FR Doc E6-2843
[Federal Register: March 1, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 40)]
[Notices]
[Page 10482-10486]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr01mr06-32]
Download: 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Emergency Response and Crisis Management Grant Program
AGENCY: Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools, Department of Education.
ACTION: Notice of proposed priorities and application requirements.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Assistant Deputy Secretary for Safe and Drug-Free Schools
proposes two priorities and two application requirements under the
Emergency Response and Crisis Management (ERCM) Grant program. We may
use one or more of these priorities and application requirements for
competitions in Fiscal Year (FY) 2006 and later years. We also may use
the priority and application requirements developed in FY 2005, and
published in the Federal Register on June 21, 2005 (70 FR 35652), for
competitions in FY 2006 and later years. We take this action to focus
Federal financial assistance on supporting grants to local educational
agencies (LEAs) that are at high risk for crisis situations, as well as
those that have not yet received funding under this program. This
action is also intended to modify an application requirement the
Department established in FY 2005 for LEAs to support the
implementation of the National Incident Management System (NIMS) and to
propose an additional application requirement for LEAs to develop
written plans to address outbreaks of infectious diseases.
DATES: We must receive your comments on or before March 31, 2006.
ADDRESSES: Address all comments about the proposed priorities and
application requirements to Sara Strizzi, U.S. Department of Education,
400 Maryland Avenue, SW., room 3E320, Washington, DC 20202-6450. If you
prefer to send your comments through the Internet, use the following
address: sara.strizzi@ed.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sara Strizzi. Telephone: (303) 346-
0924 or via Internet: sara.strizzi@ed.gov.
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), you may
call the Federal Relay Service (FRS) at 1-888-877-8339.
Individuals with disabilities may obtain this document in an
alternative format (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, or computer
diskette) on request to the contact person listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Invitation To Comment
We invite you to submit comments regarding the proposed priorities
and application requirements. To ensure that your comments have maximum
effect in developing the notice of final priorities and application
requirements, we urge you to identify clearly the specific proposed
priority or application requirement that each comment addresses.
We invite you to assist us in complying with the specific
requirements of Executive Order 12866 and its overall requirement of
reducing regulatory burden that might result from the proposed
priorities and application requirements. Please let us know of any
further opportunities we should take to reduce potential costs or
increase potential benefits while preserving the effective and
efficient administration of the program.
During and after the comment period, you may inspect all public
comments about the proposed priorities and application requirements in
room 3E320, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., Washington, DC, between the hours
of 8:30 a.m. and 4 p.m., Eastern time, Monday through Friday of each
week except Federal holidays.
Assistance to Individuals With Disabilities in Reviewing the Rulemaking
Record
On request, we will supply an appropriate aid, such as a reader or
print magnifier, to an individual with a disability who needs
assistance to review the comments or other documents in the public
rulemaking record for the proposed priorities and application
requirements. If you want to schedule an appointment for this type of
aid, please contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT.
Background: The events of September 11, 2001, and more recently,
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, reinforce the need for schools and
communities to plan for
[[Page 10483]]
traditional crises and emergencies, as well as possible terrorist
attacks or other catastrophic events. We propose additional priorities
for the ERCM Grant program under the Safe and Drug-Free Schools and
Communities National Programs to target assistance to high-threat areas
and LEAs that have not yet received funding under this program. We also
propose (1) to modify the application requirement that we established
in FY 2005 for LEAs to support the implementation of NIMS at the local
level and (2) to establish a new application requirement for LEAs to
develop a plan to mitigate the effects of infectious diseases.
We will announce the final priorities and application requirements
in a notice in the Federal Register. We will determine the final
priorities and application requirements after considering responses to
this notice and other information available to the Department. This
notice does not preclude us from proposing or using additional
priorities or application requirements, subject to meeting applicable
rulemaking requirements.
Note:
This notice does not solicit applications. In any year in which
we choose to use the proposed priorities and application
requirements, we invite applications through a notice in the Federal
Register.
Priorities
Proposed Priority 1--Competitive Preference Priority for LEAs That Have
Not Previously Received a Grant Under the ERCM Program and Are Located
in an Urban Areas Security Initiative Jurisdiction
Background
In FY 2003, the Department of Homeland Security established the
Urban Areas Security Initiative (UASI) program to focus Federal
preparedness resources on the unique planning, equipment, training, and
exercise needs of high-threat, high-density urban areas. The intent of
the UASI program is to create a sustainable national model program that
will enhance security and overall preparedness in order to prevent,
respond to, and recover from acts of terrorism. Jurisdictions included
in the UASI program are determined by a formula using a combination of
current threat estimates, critical assets within the specific urban
area, and population density.
The Governor of each State has designated a State Administrative
Agency (SAA) as the entity responsible for applying for, and
administering, funds under the Department of Homeland Security Grant
Program (which includes the UASI program). The SAA is also responsible
for defining the geographic borders for jurisdictions included in the
UASI program. Jurisdictions included in the UASI program for FY 2006
are included in the following chart. Additional guidance on
jurisdiction definitions can be found at:
http://www. ojp.usdoj. gov/odp/ docs/info200. pdf.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Geographic area captured in Previously designated
State Candidate urban area the data count urban areas included
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AZ................................. Phoenix Area.......... Chandler, Gilbert, Phoenix, AZ
Glendale, Mesa, Peoria,
Phoenix, Scottsdale,
Tempe, and a 10-mile
buffer extending from the
border of the combined
area.
CA................................. Anaheim/Santa Ana Area Anaheim, Costa Mesa, Garden Anaheim, CA; Santa
Grove, Fullerton, Ana, CA
Huntington Beach, Irvine,
Orange, Santa Ana, and a
10-mile buffer extending
from the border of the
combined area.
Bay Area.............. Berkeley, Daly City, San Francisco, CA; San
Fremont, Hayward, Oakland, Jose, CA; Oakland, CA
Palo Alto, Richmond, San
Francisco, San Jose, Santa
Clara, Sunnyvale, Vallejo,
and a 10-mile buffer
extending from the border
of the combined area.
Los Angeles/Long Beach Burbank, Glendale, Los Angeles, CA; Long
Area. Inglewood, Long Beach, Los Beach, CA
Angeles, Pasadena, Santa
Clarita, Santa Monica,
Torrance, Simi Valley,
Thousand Oaks, and a 10-
mile buffer extending from
the border of the combined
area.
Sacramento Area....... Elk Grove, Sacramento, and Sacramento, CA
a 10-mile buffer extending
from the border of the
combined area.
San Diego Area........ Chula Vista, Escondido, San San Diego, CA
Diego, and a 10-mile
buffer extending from the
border of the combined
area.
CO................................. Denver Area........... Arvada, Aurora, Denver, Denver, CO
Lakewood, Westminster,
Thornton, and a 10-mile
buffer extending from the
border of the combined
area.
DC................................. National Capital National Capital Region and National Capital
Region. a 10-mile buffer extending Region, DC
from the border of the
combined area.
FL................................. Fort Lauderdale Area.. Fort Lauderdale, Hollywood, N/A
Miami Gardens, Miramar,
Pembroke Pines, and a 10-
mile buffer extending from
the border of the combined
area.
Jacksonville Area..... Jacksonville and a 10-mile Jacksonville, FL
buffer extending from the
city border.
Miami Area............ Hialeah, Miami, and a 10- Miami, FL
mile buffer extending from
the border of the combined
area.
Orlando Area.......... Orlando and a 10-mile Orlando, FL
buffer extending from the
city border.
Tampa Area............ Clearwater, St. Petersburg, Tampa, FL
Tampa, and a 10-mile
buffer extending from the
border of the combined
area.
GA................................. Atlanta Area.......... Atlanta and a 10-mile Atlanta, GA
buffer extending from the
city border.
HI................................. Honolulu Area......... Honolulu and a 10-mile Honolulu, HI
buffer extending from the
city border.
IL................................. Chicago Area.......... Chicago and a 10-mile Chicago, IL
buffer extending from the
city border.
IN................................. Indianapolis Area..... Indianapolis and a 10-mile Indianapolis, IN
buffer extending from the
city border.
KY................................. Louisville Area....... Louisville and a 10-mile Louisville, KY
buffer extending from the
city border.
LA................................. Baton Rouge Area...... Baton Rouge and a 10-mile Baton Rouge, LA
buffer extending from the
city border.
New Orleans Area...... New Orleans and a 10-mile New Orleans, LA
buffer extending from the
city border.
[[Page 10484]]
MA................................. Boston Area........... Boston, Cambridge, and a 10- Boston, MA
mile buffer extending from
the border of the combined
area.
MD................................. Baltimore Area........ Baltimore and a 10-mile Baltimore, MD
buffer extending from the
city border.
MI................................. Detroit Area.......... Detroit, Sterling Heights, Detroit, MI
Warren, and a 10-mile
buffer extending from the
border of the combined
area.
MN................................. Twin Cities Area...... Minneapolis, St. Paul, and Minneapolis, MN; St.
a 10-mile buffer extending Paul, MN
from the border of the
combined entity.
MO................................. Kansas City Area...... Independence, Kansas City Kansas City, MO
(KS), Kansas City (MO),
Olathe, Overland Park, and
a 10-mile buffer extending
from the border of the
combined area.
St. Louis Area........ St. Louis and a 10-mile St. Louis, MO
buffer extending from the
city border.
NC................................. Charlotte Area........ Charlotte and a 10-mile Charlotte, NC
buffer extending from the
city border.
NE................................. Omaha Area............ Omaha and a 10-mile buffer Omaha, NE
extending from the city
border.
NJ................................. Jersey City/Newark Elizabeth, Jersey City, Jersey City, NJ;
Area. Newark, and a 10-mile Newark, NJ
buffer extending from the
border of the combined
area.
NV................................. Las Vegas Area........ Las Vegas, North Las Vegas, Las Vegas, NV
and a 10-mile buffer
extending from the border
of the combined entity.
NY................................. Buffalo Area.......... Buffalo and a 10-mile Buffalo, NY
buffer extending from the
city border.
New York City Area.... New York City, Yonkers, and New York, NY
a 10-mile buffer extending
from the border of the
combined area.
OH................................. Cincinnati Area....... Cincinnati and a 10-mile Cincinnati, OH
buffer extending from the
city border.
Cleveland Area........ Cleveland and a 10-mile Cleveland, OH
buffer extending from the
city border.
Columbus Area......... Columbus and a 10-mile Columbus, OH
buffer extending from the
city border.
Toledo Area........... Oregon, Toledo, and a 10- Toledo, OH
mile buffer extending from
the border of the combined
area.
OK................................. Oklahoma City Area.... Norman, Oklahoma City, and Oklahoma City, OK
a 10-mile buffer extending
from the border of the
combined area.
OR................................. Portland Area......... Portland, Vancouver, and a Portland, OR
10-mile buffer extending
from the border of the
combined area.
PA................................. Philadelphia Area..... Philadelphia and a 10-mile Philadelphia, PA
buffer extending from the
city border.
Pittsburgh Area....... Pittsburgh and a 10-mile Pittsburgh, PA
buffer extending from the
city border.
TN................................. Memphis Area.......... Memphis and a 10-mile Memphis, TN
buffer extending from the
city border.
TX................................. Dallas/Fort Worth/ Arlington, Carrollton, Dallas, TX; Fort
Arlington Area. Dallas, Fort Worth, Worth, TX; Arlington,
Garland, Grand Prairie, TX
Irving, Mesquite, Plano,
and a 10-mile buffer
extending from the border
of the combined area.
Houston Area.......... Houston, Pasadena, and a 10- Houston, TX
mile buffer extending from
the border of the combined
entity.
San Antonio Area...... San Antonio and a 10-mile San Antonio, TX
buffer extending from the
city border.
WA................................. Seattle Area.......... Bellevue, Seattle, and a 10- Seattle, WA
mile buffer extending from
the border of the combined
area.
WI................................. Milwaukee Area........ Milwaukee and a 10-mile Milwaukee, WI
buffer extending from the
city border.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ensuring that LEAs are adequately prepared for multiple hazards is
a significant national concern. LEAs located in vulnerable, high-
density areas have unique crisis planning needs. While many LEAs in
UASI jurisdictions have received funding under this program in prior
years, there are a number of LEAs located in UASI jurisdictions that
have not received the resources needed to improve and enhance their
emergency response plans. In order to help meet the needs of these
LEAs, we propose a competitive preference priority for LEAs that have
not previously received a grant under this program and are located
within UASI jurisdictions.
Priority: Under this priority, we give a competitive preference to
applications from local educational agencies (LEAs) that (1) have not
yet received a grant under this program and (2) are located in whole or
in part within Urban Areas Security Initiative (UASI) jurisdictions, as
determined by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS). An
applicant must meet both of these criteria in order to receive the
competitive preference. Under a consortium application, all members of
the LEA consortium need to meet both criteria to be eligible for the
preference.
Because DHS' determination of UASI jurisdictions may change from
year to year, applicants under this priority must refer to the most
recent list of UASI jurisdictions published by DHS when submitting
their applications. In any notice inviting applications using this
priority, the Department will provide applicants with information
necessary to access the most recent DHS list of UASI jurisdictions.
Proposed Priority 2--Competitive Preference Priority for Applicants
That Have Not Previously Received a Grant Under The ERCM Program
Background
Ensuring that schools are prepared to address crisis situations
that may arise from multiple hazards, including man-made and natural,
is an issue of national importance. Since FY 2003, 336 LEAs
[[Page 10485]]
have received funding under the ERCM grant program to improve and
enhance their emergency response plans. However, this represents a
small percentage of the total number of LEAs within the United States.
To address the crisis planning needs of LEAs that have not previously
received funding under this program, we propose a competitive
preference priority for applicants that have not yet received a grant
under this program.
By awarding previously unfunded LEAs a competitive preference, we
hope to ensure that ERCM grant funds reach greater numbers of schools
and students whose crisis planning needs have not previously been
addressed.
Priority: Under this priority, we give competitive preference to
applications from local educational agencies (LEAs) that have not
previously received a grant under this program. Applicants that have
received funding under this program directly, or as the lead agency or
as a partner in a consortium application under this program will not
receive competitive preference under this priority.
Application Requirements
We propose (1) to modify the application requirement that we
established in FY 2005 for LEAs to support the implementation of NIMS
at the local level and (2) to establish a new application requirement
for LEAs to develop a plan to mitigate the effects of infectious
diseases.
1. Implementation of the National Incident Management System
Background: In accordance with Homeland Security Presidential
Directive/HSPD-5, the NIMS provides a consistent approach for Federal,
State, and local governments to work effectively and efficiently
together to prepare for, prevent, respond to, and recover from domestic
incidents, regardless of cause, size, or complexity.
Implementation of the NIMS is a dynamic process that will continue
to evolve over time. In order to receive Federal preparedness funding,
LEAs must cooperate with the efforts of their communities to meet the
minimum NIMS requirements established for each fiscal year. We
established an application requirement for LEAs to implement the NIMS
in FY 2005. Because of the dynamic nature of the NIMS, we believe
certain changes to that requirement are necessary.
Requirement: Applicants must agree to implement their grant in a
manner consistent with the implementation of the NIMS in their
communities. Applicants must include in their applications an assurance
that they have met, or will complete, all current NIMS requirements by
the end of the grant period.
Because DHS' determination of NIMS requirements may change from
year to year, applicants must refer to the most recent list of NIMS
requirements published by DHS when submitting their applications. In
any notice inviting applications, the Department will provide
applicants with information necessary to access the most recent DHS
list of NIMS requirements.
Note: An LEA's NIMS compliance must be achieved in close
coordination with the local government and with recognition of the
first responder capabilities held by the LEA and the local
government. As LEAs are not traditional response organizations,
first responder services will typically be provided to LEAs by local
fire and rescue departments, emergency medical service providers,
and law enforcement agencies. This traditional relationship must be
acknowledged in achieving NIMS compliance in an integrated NIMS
compliance plan for the local government and the LEA. LEA
participation in the NIMS preparedness program of the local
government is essential in ensuring that first responder services
are delivered to schools in a timely and effective manner.
Additional information about NIMS implementation and requirements is
available at http://www.fema.gov/nims.
2. Infectious Disease Plan
Background: Infectious diseases pose a significant threat for the
school environment. In addition to common infectious diseases, such as
stomach viruses, seasonal influenza, infestation with lice/scabies, and
viral meningitis, health professionals from the Department of Health
and Human Services have warned of a new threat attributed to Avian
Influenza A (H5N1). The H5N1 virus poses a risk for worldwide
infection. In addition to causing widespread illness, an especially
severe influenza pandemic could result in widespread school closings,
absenteeism, and disruptions to the learning environment in general.
Whether or not a pandemic strikes, seasonal influenza and other
infectious diseases continue to pose a concern with respect to the
health of students as well as the optimal functioning of schools.
Although it may be difficult to prevent a widespread pandemic or other
infectious disease outbreak, the effects can be mitigated through
proper prevention and planning strategies.
Requirement: To be considered for a grant award, applicants must
agree to develop a written plan designed to prepare the LEA for a
possible infectious disease outbreak, such as pandemic influenza. Plans
must address the four phases of crisis planning (Mitigation/Prevention,
Preparedness, Response, and Recovery) and include a plan for disease
surveillance (systematic collection and analysis of data which lead to
action being taken to prevent and control a disease), school closure
decision making, business continuity (processes and procedures
established to ensure that essential functions can continue during and
after a disaster), and continuation of educational services.
Executive Order 12866
This notice of proposed priorities and application requirements has
been reviewed in accordance with Executive Order 12866. Under the terms
of the order, we have assessed the potential costs and benefits of this
regulatory action.
The potential costs associated with the notice of proposed
priorities and application requirements are those resulting from
statutory requirements and those we have determined as necessary for
administering this program effectively and efficiently.
In assessing the potential costs and benefits--both quantitative
and qualitative--of this notice of proposed priorities and application
requirements, we have determined that the benefits of the proposed
priorities and application requirements justify the costs.
We have also determined that this regulatory action does not unduly
interfere with State, local, and tribal governments in the exercise of
their governmental functions.
Summary of Potential Costs and Benefits
The potential costs associated with the proposed priorities and
application requirements are minimal while the benefits are
significant.
Grantees may anticipate costs in achieving NIMS compliance. Costs
may also be incurred in the development of a written infectious disease
plan. However, these costs may be included in the grant budget and,
therefore, will have little financial impact on the applicant.
The benefit of the proposed priorities and application requirements
is that grantees that develop a comprehensive emergency response and
crisis management plan that includes training and that is implemented
in coordination with community partners may mitigate the financial and
human impact of a crisis in their district.
Intergovernmental Review
This program is subject to Executive Order 12372 and the
regulations in 34
[[Page 10486]]
CFR part 79. One of the objectives of the Executive order is to foster
an intergovernmental partnership and a strengthened federalism. The
Executive order relies on processes developed by State and local
governments for coordination and review of proposed Federal financial
assistance.
This document provides early notification of our specific plans and
actions for this program.
Electronic Access to This Document
You may view this document, as well as all other Department of
Education documents published in the Federal Register, in text or Adobe
Portable Document Format (PDF) on the Internet at the following site:
http://www.ed.gov/news/fedregister.
To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available
free at this site. If you have questions about using PDF, call the U.S.
Government Printing Office (GPO), toll free, at 1-888-293-6498; or in
the Washington, DC, area, at (202) 512-1530.
Note: The official version of this document is the document
published in the Federal Register. Free Internet access to the
official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of Federal
Regulations is available on GPO Access at:
http://www.gpoaccess. gov/nara/index.html.
(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number 84.184E--Emergency
Response and Crisis Management Grant program)
Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 7131.
Dated: February 23, 2006.
Deborah A. Price,
Assistant Deputy Secretary for Safe and Drug-Free Schools.
[FR Doc. E6-2843 Filed 2-28-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P