### 2523 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2010 / Notices

Affected Public: Business or other forprofit; Not-for-profit institutions.

Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour

Burden:

Responses: 18.

Burden Hours: 360.

Abstract: The Department is requesting authorization to annually collect performance report data for the new Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU) Masters Degree Program. This information is being collected to comply with the

Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) of 1993, Section 4 (1115), and the Education Department General Administrative Regulations (EDGAR),

34 CFR 75.253. EDGAR states that recipients of multi-year discretionary grants must submit an APR demonstrating that substantial progress has been made towards meeting the approved objectives of the project. Further, the APR lends itself to the collection of quantifiable data needed to respond to the requirements of OMB’s Program Assessment Rating Tool process. In addition, grantees will be required to report on their progress towards meeting the performance

measures established for the HBCU Master’s Degree Program.

Requests for copies of the proposed information collection request may be

accessed from http://edicsweb.ed.gov

, by selecting the ‘‘Browse Pending

Collections ’’ link and by clicking on link number 4155. When you access the information collection, click on

‘‘Download Attachments ’’ to view. Written requests for information should be addressed to U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., LBJ, Washington, DC 20202–4537. Requests may also be electronically

mailed to ICDocketMgr@ed.gov or faxed to 202–401–0920. Please specify the complete title of the information collection when making your request.

Comments regarding burden and/or the collection activity requirements should be electronically mailed to ICDocketMgr@ed.gov. Individuals who

use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at

1–800–877–8339.

[FR Doc. 2010–749 Filed 1–14–10; 8:45 am]

**BILLING CODE 4000–01–P DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION** 

**Office of Innovation and Improvement; Overview Information; Arts in**  **Education Model Development and Dissemination Program; Notice**  **Inviting Applications for New Awards for Fiscal Year (FY) 2010** 

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number: 84.351D.

Dates: Applications Available: January 15,

2010.

Deadline for Notice of Intent to Apply: February 16, 2010.

Deadline for Transmittal of Applications: March 16, 2010.

Deadline for Intergovernmental

Review: May 17, 2010.

Full Text of Announcement

I. Funding Opportunity Description

Purpose of Program: The Arts in Education Model Development and Dissemination (AEMDD) Program supports the enhancement, expansion, documentation, evaluation, and dissemination of innovative, cohesive

models that are based on research and have demonstrated that theyeffectively—(1) Integrate standardsbased arts education into the core elementary and middle schoolcurriculum; (2) strengthen standardsbased arts instruction in these grades; and (3) improve students’ academic performance, including their skills in creating, performing, and responding to the arts. Projects funded through the AEMDD Program are intended to increase the amount of nationally

available information on effective models for arts education that integrate

the arts with standards-based education

programs.

Priorities: This competition includes one absolute priority, one competitive preference priority, and five invitational priorities.

Absolute Priority: This priority is from the notice of final priority, requirements, and definitions for this program, published in the Federal Register on March 30, 2005 (70 FR 16234). For FY 2010 and any subsequent year in which we make

awards from the list of unfunded applicants from this competition, this priority is an absolute priority. Under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(3) we consider only applications that meet this priority.

This priority is: This priority supports projects that enhance, expand, document, evaluate, and disseminate innovative, cohesive

models that are based on research and

have demonstrated their effectiveness in (1) Integrating standards-based arts education into the core elementary or middle school curriculum, (2) strengthening standards-based arts instruction in the elementary or middle school grades, and (3) improving the academic performance of students in elementary or middle school grades, including their skills in creating, performing, and responding to the arts.

In order to meet this priority, an applicant must demonstrate that the model project for which it seeks funding (1) serves only elementary school or middle school grades, or both, and (2)

is linked to State and national standards

intended to enable all students to meet challenging expectations and to improve student and school performance.

Note: National standards refer to the arts standards developed by the Consortium of

National Arts Education Association. The

standards outline what students should know

and be able to do in the arts. These are not Department standards.

Competitive Preference Priority: This priority is from the notice of final priority for Scientifically Based Evaluation Methods published in the Federal Register on January 25, 2005 (70 FR 3586). For FY 2010 and any subsequent year in which we make

awards from the list of unfunded applicants from this competition, this priority is a competitive preference priority. Under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i) we award up to an additional 20 points to an application, depending on how well the application meets this competitive preference priority. These points are in addition to any points the application earns under the selection

criteria.

When using the priority to give competitive preference to an application, we will review the applications using a two-stage review process. In the first stage, we will review the applications without taking the competitive preference priority into account. In the second stage of the process, we will review the applications rated highest in the first stage of the process to determine whether they will receive the competitive preference points. We will consider awarding additional (competitive preference)points only to those applicants with topranked scores based on the selection criteria. We expect that approximately 50 applicants will receive these additional competitive preference points.

This priority is: The Secretary establishes a priority for projects proposing an evaluation plan that is based on rigorous scientifically based research methods to assess the effectiveness of a particular


### 2524 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2010 / Notices

intervention. The Secretary intends that this priority will allow program participants and the Department to determine whether the project produces meaningful effects on student achievement or teacher performance.

Evaluation methods using an experimental design are best for determining project effectiveness. Thus, when feasible, the project must use an experimental design under which participants—e.g., students, teachers, classrooms, or schools—are randomly assigned to participate in the project activities being evaluated or to a control group that does not participate in the project activities being evaluated.

If random assignment is not feasible,the project may use a quasiexperimental design with carefully matched comparison conditions. This alternative design attempts to approximate a randomly assigned control group by matching participants—e.g., students, teachers,classrooms, or schools—with nonparticipants having similar pre-program

characteristics.

In cases where random assignment is not possible and participation in the intervention is determined by a specified cut-off point on a quantified continuum of scores, regression discontinuity designs may be employed.

For projects that are focused on special populations in which sufficient numbers of participants are not available to support random assignment or matched comparison group designs, single-subject designs such as multiple

baseline or treatment-reversal or interrupted time series that are capable of demonstrating causal relationships can be employed.

Proposed evaluation strategies that use neither experimental designs withrandom assignment nor quasiexperimental designs using a matched comparison group nor regression discontinuity designs will not be considered responsive to the priority when sufficient numbers of participants are available to support these designs. Evaluation strategies that involve too small a number of participants to support group designs must be capable of demonstrating the causal effects of an intervention or program on those participants.

The proposed evaluation plan must describe how the project evaluator will collect—before the project intervention

commences and after it ends—valid and reliable data that measure the impact of participation in the program or in the comparison group.

Points awarded under this priority will be determined by the quality of the proposed evaluation method. In determining the quality of the evaluation method, we will consider the extent to which the applicant presents a feasible, credible plan that includes the following:

(1) The type of design to be used (that is, random assignment or matched comparison). If matched comparison, include in the plan a discussion of why random assignment is not feasible.

(2) Outcomes to be measured. (3) A discussion of how the applicant plans to assign students, teachers, classrooms, or schools to the project and control group or match them for comparison with other students, teachers, classrooms, or schools.

(4) A proposed evaluator, preferably independent, with the necessary background and technical expertise to carry out the proposed evaluation. An independent evaluator does not have any authority over the project and is not involved in its implementation.

In general, depending on the implemented program or project, under a competitive preference priority, random assignment evaluation methods will receive more points than matched comparison evaluation methods.

Invitational Priorities: For FY 2010 and any subsequent year in which we

make awards from the list of unfunded applicants from this competition, these priorities are invitational priorities. Under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(1) we do not give an application that meets these invitational priorities a competitive or absolute preference over other applications.

These priorities are: Invitational Priority 1. Applications that support activities to enable students to achieve proficiency or advanced proficiency in mathematics.

Invitational Priority 2. Applications that support activities to enable students to achieve proficiency or advanced proficiency in reading.

Invitational Priority 3. Applications that support activities to enable students attending schools in corrective action or restructuring under Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended (ESEA) to achieve proficiency or advanced proficiency in reading and mathematics.

Invitational Priority 4. Applications that focus on increasing access to arts

education for students who attend rural schools, as defined by the National

Center for Education Statistics.

Invitational Priority 5. Applications that provide for the development and dissemination of grant products and results through Open Educational Resources (OER). OER are teaching, learning, and research resources that reside in the public domain or have been released under an intellectual property license that permits their free use or repurposing by others. This invitational priority encourages applications that describe how the applicants will make their AEMDD grant products and resources freely available online, in an effort to share arts content, proven teaching strategies, and lessons learned in implementing AEMDD projects with the wider community of educators.

Note: Each applicant addressing this priority is encouraged to include plans for how the applicant will disseminate resources, for example through a Web site that is freely available to all users. Each of these applicants is also encouraged to include plans specifying how the project will identify quality resources, such as lesson plans, primary source activities, reading lists, teacher reflections, and video of quality arts education teaching and student learning in action, for presentation to the wider community.

While we will not score applicants based on the invitational priorities, we encourage applicants to take advantage of the competitive preference priority if

their model allows them to do so.

Application Requirement

To be eligible for AEMDD funds, applicants must propose to address the needs of low-income children by carrying out projects that serve at least one elementary or middle school in which 35 percent or more of the

children enrolled are from low-income families (based on data used in meeting the poverty criteria in Title I, Section 1113(a)(5) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (ESEA)).

Definitions

As used in the absolute priority in

this notice—

Arts includes music, dance, theater, media arts, and visual arts, including

folk arts.

Integrating means (i) encouraging the use of high-quality arts instruction in other academic/content areas and (ii) strengthening the place of the arts as a core academic subject in the school

curriculum.

Based on research, when used with respect to an activity or a program, means that, to the extent possible, the activity or program is based on the most rigorous theory, research, and

evaluation data available and is effective in improving student achievement and performance and other program objectives.

As used in the competitive preference priority in this notice—


### 2525 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2010 / Notices

Scientifically based research (section 9101(37) of the ESEA, 20 U.S.C. 7801(37)):

(A) Means research that involves the application of rigorous, systematic, and objective procedures to obtain reliable and valid knowledge relevant to education activities and programs; and

(B) Includes research that— (i) Employs systematic, empirical

methods that draw on observation or experiment;

(ii) Involves rigorous data analyses that are adequate to test the stated hypotheses and justify the general conclusions drawn;

(iii) Relies on measurements or observational methods that provide

reliable and valid data across evaluators and observers, across multiple measurements and observations, and across studies by the same or different investigators;

(iv) Is evaluated using experimental or quasi-experimental designs in which individuals, entities, programs, or activities are assigned to different conditions and with appropriate

controls to evaluate the effects of the condition of interest, with a preference for random-assignment experiments, or other designs to the extent that those designs contain within-condition or across-condition controls;

(v) Ensures that experimental studies are presented in sufficient detail and clarity to allow for replication or, at a minimum, offer the opportunity to build systematically on their findings; and

(vi) Has been accepted by a peerreviewed journal or approved by a panel of independent experts through a comparably rigorous, objective, and

scientific review.

Random assignment or experimental design means random assignment of students, teachers, classrooms, or schools to participate in a project being evaluated (treatment group) or not participate in the project (control group). The effect of the project is the

difference in outcomes between the treatment and control groups.

Quasi-experimental designs include several designs that attempt to approximate a random assignment design.

Carefully matched comparison groups design means a quasi-experimental design in which project participants are matched with non-participants based on key characteristics that are thought to be

related to the outcome.

Regression discontinuity design means a quasi-experimental design that closely approximates an experimental design. In a regression discontinuity design, participants are assigned to a treatment or control group based on a numerical rating or score of a variable

unrelated to the treatment such as the rating of an application for funding. Eligible students, teachers, classrooms, or schools above a certain score ( ‘‘ cut

score’’ ) are assigned to the treatment group and those below the score are assigned to the control group. In the case of the scores of applicants’ proposals for funding, the ‘‘ cut score’’ is established at the point where the program funds available are exhausted.

Single subject design means a design that relies on the comparison of treatment effects on a single subject or group of single subjects. There is little confidence that findings based on this design would be the same for other members of the population.

Treatment reversal design means asingle subject design in which a pretreatment or baseline outcomemeasurement is compared with a posttreatment measure. Treatment would then be stopped for a period of time, a

second baseline measure of the outcome would be taken, followed by a second application of the treatment or a different treatment. For example, this design might be used to evaluate a behavior modification program for

disabled students with behavior

disorders.

Multiple baseline design means a single subject design to address

concerns about the effects of normal development, timing of the treatment,

and amount of the treatment with treatment-reversal designs by using a varying time schedule for introduction

of the treatment and/or treatments of different lengths or intensity.

Interrupted time series design means a quasi-experimental design in which

the outcome of interest is measured multiple times before and after the treatment for program participants only.

Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 7271.
Applicable Regulations: (a) The Education Department General Administration Regulations (EDGAR) in 34 CFR parts 74, 75, 77, 79, 80, 81, 82, 84, 85, 86, 97, 98, and 99. (b) The notice of final priority, requirements, and definitions for this program, published

in the Federal Register on March 30, 2005 (70 FR 16234). (c) The notice of final priority for Scientifically Based Evaluation Methods, published in the Federal Register on January 25, 2005 (70 FR 3586).

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

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

Type of Award: Discretionary grants.
Estimated Available Funds:
$7,700,000.00.

Contingent upon the availability of funds and the quality of applications, we may make additional awards in FY

2011 from the list of unfunded applicants from this competition.

Estimated Range of Awards: $250,000–$300,000 for the first year of the project. Funding for the second, third, and fourth years is subject to the availability of funds and the approval of continuation awards ( see 34 CFR 75.253).

Estimated Average Size of Awards:
$275,000.

Estimated Number of Awards: 28.

Note: The Department is not bound by any

estimates in this notice.

Project Period: Up to 48 months.

Note: The first 12 months of the project period may be used to build capacity to effectively carry out the comprehensive activities involved in the evaluation plan described in the competitive preference priority.

III. Eligibility Information

1. Eligible Applicants

(1) One or more local educational agencies (LEAs), including charter

schools that are considered LEAs under State law and regulations, that may work in partnership with one or more of the following:

• A State or local non-profit or governmental arts organization.

• A State educational agency (SEA) or regional educational service agency.

• An institution of higher education.

• A public or private agency, institution, or organization, such as a community- or faith-based organization;

or (2) One or more State or local nonprofit or governmental arts organizations that must work in partnership with one or more LEAs and may partner with one or more of the following:

• An SEA or regional educational service agency.

• An institution of higher education.

• A public or private agency, institution, or organization, such as a community- or faith-based organization.

Note: If more than one LEA or arts organization wishes to form a consortium and jointly submit a single application, they must follow the procedures for group applications described in 34 CFR 75.127 through 75.129 of EDGAR.

2.a. Cost Sharing or Matching: This program does not require cost sharing or matching.


### 2526 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2010 / Notices

b. Supplement-Not-Supplant: Thisprogram involves supplement-notsupplant funding requirements. Under section 5551(f)(2) of the ESEA, the Secretary requires that assistance provided under this program be used only to supplement, and not to supplant, any other assistance or funds

made available from non-Federal

sources for the activities assisted under this program. This restriction also has the effect of allowing projects to recover indirect costs only on the basis of a restricted indirect cost rate, according to the requirements in 34 CFR 75.563 and 34 CFR 76.564 through 76.569. As soon as they decide to apply, applicants are urged to contact the ED Indirect Cost Group at (202) 377–3840 for guidance about obtaining a restricted indirect cost rate to use on the Budget Information form (ED Form 524) included with the application package.

3. Coordination Requirement: Under section 5551(f)(1) of the ESEA, the Secretary requires that each entity funded under this program coordinate, to the extent practicable, each project or program carried out with funds awarded under this program with appropriate activities of public or private cultural agencies, institutions, and organizations, including museums, arts education associations, libraries, and

theaters.

IV. Application and Submission

Information

1. Address To Request Application Package: You can obtain an application package via the Internet, from the Education Publications Center (ED Pubs), or from the program office. To obtain a copy via the Internet, use the following address: http://www.ed.gov/ fund/grant/apply/grantapps/index.html. To obtain a copy from ED Pubs, write, fax, or call the following: Education Publications Center, P.O. Box 1398, Jessup, MD 20794–1398. Telephone, toll free: 1–877–433–7827. FAX: (301) 470– 1244. If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), call, toll free:

1–877–576–7734.

You can contact ED Pubs at its Web site, also: http://www.ed.gov/pubs/ edpubs.html or at its e-mail address: edpubs@inet.ed.gov.

If you request an application from ED Pubs, be sure to identify this program as

follows: CFDA number 84.351D.

To obtain a copy from the program office, contact: Diane Austin, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland
Avenue, SW., Room 4W223, Washington, DC 20202–5950. Telephone: (202) 260–1280 or by e-mail: artsdemo@ed.gov. If you use a TDD, call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1–800–877–8339.

Individuals with disabilities can obtain a copy of the application package in an accessible format ( e.g., braille, large print, audiotape, or computer diskette) by contacting the program contact person listed in this section.

2. Content and Form of Application

Submission: Requirements concerning the content of an application, together with the forms you must submit, are in the application package for this

program.

Notice of Intent To Apply: The Department will be able to develop a more efficient process for reviewing grant applications if it has a better understanding of the number of entities that intend to apply for funding under this program. Therefore, the Secretary strongly encourages each potential applicant to notify the Department by sending a short e-mail message indicating the applicant’s intent to submit an application for funding. The

e-mail need not include information regarding the content of the proposed application, only the applicant’s intent

to submit it. This e-mail notification

should be sent to Diane Austin at artsdemo@ed.gov.

Applicants that fail to provide this email notification may still apply for funding.

Page Limit: The application narrative is where you, the applicant, address the

selection criteria that reviewers use to evaluate your application. Applicants are strongly encouraged to limit the application narrative (Part III) to theequivalent of no more than 40 singlesided pages, using the following

standards:

A ‘‘page’’ is 8.5 ′′ x 11 ′′, on one side only, with 1 ′′ margins at the top, bottom,

and both sides.

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

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

• Use one of the following fonts:
Times New Roman, Courier, Courier New, or Arial. An application submitted in any other font (including Times Roman or Arial Narrow) will not be accepted.

The page limit does not apply to Part I, the cover sheet; Part II, the budget section, including the narrative budget justification; Part IV, the assurances and certifications; or the one-page abstract,

the re  ́ sume  ́ s, the bibliography, or the letters of support. However, the page limit does apply to all of the application narrative section (Part III).

3. Submission Dates and Times: Applications Available: January 15,

2010.

Deadline for Notice of Intent To Apply: February 16, 2010.

Deadline for Transmittal of Applications: March 16, 2010.

Applications for grants under this competition must be submitted electronically using the Electronic Grant Application System (e-Application)accessible through the Department’s eGrants site. For information (including dates and times) about how to submit your application electronically, or in paper format by mail or hand delivery if you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, please refer to section IV. 6. Other Submission Requirements of this notice.

We do not consider an application that does not comply with the deadline requirements.

Individuals with disabilities who need an accommodation or auxiliary aid in connection with the application process should contact the person listed

under **FOR FURTHER INFORMATION**

**CONTACT** in section VII of this notice. If the Department provides an accommodation or auxiliary aid to an individual with a disability in connection with the application process, the individual’s application remains subject to all other requirements and limitations in this

notice.

Deadline for Intergovernmental

Review: May 17, 2010.

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

5. We reference regulations outlining funding restrictions in the Applicable Regulations section of this notice.

6. Other Submission Requirements. Applications for grants under this competition must be submitted electronically unless you qualify for an exception to this requirement in

accordance with the instructions in this

section.

a. Electronic Submission of Applications

Applications for grants under the Arts in Education Model Development and Dissemination Grant Program—CFDA
Number 84.351D must be submitted electronically using e-Application,accessible through the Department’s eVerDate Nov<24>2008 17:34 Jan 14, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\15JAN1.SGM 15JAN1jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES

### 2527 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2010 / Notices

Grants Web site at: http://egrants.ed.gov.

We will reject your application if you submit it in paper format unless, as described elsewhere in this section, you qualify for one of the exceptions to the electronic submission requirement and submit, no later than two weeks before the application deadline date, a written statement to the Department that you qualify for one of these exceptions. Further information regarding

calculation of the date that is two weeks before the application deadline date is provided later in this section under Exception to Electronic Submission Requirement.

While completing your electronic application, you will be entering data

online that will be saved into a database. You may not e-mail an electronic copy of a grant application to

us.

Please note the following:

• You must complete the electronic submission of your grant application by 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, onthe application deadline date. EApplication will not accept an application for this program after 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date. Therefore, we strongly recommend that you do not wait until the application deadline date to begin the application

process.

• The hours of operation of the eGrants Web site are 6:00 a.m. Monday until 7:00 p.m. Wednesday; and 6:00 a.m. Thursday until 8:00 p.m. Sunday, Washington, DC time. Please note that, because of maintenance, the system is unavailable between 8:00 p.m. on Sundays and 6:00 a.m. on Mondays, and between 7:00 p.m. on Wednesdays and 6:00 a.m. on Thursdays, Washington, DC time. Any modifications to these hours are posted on the e-Grants Web

site.

• You will not receive additional point value because you submit your application in electronic format, nor will we penalize you if you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, as described elsewhere in this section, and submit your application in paper format.

• You must submit all documents electronically, including all information you typically provide on the following forms: the Application for Federal Assistance (SF 424), the Department of Education Supplemental Information forSF 424, Budget Information—NonConstruction Programs (ED 524), and all necessary assurances and certifications. You must attach any narrative sections of your application as files in a .DOC (document), .RTF (rich text), or .PDF (Portable Document) format. If you upload a file type other than the three file types specified in this paragraph or submit a password protected file, we

will not review that material.

• Your electronic application must comply with any page limit requirements described in this notice.

• Prior to submitting your electronic application, you may wish to print a copy of it for your records.

• After you electronically submit your application, you will receive an automatic acknowledgment that will include a PR/Award number (an identifying number unique to your application).

• Within three working days after submitting your electronic application, fax a signed copy of the SF 424 to the Application Control Center after following these steps:

(1) Print SF 424 from e-Application. (2) The applicant’s Authorizing Representative must sign this form.

(3) Place the PR/Award number in theupper right hand corner of the hardcopy signature page of the SF 424.

(4) Fax the signed SF 424 to the Application Control Center at (202)

245–6272.

• We may request that you provide us original signatures on other forms at a

later date.

Application Deadline Date Extension in Case of e-Application Unavailability: If you are prevented from electronically submitting your application on theapplication deadline date because eApplication is unavailable, we will grant you an extension of one business day to enable you to transmit your application electronically, by mail, or by hand delivery. We will grant this

extension if—

(1) You are a registered user of eApplication and you have initiated an electronic application for this competition; and

(2)(a) E-Application is unavailable for

60 minutes or more between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 3:30 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date; or

(b) E-Application is unavailable for any period of time between 3:30 p.m. and 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date.

We must acknowledge and confirm these periods of unavailability before granting you an extension. To request
this extension or to confirm our acknowledgment of any system unavailability, you may contact either (1) the person listed elsewhere in this

notice under **FOR FURTHER INFORMATION**

**CONTACT** ( see VII. Agency Contact) or (2) the e-Grants help desk at 1–888–336– 8930. If e-Application is unavailable due to technical problems with the system and, therefore, the application deadline is extended, an e-mail will be sent to all registered users who have initiated an e-Application. Extensions referred to in this section apply only to the unavailability of e-Application.

Exception to Electronic Submission Requirement: You qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, and may submit your application in paper format, if you are unable to submit an application through e-Application because—

• You do not have access to the
Internet; or

• You do not have the capacity toupload large documents to eApplication; and

• No later than two weeks before the application deadline date (14 calendar days or, if the fourteenth calendar day before the application deadline date falls on a Federal holiday, the next business day following the Federal holiday), you mail or fax a written statement to the Department, explaining which of the two grounds for an exception prevents you from using the Internet to submit your application. If you mail your written statement to the Department, it must be postmarked no

later than two weeks before the application deadline date. If you fax your written statement to the Department, we must receive the faxed

statement no later than two weeks before the application deadline date.

Address and mail or fax your
statement to: Diane Austin, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland
Avenue, SW., Room 4W223, Washington, DC 20202–5900. FAX: (202) 205–5630.

Your paper application must be

submitted in accordance with the mail or hand delivery instructions described

in this notice.

b. Submission of Paper Applications by

Mail

If you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, you may mail (through the U.S. Postal Service or a commercial carrier) your application to the Department. You must mail the original and two copies of your application, on or before the application deadline date, to the Department at the following address: U.S. Department of Education, Application Control Center, Attention: (CFDA Number 84.351D), LBJ Basement Level 1, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20202–4260.

You must show proof of mailing consisting of one of the following:

(1) A legibly dated U.S. Postal Service postmark.


### 2528 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2010 / Notices

(2) A legible mail receipt with the date of mailing stamped by the U.S.

Postal Service.

(3) A dated shipping label, invoice, or receipt from a commercial carrier.

(4) Any other proof of mailing acceptable to the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Education.

If you mail your application through the U.S. Postal Service, we do not accept either of the following as proof of mailing:

(1) A private metered postmark. (2) A mail receipt that is not dated by

the U.S. Postal Service.

If your application is postmarked after the application deadline date, we will not consider your application.

Note: The U.S. Postal Service does not uniformly provide a dated postmark. Before relying on this method, you should check with your local post office.

c. Submission of Paper Applications by Hand Delivery

If you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, you (or a courier service) may deliver your paper application to the Department by hand. You must deliver the original and two copies of your application, by hand, on or before the application deadline date, to the Department at the following address: U.S. Department of Education, Application Control Center, Attention: (CFDA Number 84.351D), 550 12th
Street, SW., Room 7041, Potomac Center Plaza, Washington, DC 20202–4260.

The Application Control Center accepts hand deliveries daily between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, except Saturdays, Sundays, and Federal holidays.

Note for Mail or Hand Delivery of Paper Applications: If you mail or hand deliver your application to the Department—

(1) You must indicate on the envelope and—if not provided by the Department—in Item 11 of the SF 424 the CFDA number, including suffix letter, if any, of the competition under which you are submitting your application; and

(2) The Application Control Center will mail to you a notification of receipt of your grant application. If you do not receive this grant notification within 15 business days from the application deadline date, you should call the U.S. Department of Education Application Control Center at (202) 245–

6288.

V. Application Review Information

Selection Criteria: The selection criteria for this competition are from

section 34 CFR 75.210. The maximum

score for all the selection criteria is 100 points. The maximum score for each criterion is indicated in parentheses.

Each criterion also includes the factors that the reviewers will consider in determining how well an application

meets the criterion. The Note following selection criterion (6) is guidance to help applicants in preparing their applications and is not required by statute or regulations. The selection

criteria are as follows:

(1) Need for project (15 points). The Secretary considers the need for the proposed project by considering the following factors:

(a) The extent to which the proposed project will provide services or

otherwise address the needs of students

at risk of educational failure.

(b) The extent to which specific gaps or weaknesses in services, infrastructure, or opportunities have been identified and will be addressed by the proposed project, including the nature and magnitude of those gaps or

weaknesses.

(2) Significance (10 points). The Secretary considers the significance of the proposed project by considering the following factor:

The likely utility of the products (such as information, materials, processes, or techniques) that will result from the proposed project, including the potential for their being used effectively in a variety of other settings.

(3) Quality of the project design (25 points). The Secretary considers the quality of the design of the proposed project by considering the following

factors:

(a) The extent to which the design of the proposed project reflects up-to-date knowledge from research and effective practices.

(b) The extent to which the proposed project is part of a comprehensive effort to improve teaching and learning and support rigorous academic standards for

students.

(c) The extent to which the proposed project is designed to build capacity and yield results that will extend beyond the period of Federal financial assistance.

(4) Quality of project personnel (10 points). The Secretary considers the quality of the personnel who will carry out the proposed project. In determining the quality of project personnel, the Secretary considers the extent to which the applicant encourages applications for employment from persons who are members of groups that have traditionally been underrepresented based on race, color, national origin, gender, age, or disability.

In addition, the Secretary considers the following factor:

The qualifications, including relevant training and experience, of key project personnel. (5) Quality of the management plan (20 points). The Secretary considers the quality of the management plan for the proposed project by considering the following factors:

(a) The adequacy of the management plan to achieve the objectives of the proposed project on time and within budget, including clearly defined responsibilities, timelines, and milestones for accomplishing project

tasks.

(b) The extent to which the time commitments of the project director and principal investigator and other key project personnel are appropriate and adequate to meet the objectives of the proposed project.

(c) The adequacy of procedures for ensuring feedback and continuous improvement in the operation of the proposed project.

(6) Quality of the project evaluation (20 points). The Secretary considers the quality of the evaluation to be conducted of the proposed project by considering the following factors:

(a) The extent to which the methods

of evaluation include the use of objective performance measures that are clearly related to the intended outcomes of the project and will produce quantitative and qualitative data to the extent possible.

(b) The extent to which the methods of evaluation will provide performance feedback and permit periodic assessment of progress toward achieving

intended outcomes.

Note: A strong evaluation plan should be included in the application narrative and should be used, as appropriate, to shape the development of the project from the beginning of the grant period. The evaluation plan should include benchmarks to monitor progress toward specific project objectives

and also outcome measures to assess the impact on teaching and learning, or other important outcomes for project participants. More specifically, the plan should identify the individual or organization that has agreed to serve as evaluator for the project and describe the qualifications of that evaluator. The plan should describe the evaluation design, indicating: (1) What types of data will be collected; (2) when various types of data will be collected; (3) what methods will be used; (4) what instruments will be developed

and when these instruments will be developed; (5) how the data will be analyzed; (6) when reports of results and outcomes will be available; and (7) how the applicant will use the information collected through the evaluation to monitor progress of the funded project and to provide accountability

information both about success at the initial site and about effective strategies for replication in other settings. Applicants are encouraged to devote an appropriate level of resources to project evaluation.


### 2529 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2010 / Notices

VI. Award Administration Information

1. Award Notices: If your application is successful, we notify your U.S. Representative and U.S. Senators and send you a Grant Award Notification (GAN). We may notify you informally,

also.

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

2. Administrative and National Policy Requirements: We identify administrative and national policy requirements in the application package

and reference these and other requirements in the Applicable Regulations section of this notice.

We reference the regulations outlining

the terms and conditions of an award in

the Applicable Regulations section of

this notice and include these and other specific conditions in the GAN. The GAN also incorporates your approved application as part of your binding commitments under the grant.

3. Grant Administration: Applicants should budget for a three-day meeting for project directors to be held in Washington, DC.

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

.

5. Performance Measures: The Department has established the following Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA) performance

measures for the Arts in Education Model Development and Dissemination Grant Program: (1) The percentage of students participating in arts model projects funded through the AEMDD Program who demonstrate proficiency in mathematics compared to those in control or comparison groups and (2) the percentage of students participating in arts model projects who demonstrate proficiency in reading compared to those in control or comparison groups.

These measures constitute the Department’s indicators of success for this program. Consequently, we advise an applicant for a grant under this program to give careful consideration to these measures in conceptualizing the approach and evaluation for its proposed project. Each grantee will be required to provide, in its annual performance and final reports, data about its progress in meeting these

measures.

VII. Agency Contact

**FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT :**  Diane Austin, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., Room 4W223, Washington, DC 20202– 5950. Telephone: (202) 260–1280 or by

e-mail: artsdemo@ed.gov

.

If you use a TDD, call the FRS, toll free, at 1–800–877–8339.

VIII. Other Information

Accessible Format: Individuals with

disabilities can obtain this document and a copy of the application package in an accessible format ( e.g. , braille, large print, audiotape, or computer diskette) on request to the program contact person listed under **FOR FURTHER**

**INFORMATION CONTACT** in section VII of

this notice.

Electronic Access to This Document: You can view this document, as well as all other documents of this Department published in the Federal Register , in
text or Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF) on the Internet at the following site: http://www.ed.gov/news/ fedregister. To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is

available free at this site.

Note: The official version of this document is the document published in the Federal Register . Free Internet access to the official

edition of the Federal Register and the Code of Federal Regulations is available on GPO

Access at: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/nara/

index.html

.

Dated: January 12, 2010.
James H. Shelton, III,
Assistant Deputy Secretary for Innovation and Improvement.

[FR Doc. 2010–702 Filed 1–14–10; 8:45 am]

**BILLING CODE 4000–01–P**

**DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION**

**Notice of Public Hearing**

**AGENCY :**  U.S. Department of Education, National Assessment Governing Board.

**ACTION :**  Notice of public hearing.

**SUMMARY :**  The National Assessment Governing Board is announcing a public hearing on January 28, 2010 to obtain comment on the draft Technological Literacy Assessment Framework for the

National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP).

Public and private parties and organizations are invited to present written and/or oral testimony. The hearing will be held at the Washington Court Hotel, 525 New Jersey Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20001 from 9:30 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. EST.

This notice sets forth the schedule and proposed agenda of a forthcoming public hearing of the National Assessment Governing Board. This

notice also describes the functions of the Board. Notice of this meeting is required under Section 10 (a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act. This document is intended to notify members of the general public of their opportunity to provide comment. Individuals who will need special

accommodations in order to attend the hearing (such as interpreting services, assistive listening devices, materials in alternative format) should notify Munira

Mwalimu at 202–357–6938 or at Munira.Mwalimu@ed.gov no later than January 21, 2010. We will attempt to meet requests after this date, but cannot guarantee availability of the requested accommodation. The meeting site is

accessible to individuals with

disabilities.

**DATES :**  January 28, 2010.

Location: Washington Court Hotel, 525 New Jersey Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20001.

Time: 9:30 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. EST Background : Under Public Law 107– 279, the National Assessment Governing Board (NAGB) is responsible for determining the content and methodology of the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). The assessment is required to provide a fair and accurate

measurement of student academic achievement through a random sampling process that produces representative data for the nation, the states, and other participating jurisdictions. The Board’s responsibilities include selecting subject areas to be assessed, developing assessment specifications and frameworks, designing the methodology of the assessment, developing appropriate student achievement levels for each grade and subject tested, developing standards and procedures for interstate and national comparisons, developing guidelines for reporting and disseminating results, and releasing initial NAEP results to the public.

In preparation for a new assessment in the area of Technological Literacy, the Governing Board has contracted

with WestEd to convene broad-based panels of policymakers, business representatives, educators, engineers, information communication experts,

and others to recommend student knowledge and skills at the 4th, 8th, and 12th grades for a planned assessment of