Pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.13, the Agency submitted a request for emergency approval of new information collection from the agency's workforce on DEIA, including U.S. Direct Hires (permanent and temporary) U.S. Personal Services Contractors, Institutional Support Contractors, Cooperating Country Nationals, and other expanded demographic categories in 6 main areas on a 5-point Likert scale, including 11 profile questions, 7 equity questions, 14 accessibility questions, and 29 talent impact questions.

The information will be collected via a digital survey and used by the workforce to capture the viewpoints and perceptions of USAID headquarters and overseas employees across all hiring mechanisms and at all grades and ranks; allow for data disaggregation by Bureau, Independent Office, and Mission; provide data for analysis to support evidence-based and data-driven approaches to determine whether and to what extent Agency policies programs, and practices present barriers to equal and equitable and opportunities and employment outcomes and what needs to be changed or developed to remove said barriers; and to support USAID efforts to monitor and report on DEIA and EEO program effectiveness, enabling continuous program improvement.

OMB's approval enables USAID to engage 11,000 respondents. Each respondent will be able to provide 20 minutes in participation time, totaling 3,666 estimated time burden of this proposed information collection.

List of Petitions Received by EDA for Certification of Eligibility To Apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance [6/6/2022 through 6/28/2022] Firm name Firm address Date accepted for investigation Product(s) Aloe Laboratories, Inc 5821 East Harrison Avenue, Harlingen, TX 78550 6/22/2022 The firm produces aloe vera and manufactures aloe vera products. Central Custom Molding, LLC 8810 Trucker Trail, Cheyenne, WY 82007 6/24/2022 The firm manufactures miscellaneous plastic parts. Buffalo Scale and Supply Co., Inc 280 Seneca Street, Buffalo, NY 14204 6/28/2022 The firm manufactures industrial scales.

Any party having a substantial interest in these proceedings may request a public hearing on the matter. A written request for a hearing must be submitted to the Trade Adjustment Assistance Division, Room 71030, Economic Development Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC 20230, no later than ten (10) calendar days following publication of this notice. These petitions are received pursuant to section 251 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended.

Please follow the requirements set forth in EDA's regulations at 13 CFR 315.8 for procedures to request a public hearing. The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance official number and title for the program under which these petitions are submitted is 11.313, Trade Adjustment Assistance for Firms.

On May 23 and 24, 2022, POSCO(II) notified Commerce of a corporate reorganization and requested that, if necessary, Commerce initiate CCRs under the relevant AD proceedings to determine that it is the successor-in-interest to POSCO(I) for purposes of determining AD cash deposits. 1 In this request, POSCO(II) stated that, on December 10, 2021, the board of directors of POSCO(I) initially approved a corporate reorganization whereby POSCO(I) would be registered as POSCO Holdings, and POSCO(I)'s production and sales operations for its steel business would be organized under a new business unit, POSCO(II), which would be a subsidiary of POSCO Holdings. 2 Subsequently, POSCO Holdings and POSCO(II) were registered on March 2, 2022. 3

POSCO(II) states that, as a result of the reorganization, the operations, assets, and liabilities associated with POSCO(I)'s steel business are now organized under POSCO(II). Further, POSCO Holdings became the parent company to POSCO(II) and retains all of the other subsidiaries of POSCO(I) unrelated to the production and sale of steel products. 4 With the reorganization, on March 2, 2022, POSCO(II) became a private company wholly owned by POSCO Holdings, and POSCO Holdings is the publicly owned stock company ( i.e., the function that POSCO(I) had previously served).

The merchandise covered by the orders is non-oriented electrical steel, certain corrosion-resistant steel products, certain cold-rolled steel flat products, certain hot-rolled steel flat products, certain carbon and alloy steel cut-to-length plate, and carbon and alloy steel wire rod from Korea. For a complete description of the scope of each of the respective orders, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum. 5

Pursuant to section 751(b)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), and 19 CFR 351.216 and 351.221(c)(3), Commerce will conduct a CCR of an order upon receipt of information concerning, or a request from an interested party for a review of, an order which shows changed circumstances sufficient to warrant a review of the order. Commerce finds that the information submitted by POSCO(II) demonstrates changed circumstances sufficient to warrant such a review. Therefore, in accordance with section 751(b)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.216(d), Commerce is initiating CCRs based on the information contained in POSCO(II)'s request that Commerce determine POSCO(II) is the successor-in-interest to POSCO(I) for purposes of the orders. 6

Further, 19 CFR 351.221(c)(3)(ii) permits Commerce to combine the notice of initiation of a CCR and the notice of preliminary results of a CCR if Commerce concludes that expedited action is warranted. In this instance, because the record contains information necessary to make a preliminary finding, we find that expedited action is warranted and have combined the notice of initiation and the notice of preliminary results.

In determining whether one company is the successor to another, Commerce generally considers a company to be the successor-in-interest for AD cash deposit purposes if the operations of the successor are not materially dissimilar from those of its predecessor. 7 In making this determination, Commerce examines a number of factors including, but not limited to, changes in: (1) Management; (2) production facilities; (3) suppliers; and (4) customer base. 8 While no one or several of these factors will necessarily provide a dispositive indication of succession, if the evidence demonstrates that, with respect to the production and sale of the subject merchandise, the new company operates as the same business entity as the prior company, Commerce will assign the new company the cash deposit rate of its predecessor. 9

Commerce's analysis of the information submitted by POSCO(II) is detailed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum. A list of the topics discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum is included as an appendix to this notice. The Preliminary Decision Memorandum is a public document and is made available to the public via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at https://access.trade.gov. In addition, a complete version of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum is available at https://access.trade.gov/public/FRNoticesListLayout.aspx.

In its CCR Request, POSCO(II) provided evidence demonstrating that its operations are not materially dissimilar from those of POSCO(I). Specifically, POSCO(II) is managed and operated by many of the same managers as POSCO(II), either directly as board members or members of POSCO(II)'s management team, or indirectly as members of POSCO Holdings' management team. Further, POSCO(II) has not added, or discontinued use of, steel production facilities as a result of the change in ownership and management structure. Finally, there have been no significant changes to the company's suppliers and customer base. Based on the foregoing, which is explained in greater detail in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum, we preliminarily determine that POSCO(II) is the successor-in-interest to POSCO(I) and, as such, that POSCO(II) is entitled to POSCO(I)'s AD cash deposit rate with respect to entries of subject merchandise.

In accordance with 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii), interested parties may submit case briefs not later than 14 days after the date of publication of this notice. 10 Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in case briefs, may be filed not later than seven days after the due date for case briefs, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.309(d). 11 Parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this CCR are requested to submit with each argument: (1) a statement of the issues; (2) a brief summary of the arguments; and (3) a table of authorities. 12

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), any interested party may request a hearing within 14 days of publication of this notice. 13 Hearing requests should contain the following information: (1) the party's name, address, and telephone number; (2) the number of participants; and (3) a list of the issues to be discussed. Oral presentations at the hearing will be limited to issues raised in the briefs. If a request for a hearing is made, Commerce intends to hold the hearing at a time and date to be determined. Parties should confirm the date and the time of the hearing two days before the scheduled date.

All submissions must be filed electronically using ACCESS and must also be served on interested parties. An electronically-filed document must be received successfully in its entirely by ACCESS by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time (ET) on the due date. 14 Note that Commerce has temporarily modified certain requirements for serving documents containing business proprietary information, until further notice. 15

Consistent with 19 CFR 351.216(e), we intend to issue the final results of these CCRs no later than 270 days after the date on which this review was initiated, or within 45 days of publication of these preliminary results, if all parties agree to the preliminary findings.

We are issuing and publishing this initiation and preliminary results notice in accordance with section 751(b)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.216(b) and 351.221(c)(3).

On March 8, 2022, Commerce published the Preliminary Results of this review. 1 A summary of the events that occurred since Commerce published the Preliminary Results, as well as a full discussion of the issues raised by parties for these final results, are discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. 2 The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at https://access.trade.gov. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at https://access.trade.gov/public/FRNoticesListLayout.aspx.

The merchandise covered by this Order is fine denier polyester staple fiber. For a complete description of the scope of this order, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum.

All issues raised in the case brief submitted by Auriga Polymers, Inc., Fiber Industries LLC, and Nan Ya Plastics Corporation, America are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. A list of the issues discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum is included as the appendix to this notice. Based on our analysis of the comments received and record information, we revised the countervailing duty (CVD) subsidy rates calculated for Reliance. These changes are explained in the Issues and Decision Memorandum.

Commerce conducted this administrative review in accordance with section 751(a)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). For each of the subsidy programs found to be countervailable, we find that there is a subsidy, i.e., a government-provided financial contribution that gives rise to a benefit to the recipient, and that the subsidy is specific. 4 For a description of the methodology underlying Commerce's conclusions, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum.

In accordance with section 751(a)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(5), we find the net countervailable subsidy rate for the POR January 1, 2020, through December 31, 2020 to be as follows:

Commerce intends to disclose the calculations and analysis performed for these final results to interested parties within five days of the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register . 5

In accordance with section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.212(b)(2), Commerce shall determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, CVDs on all appropriate entries covered by this review. Commerce intends to issue appropriate assessment instructions to CBP no earlier than 35 days after the date of this publication of the final results of this review in the Federal Register . If a timely summons is filed at the U.S. Court of International Trade, the assessment instructions will direct CBP not to liquidate relevant entries until the time for parties to file a request for a statutory injunction has expired ( i.e., within 90 days of publication).

In accordance with section 751(a)(1) of the Act, we also intend to instruct CBP to collect cash deposits of estimated CVDs in the amount shown above. For all non-reviewed firms, CBP will continue to collect cash deposits of estimated CVDs at the most recent company-specific or all-others rate applicable to the company, as appropriate. These cash deposit requirements, effective upon publication of these final results, shall remain in effect until further notice.

This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to an administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 315.305(a)(3), which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.

These final results are issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(5).

Notices were published in the Federal Register on the dates listed below that requests for a permit or permit amendment had been submitted by the below-named applicants. To locate the Federal Register notice that announced our receipt of the application and a complete description of the activities, go to www.federalregister.gov and search on the permit number provided in Table 1 below.

In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ), a final determination has been made that the activities proposed are categorically excluded from the requirement to prepare an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement.

As required by the ESA, as applicable, issuance of these permit was based on a finding that such permits: (1) were applied for in good faith; (2) will not operate to the disadvantage of such endangered species; and (3) are consistent with the purposes and policies set forth in Section 2 of the ESA.

Authority: The requested permits have been issued under the MMPA of 1972, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq. ), the regulations governing the taking and importing of marine mammals (50 CFR part 216), the ESA of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ), and the regulations governing the taking, importing, and exporting of endangered and threatened species (50 CFR parts 222 through 226), as applicable.

Section 312 of the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) requires NOAA to conduct periodic evaluations of federally approved coastal management programs and national estuarine research reserves. The process includes one or more public meetings, consideration of written public comments, and consultations with interested Federal, State, and local agencies and members of the public. During the evaluation, NOAA will consider the extent to which the State of Michigan has met the national objectives, adhered to the management program approved by the Secretary of Commerce, and adhered to the terms of financial assistance under the CZMA. When the evaluation is completed, NOAA's Office for Coastal Management will place a notice in the Federal Register announcing the availability of the Final Evaluation Findings.

The MMPA prohibits the “take” of marine mammals, with certain exceptions. Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq. ) direct the Secretary of Commerce (as delegated to NMFS) to allow, upon request, the incidental, but not intentional, taking of small numbers of marine mammals by U.S. citizens who engage in a specified activity (other than commercial fishing) within a specified geographical region if certain findings are made and either regulations are proposed or, if the taking is limited to harassment, a notice of a proposed incidental harassment authorization is provided to the public for review.

Authorization for incidental takings shall be granted if NMFS finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s) and will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for taking for subsistence uses (where relevant). Further, NMFS must prescribe the permissible methods of taking and other “means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact” on the affected species or stocks and their habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on the availability of the species or stocks for taking for certain subsistence uses (referred to in shorthand as “mitigation”); and requirements pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring and reporting of the takings are set forth. The definitions of all applicable MMPA statutory terms cited above are included in the relevant sections below.

To comply with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ) and NOAA Administrative Order (NAO) 216-6A, NMFS must review our proposed action ( i.e., the issuance of IHAs) with respect to potential impacts on the human environment.

This action is consistent with categories of activities identified in Categorical Exclusion B4 (IHAs with no anticipated serious injury or mortality) of the Companion Manual for NOAA Administrative Order 216-6A, which do not individually or cumulatively have the potential for significant impacts on the quality of the human environment and for which we have not identified any extraordinary circumstances that would preclude this categorical exclusion. Accordingly, NMFS has preliminarily determined that the issuance of the proposed IHAs qualifies to be categorically excluded from further NEPA review.

We will review all comments submitted in response to this notice prior to concluding our NEPA process or making a final decision on the IHAs request.

On March 18, 2019, NMFS received a request from USACE for two IHAs to take 7 species of marine mammals, by Level B harassment only, incidental to vibratory pile driving and removal associated with the North Jetty Maintenance and Repairs Project in Coos Bay, Oregon over the course of two years with pile installation occurring during Year 1 and pile removal occurring during Year 2. The application was deemed adequate and complete on September 10, 2019. Neither USACE nor NMFS expects injury, serious injury or mortality to result from this activity and, therefore, IHAs are appropriate. On January 3, 2020, NMFS issued the two IHAs to the USACE (85 FR 1140; January 9, 2020). The Year 1 IHA was effective from September 1, 2020 through August 31, 2021 and the Year 2 IHA was effective July 1, 2022 through June 30, 2023.

On February 20, 2021, the USACE notified NMFS that the project had been delayed and none of the work identified in the year 1 IHA ( e.g., pile installation) had occurred. On May 4, 2021, NMFS reissued the Year 1 IHA, effective September 1, 2021 through August 31, 2022 (86 FR 24850; May 10, 2021).

On February 23, 2022, the USACE notified NMFS that the project had been further delayed and work had still not commenced. The USACE submitted an application for both IHAs to be reissued, with the Year 1 IHA effective from September 1, 2022 through August 31, 2023 and the Year 2 IHA effective from March 1, 2024 through February 28, 2025. NMFS has preliminarily determined that the USACE's proposed activities (including mitigation, monitoring, and reporting), estimated incidental take, and anticipated impacts on the affected stocks are the same as those analyzed and authorized in the initial IHAs. However, since the initial IHAs were issued several years ago, NMFS is requesting comments or additional information that may further inform our proposal to reissue the two IHAs to the USACE.

The reissued IHAs would include the same in-water construction activities ( i.e., vibratory pile installation and removal) in the same locations that were described in the initial IHAs. The mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures would remain the same as prescribed in the initial IHAs. NMFS refers the reader to the documents related to the initial IHAs issued on January 3, 2020 (available at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/action/incidental-take-authorization-us-army-corps-engineers-north-jetty-maintenance-and-repairs ) for more detailed descriptions of the project activities. Other relevant documents include the Federal Register notice of proposed IHAs and request for comments (84 FR 56781; October 23, 2019), notice of issued IHAs (85 FR 1140; January 9, 2020), and notice of reissued Year 1 IHA (86 FR 24850; May 10, 2021).

A detailed description of the USACE's proposed construction activities is found in these previous documents. The location, time of year, and nature of the activities, including the types of piles and methods of installation and removal, are identical to those described in the previous documents.

A description of the marine mammals in the area of the activities is found in these previous documents, which remains applicable to these reissued IHAs as well. In addition, NMFS has review the draft 2021 Stock Assessment Reports (SARs; Carretta et al., 2021; Muto et al., 2021), information on relevant Unusual Mortality Events, and recent scientific literature, and determined that no new information affects our original analysis of impacts under the initial IHAs. The estimated abundances of the California Breeding stock of northern elephant seals ( Mirounga angustirostris ), the Northern California/Southern Oregon stock of harbor porpoises ( Phocoena phocoena ), the West Coast Transient stock of killer whales ( Orcinus orca ), and the Eastern U.S. stock of Steller sea lions ( Eumetopias jubatus ) in the 2021 draft SARs have all increased from the numbers presented in the Federal Register notices for the initial IHAs (84 FR 56781, October 23, 2019; 85 FR 1140, January 9, 2020).

A description of the potential effects of the specified activities on marine mammals and their habitat is found in the documents supporting the initial IHAs, which remains applicable to the proposed reissuance of the IHAs. There is no new information on potential effects.

A detailed description of the methods and inputs used to estimate take for the specified activities are found in the notice of issuance of the initial IHAs (85 FR 1140; January 9, 2020). The methods of estimating take for the proposed reissued IHAs are identical to those used in the initial IHAs. The source levels, days of operation, and marine mammal density remain unchanged from the previously issued IHAs. Regarding proposed authorized take, the stocks taken, types of take, and methods of taking remain unchanged from the previously issued IHAs, as do the number of takes, which are indicated below.

The mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures proposed here are identical to those included in the Federal Register notice announcing the issuance of the initial IHAs (85 FR 1140; January 9, 2020) and the discussion of the least practicable adverse impact included in that document remains accurate. Unless otherwise stated, the following measures are proposed for inclusion in both IHAs:

All work would be conducted during daylight hours. If poor environmental conditions restrict visibility full visibility of the shutdown zone, pile installation would be delayed.

For in-water heavy machinery work other than pile driving, if a marine mammal comes within 10 m of such operations, operations would cease and vessels would reduce speed to the minimum level required to maintain steerage and safe working conditions.

For all pile driving/removal activities, the USACE would establish shutdown zones for a marine mammal species that is greater than its corresponding Level A harassment zone. To be conservative, the USACE would implement one cetacean shutdown zone (55 meters (m)) and one pinniped shutdown zone (25 m) during any pile driving/removal activity ( i.e., during sheet piles, H-piles, and 30-in steel pile installation and removal) (Table 2) which exceeds the maximum calculated PTS isopleths as described in Table 7 of the Federal Register notice announcing the issuance of the initial IHAs (85 FR 1140; January 9, 2020). The purpose of a shutdown zone is generally to define an area within which shutdown of the activity would occur upon sighting of a marine mammal (or in anticipation of an animal entering the defined area).

If a species enters or approaches the Level B harassment zone and that species is either not authorized for take or its authorized takes are met, pile driving and removal activities would shut down immediately using delay and shutdown procedures. Activities would not resume until the animal has been confirmed to have left the area or an observation time period of 15 minutes has elapsed for pinnipeds and small cetaceans and 30 minutes for large whales.

Prior to the start of daily in-water construction activity, or whenever a break in pile driving of 30 min or longer occurs, protected species observers (PSOs) would observe the shutdown and monitoring zones for a period of 30 minutes. The shutdown zone would be cleared when a marine mammal has not been observed within the zone for that 30-minute period. If a marine mammal is observed within the shutdown zone, pile driving activities would not begin until the animal has left the shutdown zone or has not been observed for 15 min. If the Level B Harassment Monitoring Zone has been observed for 30 min and no marine mammals (for which take has not been authorized) are present within the zone, work would continue even if visibility becomes impaired within the Monitoring Zone. If a marine mammal for which take has been permitted is present in the Monitoring zone, piling activities would begin and Level B harassment take will be recorded.

The USACE would establish and observe monitoring zones for Level B harassment. The monitoring zones for this project are areas where SPLs are equal to or exceed 120 dB rms (for vibratory pile driving/removal). For vibratory installation and removal of 12-inch H piles, the Level B harassment zone and monitoring zone would be 1,000 m. For vibratory installation and removal of 24-inch steel sheet piles, the Level B harassment zone and monitoring zone would be 4,642 m. For vibratory installation and removal of 30-inch steel pipe piles, the Level B harassment zone and monitoring zone would be 8,577 m. These zones provide utility for monitoring conducted for mitigation purposes ( i.e., shutdown zone monitoring) by establishing monitoring protocols for areas adjacent to the shutdown zones. Monitoring of the Level B harassment zones enables observers to be aware of and communicate the presence of marine mammals in the project area, and thus prepare for potential shutdowns of activity. The USACE would also gather information to help better understand the impacts of their planned activities on species and their behavioral responses.

Monitoring would be conducted 30 minutes before, during, and 30 minutes after all pile driving/removal activities. In addition, PSOs would record all incidents of marine mammal occurrence, regardless of distance from activity, and shall document any behavioral reactions in concert with distance from piles being driven/removed. Pile driving/removal activities include the time to install, remove a single pile or series of piles, as long as the time elapsed between uses of the pile driving equipment is no more than thirty minutes.

Monitoring would be conducted by PSOs from on land and boat. The number of PSOs would vary from one to three, depending on the type of pile driving, method of pile driving and size of pile, all of which determines the size of the harassment zones. Monitoring locations would be selected to provide an unobstructed view of all water within the shutdown zone and as much of the Level B harassment zone as possible for pile driving activities. During vibratory driving or removal of sheet or H-piles, two PSOs would be present. One PSO would be located on the shoreline adjacent to the Material Off-loading Facility (MOF) site or on the barge used for driving piles. The other PSO would be boat-based and detect animals in the water, along with monitoring the three haulout sites in the Level B harassment zone (i.e., Pigeon Point, Clam Island/North Spit, and South Slough). During vibratory driving and removal of 30-inch steel pipe piles, three PSOs would be present. As indicated above, one PSO would be on the shoreline or barge adjacent to the MOF site. A second PSO would be stationed near the South Slough haul out site, and the third PSO would be boat-based and make observations while actively monitoring at and between the two remaining haulout sites ( i.e., Pigeon Point and Clam Island).

In addition, PSOs would work in shifts lasting no longer than 4 hours with at least a 1-hour break between shifts, and would not perform duties as a PSO for more than 12 hours in a 24-hour period (to reduce PSO fatigue).

Monitoring of pile driving would be conducted by qualified, NMFS-approved PSOs, who would have no other assigned tasks during monitoring periods. The USACE would adhere to the following conditions when selecting PSOs:

Independent PSOs must be used ( i.e., not construction personnel);

At least one PSO must have prior experience working as a marine mammal observer during construction activities;

Other PSOs may substitute education (degree in biological science or related field) or training for experience;

Where a team of three or more PSOs are required, a lead observer or monitoring coordinator would be designated. The lead observer must have prior experience working as a marine mammal observer during construction; and

The USACE would submit PSO CVs for approval by NMFS for all observers prior to monitoring.

The USACE would ensure that the PSOs have the following additional qualifications:

Visual acuity in both eyes (correction is permissible) sufficient for discernment of moving targets at the water's surface with ability to estimate target size and distance; use of binoculars may be necessary to correctly identify the target;

Experience and ability to conduct field observations and collect data according to assigned protocols;

Experience or training in the field identification of marine mammals, including the identification of behaviors;

Sufficient training, orientation, or experience with the construction operation to provide for personal safety during observations;

Writing skills sufficient to prepare a report of observations including but not limited to the number and species of marine mammals observed; dates and times when in-water construction activities were conducted; dates, times, and reason for implementation of mitigation (or why mitigation was not implemented when required); and marine mammal behavior;

Ability to communicate orally, by radio or in person, with project personnel to provide real-time information on marine mammals observed in the area as necessary; and

Sufficient training, orientation, or experience with the construction operations to provide for personal safety during observations.

In the unanticipated event that the planned activity clearly causes the take of a marine mammal in a manner prohibited by the IHA, such as serious injury, or mortality, the USACE would immediately cease the specified activities and report the incident to the NMFS Office of Protected Resources and the West Coast Region Stranding Coordinator. The report would include the following information:

Time and date of the incident;

Description of the incident;

Environmental conditions ( e.g., wind speed and direction, Beaufort sea state, cloud cover, and visibility);

Description of all marine mammal observations and active sound source use in the 24 hours preceding the incident;

Species identification or description of the animal(s) involved;

Fate of the animal(s); and

Photographs or video footage of the animal(s).

Activities would not resume until NMFS is able to review the circumstances of the prohibited take. NMFS would work with USACE to determine what measures are necessary to minimize the likelihood of further prohibited take and ensure MMPA compliance. The USACE would not resume their activities until notified by NMFS.

In the event the USACE discovers an injured or dead marine mammal, and the lead observer determines that the cause of the injury or death is unknown and the death is relatively recent ( e.g., in less than a moderate state of decomposition), the USACE would immediately report the incident to the Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, and the West Coast Region Stranding Coordinator, NMFS. The report would include the same information as the bullets described above. Activities would continue while NMFS reviews the circumstances of the incident. NMFS would work with the USACE to determine whether additional mitigation measures or modifications to the activities are appropriate.

In the event that the USACE discovers an injured or dead marine mammal, and the lead observer determines that the injury or death is not associated with or related to the specified activities ( e.g., previously wounded animal, carcass with moderate to advanced decomposition, or scavenger damage), the USACE would report the incident to the Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, and the West Coast Region Stranding Coordinator, NMFS, within 24 hours of the discovery.

The USACE would submit a draft report to NMFS no later than 90 days following the end of construction activities or 60 days prior to the issuance of any subsequent IHA for the project. PSO datasheets/raw sightings data would be required to be submitted with the reports. The USACE would provide a final report within 30 days following resolution of NMFS' comments on the draft report. Reports would contain, at minimum, the following:

Date and time that monitored activity begins and ends for each day conducted (monitoring period);

Construction activities occurring during each daily observation period, including how many and what type of piles driven;

Deviation from initial proposal in pile numbers, pile types, average driving times, etc.;

Weather parameters in each monitoring period ( e.g., wind speed, percent cloud cover, visibility);

Water conditions in each monitoring period ( e.g., sea state, tide state);

For each marine mammal sighting: species, numbers, and, if possible, sex and age class of marine mammals; number of individuals of each species (differentiated by month as appropriate) detected within the monitoring zones, and estimates of number of marine mammals taken, by species (a correction factor may be applied to total take numbers, as appropriate); description of any observable marine mammal behavior patterns, including bearing and direction of travel and distance from pile driving activity; type of construction activity that was taking place at the time of sighting; location and distance from pile driving activities to marine mammals and distance from the marine mammals to the observation point; and if shutdown was implemented, behavioral reactions noted and if they occurred before or after shutdown.

Description of implementation of mitigation measures within each monitoring period ( e.g., shutdown or delay);

Other human activity in the area within each monitoring period; and

A summary of the following: total number of individuals of each species detected within the Level B Harassment Zone, and estimated as taken if correction factor appropriate (Level B harassment takes must be extrapolated based upon the number of observed takes and the percentage of the Level B Harassment Zone that was not visible); total number of individuals of each species detected within the Level A Harassment Zone and the average amount of time that they remained in that zone; and daily average number of individuals of each species (differentiated by month as appropriate) detected within the Level B Harassment Zone, and estimated as taken, if appropriate.

The USACE's proposed in-water construction activities as well as the proposed mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements are unchanged from those in the initial Year 1 and Year 2 IHAs. The anticipated effects of the activities on the affected species and stocks and the estimated take of each species and stock also remain unchanged. When issuing the initial IHAs, NMFS found that each year of the Coos Bay North Jetty Maintenance and Repairs Project would have a negligible impact to species or stocks' rates of recruitment and survival and the amount of taking would be small relative to the population size of such species or stock (less than 10 percent). In conclusion, there is no new information suggesting that our analysis or findings should change.

Based on the information contained here and in the referenced documents, NMFS has preliminarily determined the following for each IHA: (1) the required mitigation measures will effect the least practicable impact on marine mammal species or stocks and their habitat; (2) the proposed authorized takes will have a negligible impact on the affected marine mammal species or stocks; (3) the proposed authorized takes represent small numbers of marine mammals relative to the affected stock abundances; (4) the USACE's activities will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on taking for subsistence purposes as no relevant subsistence uses of marine mammals are implicated by this action; and (5) appropriate monitoring and reporting requirements are included.

Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA: 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ) requires that each Federal agency insure that any action it authorizes, funds, or carries out is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitat. No take of ESA-listed marine mammals are authorized. Therefore, NMFS has determined that consultation under section 7 of the ESA is not required for this action.

As a result of these preliminary determinations, NMFS proposes to issue two IHAs to the USACE for conducting the North Jetty Maintenance and Repairs Project in Coos Bay, Oregon over the course of two non-consecutive years, beginning September 2022 through February 2025, with the previously mentioned mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements incorporated. A draft of the proposed IHAs can be found at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/permit/incidental-take-authorizations-under-marine-mammal-protection-act.

We request comment on our analyses (included in both this document and the referenced documents supporting the initial IHAs), the proposed authorizations, and any other aspect of this Notice of Proposed IHAs for the proposed North Jetty Maintenance and Repairs Project. We also request comment on the potential for renewal of this proposed IHA as described in the paragraph below. Please include with your comments any supporting data or literature citations to help inform our final decision on the request for MMPA authorization.

On a case-by-case basis, NMFS may issue a one-time, one-year renewal IHA following notice to the public providing an additional 15 days for public comments when (1) up to another year of identical or nearly identical activities as described in the Description of Proposed Activities and Anticipated Impacts section of this notice is planned or (2) the activities as described in the Description of Proposed Activities and Anticipated Impacts section of this notice would not be completed by the time the IHA expires and a renewal would allow for completion of the activities beyond that described in this notice, provided all of the following conditions are met:

• A request for renewal is received no later than 60 days prior to the needed renewal IHA effective date (recognizing that the renewal IHA expiration date cannot extend beyond one year from expiration of the initial IHA).

• The request for renewal must include the following:

(1) An explanation that the activities to be conducted under the requested renewal IHA are identical to the activities analyzed under the initial IHA, are a subset of the activities, or include changes so minor ( e.g., reduction in pile size) that the changes do not affect the previous analyses, mitigation and monitoring requirements, or take estimates (with the exception of reducing the type or amount of take).

(2) A preliminary monitoring report showing the results of the required monitoring to date and an explanation showing that the monitoring results do not indicate impacts of a scale or nature not previously analyzed or authorized.

Upon review of the request for renewal, the status of the affected species or stocks, and any other pertinent information, NMFS determines that there are no more than minor changes in the activities, the mitigation and monitoring measures will remain the same and appropriate, and the findings in the initial IHA remain valid.

Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq. ) direct the Secretary of Commerce to allow, upon request, the incidental, but not intentional, taking of small numbers of marine mammals by U.S. citizens who engage in a specified activity (other than commercial fishing) within a specified geographical region if certain findings are made and either regulations are issued or, if the taking is limited to harassment, a notice of a proposed authorization is provided to the public for review.

An authorization for incidental takings shall be granted if NMFS finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s), will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses (where relevant), and if the permissible methods of taking and requirements pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring and reporting of such takings are set forth. NMFS has defined “negligible impact” in 50 CFR 216.103 as an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival.

Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, the MMPA defines “harassment” as: any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild (Level A harassment); or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering (Level B harassment).

On January 19, 2021, we issued a final rule with regulations to govern the unintentional taking of marine mammals incidental to geophysical survey activities conducted by oil and gas industry operators, and those persons authorized to conduct activities on their behalf (collectively “industry operators”), in Federal waters of the U.S. Gulf of Mexico (GOM) over the course of 5 years (86 FR 5322; January 19, 2021). The rule was based on our findings that the total taking from the specified activities over the 5-year period will have a negligible impact on the affected species or stock(s) of marine mammals and will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of those species or stocks for subsistence uses. The rule became effective on April 19, 2021.

Our regulations at 50 CFR 217.180 et seq. allow for the issuance of LOAs to industry operators for the incidental take of marine mammals during geophysical survey activities and prescribe the permissible methods of taking and other means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact on marine mammal species or stocks and their habitat (often referred to as mitigation), as well as requirements pertaining to the monitoring and reporting of such taking. Under 50 CFR 217.186(e), issuance of an LOA shall be based on a determination that the level of taking will be consistent with the findings made for the total taking allowable under these regulations and a determination that the amount of take authorized under the LOA is of no more than small numbers.

NMFS issued an LOA to LLOG on January 10, 2022, for the take of marine mammals incidental to one of the following vertical seismic profile (VSP) survey types: Zero Offset, Offset, Walk Away, Salt Proximity and/or Check Shots after reaching total depth of any of the proposed wells operated by LLOG within the Keathley Canyon Area. Please see the Federal Register notice of issuance (87 FR 3084; January 20, 2022) for additional detail regarding the LOA and the survey activity.

LLOG initially anticipated that the activity would occur at some point between March 1 and December 31, 2022. LLOG subsequently conveyed to NMFS that a shift in their rig schedule is likely to cause the associated VSP survey to occur later than previously expected. LLOG has requested modification to the effectiveness end date of the LOA (from December 31, 2022 to December 31, 2023) to account for any potential delays. There are no other changes to LLOG's planned activity. Since issuance of the LOA, no survey work has occurred.

NMFS has changed the effectiveness end date of the LOA from December 31, 2022 to December 31, 2023. There are no other changes to the LOA as described in the January 10, 2022, Federal Register notice of issuance (87 FR 3084): the specified activity; estimated take by incidental harassment; and small numbers analysis and determination remain unchanged and are herein incorporated by reference.

Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq. ) direct the Secretary of Commerce to allow, upon request, the incidental, but not intentional, taking of small numbers of marine mammals by U.S. citizens who engage in a specified activity (other than commercial fishing) within a specified geographical region if certain findings are made and either regulations are issued or, if the taking is limited to harassment, a notice of a proposed authorization is provided to the public for review.

An authorization for incidental takings shall be granted if NMFS finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s), will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses (where relevant), and if the permissible methods of taking and requirements pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring and reporting of such takings are set forth. NMFS has defined “negligible impact” in 50 CFR 216.103 as an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival.

Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, the MMPA defines “harassment” as: any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild (Level A harassment); or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering (Level B harassment).

On January 19, 2021, we issued a final rule with regulations to govern the unintentional taking of marine mammals incidental to geophysical survey activities conducted by oil and gas industry operators, and those persons authorized to conduct activities on their behalf (collectively “industry operators”), in Federal waters of the U.S. Gulf of Mexico (GOM) over the course of 5 years (86 FR 5322; January 19, 2021). The rule was based on our findings that the total taking from the specified activities over the 5-year period will have a negligible impact on the affected species or stock(s) of marine mammals and will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of those species or stocks for subsistence uses. The rule became effective on April 19, 2021.

Our regulations at 50 CFR 217.180 et seq. allow for the issuance of LOAs to industry operators for the incidental take of marine mammals during geophysical survey activities and prescribe the permissible methods of taking and other means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact on marine mammal species or stocks and their habitat (often referred to as mitigation), as well as requirements pertaining to the monitoring and reporting of such taking. Under 50 CFR 217.186(e), issuance of an LOA shall be based on a determination that the level of taking will be consistent with the findings made for the total taking allowable under these regulations and a determination that the amount of take authorized under the LOA is of no more than small numbers.

Echo plans to conduct four identical high resolution seismic surveys using a single 20-cubic inch airgun along with three additional high-resolution sources: a sidescan sonar, a sub-bottom profiler, and a multibeam echosounder. Each survey will occur in one of the following locations: (1) East Cameron Area Lease Block 187; (2) Ship Shoal Area, South Addition Lease Block 239; (3) West Delta Area North Survey Lease Area 101; and (4) West Delta Area South Survey Lease Block 101. See Echo's application for more details.

Consistent with the preamble to the final rule, the survey effort proposed by Echo in its LOA request was used to develop LOA-specific take estimates based on the acoustic exposure modeling results described in the preamble (86 FR 5322, 5398; January 19, 2021). In order to generate the appropriate take number for authorization, the following information was considered: (1) survey type; (2) location (by modeling zone  1 ); (3) number of days; and (4) season. 2 The acoustic exposure modeling performed in support of the rule provides 24-hour exposure estimates for each species, specific to each modeled survey type in each zone and season.

As sources will be used simultaneously, exposure modeling results were generated using the single airgun proxy, as it produces the greater value for each species (as opposed to the high-resolution geophysical proxy, involving use of the same package of three additional instruments planned for use by Echo). Because the proxy assumes use of a 90 in 3 airgun, the take numbers authorized through this LOA are considered conservative ( i.e., they likely overestimate take due to differences in the sound source planned for use by Echo, as compared to those modeled for the rule). The survey is planned to occur for 1 day at each survey location for a total of 4 days of surveying. All surveying effort will occur in Zone 2 during Summer.

Based on the results of our analysis, NMFS has determined that the level of taking expected for this survey, and authorized through the LOA, is consistent with the findings made for the total taking allowable under the regulations. See Table 1 in this notice and Table 9 of the rule (86 FR 5322; January 19, 2021).

Under the GOM rule, NMFS may not authorize incidental take of marine mammals in an LOA if it will exceed “small numbers.” In short, when an acceptable estimate of the individual marine mammals taken is available, if the estimated number of individual animals taken is up to, but not greater than, one-third of the best available abundance estimate, NMFS will determine that the numbers of marine mammals taken of a species or stock are small. For more information please see NMFS' discussion of the MMPA's small numbers requirement provided in the final rule (86 FR 5322; January 19, 2021, 86 FR 5438; January 19, 2021).

The take numbers for authorization, which are determined as described above, are used by NMFS in making the necessary small numbers determinations, through comparison with the best available abundance estimates (see discussion at 86 FR 5322, 5391; January 19, 2021). For this comparison, NMFS' approach is to use the maximum theoretical population, determined through review of current stock assessment reports (SAR; www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stock-assessments ) and model-predicted abundance information ( https://seamap.env.duke.edu/models/Duke/GOM/ ). For the latter, for taxa where a density surface model could be produced, we use the maximum mean seasonal ( i.e., 3-month) abundance prediction for purposes of comparison as a precautionary smoothing of month-to-month fluctuations and in consideration of a corresponding lack of data in the literature regarding seasonal distribution of marine mammals in the GOM. Information supporting the small numbers determinations is provided in Table 1.

Based on the analysis contained herein of Echo's proposed survey activity described in its LOA application and the anticipated take of marine mammals, NMFS finds that small numbers of marine mammals will be taken relative to the affected species or stock sizes and therefore is of no more than small numbers.

NMFS has determined that the level of taking for this LOA request is consistent with the findings made for the total taking allowable under the incidental take regulations and that the amount of take authorized under the LOA is of no more than small numbers. Accordingly, we have issued an LOA to Echo authorizing the take of marine mammals incidental to its geophysical survey activity, as described above.

Section 312 of the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) requires NOAA to conduct periodic evaluations of federally approved coastal management programs and national estuarine research reserves. The process includes one or more public meetings, consideration of written public comments, and consultations with interested Federal, State, and local agencies and members of the public. During the evaluation, NOAA will consider the extent to which the Commonwealth of Virginia has met the national objectives, adhered to the management program approved by the Secretary of Commerce, and adhered to the terms of financial assistance under the CZMA. When the evaluation is completed, NOAA's Office for Coastal Management will place a notice in the Federal Register announcing the availability of the Final Evaluation Findings.

Under the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of Information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3 and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A), requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each proposed extension of an existing collection of information, before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with this requirement, the CFTC is publishing notice of the proposed extension of the collection of information listed herein. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

Title: Process for a Swap Execution Facility or Designated Contract Market to Make a Swap Available to Trade (OMB Control No. 3038-0099). This is a request for extension of a currently approved information collection.

Abstract: The collection of information is needed to help determine which swaps should be subject to the trade execution requirement under section 2(h)(8) of the Commodity Exchange Act pursuant to Section 723 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. A SEF or DCM that submits a determination that a swap is available to trade must address at least one of several factors to demonstrate that the swap is suitable for trading pursuant to the trade execution requirement. The Commission uses this collection of information to facilitate the application of the trade execution requirement and the requirements associated with methods of execution under parts 37 and 38 of the Commission's regulations.

With respect to the collection of information, the CFTC invites comments on:

• Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information will have a practical use;

• The accuracy of the Commission's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

• Ways to enhance the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

• Ways to minimize the burden of collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology; e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

All comments must be submitted in English, or if not, accompanied by an English translation. Comments will be posted as received to https://www.cftc.gov. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. If you wish the Commission to consider information that you believe is exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act, a petition for confidential treatment of the exempt information may be submitted according to the procedures established in § 145.9 of the Commission's regulations.

The Commission reserves the right, but shall have no obligation, to review, pre-screen, filter, redact, refuse or remove any or all of your submission from https://www.cftc.gov that it may deem to be inappropriate for publication, such as obscene language. All submissions that have been redacted or removed that contain comments on the merits of the Information Collection Request will be retained in the public comment file and will be considered as required under the Administrative Procedure Act and other applicable laws, and may be accessible under the Freedom of Information Act.

Burden Statement: Sections 37.10 and 38.12 of the Commission's regulations include information collection requirements within the meaning of the PRA. These regulations permit a SEF or DCM to submit a determination that a swap is available to trade to the Commission via filing procedures set forth in part 40 of the Commission's regulations. The Commission estimates the burden of complying with these information collection requirements to be 16 hours per response.

Respondents/Affected Entities: SEFs, DCMs.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 5.

Estimated Average Burden Hours per Respondent: 16.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 80 hours.

Frequency of Collection: On occasion.

There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection.

The Department intends these priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria to support competitions under the FSCS program for the purpose of awarding grants to projects in different stages of development, from capacity building to scaling full-service community schools approaches where the community and education leadership are ready to scale. These stages represent points of entry at the local, district, regional, and State levels to strategically scale the community school approach based on the readiness of the consortium applying for the grant.

Purpose of Program: The FSCS program, established under sections 4621-4625 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, as amended (ESEA), provides support for the planning, implementation, and operation of full-service community schools that improve the coordination, integration, accessibility, and effectiveness of services for children and families, particularly for children attending schools with concentrated poverty, including rural schools.

Program Authority: Sections 4621-4625 of the ESEA, 20 U.S.C. 1771-7273, 7275.

We published a notice of proposed priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria for this program in the Federal Register on January 12, 2022 (87 FR 1709) (the NPP). That document contained background information and our reasons for proposing the priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria.

Public Comment: In response to our invitation in the NPP, 43 parties submitted comments pertinent to the proposed priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria. We discuss substantive issues under each priority, requirement, definition, or selection criteria to which they pertain. Generally, we do not address technical and other minor changes or suggested changes the law does not authorize us to make. In addition, we do not address comments that are outside the scope of the proposed priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria.

Analysis of Comments and Changes: An analysis of the comments and of any changes in the priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria since publication of the NPP follows.

Proposed Priority 1—Capacity Building and Development Grants.

Comments: Among the 15 comments related to Proposed Priority 1, all expressed overall support for the importance of and need for the priority.

Six commenters recommended revisions to Proposed Priority 1, including striking the word “sustain” to better reflect that this priority is focused on building grantee capacity and the initial development of full-service community schools. Six commenters suggested that the Department clarify that the needs assessment could be done during, rather than before, the grant period. Two commenters recommended that we designate Priority 1 as an absolute priority, and three suggested that we set the grant period at 3 years. One commenter recommended that the Department reduce the funding available for Priority 1 grantees, which in FY 2019 was established at $500,000 per year for 5 years, at total of up to $2.5 million for the full grant period. One commenter requested that we clarify that a grantee can scale beyond the two schools required in Priority 1. One commenter suggested that Priority 1 should emphasize civic learning and development of civic knowledge and skills. Another commenter suggested that the Department require asset mapping as part of the needs assessment, as well as a clear plan for how the grantee will engage and collaborate with families. Another commenter suggested the Department encourage projects that approach capacity building and development of programs holistically, including through collaboration and integration with early childhood education providers such as Head Start.

Discussion: The Department appreciates the support for the proposed priority and concurs that the purpose of Priority 1 is to encourage grantees to begin the work to develop full-service community schools. As such, the Department clarifies that the needs assessment can be completed during the grant period and will eliminate the word “sustain” from the description.

The Department acknowledges the importance of a comprehensive, collaborative, equitable, accessible, culturally competent, and inclusive approach to completing a holistic and individualized needs assessment that considers community assets and engages a wide and representative range of participants, including families and early childhood educators such as Head Start providers. We are revising the language of the priority to include extensive community engagement as part of the development and coordination activities in Priority 1. The Department declines to require applicants to conduct asset mapping because the term is not used in section 4625(a)(4) of the ESEA and we want to maintain maximum flexibility for applicants. Additionally, nothing in the priority prevents an applicant from conducting asset mapping. Pillar 3 of the FSCS requirements includes active family and community engagement, and we are revising the definition of a broadly representative consortium to include student, family, and community voices. The Department thinks that the activities outlined in Pillar 3, which specifies that the school provides centralized supports for families and communities, which may include citizenship preparation, allows for a wide variety of activities. We appreciate the specific ideas about the organizations, individuals, and activities an applicant or grantee might engage in their plans to develop a full-service community school; maintaining the broad language in the priority, however, will allow for additional ideas.

The Department appreciates the interest in distinguishing Priority 1 as an absolute priority that is focused on development and capacity building, including the recommendation to rename the priority to reflect that focus, reduce the grant period to 3 years, and reduce the level of funding for awards. Regarding the duration of FSCS grants, section 4623(b) of the ESEA establishes that “a grant awarded under this subpart shall be for a period of not more than 5 years, and may be extended for an additional 2 years.” Applicants may propose shorter project periods, but the Department thinks it is important to allow applicants, including applicants that are building capacity and developing a full-service community school, with sufficient time to plan, develop and implement their project. A longer period of performance will also reduce the administrative burden on applicants by reducing the frequency of applications. As such, we decline the suggestion to shorten the length of the grant. The designation as an absolute, competitive preference, or invitational priority is established through the notice inviting applications (NIA).

Section 4625(e) of the ESEA requires that FSCS grantees use their awards to coordinate three or more existing pipeline services and provide a minimum of two additional services at two or more public elementary or secondary schools. Given the statutory requirement that grantees coordinate existing services and provide additional services during their grant period, all FSCS grantees are required to implement a minimal number of full-service community schools' activities. The Department intends to reflect this requirement in the NIA and by maintaining the current title of the priority, Capacity Building and Development Grants. The priority allows for applications that propose to serve more than two schools, but we think the language that a grantee implement a full-service community school in “two or more schools” is sufficiently clear.

Changes: We have revised Priority 1 by eliminating the word “sustain” and clarifying that the needs assessment can be completed during the grant period. We have added that initial development and coordination activities include extensive community engagement. We discuss below our changes to definitions, including the change to the definition of the Pillars of Full-Service Community Schools to ensure that student, family, and community voice are included.

Priority 2—Multi-Local Educational Agency Grants.

Comments: Many commenters strongly supported a priority that expands implementation of full-service community schools beyond two school sites and into local educational agencies (LEAs). Seven commenters recommended that the Department retitle the priority to use the term “Implementation Grants” and include the expectation that grants awarded under this priority would be sustained beyond Federal funding. Further, one commenter requested that the Department clarify that funding under Priority 2 expand and sustain community schools within an LEA. An additional commenter proposed that the Department clarify that a grantee can expand to additional schools beyond the two required by section 4625(a)(3) of the ESEA.

Four commenters recommended that Priority 2 require no more than one LEA, while three other commenters offered support for the inclusion of two or more LEAs, noting that the requirement that two or more LEAs work together benefits small and rural LEAs. Eight commenters requested that the Department revise the requirement that the LEAs be located in the same State, noting that in many places, including rural, remote and Tribal places, community identity is not limited by the legal boundaries of a State.

One commenter requested that the Department clarify that the eligible applicants under this priority include those outlined in section 4622(1)(B) of the ESEA—which is a consortium of one or more LEAs or the Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) and one or more community-based organizations, nonprofit organizations, or other public entities—and that funds be reserved or designated for primary applicants that are not LEAs. One commenter suggested that the Department provide a comprehensive list of expanded learning professionals for all LEAs and allow for local flexibility for each school to choose those that best meet the needs of their community. One commenter did not support Priority 2 because unitary systems, such as Hawaii and Puerto Rico, would be ineligible under this priority.

Discussion: The Department appreciates the support for Priority 2 and the design to scale development of full-service community schools into further implementation across two or more LEAs. Because Priority 1 also requires that grantees develop and begin implementation of the full-service community school model, including an allowance for use of funds for planning in year one, we decline the suggestion to retitle Priority 2; however, although no revisions to the priority are required, we agree that grantees should plan how they will sustain their work in additional schools and LEAs. In response to the concern that applicants and grantees can expand support to additional schools beyond the statutorily required two schools, the Department is adding language requiring eligible entities to “coordinate and provide services at two or more full- service community schools.” The Department agrees that it is important to clarify that, under Priority 2, two or more community schools would be implemented in each LEA.

We appreciate the considerations of several commenters that implementing a community school approach across a single system, such as a single LEA, is sufficiently complex. However, we think that the distinction of working in no fewer than two LEAs is an important indicator of scaling the model. We also appreciate the considerations of small and rural LEAs who expressed that working in partnership with one or more additional LEAs supports their implementation of the model. The Department acknowledges that community identity often transcends official State boundaries and that, in some places, including rural and Tribal areas, it may be appropriate for the two or more LEAs to be located in different States, and thus, we are eliminating that requirement from Priority 2.

Regarding the request that the Department consider reserving funds under Priority 2 for nonprofit-led consortia, we think individual communities and applicants are best positioned to determine the makeup of their consortium. As such, we decline to require Priority 2 applications to be led by nonprofits or that a portion of funding be reserved for nonprofit-led consortia; however, we are adding language to clarify that eligible applicants are consortia that include LEAs or the BIE and nonprofit organizations. The Department appreciates the suggestion that each LEA be provided with a list of expanded learning professionals, but we know that individual communities are best positioned to assess the resources and potential partners that can address the needs and supplement the assets identified in the development of their full-service community schools. As such, we will not provide a list of expanded learning professionals to LEAs. While unitary systems where the State Educational Agency (SEA) is also the LEA would not be eligible to apply under Priority 2, those entities would be able to apply under Priorities 1 and 3. Further, the NPP included a citation within Proposed Priority 3, which stated that the District of Columbia, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico may apply for Statewide grants, as does the text of Final Priority 3 included in this NFP. This clarification is also included in the NIA.

Changes: The Department has revised Priority 2 to require that an applicant implement and sustain the model in two or more schools and in two or more LEAs. The language of the priority clarifies that eligible applicants are consortia that include, and may be led by, community-based organizations, nonprofit organizations, or public or private entities. The Department has eliminated the language in the priority that the two or more LEAs are located in the same State. Upon our internal review, we also added an exception for LEAs that oversee a single school—to the requirement to coordinate and provide services at two or more full-service community schools in each LEA—in recognition that some small, rural or charter school LEAs may only serve a single school.

Priority 3—State Scaling Grants.

Comments: The Department received numerous comments that support Priority 3's focus on scaling the full-service community school at the statewide level. Three commenters requested that the Department clarify that eligible applicants under Priority 3 are those outlined in section 4622(1)(B) of the ESEA. Four commenters proposed that the Department require that the SEA apply as part of the required consortium, or that the consortium include documentation from the SEA, in the form of a letter of support, outlining the SEA's commitment to and partnership with the consortium.

Two commenters proposed that the Department require, as a condition of eligibility, that States identify or establish a State steering committee that represents community schools stakeholders, including educators and other school staff, community school initiative leaders, education union or association designees, family leaders participating in community school programs, community partners, and community school coordinators from schools already implementing community schools in that State and that, in addition to serving as an advisory committee, also has the authority to make decisions about the design, implementation, and evaluation of State efforts for the grant. One commenter suggested that the Department require each grantee under Priority 3 to provide clear and consistent guidance for identifying LEAs, including the establishment of a minimum set of criteria so that the LEAs most in need are considered.

Five commenters requested that the Department remove the requirement that six or more LEAs participate in a grant under Priority 3; two commenters suggested that the Department require a percentage of the State's LEAs to participate, making the requirement more consistent across States with large and small numbers of LEAs. Several commenters recommended that funding available be commensurate with the number of LEAs included in a grant.

Two commenters requested that the Department clarify that an applicant's receipt of a grant in partnership with an SEA does not preclude other applicants in the State from receiving an award under a separate priority. Two commenters shared that they do not support Priority 3, including one commenter who declined to support the priority because, in their reading, unitary systems such as Hawaii and Puerto Rico would be ineligible.

Discussion: The Department appreciates the support for scaling full-service community schools to the State level, as well as the suggestions commenters provided. In response to the request that the Department reaffirm the eligible applicants under the FSCS program, we recognize that the eligible applicants are established in section 4622(1)(B) of the ESEA; therefore, the Department cannot make changes that would allow or require the SEA to be a lead applicant. The Department further agrees that the State scaling envisioned in Priority 3 makes SEA involvement and commitment critical to successful implementation and scaling; SEA commitment must be demonstrated through the FSCS-required memorandum of understanding (MOU). The Department appreciates the insights of commenters regarding the need for and benefit of a statewide steering committee that can support implementation and scaling, including selection of participating LEAs. However, the Department thinks that applicants and grantees, working with their partners, including Tribal partners, the broadly representative consortium (as defined in this notice) and the statewide steering committee are best positioned to determine the process for selecting LEAs under Priority 3. Regarding the concern that selected LEAs have demonstrated need, section 4625(b) of the ESEA prioritizes schools eligible for a schoolwide program under section 114(b) of ESEA.

The Department acknowledges the concerns that Priority 3 not set a minimum of participating LEAs and recognizes that there is wide variation in the number of LEAs and the number of schools within LEAs, across States. We agree that requiring a percentage of LEAs in the State would be a more equitable approach to scaling the model. However, the Department is interested in funding applications that propose to work with their partners to develop, implement, evaluate, and sustain full-service community schools at a level, and in a percentage of LEAs and schools, across the State that will effectively scale the model statewide and are addressing this through revisions to the selection criteria. The Department will take into consideration the request that funding be made commensurate with the number of LEAs, and number of schools within those LEAs, that will be served, but funding levels are established in the NIA.

The Department also recognizes the concern that a grant awarded under Priority 3 might inhibit submission of additional applications in that State under other priorities, and we will clarify through pre-application technical assistance that multiple awards can be made in a State provided that funded activities do not overlap. The Department also understands the concern of unitary systems where the SEA is also the LEA; however, the NPP included a citation under Proposed Priority 3 with the clarification that “DC, HI, and PR may apply for Statewide grants.” The final priority includes the same clarification.

Changes: The Department has revised Priority 3 to require that the SEA document its commitment to the consortia and implementation of the grant, if awarded, through the required MOU. Additionally, the Department is requiring, under Priority 3, that the applicant commit to establishing a State steering committee. Finally, the Department has revised the requirement from six or more LEAs to a requirement that the applicant, in partnership with the SEA, determine the percentage of LEAs in the State that will develop, support, and expand full-service community schools over the 5-year grant performance period. We have included a selection criterion that will be used to assess the applicant's proposal to scale the FSCS model at the statewide level, including recommendations for considering the percentage of LEAs proposed when awarding points. Upon our internal review, we also added language recognizing that some small, rural, tribal, or charter school LEAs may only serve a single school.

Proposed Priority 4—Participation in a National Evaluation.

Comments: Of the 19 comments received related to Priority 4, most expressed concern about use of a randomized controlled trial evaluation design for the program. Two commenters supported the model.

Six commenters objected to the national evaluation's randomized controlled study design. Five commenters encouraged the Department to use a different study design (such as various quasi-experimental designs) rather than a randomized controlled trial. One commenter expressed doubt that the national evaluation could control what was happening in the group of schools that would not receive funding.

Six commenters objected to the Department not funding every interested and eligible school under the randomized controlled trial study design.

There were six comments related to the data collected by the national evaluation. Four commenters recommended that the national evaluation require collection of specific quantitative and qualitative data aligned with the Full-Service Community Schools theory of action and its intended outcomes. One commenter asked how the Department will ensure that the outcomes measured go beyond test scores and include outcomes such as student physical and mental health and a range of key non-cognitive competencies, such as social and emotional learning and increased sense of safety and well-being. One commenter encouraged the Department to consider the baseline attributes and inputs of the community and include the experiences and perspectives of students, families, teachers, community partners, and stakeholders.

Six commenters encouraged the Department to establish a technical advisory group to advise on the best approach to the national evaluation. One commenter suggested specific candidates to participate in such a group. There were four comments related to implementation of full-service community schools looking different across schools because the strategy is specific to the needs and assets of individual communities and schools.

Two commenters indicated concern about how the lack of consistent services and activities could be captured in a randomized controlled trial. One commenter believed that it would be difficult to ascertain common practices across grantees that are most helpful for practitioners and policymakers to understand and advance. One commenter asked how the national evaluation will account for schools placing varying levels of emphasis on specific outcomes based on the characteristics of the student populations and communities they serve.

Two commenters encouraged the Department to make participation in the national evaluation mandatory through the use of an absolute priority, stating that it would ensure that the sample size is sufficiently large and representative of grantees. One commenter pointed out that if only some of the grantees participate in the evaluation process, findings are limited and may not be representative or inclusive, and the opportunity to learn about the impacts of the program in different communities may be missed.

Two commenters objected to the proposed requirement that applicants nominate four schools to receive program funding. In particular, this requirement could exclude smaller districts, which would limit the generalizability of the findings. It could also exclude larger districts that do not have at least four schools that are not fully implementing the four pillars of the community schools model.

One commenter asked for clarification on how the data collected under the national evaluation would be used. One commenter asked what the national evaluation will assess and how the results will be shared. One commenter encouraged the Department to adopt an equity-based approach to the national evaluation, in partnership with community members.

Seven commenters recommended that the Department require each grantee to conduct a third-party local evaluation. Those commenters encouraged the Department to require both quantitative and qualitative data that may include, but not be limited to, student chronic absenteeism rates; student discipline rates, including suspensions and expulsions; school climate information, which may come from student, parent, or teacher surveys; provision of integrated student supports and stakeholder services; expanded and enriched learning time and opportunities; family and community engagement efforts and impact; information on the number, qualifications, and retention of school staff, including the number and percentage of fully certified teachers, disaggregated by race and ethnicity, and rates of teacher turnover; graduation rates; changes in school spending information; collaborative leadership and practice strategies, which may include building the capacity of educators, principals, other school leaders, and other staff to lead collaborative school improvement structures, such as professional learning communities; regularly convening or engaging all initiative-level partners, such as LEA representatives, city or county officials, children and youth cabinets, nonprofit service providers, public housing agencies, and advocates; regularly assessing program quality and progress through individual student data, participant feedback, and aggregate outcomes to develop strategies for improvement; and organizing school personnel and community partners into working teams focused on specific issues identified in the needs and assets assessment.

Discussion: The Department appreciates the comments, concerns, and support shared by the field regarding a national evaluation of the FSCS program and we are committed to working with grantees and other stakeholders to design and implement the national evaluation required under section 4625(f) of the ESEA. To allow more time to conduct outreach with the field, the Department is not going to begin the national evaluation with the FY 2022 grant competition.

The Department recognizes the potential benefit of requiring each grantee to partner with a local independent evaluator to study each grant award separately and support ongoing program improvements during the grant period. Such a local evaluation would not be in place of a national evaluation. As noted above, the authorizing legislation for the FSCS program requires a separate national evaluation that examines the effects of the grant program as a whole.

The Department has not included the Participation in the National Evaluation priority in these final priorities but will continue to consider the national evaluation priority and the related comments. We will also conduct additional outreach to the field to gather and discuss recommendations for developing a robust national evaluation of the program and its grantees and to address some of the concerns raised. If we decide to finalize the national evaluation priority, the Department will summarize and respond to the comments in a separate NFP for that priority.

Additionally, the Department will build upon the ESEA requirement that grantees conduct annual evaluations, use those evaluations to refine and improve activities carried out, and make results of such evaluations publicly available, by adding a requirement that grantees contract for a third-party independent evaluation to meet the FSCS local evaluation requirements.

Changes: The Department has not included the Participation in the National Evaluation priority in these final priorities but will continue to consider the national evaluation priority and the related comments. Additionally, the Department will build upon the ESEA requirement that grantees conduct annual evaluations, use those evaluations to refine and improve activities carried out, and make results of such evaluations publicly available, by including a requirement that grantees contract for a third-party, external independent evaluation to meet the FSCS local evaluation requirements.

Proposed Priority 5—Evidence-Based Integrated Student Supports.

Comments: Four commenters expressed that they do not support Proposed Priority 5 and requested that it be eliminated. Commenters expressed concern that the priority is duplicative of the requirement that applicants address integrated student supports under the pillars of community schools. Many of those same commenters also noted that the proposed selection criteria evaluate applications on the “extent to which the design of the proposed project reflects relevant and evidence-based findings from existing literature and includes a high-quality plan for project implementation integrating the pillars of full-service community schools.” Two commenters supported the inclusion of the priority because they agree with the importance of strong evidence to ensure effective programs; one of those commenters noted the importance of clarifying that the term “evidence-based” has the meaning provided in the ESEA. Two commenters recommended that the Department clarify what is meant by integrated student supports. Three commenters expressed support for this priority, including one commenter who recommended it be used as a competitive preference priority.

Discussion: The Department appreciates the comments and suggestions provided, which make evident that the intention behind the priority, to encourage applicants and grantees to incorporate evidence-based models of integrated supports that identify and address the comprehensive needs of individual students into their community school initiatives, was not clearly communicated. We recognize that the use of the term “integrated student supports” in Proposed Priority 5, as well as the proposed requirement and definition of the four pillars of community schools, may be confusing for applicants. In response to comments supporting the use of evidence-based activities and requests for confirmation that the definition is consistent with ESEA, the Department acknowledges that Section 4625(b)(2) of the ESEA prioritizes evidence-based activities in the FSCS program and cites the definition included in the ESEA.

In order to encourage applicants and grantees to incorporate evidence-based models of integrated supports that identify and address the comprehensive needs of individual students into their community school initiatives, the Department will consider inclusion of applicable priorities from the Secretary's Supplemental Priorities published in the Federal Register on December 10, 2021 (86 FR 70612) (Supplemental Priorities).

Changes: In recognition of the potential for confusion in using the term “integrated student supports” in Proposed Priority 5 and Requirement 1, and that the information may appear to be duplicative, the Department has not included Proposed Priority 5—Evidence-Based Integrated Student Supports in these final priorities.

Additional Priorities

Comments: A number of commenters suggested additional priorities for the FY 2022 FSCS program. Of those commenters, four requested that the Department include a competitive preference priority for applicants serving rural communities or schools. One of these commenters requested a priority for Tribal partners or applicants from rural or remote areas.

A number of commenters expressed concern that grant resources and activities may not be focused on schools, students, and communities of greatest need. Of the 12 comments related to directing services and grants to those of greatest need, 10 recommended that the Department add selection criteria related to need and one proposed that the Department add a priority for providing services to low-income families.

Six commenters encouraged the Department to more explicitly connect community school supports to classroom instruction and learning. Two commenters referenced the science of learning and development and recommended the FSCS program emphasize a whole child or whole learner approach. One commenter suggested that the FSCS program include a focus on schoolwide culture, including use of trauma-informed practices and adoption of disciplinary procedures and practices that are holistic and nondiscriminatory.

One commenter recommended that the Department develop a competitive priority for applicants who have made structural changes to support community schools, applicants who have plans to develop and utilize shared data systems, and previous or current Promise Neighborhoods grantees.

Two commenters suggested that, because the success of a full-service community school relies on strong cross-agency collaboration, the Department consider using as a competitive preference priority the Secretary's Supplemental Priority 6— Strengthening Cross-Agency Coordination and Community Engagement to Advance Systemic Change.

Discussion: The purpose of the FSCS program is to provide support for the planning, implementation, and operation of full-service community schools, particularly for children attending schools, including rural and tribal schools, with high rates of poverty. Additionally, the authorizing legislation requires that not less than 15 percent of grant funds be awarded to eligible entities that propose to carry out activities in rural areas.

The legislation that authorizes FSCS requires the Department to prioritize both high-poverty and rural schools. Section 4625(b) of the ESEA requires the Department to give priority to eligible entities that (A) will serve a minimum of two or more full-service community schools eligible for a schoolwide program under section 1114(b), as part of a community- or district-wide strategy; or (B) include an LEA that satisfies the requirements of section 5211(b)(1)(A), (B), or (C); or section 5221(b)(1)(A) and (B). The Department will ensure that all statutory requirements for the program are met.

The Department recognizes that delivery of integrated, accessible, and effective supports in full-service community schools are intended to improve student outcomes, including academic achievement. We agree that full-service community schools should support the whole child and their classroom experience, including support and professional development for educators to ensure the classroom is an environment that allows students to thrive. FSCS schools should also support school leadership, and adoption of practices and frameworks that meet the needs of all learners. The Department has taken these suggestions into consideration as it develops the NIA, which may include related priorities from the Supplemental Priorities. We think the Supplemental Priorities include a number of topics proposed by the commenters, and therefore do not think it necessary to rule-make on program-specific priorities when the Supplemental Priorities are available.

The Department agrees with the comment that organizations that have successfully implemented Promise Neighborhoods grants have revised their school and community structures to improve interagency and cross-sector implementation of shared goals and activities. These organizations use a shared data system to track and measure individual and program progress and are well positioned to successfully implement a FSCS grant. We decline, however, to include these as additional priorities because FSCS is designed to support schools and communities across a continuum of capacity to develop and implement full-service community schools.

The Department concurs that cross-agency coordination at the local level is critical to successful full-service community schools. Further, the Biden-Harris Administration is committed to providing support for comprehensive evidence-based community violence initiatives that bring a cross-agency approach to community violence prevention and intervention. The Department will take these suggestions into consideration as it develops the NIA, which may include related priorities from the Supplemental Priorities.

Changes: None.

Requirements

Requirement 1—Pillars of Full-Service Community Schools

Comments: Among the comments received related to the proposed requirement that projects must describe the pillars of full-service community schools that they have in place or how they will establish these pillars, six expressed overall support for the pillars. Four commenters recommended that the Department provide applicants with examples of the pillars. Another commenter noted that any examples of the pillars should be evidence-based. One commenter suggested the Department provide applicants with workshops on the pillars. One commenter noted that the Department should add that the pillars of community schools must be underpinned by a strong instructional program that incorporates the science of learning and development.

One commenter recommended that the Department clarify that an applicant that is implementing an evidence-based integrated student supports model is meeting the requirement as long as it is working in a school that is addressing all four pillars of a community school.

One commenter recommended that the Department require that schools and districts make an adequate effort to reach students who will most benefit from the supports and require applicants to describe the strategies they will use to ensure the most vulnerable students and families are being reached. A similar comment recommended that the Department explicitly require that applicants collaborate with families.

One commenter recommended that, instead of requiring applicants to describe their work using the framework of the four pillars, they should be required to describe their approach to strategic growth and address how community schools' strategies involve teaching and curriculum in order to reach the ultimate goal of impacting student learning.

Discussion: The Department appreciates that applicants benefit from technical assistance and support throughout the application period and during program implementation. The Department has provided applicants information about the FY 2022 competition in the NIA, published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register , and will provide support through pre-application webinars and frequently asked questions.

While the Department is not revising the pillars to include a requirement that schools and districts describe how they will focus on the most vulnerable students and families, the NIA for the FY 2022 competition uses a Supplemental Priority in Competitive Preference Priority 2, to encourage applicants to consider using multi-tiered systems of support that can identify and serve students and families of greatest need.

The Department acknowledges that, while there are a variety of ways to address and frame community schools' practices, we are interested in maintaining a common structure that the pillars provide. The background section of the NPP cites evidence that implementation of the four pillars is associated with a range of positive outcomes for students. Additionally, the background section of the NIA for the FY 2022 competition recognizes that the four pillars are supported by evidence from the science of learning and development and can be used to address the needs of the whole child, including those that the school and community partners determine to be most vulnerable. Use of this common structure allows applicants to develop programs with more fidelity to what has been shown to be effective and prepares the FSCS program and its grantees for a future national evaluation. Applicants are invited to share additional information that can supplement their response to the requirement and discussion of the four pillars, including the applicant's work with families, which is required in the third pillar (Active family and community engagement), use of evidence-based integrated student supports, how those supports address adverse childhood experiences (ACEs), and the applicant's approach to strategic growth. The Department declines to make any changes to the requirement that applicants describe the pillars of full-service community schools.

Changes: None.

Other Requirements

Comments: Several commenters suggested FSCS program requirements in addition to the proposed requirements.

As discussed in connection with Proposed Priority 4, numerous commenters recommended that the Department establish a requirement that grantees work with an external evaluator and adopt a set of recommended measures of success, including student chronic absenteeism rates; student discipline rates, including suspensions and expulsions; school climate information; provision of integrated student supports and stakeholder services; expanded and enriched learning time and opportunities; family and community engagement efforts and impact; information on the number, qualifications, and retention of school staff, including the number and percentage of fully certified teachers, disaggregated by race and ethnicity, and rates of teacher turnover; graduation rates; changes in school spending information; collaborative leadership and practice strategies, including building the capacity of educators, principals, other school leaders, and other staff to lead collaborative school improvement structures, such as professional learning communities; regularly convening or engaging all initiative-level partners, such as LEA representatives, city or county officials, children's cabinets, nonprofit service providers, public housing agencies, and advocates; regularly assessing program quality and progress through individual student data, participant feedback, and aggregate outcomes to develop strategies for improvement; and organizing school personnel and community partners into working teams focused on specific issues identified in the needs and assets assessment.

The Department received five comments requesting that we clarify the roles and responsibilities of consortium partners. Several comments were directed toward proposed selection criteria (d) and evaluation of roles and responsibilities of the broadly representative consortium.

One commenter requested that the Department not consider applications from for-profit charter schools or charter schools within a 25-mile radius of a traditional public school, and that any school receiving funds be subject to the same operational and transparency rules as schools within the district in which it is located.

Discussion: The Department concurs with recommendations to require an independent evaluation of the evaluation activities outlined in section 4625(g) of the ESEA. The Department is also adding a set of indicators recommended through comments that the independent evaluation must use to assess program success. These indicators are aligned with the annual measurable performance objectives included in section 4625(a)(4)(C) of the ESEA.

The Department agrees that it is important to clarify the roles and responsibilities of the eligible entity, defined in section 4622(1)(B) as a consortium of one or more LEAs or the BIE and one or more community-based organization, nonprofit organization, or other public or private entities, as well as the broadly representative consortium, which includes, but is not limited to, the eligible entity submitting the application. Under section 4625(a)(2), an application must include an MOU among all partner entities in the eligible entity that will assist the eligible entity to coordinate and provide pipeline services and that describes the roles the partner entities will assume. Recognizing that the FY 2022 FSCS competition includes priorities for building capacity and developing, implementing, and scaling full-service community schools, and recognizing that section 4625(c) allows grantees to use up to 10 percent of their total award for planning purposes in the first year, the Department thinks it is most appropriate for the application to include a preliminary MOU that establishes the roles and responsibilities of the eligible entity, additional partners, and the broadly representative consortium. At the end of the first year of the grant, FSCS grantees will be required to submit a final MOU.

The Department does not have the authority to revise or refine the eligible applicants specified in section 4622(1)(B) of the ESEA, which means we cannot limit applications from certain charter schools, provided the charter school is an eligible applicant or in partnership with an eligible applicant. All applicants and grantees, including any charter schools, will be required to meet the Federal regulations cited in the NIA.

Changes: The Department has added Requirement 2, which requires applicants to include an independent evaluation to address the evaluation requirements in section 4625(g)) of the ESEA. Within Requirement 2, the Department also established a set of indicators that the independent evaluation must use to assess program success and that are aligned with the required performance measures in section 4625(a)(4)(C).

The Department has added Requirement 3, which requires applicants to submit a preliminary MOU as part of their application. Within Requirement 3, the Department established the content that the preliminary MOU must include, which is aligned with the requirements in section 4625(a)(2). At the end of the first year of the grant, grantees are required to submit a final MOU, which must also align with the requirements in section 4625(a)(2).

Definition—Pillars of Full-Service Community Schools

Comments: The Department received sixteen comments in support of the definition of the Pillars of Full-Service Community Schools.

Within the definition, one commenter recommended the Department provide more clarity regarding research-based elements of effective practices for implementing integrated student supports in pillar (A), Integrated student supports.

Three commenters suggested that we revise pillar (C), Active family and community engagement, to include additional activities for ensuring community and family engagement. One commenter recommended that, in the definition, we address citizenship preparation to reflect the civic mission of schools and leverage their unique role in engaging families and communities.

Ten commenters recommended that the Department revise pillar (D), Collaborative leadership, to expressly include student, family, and community voice. Another commenter recommended that we specify that “expanded and enriched learning time and opportunities” must be culturally rooted and sustaining.

One commenter suggested that we specify in the pillars that providers, teachers, and community school personnel should be representative of the students and communities they serve and that representation should be a focus throughout the program because this enhances staff and leadership understanding of local community context.

One commenter suggested that we include in the definition references to whole learner and trauma-informed approaches.

Discussion: We think the activities outlined in the first pillar, (A) Integrated student supports, are sufficiently broad to allow for applicants and grantees to address the issues of greatest relevance to their community and that there is no need to establish a separate definition of “integrated student supports.” The Department agrees that use of evidence-based practices is critical across all pillars, which is reflected in the language of the second pillar, (B) Expanded and enriched learning time and opportunities, through evidence-based strategies. This notice also includes selection criteria that will assess extent to which the design of the proposed project reflects relevant and evidence-based findings.

We decline to include specific examples of citizenship preparation because we think that, as written, the priority would allow such a focus, and we think it is better to give applicants and schools flexibility to address community-specific needs. However, we agree that the definition of the third pillar, Active family and community engagement, should be expanded to include employment opportunities and other supportive services for adults.

Activities implemented under the second pillar, Expanded and enriched learning time and opportunities, may be culturally rooted and sustaining. The Department thinks that, as written, the priority would allow such a culturally competent focus, and we think it is better to allow applicants and schools flexibility to address community-specific needs.

Regarding recommendations related to the third pillar, (C) Active family and community engagement, the Department agrees that students and families benefit from working with leaders and service providers who have shared backgrounds and experiences. The Department also appreciates the need to have community members participate in the development of the program at all levels, including through participation in the broadly representative consortium to enhance cultural competency. While this is an important goal, it may not be practical for a grantee to ensure all staff and service providers are from or representative of the community. Rather, the FSCS program places emphasis on family and community inclusion in decision-making processes, including decisions related to selection of evidence-based, expanded, and enriched learning time and opportunities. The Department agrees that schools, and community schools in particular, can serve as resources for parents and communities to advance personal and communal goals, which may include civic engagement.

The Department agrees with the suggestions for including student, family, and community voice in the fourth pillar, (D) Collaborative leadership.

The Department recognizes the benefit of bringing a whole learner- and trauma-informed approach to working with students and families in a holistic way in order to prevent, intervene, and mitigate ACEs. We have incorporated those terms in the definitions of pillars of community schools; applicants may consider inclusion of those approaches in their development and implementation of full-service community schools, including through responding to any Secretary's Supplemental Priority included in the NIA.

Changes: The Department has revised the language of the definition of Pillars of Full-Service Community Schools to include trauma-informed services to prevent, intervene and mitigate ACEs as part of integrated student supports. The Department has included adult employment opportunities and other supportive services in the third pillar, (C) Active family and community engagement; and student, family, and community voice is included in the fourth pillar (D) Collaborative leadership practices.

Definition—Broadly Representative Consortium

Comments: One commenter recommended that the Department revise selection criteria (d) to include family leadership in the broadly representative consortium.

Discussion: The Department thinks including organizations that can represent family leadership is a critical addition to the broadly representative consortium; however, we think the change is more appropriate for the definition of the term rather than the selection criteria.

Changes: The Department has revised the definition of “broadly representative consortium” to include organizations that represent families and family leadership.

Other Definitions

Comments: A few commenters suggested other terms for the Department to define. One commenter noted that there are many definitions of “community” and recommended that the Department include a definition for a “full-service community school.”

Two commenters recommended that the Department define “full-service community school coordinator,” a term used in the proposed selection criteria.

One commenter requested that the Department include a definition for “student success coaches,” an evidence-based model for working with and providing comprehensive supports for students.

Discussion: The Department acknowledges that there are many definitions of “community.” For the purposes of the FSCS program, section 4622(2) of the ESEA defines a “full-service community school” as a public elementary or secondary school that (A) participates in a community-based effort to coordinate and integrate educational, developmental, family, health, and other comprehensive services through community-based organizations and public and private partnerships; and (B) provides access to such services in school to students, families, and the community, such as access during the school year (including before- and after-school hours and weekends), as well as during the summer. The Department will include this definition of a full-service community school in the NIA.

Although proposed selection criteria (d) indirectly described the role of the full-service community school coordinator, the Department agrees that it would be helpful to expressly define “full-service community school coordinator,” and we are adding a definition that describes this role in a manner consistent with selection criteria (d).

While the Department appreciates the positive outcomes that have been documented with the use of student success coaches, we do not include definitions for specific activities or approaches that a grantee might choose to include in their application because we want grantees to have the flexibility to choose the best evidence-based approaches to meet student and community needs.

Changes: The Department has defined “full-service community school coordinator.”

Selection Criteria—(c) Ensure Diversity of Perspectives

Comments: Commenters offered broad support for this selection criterion. Two commenters requested that the Department include children and youth in the list of constituencies referenced. An additional commenter suggested the Department revise the selection criterion to include the perspectives of racially diverse families and traditionally marginalized families.

Discussion: The Department appreciates the support of those who offered comments. The Department considers children, students, and youth as beneficiaries of services, but we recognize that other intended beneficiaries are included in the list of constituencies and are adding students and youth. The Department further agrees that it is important for an applicant to include, or have a plan to include, the perspectives of racially diverse families, those that have been marginalized, and other underserved individuals in the community; however, we think that the broad nature of the selection criterion allows applicants to include racially and otherwise diverse families in their design and operation of the proposed project. Additionally, the Department thinks that grantees may use the allowable planning time during year one of the grant to engage with families and other groups who have not been consistently represented in assessments of needs and assets as well as leadership.

Changes: We have renumbered selection criterion (b) as selection criterion (c) and revised to include students and youth as constituents whose perspectives should be brought to bear in the design and operation of the projects.

Selection Criteria—(d) Plans for Full-service Coordinator

Comments: Commenters supported inclusion of a selection criterion to assess grantee plans for a full-service community schools coordinator. Because a full-service community school coordinator is not responsible for the delivery of the pipeline of services offered, four commenters recommended that we clarify the language of the criterion by removing “deliver pipeline services” and replacing it with “facilitate programs and partnerships.” Several commenters also recommended including that the full-service community school coordinator “lead a comprehensive needs and asset assessment that includes students, school staff, families, community members and partners.”

Four commenters noted that the requirement for a full-time full-service community school coordinator does not reflect the diverse communities that may apply or receive a grant, including some rural communities where a full-time coordinator is not needed.

Discussion: The Department appreciates the comments and recommendations. We agree with the clarification offered and are revising selection criterion (d) to better reflect a full-service community school coordinator's responsibilities to facilitate programs and partnerships. While the full-service community school coordinator may, in some cases, lead the needs assessment, the Department recognizes that not all communities will expect the coordinator to lead that work. As such, we decline to include that edit.

The Department appreciates that each community and its needs are unique; however, section 4625(a)(4)(E) of the ESEA requires that each full-service community school site has a full-time coordinator.

Changes: The Department has renumbered proposed selection criteria (c) to final selection criteria (d) and revised selection criteria (d) to replace “deliver pipeline services” with “facilitate programs and partnerships.”

Selection Criteria—(e) Consortium Broadly Representative of Community

Comments: While commenters support the inclusion of proposed selection criterion (e), two commenters noted that some applicants may not yet have a consortium in place and should not be penalized. Those commenters recommended that the Department revise the language to say, “the extent to which the grantee has, or demonstrates a strong plan to have, a consortium broadly representative of community stakeholders and needs.”

One commenter proposed that the broadly representative consortium representative of community stakeholders and needs should also have a role in the oversight and management of the program, including the selection of schools. The commenter suggested the selection criteria be revised to say, “the extent to which the grantee has a consortium broadly representative of community stakeholders and needs that informs the school selection process, operations and continued oversight of the project.”

One commenter recommended that applications be assessed on the extent to which they have planned for open, consistent, and actionable communication among their consortia.

Discussion: The Department will make FSCS awards to some applicants who will engage in capacity building and development of full-service community schools. As such, we concur that not all applicants will have an established broadly representative consortium and are editing the selection criterion.

The Department concurs that applications and grant programs are strengthened through defined roles and responsibilities of leadership groups, such as the broadly representative consortium. Section 4625(a)(2) of the ESEA requires an MOU among all partner entities in the eligible entity that will assist the eligible entity to coordinate and provide pipeline services and that describes the roles the partner entities will assume, which includes the broadly representative consortium and, for applications submitted under Priority 3, the statewide steering committee. The Department thinks that inclusion of a preliminary MOU with the application can further delineate communication and decision-making processes, such as school selection. The Department declines to include school selection as a role of the broadly representative consortium in the final selection criteria because we want to maintain maximum flexibility for applicants. Additionally, nothing in the NFP prevents an applicant from including school selection as a responsibility of the broadly based consortium.

Changes: The Department has renumbered proposed selection criterion (d) to final selection criteria (e) and revised selection criterion (e) to allow for an applicant to demonstrate a plan to develop and put into place a broadly representative consortium and included language that the roles and responsibilities of the consortium are outlined in the required preliminary MOU. For applications submitted under Priority 3, the Department revised selection criterion (e) to allow for an applicant to demonstrate a plan to develop and put into place a broadly representative consortium and a statewide steering committee, and included language that the roles and responsibilities of the consortium and statewide steering committee are outlined in the preliminary MOU.

Selection Criteria—(f) Demonstrates History of Effectiveness

Comments: One commenter suggested the selection criteria be expanded to include a description of the applicant's history of working with a wide range of stakeholders—including students and families—in inclusive and equitable ways.

One commenter recommended that we expand this selection criterion to consider the applicant's history of effectiveness in serving both current and past students in addition to the wider community.

Discussion: The Department agrees that it is important that an applicant's history of effectiveness (as defined in this notice) includes effectively working with a wide and diverse range of stakeholders, including students and families.

Changes: The Department has renumbered proposed selection criterion (e) as final selection criterion (f) and revised selection criterion (f) to include working with diverse stakeholders, including students and families.

Other Selection Criteria

Comments: The Department received a significant number of comments related to ensuring that grants and services are focused on schools, communities, students, and families of greatest need. Ten commenters recommended that the Department include selection criteria related to need.

Three commenters recommended that the FSCS program use selection criteria from the FY 2021 Promise Neighborhoods NIA. One commenter requested that the Department reinstate previous FSCS selection criteria for evaluation.

One commenter requested that the Department include selection criteria that allows an applicant to propose using up to 6 months for planning and capacity building activities.

Discussion: The FSCS program is intended to focus on children and youth attending schools with concentrated poverty, including rural and tribal schools. In addition to inclusion of a priority related to schoolwide poverty levels, the Department is adding selection criterion (a) to assess the extent to which the proposed project will provide support, resources, and services, close gaps in educational opportunity, or otherwise address the needs of the targeted population, including addressing the needs of underserved populations most impacted by the issue, challenge, or opportunity to be addressed by the proposed project.

The Department appreciates the suggestions related to aligning the FSCS need criteria with that of the FY 2021 Promise Neighborhood program. However, the FSCS program is designed to allow grantees to use the first year of their grant to conduct a robust assessment of needs and assets, while the Promise Neighborhood program requires the applicant to include an analysis of needs and corresponding activities to address those needs. Therefore, the Department declines to use the FY 2021 Promise Neighborhood selection criteria.

Related to selection criteria for the required evaluation, for the FY 2022 competition, the Department is using criteria from 34 CFR 75.210 to assess the applicant's proposal to evaluate their FSCS project. For the FY 2022 competition, two of the three criteria are from previous FSCS competitions. The evaluation criteria are included in the NIA, published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register .

The Department agrees that building a successful full-service community school requires significant planning and capacity building, including time to strengthen partnerships. Section 4625(c) of the ESEA allows a grantee to use up to 10 percent of the total grant award for planning purposes during the first year of the award. This applies to all applicants and grantees, and, as such, the Department will not make any changes to the time that grantees can allocate to planning.

In accordance with 34 CFR 75.209, the Department included in the NIA selection criteria from 34 CFR 75.210 that assesses the quality of an applicant's proposed local evaluation for the FY 2022 competition.

As discussed in Priority 3, the Department agrees that requiring a percentage of LEAs in the State would be a more equitable approach to scaling the model. However, the Department is interested in funding applications that propose to work with their partners to develop, implement, evaluate, and sustain full-service community schools at a level, and in a percentage of LEAs and schools, across the State that will effectively scale the model statewide and are addressing this through revisions to the selection criteria.

Changes: The Department added selection criterion (a) to assess the extent to which a proposed project will provide support, resources, and services; close gaps in educational opportunity; or otherwise address the needs of the targeted population, including addressing the needs of underserved populations most impacted by the issue, challenge, or opportunity to be addressed by the project. The Department also added selection criteria (g) to assess the extent to which the applicant demonstrates its commitment and strategy to scale full-service community schools at the statewide level. In determining the applicant's capacity to scale the proposed project, the Secretary considers the number and percentage of LEAs, and the number and percentage of schools within each LEA, the applicant, the SEA, and other partners propose to serve; the applicant's capacity ( e.g., in terms of qualified personnel, financial resources, or management capacity) to further develop, implement, bring to scale and sustain additional full-service community schools in multiple LEAs; and the applicant's capacity to work with others, including the broadly representative consortium and the statewide steering committee, to ensure that the proposed process, products, strategies, or practices can be further developed and brought to scale, based on the regular findings of the proposed project and its independent evaluation.

Final Priorities :

This document contains four final priorities.

Priority 1—Capacity Building and Development Grants.

Projects that propose to (a) conduct initial development and coordination activities, including extensive community engagement, that leverage the findings of their needs assessment—which may be completed during or before the grant period—to develop the infrastructure, activities, and partnerships to implement full-service community schools in two or more schools, and (b) gather data on performance indicators.

Priority 2—Multi-Local Educational Agency Grants.

Projects that propose to implement and sustain full-service community schools in two or more LEAs. As outlined in section 4622(1)(B) of the ESEA, an eligible entity for any FSCS grant is a consortium of one or more LEAs or the BIE and one or more community-based organizations, nonprofit organizations, or other public or private entities. The project must, with the exception of LEAs that oversee a single school, coordinate and provide services at two or more full-service community schools in each LEA.

Priority 3—FSCS State Scaling Grants   1 .

Applications submitted under Priority 3 must include a written commitment of the SEA to participate in the partnership and to sustain the program beyond 2 years after the term of the grant, which can be submitted in the required preliminary memorandum of understanding (MOU) that includes the roles and responsibilities of the SEA and other partners identified at the time of the application. The applicant, in partnership with the SEA, determines the number and percentage of State LEAs, and the number and percentage of schools across those LEAs, that will develop, support, and expand full-service community schools over the 5-year grant performance period.

Applications under Priority 3 must also identify or establish a State steering committee (which may be a previously existing body) that represents relevant community schools' stakeholders, including educators and other school staff, community school initiative leaders, education union or association designees, family leaders participating in community school programs, community partners such as service providers, early childhood education providers such as Head Start, and community school coordinators from schools already implementing full-service community schools in the State. In addition to serving as an advisory committee, the steering committee also has the authority to make decisions about the design, implementation, and evaluation for the grant, which may include identification or selection of LEAs that will partner in the development and implementation of two or more community schools in each LEA, with the exception of LEAs that oversee a single school. The roles and responsibilities of the steering committee must be included in the required preliminary MOU.

As outlined in section 4622(1)(B) of the ESEA, an eligible entity for any FSCS grant is a consortium of one or more LEAs or the BIE and one or more community-based organizations, nonprofit organizations, or other public or private entities.

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)).

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 one or more of these priorities, we invite applications through a notice in the Federal Register .

Final Requirements :

This document contains three final requirements.

Requirement 1—Pillars of Full-Service Community Schools.

An applicant must, in addition to providing the information and assurances required by section 4625(a) of the ESEA, provide the following:

In addressing the application requirements set out in Section 4625(a) of the ESEA, applicants must address the essential pillars of full-service community schools (as defined in this notice).

Projects must describe the pillars of full-service community schools that they have in place or how they will establish these pillars, or how they will implement these pillars with partners, including community-based organizations and collaborating with school leadership and staff.

Requirement 2—Independent Evaluation.

An applicant must, in addition to providing the information and assurances required by section 4625(g) of the ESEA, commit to an independent evaluation that includes a design and implementation evaluation that will, at a minimum, (1) include annual evaluations of progress achieved with the grant; (2) be used to refine and improve activities carried out through the grant; (3) collect and report data that includes, but is not limited to, the following indicators: student chronic absenteeism rates; student discipline rates, including suspensions and expulsions; school climate information, which may come from student, parent, or teacher surveys; provision of integrated student supports and stakeholder services; expanded and enriched learning time and opportunities; family and community engagement efforts and impact; information on the number, qualifications, and retention of school staff, including the number and percentage of fully certified teachers, disaggregated by race and ethnicity, rates of teacher turnover, and teacher experience; graduation rates; changes in school spending information; collaborative leadership and practice strategies, which may include building the capacity of educators, principals, other school leaders, and other staff to lead collaborative school improvement structures, such as professional learning communities; regularly convening or engaging all initiative-level partners, such as LEA representatives, city or county officials, children's and youth's cabinets, nonprofit service providers, public housing agencies, and advocates; regularly assessing program quality and progress through individual student data, participant feedback, and aggregate outcomes to develop strategies for improvement; and organizing school personnel and community partners into working teams focused on specific issues identified in the needs and assets assessment; and (4) make results of the evaluation publicly available.

Requirement 3—Preliminary and Final Memoranda of Understanding.

An applicant must, in addition to providing the information and assurances required in Section 4625(a)(2) of the ESEA, provide the following:

In addressing the application requirements set out in Section 4625(a)(2) of the ESEA, applicants must include a preliminary MOU among all partner entities of the eligible entity, identified at the time of the application, that will assist the eligible entity to plan, develop, coordinate, provide, and evaluate pipeline services and that describes the roles and responsibilities that the partners, including the broadly representative consortium, will assume. Applications submitted under Priority 3 FSCS State Scaling Grants must also include in the preliminary MOU a description of the State steering committee and the SEA's commitment to and partnership in the consortium, including the roles, responsibilities, and commitment of the SEA to the partnership and the scaling of full-service community schools to a percentage of State LEAs implementing schoolwide Title IA programs and where there is a commitment to sustain the program beyond two years after the term of the grant.

Grantees must submit a final MOU at the end of their first year of the grant.

Final Definitions :

This document includes four final definitions. We may apply these definitions in any year in which this program is in effect. We also intend to use definitions from sections 4622 and 8101 of the ESEA.

Broadly representative consortium means stakeholders representing broad groups of people working together for the best interest of children; such stakeholders may include, but are not limited to, families and family leadership, schools, nonprofits, government, philanthropy, and the business community.

Full-service community school coordinator means an individual in a full-time position at each community school who serves to plan, integrate, coordinate, and facilitate the delivery of pipeline services at each school. The coordinator may also lead the school and community assessment of needs and assets and identify ways to sustain the services and partnerships beyond the duration of the grant.

History of effectiveness means an eligible entity demonstrating the ability to successfully implement programs and policies. Such programs and policies must include, but shall not be limited to, successfully implementing with other organizations grants, policies, and programs for students from high need schools (as defined in ESEA section 2221).

Pillars of Full-Service Community Schools means all of the following:

(A) Integrated student supports at a community school that provide in- and out-of-school support for students, address well-being, and address out-of-school barriers to learning through partnerships with social and health service agencies, including mental and behavioral health agencies and providers, and coordinated by a community school coordinator, which may include—

(i) Medical, dental, vision care, and mental and behavioral health services, including mental health literacy for students and staff, and trauma-informed services to prevent, intervene, and mitigate adverse childhood experiences (ACEs); and

(ii) Individuals to assist with housing, transportation, nutrition, citizenship preparation, or criminal justice issues and other services.

(B) Expanded and enriched learning time and opportunities, through evidence-based strategies, including before-school, after-school, during-school, weekend, and summer programs that provide additional academic instruction individualized academic support (such as evidence-based tutoring, post-secondary transition support, student success coaches and mentoring programs), enrichment activities, or learning opportunities, for students at a community school that—

(i) May emphasize real-world project-based learning where students can apply their learning to contexts that are relevant and engaging; and

(ii) May include art, music, drama, creative writing, hands-on experience with engineering or science (including computer science), career and technical education, tutoring that is aligned with classroom success and homework help, and recreational programs that enhance and are consistent with the school's curriculum.

(C) Active family and community engagement that—

(i) Brings parents and families of students at the community school and community members and leaders into the school as partners in students' education, including meaningfully involving parents and families in the community school's decision-making processes;

(ii) Makes the community school a hub for services, activities, and programs, for students, families, and members of the neighborhood that the community school serves;

(iii) Provides adults with desired educational and employment opportunities and other supportive services; and

(iv) Provides centralized supports for families and communities in community schools, which may include English as a second language classes, citizenship preparation, computer skills, art, housing assistance, child abuse and neglect prevention supports, health and mental health literacy programs, digital literacy training, or other programs that bring community members into a school building for meetings, events, or programming.

(D) Collaborative leadership and practices that build a culture of professional learning, collective trust, and shared responsibility for each community school using strategies that—

(i) At a minimum, include a school-based leadership team with representation of student, parent, and family leaders and a community voice; a community school coordinator; and a community-wide leadership team; and

(ii) May include other leadership or governance teams, community school steering committees, or other community coalitions, educator learning communities, and other staff to manage the multiple, complex joint work of school and community organizations.

Final Selection Criteria

The Department may apply one or more of the following final selection criteria in any year in which the program is in effect. We will announce the maximum possible points assigned to each criterion in the NIA. The Department may include additional selection criteria from 34 CFR 75.210.

(a) The extent to which the proposed project will provide support, resources, and services; close gaps in educational opportunity; or otherwise address the needs of the targeted population, including addressing the needs of underserved populations most impacted by the issue, challenge, or opportunity to be addressed by the proposed project.

(b) The extent to which the design of the proposed project reflects relevant and evidence-based findings from existing literature and includes a high-quality plan for project implementation integrating the four pillars of full-service community schools and the use of appropriate evaluation methods to ensure successful achievement of project objectives.

(c) The extent to which the applicant will ensure that a diversity of perspectives is brought to bear in the design and operation of the proposed project, including those of students, youth, families, educators and staff, beneficiaries of services, school leadership, and community leadership.

(d) The extent to which the grantee has plans for a full-time coordinator at each school, including a plan to sustain the position beyond the grant period, and a description of how this position will serve to plan, integrate, coordinate, and facilitate programs and services at each school.

(e) The extent to which the grantee has, or demonstrates a strong plan to have, a broadly representative consortium that reflects the needs of the community and its stakeholders, and a description of the roles and responsibilities of the broadly representative consortium outlined in the required preliminary MOU.

(f) The extent to which the applicant demonstrates a history of effectiveness in working with a diverse range of stakeholders, including students and families.

(g) The extent to which the applicant demonstrates its commitment and strategy to scale full-service community schools at the statewide level. In determining the applicant's capacity to scale the proposed project, the Secretary considers the number and percentage of LEAs, and the number and percentage of schools within each LEA, the applicant, the SEA, and other partners propose to serve; the applicant's capacity ( e.g., in terms of qualified personnel, financial resources, or management capacity) to further develop, implement, bring to scale and sustain additional full-service community schools in multiple LEAs; and the applicant's capacity to work with others, including the broadly representative consortium and the State steering committee, to ensure that the proposed process, products, strategies, or practices can be further developed and brought to scale, based on the regular findings of the proposed project and its independent evaluation.

Under Executive Order 12866, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) must determine whether this regulatory action is “significant” and, therefore, subject to the requirements of the Executive Order and subject to review by 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 is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by OMB under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq. ), the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs designated this rule as not a “major rule,” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

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, definitions, and selection criteria only on a reasoned determination that the benefits justify the costs. In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, we selected those approaches that maximize net benefits. Based on the analysis that follows, the Department believes that this regulatory action is 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 accordance with these Executive orders, the Department has assessed the potential costs and benefits, both quantitative and qualitative, of this regulatory action. The potential costs are those resulting from statutory requirements and those we have determined as necessary for administering the Department's programs and activities.

Summary of Costs and Benefits: The Department believes that these final priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria will not impose significant costs on the entities eligible to apply for FSCS. We also believe that the benefits of implementing the final priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria justify any associated costs.

The potential costs are those resulting from statutory requirements and those we have determined as necessary for administering the Department's programs and activities.

Priority 1 gives the Department the opportunity to offer applicants time and resources to build the capacity required to develop two or more successful full-service community schools.

Priority 2 gives the Department the opportunity to offer applicants funding to implement and sustain full-service community schools in two or more LEAs, with a minimum of two full-service community schools in each LEA.

Priority 3 gives the Department the opportunity to offer applicants funding to scale the implementation of full-service community schools at the State level, in a percentage of LEAs in the State as determined by the applicant, the SEA, and other partners, with a minimum of two full-service-community schools in each LEA. Implementation of community schools at this scale offers the opportunity for States to enact legislation and develop funding streams to support the expansion and sustainability of full-service community schools in their State.

Priority 4 gives the Department the opportunity to ensure that funds are targeted to reach the schools and communities of greatest need.

Because these final priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria would neither expand nor restrict the universe of eligible entities for any Department grant program, and since application submission and participation in our discretionary grant programs is voluntary, there are no costs associated with these priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria.

Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification: The Secretary certifies that this final regulatory action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The U.S. Small Business Administration Size Standards define “small entities” as for-profit or nonprofit institutions with total annual revenue below $7,000,000 or, if they are institutions controlled by small governmental jurisdictions (that are comprised of cities, counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special districts), with a population of less than 50,000.

The small entities that this regulatory action will affect are public or private nonprofit agencies and organizations, including institutions of higher education, that may apply. We believe that the costs imposed on an applicant by the final priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria will be limited to paperwork burden related to preparing an application and that the benefits of implementing these final priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria will outweigh any costs incurred by the applicant. Therefore, we do not believe that the final priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria will significantly impact small entities beyond the potential for receiving additional support should the small entity receive a competitive grant from the Department.

As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, the Department provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed and continuing collections of information, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). This helps ensure that: The public understands the Department's collection instructions, respondents can provide the requested data in the desired format, reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are clearly understood, and the Department can properly assess the impact of collection requirements on respondents.

The final priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria contain information collection requirements that are approved by OMB under OMB control number 1894-0006.

Intergovernmental Review: This program is subject to Executive Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. One of the objectives of the Executive order is to foster an intergovernmental partnership and a strengthened federalism. The Executive order relies on processes developed by State and local governments for coordination and review of proposed Federal financial assistance.

This document provides early notification of our specific plans and actions for this program.

Accessible Format: On request to the 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, 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.

Purpose of Program: The FSCS program is authorized by sections 4621-4623 and 4625 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended (ESEA). This program provides support for the planning, implementation, and operation of full-service community schools that improve the coordination, integration, accessibility, and effectiveness of services for children and families, particularly for children attending high-poverty schools, including high-poverty rural schools.

Background: A full-service community school is a public elementary or secondary school that uses established partnerships between schools and community organizations to provide well-rounded educational opportunities and meet the social, emotional, physical and mental health, and academic needs of students. Section 4622 of the ESEA defines a full-service community school as a public elementary or secondary school that:

(a) Participates in a community-based effort to coordinate and integrate educational, developmental, family, health, and other comprehensive services through community-based partnerships; and

(b) Provides access to such services in schools to students, families, and the community, such as access during the school year (including before- and after-school hours and weekend), as well as during the summer.

The growing interest at the State and local levels in community schools, 1 also known as full-service community schools, coupled with this competition, presents an opportunity for nationwide school improvement during a period when children and teachers are trying to return to the classroom and the nation is grappling with violence in and around schools. The ESEA offers flexibilities at the State and local levels to implement strategies supported by community schools, such as coordination of school and community resources (ESEA sections 1114(b)(5) and 1115(b)(2)) and after-school programming and support for a community school coordinator (ESEA section 4108(5)(H)). If a State educational agency (SEA) (as defined in this notice) or local educational agency (LEA) (as defined in this notice) lacks the resources to implement community schools at scale, it can productively begin in neighborhoods where community schools are most needed and, therefore, students are most likely to benefit. 2 In addition to a community school approach being an allowable use of funding under Title I of ESEA as an evidence-based approach to school improvement, full-service community schools have been well-positioned to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic, including by working closely with partner organizations to address community needs, and are an allowable use of American Rescue Plan Act (ARP) funds. Strategies to address those needs may include summer programming, food and nutrition programs, tutoring, mentoring, mental and physical health services, COVID-19 vaccine access, family engagement strategies, and opportunities to accelerate learning both inside and outside the classroom. Through the FSCS program, the Department provides catalytic support for the planning and capacity building, development, implementation, operation, and coordination of effective services for children and families, particularly in urban and rural areas with high rates of poverty.

Research  3 shows that there are certain design features that are common across full-service community schools that are associated with improvements in teaching, learning and student outcomes. The evidence-based features, or pillars (as defined in this notice), include providing (1) integrated supports ( e.g., social and emotional learning, access to health and nutrition services); (2) expanded and enriched learning time ( e.g., after-school enrichment and summer school); (3) active family and community engagement; and (4) collaborative leadership and practices to support high-quality teaching. Evidence-based full-service community schools create and implement at least these strategies as part of a comprehensive set of strategies that are designed to reflect and be tailored to local contexts. These four pillars are supported by the Science of Learning and Development Alliance  4 and can be used to address the needs of the whole child, including those children and youth that schools and community partners determine to be most vulnerable. Incorporation of the four pillars in this year's FSCS competition allows applicants to develop projects with greater fidelity to what has been shown to be associated with improvements in teaching, learning, and student outcomes and prepares the FSCS program and its grantees for future national evaluation efforts.

Over the last decade, the field has observed a wide range of practices coordinated and implemented in full-service community schools. In a January 2020 study of New York City community schools, assuming strong social capital, stable leadership, and a strong instructional program, community schools have been associated with improved attendance, on-time grade progression, student achievement in math, and fewer disciplinary incidents. 5

Building upon the work and progress of the field, as well as the lessons learned from reviews and evaluations of community school strategies and implementation, the Department published a notice of final priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria for the FSCS program elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register . These final priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria are included in this notice.

In this year's FSCS competition, the Department also seeks to expand the evidence base for community schools through the development of a set of indicators and a requirement that grantees have an independent evaluation which includes a design and implementation that assesses progress on an annual basis, uses data and findings to refine and improve activities, and collects and reports on a set of common indicators. In addition, through one of our competitive preference priorities, we seek applications that consider how community school supports and strategies are included in classroom practices and school designs that are focused on the whole learner. Recognizing the impact of school and community safety on learning, the Department is also interested in applications that are coordinating across multiple agencies and organizations to address community violence prevention and intervention.

Priorities: This notice contains five absolute priorities and two competitive preference priorities. In accordance with 34 CFR 75.105(b)(2)(iv), Absolute Priority 1 is from section 4625(b)(1)(A) of the ESEA, and Absolute Priority 2 is from section 4625(b)(1)(A) and (B) of the ESEA. Absolute Priorities 3, 4, and 5 are from the notice of final priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria for this program published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register (FSCS NFP). Competitive Preference Priorities 1 and 2 are from the Secretary's Supplemental Priorities and Definitions for Discretionary Grants Programs published in the Federal Register on December 10, 2021 (86 FR 70612) (Supplemental Priorities).

Absolute Priority: For FY 2022 and any subsequent year in which we make awards from the list of unfunded applications from this competition, these priorities are absolute priorities. Under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(3) we consider only applications that meet Absolute Priority 1 or Absolute Priority 2 and one additional absolute priority (Absolute Priority 3, Absolute Priority 4, or Absolute Priority 5).

Absolute Priorities 3, 4, and 5 constitute their own funding categories under Absolute Priority 1 and under Absolute Priority 2. Consequently, there will be separate funding slates for each of the following categories of applications:

• Absolute Priorities 1 and 3;

• Absolute Priorities 1 and 4;

• Absolute Priorities 1 and 5;

• Absolute Priorities 2 and 3;

• Absolute Priorities 2 and 4; and

• Absolute Priorities 2 and 5.

The Secretary intends to award grants under each of these funding categories, provided that applications of sufficient quality are submitted. To ensure that applicants are considered for the correct type of grant, applicants must clearly identify the specific absolute priorities that the proposed project addresses in the one-page abstract. If an entity is interested in proposing separate projects ( e.g., one that addresses Absolute Priorities 1 and 3 and another that addresses Absolute Priorities 1 and 4), separate applications must be submitted.

These priorities are:

Absolute Priority 1—Title IA Schoolwide Program Eligibility.

To meet this priority, applicants must propose to serve a minimum of two or more full-service community schools eligible for a schoolwide program (as defined in this notice) under section 1114(b) of the ESEA, as part of a community- or district-wide strategy.

Absolute Priority 2—Title IA Schoolwide Program Eligibility and Rural Districts—Small and Rural or Rural and Low-Income.

To meet this priority, applicants must propose to serve: (1) a minimum of two or more full-service community schools eligible for a schoolwide program under section 1114(b) of the ESEA, as part of a community- or district-wide strategy; and (2) include an LEA that satisfies the requirements of the Small Rural School Achievement (SRSA) program (ESEA section 5211(b)(1)(A), (B), or (C)) or the Rural and Low-Income School (RLIS) program (ESEA section 5221(b)(1)(A), (B), or (C)).

Note: Applicants may determine whether a particular LEA is eligible for these programs by referring to information on the following Department website: https://oese.ed.gov/offices/office-of-formula-grants/rural-insular-native-achievement-programs/rural-education-achievement-program/.

Note: An LEA includes a public charter school that operates as an LEA.

Absolute Priority 3—Capacity Building and Development Grants.

To meet this priority, applicants must propose projects to (a) conduct initial development and coordination activities, including extensive community engagement, that leverage the findings of their needs assessment—which may be completed during or before the grant period—to develop the infrastructure, activities, and partnerships to implement full-service community schools in two or more schools, and (b) gather data on performance indicators.

Absolute Priority 4—Multi-Local Educational Agency Grants.

To meet this priority, applicants must propose projects to implement and sustain full-service community schools in two or more LEAs. As outlined in Section 4622(1)(B) of the ESEA, an eligible entity for any FSCS grant is a consortium of one or more LEAs or the Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) and one or more community-based organizations, nonprofit organizations, or other public or private entities. The project must, with the exception of LEAs that oversee a single school, coordinate and provide services at two or more full-service community schools in each LEA.

Absolute Priority 5—FSCS State Scaling Grants. 6

Applications submitted under Priority 5 must include a written commitment of the SEA to participate in the partnership and to sustain the program beyond 2 years after the term of the grant, which can be submitted in the required preliminary memorandum of understanding (MOU) that includes the roles and responsibilities of the SEA and other partners identified at the time of the application. The applicant, in partnership with the SEA, determines the number and percentage of State LEAs, and the number and percentage of schools across those LEAs, that will develop, support, and expand full-service community schools over the 5-year grant performance period.

Applications under Priority 5 must also identify or establish a State steering committee (which may be a previously existing body) that represents relevant community schools' stakeholders, including educators and other school staff, community school initiative leaders, education union or association designees, family leaders participating in community school programs, community partners such as service providers, early childhood education providers such as Head Start, and community school coordinators from schools already implementing full-service community schools in the State. In addition to serving as an advisory committee, the State steering committee also has the authority to make decisions about the design, implementation, and evaluation for the grant, which may include identification or selection of LEAs that will partner in the development and implementation of two or more community schools in each LEA, with the exception of LEAs that oversee a single school. The roles and responsibilities of the State steering committee must be included in the required preliminary MOU.

As outlined in section 4622(1)(B) of the ESEA, an eligible entity for any FSCS grant is a consortium of one or more LEAs or the BIE and one or more community-based organizations, nonprofit organizations, or other public or private entities.

Competitive Preference Priorities: For FY 2022 and any subsequent year in which we make awards from the list of unfunded applications from this competition, these priorities are competitive preference priorities. Under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i), we award up to an additional 10 points to an application, depending on how well the application meets one or both of these priorities; the total possible points for each competitive preference priority are noted in parentheses. Applicants may apply under one, both, or none of the competitive preference priorities. Applicants must identify in the one-page abstract the competitive preference priorities they are addressing in order to receive those points.

These priorities are:

Competitive Preference Priority 1—Meeting Student Social, Emotional, and Academic Needs. (up to 5 points)

Projects that are designed to improve students' social emotional, academic, and career development, with a focus on underserved students, through one or more of the following priority areas:

(1) Creating education or work-based settings that are supportive, positive, identity-safe, and inclusive with regard to race, ethnicity, culture, language, and disability status, through developing trusting relationships between students (including underserved students), educators, families, and community partners.

(2) Providing multi-tiered systems of supports that address learning barriers both in and out of the classroom, that enable healthy development and respond to students' needs and which may include evidence-based trauma-informed practices and professional development for educators on avoiding deficit-based approaches.

(3) Creating and implementing comprehensive schoolwide frameworks (such as small schools or learning communities, advisory systems, or looping educators) that support strong and consistent student and educator relationships.

Competitive Preference Priority 2—Strengthening Cross-Agency Coordination and Community Engagement to Advance Systemic Change. (up to 5 points)

The Secretary gives priority to projects that are designed to take a systemic evidence-based approach to improving outcomes for underserved students in coordinating efforts with Federal, State, or local agencies, or community-based organizations, that support students, to address community violence prevention and intervention.

Application Requirements: For FY 2022 and any subsequent year in which we make awards from the list of unfunded applications from this competition, the following requirements apply. Applications for FSCS grant funds must address the following application requirements. Applicants should respond to the requirements that correspond to the absolute priority that they are addressing. The application requirements are from section 4625(a) of the ESEA and the FSCS NFP. The source of each requirement is provided in the parentheses following each requirement. An applicant may choose to respond to each requirement separately or in the context of the applicant's response to the selection criteria in Section V.1. of this notice.

Absolute Priority 3—Capacity Building and Development Grants.

In order to receive funding, applicants for grants under Absolute Priority 3 Capacity Building and Development Grants must address the following application requirements.

(1) A description of the eligible entity. (4625(a)(1))

(2) A preliminary MOU among all partner entities of the eligible entity, identified at the time of application, that will assist the eligible entity to plan, develop, coordinate, provide, and evaluate pipeline services and that describes the roles and responsibilities that the partners, including the broadly representative consortium (as defined in this notice), will assume. (4625(a)(2) and FSCS NFP)

(3) A description of the capacity of the eligible entity to coordinate and provide pipeline services at two or more full-service community schools. (4625(a)(3))

(4) A comprehensive plan that includes descriptions of the following:

(A) The student, family, and school community to be served, including demographic information; (4625(a)(4)(A))

(B) A plan for conducting the needs assessment that identifies the academic, physical, nonacademic, health, mental health, and other needs of students, families, and community residents; (4625(a)(4)(B)) and NFP)

(C) A plan for developing annual measurable performance objectives and outcomes, including an increase in the number and percentage of families and students targeted for services each year of the program, in order to ensure that children are—

(i) Prepared for kindergarten;

(ii) Achieving academically; and

(iii) Safe, healthy, and supported by engaged parents. (4625(a)(4)(C) and FSCS NFP)

(D) A plan for identifying and developing pipeline services, including existing and additional pipeline services, to be coordinated and provided by the eligible entity and its partner entities, including an explanation of:

(i) Why such services have been selected;

(ii) How such services will improve student academic achievement; and

(iii) How such services will address the annual measurable performance objectives and outcomes established under paragraph (4)(C) of this requirement. (4625(a)(4)(D) and FSCS NFP)

(E) A description of the pillars of full-service community schools (as defined in this notice) that they have in place or how they will establish these pillars, or how they will implement these pillars with partners, including community-based organizations and collaborating with school leadership and staff. (FSCS NFP)

(F) Plans to ensure that each full-service community school site has a full-time coordinator of pipeline services at such school, including a description of the applicable funding sources, plans for professional development for the personnel managing, coordinating, or delivering pipeline services, and plans for joint utilization and management of school facilities. (4625(a)(4)(E))

(G) Plans for an annual evaluation based upon attainment of the performance objectives and outcomes described in paragraph (4)(C) of this requirement.

An applicant must, in addition to providing the information and assurances required by section 4625(a)(4)(F) of the ESEA, commit to an independent evaluation that includes a design and implementation evaluation that will, at a minimum, (1) include annual evaluations of progress achieved with the grant; (2) be used to refine and improve activities carried out through the grant; (3) collect and report data that includes, but is not limited to, the following indicators: student chronic absenteeism rates; student discipline rates, including suspensions and expulsions; school climate information, which may come from student, parent, or teacher surveys; provision of integrated student supports and stakeholder services; expanded and enriched learning time and opportunities; family and community engagement efforts and impact; information on the number, qualifications, and retention of school staff, including the number and percentage of fully certified teachers, disaggregated by race and ethnicity, rates of teacher turnover, and teacher experience; graduation rates; changes in school spending information; collaborative leadership and practice strategies, which may include building the capacity of educators, principals, other school leaders, and other staff to lead collaborative school improvement structures, such as professional learning communities; regularly convening or engaging all initiative-level partners, such as LEA representatives, city or county officials, children's and youth's cabinets, nonprofit service providers, public housing agencies, and advocates; regularly assessing program quality and progress through individual student data, participant feedback, and aggregate outcomes to develop strategies for improvement; and organizing school personnel and community partners into working teams focused on specific issues identified in the needs and assets assessment; and (4) make results of the evaluation publicly available. (FSCS NFP)

(H) Plans for sustaining the programs and services described in section 4625(a) of the ESEA after the grant period. (4625(a)(4)(G))

(5) An assurance that the eligible entity and its partner entities will focus services on schools eligible for a schoolwide program under section 1114(b) of the ESEA. (4625(a)(5))

Absolute Priority 4—Multi-Local Educational Agency Grants.

In order to receive funding, applicants for grants under Absolute Priority 4 Multi-Local Educational Agency Grants must address the following application requirements.

(1) A description of the eligible entity. (4625(a)(1))

(2) A preliminary MOU among all partner entities of the eligible entity, identified at the time of the application, that will assist the eligible entity to plan, develop, coordinate, provide, and evaluate pipeline services and that describes the roles and responsibilities that the partners, including the broadly representative consortium, will assume. (4625(a)(2) and FSCS NFP)

(3) A description of the capacity of the eligible entity to coordinate and provide pipeline services at two or more full-service community schools in each LEA. ((4625(a)(3) and FSCS NFP)

(4) A comprehensive plan that includes descriptions of the following:

(A) The student, family, and school community to be served, including demographic information. (4625(a)(4)(A))

(B) A needs assessment that identifies the academic, physical, nonacademic, health, mental health, and other needs of students, families, and community residents. (4625(a)(4)(B))

(C) Annual measurable performance objectives and outcomes, including an increase in the number and percentage of families and students targeted for services each year of the program, in order to ensure that children are—

(i) Prepared for kindergarten; (4625(a)(4)(C)(i))

(ii) Achieving academically; (4625(a)(4)(C)(ii)) and

(iii) Safe, healthy, and supported by engaged parents. (4625(a)(4)(C)(iii))

(D) Pipeline services, including existing and additional pipeline services, to be coordinated and provided by the eligible entity and its partner entities, including an explanation of:

(i) Why such services have been selected;

(ii) How such services will improve student academic achievement; and

(iii) How such services will address the annual measurable performance objectives and outcomes established under paragraph (4)(C) of this requirement. (4625(a)(4)(D))

(E) A description of the pillars of full-service community schools that they have in place or how they will establish these pillars, or how they will implement these pillars with partners, including community-based organizations and collaborating with school leadership and staff. (FSCS NFP)

(F) Plans to ensure that each full-service community school site has a full-time coordinator of pipeline services at such school, including a description of the applicable funding sources, plans for professional development for the personnel managing, coordinating, or delivering pipeline services, and plans for joint utilization and management of facilities. (4625(a)(4)(E))

(G) Plans for an annual evaluation based upon attainment of the performance objectives and outcomes described in paragraph (4)(C) of this requirement.

An applicant must, in addition to providing the information and assurances required by section 4625(a)(4)(F) of the ESEA, commit to an independent evaluation that includes a design and implementation evaluation that will, at a minimum, (1) include annual evaluations of progress achieved with the grant; (2) be used to refine and improve activities carried out through the grant; (3) collect and report data that includes, but is not limited to, the following indicators: student chronic absenteeism rates; student discipline rates, including suspensions and expulsions; school climate information, which may come from student, parent, or teacher surveys; provision of integrated student supports and stakeholder services; expanded and enriched learning time and opportunities; family and community engagement efforts and impact; information on the number, qualifications, and retention of school staff, including the number and percentage of fully certified teachers, disaggregated by race and ethnicity, rates of teacher turnover, and teacher experience; graduation rates; changes in school spending information; collaborative leadership and practice strategies, which may include building the capacity of educators, principals, other school leaders, and other staff to lead collaborative school improvement structures, such as professional learning communities; regularly convening or engaging all initiative-level partners, such as LEA representatives, city or county officials, children's and youth's cabinets, nonprofit service providers, public housing agencies, and advocates; regularly assessing program quality and progress through individual student data, participant feedback, and aggregate outcomes to develop strategies for improvement; and organizing school personnel and community partners into working teams focused on specific issues identified in the needs and assets assessment; and (4) make results of the evaluation publicly available. (FSCS NFP)

(H) Plans for sustaining the programs and services described in section 4624(a) of the ESEA after the grant period. (4625(a)(4)(G))

(5) An assurance that the eligible entity and its partner entities will focus services on schools eligible for a schoolwide program under section 1114(b). (4625(a)(5))

Absolute Priority 5—State Scaling Grants.

In order to receive funding, applicants for grants under Absolute Priority 5 State Scaling Grants must address the following application requirements.

(1) A description of the eligible entity. (4625(a)(1))

(2) A preliminary MOU among all partner entities of the eligible entity, identified at the time of the application, that will assist the eligible entity to plan, develop, coordinate, provide, and evaluate pipeline services and that describes the roles and responsibilities that the partners, including the broadly representative consortium, will assume. (4625(a)(2) and FSCS NFP)

Applications submitted under Priority 5 FSCS State Scaling Grants must also include in the preliminary MOU a description of the State steering committee and the SEA's commitment to and partnership in the consortium, including the roles, responsibilities, and commitment of the SEA to the partnership and the scaling of full-service community schools to a percentage of State LEAs implementing schoolwide Title IA programs and where there is a commitment to sustain the program beyond 2 years after the term of the grant. (4625(a)(2) and FSCS NFP)

(3) A description of the capacity of the eligible entity to coordinate and provide pipeline services at two or more full-service community schools in each of the LEAs included in the application. (4625(a)(3) and FSCS NFP)

(4) A comprehensive plan that includes descriptions of the following:

(A) The student, family, and school community to be served, including demographic information. (4625(a)(4)(A))

(B) A needs assessment that identifies the academic, physical, nonacademic, health, mental health, and other needs of students, families, and community residents. (4625(a)(4)(B))

(C) Annual measurable performance objectives and outcomes, including an increase in the number and percentage of families and students targeted for services each year of the program, in order to ensure that children are—

(i) Prepared for kindergarten; (4625(a)(4)(C)(i))

(ii) Achieving academically; (4625(a)(4)(C)(ii)) and

(iii) Safe, healthy, and supported by engaged parents. (4625(a)(4)(C)(iii))

(D) Pipeline services, including existing and additional pipeline services to be coordinated and provided by the eligible entity and its partner entities, including an explanation of:

(i) Why such services have been selected; (4625(a)(4)(D)(ii))

(ii) How such services will improve student academic achievement; (4625(a)(4)(D)(ii)) and

(iii) How such services will address the annual measurable performance objectives and outcomes established under paragraph (4)(C) of this requirement. (4625(a)(4)(C)(iii))

(E) A description of the pillars of full-service community schools that they have in place or how they will establish these pillars, or how they will implement these pillars with partners, including community-based organizations, and collaborating with school leadership and staff. (FSCS NFP)

(F) Plans to ensure that each full-service community school site has a full-time coordinator of pipeline services at such school, including a description of the applicable funding sources, plans for professional development for the personnel managing, coordinating, or delivering pipeline services, and plans for joint utilization and management of facilities. (4625(a)(4)(E))

(G) Plans for an annual evaluation based upon attainment of the performance objectives and outcomes described in paragraph (4)(C) of this requirement.

An applicant must, in addition to providing the information and assurances required by section 4625(a)(4)(F) of the ESEA, commit to an independent evaluation that includes a design and implementation evaluation that will, at a minimum, (1) include annual evaluations of progress achieved with the grant; (2) be used to refine and improve activities carried out through the grant; (3) collect and report data that includes, but is not limited to, the following indicators: student chronic absenteeism rates; student discipline rates, including suspensions and expulsions; school climate information, which may come from student, parent, or teacher surveys; provision of integrated student supports and stakeholder services; expanded and enriched learning time and opportunities; family and community engagement efforts and impact; information on the number, qualifications, and retention of school staff, including the number and percentage of fully certified teachers, disaggregated by race and ethnicity, rates of teacher turnover, and teacher experience; graduation rates; changes in school spending information; collaborative leadership and practice strategies, which may include building the capacity of educators, principals, other school leaders, and other staff to lead collaborative school improvement structures, such as professional learning communities; regularly convening or engaging all initiative-level partners, such as LEA representatives, city or county officials, children's and youth's cabinets, nonprofit service providers, public housing agencies, and advocates; regularly assessing program quality and progress through individual student data, participant feedback, and aggregate outcomes to develop strategies for improvement; and organizing school personnel and community partners into working teams focused on specific issues identified in the needs and assets assessment; and (4) make results of the evaluation publicly available. (FSCS NFP)

(G) Plans for sustaining the programs and services described in this subsection after the grant period. (4625(a)(4)(G))

(5) An assurance that the eligible entity and its partner entities will focus services on schools eligible for a schoolwide program under section 1114(b). (4625(a)(5))

Program Requirements: FSCS grantee funds must meet the following program requirements. These requirements are from sections 4623 and 4625 of the ESEA and the FSCS NFP. The source of each requirement is provided in the parentheses following each requirement. For FY 2022, and any subsequent year in which we make awards from the list of unfunded applications from this competition, the following requirements apply.

(1) Matching funds. Each grantee shall provide matching funds from non-Federal sources, which may be provided in part with in-kind contributions. The BIE may meet the matching requirement using funds from other Federal sources. (4623(d)(2))

(2) Use of Funds. Each grantee shall use the grant funds for the following grant activities:

(A) Each grantee may use not more than 10 percent of the total amount of grant funds for planning purposes during the first year of the grant. (4625(c))

(B) Each grantee shall use the grant funds for the following grant activities:

(i) Coordinate not less than three existing pipeline services, as of the date of the grant award, and provide not less than two additional pipeline services at two or more public elementary schools or secondary schools; (4625(e)(1))

(ii) To the extent practicable, integrate multiple pipeline services, at two or more public elementary schools or secondary schools. Under Absolute Priorities 3 and 4, to the extent practicable, integrate multiple pipeline services at two or more public elementary schools or secondary schools in each LEA; (4625(e)(2) and FSCS NFP) and

(iii) If applicable, coordinate and integrate services provided by community-based organizations and government agencies with services provided by specialized instructional support personnel. (4625(e)(3))

(3) Evaluation. Each grantee shall include an independent evaluation to do the following:

(A) Conduct an annual evaluation of the progress achieved with the grant toward the purpose described in section 4621(2) of the ESEA; (4625(g)(1) and FSCS NFP)

(B) Use the evaluation to refine and improve activities carried out through the grant and annual measurable performance objectives and outcomes under section 4625(a)(4)(C); (4625(g)(2) and FSCS NFP) and

(C) Make the results of the evaluation publicly available, including by providing public notice of such availability. (4625(g)(3) and FSCS NFP)

(4) Final MOU. At the end of the first year of the grant, each grantee must submit a final MOU among all partner entities in the eligible entity that will assist the eligible entity to plan, develop, coordinate, provide, and evaluate pipeline services and that describes the roles and responsibilities that the partners, including the broadly representative consortium, will assume. (4625(a)(2) and FSCS NFP)

Definitions: The definitions of “Community-based organization,” “Eligible entity,” “Evidence-based,” “Full-service community school,” “Local educational agency,” “Pipeline services,” and “State educational agency” are from sections 4622 and 8101 of the ESEA. The definitions of “Baseline,” “Demonstrates a rationale,” “Experimental study,” “Logic model,” “Nonprofit,” “Performance measure,” “Performance target,” “Project,” “Project component,” “Promising evidence,” “Quasi-experimental design study,” “Relevant outcome,” and “What Works Clearinghouse Handbook” are from 34 CFR 77.1. The definition of “School eligible for a schoolwide program” is from 34 CFR 200.25(b). The definitions of “Broadly representative consortium,” Full-service community school coordinator,” “History of effectiveness,” and “Pillars of full-service community schools” are from the FSCS NFP. The definitions of “Children or students with disabilities,” “Disconnected youth,” “Early learning,” “Educator,” “English learner,” “Military- or veteran-connected student,” and “Underserved student,” are from the Supplemental Priorities.

Baseline means the starting point from which performance is measured and targets are set.

Broadly representative consortium means stakeholders representing broad groups of people working together for the best interest of children; such stakeholders may include, but are not limited to, families and family leadership, schools, nonprofits, government, philanthropy, and the business community.

Children or students with disabilities means children with disabilities as defined in section 602(3) of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) (20 U.S.C. 1401(3)) and 34 CFR 300.8, or students with disabilities as defined in the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 705(37), 705(20)(B)).

Community-based organization means a public or private nonprofit (as defined in this notice) organization of demonstrated effectiveness that—

(a) Is representative of a community or significant segments of a community; and

(b) Provides educational or related services to individuals in the community.

Demonstrates a rationale means a key project component included in the project's logic model is informed by research or evaluation findings that suggest the project component is likely to improve relevant outcomes.

Disconnected youth means an individual, between the ages 14 and 24, who may be from a low-income background, experiences homelessness, is in foster care, is involved in the justice system, or is not working or not enrolled in (or at risk of dropping out of) an educational institution.

Early learning means any (a) State-licensed or State-regulated program or provider, regardless of setting or funding source, that provides early care and education for children from birth to kindergarten entry, including, but not limited to, any program operated by a child care center or in a family child care home; (b) program funded by the Federal Government or State or local educational agencies (including any IDEA-funded program); (c) Early Head Start and Head Start program; (d) non-relative child care provider who is not otherwise regulated by the State and who regularly cares for two or more unrelated children for a fee in a provider setting; and (e) other program that may deliver early learning and development services in a child's home, such as the Maternal, Infant, and Early Childhood Home Visiting Program; Early Head Start; and Part C of IDEA.

Educator means an individual who is an early learning educator, teacher, principal, or other school leader, specialized instructional support personnel ( e.g., school psychologist, counselor, school social worker, early intervention service personnel), paraprofessional, or faculty.

Eligible entity means a consortium of one or more LEAs, or the Bureau of Indian Education, and one or more community-based organizations, nonprofit organizations, or other public or private entities.

English learner means an individual who is an English learner as defined in section 8101(20) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended, or an individual who is an English language learner as defined in section 203(7) of the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act.

Evidence-based means an activity, strategy, or intervention that—

(i) Demonstrates a statistically significant effect on improving student outcomes or other relevant outcomes based on—

(I) Strong evidence from at least one well-designed and well-implemented experimental study;

(II) Moderate evidence from at least one well-designed and well-implemented quasi-experimental study; or

(III) Promising evidence from at least one well-designed and well-implemented correlational study with statistical controls for selection bias; or

(ii)(I) Demonstrates a rationale based on high-quality research findings or positive evaluation that such activity, strategy, or intervention is likely to improve student outcomes or other relevant outcomes; and

(II) Includes ongoing efforts to examine the effects of such activity, strategy, or intervention.

Experimental study means a study that is designed to compare outcomes between two groups of individuals (such as students) that are otherwise equivalent except for their assignment to either a treatment group receiving a project component or a control group that does not. Randomized controlled trials, regression discontinuity design studies, and single-case design studies are the specific types of experimental studies that, depending on their design and implementation ( e.g., sample attrition in randomized controlled trials and regression discontinuity design studies), can meet What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) standards without reservations as described in the WWC Handbooks (as defined in this notice):

(a) A randomized controlled trial employs random assignment of, for example, students, teachers, classrooms, or schools to receive the project component being evaluated (the treatment group) or not to receive the project component (the control group).

(b) A regression discontinuity design study assigns the project component being evaluated using a measured variable ( e.g., assigning students reading below a cutoff score to tutoring or developmental education classes) and controls for that variable in the analysis of outcomes.

(c) A single-case design study uses observations of a single case ( e.g., a student eligible for a behavioral intervention) over time in the absence and presence of a controlled treatment manipulation to determine whether the outcome is systematically related to the treatment.

Full-service community school means a public elementary school or secondary school that—

(a) Participates in a community-based effort to coordinate and integrate educational, developmental, family, health, and other comprehensive services through community-based organizations and public and private partnerships; and

(b) Provides access to such services in school to students, families, and the community, such as access during the school year (including before- and after-school hours and weekends), as well as during the summer.

Full-service community school coordinator means an individual in a full-time position at each community school who serves to plan, integrate, coordinate, and facilitate the delivery of pipeline services at each school. The coordinator may also lead the school and community assessment of needs and assets and identify ways to sustain the services and partnerships beyond the duration of the grant.

History of effectiveness means an eligible entity demonstrating the ability to successfully implement programs and policies. Such programs and policies must include, but shall not be limited to, successfully implementing with other organizations grants, policies, and programs for students from high-need schools (as defined in Section 2221 of the ESEA).

Local educational agency (LEA) means:

(a) In General. A public board of education or other public authority legally constituted within a State for either administrative control or direction of, or to perform a service function for, public elementary schools or secondary schools in a city, county, township, school district, or other political subdivision of a State, or of or for a combination of school districts or counties that is recognized in a State as an administrative agency for its public elementary schools or secondary schools.

(b) Administrative Control and Direction. The term includes any other public institution or agency having administrative control and direction of a public elementary school or secondary school.

(c) Bureau of Indian Education Schools. The term includes an elementary school or secondary school funded by the Bureau of Indian Education but only to the extent that including the school makes the school eligible for programs for which specific eligibility is not provided to the school in another provision of law and the school does not have a student population that is smaller than the student population of the LEA receiving assistance under the ESEA with the smallest student population, except that the school shall not be subject to the jurisdiction of any State educational agency (as defined in this notice) other than the Bureau of Indian Education.

(d) Educational Service Agencies. The term includes educational service agencies and consortia of those agencies.

(e) State Educational Agency. The term includes the State educational agency in a State in which the State educational agency is the sole educational agency for all public schools.

Logic model (also referred to as a theory of action) means a framework that identifies key project components of the proposed project ( i.e., the active “ingredients” that are hypothesized to be critical to achieving the relevant outcomes) and describes the theoretical and operational relationships among the key project components and relevant outcomes.

Military- or veteran-connected student means one or more of the following:

(a) A child participating in an early learning program, a student enrolled in preschool through grade 12, or a student enrolled in career and technical education or postsecondary education who has a parent or guardian who is a member of the uniformed services (as defined by 37 U.S.C. 101), in the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, Coast Guard, Space Force, National Guard, Reserves, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, or Public Health Service or is a veteran of the uniformed services with an honorable discharge (as defined by 38 U.S.C. 3311).

(b) A student who is a member of the uniformed services, a veteran of the uniformed services, or the spouse of a service member or veteran.

(c) A child participating in an early learning program, a student enrolled in preschool through grade 12, or a student enrolled in career and technical education or postsecondary education who has a parent or guardian who is a veteran of the uniformed services (as defined by 37 U.S.C. 101).

Nonprofit, as applied to an agency, organization, or institution, means that it is owned and operated by one or more corporations or associations whose net earnings do not benefit, and cannot lawfully benefit, any private shareholder or entity.

Performance measure means any quantitative indicator, statistic, or metric used to gauge program or project performance.

Performance target means a level of performance that an applicant would seek to meet during the course of a project or as a result of a project.

Pillars of Full-Service Community Schools means all of the following:

(A) Integrated student supports at a community school that provide in- and out-of-school support for students, address well-being, and address out-of-school barriers to learning through partnerships with social and health service agencies, including mental and behavioral health agencies and providers, and coordinated by a community school coordinator, which may include—

(i) Medical, dental, vision care, and mental and behavioral health services, including mental health literacy for students and staff, and trauma-informed services to prevent, intervene, and mitigate adverse childhood experiences (ACEs); and

(ii) Individuals to assist with housing, transportation, nutrition, citizenship preparation, or criminal justice issues and other services.

(B) Expanded and enriched learning time and opportunities, through evidence-based strategies (as defined in this notice), including before-school, after-school, during-school, weekend, and summer programs that provide additional academic instruction, individualized academic support, enrichment activities, or learning opportunities, for students at a community school that—

(i) May emphasize real-world project-based learning where students can apply their learning to contexts that are relevant and engaging; and

(ii) May include art, music, drama, creative writing, hands-on experience with engineering or science (including computer science), career and technical education, tutoring that is aligned with classroom success and homework help, and recreational programs that enhance and are consistent with the school's curriculum.

(C) Active family and community engagement that—

(i) Brings parents and families of students at the community school and community members and leaders into the school as partners in students' education, including meaningfully involving parents and families in the community school's decision-making processes;

(ii) Makes the community school a hub for services, activities, and programs, for students, families, and members of the neighborhood that the community school serves;

(iii) Provides adults with desired educational and employment opportunities and other supportive services; and

(iv) Provides centralized supports for families and communities in community schools, which may include English as a second language classes, citizenship preparation, computer skills, art, housing assistance, child abuse and neglect prevention supports, health and mental health, literacy programs, digital literacy training, or other programs that bring community members into a school building for meetings, events, or programming.

(D) Collaborative leadership and practices that build a culture of professional learning, collective trust, and shared responsibility for each community school using strategies that—

(i) At a minimum, include a school-based leadership team with representation of student, parent and family leaders and a community voice; a community school coordinator; and a community-wide leadership team; and

(ii) May include other leadership or governance teams, community school steering committees, or other community coalitions, educator learning communities, and other staff to manage the multiple, complex joint work of school and community organizations.

Pipeline services means a continuum of coordinated supports, services, and opportunities for children from birth through entry into and success in postsecondary education and career attainment. Such services shall include, at a minimum, strategies to address through services or programs (including integrated student supports) the following:

(a) High-quality early childhood education programs.

(b) High-quality school and out-of-school-time programs and strategies.

(c) Support for a child's transition to elementary school, from elementary school to middle school, from middle school to high school, and from high school into and through postsecondary education and into the workforce, including any comprehensive readiness assessment determined necessary.

(d) Family and community engagement and supports, which may include engaging or supporting families at school or at home.

(e) Activities that support postsecondary and workforce readiness, which may include job training, internship opportunities, and career counseling.

(f) Community-based support for students who have attended the schools in the area served by the pipeline, or students who are members of the community, facilitating their continued connection to the community and success in postsecondary education and the workforce.

(g) Social, health, nutrition, and mental health services and supports.

(h) Juvenile crime prevention and rehabilitation programs.

Project means the activity described in an application.

Project component means an activity, strategy, intervention, process, product, practice, or policy included in a project. Evidence may pertain to an individual project component or to a combination of project components ( e.g., training teachers on instructional practices for English learners and follow-on coaching for these teachers).

Promising evidence means that there is evidence of the effectiveness of a key project component in improving a relevant outcome, based on a relevant finding from one of the following:

(a) A practice guide prepared by WWC reporting a “strong evidence base” or “moderate evidence base” for the corresponding practice guide recommendation;

(b) An intervention report prepared by the WWC reporting a “positive effect” or “potentially positive effect” on a relevant outcome with no reporting of a “negative effect” or “potentially negative effect” on a relevant outcome; or

(c) A single study assessed by the Department, as appropriate, that—

(i) Is an experimental study, a quasi-experimental design study, or a well-designed and well-implemented correlational study with statistical controls for selection bias ( e.g., a study using regression methods to account for differences between a treatment group and a comparison group); and

(ii) Includes at least one statistically significant and positive ( i.e., favorable) effect on a relevant outcome.

Quasi-experimental design study means a study using a design that attempts to approximate an experimental study by identifying a comparison group that is similar to the treatment group in important respects. This type of study, depending on design and implementation ( e.g., establishment of baseline equivalence of the groups being compared), can meet WWC standards with reservations, but cannot meet WWC standards without reservations, as described in the WWC Handbooks.

Relevant outcome means the student outcome(s) or other outcome(s) the key project component is designed to improve, consistent with the specific goals of the program.

School eligible for a schoolwide program means any school eligible under 34 CFR 200.25(b) to operate a schoolwide program.

State educational agency (SEA) means the agency primarily responsible for the State supervision of public elementary schools and secondary schools.

Underserved student means a student (which may include children in early learning environments, students in K-12 programs, students in postsecondary education or career and technical education, and adult learners, as appropriate) in one or more of the following subgroups:

(a) A student who is living in poverty or is served by schools with high concentrations of students living in poverty.

(b) A student of color.

(c) A student who is a member of a federally recognized Indian Tribe.

(d) An English learner.

(e) A child or student with a disability.

(f) A disconnected youth.

(g) A technologically unconnected youth.

(h) A migrant student.

(i) A student experiencing homelessness or housing insecurity.

(j) A lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer or questioning, or intersex (LGBTQI+) student.

(k) A student who is in foster care.

(l) A student without documentation of immigration status.

(m) A pregnant, parenting, or caregiving student.

(n) A student impacted by the justice system, including a formerly incarcerated student.

(o) A student who is the first in their family to attend postsecondary education.

(r) A student who is enrolled in or is seeking to enroll in postsecondary education who is eligible for a Pell Grant.

(s) A student performing significantly below grade level.

(t) A military- or veteran-connected student.

What Works Clearinghouse Handbooks (WWC Handbooks) means the standards and procedures set forth in the WWC Standards Handbook, Versions 4.0 or 4.1, and WWC Procedures Handbook, Versions 4.0 or 4.1, or in the WWC Procedures and Standards Handbook, Version 3.0 or Version 2.1 (all incorporated by reference, see § 77.2). Study findings eligible for review under WWC standards can meet WWC standards without reservations, meet WWC standards with reservations, or not meet WWC standards. WWC practice guides and intervention reports include findings from systematic reviews of evidence as described in the WWC Handbooks documentation.

Program Authority: Sections 4621-4625 of the ESEA, 20 U.S.C. 7271-7273, 7275.

Note: Projects will be awarded and must be operated in a manner consistent with the nondiscrimination requirements contained in Federal civil rights laws.

Applicable Regulations: (a) The Education Department General Administrative Regulations in 34 CFR parts 75, 77, 79, 81, 82, 84, 86, 97, 98, and 99. (b) The Office of Management and Budget Guidelines to Agencies on Governmentwide Debarment and Suspension (Nonprocurement) in 2 CFR part 180, as adopted and amended as regulations of the Department in 2 CFR part 3485. (c) The Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards in 2 CFR part 200, as adopted and amended as regulations of the Department in 2 CFR part 3474. (d) 34 CFR 200.25. (e) The FSCS NFP. (f) The Supplemental Priorities.

Note: The regulations in 34 CFR part 79 apply to all applicants except federally recognized Indian Tribes.

Note: The regulations in 34 CFR part 86 apply to institutions of higher education only.

Type of Award: Discretionary grants.

Estimated Available Funds: $68,000,000.

Contingent upon the availability of funds and the quality of applications, we may make additional awards later in FY 2022 or in subsequent years from the list of unfunded applications from this competition.

Estimated Range of Awards: Under Absolute Priority 3, $275,000 to $500,000 for each 12-month budget period; $1,375,000 to $2,500,000 for the entire project period. Under Absolute Priority 4, $1,000,000 to $3,000,000 for each 12-month budget period; $5,000,000 to $15,000,000 for the entire project period. Under Absolute Priority 5, $5,000,000 to $10,000,000 for each 12-month budget period; $25,000,000 to $50,000,000 for the entire project period.

Estimated Average Size of Awards: Under Absolute Priority 3, $450,000 for each 12-month period. Under Absolute Priority 4, $2 million for each 12-month period. Under Absolute Priority 5, $7.5 million for each 12-month period.

Maximum Award: Under Absolute Priority 3, we will not make an award exceeding $2.5 million for the entire project period. Under Absolute Priority 4, we will not make an award exceeding $15 million for the entire project period. Under Absolute Priority 5, we will not make an award exceeding $50 million for the entire project period.

Minimum Award: The Secretary is prohibited by section 4625(d) of the ESEA from making a grant under the FSCS program in an amount that is less than $75,000 for each year of the grant. Therefore, we will reject any application that proposes an amount that is less than $75,000 for any budget period.

Estimated Number of Awards: 40.

Note: The Department is not bound by any estimates in this notice.

Project Period: Up to 60 months.

1. Eligible Applicants: A consortium of—

(a)(i) One or more LEAs; or

(ii) The BIE; and

(b) One or more community-based organizations, nonprofit organizations, or other public or private entities.

A consortium must comply with the provisions governing group applications in 34 CFR 75.127 through 75.129.

Note: If you are a nonprofit organization, under 34 CFR 75.51, you may demonstrate your nonprofit status by providing: (1) proof that the Internal Revenue Service currently recognizes the applicant as an organization to which contributions are tax deductible under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code; (2) a statement from a State taxing body or the State attorney general certifying that the organization is a nonprofit organization operating within the State and that no part of its net earnings may lawfully benefit any private shareholder or individual; (3) a certified copy of the applicant's certificate of incorporation or similar document if it clearly establishes the nonprofit status of the applicant; or (4) any item described above if that item applies to a State or national parent organization, together with a statement by the State or parent organization that the applicant is a local nonprofit affiliate.

2.a. Cost Sharing or Matching: To be eligible for an award, an applicant shall provide matching funds through non-Federal contributions, either in cash or in-kind donations. The applicant must propose the amount of cash or in-kind resources to be contributed for each year of the grant.

The BIE may meet the matching requirement using funds from other Federal sources.

b. Supplement not Supplant: This program is subject to supplement-not-supplant funding requirements. Grantees must use FSCS grant funds to supplement, and not supplant, any other Federal, State, and local funds that would otherwise have been available to carry out activities authorized under section 4625 of the ESEA.

c. Indirect Cost Rate Information: This program uses a restricted indirect cost rate. For more information regarding indirect costs, or to obtain a negotiated indirect cost rate, please see www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocfo/intro.html.

d. Administrative Cost Limitation: This program does not include any program-specific limitation on administrative expenses. All administrative expenses must be reasonable and necessary and conform to Cost Principles described in 2 CFR part 200 subpart E of the Uniform Guidance.

3. Subgrantees: A grantee under this competition may not award subgrants to entities to directly carry out project activities described in its application.

Note: Nothing in section 4625 of the ESEA shall be construed to alter or otherwise affect the rights, remedies, and procedures afforded school or LEA employees under Federal, State, or local laws (including applicable regulations or court orders) under the terms of collective bargaining agreements, memoranda of understanding, or other agreements between such employees and their employers.

1. Application Submission Instructions: Applicants are required to follow the Common Instructions for Applicants to Department of Education Discretionary Grant Programs, published in the Federal Register on December 27, 2021 (86 FR 73264), and available at www.federalregister.gov/d/2021-27979, which contain requirements and information on how to submit an application. Please note that these Common Instructions supersede the version published on February 13, 2019, and, in part, describe the transition from the requirement to register in SAM.gov a DUNS number to the implementation of the UEI. More information on the phase-out of DUNS numbers is available at https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ofo/docs/unique-entity-identifier-transition-fact-sheet.pdf.

2. Submission of Proprietary Information: Given the types of projects that may be proposed in applications for the FSCS program, your application may include business information that you consider proprietary. In 34 CFR 5.11, we define “business information” and describe the process we use in determining whether any of that information is proprietary and, thus, protected from disclosure under Exemption 4 of the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552, as amended).

Because we plan to make successful applications available to the public, you may wish to request confidentiality of business information.

Consistent with Executive Order 12600, please designate in your application any information that you believe is exempt from disclosure under Exemption 4. In the appropriate Appendix section of your application, under “Other Attachments Form,” please list the page number or numbers on which we can find this information. For additional information please see 34 CFR 5.11(c).

3. Intergovernmental Review: This program is subject to Executive Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. Information about Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs under Executive Order 12372 is in the application package for this competition.

4. Funding Restrictions: We reference regulations outlining funding restrictions in the Applicable Regulations section of this notice.

5. Recommended Page Limit: The application narrative is where you, the applicant, address the selection criteria that reviewers use to evaluate your application. We recommend that you (1) limit the application narrative to no more than 150 pages and (2) use the following standards:

• A “page” is 8.5″ x 11″, on one side only, with 1″ margins at the top, bottom, and both sides.

• Double-space (no more than three lines per vertical inch) all text in the application narrative, including titles, headings, footnotes, quotations, references, and captions, as well as all text in charts, tables, figures, and graphs.

• Use a font that is either 12 point or larger or no smaller than 10 pitch (characters per inch).

• Use one of the following fonts: Times New Roman, Courier, Courier New, or Arial.

The recommended page limit does not apply to the cover sheet; the budget section, including the narrative budget justification; the required preliminary MOU; the assurances and certifications; or the one-page abstract, the resumes, the bibliography, or the letters of support. However, the recommended page limit does apply to all of the application narrative.

6. Notice of Intent to Apply: The Department will be able to develop a more efficient process for reviewing grant applications if it has a better understanding of the number of entities that intend to apply for funding under this competition. Therefore, the Secretary strongly encourages each potential applicant to notify the Department of the applicant's intent to submit an application for funding by sending a short email message indicating the applicant's intent to submit an application for funding. The email need not include information regarding the content of the proposed application, only the applicant's intent to submit it. This email notification should be sent to FSCS@ed.gov with “INTENT TO APPLY” in the subject line by August 12, 2022. Applicants that do not notify us of their intent to apply may still apply for funding; applicants that do submit a notice of intent to apply are not bound to apply or bound by the information provided.

1. Selection Criteria: The selection criteria for applicants submitting applications under Absolute Priority 3—Capacity Building and Development Grants, and Absolute Priority 4—Multi-Local Educational Agency Grants, are listed in paragraph (a) of this section. The selection criteria for applicants submitting applications under Absolute Priority 5—State Scaling Grants, are listed under paragraph (b) of this section. The selection criteria for this competition are from 34 CFR 75.210 and the FSCS NFP. The maximum score for all of the selection criteria is 100 points. The maximum score for each criterion is included in parentheses following the title of the specific selection criterion. Each criterion also includes the factors that reviewers will consider in determining the extent to which an applicant meets the criterion.

Points awarded under these selection criteria are in addition to any points an applicant earns under the competitive preference priorities in this notice. The maximum score that an application may receive under the competitive preference priorities and the selection criteria is 110 points.

In evaluating a FSCS application, the Secretary considers the following criteria:

(a) Selection Criteria for Absolute Priority 3—Capacity Building and Development Grants and Absolute Priority 4—Multi-Local Educational Agency Grants.

(1) Need for project (up to 10 points).

The Secretary considers the need for the proposed project. In determining the need for the proposed project, the Secretary considers the extent to which the proposed project will provide support, resources, and services; close gaps in educational opportunity; or otherwise address the needs of the targeted population, including addressing the needs of underserved populations most impacted by the issue, challenge, or opportunity to be addressed by the proposed project. (FSCS NFP)

(2) Quality of the Project Design (up to 25 points).

The Secretary considers the quality of the design of the proposed project. In determining the quality of the design of the proposed project, the Secretary considers the extent to which the design of the proposed project reflects relevant and evidence-based findings from existing literature and includes a high-quality plan for project implementation integrating the four pillars of full-service community schools and the use of appropriate evaluation methods to ensure successful achievement of project objectives. (FSCS NFP)

(3) Quality of the Project Services (up to 15 points).

The Secretary considers the quality of the services to be provided by the proposed project. In determining the quality of project services, the Secretary considers the extent to which the applicant will ensure that a diversity of perspectives is brought to bear in the design and operation of the proposed project, including those of students, youth, families, educators and staff, beneficiaries of services, school leadership, and community leadership. (FSCS NFP)

(4) Adequacy of Resources (up to 10 points).

The Secretary considers the adequacy of resources for the proposed project. In determining the adequacy of resources for the proposed project, the Secretary considers the extent to which the grantee has plans for a full-time coordinator at each school, including a plan to sustain the position beyond the grant period and a description of how this position will serve to plan, integrate, coordinate, and facilitate programs and services at each school. (FSCS NFP)

(5) Quality of the Management Plan (up to 25 points).

The Secretary considers the quality of the management plan for the proposed project. In determining the quality of the management plan for the proposed project, the Secretary considers the following factors:

(A) The extent to which the grantee has, or demonstrates a strong plan to have, a broadly representative consortium that reflects the needs of the community and its stakeholders, and a description of the roles and responsibilities of the broadly representative consortium outlined in the required preliminary MOU. (FSCS NFP)

(B) The extent to which the applicant demonstrates a history of effectiveness in working with a diverse range of stakeholders, including students and families. (FSCS NFP)

(C) The adequacy of the management plan to achieve the objectives of the proposed project on time and within budget, including clearly defined responsibilities, timelines, and milestones for accomplishing project tasks. (34 CFR 75.210)

(6) Quality of the Project Evaluation (up to 15 points).

The Secretary considers the quality of the evaluation to be conducted of the proposed project. In determining the quality of the evaluation, the Secretary considers the following factors—

(A) The extent to which the methods of evaluation are thorough, feasible, and appropriate to the goals, objectives, and outcomes of the proposed project. (34 CFR 75.210)

(B) The extent to which the methods of evaluation will provide performance feedback and permit periodic assessment of progress toward achieving intended outcomes. (34 CFR 75.210)

(C) The extent to which the methods of evaluation will provide valid and reliable performance data on relevant outcomes. (34 CFR 75.210)

(b) Selection Criteria for Absolute Priority 5—State Scaling Grants.

(1) Need for project (up to 5 points).

The Secretary considers the need for the proposed project. In determining the need for the proposed project, the Secretary considers the extent to which the proposed project will provide support, resources, and services; close gaps in educational opportunity; or otherwise address the needs of the targeted population, including addressing the needs of underserved populations most impacted by the issue, challenge, or opportunity to be addressed by the proposed project. (FSCS NFP)

(2) Quality of the Project Design (up to 25 points).

The Secretary considers the quality of the design of the proposed project. In determining the quality of the design of the proposed project, the Secretary considers the extent to which the design of the proposed project reflects relevant and evidence-based findings from existing literature and includes a high-quality plan for project implementation integrating the four pillars of full-service community schools and the use of appropriate evaluation methods to ensure successful achievement of project objectives. (FSCS NFP)

(3) Quality of the Project Services (up to 15 points).

The Secretary considers the quality of the services to be provided by the proposed project. In determining the quality of project services, the Secretary considers the extent to which the applicant will ensure that a diversity of perspectives is brought to bear in the design and operation of the proposed project, including those of students, youth, families, educators and staff, beneficiaries of services, school leadership, and community leadership. (FSCS NFP)

(4) Adequacy of Resources (up to 10 points).

The Secretary considers the adequacy of resources for the proposed project. In determining the adequacy of resources for the proposed project, the Secretary considers the extent to which the grantee has plans for a full-time coordinator at each school, including a plan to sustain the position beyond the grant period and a description of how this position will serve to plan, integrate, coordinate, and facilitate programs and services at each school. (FSCS NFP)

(5) Quality of the Management Plan (up to 20 points).

The Secretary considers the quality of the management plan for the proposed project. In determining the quality of the management plan for the proposed project, the Secretary considers the following factors:

(A) The extent to which the grantee has, or demonstrates a strong plan to have, a broadly representative consortium that reflects the needs of the community and its stakeholders, and a description of the roles and responsibilities of the broadly representative consortium outlined in the required preliminary MOU. (FSCS NFP)

(B) The extent to which the applicant demonstrates a history of effectiveness in working with a diverse range of stakeholders, including students and families. (FSCS NFP)

(C) The adequacy of the management plan to achieve the objectives of the proposed project on time and within budget, including clearly defined responsibilities, timelines, and milestones for accomplishing project tasks. (34 CFR 75.210)

(6) Quality of the Project Evaluation (up to 15 points).

The Secretary considers the quality of the evaluation to be conducted of the proposed project. In determining the quality of the evaluation, the Secretary considers the following factors—

(A) The extent to which the methods of evaluation are thorough, feasible, and appropriate to the goals, objectives, and outcomes of the proposed project. (34 CFR 75.210)

(B) The extent to which the methods of evaluation will provide performance feedback and permit periodic assessment of progress toward achieving intended outcomes. (34 CFR 75.210)

(C) The extent to which the methods of evaluation will provide valid and reliable performance data on relevant outcomes. (34 CFR 75.210)

(7) Strategy to Scale (up to 10 points).

The Secretary considers the applicant's strategy to scale the proposed project. In determining the applicant's capacity to scale the proposed project, the Secretary considers the extent to which the applicant demonstrates its commitment and strategy to scale full-service community schools at the statewide level. In determining the applicant's capacity to scale the proposed project, the Secretary considers the number and percentage of LEAs, and the number and percentage of schools within each LEA, the applicant, the SEA, and other partners propose to serve, the applicant's capacity ( e.g., in terms of qualified personnel, financial resources, or management capacity) to further develop, implement, bring to scale, and sustain additional full-service community schools in multiple LEAs, and the applicant's capacity to work with others, including the broadly representative consortium and the State steering committee, to ensure that the proposed process, products, strategies, or practices can be further developed and brought to scale, based on the regular findings of the proposed project and its independent evaluation. (FSCS NFP)

2. Review and Selection Process: We remind potential applicants that in reviewing applications in any discretionary grant competition, the Secretary may consider, under 34 CFR 75.217(d)(3), the past performance of the applicant in carrying out a previous award, such as the applicant's use of funds, achievement of project objectives, and compliance with grant conditions. The Secretary may also consider whether the applicant failed to submit a timely performance report or submitted a report of unacceptable quality.

In addition, in making a competitive grant award, the Secretary requires various assurances, including those applicable to Federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department (34 CFR 100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23).

3. Risk Assessment and Specific Conditions: Consistent with 2 CFR 200.206, before awarding grants under this competition the Department conducts a review of the risks posed by applicants. Under 2 CFR 200.208, the Secretary may impose specific conditions and, under 2 CFR 3474.10, in appropriate circumstances, high-risk conditions on a grant if the applicant or grantee is not financially stable; has a history of unsatisfactory performance; has a financial or other management system that does not meet the standards in 2 CFR part 200, subpart D; has not fulfilled the conditions of a prior grant; or is otherwise not responsible.

4. Integrity and Performance System: If you are selected under this competition to receive an award that over the course of the project period may exceed the simplified acquisition threshold (currently $250,000), under 2 CFR 200.206(a)(2) we must make a judgment about your integrity, business ethics, and record of performance under Federal awards—that is, the risk posed by you as an applicant—before we make an award. In doing so, we must consider any information about you that is in the integrity and performance system (currently referred to as the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS)), accessible through the System for Award Management. You may review and comment on any information about yourself that a Federal agency previously entered and that is currently in FAPIIS.

Please note that, if the total value of your currently active grants, cooperative agreements, and procurement contracts from the Federal Government exceeds $10,000,000, the reporting requirements in 2 CFR part 200, Appendix XII, require you to report certain integrity information to FAPIIS semiannually. Please review the requirements in 2 CFR part 200, Appendix XII, if this grant plus all the other Federal funds you receive exceed $10,000,000.

5. In General: In accordance with the Office of Management and Budget's guidance located at 2 CFR part 200, all applicable Federal laws, and relevant Executive guidance, the Department will review and consider applications for funding pursuant to this notice inviting applications in accordance with:

(a) Selecting recipients most likely to be successful in delivering results based on the program objectives through an objective process of evaluating Federal award applications (2 CFR 200.205);

(b) Prohibiting the purchase of certain telecommunication and video surveillance services or equipment in alignment with section 889 of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2019 (Pub. L. 115-232) (2 CFR 200.216);

(c) Providing a preference, to the extent permitted by law, to maximize use of goods, products, and materials produced in the United States (2 CFR 200.322); and

(d) Terminating agreements in whole or in part to the greatest extent authorized by law if an award no longer effectuates the program goals or agency priorities (2 CFR 200.340).

1. Award Notices: If your application is successful, we notify your U.S. Representative and U.S. Senators and send you a Grant Award Notification (GAN), or we may send you an email containing a link to access an electronic version of your GAN. We may notify you informally, also.

If your application is not evaluated or not selected for funding, we notify you.

2. Administrative and National Policy Requirements: We identify administrative and national policy requirements in the application package and reference these and other requirements in the Applicable Regulations section of this notice.

We reference the regulations outlining the terms and conditions of an award in the Applicable Regulations section of this notice and include these and other specific conditions in the GAN. The GAN also incorporates your approved application as part of your binding commitments under the grant.

3. Open Licensing Requirements: Unless an exception applies, if you are awarded a grant under this competition, you will be required to openly license to the public grant deliverables created in whole, or in part, with Department grant funds. When the deliverable consists of modifications to pre-existing works, the license extends only to those modifications that can be separately identified and only to the extent that open licensing is permitted under the terms of any licenses or other legal restrictions on the use of pre-existing works. Additionally, a grantee or subgrantee that is awarded competitive grant funds must have a plan to disseminate these public grant deliverables. This dissemination plan can be developed and submitted after your application has been reviewed and selected for funding. For additional information on the open licensing requirements please refer to 2 CFR 3474.20.

4. Reporting: (a) If you apply for a grant under this competition, you must ensure that you have in place the necessary processes and systems to comply with the reporting requirements in 2 CFR part 170 should you receive funding under the competition. This does not apply if you have an exception under 2 CFR 170.110(b).

(b) At the end of your project period, you must submit a final performance report, including financial information, as directed by the Secretary. If you receive a multiyear award, you must submit an annual performance report that provides the most current performance and financial expenditure information as directed by the Secretary under 34 CFR 75.118. The Secretary may also require more frequent performance reports under 34 CFR 75.720(c). For specific requirements on reporting, please go to www.ed.gov/fund/grant/apply/appforms/appforms.html.

5. Performance Measures: Section 4625(a)(4)(C) of the ESEA provides the basis for one performance measure for the FSCS program: the percentage and number of individuals targeted for services and who receive services during each year of the project period. The FSCS NFP established an additional set of indicators: student chronic absenteeism rates; student discipline rates, including suspensions and expulsions; school climate information, which may come from student, parent, or teacher surveys; provision of integrated student supports and stakeholder services; expanded and enriched learning time and opportunities; family and community engagement efforts and impact; information on the number, qualifications, and retention of school staff, including the number and percentage of fully certified teachers, disaggregated by race and ethnicity, and rates of teacher turnover; graduation rates; changes in school spending information; collaborative leadership and practice strategies, which may include building the capacity of educators, principals, other school leaders, and other staff to lead collaborative school improvement structures, such as professional learning communities; regularly convening or engaging all initiative-level partners, such as LEA representatives, city or county officials, children's cabinets, nonprofit service providers, public housing agencies, and advocates; regularly assessing program quality and progress through individual student data, participant feedback, and aggregate outcomes to develop strategies for improvement; and organizing school personnel and community partners into working teams focused on specific issues identified in the needs and assets assessment.

6. Continuation Awards: In making a continuation award under 34 CFR 75.253, the Secretary considers, among other things, whether a grantee has made substantial progress in achieving the goals and objectives of the project; whether the grantee has expended funds in a manner that is consistent with its approved application and budget; and, if the Secretary has established performance measurement requirements, whether the grantee has made substantial progress in achieving the performance targets in the grantee's approved application.

In making a continuation award, the Secretary also considers whether the grantee is operating in compliance with the assurances in its approved application, including those applicable to Federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department (34 CFR 100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23).

Accessible Format: On request to the program contact person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT , individuals with disabilities can obtain this document and a copy of the application package 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, 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.

The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.

Title of Collection: Campus Equity in Athletics Disclosure Act (EADA) Survey.

OMB Control Number: 1840-0827.

Type of Review: Extension without change of a currently approved collection.

Respondents/Affected Public: Private Sector; State, Local, and Tribal Governments.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 2,073.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 11,401.

Abstract: The collection of information is necessary under section 485 of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended, with the goal of increasing transparency surrounding college athletics for students, prospective students, parents, employees and the general public. The survey is a collection tool to compile the annual data on college athletics. The data is collected from the individual institutions by ED and is made available to the public through the Equity in Athletics Data Analysis Cutting Tool as well as the College Navigator.

Title: FERC-725B4, Mandatory Reliability Standards: Critical Infrastructure Protection Reliability Standards CIP-004-7 and CIP-011-3. 1

OMB Control No.: TBD.

Type of Request: Approval of proposed changes as described in Docket No. RD21-6-000.

Abstract: On September 15, 2021 the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) filed a petition requesting approval of two Reliability Standards: CIP-004-7 (Cyber Security, Personnel and Training) and CIP-011-3 (Cyber Security, Information Protection). NERC described the proposed Reliability Standards as “Addressing Bulk Electric System Cyber System Information Access Management.” The petition was noticed on September 22, 2021, with interventions and comments due by October 6, 2021. 2 The Commission did not receive any interventions or comments.

On December 7, 2021, the Designated Letter Order (DLO) in Docket No. RD21-6-000 approved the proposed Reliability Standards, and found that the modified Reliability Standards enhance security as discussed below.

At present, Reliability Standard CIP-004-6 requires Responsible Entities to control access to Bulk Electric System Cyber System Information (BCSI) by managing access to a designated storage location, such as an electronic document or physical file room. Reliability Standard CIP-004-7 removes references to “designated storage locations” of BCSI and requires an access management program to authorize, verify and revoke provisioned access to BCSI. This change updates CIP-004 by focusing on controls at the file level ( e.g., rights, permissions, privileges) of BCSI and reduces the need for access to only a physical, designated storage location for BCSI.

Reliability Standard CIP-011-3 clarifies the requirements of protecting and handling BCSI with the goal of providing flexibility for Responsible Entities to use third-party data storage and analysis systems. Specifically, Reliability Standard CIP-011-3 requires Responsible Entities to implement specific controls related to BCSI during storage handling use, and disposal of information when implementing services provided by third parties.

Type of Respondents: Businesses and other for-profit entities.

Estimate of Annual Burden: The Commission estimates 686 responses annually, and per-response burdens of 10 hours and $850.20. The total estimated burdens per year are 6,860 hours and $583,237.20. These burdens are itemized in the following table:

Comments are invited on: (1) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden and cost of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

The CAA affords the EPA a 45-day period to review and object to, as appropriate, operating permits proposed by state permitting authorities under title V of the CAA. Section 505(b)(2) of the CAA authorizes any person to petition the EPA Administrator to object to a title V operating permit within 60 days after the expiration of the EPA's 45-day review period if the EPA has not objected on its own initiative. Petitions must be based only on objections to the permit that were raised with reasonable specificity during the public comment period provided by the state, unless the petitioner demonstrates that it was impracticable to raise these issues during the comment period or unless the grounds for the issue arose after this period.

The EPA received the Petition from the Environmental Integrity Project, Port Arthur Community Action Network, Lone Star Legal Aid, and the Lone Star Chapter of the Sierra Club dated October 28, 2020, requesting that the EPA object to the issuance of operating permit no. O1493, issued by TCEQ to Oxbow Calcining in Jefferson County, Texas. The Petition claims the proposed permit fails to include monitoring and recordkeeping provisions sufficient to ensure compliance with Sulfur Dioxide National Ambient Air Quality Standards and fails to establish monitoring, testing, and recordkeeping provisions that assure compliance with Lead and Volatile Organic Compound limits from kiln stacks 2, 3, 4, and 5 in NSR Permit No. 45622.

On June 14, 2022, the EPA Administrator issued an Order granting in part and denying in part the Petition. The Order explains the basis for the EPA's decision.

The CAA affords EPA a 45-day period to review and, as appropriate, the authority to object to operating permits proposed by state permitting authorities under title V of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7661-7661f. Section 505(b)(2) of the CAA and 40 CFR 70.8(d) authorize any person to petition the EPA Administrator to object to a title V operating permit within 60 days after the expiration of the EPA's 45-day review period if EPA has not objected on its own initiative. Petitions must be based only on objections to the permit that were raised with reasonable specificity during the public comment period provided by the permitting authority, unless the petitioner demonstrates that it was impracticable to raise these issues during the comment period or the grounds for the issues arose after this period. Pursuant to sections 307(b) and 505(b)(2) of the CAA, a petition for judicial review of those parts of the Order that deny issues in the petition may be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit within 60 days from the date this notice is published in the Federal Register .

Petitioner submitted a petition requesting that EPA object to the CAA title V operating permit no. 4-07-0371-09 issued by JCDH to the Fairfield Works Pipe Mill. Petitioner claims: the public did not have a meaningful opportunity to comment on the applicability of major and minor new source review (NSR); the Permittee violated the state implementation plan by failing to commence construction of the electric arc furnace (EAF) within 24 months of JCDH's approval and, thus, required a new construction permit; JCDH failed to issue an NSR permit for the EAF both initially and after the failure to timely commence construction; and the permit failed to assure compliance with a valid NSR permit that should have been issued by JCDH.

On June 16, 2022, the Administrator issued an Order denying the petition. The Order explains EPA's bases for denying the petition.