[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 191 (Tuesday, October 4, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 60092-60102]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-21634]


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

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

34 CFR Chapter II

[Docket ID ED-2021-OESE-0122]


Final Priorities, Requirements, and Definitions--School-Based 
Mental Health Services Grant Program

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

ACTION: Final priorities, requirements, and definitions.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Education (Department) announces final 
priorities, requirements, and definitions under the School-Based Mental 
Health Services (SBMH) Grant Program, Assistance Listing Number (ALN) 
84.184H. We may use one or more of these priorities, requirements, and 
definitions for competitions in fiscal year (FY) 2022 and later years. 
These final priorities, requirements, and definitions are designed to 
direct funds to increase the number of credentialed school-based mental 
health services providers (as defined in 20 U.S.C. 7112(6)) in local 
educational agencies (LEAs) with demonstrated need (as defined in this 
document), in order to meet student mental health needs.

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amy Banks, U.S. Department of 
Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Room 3E357, Washington, DC 20202. 
Telephone: (202) 453-6704. Email: [email protected].
    If you are deaf, hard of hearing, or have a speech disability and 
wish to access telecommunications relay services, please dial 7-1-1.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Executive Summary

    Purpose of this Regulatory Action: As defined by the Centers for 
Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), ``Mental health includes our 
emotional, psychological, and social well-being. It affects how we 
think, feel, and act. It

[[Page 60093]]

also helps determine how we handle stress, relate to others, and make 
healthy choices. Mental health is important at every stage of life, 
from childhood and adolescence through adulthood.'' \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Novel Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic brought on 
challenges for children and youth that impacted their overall 
emotional, psychological, and social well-being and their ability to 
fully engage in learning. The disruptions in routines, relationships, 
and the learning environment have led to increased stress and trauma, 
social isolation, and anxiety.
    These final priorities, requirements, and definitions are intended 
to support the provision of timely and necessary mental health supports 
to children and youth by (1) increasing the number of credentialed 
school-based mental health services providers in LEAs with demonstrated 
need through recruitment and retention-related incentives for school-
based mental health services providers; (2) promoting the 
respecialization and certification of existing mental health services 
providers to qualify them for work in LEAs with demonstrated need; and 
(3) increasing the diversity, and cultural and linguistic competency, 
of school-based mental health services providers, including competency 
in providing identity-safe services. Summary of the Major Provisions of 
this Regulatory Action: Through this regulatory action, we establish 
four priorities, program and application requirements, and definitions.
    Costs and Benefits: The final priorities, requirements, and 
definitions will impose minimal costs on entities that receive 
assistance through the SBMH program. Application submission and 
participation in this program are voluntary. The Secretary believes 
that the costs imposed on applicants by the final priorities are 
limited to paperwork burden related to preparing an application for an 
SBMH grant competition that uses one or more of the final priorities. 
Because the costs of carrying out program activities will be paid for 
with grant funds, the costs of implementation will not impose financial 
burdens on any eligible applicants, including small entities.
    We believe that the benefits of this regulatory action outweigh any 
associated costs because it will result in the submission of a greater 
number of high-quality discretionary grant applications likely to 
result in the achievement of program objectives.
    Purpose of Program: The SBMH program provides competitive grants to 
State educational agencies (SEAs) (as defined in 20 U.S.C. 7801(49)), 
LEAs (as defined in 20 U.S.C. 7801(30)), and consortia of LEAs to 
increase the number of credentialed (as defined in this document) 
school-based mental health services providers providing mental health 
services to students in LEAs with demonstrated need.
    Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 7281.
    We published a notice of proposed priorities, requirements, and 
definitions (NPP) in the Federal Register on August 2, 2022 (87 FR 
47152). The NPP contained background information and our reasons for 
proposing the priorities, requirements, and definitions. As discussed 
in the Analysis of Comments and Changes section of this document, we 
made substantive changes to Priorities 1, 2 and 3. We made both 
substantive and editorial changes to the application requirements and 
definitions, and we made minor substantive changes to the Regulatory 
Impact Analysis (RIA).
    Public Comment: In response to our invitation in the NPP, 17 
parties submitted comments addressing the proposed priorities, as well 
as the requirements and definitions. We group major issues according to 
subject. Generally, we do not address technical and other minor changes 
or suggested changes that the law does not authorize us to make under 
the applicable statutory authority.
    Analysis of Comments and Changes: An analysis of the comments and 
of any changes in the priorities, requirements, and definitions since 
publication of the NPP follows.

General Comments

    Comment: Several commenters expressed general support for the SBMH 
program and priorities. One commenter also expressed support for the 
Department's efforts to expand and make mental health services more 
inclusive for children, while another commenter offered support for the 
commitment to building and expanding a diverse and culturally competent 
school-based mental-health services provider workplace.
    Discussion: We appreciate the support for the program and for the 
specific emphasis on creating a more diverse services provider 
workforce and efforts to promote more inclusive practices within 
provider preparation programs.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter suggested revising the background section of 
the NFP to include an explanation and data to describe the confluence 
of gun and other community violence, structural racism in the United 
States, and the COVID-19 pandemic to better substantiate specific 
aspects of the program.
    Discussion: We thank the commenter for this suggestion. However, we 
do not include a background section in the NFP, nor is the background 
section considered part of the final priorities, requirements, and 
definitions. Therefore, we are not making any changes in response to 
this comment.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter suggested encouraging the strategy of using 
young adult peer support specialists to expand services related to 
mental health and substance use prevention, early intervention, 
treatment, and recovery support services.
    Discussion: We appreciate this comment and agree with the need for 
substance use and misuse support services. To the extent young adult 
peer support specialists meet the definition of a school-based mental 
health services provider, these individuals could be available to 
provide the specified services to students under the SBMH program.
    Changes: None.

Priorities

    Comment: Several commenters expressed general support for the 
priorities. Some commenters suggested additional priorities. For 
example, one commenter suggested adding a priority related to 
incorporating trauma-informed care and learner-centered approaches to 
provider preparation programs. This same commenter also suggested 
adding a priority for projects that propose to partner with nonprofits 
with expertise in these same areas.
    A second commenter recommended adding a priority or requirement to 
increase the capacity of school personnel, beyond school-based mental 
health services providers, to attend to mental health needs.
    A third commenter suggested adding a priority or requirement to 
align systems of support by coordinating mental health services that 
are provided in and out of school.
    A fourth commenter suggested incentivizing applicants to partner 
with Minority-Serving Institutions (MSIs), Hispanic-Serving 
Institutions (HSIs), or Historically Black Colleges and Universities 
(HBCUs)--particularly when the LEA serves high percentages of minority, 
Hispanic, or Black children and youth.

[[Page 60094]]

    Discussion: We do not think it is necessary to add priorities that 
prescribe specific practices, such as trauma-informed care. We note 
that these practices are allowable under the program, and we believe 
that applicants should propose the recruitment, retention, and 
respecialization strategies that they believe will best accomplish the 
goals of their projects.
    We also do not believe that a stand-alone priority requiring a 
partnership with a nonprofit is necessary given that community 
organizations referenced in application requirement (g) include 
nonprofits, making this type of partnership already permissible.
    We agree with the importance of aligning systems of support by 
coordinating mental health services provided in and out of school. We 
believe paragraph (g) addresses collaboration of efforts within and 
outside of school (e.g., collaboration with local and school-based 
health centers). Nevertheless, we made a small change to (g) to 
specifically reference ``school-based'' efforts whereby applicants must 
describe how they collaborate and coordinate.
    We also agree with the importance of partnerships with MSIs (as 
defined in this notice), but do not agree that further incentives are 
required to promote such partnerships. However, we revised application 
requirement (g) to clarify that applicants may propose to collaborate 
and coordinate with HBCUs (as defined in this notice), MSIs (which 
include HSIs), and Tribal Colleges and Universities (TCUs) (as defined 
in this notice) to achieve plan goals and objectives.
    Changes: We revised application requirement (g) to specifically 
reference school-based efforts and to reference HBCUs, MSIs, and TCUs 
as entities with which LEAs may collaborate and coordinate.
    Comment: One commenter recommended revising Priority 2 to align 
with the definition of ''retention.'' Specifically, the commenter 
suggests using the phrase ``stay in their position'' in both the 
priority and the definition to underscore that the goal is for services 
providers to remain in their position within a school in order for 
children and youth to have ongoing access to the same services 
provider, thus increasing the likelihood of realizing the most 
therapeutic benefit from the services.
    Discussion: The Department thanks the commenter for this suggestion 
and agrees it is important to make this change for the reasons stated 
by the commenter.
    Change: The Department has revised Priorities 1 and 2 to align the 
language with the definition of ``retention'' and to clarify the intent 
of the language.
    Comment: Two commenters suggested revising how we describe 
respecialization in Priority 3, specifically to require that 
respecialization plans be developed in collaboration with and endorsed 
by a relevant state or national professional organization and that 
references to incremental training in respecialization plans be removed 
in order to focus respecialization on increasing pathways to meet 
existing credentialing standards, rather than revising existing 
standards to be less rigorous.
    Discussion: We agree with revising the description of 
respecialization in Priority 3 for the reasons noted by the commenter. 
And, while we encourage applicants to collaborate with relevant 
organizations in developing their respecialization plans, only SEAs or 
other credentialing bodies establish the credentialing requirements for 
serving as a school-based mental health services provider.
    Changes: We revised Priority 3 to clarify how we refer to 
respecialization and the outcome to which respecialization must lead.
    Comment: One commenter suggested broadening Priority 3 beyond the 
goal of increasing the number of services providers to also include 
increasing access to needed training.
    Discussion: The purpose of this program is to increase the number 
of school-based mental health services providers. General training that 
does not lead to a degree or credential as a school-based mental health 
services provider is not consistent with the purpose of this program.
    Change: None.

Application Requirements

    Comment: Three commenters recommended adding new application 
requirements. One commenter suggested requiring applicants to describe 
how they would incorporate school leaders in the development, 
implementation, and evaluation of the project. The same commenter 
recommended allowing applicants to reserve a percentage of funding for 
training teachers and school leaders on general mental health supports, 
while another commenter suggested requiring that providers be trained 
in trauma-informed practices. The third commenter recommended requiring 
grantees to continuously monitor and evaluate their outcomes and noted 
the importance of planning for these activities at the outset of the 
grant.
    Discussion: The Department agrees with the importance of leadership 
engagement with the project and will modify requirement (i) (Plan for 
prompt delivery of services) to require applicants to describe how 
leaders at each level of the project (including school leaders) will be 
engaged in the implementation and evaluation of the project.
    The Department declines to allow applicants to set aside funding 
for training on general mental health supports and requiring that 
providers be trained in trauma-informed approaches. Training that does 
not lead to a credential as a school-based mental health services 
provider is not consistent with the purpose of this grant program.
    Additionally, the Department does not prescribe specific approaches 
or practices within this program. Rather, applicants should propose how 
they will best address the application requirements and selection 
criteria in order to accomplish the goals of their projects.
    Last, the Department agrees with the commenter about the importance 
of planning for monitoring and evaluation activities at the beginning 
of a grant. We have added application requirement (d) (Logic model), 
which requires applicants to describe their theory of action using a 
logic model that identifies key project components and relevant 
outcomes.
    Change: We modified application requirement (h) (Use of grant 
funds) asking applicants to describe how leaders across all levels of 
the project will be engaged. We have also added application requirement 
(d) for a logic model.
    Comment: One commenter recommended adding an annual reporting 
requirement for grantees to help measure the extent to which 
disparities in access to mental health services were reduced.
    Discussion: The Department appreciates the commenter's point 
related to the importance of using data to determine the impact of the 
program on disparities in access to mental health services. We include 
performance measures in a grant competition's notice inviting 
applications. Additionally, we are developing our evidence-building 
strategy; that is, our strategy to collect and analyze program data and 
conduct a program evaluation to share what works with the field, which 
will include considerations of equitable access to mental health 
services.
    Change: None.
    Comment: Four commenters recommended requiring applicants to 
include additional data in their description of the importance and

[[Page 60095]]

magnitude of the problem in application requirement (c). For example, 
commenters suggested requiring data on incidents of traumatic events, 
student substance use, school discipline, and the perspectives and 
needs of school leaders. Two of the four commenters also suggested 
requiring disaggregated data by student demographics, and one of these 
commenters recommended requiring disaggregated data by services 
provider.
    Discussion: We appreciate these recommendations; however, we do not 
believe such additional data are necessary to achieve program purposes. 
Rather, we encourage applicants, in addressing the application 
requirement and responding to the selection criteria, to include the 
data they think best describes the problem they wish to address.
    Change: None.
    Comment: One commenter requested the Department to release desired 
ratios of school-based mental health services providers to students to 
help LEAs in determining whether they meet the criteria.
    Discussion: The Department supports the following ratios 
recommended by national professional associations such as the National 
Association of School Psychologists: student-to-counselor 250:1, 
student-to-psychologist 500:1, student-to-social worker 
250:1.2 3 4
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ ``School Counselor Roles and Ratios.'' American School 
Counselor Association Home Page. https://www.schoolcounselor.org/About-School-Counseling/School-Counselor-Roles-Ratios. Accessed June 
29, 2022.
    \3\ ``Research Summary: Shortages in School Psychology.'' 
National Association of School Psychologists. https://www.nasponline.org/research-and-policy/policy-priorities/critical-policy-issues/shortage-of-school-psychologists. Accessed March 28, 
2022.
    \4\ ``NASW Standards for School Social Work Services.'' National 
Association of Social Workers. https://www.socialworkers.org/Practice/School-Social-Work. Accessed September 8, 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Change: None.
    Comment: One commenter raised concerns about sustainability of the 
mental health services provider positions after the grant ends given 
that grant funds can be used to pay for salaries. In response, the 
commenter suggested that only matching funds be used for salaries. 
Another commenter suggested adding language to application requirement 
(h) requiring applicants to address sustainability beyond the life of 
the grant.
    Discussion: We believe paying for salaries with grant funds is a 
key strategy for achieving the goals of the program, so we decline to 
limit paying for salaries out of matching funds. However, we appreciate 
the commenters' concerns about sustainability of projects beyond the 
life of the grants and agree that applicants should consider at the 
onset of the grant how they will sustain the project after the budget 
period ends.
    Change: The new requirement for a logic model requires applicants 
to describe how they will sustain the project beyond the life of the 
grant.
    Comment: Three commenters suggested revisions to application 
requirement (f) (Number of providers). Two of the three commenters 
suggested revising how the Department collects data on the number of 
services providers in application requirement (f) to ensure that 
telehealth is considered a method of service delivery and not a 
substitute for in-person services. The third commenter recommended 
adding a requirement to submit data on the diversity of the existing 
and planned new providers and whether it aligns with student 
demographics.
    Discussion: The Department agrees with the comment to clarify the 
language about providers offering telehealth services for the reasons 
stated by the commenter.
    We do not believe, given how broadly diversity can be defined, it 
is necessary to collect data on the diversity of providers at the 
outset of the grant. However, we encourage applicants, in addressing 
application requirement (f) and responding to the selection criteria, 
to include the data they think best describes their diversity goals.
    Change: We revised application requirement (f), by clarifying that 
data on services providers offering telehealth services should be 
provided if this service delivery method was used.
    Comment: Four commenters had comments on application requirement 
(g) (A plan for collaboration). One of the four commenters expressed 
concern about the difficulties LEAs would have collaborating and 
coordinating to the degree required in the proposed application 
requirement. One of the four commenters suggested requiring 
collaboration with nonprofit organizations, while another commenter 
suggested adding the Department's Regional Educational Laboratories and 
Comprehensive Centers to the list of entities with which applicants may 
coordinate. The fourth commenter stressed that collaboration with 
colleges and universities looks different than collaboration with 
professional organizations.
    Discussion: The Department understands the challenges often 
associated with coordination and collaboration with other agencies, 
particularly for small or rural LEAs. To ease the burden on applicants, 
we have streamlined and clarified this requirement, while maintaining 
the overall purpose of coordinating efforts with Federal, State, and 
local organizations to maximize mental health services. And, while we 
do not think it is necessary to have a stand-alone requirement to 
partner with a nonprofit organization, or to call out specific 
Department-funded technical assistance centers and grantees, we 
encourage applicants to coordinate with these entities, if appropriate.
    Change: We revised application requirement (g) by clarifying the 
requirements for an applicant's plan for collaboration and coordination 
with related Federal, State, local, and school-based organizations and 
efforts.
    Comment: Three commenters expressed concern about the challenges of 
hiring qualified services providers given current shortages and how 
these challenges will affect the applicant's ability to address 
application requirement (i) to provide services immediately.
    Discussion: The desire is for students to receive mental health 
supports as soon as reasonably possible. However, we agree that the 
requirement, as framed in the NPP, may not account fully for the 
potential impact of current provider shortages and have revised the 
language to better state the Department's expectations.
    Change: We revised the title and language of application 
requirement (i) to clarify that services should start as soon as 
possible, but no later than 180 days from award.
    Comment: One commenter recommended requiring applicants to provide, 
in application requirement (i), their plans to increase the pipeline of 
individuals seeking recertification or training to become a school-
based mental health services provider.
    Discussion: We appreciate the commenter's suggestion. We anticipate 
that Priority 3 will accomplish this desired outcome. Additionally, the 
new requirement in application requirement (d) for a logic model will 
require applicants to describe how they plan to sustain the project 
beyond the life of the grant.
    Change: Added a new application requirement for logic models in 
application requirement (d).

Definitions

    Comment: Overall, 10 commenters commented on the proposed 
definitions. One commenter suggested explicitly referencing services 
providers for substance use disorders as part of the mental health 
workforce.

[[Page 60096]]

    Discussion: We appreciate the commenter's suggestion. We do not 
think any changes are necessary, nor does the Department have the 
authority to change the definition of school-based mental health 
services provider in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 
1965, as amended. Services providers for substance use disorders that 
meet this definition are allowable under this program.
    Change: None.
    Comment: Three commenters recommended omitting the terms and 
definitions of ``certified,'' ``certification,'' and ``licensed'' 
because the commenters believe the terms incorrectly imply that one 
credential is higher than another. Alternatively, the commenters 
recommend adopting a revised definition of ``credentialed'' in lieu of 
these terms.
    Discussion: We thank the commenters for this comment and will make 
these changes. We believe the word ``credentialed'' is an appropriate 
umbrella term that captures the various terms States might use as part 
of their credentialing systems. We also believe the term 
``credentialed'' adequately reflects the meaning of ``qualified'' 
services provider and therefore, deleted references to the term 
``qualified'' as well.
    Change: We removed the definitions of ``licensed,'' ``certified,'' 
and ``certification'' and have omitted references to these terms, and 
the term ``qualified,'' from the purpose of the program, and the 
priorities, requirements, and definitions.
    We also revised the definition of ``credentialed'' to explicitly 
state the need for possessing a valid license or certificate awarded by 
the State or other relevant body.
    Comment: Five commenters suggested changes to the definition of 
``respecialization.'' Four commenters recommended changes to ensure 
that professionals engaging in school-based mental health service 
delivery are properly credentialed. Two of the four commenters also 
recommended requiring development of respecialization plans to include 
collaboration with and endorsement by a relevant state or national 
professional organization. A fifth commenter suggested defining the 
term to mean, in part, that strategies are evidence-based.
    Discussion: We agree with the importance of ensuring that school-
based mental health services providers are properly credentialed and 
have made revisions accordingly. However, we do not believe it is 
appropriate to require endorsement of respecialization plans by 
professional associations, given that credentialing requirements are 
established by SEAs or another credentialing body, not specific 
organizations. Additionally, we decline to define ``respecialization'' 
to mean evidence-based strategies, given that this program is part of 
an effort to build evidence in this area. The use of logic models in 
this program reflects the approach to evidence that the Department 
considers to be appropriate in light of the available body of evidence.
    Change: We made changes to how we refer to ``respecialization'' in 
the definition and the outcomes to which respecialization must lead.
    Comment: One commenter recommended adding a sixth option, related 
to collaboration with institutions of higher education (IHEs) to expand 
candidate opportunities, to the list of strategies that applicants can 
consider for respecialization.
    Discussion: We do not believe it is necessary to add this sixth 
option. We encourage partnerships with IHEs to help candidates obtain 
the desired school-based mental health services credential.
    Change: None.
    Comment: One commenter recommended adding language to the 
respecialization definition about diversification of services providers 
who are representative of an applicant's student population.
    Discussion: We agree with the importance of developing a more 
diverse services provider workforce. Rather than change the definition 
of respecialization, we think the language added to the definition of 
``recruitment'' regarding recruitment and support of underrepresented 
populations and the final priority in this notice about increasing the 
number of services providers who are from diverse backgrounds addresses 
the commenter's suggestion.
    Change: None.
    Comment: Two commenters suggested revising the definition of 
``recruitment'' to include recruitment of underrepresented populations 
as an incentive for mitigating shortages.
    Discussion: Recruitment of providers from diverse backgrounds is a 
priority for this program, and we agree that focusing recruitment in 
this area is helpful. We believe providing additional supports to 
underrepresented populations would also be helpful.
    Change: We have revised the definition of ``recruitment'' to 
include recruitment and support of underrepresented populations.
    Comment: One commenter suggested defining recruitment to mean, in 
part, that strategies are evidence-based. The same commenter suggested 
adding evidence-based strategies to the definition of ``retention.''
    Discussion: We decline the recommendation to define ``recruitment'' 
and ``retention'' to mean evidence-based strategies, given that there 
is not yet a large body of evidence in these areas. We will consider 
using available funds for evaluation of this program to build this body 
of evidence.
    Change: None.
    Comment: Four entities commented on the definition of ``LEA with 
demonstrated need.'' One commenter thanked the Department for including 
instances of community violence and traumatic events in the definition. 
Another commenter expressed support for the definition and urged the 
Department to focus on LEAs with demonstrated need because of high 
rates of community violence, poverty, and suicide. The third commenter 
requested adding a variable for a significant number of students that 
have witnessed or experienced a traumatic event. The final commenter 
recommended a variable specific to school discipline.
    Discussion: We appreciate the comments we received in support of 
the definition. We do not believe it is necessary to add a variable for 
witnessing or experiencing a traumatic event because we generally think 
such experiences would be covered under the reference to community 
violence in paragraph (2) or under the reference to adverse childhood 
experiences in paragraph (3) of the definition. We agree with the 
comment to include discipline data as a possible variable, given the 
disproportionate impact discipline policies can have on underserved 
students.
    Change: We revised the definition of LEA with demonstrated need to 
include repeated disciplinary exclusions as an example of an adverse 
childhood experience.

Regulatory Impact Analysis

    Comment: One individual commented on the Regulatory Impact Analysis 
(RIA). Specifically, the commenter questioned the clarity of the 
analysis for Priority 3 and suggested that incremental training was not 
an adequate representation of the needed retraining. The commenter also 
asked for guidance on documenting financial hardships for SEAs and 
LEAs.
    Discussion: We appreciate the commenter's review and comment on 
this section of the NPP. We revised the RIA to better clarify what we 
meant about Priority 3.

[[Page 60097]]

    Additionally, we recognize funding for education is limited in many 
States. The purpose of SBMH is to provide additional resources to help 
increase the number of credentialed school-based mental health services 
providers and help schools recruit and retain such individuals. In 
order to assist SEAs and LEAs to implement grant activities and reach 
this goal, we explicitly allow the use of grant funds for 
administrative costs to offset the financial hardships they may be 
experiencing.
    Change: We revised the summary of the potential costs and benefits 
to clarify what we meant in our description of the benefit of Priority 
3.

Final Priorities

    Priority 1--SEAs Proposing To Increase the Number of Credentialed 
School-Based Mental Health Services Providers in LEAs With Demonstrated 
Need.
    To meet this priority, an SEA must propose to increase the number 
of credentialed school-based mental health services providers by 
implementing plans that address recruitment (defined in this document) 
and retention (defined in this document) of services providers in LEAs 
with demonstrated need. Applicants must propose plans that include both 
of the following:
    (a) Recruitment. An applicant must propose a plan to increase the 
number of credentialed services providers serving students in LEAs with 
demonstrated need.
    (b) Retention. An applicant must also propose a plan to increase 
the likelihood that credentialed services providers providing services 
in LEAs with demonstrated need stay in their position over time.
    Priority 2--LEAs or Consortia of LEAs With Demonstrated Need 
Proposing To Increase the Number of Credentialed School-Based Mental 
Health Services Providers.
    To meet this priority, an LEA or consortium of LEAs with 
demonstrated need must propose measures to increase the number of 
credentialed school-based mental health services providers, including 
plans to address the recruitment and retention of credentialed services 
providers in the LEA(s). Applicants must propose plans that include 
both of the following:
    (a) Recruitment. An applicant must propose a plan to increase the 
number of credentialed services providers serving students in the 
LEA(s) with demonstrated need.
    (b) Retention. An applicant must also propose a plan to improve the 
likelihood that credentialed services providers providing services in 
the LEA(s) with demonstrated need stay in their position over time.
    Priority 3--SEAs Proposing Respecialization, Professional 
Retraining, or Other Preparation Plan for Existing Mental Health 
Services Providers To Qualify Them for Work in LEAs With Demonstrated 
Need.
    To meet this priority, an applicant must propose a respecialization 
(defined in this document), professional retraining, or other 
preparation plan that leads to a state credential as a school 
psychologist, school social worker, school counselor, or other school-
based mental health services provider (as defined in 20 U.S.C. 7112(6)) 
and that is designed to increase the number of services providers 
qualified to serve in LEAs with demonstrated need.
    Priority 4--Increasing the Number of Credentialed School-Based 
Mental Health Services Providers in LEAs With Demonstrated Need Who Are 
From Diverse Backgrounds or From Communities Served by the LEAs With 
Demonstrated Need.
    To meet this priority, applicants must propose a plan to increase 
the number of credentialed school-based mental health services 
providers in LEAs with demonstrated need who are from diverse 
backgrounds or who are from communities served by the LEAs with 
demonstrated need.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ All strategies to increase the diversity of providers must 
comply with applicable Federal civil rights laws, including Title VI 
of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Applicants must describe how their proposal to increase the number 
of school-based mental health services providers who are from diverse 
backgrounds or who are from the communities served by the LEA with 
demonstrated need will help increase access to mental health services 
for students within the LEA with demonstrated need and best meet the 
mental health needs of the diverse populations of students to be 
served.
    Types of Priorities:
    When inviting applications for a competition using one or more 
priorities, we designate the type of each priority as absolute, 
competitive preference, or invitational through a notice in the Federal 
Register. The effect of each type of priority follows:
    Absolute priority: Under an absolute priority, we consider only 
applications that meet the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(3)).
    Competitive preference priority: Under a competitive preference 
priority, we give competitive preference to an application by (1) 
awarding additional points, depending on the extent to which the 
application meets the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i)), or (2) 
selecting an application that meets the priority over an application of 
comparable merit that does not meet the priority (34 CFR 
75.105(c)(2)(ii)).
    Invitational priority: Under an invitational priority we are 
particularly interested in applications that meet the priority. 
However, we do not give an application that meets the priority a 
preference over other applications (34 CFR 75.105(c)(1)).

Final Requirements

    The following are program requirements and several application 
requirements for this program. We may apply one or more of these 
requirements in any year in which the program is in effect.
    Eligible Applicants: One or both of SEAs, as defined in 20 U.S.C. 
7801(49), or LEAs, as defined in 20 U.S.C. 7801(30), including 
consortia of LEAs.
    Program Requirements:
    (a) Applicants that receive an award under this program must ensure 
that any school-based mental health services provider hired under this 
grant, including any services provider that offers telehealth services, 
is qualified by the State to work in an elementary school (as defined 
in 20 U.S.C. 7801(19)) or secondary school (as defined in 20 U.S.C. 
7801(45)).
    (b) Applicants that receive an award under this program must ensure 
that any school-based mental health services provider offering services 
(including telehealth services) does so in an equitable manner and 
consistent with the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), 
the Protection of Pupil Rights Amendment (PPRA), the Individuals with 
Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation 
Act, and the Americans with Disabilities Act, as well as all other 
applicable Federal, State, and local laws and profession-specific 
ethical obligations.
    Application Requirements:
    (a) Describe the LEAs with demonstrated need designated by the SEA 
to be served by the proposed project.
    SEA applicants must describe the LEAs with demonstrated need 
designated to benefit from the SBMH program.
    (b) Describe how the LEA, or each LEA in the proposed consortium 
(if applicable), meets the definition of an LEA with demonstrated need.
    To meet this requirement, an LEA applicant or the lead LEA 
submitting an application on behalf of a consortium must describe how 
the LEA or each LEA

[[Page 60098]]

in the consortium meets the definition of an ``LEA with demonstrated 
need.''
    (c) Describe the importance and magnitude of the problem.
    Applicants must describe the lack of school-based mental health 
services providers and its effect on students in the LEA(s) to be 
served by the grant. This must include a description of the nature of 
the problem for the LEA(s), based on information including, but not 
limited to, the most recent available ratios of school-based mental 
health services providers to students enrolled in the LEA(s), or for 
SEA applicants, the LEAs designated by the SEA to benefit from the SBMH 
program. These data must be provided in the aggregate and disaggregated 
by profession (e.g., school social workers, school psychologists, 
school counselors) as compared to local, State, or national data. The 
description may also include LEA-level or school-level demographic data 
(including rates of poverty; rates of chronic absenteeism; the 
percentage of students involved in the juvenile justice system, 
experiencing homelessness, or in foster care; and discipline data), 
school climate surveys, school violence/crime data, data related to 
suicide rates, and descriptions of barriers to hiring and retaining 
credentialed school-based mental health services providers in the LEA.
    (d) Logic model.
    The applicant must describe its approach to increase the number of 
credentialed school-based mental health services providers using a 
logic model (as defined in 34 CFR 77.1), including the key project 
components and relevant outcomes (as defined in 34 CFR 77.1). The 
description should indicate how the proposed approach taken under this 
program will improve or expand on any previous approaches, how the new 
approach will address barriers, and how the applicant will sustain the 
increased number of school-based mental health services providers after 
the performance period has ended.
    (e) Detailed project budget, including matching funds.
    To promote the sustainability of the school-based mental health 
services, all applicants must include non-Federal matching funds in one 
of the following amounts, as determined by the Secretary in the notice 
inviting applications:
    (1) At least 10 percent of their budgets.
    (2) At least 15 percent of their budgets.
    (3) At least 20 percent of their budgets.
    (4) At least 25 percent of their budgets.
    Budgets must describe how the applicant will meet the matching 
requirement for each budget period awarded under this grant and must 
indicate the source of the funds, such as State, local, or private 
resources. The Secretary may consider decreasing or waiving the 
matching requirement post award, on a case-by-case basis, if an 
applicant demonstrates a significant financial hardship.
    Budgets must also specify the portion of funds that will be used 
for respecialization, if applicable.
    Administrative costs for SEA applicants may not exceed 10 percent 
of the annual grant award. This includes funding for State-level or 
LEA-level administrative costs that promote respecialization, if 
applicable. Administrative costs for applicants that are LEAs and 
consortia of LEAs may not exceed 5 percent of the annual grant award.
    (f) Number of providers.
    Applicants must include the most recent available data on the 
number of school-based mental health services providers in the 
identified LEA(s), disaggregated by profession (e.g., school social 
workers, school psychologists, school counselors), and the projected 
number of school-based mental health services providers that will be 
placed into employment in the identified LEA(s) for each year of the 
plan using funds from this grant or matching funds. If applicable, 
applicants should provide data on the current and projected 
unduplicated numbers of school-based mental health services providers 
disaggregated by profession (e.g., school social workers, school 
psychologists, school counselors), offering telehealth services.
    (g) A plan for collaboration and coordination with related Federal, 
State, and local organizations, and school-based efforts.
    Applicants must propose a plan describing how they will collaborate 
and coordinate with related Federal, State, and local organizations, 
and school-based efforts (e.g., professional associations; colleges or 
universities, including HBCUs, MSIs, and TCUs; local mental health; 
public health; child welfare; or other community agencies, including 
school-based health centers), to achieve plan goals and objectives of 
increasing the number of school-based mental health services providers 
in LEAs with demonstrated need. The plan must include a description of 
how such collaboration and coordination will promote program success 
across multiple programs.
    (h) Use of grant funds to supplement, and not supplant, existing 
school-based mental health services funds and to expand, not duplicate, 
efforts to increase the number of providers.
    Applicants must describe how project funds will supplement, and not 
supplant, non-Federal funds that would otherwise be available for 
activities funded under this program.
    Applicants must describe how they will use the SBMH program funds 
to expand, rather than duplicate, existing or new efforts to increase 
the number of credentialed school-based mental health services 
providers in LEAs with demonstrated need and how they will integrate 
existing funding streams and efforts to support the plan.
    (i) Plan for prompt delivery of services to students.
    For SEA applicants, applicants must describe their plan to ensure 
the prompt delivery of services to students (i.e., as soon as possible, 
but no later than 180 days from award), including via subgrants to 
LEAs, as appropriate. For LEA applicants and consortia of LEAs, 
applicants must describe their plan to ensure the prompt delivery of 
services to students (i.e., as soon as possible, but no later than 180 
days from award). Additionally, SEA and LEA applicants must describe 
how leaders across all levels of the project will be engaged in the 
implementation and evaluation of the project.

Final Definitions

    The Department establishes the following definitions of 
``credentialed,'' ``LEA with demonstrated need,'' ``recruitment,'' 
``respecialization,'' ``retention,'' and ``telehealth'' for use in this 
program. We may apply these definitions in any year in which this 
program is in effect.
    Credentialed means an individual who possesses a valid license or 
certificate from the SEA or relevant regulatory body as a school 
psychologist, school counselor, or a school social worker, or other 
mental health services provider, approved by the State to provide 
school-based mental health services.
    LEA with demonstrated need means an LEA that has a significant need 
for additional school-based mental health services providers based on--
    (1) High student to mental health services provider ratios as 
compared to other LEAs statewide or nationally;
    (2) High rates of community violence (including hate crimes), 
poverty, substance use (including opioid use), suicide, or trafficking; 
or
    (3) A significant number of students who are migratory, 
experiencing homelessness, have a family member deployed in the 
military or with a military-service connected disability

[[Page 60099]]

(including veterans), have experienced a natural or manmade disaster or 
a traumatic event, or have other adverse childhood experiences, such as 
repeated disciplinary exclusions from the learning environment.
    Recruitment means strategies that help attract and hire 
credentialed school-based mental health services providers, including 
by doing at least one of the following:
    (1) Providing an annual salary or stipend for school-based mental 
health services providers who maintain an active national 
certification.
    (2) Providing payment toward the school loans accrued by the 
school-based mental health services provider.
    (3) Creating pathways to grant cross-State credentialing 
reciprocity for school-based mental health services providers.
    (4) Providing incentives and supports to help mitigate shortages. 
These may include, for example, increasing pay; offering monetary 
incentives for relocation to high-need areas; providing services via 
telehealth; creating hybrid roles that allow for leadership, academic, 
or research opportunities; developing induction programs; developing 
paid internship programs; focusing on recruitment and support of 
underrepresented populations; and offering service scholarship 
programs, such as those that provide grants in exchange for a 
commitment to serve in the LEA for a minimum number of years.
    Respecialization means strategies that provide opportunities for 
professional retraining and alternative pathways to obtain a State 
credential, aligned with the standards of the relevant professional 
organization, as a school-based mental health services provider for 
individuals who hold, at a minimum, a degree in a related field (e.g., 
special education, clinical psychology, community counseling), 
including by doing one or more of the following:
    (1) Revising, updating, or streamlining requirements for such 
individuals so that additional training or other requirements focus 
only on training needed to obtain a credential as a school-based mental 
health services provider.
    (2) Providing a stipend or making a payment to support the training 
needed to obtain a credential as a school-based mental health services 
provider.
    (3) Offering flexible options for completing training that leads 
such professionals to meet State credentialing requirements as a 
school-based mental health services provider.
    (4) Establishing a provisional, time limited, and nonrenewable 
credential to allow individuals seeking respecialization to provide 
school-based mental health services under the direct supervision of a 
fully credentialed school-based mental health services provider of the 
same profession.
    (5) Offering other meaningful activities that result in existing 
mental health services providers obtaining a State credential as a 
school-based mental health services provider.
    Retention means strategies to help ensure that credentialed 
individuals stay in their position to avoid gaps in service and 
unfilled positions, including by--
    (1) Providing opportunities for advancement or leadership, such as 
career pathways programs, recognition and award programs, and 
mentorship programs; and
    (2) Offering incentives and supports to help mitigate shortages. 
These may include, for example, increasing pay; making payments toward 
student loans; offering monetary incentives for relocation to high-need 
areas; providing services via telehealth; offering service scholarship 
programs, such as those that provide grants in exchange for a 
commitment to serve in the LEA for a minimum number of years; and 
developing paid internship programs.
    Telehealth means the use of electronic information and 
telecommunication technologies to support and promote long-distance 
clinical health care, patient and professional health-related 
education, public health, and health administration. Technologies 
include videoconferencing, the internet, store-and-forward imaging, 
streaming media, and landline and wireless communications.
    This document does not preclude us from proposing additional 
priorities, requirements, definitions, or selection criteria, subject 
to meeting applicable rulemaking requirements.

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

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563

Regulatory Impact Analysis

    Under Executive Order 12866, it must be determined whether this 
regulatory action is ``significant'' and, therefore, subject to the 
requirements of the Executive order and subject to review by the Office 
of Management and Budget (OMB). Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 
defines a ``significant regulatory action'' as an action likely to 
result in a rule that may--
    (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, 
or adversely affect a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, 
jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or 
Tribal governments or communities in a material way (also referred to 
as an ``economically significant'' rule);
    (2) Create serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an 
action taken or planned by another agency;
    (3) Materially alter the budgetary impacts of entitlement grants, 
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients 
thereof; or
    (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal 
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles stated in the 
Executive order.
    This final regulatory action will have an annual effect on the 
economy of more than $100 million because approximately $143 million is 
available under this program from FY 2022 appropriations actions and 
$100 million is available each year from FY 2023 to FY 2026. Therefore, 
this final action is ``economically significant'' and subject to review 
by OMB under section 3(f)(1) of Executive Order 12866. Notwithstanding 
this determination, we have assessed the potential costs and benefits, 
both quantitative and qualitative, of this final regulatory action and 
have determined that the benefits justify the costs.
    We have also reviewed this final regulatory action under Executive 
Order 13563, which supplements and explicitly reaffirms the principles, 
structures, and definitions governing regulatory review established in 
Executive Order 12866. To the extent permitted by law, Executive Order 
13563 requires that an agency--
    (1) Propose or adopt regulations only on 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

[[Page 60100]]

behavior or manner of compliance a regulated entity must adopt; and
    (5) Identify and assess available alternatives to direct 
regulation, including economic incentives--such as user fees or 
marketable permits--to encourage the desired behavior, or provide 
information that enables the public to make choices.
    Executive Order 13563 also requires an agency ``to use the best 
available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future 
benefits and costs as accurately as possible.'' The Office of 
Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB has emphasized that these 
techniques may include ``identifying changing future compliance costs 
that might result from technological innovation or anticipated 
behavioral changes.''
    We are issuing these final priorities, requirements, and 
definitions only on a reasoned determination that their benefits would 
justify their costs. In choosing among alternative regulatory 
approaches, we selected those approaches that would maximize net 
benefits. Based on an analysis of anticipated costs and benefits, we 
believe that the priorities, requirements, and definitions are 
consistent with the principles in Executive Order 13563.
    We also have determined that this final regulatory action does not 
unduly interfere with State, local, and Tribal governments in the 
exercise of their governmental functions.
    In this regulatory impact analysis, we discuss the need for 
regulatory action, the potential costs and benefits, net budget 
impacts, assumptions, limitations, and data sources, as well as 
regulatory alternatives we considered.

Summary of Potential Costs and Benefits

    The final priorities, requirements, and definitions are necessary 
for the implementation of the SBMH program consistent with the 
requirements established by Congress in the Department of Education 
Appropriations Act, 2022, and the Explanatory Statement accompanying 
that Act. The Department believes that implementation of the SBMH 
program will most exclusively confer benefits on the recipients of 
Federal funds, while the costs associated with the priorities, 
requirements and definitions will be minimal. This regulatory action 
does not impose significant costs on eligible entities as participation 
in this program is voluntary, and the costs imposed on applicants are 
limited to paperwork burden related to preparing an application.
    This program was established under a statute with broad authority 
and only nonbinding report language establishing program purpose, 
eligibility, or requirements; consequently, this rulemaking action is 
necessary to ensure program funds are used for their intended purpose. 
More specifically, the final priorities, requirements, and definitions 
are likely to (1) ensure that the Department collects from applicants 
for SBMH funding the information necessary for competitive review of 
applications by peer reviewers, and (2) fund high-quality applications 
that will lead to the implementation of projects consistent with 
congressional intent. Absent this rulemaking action, there is no 
alternative means of meeting these objectives.
    The specific benefits of establishing a menu of priorities include 
ensuring that funds are used consistent with congressional intent and 
providing flexibility to the Department for supporting multiple 
strategies designed to address the shortage of school-based mental 
health services providers. The first strategy, embedded in priorities 1 
and 2, is to focus grant activities on hiring additional school-based 
mental health services providers in LEAs with demonstrated need to 
increase the number of school-based mental health services providers in 
schools and LEAs that have the most need for such services. The 
definition of ``LEA with demonstrated need,'' incorporated into these 
priorities, also was crafted to provide flexibility for an LEA to show 
need through data (ratios of school counselors to students), a 
description of events or conditions affecting school environment (such 
as community violence or disasters), or evidence that an applicant will 
serve students who have or are likely to face adverse childhood 
experiences. Although the total number of LEAs is high (over 13,000 in 
school year 2018-19), the available funding will only support a limited 
number of multiyear projects. Absent the targeting of SBMH funds to 
LEAs with demonstrated need, the program may allocate scarce Federal 
resources to high-capacity LEAs that already meet the mental health 
needs of their students. Moreover, ensuring that funds are targeted to 
LEAs with demonstrated need was a requirement of the FY 2020 SBMH 
competition, and Congress directed the Department, through the 
Explanatory Statement accompanying the Department of Education 
Appropriations Act, 2022, to incorporate the same requirement into the 
FY 2022 SBMH competition.
    The benefit of including priority 3 is that it supports another 
strategy for addressing the shortage of school-based mental health 
services providers. Requirements for school-based mental health 
services providers are established by States and generally include the 
completion of a bachelor's degree or higher, completion of a practicum, 
and an internship in a K-12 school, which typically take several years 
to fulfill. Priority 3 is likely to support States working to establish 
innovative strategies to expand the pipeline for credentialed mental 
health providers by establishing pathways for individuals in related 
fields to attain the credentials to work as school-based mental health 
services providers. Under this priority, for example, a State might 
determine that individuals in related fields, such as counseling or 
social work, would only need professional retraining to qualify as a 
school-based mental health services provider, rather than a full degree 
or credentialing program. This strategy has the benefit of reducing the 
time necessary for credentialing and potentially increasing the number 
of credentialed mental health providers available for hiring by LEAs, 
which is the core goal and purpose of the SBMH program. Absent the 
expanded use of strategies to shorten the time needed to meet the 
requirements to become a school-based mental health services provider, 
SBMH grantees may not be able to increase the number of such providers 
in schools due to the documented shortage of such providers.
    The benefit of priority 4 is that it supports another strategy for 
expanding the workforce of school-based mental health services 
providers. Currently, the psychology \6\ and school counselor \7\ 
workforce is significantly less diverse than the student population.\8\ 
Increasing the number of credentialed school-based mental health 
services providers from diverse backgrounds and from communities served 
by LEAs with demonstrated need, and who can provide culturally and 
linguistically appropriate services, not only would expand the numbers 
of these providers but also increase access to and improve the quality 
of mental health services available to students. Further, this priority 
supports the Administration's equity agenda \[14]\ and the Department's 
mission to support equity and excellence.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ https://www.apa.org/workforce/data-tools/demographics.
    \7\ https://www.schoolcounselor.org/getmedia/9c1d81ab-2484-4615-9dd7-d788a241beaf/member-demographics.pdf.
    \8\ https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator/cge/racial-ethnic-enrollment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) section of this document 
discusses the

[[Page 60101]]

burden estimates for preparing an application. The potential benefits 
of receiving Federal funds under this program to expand the pool of and 
hire school-based mental health services providers will likely outweigh 
the application costs detailed in the PRA section. The costs of 
implementing the requirements established in this notice can be paid 
for with grant funds.

Regulatory Alternatives Considered

    The Department believes that the final priorities, requirements, 
and definitions in this document are needed to administer the program 
effectively. The authorizing statute does not provide sufficient detail 
to develop and administer a competitive grant program consistent with 
the intent of Congress as expressed in the Explanatory Statement 
accompanying the Department of Education Appropriations Act 2022, which 
provided funding for the program in FY 2022, or the Bipartisan Safer 
Communities Act, which provided additional funding for FYs 2022 through 
2026. Consequently, absent the final priorities, requirements, and 
definitions, the Department will not have a sufficient basis for 
evaluating the quality of applications or ensuring that the program 
achieves its intended objectives.

Accounting Statement

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

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

Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification

    The Secretary certifies that this final regulatory action would not 
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. The U.S. Small Business Administration Size Standards define 
proprietary institutions as small businesses if they are independently 
owned and operated, are not dominant in their field of operation, and 
have total annual revenue below $7,000,000. Nonprofit institutions are 
defined as small entities if they are independently owned and operated 
and not dominant in their field of operation. Public institutions are 
defined as small organizations if they are operated by a government 
overseeing a population below 50,000.
    The small entities that this final regulatory action would affect 
are LEAs. Of the impacts we estimate accruing to grantees or eligible 
entities, all are voluntary. Eligible applicants most likely would 
apply only if they determine that the likely benefits exceed the costs 
of preparing an application. The likely benefits include the potential 
receipt of a grant as well as other benefits that may accrue to an 
entity through its development of an application, such as the use of 
that application to seek funding from other sources to address a 
shortage in mental health providers. Therefore, we do not believe that 
the final priorities, requirements, and definitions would significantly 
impact small entities beyond the potential for increasing the 
likelihood of their applying for, and receiving, competitive grants 
from the Department.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 does not require you to respond 
to a collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB control 
number. We display the valid OMB control number assigned to the 
collection of information in this notice of final priorities, 
regulations, and definitions at the end of the affected sections of the 
requirements.
    The final priorities, requirements, and definitions contain 
information collection requirements that are approved by OMB. The final 
priorities, requirements, and definitions do not affect the currently 
approved data collection. An FY 2022 competition would require 
applicants to complete and submit an application for Federal assistance 
using Department standard application forms. We estimate that for the 
FY 2022 SBMH competition and later competitions, each applicant will 
spend approximately 40 hours of staff time to address these priorities, 
requirements, and definitions. We estimate that we will receive 
approximately 300 applications for these funds. The total number of 
burden hours for all applicants to review instructions, search existing 
data sources, gather and maintain the data needed, and complete and 
review the collection of information is estimated to be 12,000 hours.
    Intergovernmental Review: This program is subject to Executive 
Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. One of the 
objectives of the Executive Order is to foster an intergovernmental 
partnership and a strengthened federalism. The Executive order relies 
on processes developed by State and local governments for coordination 
and review of proposed Federal financial assistance.
    This document provides early notification of our specific plans and 
actions for this program.
    Accessible Format: On request to the program contact person listed 
under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, individuals with disabilities 
can obtain this document in an accessible format. The Department will 
provide the requestor with an accessible format that may include Rich 
Text Format (RTF) or text format (txt), a thumb drive, an MP3 file, 
braille, large print, audiotape, 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 the Department published in 
the Federal Register, in text or

[[Page 60102]]

Portable Document Format (PDF). To use PDF, you must have Adobe Acrobat 
Reader, which is available free at the site.
    You may also access documents of the Department published in the 
Federal Register by using the article search feature at 
www.federalregister.gov. Specifically, through the advanced search 
feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published 
by the Department.

James F. Lane,
Senior Advisor, Office of the Secretary Delegated the Authority to 
Perform the Functions and Duties of the Assistant Secretary for the 
Office Elementary and Secondary Education.
[FR Doc. 2022-21634 Filed 10-3-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P