes: An analysis of the comments and 
of any changes in the proposed priorities, requirements, and 
definitions follows.

General Comments

    Comment: Many commenters expressed general support for the program.
    Discussion: We appreciate this support and the efforts commenters 
made to submit comments.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: Three commenters provided general comments. One commenter, 
a current grantee, described current grant work, asked for an extension 
to the grant period, and suggested informing applicants during the 
application process about the performance measures we would expect 
grantees to meet under the program. Another commenter asked if LEAs 
could apply for a grant under this program as well as under the School-
Based Mental Health Services (SBMH) Grant Program. A third commenter 
asked that we allow grantees to use funds to support the expansion of a 
young adult peer recovery support workforce and to include peer support 
providers and recovery specialists.
    Discussion: The Department appreciates hearing about current 
grantee successes. Extension requests should be discussed with the 
Federal project officer. Additionally, the Department will publish the 
performance measures for the MHSP program in the notice inviting 
applications for any competition.
    LEAs may apply to both the MHSP and SBMH competitions so long as 
they are considered an ``eligible applicant'' and meet all requirements 
described in the application requirements, and the projects (e.g., 
activities and participants) are distinct from one another.
    The Department agrees with the need for a variety of support 
services and the value of peer support providers. To the extent the 
young adult peer recovery support providers are postsecondary education 
graduate students in school-based mental health fields, the school-
based mental health services partnership can place these individuals 
into high-need schools served by the participating high-need LEAs to 
complete required field work, credit hours, internships, or related 
training necessary to complete their degree or credential as a school-
based mental health services provider.
    Changes: None.

Priorities

    Comment: There were several general comments of support for the 
priorities. In addition, one commenter asked if funds could be used to 
support tuition and other fees for students. Another commenter 
suggested adding evidence-based approaches related to trauma-informed 
care and learner-centered approaches. This same commenter suggested 
adding the ability to partner with nonprofit organizations. Three 
commenters suggested adding the following new priorities: a new 
priority to increase the capacity of current personnel through training 
focused on attending to mental health needs; prioritizing services to 
underserved students and students with disabilities; and requiring LEAs 
or SEAs to prioritize Historically Black Colleges and Universities 
(HBCUs), Minority-Serving Institutions (MSIs), and Tribal Colleges and 
Universities (TCUs) when establishing partnerships.
    Discussion: The Department appreciates the comment about support 
services. Support services including tuition, paid internships, 
transportation, childcare, and other costs necessary to carry out grant 
activities, such as background check fees, can be

[[Page 60085]]

supported and are encouraged under these grants, especially to support 
individuals from low-income backgrounds who are pursuing careers as 
school-based mental health services providers.
    We do not think it is necessary to prescribe specific practices, 
such as trauma-informed care and learner-centered approaches. We 
believe that applicants should propose the evidence-based strategies 
that they believe will best meet their training needs and accomplish 
the goals of their projects.
    The Department does not believe it is necessary to add language 
specific to nonprofit organizations. Nonprofit organizations are 
included under community agencies, which are included in application 
requirement (e)(2).
    In response to the suggestions for new priorities, the Department 
agrees that partnerships with HBCUs, MSIs, and TCUs would be beneficial 
to increasing credentialed services providers to serve in high-need 
LEAs and schools. We added a new priority for applicants that are 
either HBCUs, MSIs, or TCUs, or for LEA applicants that propose a 
partnership with these institutions.
    The Department does not think it is necessary to add a priority for 
services for underserved students and students with disabilities. This 
program focuses on increasing the number of credentialed school-based 
mental health services providers in high-need LEAs, which we believe 
already includes most underserved students given the indicators of 
poverty, small and rural schools, and student-to-provider ratios.
    Additionally, while the Department agrees with the importance of 
increasing the skills of all personnel to better address mental health 
needs, the focus of this program is to increase the number of 
credentialed services providers, not to provide general training to all 
personnel.
    Changes: We added a new priority for projects that will be 
implemented by or in partnership with HBCUs, MSIs, or TCUs to emphasize 
their role as valuable partners.
    Comment: One commenter recommended changes to Priority 1 to better 
align the priority with the stated purpose of the grant and the 
terminology used by SEAs and IHEs. The commenter also suggested 
conforming edits to application requirements (c) and (d) and the 
definition of ``eligible IHE.''
    Discussion: We agree with the recommended changes and added 
language to specify that graduate students must be in a school-based 
mental health services field. We also deleted the word ``license'' and 
revised the priority to specify that training, credit hours, field 
work, internships or related training must be in support of a degree or 
credential with the purpose of increasing the number of school-based 
mental health services providers.
    Changes: We revised Priority 1 to specify that we are referring to 
school-based mental health services fields of study, to delete 
``license,'' and to require that the training must be in support of a 
degree or credential with the purpose of increasing the number of 
school-based mental health services providers. We also made conforming 
edits to application requirements (c) and (d), and the definition of 
``eligible IHE.''
    Comment: One commenter suggested clarifying in Priority 2 that 
diversity is more than racial and ethnic diversity.
    Discussion: The Department agrees with the commenter; however, we 
believe applicants are best suited to determine what diversity is in 
the context of their proposed projects.
    Changes: We revised Priority 2 to include a parenthetical that 
describes the different aspects of diversity that could be considered.
    Comment: We received two comments on Priority 3. Both offered their 
support of the priority. One of the two also suggested adding the term 
``evidence-based'' as a descriptor to ``pedagogical practices'' and 
adding a definition of ``evidence-based.''
    Discussion: The Department agrees that this change strengthens the 
priority and will support higher quality projects.
    Changes: We revised Priority 3 and added reference to the 
definition of ``evidence-based'' in section 8101 of the ESEA.
    Comments: One comment suggested adding to Proposed Priority 3 a 
requirement for IHEs to detail how the existing graduate preparation 
program(s) prepares graduates to provide inclusive practices in the 
school setting.
    Discussion: We appreciate this comment and agree that this addition 
will clarify how applicants are expected to address the priority.
    Changes: We revised Priority 3 to state that applicants must 
provide a description of how their preparation program will prepare 
services providers to provide inclusive practices and to create 
culturally and linguistically inclusive and identity-safe environments 
for students.

Application Requirements

    Comment: Four commenters suggested adding new application 
requirements. One commenter suggested requiring a plan for periodic 
evaluation of effectiveness and improvement. A second commenter 
suggested requiring applicants to describe how school leaders will be 
included in providing feedback on implementation. Two other commenters 
recommended requiring applicants to submit disaggregated data for 
providers and students to determine the impact of the program. One of 
the two commenters specifically suggested data on diversity (racial, 
ethnic, and LGBTQ+ identity and linguistic diversity) of existing 
providers and how it compares with students.
    Discussion: The Department appreciates the commenters' desire to 
understand the performance of individual projects as well as the 
program overall. When inviting applications for this program, we will 
consider for each competition whether to add selection criteria that 
require applicants to describe their plan for project evaluation 
including performance feedback and periodic assessment of progress. In 
addition, the Department will work with successful applicants post-
award to develop and implement effective evaluation plans. The 
Department agrees that including the feedback of school leaders could 
enhance implementation efforts; however, we believe applicants should 
propose feedback loops that best meet the structure of the project, 
which may include school leaders, if appropriate. The Department agrees 
with the importance of disaggregating data to determine the impact of 
the program on disparities in access to mental health services but we 
do not think an application requirement is necessary. Rather, we 
encourage applicants to propose objectives that best represent the 
intended outcomes of the project (which may include data disaggregated 
by profession and student) for consideration by peer reviewers. 
Further, we are developing our evidence-building strategy, which will 
include considerations of equitable access to mental health services.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter requested the Department consider non-
graduate pathways to increase school-based mental health services 
providers in the application requirements.
    Discussion: Establishing non-graduate pathways is an allowable 
activity applicants can include in their applications. The Department 
encourages applicants to engage in activities such as grow your own 
programs that promote and recruit potential school-based mental health 
services providers into the profession as early as secondary school and 
support their interest and training to obtain a degree and State 
credential. However,

[[Page 60086]]

the goal of the program is to train graduate students in school-based 
mental health services fields and to place them in high-need LEAs. 
Therefore, non-graduate pathways activities must be in support of, and 
in addition to, the training and placement of graduate students 
required to meet the priority.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: The Department received three comments on application 
requirement (b). All three commenters suggested requiring additional 
data to more fully convey the nature and magnitude of the program. One 
commenter suggested requiring applicants to disaggregate ratios by 
students based on race, gender, disability, and other identifiers, as 
well as requiring at least one additional data set such as LEA-level or 
school-level demographic data, school climate data, or descriptions of 
barriers to hiring and retaining services providers. The second 
commenter suggested requiring the perspectives of school leaders in 
describing the nature and magnitude of the problem. The final commenter 
recommended requiring applicants to report on substance use and misuse 
data.
    Discussion: We appreciate these recommendations; however, we do not 
believe it is necessary to require applicants to disaggregate ratios or 
to include at least one of the other data sets listed in application 
requirement (b) as part of their application. Rather, we believe 
applicants, in addressing the application requirement and responding to 
the selection criteria, should include the data they think best 
describes the nature and magnitude of the problem, which may include 
the suggested data listed in requirement (b).
    Changes: None.
    Comment: Two commenters provided comments on application 
requirement (c). One commenter recommended adding a requirement to 
include school leaders in the plan for enhancing LEA capacity. The 
second commenter suggested including requirements for trauma-informed 
and whole learner practices.
    Discussion: The Department agrees with the importance and value of 
including school leader perspectives, and we encourage applicants to 
incorporate their voices as appropriate. We believe it is stronger to 
embed this engagement in the requirement for a memorandum of 
understanding (MOU), memorandum of agreement (MOA), or letter of 
agreement, as reflected in application requirement (d).
    The Department also appreciates the importance of training teachers 
in trauma-informed practices and strategies for supporting the whole 
learner. However, as stated previously, we encourage the applicant 
partnerships to determine what best meets their needs and we decline to 
prescribe specific approaches.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: Three commenters commented on application requirement (e). 
Two commenters suggested including additional collaboration partners. 
One of these commenters suggested nonprofit organizations and the other 
suggested the Department-funded Regional Education Laboratories (REL) 
and the Comprehensive Centers (CC). The second commenter also suggested 
requiring collaboration with the RELs and CCs to evaluate the 
effectiveness of these grants. The third commenter suggested broadening 
(e)(1) given the small number of local professional organizations 
available for collaboration. Additionally, this commenter questioned 
whether it is appropriate for applicants focused on training services 
providers to also collaborate with local mental health and other 
community agencies and requested clarification of the kinds of 
collaboration with these entities that would meet the purpose of the 
grant.
    Discussion: We appreciate these thoughtful comments. Section (e)(2) 
already references community organizations, which includes nonprofit 
organizations; therefore, we are not proposing any changes in response 
to this comment. Additionally, applicants are encouraged to collaborate 
with the RELs and CCs as well as other Federally-funded technical 
assistance centers in accordance with the language in (e)(2) as 
appropriate, however, we do not see a need to require this specific 
collaboration over others.
    The Department agrees with the suggestion to broaden the list of 
entities with which applicants can collaborate for the reasons stated 
by the commenter. We also think it is appropriate to make similar 
changes to section (e)(2) for the same reasons. However, we do not 
believe it is necessary to add language clarifying the kinds of 
collaboration. For application requirement (e), applicants must propose 
any one of four activities listed and are not required to coordinate 
specifically with local mental health or other community agencies. 
However, we are encouraging more field-based, practical training in 
these grants which may include knowledge of, and work with, community 
agencies.
    Changes: We broadened section (e)(1) to require that applicants 
coordinate with at least one national, State, or local professional 
organization. We also broadened (e)(2) to include national, State, or 
local.
    Comment: Two commenters suggested clarifying who is involved in the 
process of identifying students for mental health services under 
application requirement (f). One of the two commenters suggested 
requiring the perspectives and needs of school leaders as well as the 
engagement of parents and families. The other commenter recommended 
ensuring that only qualified professionals identify students for mental 
health services. This same commenter recommended requiring applicants 
to describe their process for ensuring that identified students are not 
excluded from schools and classrooms and the recourse students and 
families have if they disagree with the identification for services.
    One of the two commenters also expressed support for requiring 
applicants to describe how they will ensure services are evidence-based 
and inclusive.
    Another commenter recommended including homelessness in the list of 
characteristics for inclusion.
    Discussion: The Department agrees that it is important for school 
leaders as well as other educators to be involved in identifying 
students for mental health supports and that the professionals 
identifying students and determining support needs must be qualified. 
However, we note that all educators and staff should know the process 
for identifying students and be able to refer students who may need 
additional mental health supports to the appropriate professionals. 
School and LEA professionals, in consultation with families as 
appropriate, make determinations regarding the supports and services a 
student needs to fully participate in the learning environment. We also 
remind applicants that section 4001(a) of the ESEA applies to this 
program. Therefore, any entity receiving MHSP funds must obtain prior 
written, informed consent from the parent of any child who is under 18 
years of age to participate in any mental health assessment or service 
funded under the program. We also appreciate the recommendation to 
include students experiencing homelessness in the list of 
characteristics for inclusion and agree this is an important group of 
students to include.
    Changes: We revised requirement (f) to clarify that identification 
for mental health services must be done by qualified personnel in 
consultation with educators, school leaders, parents, and families. We 
also added homelessness to the characteristics listed.

[[Page 60087]]

Definitions

    Comment: One commenter asked the Department to consider providers 
of services for substance use and misuse as part of the mental health 
workforce. The same commenter recommended including a definition of 
``diverse backgrounds'' to clarify the focus of our efforts in Priority 
2.
    Discussion: We appreciate the commenter's suggestions and agree 
that providers of services for substance use and misuse may be 
considered school-based mental health services providers to the extent 
they meet the definition in the ESEA.
    Given the breadth of diversity that exists across LEAs nationwide, 
we decline the recommendation to add a definition for this term. 
Applicants may set diversity goals based on, for example, district or 
community demographics. We also added more detail to Priority 2 to 
demonstrate the range of diversity we anticipate being considered among 
applicants.
    Changes: We revised Priority 2 to include additional detail about 
diverse backgrounds that reflect the communities, identities, races, 
ethnicities, abilities, and cultures of the students in the high-need 
LEAs, including underserved students.
    Comment: Two commenters offered considerations for the definition 
of ``eligible IHEs.'' One of the two commenters recommended limiting 
the definition to Section 101 institutions under the Higher Education 
Act of 1965 (HEA). The other commenter supported the base definition 
but suggested changes to paragraphs (a) and (d). Specifically, in 
regard to school psychology, the commenter recommended referencing 
specific accrediting bodies and also suggested deleting the language 
about a State licensing or certification examination in school-based 
psychology noting that a specific exam in this field does not exist. 
Regarding paragraph (d), the commenter noted that the inclusion of 
school nurses goes against the Joint Explanatory Statement for the FY 
2022 Appropriations Act which specifically stated that Congress does 
not intend for MHSP funds to include school nurses because their needs 
are addressed elsewhere in the Federal budget. The commenter also 
disagreed with the Department's proposal to consider behavioral health 
aides and clinical psychologists under contract with LEAs to be 
``another school-based mental health field'' stating that there are no 
graduate programs of study to become a behavioral health aide and that 
clinical psychology alone is not sufficient to qualify someone as a 
school-based mental health services provider.
    Discussion: Regarding the comment on ``limiting the definition to 
Section 101 institutions,'' ``eligible IHEs'' are those institutions 
that meet the requirements of Section 101(a) of the HEA--that is, 
educational institutions that are public or private, nonprofit 
institutions and that meet the other requirements of the provision. 
Section 8101(29) of the ESEA expressly provides that the term 
``institution of higher education'' as referenced in the ESEA has the 
same meaning given that term in section 101(a) of the HEA except as 
otherwise provided in the ESEA. Given that the MHSP program is 
established under Title IV, Part F of the ESEA (the school safety 
national activities authority) and the authority does not ``otherwise 
provide'' a different IHE definition, the applicable definition of 
``institution of higher education'' is ``an educational institution in 
any State that is . . . a public or other nonprofit institution'' and 
otherwise meets the requirements of section 101(a). We decline to 
reference specific credentialing entities given that credentialing is a 
State determination. The Department appreciates the commenter 
identifying potential inconsistencies between the definition of 
``eligible IHE'' and the Joint Explanatory Statement for the FY 2022 
Appropriations Act. To align the definition with congressional intent 
about the scope of available funds, we revised paragraph (d) of the 
definition to exclude school nurses. Also, we recognize there is 
variation in the education and training requirements for behavioral 
health aides and clinical psychologists. In order to meet the purpose 
of training personnel to provide school-based mental health services, 
we revised paragraph (d) to say that other school-based mental health 
fields of study may be included to the extent they result in a State 
credential to deliver school-based mental health services.
    Changes: We revised paragraphs (a)-(d) of the definition of 
``eligible IHE'' to align the definition with changes referenced 
previously about credentialing. We will also adopt the HEA Section 101 
definition of IHE when publishing the notice inviting applications. We 
also revised paragraph (d) of the definition to exclude school nurses 
and to specify that other school-based mental health fields of study 
are included to the extent they prepare students for a State credential 
to deliver school-based mental health services.
    Comment: Two commenters suggested additional indicators for 
demonstrating that an LEA meets the definition of ``high-need LEA.'' 
One suggested adding indicators that the Department proposed for the 
SBMH program. The other commenter suggested specifying in the 
definition of ``high-need LEA'' that there is a high underserved 
student-to provider-ratio.
    Discussion: The Department declines the suggestion to add 
indicators from the SBMH program to the definition of ``high-need 
LEA.'' We intentionally use a different indicator for this program 
because the focus of this program is on increasing the number of 
services providers for underserved students in high-poverty schools or 
small and rural schools. We also believe the current indicators of 
poverty, small and rural schools, and high student to provider ratios 
are sufficient to focus this program on underserved students without 
over-limiting eligibility.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter suggested adding an indicator about 
traumatic events or adverse childhood experiences to the definition of 
``high-need school.''
    Discussion: We do not believe adding these indicators is necessary. 
The current indicators are based on poverty in order to focus the 
program on underserved students.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: Two commenters suggested changes to the definition of 
``school-based mental health partnerships.'' One of the two commenters 
suggested clarifying that eligible IHEs include HBCUs, MSIs, and TCUs. 
The second commenter suggested including school leaders in the creation 
of the partnership.
    Discussion: The Department agrees that calling out HBCUs, MSIs, and 
TCUs as IHE partners supports the Department's overarching goal of 
increasing the number of services providers from diverse backgrounds. 
The Department also agrees that engaging leaders at all levels of the 
project in the creation of the partnership will lead to a stronger 
partnership. However, rather than revise the definition of ``school-
based mental health partnership,'' we believe it is more effective to 
incorporate the leader role in the MOU, MOA, or letter of agreement.
    Changes: We added a reference to HBCUs, MSIs, and TCUs in paragraph 
(b) of the definition of ``school-based mental health partnerships''. 
For clarity, we also cite, in the rule text, the specific authority for 
the definition of each entity. We also revised application requirement 
(d) to emphasize the engagement of leaders when developing the MOU, 
MOA, or letter of agreement.

[[Page 60088]]

Final Priorities

    Priority 1--Expand Capacity of High-Need LEAs.
    Projects that propose to expand the capacity of high-need LEAs (as 
defined in this notice) in partnership with eligible IHEs (as defined 
in this notice) to train school-based mental health services providers 
(as defined in this notice), with the goal of expanding the number of 
these professionals available to address the shortages of school-based 
mental health services providers in high-need schools.
    To meet this priority, the applicant must propose a school-based 
mental health partnership (as defined in this notice) to place the 
IHE's graduate students in school-based mental health services fields 
into high-need schools served by the participating high-need LEAs for 
the purpose of completing required field work, credit hours, 
internships, or related training necessary to complete their degree or 
obtain a credential as a school-based mental health services provider.
    Priority 2--Increase the Number of Qualified School-Based Mental 
Health Services Providers in High-Need LEAs Who Are from Diverse 
Backgrounds or from Communities Served by the High-Need LEAs.
    Projects that propose to increase the number of qualified school-
based mental health services providers in high-need LEAs who are from 
diverse backgrounds (i.e., backgrounds that reflect the communities, 
identities, races, ethnicities, abilities, and cultures of the students 
in the high-need LEA, including underserved students) or who are from 
communities served by the high-need LEAs.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ All strategies to increase the diversity of providers must 
comply with applicable Federal civil rights laws, including Title VI 
of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Applicants must describe how their proposal to increase the number 
of school-based mental health services providers who are from diverse 
backgrounds or who are from the communities served by the high-need LEA 
will help increase access to mental health services for students within 
the high-need LEA and best meet the mental health needs of the diverse 
populations of students to be served.
    Priority 3--Promote Inclusive Practices.
    Projects that propose to provide evidence-based (as defined in 
section 8101 of the ESEA) pedagogical practices in mental health 
services provider preparation programs or professional development 
programs that are inclusive with regard to race, ethnicity, culture, 
language, disability, and for students who identify as LGBTQI+, and 
that prepare school-based mental health services providers to create 
culturally and linguistically inclusive and identity-safe \3\ 
environments for students when providing services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ An identity-safe environment is a place where every student 
feels physically and emotionally safe. Perceptions of safety often 
differ across different groups of students, and each intervention 
and support measure should be designed to ensure the safety and 
belonging of all students.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Applicants must describe how their proposal to provide evidence-
based pedagogical practices in mental health services provider 
preparation programs or professional development programs will prepare 
school-based mental health services providers to provide inclusive 
practices and to create culturally and linguistically inclusive and 
identity-safe environments for students when providing services.
    Priority 4--Partnerships with HBCUs, TCUs, and other MSIs.
    Applicants that propose to implement their projects by or in 
partnership with one or more of the following entities:
    (1) Historically Black Colleges and Universities (as defined in 34 
CFR 608.2).
    (2) Tribal Colleges and Universities (as defined in section 
316(b)(3) of the HEA).
    (3) Minority-Serving Institutions (as defined in sections 316 
through 320 of part A of title III, under part B of title III, or under 
title V of the HEA).
    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 Requirement

    The following are application requirements for this program. We may 
apply one or more of these requirements in any year in which the 
program is in effect.
    Eligible Applicants:
    Eligible applicants for this program are high-need LEAs, SEAs on 
behalf of one or more high-need LEAs, and IHEs. High-need LEA 
applicants and SEA applicants on behalf of one or more high-need LEAs 
must propose to work in partnership with an eligible institution of 
higher education (eligible IHE), which may include institutions that 
serve diverse learners such as an HBCU (as defined in 34 CFR 608.2), 
TCU (as defined in section 316(b)(3) of the HEA), or other MSI (as 
defined in sections 316 through 320 of part A of title III, under part 
B of title III, or under title V of the HEA). Eligible IHE applicants 
must propose to work in partnership with one or more high-need LEAs or 
an SEA.
    Application Requirements:
    (a) Identification of schools to be served by the proposed project.
    Applicants must identify or describe how they will identify the 
high-need schools to be served in each high-need LEA that is part of 
the school-based mental health partnership.
    (b) A description of the nature and magnitude of the problem.
    Applicants must describe how the lack of school-based mental health 
services providers is specifically affecting students in the high-need 
schools to be served by project activities. Applicants must describe 
the nature of the problem for the LEA, based on, but not limited to, 
the most recent available ratios of school-based mental health services 
providers to students enrolled in the schools in each high-need LEA 
that is part of the school-based mental health partnership (in the 
aggregate and disaggregated by profession (e.g., school social workers, 
school psychologists, and school counselors)). The description may also 
include LEA and school-level demographic data, including chronic 
absenteeism and discipline data, school climate surveys, school 
violence/crime data, data related to suicide rates, and descriptions of 
barriers to hiring and retaining services providers in the LEA.
    (c) A plan to enhance LEA capacity to provide mental health 
services to students.
    Applicants must describe the specific activities they will conduct 
to expand and improve LEA capacity to provide mental health services to 
students in high-need LEAs and ensure that

[[Page 60089]]

students receive appropriate, evidence-based (as defined in section 
8101 of the ESEA), and culturally and linguistically inclusive mental 
health services. To meet this requirement, the applicant must propose a 
school-based mental health partnership (as defined in this notice) 
established for the purpose of placing the IHE's graduate students in 
school-based mental health fields into high-need schools served by the 
participating high-need LEAs to complete required field work, credit 
hours, internships, or related training as applicable for the degree or 
credential program of each student. If the applicant intends to 
establish a program that directly benefits an individual graduate 
student, such as through a stipend or tuition credit, the applicant 
must describe its approach to implementing a service obligation for 
such graduate student as a school-based mental health services provider 
in a high-need LEA commensurate with the level of support the graduate 
student receives.
    (d) A memorandum of understanding (MOU), a memorandum of agreement 
(MOA), or letter of agreement between the LEA or SEA, and the IHE.
    Applicants must include with their application an MOU, MOA, or 
letter of agreement that is signed by the authorized representatives of 
the LEA or SEA, and the IHE. The MOU, MOA, or letter of agreement must 
provide details regarding the roles and responsibilities of each entity 
in the partnership, and include a description of how the partnership 
will place graduate students into high-need schools served by the 
participating high-need LEAs to complete required field work, credit 
hours, internships, or related training necessary to complete their 
degree or obtain a credential as a school-based mental health services 
provider. Additionally, SEA and LEA applicants must describe in the 
MOU, MOA, or letter of agreement how leaders across all levels of the 
project will be engaged in the implementation and evaluation of the 
project. The MOU, MOA, or letter of agreement must also include the 
estimated number of mental health services providers that will be 
placed into employment in high-need schools and high-need LEAs on an 
annual basis.
    (e) A plan for collaboration and coordination with related Federal, 
State, and local initiatives.
    Applicants must propose a plan that describes one or more of the 
following:
    (1) How they will collaborate with at least one national, State, or 
local professional organization (to include a regional professional 
organization, if appropriate), such as a school social worker 
association, school psychologist association, or school counselor 
association;
    (2) The activities to be carried out in coordination with the 
national, State, or local mental health, public health, child welfare, 
and other community agencies, which may include school-based health 
centers, to achieve the plan goals and objectives of establishing a 
pipeline program to train and expand the capacity of school-based 
mental health services providers in high-need LEAs;
    (3) How they will leverage other available Federal, State, and 
local resources to achieve project goals and objectives and sustain 
investments beyond the budget period. Applicants must identify these 
other available resources and describe how they will be used to promote 
success across programs; and
    (4) How they will use the MHSP funds to expand and enhance existing 
efforts or put in place new measures to increase the number of 
qualified school-based mental health services providers to be employed 
by eligible schools and LEAs qualified to provide school-based mental 
health services.
    Evidence of collaboration and coordination described in paragraphs 
(e)(1) and (2) must be provided through letters of support or MOAs/MOUs 
from State or local organizations or agencies, where applicable.
    (f) A description of the process to identify students for mental 
health services.
    Applicants must describe the specific process and activities they 
will use to ensure students in high-need LEAs who need school-based 
mental health services are properly identified, assessed, and provided 
the appropriate school-based mental health services by qualified 
personnel in consultation with educators, including school leaders, and 
parents and families, as appropriate. To meet this requirement, 
applicants must also describe how they will ensure that services are 
evidence-based and inclusive with regard to race, ethnicity, culture, 
language, disability, homelessness, and for students who identify as 
LGBTQI+, and are accessible to all. Further, applicants must describe 
how LEAs will engage parents and families for the purposes of raising 
awareness about the availability of services and connecting students to 
services.

Final Definitions

    The Department establishes definitions of ``eligible institution of 
higher education,'' ``high-need LEA,'' ``high-need school,'' ``school-
based mental health partnership,''and ``students/children from low-
income backgrounds,''for use in this program. We may apply the 
definitions in any year in which this program is in effect.
    Eligible institution of higher education means an institution of 
higher education that offers a program of study that leads to a 
master's degree or other graduate degree--
    (a) In school psychology that prepares students in such program for 
a State credential as a school psychologist;
    (b) In school counseling that prepares students in such program for 
a State credential in school counseling;
    (c) In school social work that prepares students in such program 
for a State credential in school social work;
    (d) In another school-based mental health field that prepares 
students in such program for a State credential to deliver school-based 
mental health services; or
    (e) In any combination of study described in paragraphs (a) through 
(d).
    High-need LEA means a local educational agency--
    (a)(1) For which at least 20 percent of the children served by the 
agency are children from low-income backgrounds;
    (2) That serves at least 10,000 children from low-income 
backgrounds;
    (3) That meets the eligibility requirements for funding under the 
Small, Rural School Achievement (SRSA) program under section 5211(b) of 
the ESEA; or
    (4) That meets the eligibility requirements for funding under the 
Rural and Low-Income School (RLIS) program under section 5221(b) of the 
ESEA; and
    (b) For which there is a high student to qualified mental health 
services provider ratio as compared to other LEAs statewide or 
nationally.
    High-need school means a school that, based on the most recent data 
available, meets at least one of the following:
    (a) The school is in the highest quartile of all schools served by 
an LEA ranked in descending order by percentage of students from low-
income backgrounds enrolled in such schools, as determined by the LEA 
based on one of the following measures of poverty:
    (1) The percentage of students aged 5 through 17 in poverty counted 
in the most recent census data approved by the Secretary.
    (2) The percentage of students eligible for a free or reduced-price 
school lunch under the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act 
based on the most recently available data.
    (3) The percentage of students in families receiving assistance 
under the State program funded under part A of title IV of the Social 
Security Act.

[[Page 60090]]

    (4) The percentage of students eligible to receive medical 
assistance under the Medicaid program.
    (5) A composite of two or more of the measures described in 
paragraphs (a)(1) through (4).
    (b) In the case of--
    (1) An elementary school, the school serves students not less than 
60 percent of whom are eligible for a free or reduced-price school 
lunch under the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act based on 
the most recently available data; or
    (2) Any other school that is not an elementary school, the other 
school serves students not less than 45 percent of whom are eligible 
for a free or reduced-price school lunch under the Richard B. Russell 
National School Lunch Act based on the most recently available data.
    School-based mental health partnership means the formal 
relationship, established for the purpose of training school-based 
mental health services providers for employment in schools and LEAs, 
between--
    (a) One or more high-need LEAs or an SEA on behalf of one or more 
high-need LEAs; and
    (b) One or more eligible IHEs, including HBCUs (as defined in 34 
CFR 608.2), MSIs (as defined in sections 316 through 320 of part A of 
title III, under part B of title III, or under title V of the HEA), and 
TCUs (as defined in section 316(b)(3) of the HEA).
    Students/children from low-income backgrounds means students whose 
families meet any of the poverty thresholds established in section 1113 
of the ESEA for the relevant grade level.
    This document does not preclude us from proposing additional 
priorities, requirements, definitions, or selection criteria, subject 
to meeting applicable rulemaking requirements.

    Note:  This document does not solicit applications. In any year 
in which we choose to use these priorities, requirements, and 
definitions, we invite applications through a notice in the Federal 
Register.

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563

Regulatory Impact Analysis

    Under Executive Order 12866, it must be determined whether this 
regulatory action is ``significant'' and, therefore, subject to the 
requirements of the Executive order and subject to review by the Office 
of Management and Budget (OMB). Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 
defines a ``significant regulatory action'' as an action likely to 
result in a rule that may--
    (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, 
or adversely affect a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, 
jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or 
Tribal governments or communities in a material way (also referred to 
as an ``economically significant'' rule);
    (2) Create serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an 
action taken or planned by another agency;
    (3) Materially alter the budgetary impacts of entitlement grants, 
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients 
thereof; or
    (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal 
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles stated in the 
Executive order.
    This final regulatory action will have an annual effect on the 
economy of more than $100 million because approximately $143 million is 
available under this program from FY 2022 appropriations actions, and 
$100 million is available each year from FY 2023 to FY 2026. Therefore, 
this final action is ``economically significant'' and subject to review 
by OMB under section 3(f)(1) of Executive Order 12866. Notwithstanding 
this determination, we have assessed the potential costs and benefits, 
both quantitative and qualitative, of this final regulatory action and 
have determined that the benefits justify the costs.
    We have also reviewed this final regulatory action under Executive 
Order 13563, which supplements and explicitly reaffirms the principles, 
structures, and definitions governing regulatory review established in 
Executive Order 12866. To the extent permitted by law, Executive Order 
13563 requires that an agency--
    (1) Propose or adopt regulations only upon a reasoned determination 
that their benefits justify their costs (recognizing that some benefits 
and costs are difficult to quantify);
    (2) Tailor its regulations to impose the least burden on society, 
consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives and taking into 
account--among other things and to the extent practicable--the costs of 
cumulative regulations;
    (3) In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, select 
those approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential 
economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other 
advantages; distributive impacts; and equity);
    (4) To the extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather 
than the behavior or manner of compliance a regulated entity must 
adopt; and
    (5) Identify and assess available alternatives to direct 
regulation, including economic incentives--such as user fees or 
marketable permits--to encourage the desired behavior, or provide 
information that enables the public to make choices.
    Executive Order 13563 also requires an agency ``to use the best 
available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future 
benefits and costs as accurately as possible.'' The Office of 
Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB has emphasized that these 
techniques may include ``identifying changing future compliance costs 
that might result from technological innovation or anticipated 
behavioral changes.''
    We are issuing these final priorities, requirements, and 
definitions only on a reasoned determination that their benefits would 
justify their costs. In choosing among alternative regulatory 
approaches, we selected those approaches that would maximize net 
benefits. Based on an analysis of anticipated costs and benefits, we 
believe that the final priorities, requirements, and definitions are 
consistent with the principles in Executive Order 13563.
    We also have determined that this regulatory action does not unduly 
interfere with State, local, and Tribal governments in the exercise of 
their governmental functions. In this regulatory impact analysis (RIA) 
we discuss the need for regulatory action, the potential costs and 
benefits, net budget impacts, assumptions, limitations, and data 
sources, as well as regulatory alternatives we considered.
    Costs and Benefits: The priorities, requirements, and definitions 
are necessary for the implementation of MHSP consistent with the 
requirements established by Congress in the Department of Education 
Appropriations Act, 2022, and the Explanatory Statement accompanying 
that Act. It is important to note that implementation of MHSP would 
almost exclusively confer benefits on the recipients of Federal funds 
subject to the final priorities, requirements, and definitions, whose 
voluntary participation in MHSP would entail minimal costs except for 
those paid with Federal funds, and the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) 
section of this document discusses the burden estimates for preparing 
an application. This program was established under a statute with broad 
authority and only non-binding report language establishing program 
purpose, eligibility, or requirements; consequently, this rulemaking 
action is necessary to ensure program funds are used for their intended 
purpose. More specifically, the final priorities,

[[Page 60091]]

requirements, and definitions would ensure that the Department may 
collect from applicants for MHSP funding the information necessary for 
competitive review of applications by peer reviewers, and to fund high-
quality applications that will lead to the implementation of projects 
consistent with congressional intent. Absent this rulemaking action, 
there is no alternative means of meeting these objectives.
    The specific benefits of establishing a menu of final priorities 
include ensuring that funds are used consistent with congressional 
intent and providing flexibility to the Department for supporting 
multiple strategies designed to address the shortage of mental health 
services providers in schools. The first strategy, embedded in Final 
Priority 1, is to focus grant activities on the expansion of school-
based mental health services providers in ``high-need LEAs.'' The 
definition of high-need LEA,incorporated into these priorities, 
provides flexibility for an LEA to show need in various ways, including 
through poverty rates or size. Although the total number of LEAs is 
large (over 13,000 in school year 2018-19), the available funding will 
only support a limited number of multiyear projects. Absent the 
targeting of MHSP funds to high-need LEAs, the program may allocate 
scarce Federal resources to high-capacity LEAs that already meet the 
mental health needs of their students. Moreover, ensuring that funds 
are targeted to high-need LEAs was a requirement of the FY 2019 MHSP 
competition, and Congress directed the Department, through the 
Explanatory Statement accompanying the Department of Education 
Appropriations Act, 2022, to incorporate the same requirement into the 
FY 2022 MHSP competition.
    Final Priority 2 supports a strategy for expanding the workforce of 
school-based mental health services providers. Currently, the 
psychology and school counselor workforces are significantly less 
diverse than the student population. Increasing the number of qualified 
school-based mental health services providers who are from diverse 
backgrounds and from communities served by the high-need LEAs, and who 
can provide culturally and linguistically appropriate services, would 
expand not only the numbers of these providers but also provide better 
access to and improve the quality of mental health services available 
to students. This priority has the additional benefit of promoting 
equity for students, in keeping with the Administration's agenda and 
the Department's mission to support equity and excellence.
    Final Priority 3 seeks to increase the number of school-based 
mental health services providers who can provide services that are 
culturally and linguistically inclusive and who can provide identity-
safe environments for students. Given the diversity of the student 
population, every school-based mental health services provider should 
be able to implement inclusive practices and be able to provide 
services to all students. This priority also supports the 
Administration's equity agenda and the Department's mission to support 
equity and excellence.
    Final Priority 4 complements Final Priority 2 by recognizing the 
role that MSIs, including HBCUs and TCUs, can play in meeting the 
diversity goals of the MHSP program. Such institutions are uniquely 
positioned to increase the number of qualified school-based mental 
health services providers who are from diverse backgrounds and from 
communities served by the high-need LEAs, and who can provide 
culturally and linguistically appropriate services to underserved 
students in high-need schools and LEAs. Finally, Priority 4 can create 
an incentive for the inclusion of such institutions in the innovative 
partnerships and pathways supported by the MHSP program.
    The Department believes that this final regulatory action would not 
impose significant costs on eligible entities, whose participation in 
our programs is voluntary, and whose costs can generally be covered 
with grant funds. As a result, the final priorities, requirements, and 
definitions would not impose a significant burden, except when an 
entity voluntarily elects to apply for a grant. Moreover, the 
Department believes the benefits associated with the grant application 
would outweigh any associated costs.
    The Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) section of this RIA discusses the 
burden estimates for preparing an application. The potential benefits 
of receiving Federal funds under this program to expand the pool of, 
and hire, school-based mental health services providers outweigh the 
application costs detailed in the PRA section. The costs of 
implementing the requirements established in this notice generally can 
be paid for with grant funds.

Regulatory Alternatives Considered

    The Department believes that the final priorities, requirements, 
and definitions in this notice are needed to administer the program 
effectively. The priorities will enable the Department to administer a 
competitive grant program consistent with the intent of Congress as 
expressed in the Explanatory Statement accompanying the Department of 
Education Appropriations Act, 2022 (Pub. L. 117-103), which provided 
funding for the program in fiscal year 2022, and the Bipartisan Safer 
Communities Act (Pub. L. 117-159), which provided additional funding 
for fiscal years 2022 through 2026.

Accounting Statement

    As required by OMB Circular A-4 (available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/information-for-agencies/circulars/), in the 
following table we have prepared an accounting statement showing the 
classification of the expenditures associated with the provisions of 
this regulatory action. This table provides our best estimate of the 
changes in annual monetized transfers as a result of this regulatory 
action.
    Expenditures are classified as transfers from the Federal 
Government to LEAs and IHEs.

      Accounting Statement Classification of Estimated Expenditures
                              [In millions]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Transfers
                Category                 -------------------------------
                                             3 percent       7 percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annualized monetized transfers..........          $108.6          $108.6
                                         -------------------------------
From whom to whom?......................  From the Federal government to
                                                  LEAs and IHEs.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 60092]]

Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification

    The Secretary certifies that this final regulatory action does not 
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. The U.S. Small Business Administration Size Standards define 
proprietary institutions as small businesses if they are independently 
owned and operated, are not dominant in their field of operation, and 
have total annual revenue below $7,000,000. Nonprofit institutions are 
defined as small entities if they are independently owned and operated 
and not dominant in their field of operation. Public institutions are 
defined as small organizations if they are operated by a government 
overseeing a population below 50,000.
    The small entities that this final regulatory action would affect 
are school districts and IHEs applying for and receiving funds under 
this program. The Secretary believes that the costs imposed on 
applicants by the final priorities, requirements, and definitions, 
would be limited to paperwork burden related to preparing an 
application and that the benefits of implementing these proposals would 
outweigh any costs incurred by applicants.
    Participation in this program is voluntary. For this reason, the 
final priorities, requirements, and definitions would impose no burden 
on small entities in general. Eligible applicants would determine 
whether to apply for funds and have the opportunity to weigh the 
requirements for preparing applications, and any associated costs, 
against the likelihood of receiving funding and the requirements for 
implementing projects under the program. Eligible applicants most 
likely would apply only if they determine that the likely benefits 
exceed the costs of preparing an application. The likely benefits 
include the potential receipt of a grant as well as other benefits that 
may accrue to an entity through its development of an application, such 
as the use of that application to seek funding from other sources to 
address a shortage in mental health providers.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 does not require you to respond 
to a collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB control 
number. We display the valid OMB control number assigned to the 
collection of information in this notice of final priorities, 
regulations, and definitions at the end of the affected sections of the 
requirements.
    The final priorities, requirements, and definitions contain 
information collection requirements that are approved by OMB. The final 
priorities, requirements, and definitions do not affect the currently 
approved data collection. An FY 2022 competition would require 
applicants to complete and submit an application for Federal assistance 
using Department standard application forms. We estimate that for the 
FY 2022 MHSP competition and later competitions, each applicant will 
spend approximately 40 hours of staff time to address these priorities, 
requirements, and definitions. We estimate that we will receive 
approximately 500 applications for these funds. The total number of 
burden hours for all applicants to review instructions, search existing 
data sources, gather and maintain the data needed, and complete and 
review the application is estimated to be 20,000 hours.
    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 Federal financial assistance.
    This document provides early notification of our specific plans and 
actions for this program.
    Accessible Format: On request to the program contact person listed 
under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, individuals with disabilities 
can obtain this document in an accessible format. The Department will 
provide the requestor with an accessible format that may include Rich 
Text Format (RTF) or text format (txt), a thumb drive, an MP3 file, 
braille, large print, audiotape, or compact disc, or other accessible 
format.
    Electronic Access to This Document: The official version of this 
document is the document published in the Federal Register. You may 
access the official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of 
Federal Regulations at www.govinfo.gov. At this site you can view this 
document, as well as all other documents of this Department published 
in the Federal Register in text or Portable Document Format (PDF). To 
use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at 
the site.
    You may also access documents of the Department published in the 
Federal Register by using the article search feature at 
www.federalregister.gov. Specifically, through the advanced search 
feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published 
by the Department.

James F. Lane,
Senior Advisor, Office of the Secretary, Delegated the Authority to 
Perform the Functions and Duties of the Assistant Secretary for the 
Office Elementary and Secondary Education.
[FR Doc. 2022-21633 Filed 10-3-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P