Nfp

60092

Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 191 / Tuesday, October 4, 2022 / Rules and Regulations

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

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES

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

VerDate Sep<11>2014

15:56 Oct 03, 2022

Jkt 259001

collection requirements that are
approved by OMB. The final priorities,
requirements, and definitions do not
affect the currently approved data
collection. An FY 2022 competition
would require applicants to complete
and submit an application for Federal
assistance using Department standard
application forms. We estimate that for
the FY 2022 MHSP competition and
later competitions, each applicant will
spend approximately 40 hours of staff
time to address these priorities,
requirements, and definitions. We
estimate that we will receive
approximately 500 applications for
these funds. The total number of burden
hours for all applicants to review
instructions, search existing data
sources, gather and maintain the data
needed, and complete and review the
application is estimated to be 20,000
hours.
Intergovernmental Review: This
program is subject to Executive Order
12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR
part 79. One of the objectives of the
Executive order is to foster an
intergovernmental partnership and a
strengthened federalism. The Executive
order relies on processes developed by
State and local governments for
coordination and review of Federal
financial assistance.
This document provides early
notification of our specific plans and
actions for this program.
Accessible Format: On request to the
program contact person listed under FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT,
individuals with disabilities can obtain
this document in an accessible format.
The Department will provide the
requestor with an accessible format that
may include Rich Text Format (RTF) or
text format (txt), a thumb drive, an MP3
file, braille, large print, audiotape, or
compact disc, or other accessible format.
Electronic Access to This Document:
The official version of this document is
the document published in the Federal
Register. You may access the official
edition of the Federal Register and the
Code of Federal Regulations at
www.govinfo.gov. At this site you can
view this document, as well as all other
documents of this Department
published in the Federal Register in text
or Portable Document Format (PDF). To
use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat
Reader, which is available free at the
site.
You may also access documents of the
Department published in the Federal
Register by using the article search
feature at www.federalregister.gov.
Specifically, through the advanced
search feature at this site, you can limit

PO 00000

Frm 00034

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

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

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
Office of Elementary and
Secondary Education, Department of
Education.
ACTION: Final priorities, requirements,
and definitions.
AGENCY:

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:
SUMMARY:

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

E:\FR\FM\04OCR1.SGM

04OCR1

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 191 / Tuesday, October 4, 2022 / Rules and Regulations
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
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 schoolbased 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
1 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
www.cdc.gov/mentalhealth/learn/index.htm.
Accessed on September 17, 2022.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

15:56 Oct 03, 2022

Jkt 259001

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

PO 00000

Frm 00035

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

60093

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 traumainformed 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.

E:\FR\FM\04OCR1.SGM

04OCR1

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES

60094

Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 191 / Tuesday, October 4, 2022 / Rules and Regulations

Discussion: We do not think it is
necessary to add priorities that prescribe
specific practices, such as traumainformed 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 standalone 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

VerDate Sep<11>2014

15:56 Oct 03, 2022

Jkt 259001

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

PO 00000

Frm 00036

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

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

E:\FR\FM\04OCR1.SGM

04OCR1

Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 191 / Tuesday, October 4, 2022 / Rules and Regulations

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES

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
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
2 ‘‘School Counselor Roles and Ratios.’’ American
School Counselor Association Home Page. https://
www.schoolcounselor.org/About-SchoolCounseling/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-policyissues/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/SchoolSocial-Work. Accessed September 8, 2022.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

15:56 Oct 03, 2022

Jkt 259001

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

PO 00000

Frm 00037

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

60095

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 standalone 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 schoolbased 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.

E:\FR\FM\04OCR1.SGM

04OCR1

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES

60096

Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 191 / Tuesday, October 4, 2022 / Rules and Regulations

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 schoolbased 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

VerDate Sep<11>2014

15:56 Oct 03, 2022

Jkt 259001

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,

PO 00000

Frm 00038

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

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.

E:\FR\FM\04OCR1.SGM

04OCR1

Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 191 / Tuesday, October 4, 2022 / Rules and Regulations

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES

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

VerDate Sep<11>2014

15:56 Oct 03, 2022

Jkt 259001

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
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
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.

PO 00000

Frm 00039

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

60097

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

E:\FR\FM\04OCR1.SGM

04OCR1

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES

60098

Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 191 / Tuesday, October 4, 2022 / Rules and Regulations

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 schoollevel 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

VerDate Sep<11>2014

15:56 Oct 03, 2022

Jkt 259001

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 schoolbased 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

PO 00000

Frm 00040

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

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

E:\FR\FM\04OCR1.SGM

04OCR1

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 191 / Tuesday, October 4, 2022 / Rules and Regulations
(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 schoolbased mental health services provider.
(3) Creating pathways to grant crossState 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 schoolbased 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.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

15:56 Oct 03, 2022

Jkt 259001

(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, storeand-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

PO 00000

Frm 00041

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

60099

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

E:\FR\FM\04OCR1.SGM

04OCR1

60100

Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 191 / Tuesday, October 4, 2022 / Rules and Regulations

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.

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES

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.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

15:56 Oct 03, 2022

Jkt 259001

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

PO 00000

Frm 00042

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

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.
The Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
section of this document discusses the
6 https://www.apa.org/workforce/data-tools/
demographics.
7 https://www.schoolcounselor.org/getmedia/
9c1d81ab-2484-4615-9dd7-d788a241beaf/memberdemographics.pdf.
8 https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator/cge/
racial-ethnic-enrollment.

E:\FR\FM\04OCR1.SGM

04OCR1

Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 191 / Tuesday, October 4, 2022 / Rules and Regulations
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.

60101

Accounting Statement
As required by OMB Circular A–4
(available at https://
www.whitehouse.gov/omb/informationfor-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%
Annualized monetized transfers ..............................................................................................................................

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES

From whom to whom? .............................................................................................................................................

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

VerDate Sep<11>2014

15:56 Oct 03, 2022

Jkt 259001

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

PO 00000

Frm 00043

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

$108.6

7%
$108.6

From the Federal government
to SEAs and LEAs.

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

E:\FR\FM\04OCR1.SGM

04OCR1

60102

Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 191 / Tuesday, October 4, 2022 / Rules and Regulations

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R03–OAR–2021–0944; FRL–9174–02–
R3]

Air Plan Approval; Delaware; Control
of Volatile Organic Compound
Emissions From Solvent Cleaning and
Drying
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:

The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is approving a state
implementation plan (SIP) revision
submitted by the State of Delaware.
These revisions pertain to the reduction
of volatile organic compounds (VOC)
emissions from cold solvent cleaning
operations. EPA is approving these
revisions to the Delaware SIP in
accordance with the requirements of the
Clean Air Act (CAA).
DATES: This final rule is effective on
November 3, 2022.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a
docket for this action under Docket ID
Number EPA–R03–OAR–2021–0944. All
documents in the docket are listed on
the www.regulations.gov website.
Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available,
e.g., confidential business information
(CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute.
Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, is not placed on
the internet and will be publicly
available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are
available through www.regulations.gov,
or please contact the person identified

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES

SUMMARY:

VerDate Sep<11>2014

15:56 Oct 03, 2022

Jkt 259001

in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section for additional
availability information.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mallory Moser, Planning &
Implementation Branch (3AD30), Air &
Radiation Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region III, Four
Penn Center, 1600 John F. Kennedy
Boulevard, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
19103. The telephone number is (215)
814–2030. Ms. Moser can also be
reached via electronic mail at
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
On June 27, 2022 (87 FR 38044), EPA
published a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) for the State of
Delaware. In the NPRM, EPA proposed
approval of a SIP revision that updates
the solvent cleaning control
requirements based upon the 2012
Ozone Transport Commission (OTC)
Model Rule. The SIP revision was
submitted by Delaware on October 13,
2021, requesting that EPA incorporate
the Department of Natural Resources
and Environmental Control’s (DNREC’s)
revisions to Title 7 of Delaware’s
Administrative Code (7 DE Admin.
Code) 1124 Section 33.0—Solvent
Cleaning and Drying into the Delaware
SIP (Section 33.0). In response to the
NPRM, EPA received one comment on
its June 27, 2022, proposed rulemaking,
which is addressed below.
II. Summary of SIP Revision and EPA
Analysis
The SIP revision consists of an
amendment to Section 33.0.
Specifically, the amendment updates
the solvent cleaning control
requirements based upon the 2012
Ozone Transport Commission Model
Rule.
The OTC, of which Delaware is a
member, is an organization established
by Congress under the CAA. Among
other things, the OTC develops model
rules for the member states to use to
reduce the emissions of ground level
ozone precursors. In 2001 the OTC
released the 2001 Model Rule for
Solvent Cleaning, (2001 Model Rule).
The 2001 Model Rule is that basis for
the version of 7 DE Admin. Code 1124,
Control of Volatile Organic Compound
Emissions, Section 33.0—Solvent
Cleaning and Drying that were
previously approved in the Delaware
SIP.1 After a release of the Control
Techniques Guideline (CTG): Industrial
Cleaning Solvents by the EPA in 2006,
proposing new VOC limits for solvent
1 See

PO 00000

67 FR 70315 (November 22, 2002).

Frm 00044

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

cleaning, the OTC convened a group of
experts that suggested a more stringent
model rule than what is provided in the
CTG and the 2001 Model Rule. The OTC
then developed the 2012 Model Rule for
Solvent Degreasing. The provisions set
forth in Section 33.0, which is based on
the 2012 Model Rule, are more stringent
than those previously included in the
Delaware SIP and form the basis of the
regulation we are approving to include
in the Delaware SIP in this rule. For
instance, the provisions eliminate an
existing exemption by adding
provisions that apply to owners or
operators of a solvent cleaning machine
that uses any volume of solvent
containing VOC. The provisions also
reduce the solvent VOC concentration
from 100 percent to 25 grams per liter
of non-VOC solution for most
applications.
By removing an applicability
exemption and decreasing the allowable
solvent VOC concentration, the 2012
model rule is expected to decrease
emissions of VOCs. This reduction of
VOC emissions from solvent cleaning
operations will further reduce the
formation of ground-ozone because
ground-level ozone is formed through
the reaction of VOCs and other
compounds in the air in the presence of
sunlight. High levels of ground-level
ozone can cause or worsen difficulty in
breathing, asthma and other serious
respiratory problems. In addition to
improving public health and the
environment, decreased emissions of
VOCs, and therefore subsequently
ground-level ozone, will contribute to
the attainment of the ozone national
ambient air quality standard (NAAQS).
Delaware is amending its SIP to add
Section 33.0.
III. EPA’s Response to Comments
Received
EPA provided a 30-day review and
comment period for this action in the
Proposal. The comment period ended
on July 27, 2022. EPA received one
comment, which is summarized and
addressed below.
Comment: The comment requests
additional background on the
development and interpretation of the
‘‘Federal’’ 2012 OTC model rule in the
context of the commenter seeking
advice with regard to acquiring a piece
of equipment. In addition, the
commenter claims there could be an
economic impact to businesses if
affected devices cannot efficiently
operate at the 25 grams per liter criteria
set forth in the rule. The commenter
speculates using a solvent solution with
lower VOC could lead to longer run
time of the cleaning devices, which may

E:\FR\FM\04OCR1.SGM

04OCR1