Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 132 / Tuesday, July 10, 2018 / Notices 31955 

imposed, shall remain in effect until 

further notice. 

Notification to Importers 

This notice also serves as a reminder 

to importers of their responsibility 

under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a 

certificate regarding the reimbursement 

of antidumping duties prior to 

liquidation of the relevant entries 

during this review period. Failure to 

comply with this requirement could 

result in Commerce’s presumption that 

reimbursement of antidumping duties 

occurred and the subsequent assessment 

of double antidumping duties. 

We are issuing and publishing these 

results in accordance with sections 

751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 

CFR 351.213 and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4). 

Dated: July 3, 2018. 

Gary Taverman, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping 

and Countervailing Duty Operations, 

performing the non-exclusive functions and 

duties of the Assistant Secretary for 

Enforcement and Compliance. 

Appendix 

List of Topics Discussed in the Preliminary 

Decision Memorandum 

1. Summary 

2. Background 

3. Scope of the Order 

4. Non-Market Economy Country Status 

5. Separate Rates 

6. Surrogate Country 

7. Date of Sale 

8. Normal Value Comparisons 

9. Factor Valuation Methodology 

10. Surrogate Values 

11. Comparisons to Normal Value 

12. Adjustments for Countervailable 

Subsidies 

13. Currency Conversion 

[FR Doc. 2018–14728 Filed 7–9–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Department of the Army 

Advisory Committee on Arlington 

National Cemetery; Notice of Federal 

Advisory Committee Meeting 

AGENCY: Department of the Army, DoD. 

ACTION: Notice of Federal Advisory 

Committee meeting; cancellation. 

SUMMARY: The Department of the Army 

published a Federal Advisory 

Committee meeting of the Advisory 

Committee on Arlington National 

Cemetery notice in the Federal Register 

on Tuesday, June 26, 2018. The meeting 

was to take place on July 26, 2018, but 

is now cancelled. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Timothy Keating; Alternate Designated 

Federal Officer for the Committee, in 

writing at Arlington National Cemetery, 

Arlington VA 22211, or by email at 

timothy.p.keating.civ@mail.mil, or by 

phone at 1–877–907–8585. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: None. 

Brenda S. Bowen, 

Army Federal Register Liaison Officer. 

[FR Doc. 2018–14713 Filed 7–9–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 5001–03–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Office of the Secretary 

Charter Renewal of Department of 

Defense Federal Advisory Committees 

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, 

Department of Defense. 

ACTION: Renewal of federal advisory 

committee. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Defense 

(DoD) is publishing this notice to 

announce that it is renewing the charter 

for the Defense Acquisition University 

Board of Visitors (‘‘the Board’’). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jim 

Freeman, Advisory Committee 

Management Officer for the Department 

of Defense, 703–692–5952. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 

committee’s charter is being renewed in 

accordance with the Federal Advisory 

Committee Act (FACA) of 1972 (5 

U.S.C., Appendix, as amended) and 41 

CFR 102–3.50(d). The charter and 

contact information for the Designated 

Federal Officer (DFO) can be obtained at 

http://www.facadatabase.gov/. The 

Board provides independent advice on 

the organizational management, 

curricula, methods of instruction, 

facilities, and other matters of interest 

relating to the Defense Acquisition 

University. The Board shall be 

composed of no more than 14 members 

who are former senior Defense officials 

familiar with the acquisition process or 

are eminent authorities in academia, 

business, or the defense industry. 

Members of the Board who are not fulltime or permanent part-time Federal 

officers or employees will be appointed 

as experts or consultants pursuant to 5 

U.S.C. 3109 to serve as special 

government employee members. 

Members of the Board who are full-time 

or permanent part-time Federal officers 

or employees will be appointed 

pursuant to 41 CFR 102–3.130(a) to 

serve as regular government employee 

members. Each Board member is 

appointed to provide advice on the basis 

of their best judgment without 

representing any particular point of 

view and in a manner that is free from 

conflict of interest. Except for 

reimbursement of official Board-related 

travel and per diem, Board members 

serve without compensation. The DoD, 

as necessary and consistent with the 

Board’s mission and DoD policies and 

procedures, may establish 

subcommittees, task forces, or working 

groups to support the Board, and all 

subcommittees must operate under the 

provisions of FACA and the 

Government in the Sunshine Act. 

Subcommittees will not work 

independently of the Board and must 

report all recommendations and advice 

solely to the Board for full deliberation 

and discussion. Subcommittees, task 

forces, or working groups have no 

authority to make decisions and 

recommendations, verbally or in 

writing, on behalf of the Board. No 

subcommittee or any of its members can 

update or report, verbally or in writing, 

directly to the DoD or any Federal 

officers or employees. The Board’s DFO, 

pursuant to DoD policy, must be a fulltime or permanent part-time DoD 

employee, and must be in attendance for 

the duration of each and every Board/ 

subcommittee meeting. The public or 

interested organizations may submit 

written statements to the Board 

membership about the Board’s mission 

and functions. Such statements may be 

submitted at any time or in response to 

the stated agenda of planned Board 

meetings. All written statements must 

be submitted to the Board’s DFO who 

will ensure the written statements are 

provided to the membership for their 

consideration. 

Dated: July 5, 2018. 

Shelly E. Finke, 

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison 

Officer, Department of Defense. 

[FR Doc. 2018–14714 Filed 7–9–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 5001–06–P 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

Applications for New Awards; 

Educational Technology, Media, and 

Materials for Individuals With 

Disabilities—Center on Technology 

Systems in Local Educational 

Agencies 

AGENCY: Office of Special Education and 

Rehabilitative Services, Department of 

Education. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Education 

(Department) is issuing a notice inviting 

applications for new awards for fiscal 

year (FY) 2018 for Educational 

Technology, Media, and Materials for 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1
31956 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 132 / Tuesday, July 10, 2018 / Notices 

1Section 602 of IDEA defines an ‘‘assistive 

technology device’’ as ‘‘any item, piece of 

equipment, or product system, whether acquired 

commercially off the shelf, modified or customized, 

that is used to increase, maintain, or improve 

functional capabilities of a child with a disability.’’ 

2 IDEA does not provide a definition for IT, but 

for the purposes of this priority, ‘‘IT’’ is defined as 

technology processes and resources that facilitate 

learning and improve student performance for all 

students. 

3For purposes of this priority, ‘‘effective use’’ 

refers to active use of technology to enable learning 

through creation, production, and problem-solving 

(U.S. Department of Education, 2017). 

4For purposes of this priority, ‘‘systems’’ refers to 

interrelated components (e.g., funding, professional 

development, data collection, accountability, and 

quality improvement) that need to be in place to 

support the identification, procurement, 

deployment, and effective use of AT and IT by 

children with disabilities and their families. 

5For purposes of this priority, ‘‘frameworks’’ 

refers to the theories, knowledge base, policies, and 

practices that form the basic conceptual structure of 

effective systems. A framework is a guide to 

increase the capacity of LEAs to understand, 

improve, and implement effective systems. 

Individuals with Disabilities—Center on 

Technology Systems in Local 

Educational Agencies, Catalog of 

Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) 

number 84.327T. 

DATES: 

Applications Available: July 10, 2018. 

Deadline for Transmittal of 

Applications: August 9, 2018. 

ADDRESSES: For the addresses for 

obtaining and submitting an 

application, please refer to our Common 

Instructions for Applicants to 

Department of Education Discretionary 

Grant Programs, published in the 

Federal Register on February 12, 2018 

(83 FR 6003) and available at 

www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2018-02-12/ 

pdf/2018-02558.pdf. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Carmen Sanchez, U.S. Department of 

Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, 

Room 5175, Potomac Center Plaza, 

Washington, DC 20202–5076. 

Telephone: (202) 245–6595. 

If you use a telecommunications 

device for the deaf (TDD) or a text 

telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay 

Service (FRS), toll free, at 1–800–877– 

8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Full Text of Announcement 

I. Funding Opportunity Description 

Purpose of Program: The purposes of 

the Educational Technology, Media, and 

Materials for Individuals with 

Disabilities Program are to: (1) Improve 

results for students with disabilities by 

promoting the development, 

demonstration, and use of technology; 

(2) support educational activities 

designed to be of educational value in 

the classroom for students with 

disabilities; (3) provide support for 

captioning and video description that is 

appropriate for use in the classroom; 

and (4) provide accessible educational 

materials to students with disabilities in 

a timely manner. 

Priority: In accordance with 34 CFR 

75.105(b)(2)(v), this priority is from 

allowable activities specified in the 

statute (see sections 674(b)(2) and 

681(d) of the Individuals with 

Disabilities Education Act (IDEA); 20 

U.S.C. 1474(b) and 1481(d)). 

Absolute Priority: For FY 2018 and 

any subsequent year in which we make 

awards from the list of unfunded 

applications 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: 

Center on Technology Systems in 

Local Educational Agencies. 

Background: The mission of the 

Office of Special Education and 

Rehabilitative Services (OSERS) is to 

improve early childhood, educational, 

and employment outcomes and raise 

expectations for all people with 

disabilities, their families, their 

communities, and the Nation. 

Over 40 years of research and 

experience have demonstrated the 

benefits of assistive technology (AT) 1

and instructional technology (IT) 2 for 

the education and development of 

children with disabilities (see section 

601(c)(5)(H) of IDEA). With the 

increased use of appropriate AT and IT, 

more children with disabilities will 

have access to the general education 

curriculum and be prepared to meet 

standards for academic success (Ahmad, 

2015). 

Despite these known benefits, 

teachers, related services personnel, and 

other professionals (collectively, 

‘‘providers’’) vary greatly in their 

knowledge of evidence-based (as 

defined in this notice) practices (EBPs) 

for effective use 3 of AT and IT (Bausch, 

Ault, Evmenova, & Behrmann, 2008; Lee 

& Vega, 2005; Smith & Robinson, 2003; 

U.S. Department of Education, 2010; 

Zhou, Parker, Smith, & Griffin-Shirley, 

2011). At the same time, local 

educational agencies (LEAs) vary greatly 

in their ability to implement systems 4

that support the effective use of AT and 

IT by children with disabilities and 

their families. Some LEAs have robust 

systems in place that ensure the 

acquisition and effective use of AT and 

IT by children with disabilities while 

others struggle to meet the AT and IT 

needs of children with disabilities. 

Moreover, the rapid evolution of 

technology often outstrips providers’ 

efforts to effectively support the use of 

technology (Bausch, Ault, & 

Hasselbring, 2015). 

Technology planning to develop 

comprehensive and sustainable systems 

for effective use of AT and IT should 

focus on sound frameworks 5 that 

provide a process for providers to 

understand and meet the AT and IT 

needs of children with disabilities and 

their families (Hartmann & Weismer, 

2016). Comprehensive and sustainable 

systems in LEAs for the effective use of 

AT and IT must include: (1) A vision of 

how AT and IT can increase access to 

educational opportunities, improve 

outcomes, and lead to greater equity for 

children with disabilities; (2) practices 

rooted in strong knowledge of how 

children with disabilities can effectively 

use AT and IT even as the technology 

itself changes; (3) ongoing opportunities 

for professional development for 

providers, educators, administrators, 

and families in children’s use of AT and 

IT; (4) funding sources for appropriate 

low- and high-tech AT and IT devices 

and services; and (5) coordinated 

programs to acquire, maintain, and 

reuse AT and IT devices (U.S. 

Department of Education, 2017). 

This priority will fund a cooperative 

agreement to establish and operate a 

Center on Technology Systems in Local 

Educational Agencies (Center). The 

Center will increase the effective use of 

AT and IT by children with disabilities 

and their families by building the 

capacity of LEAs to implement 

comprehensive and sustainable systems 

for the effective use of AT and IT. This 

priority is consistent with the following 

Secretary’s Supplemental Priorities: 

Priority 2—Promoting Innovation and 

Efficiency, Streamlining Education with 

an Increased Focus on Improving 

Student Outcomes, and Providing 

Increased Value to Students and 

Taxpayers; Priority 5—Meeting the 

Unique Needs of Students and Children 

With Disabilities and/or Those With 

Unique Gifts and Talents; Priority 7— 

Promoting Literacy; and Priority 8— 

Promoting Effective Instruction in 

Classrooms and Schools, published in 

the Federal Register on March 2, 2018 

(83 FR 9096). 

Priority: The purpose of this priority 

is to fund a cooperative agreement to 

establish and operate a Center on 

Technology Systems in Local 

Educational Agencies to achieve, at a 

minimum, the following expected 

outcomes: 

(a) Development and refinement of a 

framework that incorporates theories, 

knowledge base, and effective practices, 

policies, and tools that LEAs can use to 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 132 / Tuesday, July 10, 2018 / Notices 31957 

6 ‘‘Universal, general TA’’ means TA and 

information provided to independent users through 

their own initiative, resulting in minimal 

interaction with TA center staff and including onetime, invited or offered conference presentations by 

TA center staff. This category of TA also includes 

information or products, such as newsletters, 

guidebooks, or research syntheses, downloaded 

from the TA center’s website by independent users. 

Brief communications by TA center staff with 

recipients, either by telephone or email, are also 

considered universal, general TA. 

7 ‘‘Targeted, specialized TA’’ means TA services 

based on needs common to multiple recipients and 

not extensively individualized. A relationship is 

established between the TA recipient and one or 

more TA center staff. This category of TA includes 

one-time, labor-intensive events, such as facilitating 

strategic planning or hosting regional or national 

conferences. It can also include episodic, less laborintensive events that extend over a period of time, 

such as facilitating a series of conference calls on 

single or multiple topics that are designed around 

the needs of the recipients. Facilitating 

communities of practice can also be considered 

targeted, specialized TA. 

develop or enhance comprehensive and 

sustainable systems for the effective use 

of AT and IT; 

(b) Increased knowledge of providers 

about evidence-based AT and IT 

practices for children with disabilities 

and their families; 

(c) Increased capacity of LEAs to 

develop comprehensive and sustainable 

systems for the effective use of AT and 

IT; and 

(d) Increased effective use of AT and 

IT by children with disabilities and 

their families in the LEAs that have 

comprehensive and sustainable systems 

for the effective use of AT and IT. 

In addition to these programmatic 

requirements, to be considered for 

funding under this priority, applicants 

must meet the application and 

administrative requirements in this 

priority, which are: 

(a) Demonstrate, in the narrative 

section of the application under 

‘‘Significance,’’ how the project will— 

(1) Address LEAs’ needs regarding 

useful, relevant, and current 

information and training to build their 

capacity to develop and sustain systems 

for the effective use of AT and IT by 

children with disabilities and their 

families. To meet this requirement the 

applicant must— 

(i) Present applicable national data 

demonstrating the extent to which LEAs 

have comprehensive and sustainable 

systems for the effective use of AT and 

IT by children with disabilities and 

their families, including gaps in the 

resources available to support LEAs in 

the development of these systems; 

(ii) Demonstrate knowledge of current 

educational issues and policy initiatives 

relating to the effective use of AT and 

IT by children with disabilities and 

their families; 

(iii) Present information about the 

current capacity of— 

(A) Providers to implement EBPs to 

improve the effective use of AT and IT 

by children with disabilities and their 

families; and 

(B) LEAs to implement components of 

comprehensive and sustainable systems 

for the effective use of AT and IT by 

children with disabilities and their 

families; 

(2) Improve the effective use of AT 

and IT by children with disabilities and 

their families, and indicate the likely 

magnitude or importance of the 

improvements. 

(b) Demonstrate, in the narrative 

section of the application under 

‘‘Quality of project services,’’ how the 

proposed project will— 

(1) Ensure equal access and treatment 

for members of groups that have 

traditionally been underrepresented 

based on race, color, national origin, 

gender, age, or disability. To meet this 

requirement, the applicant must 

describe how it will— 

(i) Identify the needs of the intended 

recipients for technical assistance (TA) 

and information; and 

(ii) Ensure that services and products 

meet the needs of the intended 

recipients of the grant; 

(2) Achieve its goals, objectives, and 

intended outcomes. To meet this 

requirement, the applicant must 

provide— 

(i) Measurable intended project 

outcomes; and 

(ii) In Appendix A, the logic model 

(as defined in this notice) by which the 

proposed project will achieve its 

intended outcomes that depicts, at a 

minimum, the goals, activities, outputs, 

and intended outcomes of the proposed 

project; 

(3) Use a conceptual framework (and 

provide a copy in Appendix A) to 

develop project plans and activities, 

describing any underlying concepts, 

assumptions, expectations, beliefs, or 

theories, as well as the presumed 

relationships or linkages among these 

variables, and any empirical support for 

this framework; 

Note: The following websites provide 

more information on logic models and 

conceptual frameworks: 

www.osepideasthatwork.org/logicModel 

and www.osepideasthatwork.org/ 

resources-grantees/program-areas/ta-ta/ 

tad-project-logic-model-and-conceptualframework. 

(4) Be based on current research and 

make use of EBPs. To meet this 

requirement, the applicant must 

describe— 

(i) The current research on practices 

to support the effective use of AT and 

IT by children with disabilities; 

(ii) The current research on 

components of LEA systems, including 

policies and practices, necessary to 

increase the effective use of AT and IT 

by children with disabilities and their 

families; 

(iii) The current research about adult 

learning principles and implementation 

science that will inform the proposed 

TA; 

(iv) How the proposed project will 

incorporate current research and EBPs 

in the development and dissemination 

of a framework of LEA policies and 

practices that are necessary for creating 

comprehensive and sustainable systems 

for the effective use of AT and IT by 

children with disabilities and their 

families; and 

(v) How the proposed project will 

identify LEAs that have promising 

systems or policies and practices for 

supporting children’s and families’ 

effective use of AT and IT and 

incorporate that information into the 

development of the framework; 

(5) Develop products and provide 

services that are of high quality and 

sufficient intensity and duration to 

achieve the intended outcomes of the 

proposed project. To address this 

requirement, the applicant must 

describe— 

(i) How it proposes to identify or 

develop the knowledge base related to 

children’s and families’ effective use of 

AT and IT and the development of 

comprehensive and sustainable systems 

in LEAs to support that use; 

(ii) Its proposed approach to 

universal, general TA,6 which must 

identify the intended recipients, 

including the type and number of 

recipients, that will receive the products 

and services under this approach and 

should include, at minimum— 

(A) A plan to disseminate the 

framework and develop professional 

learning activities for LEAs to enhance 

their understanding and 

implementation of the framework; and 

(B) A plan to identify and disseminate 

other relevant 

resources, including those currently 

housed by the Center on Technology 

and Disability, on evidence-based AT 

and IT practices for children with 

disabilities and their families; 

(iii) Its proposed approach to targeted, 

specialized TA 7 to support LEAs in 

implementing the framework, which 

must identify— 

(A) The intended recipients, 

including the type and number of 

recipients, that will receive the products 

and services under this approach; and 

(B) Its proposed approach to measure 

the readiness of potential TA recipients 

to work with the project, assessing, at a 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1
31958 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 132 / Tuesday, July 10, 2018 / Notices 

8A ‘‘third-party’’ evaluator is an independent and 

impartial program evaluator who is contracted by 

the grantee to conduct an objective evaluation of the 

project. This evaluator must not have participated 

in the development or implementation of any 

project activities, except for the evaluation 

activities, nor have any financial interest in the 

outcome of the evaluation. 

minimum, their current infrastructure, 

available resources, and ability to build 

capacity at the local level; and 

(6) Develop products and implement 

services that maximize efficiency. To 

address this requirement, the applicant 

must describe— 

(i) How the proposed project will use 

technology to achieve the intended 

project outcomes; 

(ii) With whom the proposed project 

will collaborate and the intended 

outcomes of this collaboration; and 

(iii) How the proposed project will 

use non-project resources to achieve the 

intended project outcomes. 

(c) In the narrative section of the 

application under ‘‘Quality of the 

project evaluation,’’ include an 

evaluation plan for the project 

developed in consultation with and 

implemented by a third-party 

evaluator.8 The evaluation plan must— 

(1) Articulate formative and 

summative evaluation questions, 

including important process and 

outcome evaluation questions. These 

questions should be related to the 

project’s proposed logic model required 

in paragraph (b)(2)(ii) of this notice; 

(2) Describe how progress in and 

fidelity of implementation, as well as 

project outcomes will be measured to 

answer the evaluation questions. 

Specify the measures and associated 

instruments or sources for data 

appropriate to the evaluation questions. 

Include information regarding reliability 

and validity of measures where 

appropriate; 

(3) Describe strategies for analyzing 

data and how data collected as part of 

this plan will be used to inform and 

improve service delivery over the course 

of the project and to refine the proposed 

logic model and evaluation plan, 

including subsequent data collection; 

(4) Provide a timeline for conducting 

the evaluation, and include staff 

assignments for completing the plan. 

The timeline must indicate that the data 

will be available annually for the 

Annual Performance Report (APR) and 

at the end of Year 2 for the review 

process described under the heading, 

Fourth and Fifth Years of the Project; 

(5) Dedicate sufficient funds in each 

budget year to cover the costs of 

developing or refining the evaluation 

plan in consultation with a ‘‘thirdparty’’ evaluator, as well as the costs 

associated with the implementation of 

the evaluation plan by the third-party 

evaluator. 

(d) Demonstrate, in the narrative 

section of the application under 

‘‘Adequacy of resources,’’ how— 

(1) The proposed project will 

encourage 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, as appropriate; 

(2) The proposed key project 

personnel, consultants, and 

subcontractors have the qualifications 

and experience to carry out the 

proposed activities and achieve the 

project’s intended outcomes; 

(3) The applicant and any key 

partners have adequate resources to 

carry out the proposed activities; and 

(4) The proposed costs are reasonable 

in relation to the anticipated results and 

benefits. 

(e) Demonstrate, in the narrative 

section of the application under 

‘‘Quality of the management plan,’’ 

how— 

(1) The proposed management plan 

will ensure that the project’s intended 

outcomes will be achieved on time and 

within budget. To address this 

requirement, the applicant must 

describe— 

(i) Clearly defined responsibilities for 

key project personnel, consultants, and 

subcontractors, as applicable; and 

(ii) Timelines and milestones for 

accomplishing the project tasks; 

(2) Key project personnel and any 

consultants and subcontractors will be 

allocated and how these allocations are 

appropriate and adequate to achieve the 

project’s intended outcomes; 

(3) The proposed management plan 

will ensure that the products and 

services provided are of high quality, 

relevant, and useful to recipients; and 

(4) The proposed project will benefit 

from a diversity of perspectives, 

including those of families, educators, 

TA providers, researchers, and policy 

makers, among others, in its 

development and operation. 

(f) Address the following application 

requirements. The applicant must— 

(1) Include, in Appendix A, 

personnel-loading charts and timelines, 

as applicable, to illustrate the 

management plan described in the 

narrative; 

(2) Include, in the budget, attendance 

at the following: 

(i) A one and one-half day kick-off 

meeting in Washington, DC, after receipt 

of the award, and an annual planning 

meeting in Washington, DC, with the 

Office of Special Education Programs 

(OSEP) project officer and other relevant 

staff during each subsequent year of the 

project period. 

Note: Within 30 days of receipt of the 

award, a post-award teleconference 

must be held between the OSEP project 

officer and the grantee’s project director 

or other authorized representative; 

(ii) A two and one-half day project 

directors’ conference in Washington, 

DC, during each year of the project 

period; 

(iii) One annual two-day trip to attend 

Department briefings, Departmentsponsored conferences, and other 

meetings, as requested by OSEP; and 

(iv) A one-day intensive 3+2 review 

meeting in Washington, DC, during the 

last half of the second year of the project 

period; 

(5) Include, in the budget, a line item 

for an annual set-aside of five percent of 

the grant amount to support emerging 

needs that are consistent with the 

proposed project’s intended outcomes, 

as those needs are identified in 

consultation with, and approved by, the 

OSEP project officer. With approval 

from the OSEP project officer, the 

project must reallocate any remaining 

funds from this annual set-aside no later 

than the end of the third quarter of each 

budget period; 

(6) Maintain a high-quality website, 

with an easy-to-navigate design, that 

meets government or industryrecognized standards for accessibility; 

and 

(7) Include, in Appendix A, an 

assurance to assist OSEP with the 

transfer of pertinent resources and 

products from the current Center for 

Technology and Disability and to 

maintain the continuity of services 

during the transition to this new Center 

and at the end of this award period, as 

appropriate. 

Fourth and Fifth Years of the Project: 

In deciding whether to continue funding 

the project for the fourth and fifth years, 

the Secretary will consider the 

requirements of 34 CFR 75.253(a), as 

well as— 

(a) The recommendation of a 3+2 

review team consisting of experts 

selected by the Secretary. This review 

will be conducted during a one-day 

intensive meeting that will be held 

during the last half of the second year 

of the project period; 

(b) The timeliness with which, and 

how well, the requirements of the 

negotiated cooperative agreement have 

been or are being met by the project; and 

(c) The quality, relevance, and 

usefulness of the project’s products and 

services and the extent to which the 

project’s products and services are 

aligned with the project’s objectives and 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 132 / Tuesday, July 10, 2018 / Notices 31959 

likely to result in the project achieving 

its intended outcomes. 

References 

Ahmad, F. K. (2015). Use of assistive 

technology in inclusive education: 

Making room for diverse learning needs. 

Transcience, 6(2), 62–77. 

Bausch, M. E., Ault, M. J., Evmenova, A. S., 

& Behrmann, M. M. (2008). Going 

beyond AT devices: Are AT services 

being considered? Journal of Special 

Education Technology, 23(2), 1–16. 

Bausch, M. E., Ault, M. J., & Hasselbring, T. 

S. (2015). Assistive technology in 

schools: Lessons learned from the 

National Assistive Technology Research 

Institute. Efficacy of Assistive 

Technology Interventions Advances in 

Special Education Technology, 1, 13–15. 

Hartmann, E., & Weismer, P. (2016). 

Technology and curriculum engagement 

for children and youth who are 

deafblind. American Annals of the Deaf, 

161(4), 462–473. 

Lee, Y., & Vega, L. A. (2005). Perceived 

knowledge, attitudes, and challenges of 

AT use in special education. Journal of 

Special Education Technology, 20(2), 

60–62. 

Smith, S. J., & Robinson, S. (2003). 

Technology integration through 

collaborative cohorts. Remedial & 

Special Education, 24(3), 154–159. 

U.S. Department of Education, Office of 

Educational Technology. (2010). 

Transforming American education: 

Learning powered by technology. 

Retrieved from www.ed.gov/sites/ 

default/files/netp2010.pdf. 

U.S. Department of Education, Office of 

Educational Technology. (2017). 

Reimagining the role of technology in 

education: 2017 National Education 

Technology Plan update. Retrieved from 

https://tech.ed.gov/files/2017/01/ 

NETP17.pdf. 

Zhou, L., Parker, A. T., Smith, D. W., & 

Griffin-Shirley, N. (2011). Assistive 

technology for students with visual 

impairments: Challenges and needs in 

teachers’ preparation programs and 

practice. Journal of Visual Impairment & 

Blindness, 105(4), 197–210. 

Definitions: The following definitions 

are from 34 CFR 77.1: 

Demonstrates a rationale means a key 

project component included in the 

project’s logic model is informed by 

research or evaluation findings that 

suggest the project component is likely 

to improve relevant outcomes. 

Evidence-based means the proposed 

project component is supported by one 

or more of strong evidence, moderate 

evidence, promising evidence, or 

evidence that demonstrates a rationale. 

Experimental study means a study 

that is designed to compare outcomes 

between two groups of individuals 

(such as students) that are otherwise 

equivalent except for their assignment 

to either a treatment group receiving a 

project component or a control group 

that does not. Randomized controlled 

trials, regression discontinuity design 

studies, and single-case design studies 

are the specific types of experimental 

studies that, depending on their design 

and implementation (e.g., sample 

attrition in randomized controlled trials 

and regression discontinuity design 

studies), can meet What Works 

Clearinghouse (WWC) standards 

without reservations as described in the 

WWC Handbook: 

(i) A randomized controlled trial 

employs random assignment of, for 

example, students, teachers, classrooms, 

or schools to receive the project 

component being evaluated (the 

treatment group) or not to receive the 

project component (the control group). 

(ii) A regression discontinuity design 

study assigns the project component 

being evaluated using a measured 

variable (e.g., assigning students reading 

below a cutoff score to tutoring or 

developmental education classes) and 

controls for that variable in the analysis 

of outcomes. 

(iii) A single-case design study uses 

observations of a single case (e.g., a 

student eligible for a behavioral 

intervention) over time in the absence 

and presence of a controlled treatment 

manipulation to determine whether the 

outcome is systematically related to the 

treatment. 

Logic model (also referred to as a 

theory of action) means a framework 

that identifies key project components 

of the proposed project (i.e., the active 

‘‘ingredients’’ that are hypothesized to 

be critical to achieving the relevant 

outcomes) and describes the theoretical 

and operational relationships among the 

key project components and relevant 

outcomes. 

Moderate evidence means that there is 

evidence of effectiveness of a key 

project component in improving a 

relevant outcome for a sample that 

overlaps with the populations or 

settings proposed to receive that 

component, based on a relevant finding 

from one of the following: 

(i) A practice guide prepared by the 

WWC using version 2.1 or 3.0 of the 

WWC Handbook reporting a ‘‘strong 

evidence base’’ or ‘‘moderate evidence 

base’’ for the corresponding practice 

guide recommendation; 

(ii) An intervention report prepared 

by the WWC using version 2.1 or 3.0 of 

the WWC Handbook reporting a 

‘‘positive effect’’ or ‘‘potentially positive 

effect’’ on a relevant outcome based on 

a ‘‘medium to large’’ extent of evidence, 

with no reporting of a ‘‘negative effect’’ 

or ‘‘potentially negative effect’’ on a 

relevant outcome; or 

(iii) A single experimental study or 

quasi-experimental design study 

reviewed and reported by the WWC 

using version 2.1 or 3.0 of the WWC 

Handbook, or otherwise assessed by the 

Department using version 3.0 of the 

WWC Handbook, as appropriate, and 

that— 

(A) Meets WWC standards with or 

without reservations; 

(B) Includes at least one statistically 

significant and positive (i.e., favorable) 

effect on a relevant outcome; 

(C) Includes no overriding statistically 

significant and negative effects on 

relevant outcomes reported in the study 

or in a corresponding WWC 

intervention report prepared under 

version 2.1 or 3.0 of the WWC 

Handbook; and 

(D) Is based on a sample from more 

than one site (e.g., State, county, city, 

school district, or postsecondary 

campus) and includes at least 350 

students or other individuals across 

sites. Multiple studies of the same 

project component that each meet 

requirements in paragraphs (iii)(A), (B), 

and (C) of this definition may together 

satisfy this requirement. 

Project component means an activity, 

strategy, intervention, process, product, 

practice, or policy included in a project. 

Evidence may pertain to an individual 

project component or to a combination 

of project components (e.g., training 

teachers on instructional practices for 

English learners and follow-on coaching 

for these teachers). 

Promising evidence means that there 

is evidence of the effectiveness of a key 

project component in improving a 

relevant outcome, based on a relevant 

finding from one of the following: 

(i) A practice guide prepared by WWC 

reporting a ‘‘strong evidence base’’ or 

‘‘moderate evidence base’’ for the 

corresponding practice guide 

recommendation; 

(ii) An intervention report prepared 

by the WWC reporting a ‘‘positive 

effect’’ or ‘‘potentially positive effect’’ 

on a relevant outcome with no reporting 

of a ‘‘negative effect’’ or ‘‘potentially 

negative effect’’ on a relevant outcome; 

or 

(iii) A single study assessed by the 

Department, as appropriate, that— 

(A) Is an experimental study, a quasiexperimental design study, or a welldesigned and well-implemented 

correlational study with statistical 

controls for selection bias (e.g., a study 

using regression methods to account for 

differences between a treatment group 

and a comparison group); and 

(B) Includes at least one statistically 

significant and positive (i.e., favorable) 

effect on a relevant outcome. 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1
31960 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 132 / Tuesday, July 10, 2018 / Notices 

Quasi-experimental design study 

means a study using a design that 

attempts to approximate an 

experimental study by identifying a 

comparison group that is similar to the 

treatment group in important respects. 

This type of study, depending on design 

and implementation (e.g., establishment 

of baseline equivalence of the groups 

being compared), can meet WWC 

standards with reservations, but cannot 

meet WWC standards without 

reservations, as described in the WWC 

Handbook. 

Relevant outcome means the student 

outcome(s) or other outcome(s) the key 

project component is designed to 

improve, consistent with the specific 

goals of the program. 

Strong evidence means that there is 

evidence of the effectiveness of a key 

project component in improving a 

relevant outcome for a sample that 

overlaps with the populations and 

settings proposed to receive that 

component, based on a relevant finding 

from one of the following: 

(i) A practice guide prepared by the 

WWC using version 2.1 or 3.0 of the 

WWC Handbook reporting a ‘‘strong 

evidence base’’ for the corresponding 

practice guide recommendation; 

(ii) An intervention report prepared 

by the WWC using version 2.1 or 3.0 of 

the WWC Handbook reporting a 

‘‘positive effect’’ on a relevant outcome 

based on a ‘‘medium to large’’ extent of 

evidence, with no reporting of a 

‘‘negative effect’’ or ‘‘potentially 

negative effect’’ on a relevant outcome; 

or 

(iii) A single experimental study 

reviewed and reported by the WWC 

using version 2.1 or 3.0 of the WWC 

Handbook, or otherwise assessed by the 

Department using version 3.0 of the 

WWC Handbook, as appropriate, and 

that— 

(A) Meets WWC standards without 

reservations; 

(B) Includes at least one statistically 

significant and positive (i.e., favorable) 

effect on a relevant outcome; 

(C) Includes no overriding statistically 

significant and negative effects on 

relevant outcomes reported in the study 

or in a corresponding WWC 

intervention report prepared under 

version 2.1 or 3.0 of the WWC 

Handbook; and 

(D) Is based on a sample from more 

than one site (e.g., State, county, city, 

school district, or postsecondary 

campus) and includes at least 350 

students or other individuals across 

sites. Multiple studies of the same 

project component that each meet 

requirements in paragraphs (iii)(A), (B), 

and (C) of this definition may together 

satisfy this requirement. 

What Works Clearinghouse Handbook 

(WWC Handbook) means the standards 

and procedures set forth in the WWC 

Procedures and Standards Handbook, 

Version 3.0 or Version 2.1 (incorporated 

by reference, see 34 CFR 77.2). Study 

findings eligible for review under WWC 

standards can meet WWC standards 

without reservations, meet WWC 

standards with reservations, or not meet 

WWC standards. WWC practice guides 

and intervention reports include 

findings from systematic reviews of 

evidence as described in the Handbook 

documentation. 

Waiver of Proposed Rulemaking: 

Under the Administrative Procedure Act 

(APA) (5 U.S.C. 553) the Department 

generally offers interested parties the 

opportunity to comment on proposed 

priorities and requirements. Section 

681(d) of IDEA, however, makes the 

public comment requirements of the 

APA inapplicable to the priority in this 

notice. 

Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1474 

and 1481. 

Applicable Regulations: (a) The 

Education Department General 

Administrative Regulations in 34 CFR 

parts 75, 77, 79, 81, 82, 84, 86, 97, 98, 

and 99. (b) The Office of Management 

and Budget Guidelines to Agencies on 

Governmentwide Debarment and 

Suspension (Nonprocurement) in 2 CFR 

part 180, as adopted and amended as 

regulations of the Department in 2 CFR 

part 3485. (c) The Uniform 

Administrative Requirements, Cost 

Principles, and Audit Requirements for 

Federal Awards in 2 CFR part 200, as 

adopted and amended as regulations of 

the Department in 2 CFR part 3474. 

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 education (IHEs) 

only. 

II. Award Information 

Type of Award: Cooperative 

agreement. 

Estimated Available Funds: $700,000. 

Contingent upon the availability of 

funds and the quality of applications, 

we may make additional awards in FY 

2019 from the list of unfunded 

applications from this competition. 

Maximum Award: We will not make 

an award exceeding $700,000 for a 

single budget period of 12 months. 

Estimated Number of Awards: 1. 

Note: The Department is not bound by any 

estimates in this notice. 

Project Period: Up to 60 months. 

III. Eligibility Information 

1. Eligible Applicants: State 

educational agencies; LEAs, including 

public charter schools that operate as 

LEAs under State law; IHEs; other 

public agencies; private nonprofit 

organizations; freely associated States 

and outlying areas; Indian Tribes or 

Tribal organizations; and for-profit 

organizations. 

2. Cost Sharing or Matching: This 

program does not require cost sharing or 

matching. 

3. Subgrantees: Under 34 CFR 

75.708(b) and (c) a grantee under this 

competition may award subgrants—to 

directly carry out project activities 

described in its application—to the 

following types of entities: IHEs and 

private nonprofit organizations suitable 

to carry out the activities proposed in 

the application. The grantee may award 

subgrants to entities it has identified in 

an approved application. 

4. Other General Requirements: (a) 

Recipients of funding under this 

competition must make positive efforts 

to employ and advance in employment 

qualified individuals with disabilities 

(see section 606 of IDEA). 

(b) Each applicant for, and recipient 

of, funding must, with respect to the 

aspects of their proposed project 

relating to the absolute priority, involve 

individuals with disabilities, or parents 

of individuals with disabilities ages 

birth through 26, in planning, 

implementing, and evaluating the 

project (see section 682(a)(1)(A) of 

IDEA). 

IV. Application and Submission 

Information 

1. Application Submission 

Instructions: For information on how to 

submit an application please refer to our 

Common Instructions for Applicants to 

Department of Education Discretionary 

Grant Programs, published in the 

Federal Register on February 12, 2018 

(83 FR 6003) and available at 

www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2018-02-12/ 

pdf/2018-02558.pdf. 

2. Intergovernmental Review: This 

competition is subject to Executive 

Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 

CFR part 79. However, under 34 CFR 

79.8(a), we waive intergovernmental 

review in order to make an award by the 

end of FY 2018. 

3. Funding Restrictions: We reference 

regulations outlining funding 

restrictions in the Applicable 

Regulations section of this notice. 

4. Recommended Page Limit: The 

application narrative is where you, the 

applicant, address the selection criteria 

that reviewers use to evaluate your 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 132 / Tuesday, July 10, 2018 / Notices 31961 

application. We recommend that you (1) 

limit the application narrative to no 

more than 70 pages, and (2) use the 

following standards: 

• A ‘‘page’’ is 8.5′′ x 11′′, on one side 

only, with 1′′ margins at the top, bottom, 

and both sides. 

• Double-space (no more than three 

lines per vertical inch) all text in the 

application narrative, including titles, 

headings, footnotes, quotations, 

reference citations, and captions, as well 

as all text in charts, tables, figures, 

graphs, and screen shots. 

• Use a font that is 12 point or larger. 

• Use one of the following fonts: 

Times New Roman, Courier, Courier 

New, or Arial. 

The recommended 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 

abstract (follow the guidance provided 

in the application package for 

completing the abstract), the table of 

contents, the list of priority 

requirements, the resumes, the reference 

list, the letters of support, or the 

appendices. However, the 

recommended page limit does apply to 

all of the application narrative, 

including all text in charts, tables, 

figures, graphs, and screen shots. 

V. Application Review Information 

1. Selection Criteria: The selection 

criteria for this competition are from 34 

CFR 75.210 and are as follows: 

(a) Significance (15 points). 

(1) The Secretary considers the 

significance of the proposed project. 

(2) In determining the significance of 

the proposed project, the Secretary 

considers the following factors: 

(i) 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; 

(ii) The potential contribution of the 

proposed project to increased 

knowledge or understanding of 

educational problems, issues, or 

effective strategies; 

(iii) The extent to which the proposed 

project is likely to build local capacity 

to provide, improve, or expand services 

that address the needs of the target 

population; and 

(iv) The potential replicability of the 

proposed project or strategies, 

including, as appropriate, the potential 

for implementation in a variety of 

settings. 

(b) Quality of project services (30 

points). 

(1) The Secretary considers the 

quality of the services to be provided by 

the proposed project. 

(2) In determining the quality of the 

services to be provided by the proposed 

project, the Secretary considers the 

quality and sufficiency of strategies for 

ensuring equal access and treatment for 

eligible project participants who are 

members of groups that have 

traditionally been underrepresented 

based on race, color, national origin, 

gender, age, or disability. 

(3) In addition, the Secretary 

considers the following factors: 

(i) The extent to which the goals, 

objectives, and outcomes to be achieved 

by the proposed project are clearly 

specified and measurable; 

(ii) The extent to which the design of 

the proposed project includes a 

thorough, high-quality review of the 

relevant literature, a high-quality plan 

for project implementation, and the use 

of appropriate methodological tools to 

ensure successful achievement of 

project objectives; 

(iii) The extent to which the design of 

the proposed project is appropriate to, 

and will successfully address, the needs 

of the target population or other 

identified needs; 

(iv) The extent to which the training 

or professional development services to 

be provided by the proposed project are 

of sufficient quality, intensity, and 

duration to lead to improvements in 

practice among the recipients of those 

services; 

(v) The extent to which the services 

to be provided by the proposed project 

involve the collaboration of appropriate 

partners for maximizing the 

effectiveness of project services; and 

(vi) The extent to which the technical 

assistance services to be provided by the 

proposed project involve the use of 

efficient strategies, including the use of 

technology, as appropriate, and the 

leveraging of non-project resources. 

(c) Quality of the project evaluation 

(20 points). 

(1) The Secretary considers the 

quality of the evaluation to be 

conducted of the proposed project. 

(2) In determining the quality of the 

evaluation, the Secretary considers the 

following factors: 

(i) The extent to which the methods 

of evaluation are thorough, feasible, and 

appropriate to the goals, objectives, and 

outcomes of the proposed project; 

(ii) The extent to which the methods 

of evaluation provide for examining the 

effectiveness of project implementation 

strategies; 

(iii) 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; 

(iv) The extent to which the methods 

of evaluation will provide performance 

feedback and permit periodic 

assessment of progress toward achieving 

intended outcomes; and 

(v) The extent to which the evaluation 

will provide guidance about effective 

strategies suitable for replication or 

testing in other settings. 

(d) Adequacy of project resources and 

quality of project personnel (15 points). 

(1) The Secretary considers the 

adequacy of resources and quality of 

project personnel for the proposed 

project. 

(2) 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. 

(3) In determining the adequacy of 

resources and quality of the project 

personnel for the proposed project, the 

Secretary considers the following 

factors: 

(i) The qualifications, including 

relevant training and experience, of the 

project director or principal 

investigator; 

(ii) The qualifications, including 

relevant training and experience, of key 

project personnel; 

(iii) The qualifications, including 

relevant training and experience, of 

project consultants or subcontractors; 

(iv) The adequacy of support, 

including facilities, equipment, 

supplies, and other resources, from the 

applicant organization or the lead 

applicant organization; 

(v) The relevance and demonstrated 

commitment of each partner in the 

proposed project to the implementation 

and success of the project; and 

(vi) The extent to which the costs are 

reasonable in relation to the objectives, 

design, and potential significance of the 

proposed project. 

(e) Quality of the management plan 

(20 points). 

(1) The Secretary considers the 

quality of the management plan for the 

proposed project. 

(2) In determining the quality of the 

management plan for the proposed 

project, the Secretary considers the 

following factors: 

(i) The adequacy of the management 

plan to achieve the objectives of the 

proposed project on time and within 

budget, including clearly defined 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1
31962 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 132 / Tuesday, July 10, 2018 / Notices 

responsibilities, timelines, and 

milestones for accomplishing project 

tasks; 

(ii) The adequacy of procedures for 

ensuring feedback and continuous 

improvement in the operation of the 

proposed project; 

(iii) 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; and 

(iv) How the applicant will ensure 

that a diversity of perspectives are 

brought to bear in the operation of the 

proposed project, including those of 

parents, teachers, the business 

community, a variety of disciplinary 

and professional fields, recipients or 

beneficiaries of services, or others, as 

appropriate. 

2. Review and Selection Process: We 

remind potential applicants that in 

reviewing applications in any 

discretionary grant competition, the 

Secretary may consider, under 34 CFR 

75.217(d)(3), the past performance of the 

applicant in carrying out a previous 

award, such as the applicant’s use of 

funds, achievement of project 

objectives, and compliance with grant 

conditions. The Secretary may also 

consider whether the applicant failed to 

submit a timely performance report or 

submitted a report of unacceptable 

quality. 

In addition, in making a competitive 

grant award, the Secretary requires 

various assurances, including those 

applicable to Federal civil rights laws 

that prohibit discrimination in programs 

or activities receiving Federal financial 

assistance from the Department of 

Education (34 CFR 100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 

108.8, and 110.23). 

3. Additional Review and Selection 

Process Factors: In the past, the 

Department has had difficulty finding 

peer reviewers for certain competitions 

because so many individuals who are 

eligible to serve as peer reviewers have 

conflicts of interest. The standing panel 

requirements under section 682(b) of 

IDEA also have placed additional 

constraints on the availability of 

reviewers. Therefore, the Department 

has determined that for some 

discretionary grant competitions, 

applications may be separated into two 

or more groups and ranked and selected 

for funding within specific groups. This 

procedure will make it easier for the 

Department to find peer reviewers by 

ensuring that greater numbers of 

individuals who are eligible to serve as 

reviewers for any particular group of 

applicants will not have conflicts of 

interest. It also will increase the quality, 

independence, and fairness of the 

review process, while permitting panel 

members to review applications under 

discretionary grant competitions for 

which they also have submitted 

applications. 

4. Risk Assessment and Specific 

Conditions: Consistent with 2 CFR 

200.205, before awarding grants under 

this competition the Department 

conducts a review of the risks posed by 

applicants. Under 2 CFR 3474.10, the 

Secretary may impose specific 

conditions and, in appropriate 

circumstances, high-risk conditions on a 

grant if the applicant or grantee is not 

financially stable; has a history of 

unsatisfactory performance; has a 

financial or other management system 

that does not meet the standards in 2 

CFR part 200, subpart D; has not 

fulfilled the conditions of a prior grant; 

or is otherwise not responsible. 

5. Integrity and Performance System: 

If you are selected under this 

competition to receive an award that 

over the course of the project period 

may exceed the simplified acquisition 

threshold (currently $150,000), under 2 

CFR 200.205(a)(2) we must make a 

judgment about your integrity, business 

ethics, and record of performance under 

Federal awards—that is, the risk posed 

by you as an applicant—before we make 

an award. In doing so, we must consider 

any information about you that is in the 

integrity and performance system 

(currently referred to as the Federal 

Awardee Performance and Integrity 

Information System (FAPIIS)), 

accessible through the System for 

Award Management. You may review 

and comment on any information about 

yourself that a Federal agency 

previously entered and that is currently 

in FAPIIS. 

Please note that, if the total value of 

your currently active grants, cooperative 

agreements, and procurement contracts 

from the Federal Government exceeds 

$10,000,000, the reporting requirements 

in 2 CFR part 200, Appendix XII, 

require you to report certain integrity 

information to FAPIIS semiannually. 

Please review the requirements in 2 CFR 

part 200, Appendix XII, if this grant 

plus all the other Federal funds you 

receive exceed $10,000,000. 

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); or we may send you an email 

containing a link to access an electronic 

version of your GAN. We may notify 

you informally, also. 

If your application is not evaluated or 

not selected for funding, we notify you. 

2. Administrative and National Policy 

Requirements: We identify 

administrative and national policy 

requirements in the application package 

and reference these and other 

requirements in the Applicable 

Regulations section of this notice. 

We reference the regulations outlining 

the terms and conditions of an award in 

the Applicable Regulations section of 

this notice and include these and other 

specific conditions in the GAN. The 

GAN also incorporates your approved 

application as part of your binding 

commitments under the grant. 

3. Open Licensing Requirements: 

Unless an exception applies, if you are 

awarded a grant under this competition, 

you will be required to openly license 

to the public grant deliverables created 

in whole, or in part, with Department 

grant funds. When the deliverable 

consists of modifications to pre-existing 

works, the license extends only to those 

modifications that can be separately 

identified and only to the extent that 

open licensing is permitted under the 

terms of any licenses or other legal 

restrictions on the use of pre-existing 

works. Additionally, a grantee or 

subgrantee that is awarded competitive 

grant funds must have a plan to 

disseminate these public grant 

deliverables. This dissemination plan 

can be developed and submitted after 

your application has been reviewed and 

selected for funding. For additional 

information on the open licensing 

requirements please refer to 2 CFR 

3474.20. 

4. Reporting: (a) If you apply for a 

grant under this competition, you must 

ensure that you have in place the 

necessary processes and systems to 

comply with the reporting requirements 

in 2 CFR part 170 should you receive 

funding under the competition. This 

does not apply if you have an exception 

under 2 CFR 170.110(b). 

(b) At the end of your project period, 

you must submit a final performance 

report, including financial information, 

as directed by the Secretary. If you 

receive a multiyear award, you must 

submit an annual performance report 

that provides the most current 

performance and financial expenditure 

information as directed by the Secretary 

under 34 CFR 75.118. The Secretary 

may also require more frequent 

performance reports under 34 CFR 

75.720(c). For specific requirements on 

reporting, please go to www.ed.gov/ 

fund/grant/apply/appforms/ 

appforms.html. 

5. Performance Measures: Under the 

Government Performance and Results 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 132 / Tuesday, July 10, 2018 / Notices 31963 

Act of 1993, the Department has 

established a set of performance 

measures, including long-term 

measures, that are designed to yield 

information on various aspects of the 

effectiveness and quality of the 

Educational Technology, Media, and 

Materials for Individuals with 

Disabilities program. These measures 

are: 

• Program Performance Measure #1: 

The percentage of Educational 

Technology, Media, and Materials 

Program products and services judged to 

be of high quality by an independent 

review panel of experts qualified to 

review the substantial content of the 

products and services. 

• Program Performance Measure #2: 

The percentage of Educational 

Technology, Media, and Materials 

Program products and services judged to 

be of high relevance to improving 

outcomes for infants, toddlers, children, 

and youth with disabilities. 

• Program Performance Measure #3: 

The percentage of Educational 

Technology, Media, and Materials 

Program products and services judged to 

be useful in improving results for 

infants, toddlers, children, and youth 

with disabilities. 

• Program Performance Measure #4.1: 

The Federal cost per unit of accessible 

educational materials funded by the 

Educational Technology, Media, and 

Materials Program. 

• Program Performance Measure #4.2: 

The Federal cost per unit of accessible 

educational materials from the National 

Instructional Materials Accessibility 

Center funded by the Educational 

Technology, Media, and Materials 

Program. 

• Program Performance Measure #4.3: 

The Federal cost per unit of video 

description funded by the Educational 

Technology, Media, and Materials 

Program. 

These measures apply to projects 

funded under this competition, and 

grantees are required to submit data on 

these measures as directed by OSEP. 

Grantees will be required to report 

information on their project’s 

performance in annual and final 

performance reports to the Department 

(34 CFR 75.590). 

6. Continuation Awards: In making a 

continuation award under 34 CFR 

75.253, the Secretary considers, among 

other things: Whether a grantee has 

made substantial progress in achieving 

the goals and objectives of the project; 

whether the grantee has expended funds 

in a manner that is consistent with its 

approved application and budget; and, 

if the Secretary has established 

performance measurement 

requirements, the performance targets in 

the grantee’s approved application. 

In making a continuation award, the 

Secretary also considers whether the 

grantee is operating in compliance with 

the assurances in its approved 

application, including those applicable 

to Federal civil rights laws that prohibit 

discrimination in programs or activities 

receiving Federal financial assistance 

from the Department (34 CFR 100.4, 

104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23). 

VII. 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 compact disc) by 

contacting the Management Support 

Services Team, U.S. Department of 

Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, 

Room 5113, Potomac Center Plaza, 

Washington, DC 20202–2500. 

Telephone: (202) 245–7363. If you use a 

TDD or a TTY, call the FRS, toll free, at 

1–800–877–8339. 

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 via the 

Federal Digital System at: www.gpo.gov/ 

fdsys. At this site you can view this 

document, as well as all other 

documents of this Department 

published in the Federal Register, in 

text or Portable Document Format 

(PDF). To use PDF you must have 

Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is 

available free at the site. 

You may also access documents of the 

Department published in the Federal 

Register by using the article search 

feature at: www.federalregister.gov. 

Specifically, through the advanced 

search feature at this site, you can limit 

your search to documents published by 

the Department. 

Dated: July 3, 2018. 

Johnny W. Collett, 

Assistant Secretary for Special Education and 

Rehabilitative Services. 

[FR Doc. 2018–14692 Filed 7–9–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission 

Combined Notice of Filings 

Take notice that the Commission has 

received the following Natural Gas 

Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings: 

Filings Instituting Proceedings 

Docket Numbers: RP18–556–001. 

Applicants: Southern Natural Gas 

Company, L.L.C. 

Description: Compliance filing Rate 

Case Settlement—Aphabetize GT&C 

Definitions & Remove Sec 33 

Compliance to be effective 8/28/2018. 

Filed Date: 6/29/18. 

Accession Number: 20180629–5043. 

Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/11/18. 

Docket Numbers: RP18–921–000. 

Applicants: Natural Gas Pipeline 

Company of America. 

Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: 

Amendment to Negotiated Rate 

Agreement-Peoples Gas Light and Coke 

to be effective 7/1/2018. 

Filed Date: 6/29/18. 

Accession Number: 20180629–5001. 

Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/11/18. 

Docket Numbers: RP18–922–000. 

Applicants: Trailblazer Pipeline 

Company LLC. 

Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: TPC 

Section 4 Rate Case Filing to be effective 

8/1/2018. 

Filed Date: 6/29/18. 

Accession Number: 20180629–5003. 

Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/11/18. 

Docket Numbers: RP18–923–000. 

Applicants: Enable Mississippi River 

Transmission, LLC. 

Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: MRT 

Rate Case 2018 to be effective 8/1/2018. 

Filed Date: 6/29/18. 

Accession Number: 20180629–5004. 

Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/11/18. 

Docket Numbers: RP18–925–000. 

Applicants: ANR Pipeline Company. 

Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: ANR 

TVA Negotiated Rate Amendment to be 

effective 6/29/2018. 

Filed Date: 6/29/18. 

Accession Number: 20180629–5033. 

Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/11/18. 

Docket Numbers: RP18–926–000. 

Applicants: Guardian Pipeline, L.L.C. 

Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: Update 

to Reservation of Capacity to be effective 

7/30/2018. 

Filed Date: 6/29/18. 

Accession Number: 20180629–5050. 

Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/11/18. 

Docket Numbers: RP18–927–000. 

Applicants: Destin Pipeline Company, 

L.L.C. 

Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: Destin 

Negotiated Rate to be effective 8/1/2018. 

Filed Date: 6/29/18. 

Accession Number: 20180629–5063. 

Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/11/18. 

Docket Numbers: RP18–928–000. 

Applicants: Texas Eastern 

Transmission, LP. 

Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: 

Negotiated Rate—Direct Energy 8951931 

eff 7–1–2018 to be effective 7/1/2018. 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1