Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 135 / Friday, July 13, 2018 / Notices 32651 

effectiveness and quality of the 

Personnel Development to Improve 

Services and Results for Children with 

Disabilities program. These measures 

include: (1) The percentage of 

preparation programs that incorporate 

scientifically- or evidence-based 

practices in their curricula; (2) the 

percentage of scholars completing 

Personnel Preparation funded training 

programs who are knowledgeable and 

skilled in evidence-based practices for 

children with disabilities; (3) the 

percentage of scholars who exit training 

programs prior to completion due to 

poor academic performance; (4) the 

percentage of degree/certification 

recipients who are working in the 

area(s) for which they are trained upon 

program completion; and (5) the Federal 

cost per scholar who completed the 

preparation program. 

In addition, the Department will 

gather information on the following 

outcome measures: (1) The percentage 

of scholars who completed the 

preparation program and are employed 

in high-need districts; (2) the percentage 

of scholars who completed the 

preparation program and are employed 

in the field of special education for at 

least two years; and (3) the percentage 

of scholars who completed the 

preparation program and who are rated 

effective by their employers. 

Grantees may be asked to participate 

in assessing and providing information 

on these aspects of program quality. 

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 10, 2018. 

Johnny W. Collett, 

Assistant Secretary for Special Education and 

Rehabilitative Services. 

[FR Doc. 2018–15055 Filed 7–12–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

Applications for New Awards; 

Technical Assistance and 

Dissemination To Improve Services 

and Results for Children With 

Disabilities—Model Demonstration 

Projects To Improve Academic 

Outcomes of Students With Intellectual 

Disabilities in Elementary and Middle 

School 

AGENCY: Office of Special Education and 

Rehabilitative Services, Department of 

Education. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Education 

is issuing a notice inviting applications 

for a new award for fiscal year (FY) 2018 

for Technical Assistance and 

Dissemination to Improve Services and 

Results for Children with Disabilities— 

Model Demonstration Projects to 

Improve Academic Outcomes of 

Students with Intellectual Disabilities in 

Elementary and Middle School, Catalog 

of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) 

number 84.326M. 

DATES: 

Applications Available: July 13, 2018. 

Deadline for Transmittal of 

Applications: August 13, 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: 

Kristen Rhoads, U.S. Department of 

Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, 

Room 5142, Potomac Center Plaza, 

Washington, DC 20202–5108. 

Telephone: (202) 245–6715. Email: 

Kristen.Rhoads@ed.gov. 

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 purpose of 

the Technical Assistance and 

Dissemination to Improve Services and 

Results for Children with Disabilities 

program is to promote academic 

achievement and to improve results for 

children with disabilities by providing 

technical assistance (TA), supporting 

model demonstration projects, 

disseminating useful information, and 

implementing activities that are 

supported by scientifically based 

research. 

Priorities: This notice includes one 

absolute priority. In accordance with 34 

CFR 75.105(b)(2)(v), the absolute 

priority, and the competitive preference 

priority within this absolute priority, are 

from allowable activities specified in 

the statute or otherwise authorized in 

the statute (see sections 663 and 681(d) 

of the Individuals with Disabilities 

Education Act (IDEA); 20 U.S.C. 1463, 

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: 

Model Demonstration Projects to 

Improve Academic Outcomes of 

Students with Intellectual Disabilities in 

Elementary and Middle School. 

Background: The mission of the 

Office of Special Education and 

Rehabilitative Services (OSERS) is to 

improve early childhood, educational, 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
32652 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 135 / Friday, July 13, 2018 / Notices 

1For this competition, having an IEP with 

intellectual disability as a primary or secondary 

disability category is not required to be a student 

with an intellectual disability. 

and employment outcomes and raise 

expectations for all people with 

disabilities, their families, their 

communities, and the Nation. 

Model demonstrations to improve 

early intervention, educational, or 

transitional results for students with 

disabilities have been authorized under 

the Individuals with Disabilities 

Education Act (IDEA) since the law’s 

inception. For the purposes of this 

priority, a model is a set of existing 

evidence-based (as defined in this 

notice) interventions and 

implementation strategies (i.e., core 

model components) that research 

suggests will improve outcomes for 

children, teachers, instructional 

personnel, school or district leaders, or 

systems, when implemented with 

fidelity. Model demonstrations involve 

investigating the degree to which a 

given model can be implemented and 

sustained in typical settings, by staff 

employed in those settings, while 

achieving outcomes similar to those 

attained under research conditions. 

The purpose of this priority is to fund 

three cooperative agreements to 

establish and operate model 

demonstration projects that will assess 

how models can: 

(a) Improve outcomes in English 

Language Arts, including literacy, and 

other academic subjects for students 

with intellectual disabilities 1 in 

elementary or middle schools; 

(b) Align instruction to grade-level, 

State-adopted content standards and 

provide access to the general education 

curriculum; 

(c) Provide students with intellectual 

disabilities the opportunity to meet 

challenging objectives and receive an 

individualized education program (IEP) 

that is both meaningful and 

appropriately ambitious in light of each 

student’s circumstances; and 

(d) Be implemented and sustained by 

educators in both general and special 

education settings. 

On March 22, 2017, the U.S. Supreme 

Court (the Court) issued a unanimous 

opinion in Endrew F. v. Douglas County 

School District Re–1, 137 S. Ct. 988 

(2017). The Court interpreted the scope 

of the free appropriate public education 

(FAPE) requirements in IDEA and 

overturned the Tenth Circuit’s decision 

that Endrew, a child with autism, was 

entitled to an educational benefit that 

was guaranteed to provide only ‘‘merely 

more than de minimis’’ progress. The 

Court determined that, ‘‘[t]o meet its 

substantive obligation under the IDEA, 

a school must offer an IEP reasonably 

calculated to enable a child to make 

progress appropriate in light of the 

child’s circumstances.’’ The Court 

additionally emphasized the 

requirement that ‘‘every child should 

have the chance to meet challenging 

objectives.’’ This decision underlines 

the importance of exploring models 

focused on improving academic 

outcomes for students with intellectual 

disabilities, a population frequently 

subject to low expectations and held to 

low standards. 

A growing research base indicates that 

students with intellectual disabilities 

demonstrate gains in reading at the 

same rate as their peers despite 

demonstrating significantly lower levels 

of overall performance (Schulte, 

Stevens, Elliott, Tindal, & Nese, 2016). 

Promising strategies, practices (e.g., 

embedded trial instruction with time 

delay, peer tutoring, direct instruction, 

systematic prompting with feedback, 

and more), and curricula exist that 

support academic instruction and 

improve student outcomes in literacy 

and other academic content areas 

(Browder, Mims, Spooner, & AhlgrimDelzell, & Lee, 2008; Butler, Miller, Lee, 

& Pierce, 2001; Jimenez, Browder, 

Spooner, & DiBiase, 2012; Hudson, 

Browder, & Wood, 2013; Lemons, Allor, 

Al Otaiba, & LeJune, 2016). 

Instruction of students with 

intellectual disabilities, however, has 

not typically provided them with the 

chance to meet challenging objectives. 

Instead of teaching grade-level content 

that meets State standards, instruction 

for students with intellectual disabilities 

has been typically limited to nonacademic functional life skills. For 

example, literacy instruction for 

students with intellectual disabilities 

has historically focused on only one 

component of literacy development— 

recognition of sight words considered 

important for daily living (Browder, 

Wakeman, Spooner, Ahlgrim-Delzell, & 

Algozzine, 2006). 

Further, teachers have reported 

difficulties in aligning instruction to 

grade-level academic content standards 

for students with intellectual disabilities 

(Jimenez & Henderson, 2011). This is 

due, in part, to the reality that, when 

compared to their peers, these students 

may have greatly divergent levels of 

functional and academic skill 

attainment, may require significant 

modifications and individualization of 

the curriculum, need differing modes of 

access to content and instruction, or 

need additional time for learning (Allor, 

Mathes, Roberts, Cheatham, & 

Champlin, 2010). 

To overcome this history and these 

challenges, to ensure that students with 

intellectual disabilities in elementary 

and middle schools receive appropriate 

access to challenging objectives and 

grade-level academic standards, and to 

ensure that these students progress in 

the general education curriculum, with 

accompanying services and supports as 

required under IDEA, educators must 

have access to evidence-based practices 

on instruction in academic subjects, 

particularly English Language Arts, 

including literacy. This competition, 

therefore, aims to fund model 

demonstration projects that will 

demonstrate and refine methods of 

professional development that result in 

educators successfully implementing 

appropriate, evidence-based practices in 

English Language Arts, including 

literacy, and other academic subjects. 

The model demonstration projects 

proposed under this priority must make 

use of evidence-based practices. 

This priority is consistent with two 

priorities from the Supplemental 

Priorities and Definitions for 

Discretionary Grant Programs, 

published in the Federal Register on 

March 2, 2018 (83 FR 9096) 

(Supplemental Priorities): Priority 5— 

Meeting the Unique Needs of Students 

and Children With Disabilities and/or 

Those With Unique Gifts and Talents; 

and Supplemental Priority 8— 

Promoting Effective Instruction in 

Classrooms and Schools. In particular, 

priority 5 from the Supplemental 

Priorities emphasizes meeting the 

unique needs of students with 

disabilities, including their academic 

needs, through offering the opportunity 

to meet challenging objectives and 

receive an educational program that is 

both meaningful and appropriately 

ambitious in light of each student’s 

circumstances. Priority 8 from the 

Supplemental Priorities emphasizes 

promoting innovative strategies to 

increase the number of students who 

have access to effective educators and 

principals or other school leaders. 

Priority: The purpose of this priority 

is to fund three cooperative agreements 

to establish and operate model 

demonstration projects. The proposed 

model demonstration projects must 

address instruction that improves 

outcomes in English Language Arts, 

including literacy, for students with 

intellectual disabilities, and may 

include instruction in other academic 

subjects. The model demonstration 

projects will assess how models can: 

(a) Improve outcomes in English 

Language Arts, including literacy, and 

other academic subjects for students 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 135 / Friday, July 13, 2018 / Notices 32653 

2Applicants must ensure the confidentiality of 

individual student data, consistent with the 

Confidentiality of Information regulations under 

both Part B and Part C of IDEA, which incorporate 

requirements and exceptions under section 444 of 

the General Education Provisions Act (20 U.S.C. 

1232g), commonly known as the ‘‘Family 

Educational Rights and Privacy Act’’ (FERPA), but 

also include several provisions that are specifically 

related to children with disabilities receiving 

services under IDEA and provide protections 

beyond the FERPA regulations. Therefore, 

examining the IDEA requirements first is the most 

effective and efficient way to meet the requirements 

of both IDEA and FERPA for children with 

disabilities. Applicants should also be aware of 

State laws or regulations concerning the 

confidentiality of individual records. See https://

www2.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/ptac/pdf/ideaferpa.pdf and https://studentprivacy.ed.gov/ 

resources/ferpaidea-cross-walk. Final FERPA 

regulatory changes became effective January 3, 

2012, and include requirements for data sharing. 

Applicants are encouraged to review the final 

FERPA regulations published on December 2, 2011 

(76 FR 75604). Questions can be sent to the Family 

Policy Compliance Office (www.ed.gov/fpco) at 

(202) 260–3887 or FERPA@ed.gov. 

3For factors to consider when selecting model 

demonstration sites, the applicant should refer to 

Assessing Sites for Model Demonstration: Lessons 

Learned for OSEP Grantees at http://mdcc.sri.com/ 

documents/MDCC_Site_Assessment_Brief_09-30- 

11.pdf. The document also contains a site 

assessment tool. 

4For factors to consider while preparing for 

model demonstration implementation, the 

applicant should refer to Preparing for Model 

Demonstration Implementation at http://

mdcc.sri.com/documents/MDCC_PreparationStage_

Brief_Apr2013.pdf. 

5For a guide on documenting model 

demonstration sustainment and replication, the 

applicant should refer to Planning for Replication 

and Dissemination From the Start: Guidelines for 

Model Demonstration Projects Revised at http://

mdcc.sri.com/documents/MDCC_ReplicationBrief_

SEP2015.pdf. 

with intellectual disabilities in 

elementary or middle schools; 

(b) Align instruction to grade-level, 

State-adopted content standards and 

provide access to the general education 

curriculum; 

(c) Provide students with intellectual 

disabilities the opportunity to meet 

challenging objectives and receive an 

IEP that is both meaningful and 

appropriately ambitious in light of each 

student’s circumstances; and 

(d) Be implemented and sustained by 

educators in both general and special 

education settings. Applicants must 

propose models that meet the following 

requirements: 

(a) The model’s core intervention 

components must include: 

(1) A framework that includes, at a 

minimum, assessment, incorporating 

approaches for measuring student 

progress, and the application of 

evidence-based core instructional 

practices; 

(2) Evidence-based instructional 

practices for improving outcomes in 

English Language Arts, including 

literacy, or other academic subjects, as 

appropriate, for students with 

intellectual disabilities in elementary or 

middle school that are designed to— 

(i) Help students meet challenging 

objectives; and 

(ii) Support comprehensive, 

standards-aligned instruction in gradelevel content. 

(3) Valid and reliable measures of 

student-level, instructor-level, and 

system-level outcomes, using 

standardized measures when applicable; 

(4) Procedures to refine the model 

based on the ongoing assessment of 

student-level, instructor-level, and 

system-level performance; and 

(5) Measures of the model’s social 

validity, i.e., measures of educators’, 

parents’, and students’ 2 satisfaction 

with the model components, processes, 

and outcomes. 

(b) The model’s core implementation 

components must include: 

(1) Criteria and strategies for 

selecting 3 and recruiting sites, 

including approaches to introducing the 

model to, and promoting the model 

among, site participants,4 with 

consideration given to the following 

criteria: 

(i) Each project must include at least 

three elementary or at least three middle 

schools; and 

(ii) In each of the schools, all of the 

students participating in the model 

demonstration project must have an 

intellectual disability, as defined in this 

notice. Across all implementation sites, 

the project must serve no fewer than 50 

students with intellectual disabilities; 

(2) A lag site implementation design, 

which allows for model development 

and refinement at the first site in year 

one of the project period, with sites two 

and three implementing a revised model 

based on data from the first site 

beginning in subsequent project years. 

Note: When designing the project, 

applicants should consider project period 

length as well as relevant research indicating 

that learning may take longer for students 

with intellectual disabilities (Allor et al., 

2010) and provide strong justification for 

timing of implementation for sites two and 

three. 

(3) A professional development 

component that includes an evidencebased coaching strategy, to enable sitebased staff to implement the 

interventions with fidelity; and 

(4) Measures of the results of the 

professional development (e.g., 

improvements in teachers’/service 

providers’ knowledge) required by 

paragraph (b)(3) of this section, 

including measures of the fidelity of 

implementation. 

(c) The core strategies for sustaining 

the model must include: 

(1) Documentation that permits 

current and future site-based staff to 

replicate or appropriately tailor and 

sustain the model at any site; 5 and 

(2) Strategies for the grantee to 

disseminate or promote the use of the 

model, such as developing easily 

accessible online training materials, 

coordinating with TA providers who 

might serve as future trainers, or 

providing technical support (e.g., 

webinars, training sessions, or 

workshops) for users who may want to 

learn about and implement the model 

and its components. 

To be considered for funding under 

this absolute priority, applicants must 

meet the application requirements 

contained in this priority. Each project 

funded under this absolute priority also 

must meet the programmatic and 

administrative requirements specified in 

the priority. 

Application Requirements 

An applicant must include in its 

application— 

(a) A detailed review of the literature 

addressing the proposed model or its 

intervention or implementation 

components and processes to improve 

access to challenging objectives and 

grade-level content, and improve 

outcomes, in English Language Arts, 

including literacy, and other academic 

subjects, as appropriate, for students 

with intellectual disabilities in 

elementary or middle school; 

(b) A logic model (as defined in this 

notice) that depicts, at a minimum, the 

goals, activities, outputs, and outcomes 

(described in paragraph (a) under the 

heading Priority) of the proposed model 

demonstration project. 

Note: The following websites provide 

resources for constructing logic models: 

www.osepideasthatwork.org/logicModel and 

www.osepideasthatwork.org/resourcesgrantees/program-areas/ta-ta/tad-projectlogic-model-and-conceptual-framework. 

(c) A description of the activities and 

measures to be incorporated into the 

proposed model demonstration project 

(i.e., the project design) to improve 

access to grade-level content and 

improve outcomes in English Language 

Arts, including literacy, and other 

academic subjects, as appropriate, for 

students with intellectual disabilities, 

including a timeline of how and when 

the components are introduced within 

the model. A detailed and complete 

description must include the following: 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
32654 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 135 / Friday, July 13, 2018 / Notices 

6For the purposes of this priority, ‘‘schools 

identified for comprehensive support and 

improvement’’ means a statewide identified 

category of schools that includes (a) not less than 

the lowest-performing five percent of all schools 

receiving funds under this part in the State; (b) all 

public high schools in the State failing to graduate 

one-third or more of their students; (c) public 

schools in the State described under subsection 

1111(d)(3)(A)(i)(II) of the Elementary and Secondary 

Education Act of 1965, as amended by the Every 

Student Succeeds Act (ESEA); and (d) at the 

discretion of the State, additional statewide 

categories of schools, as defined in section 

1111(c)(4)(D)(i) of the ESEA. 

7For the purposes of this priority, ‘‘schools 

implementing targeted support and improvement 

plans’’ means a school that has developed and is 

implementing a school-level targeted support and 

improvement plan to improve student outcomes 

based on the indicators in the statewide 

accountability system as defined in section 

1111(d)(2) of the ESEA. 

(1) All the intervention components, 

including, at a minimum, those listed 

under paragraph (a) under the heading 

Priority. 

(2) The existing and proposed child, 

teacher, service provider, or system 

outcome measures and social validity 

measures. The measures should be 

described as completely as possible, 

referenced as appropriate, and included, 

when available, in Appendix A. 

(3) All the implementation 

components, including, at a minimum, 

those listed under paragraph (b) under 

the heading Priority. The existing or 

proposed implementation fidelity 

measures, including those measuring 

the fidelity of the professional 

development strategy, should be 

described as completely as possible, 

referenced as appropriate, and included, 

when available, in Appendix A. In 

addition, this description should 

include: 

(i) Demographics, including, at a 

minimum, the number of students with 

intellectual disabilities, their ages, and 

their grade levels (while ensuring 

confidentiality of individual data), at all 

implementation sites that have been 

identified and successfully recruited for 

the purposes of this application using 

the selection and recruitment strategies 

described in paragraph (b)(1) under the 

heading Priority; 

(ii) Whether the implementation sites 

are located in rural, urban, or suburban 

local educational agencies (LEAs) or are 

schools identified for comprehensive 

support and improvement 6 or schools 

implementing targeted support and 

improvement plans 7 under title I of the 

Elementary and Secondary Education 

Act of 1965 (ESEA), as amended by the 

Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA); 

and 

Note: Applicants are encouraged to 

identify, to the extent possible, the sites 

willing to participate in the applicant’s 

model demonstration. Final site selection 

will be determined in consultation with the 

Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) 

project officer following the kick-off meeting 

described in paragraph (e)(1) of these 

application requirements. 

(iii) The lag site implementation 

design for implementation consistent 

with the requirements in paragraph 

(b)(2) under the heading Priority. 

(4) All the strategies to promote 

sustaining and replicating the model, 

including, at a minimum, those listed 

under paragraph (c) under the heading 

Priority. 

(d) A description of the evaluation 

activities and measures to be 

incorporated into the proposed model 

demonstration project. A detailed and 

complete description must include: 

(1) A formative evaluation plan, 

consistent with the project’s logic 

model, that includes evaluation 

questions, source(s) of data, a timeline 

for data collection, and analysis plans. 

The plan must show how the outcome 

data (e.g., child, teacher, or systems 

measures, social validity) and 

implementation data (e.g., fidelity, 

effectiveness of professional 

development activities) will be used 

separately or in combination to improve 

the project during the performance 

period. These data will be reported in 

the Annual Performance Report (APR). 

The plan also must outline how these 

data will be reviewed by project staff, 

when they will be reviewed, and how 

they will be used during the course of 

the project to adjust the model or its 

implementation to increase the model’s 

usefulness, generalizability, and 

potential for sustainability; and 

(2) A summative evaluation plan, 

including a timeline, to collect and 

analyze data on positive changes to 

child, teacher, service provider, or 

system outcome measures over time or 

relative to comparison groups that can 

be reasonably attributable to project 

activities. The plan must show how the 

child, teacher, service provider, or 

system outcome and implementation 

data collected by the project will be 

used separately or in combination to 

demonstrate the promise of the model. 

(e) A budget for attendance at the 

following: 

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

meeting to be held in Washington, DC, 

after receipt of the award; 

(2) A three-day Project Directors’ 

Conference in Washington, DC, 

occurring twice during the project 

performance period; and 

(3) Four travel days spread across 

years two through four of the project 

period to attend planning meetings, 

Department briefings, Departmentsponsored conferences, and other 

meetings, as requested by OSEP, to be 

held in Washington, DC. 

Other Project Activities: To meet the 

requirements of this priority, each 

project, at a minimum, must: 

(a) Communicate and collaborate on 

an ongoing basis with other Departmentfunded projects, including, at minimum, 

OSEP-funded TA centers that might 

disseminate information on the model 

or support the scale-up efforts of a 

promising model; 

(b) Maintain ongoing telephone and 

email communication with the OSEP 

project officer and the other model 

demonstration projects funded under 

this priority; and 

(c) If the project maintains a website, 

include relevant information about the 

model, the intervention, and the 

demonstration activities that meets 

government- or industry-recognized 

standards for accessibility. 

Competitive Preference Priority: 

Within this absolute priority, we give 

competitive preference to applications 

that address the following priority. 

Under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i), we award 

an additional two points to an 

application that meets this priority. 

The priority is: 

Promising Evidence Supporting the 

Proposed Model (Two Points). 

Projects that are supported by 

evidence that meets the conditions set 

out in the definition of ‘‘promising 

evidence’’ (as defined in this notice). 

The application must include: 

A literature review, as required under 

paragraph (a) under the heading 

Application Requirements, that includes 

research that meets at least the 

promising evidence standard supporting 

the proposed model, its components, 

and processes to improve academic 

grade-level content, particularly English 

Language Arts, and academic outcomes 

for students with intellectual disabilities 

in elementary or middle school. 

Note: An applicant addressing this 

competitive preference priority must identify 

at least one, but no more than two, study 

citations that meet this standard and must 

clearly mark them in the reference list of the 

proposal. 

References 

Allor, J.H., Mathes, P.G., Roberts, J.K., 

Cheatham, J.P., & Champlin, T.M. (2010). 

Comprehensive reading instruction for 

students with intellectual disabilities: 

Findings from the first three years of a 

longitudinal study. Psychology in the 

Schools, 47(5), 445–466. 

Browder, D.M., Mims, P.J., Spooner, F., 

Ahlgrim-Delzell, L., & Lee, A. (2008). 

Teaching elementary students with 

multiple disabilities to participate in 

shared stories. Research and Practice for 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 135 / Friday, July 13, 2018 / Notices 32655 

Persons with Severe Disabilities, 33(1–2), 

3–12. 

Browder, D.M., Wakeman, S.Y., Spooner, F., 

Ahlgrim-Delzell, L., & Algozzine, B. 

(2006). Research on reading instruction 

for individuals with significant cognitive 

disabilities. Exceptional Children, 72(4), 

392–408. 

Butler, F.M., Miller, S.P., Lee, K.H., & Pierce, 

T. (2001). Teaching mathematics to 

students with mild-to-moderate mental 

retardation: A review of the literature. 

Mental Retardation, 39(1), 20–31. 

Hudson, M.E., Browder, D.M., & Wood, L.A. 

(2013). Review of experimental research 

on academic learning by students with 

moderate and severe intellectual 

disability in general education. Research 

and Practice for Persons with Severe 

Disabilities, 38(1), 17–29. 

Individuals with Disabilities Education 

Improvement Act of 2004, Public Law 

108–446. (2004). 20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq. 

Jimenez, B.A., Browder, D.M., Spooner, F., & 

DiBiase, W. (2012). Inclusive inquiry 

science using peer-mediated embedded 

instruction for students with moderate 

intellectual disability. Exceptional 

Children, 78(3), 301–317. 

Jimenez, B. & Henderson, K. (2011). Math 

education: Students with significant 

cognitive disabilities—A PowerPoint 

presentation for professional 

development. Modules Addressing 

Special Education and Teacher 

Education (MAST). Greenville, NC: East 

Carolina University. 

Lemons, C.J., Allor, J.H., Al Otaiba, S., & 

LeJeune, L.M. (2016). 10 Research-Based 

Tips for Enhancing Literacy Instruction 

for Students With Intellectual Disability. 

TEACHING Exceptional Children, 49(1), 

18–30. 

Schulte, A.C., Stevens, J.J., Elliott, S.N., 

Tindal, G., & Nese, J.F. (2016). 

Achievement gaps for students with 

disabilities: Stable, widening, or 

narrowing on a statewide reading 

comprehension test? Journal of 

Educational Psychology, 108(7), 925– 

942. 

Definitions 

The following definitions are from 34 

CFR 77.1 or 34 CFR 300.8(c)(6): 

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. 

Intellectual disability means 

significantly subaverage general 

intellectual functioning, existing 

concurrently with deficits in adaptive 

behavior and manifested during the 

developmental period, that adversely 

affects a child’s educational 

performance. 

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 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
32656 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 135 / Friday, July 13, 2018 / Notices 

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. 

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 other requirements. 

Section 681(d) of IDEA, however, makes 

the public comment requirements of the 

APA inapplicable to the absolute 

priority and related definitions in this 

notice. 

Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1463 

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 higher education 

(IHEs) only. 

II. Award Information 

Type of Award: Cooperative 

agreements. 

Estimated Available Funds: 

$1,200,000. 

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. 

Estimated Range of Awards: $375,000 

to $400,000 per year. 

Estimated Average Size of Awards: 

$400,000 per year. 

Maximum Award: We will not make 

an award exceeding $400,000 for a 

single budget period of 12 months. 

Estimated Number of Awards: 3. 

Note: The Department is not bound by any 

estimates in this notice. 

Project Period: Up to 48 months. 

III. Eligibility Information 

1. Eligible Applicants: State 

educational agencies (SEAs); LEAs, 

including charter schools that are 

considered LEAs under State law; IHEs; 

other public agencies; private nonprofit 

organizations; outlying areas; freely 

associated States; 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) Applicants for, and recipients 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 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 135 / Friday, July 13, 2018 / Notices 32657 

CFR part 79. However, under 34 CFR 

79.8(a), we waive intergovernmental 

review in order to make awards 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 (Part III of the 

application) is where you, the applicant, 

address the selection criteria that 

reviewers use to evaluate your 

application. We recommend that you (1) 

limit the application narrative to no 

more than 50 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 potential contribution of the 

proposed project to increased 

knowledge or understanding of 

educational problems, issues, or 

effective strategies. 

(ii) 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. 

(iii) The importance or magnitude of 

the results or outcomes likely to be 

attained by the proposed project, 

especially improvements in teaching 

and student achievement. 

(iv) 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. 

(b) Quality of the project design (35 

points). 

(1) The Secretary considers the 

quality of the design of the proposed 

project. 

(2) In determining the quality of the 

design of the proposed project, 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 quality of the proposed 

demonstration design and procedures 

for documenting project activities and 

results. 

(iv) The extent to which the design for 

implementing and evaluating the 

proposed project will result in 

information to guide possible 

replication of project activities or 

strategies, including information about 

the effectiveness of the approach or 

strategies employed by the project. 

(v) The extent to which performance 

feedback and continuous improvement 

are integral to the design of the 

proposed project. 

(c) Adequacy of resources and quality 

of the management plan (25 points). 

(1) The Secretary considers the 

adequacy of resources and the quality of 

the management plan for the proposed 

project. 

(2) In determining the adequacy of 

resources and the quality of the 

management plan for the proposed 

project, the Secretary considers the 

following factors: 

(i) The adequacy of support, including 

facilities, equipment, supplies, and 

other resources, from the applicant 

organization or the lead applicant 

organization. 

(ii) The relevance and demonstrated 

commitment of each partner in the 

proposed project to the implementation 

and success of the 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. 

(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. 

(v) 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. 

(vi) The adequacy of mechanisms for 

ensuring high-quality products and 

services from the proposed project. 

(d) Quality of the project evaluation 

(25 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 will provide performance 

feedback and permit periodic 

assessment of progress toward achieving 

intended outcomes. 

(iii) The extent to which the methods 

of evaluation provide for examining the 

effectiveness of project implementation 

strategies. 

(iv) The extent to which the 

evaluation will provide guidance about 

effective strategies suitable for 

replication or testing in other settings. 

(v) 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. 

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 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
32658 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 135 / Friday, July 13, 2018 / Notices 

submit a timely performance report or 

submitted a report of unacceptable 

quality. 

In addition, in making a competitive 

grant award, the Secretary requires 

various assurances, including those 

applicable to Federal civil rights laws 

that prohibit discrimination in programs 

or activities receiving Federal financial 

assistance from the Department (34 CFR 

100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23). 

3. 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. 

(c) Under 34 CFR 75.250(b), the 

Secretary may provide a grantee with 

additional funding for data collection 

analysis and reporting. In this case the 

Secretary establishes a data collection 

period. 

5. Performance Measures: Under the 

Government Performance and Results 

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 Model 

Demonstration Projects to Improve 

Academic Outcomes of Students with 

Intellectual Disabilities in Elementary 

and Middle School under the Technical 

Assistance and Dissemination to 

Improve Services and Results for 

Children With Disabilities program. 

These measures are: 

• Current Program Performance 

Measure: The percentage of effective 

evidence-based program models 

developed by model demonstration 

projects that are promoted to States and 

their partners through the Technical 

Assistance and Dissemination Network. 

• Pilot Program Performance 

Measure: The percentage of effective 

program models developed by model 

demonstration projects that are 

sustained beyond the life of the model 

demonstration project. 

The current program performance 

measure and the pilot program 

performance measure apply to projects 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 135 / Friday, July 13, 2018 / Notices 32659 

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 10, 2018. 

Johnny W. Collett, 

Assistant Secretary for Special Education and 

Rehabilitative Services. 

[FR Doc. 2018–15054 Filed 7–12–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

[OE Docket No. EA–342–B] 

Application To Export Electric Energy; 

Royal Bank of Canada 

AGENCY: Office of Electricity, 

Department of Energy. 

ACTION: Notice of application. 

SUMMARY: Royal Bank of Canada 

(Applicant or RBC) has applied to renew 

its authority to transmit electric energy 

from the United States to Canada 

pursuant to the Federal Power Act. 

DATES: Comments, protests, or motions 

to intervene must be submitted on or 

before August 13, 2018. 

ADDRESSES: Comments, protests, 

motions to intervene, or requests for 

more information should be addressed 

to: Office of Electricity, Mail Code: OE– 

20, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 

Independence Avenue SW, Washington, 

DC 20585–0350. Because of delays in 

handling conventional mail, it is 

recommended that documents be 

transmitted by overnight mail, by 

electronic mail to Electricity.Exports@

hq.doe.gov, or by facsimile to 202–586– 

8008. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Department of Energy (DOE) regulates 

exports of electricity from the United 

States to a foreign country, pursuant to 

sections 301(b) and 402(f) of the 

Department of Energy Organization Act 

(42 U.S.C. §§ 7151(b) and 7172(f)). Such 

exports require authorization under 

section 202(e) of the Federal Power Act 

(16 U.S.C. § 824a(e)). 

On September 10, 2013, DOE issued 

Order No. EA–342–A to RBC, which 

authorized the Applicant to transmit 

electric energy from the United States to 

Canada, effective September 4, 2013, as 

a power marketer for a five-year term 

using existing international 

transmission facilities. That authority 

expires on September 4, 2018. On 

February 28, 2018, RBC filed an 

application with DOE for renewal of the 

export authority contained in Order No. 

EA–342–A for an additional five-year 

term. 

RBC’s application states that 

‘‘[n]either RBC nor any of its affiliates 

(collectively, the ‘RBC Companies’) 

owns, operates or controls any electric 

power transmission or distribution 

facilities in the United States,’’ and that 

‘‘[t]he RBC Companies also do not own, 

operate or control any electric 

generation assets.’’ Further, ‘‘[n]either 

RBC nor any of its affiliates holds a 

franchise or service territory for the 

transmission, distribution or sale of 

electric power.’’ The electric energy that 

RBC proposes to export to Canada 

would be surplus energy purchased 

from third parties such as electric 

utilities and Federal power marketing 

agencies pursuant to voluntary 

agreements. The existing international 

transmission facilities to be utilized by 

RBC have previously been authorized by 

Presidential permits issued pursuant to 

Executive Order 10485, as amended, 

and are appropriate for open access 

transmission by third parties. 

Procedural Matters: Any person 

desiring to be heard in this proceeding 

should file a comment or protest to the 

application at the address provided 

above. Protests should be filed in 

accordance with Rule 211 of the Federal 

Energy Regulatory Commission’s (FERC) 

Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 

385.211). Any person desiring to 

become a party to this proceeding 

should file a motion to intervene at the 

above address in accordance with FERC 

Rule 214 (18 CFR 385.214). Five (5) 

copies of such comments, protests, or 

motions to intervene should be sent to 

the address provided above on or before 

the date listed above. 

Comments and other filings 

concerning RBC’s application to export 

electric energy to Canada should be 

clearly marked with OE Docket No. EA– 

342–B. An additional copy is to be 

provided directly to both Chantal 

Marchese, Royal Bank of Canada, 200 

Bay Street, 10th Floor, North Tower, 

Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5J 2J5, and 

Marcus Chun, RBC Capital Markets, 200 

Bay Street, 9th Floor, South Tower, 

Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5J 2J2. 

A final decision will be made on this 

application after the environmental 

impacts have been evaluated pursuant 

to DOE’s National Environmental Policy 

Act Implementing Procedures (10 CFR 

part 1021) and after DOE determines 

that the proposed action will not have 

an adverse impact on the sufficiency of 

supply or reliability of the U.S. electric 

power supply system. 

Copies of this application will be 

made available, upon request, for public 

inspection and copying at the address 

provided above, by accessing the 

program website at http://energy.gov/ 

node/11845, or by emailing Angela Troy 

at Angela.Troy@hq.doe.gov. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES