Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 147 / Tuesday, July 31, 2018 / Notices 36915 

Transmittal No. 18–24 

Notice of Proposed Issuance of Letter of 

Offer Pursuant to Section 36(b)(1) of the 

Arms Export Control Act, as amended 

(i) Prospective Purchaser: Kingdom of 

Denmark 

(ii) Total Estimated Value: 

Major Defense Equipment * $75 million 

Other .................................... $15 million 

TOTAL .............................. $90 million 

(iii) Description and Quantity or 

Quantities of Articles or Services under 

Consideration for Purchase: 

Major Defense Equipment (MDE): 

Twenty-eight (28) AIM–120 C–7 

Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air 

Missiles (AMRAAM) 

One (1) AMRAAM Spare Guidance 

Section 

Non-MDE: Also included are missile 

containers, control section spares, 

weapon systems support, test 

equipment, spare and repair parts, 

publications and technical 

documentation, personnel training, 

training equipment, U.S. Government 

and contractor engineering, logistics, 

and technical support services, and 

other related elements of logistics and 

program support. 

(iv) Military Department: Air Force 

(DE–D–YAO) 

(v) Prior Related Cases, if any: DE–D– 

YAS (AIM–120B) 

(vi) Sales Commission, Fee, etc., Paid, 

Offered, or Agreed to be Paid: None 

(vii) Sensitivity of Technology 

Contained in the Defense Article or 

Defense Services 

Proposed to be Sold: See Attached 

Annex 

(viii) Date Report Delivered to 

Congress: July 10, 2018 

* As defined in Section 47(6) of the 

Arms Export Control Act. 

POLICY JUSTIFICATION 

Denmark—AIM–120 C–7 Advanced 

Medium Range Air-to-Air Missile 

(AMRAAM) 

The Government of Denmark has 

requested to buy twenty-eight (28) AIM– 

120 C–7 Advanced Medium Range Airto-Air Missiles (AMRAAM) and one (1) 

AMRAAM spare guidance section. Also 

included are missile containers, control 

section spares, weapon systems support, 

test equipment, spare and repair parts, 

publications and technical 

documentation, personnel training, 

training equipment, U.S. Government 

and contractor engineering, logistics, 

and technical support services, and 

other related elements of logistics and 

program support. The total estimated 

program cost is $90 million. 

This proposed sale will contribute to 

the foreign policy and national security 

of the United States by helping to 

improve the security of a NATO ally 

that is an important force for political 

stability and economic progress in the 

European region. 

This proposed sale would support 

Denmark’s F–16 and future F–35 fighter 

programs and enhance Denmark’s 

ability to provide for its own territorial 

defense and support coalition 

operations. The proposed sale also 

enables interoperability and 

standardization between the armed 

forces of Denmark and the United 

States. Denmark already maintains the 

AIM–120B in its inventory and will 

have no difficulty absorbing this 

additional equipment and support into 

its armed forces. 

The proposed sale of these systems 

and equipment will not alter the basic 

military balance in the region. 

The principal contractor will be 

Raytheon Cooperation in Tucson, 

Arizona. The purchaser has requested 

offsets. At this time, agreements are 

undetermined and will be defined in 

negotiations between the purchaser and 

contractor. 

Implementation of this proposed sale 

will not require the assignment of any 

additional U.S. Government or 

contractor representatives to Denmark. 

There will be no adverse impact on 

U.S. defense readiness as a result of this 

proposed sale. 

Transmittal No. 18–24 

Notice of Proposed Issuance of Letter of 

Offer Pursuant to Section 36(b)(1) of the 

Arms Export Control Act 

Annex 

Item No. vii 

(vii) Sensitivity of Technology: 

1. AIM–120C Advance Medium Range 

Air-to-Air (AMRAAM) is a radar-guided 

missile featuring digital technology and 

micro-miniature solid-state electronics. 

AMRAAM capabilities include lookdown/shoot-down, multiple launches 

against multiple targets, resistance to 

electronic counter measures, and 

interception of high flying and low 

flying and maneuvering targets. The 

AMRAAM All Up Round is classified 

CONFIDENTIAL, major components 

and subsystems range from 

UNCLASSIFIED to CONFIDENTIAL, 

and technology data and other 

documentation are classified up to 

SECRET. 

2. If a technologically advanced 

adversary were to obtain knowledge of 

the hardware and software elements, the 

information could be used to develop 

countermeasures or equivalent systems 

which might reduce system 

effectiveness or be used in the 

development of a system with similar or 

advanced capabilities. 

3. A determination has been made 

that Denmark can provide substantially 

the same degree of protection for the 

sensitive technology being released as 

the U.S. Government. This sale is 

necessary in furtherance of the U.S. 

foreign policy and national security 

objectives outlined in the Policy 

Justification. 

4. All defense articles and services 

listed in this transmittal have been 

authorized for release and export to 

Denmark. 

[FR Doc. 2018–16373 Filed 7–30–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 5001–06–P 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

Applications for New Awards; 

Technical Assistance and 

Dissemination To Improve Services 

and Results for Children With 

Disabilities—Technical Assistance and 

Dissemination Center on Improving 

Literacy Through Supporting 

Elementary School Leaders 

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 Technical Assistance 

and Dissemination to Improve Services 

and Results for Children With 

Disabilities—Technical Assistance and 

Dissemination Center on Improving 

Literacy through Supporting Elementary 

School Leaders, Catalog of Federal 

Domestic Assistance (CFDA) number 

84.326L. 

DATES: 

Applications Available: July 31, 2018. 

Deadline for Transmittal of 

Applications: August 30, 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. 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
36916 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 147 / Tuesday, July 31, 2018 / Notices 

1For more information about the Professional 

Standards for Educational Leaders, please see 

http://npbea.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/ 

PSEL-WebinarPowerPointSlides.pdf. 

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. 

Priority: In accordance with 34 CFR 

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

allowable activities specified in the 

statute (see sections 663 and 681(d) of 

the Individuals with Disabilities 

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

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: 

Technical Assistance and 

Dissemination Center on Improving 

Literacy through Supporting Elementary 

School Leaders. 

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. 

The National Reading Panel report 

(2000) and RAND report Reading for 

Understanding (Snow, 2001) have 

influenced reading instruction in the 

United States for the last two decades 

(Connor & Al Otaiba, 2015). During this 

time, reading instruction in the primary 

grades has improved by targeting 

important literacy skills highlighted in 

the reports and becoming more 

systematic in how these skills are taught 

(S. Baker, Fien, & Baker, 2010). 

Despite noted improvements in 

reading instruction, the gap between 

students with disabilities and their 

peers on the National Assessment of 

Educational Progress (NAEP) has 

increased in both fourth and eighth 

grades since 2009 (U.S. Department of 

Education, 2017). In addition, less than 

50 percent of teachers surveyed report 

that they adhere to their core reading 

curricula, and more than 60 percent of 

teachers report that they continue to use 

an ‘‘eclectic approach’’ combining 

different instructional methods for 

teaching reading (Kretlow & Helf, 2013). 

Kretlow and Helf also reported that 

most of the curricula teachers used had 

not been evaluated for impact on 

student learning. Also, according to the 

Schools and Staffing Survey 

(Rotermund, DeRoche, & Ottem, 2017), 

43 percent of teachers reported 

receiving no professional development 

on reading instruction in the last 12 

months. Further, in a separate survey, 

two-thirds of teachers reported receiving 

fewer than eight hours of professional 

development on reading instruction 

during the last year, an intensity 

unlikely to improve the quality of 

reading instruction that they provide or 

result in improved student outcomes 

(Wei, Darling-Hammond, & Adamson, 

2010; Yoon, Duncan, Lee, Scarloss, & 

Shapley, 2007). 

School leaders (as defined in this 

notice) have the ability to affect these 

trends, and research has clearly 

demonstrated the effects that they can 

have on the academic performance of 

their schools (Herman et al., 2017; 

Horng, Kalogrides, & Loeb, 2009; 

Leithwood, Seashore-Louis, Anderson, 

& Wahlstrom, 2004). The Professional 

Standards for Educational Leaders,1

developed by the National Policy Board 

for Educational Administration (2015), 

illustrate the variety of activities under 

the purview of school leaders. School 

leaders’ responsibilities include 

managing school operations and 

resources, including managing budgets, 

resources, and hiring personnel; 

overseeing curriculum, instruction, and 

assessment; striving for equity in 

educational opportunity for each 

student; developing the professional 

capacity and practice of school 

personnel; and engaging in internal and 

external relations including fostering a 

professional community of school 

personnel and engaging families and the 

community (Horng, Klasik, & Loeb, 

2010; National Policy Board for 

Educational Administration, 2015). 

School leaders’ organizational 

management activities, such as 

managing budget and resources and 

hiring staff, make the school 

organization work and provide support 

for teaching and learning (Grissom & 

Loeb, 2011). These types of activities, as 

well as school leaders spending more 

time on them, have shown consistent 

associations with positive student 

academic outcomes (Grissom & Loeb, 

2011). 

There have been mixed findings 

regarding the extent to which school 

leaders’ instruction-related activities, 

such as overseeing the curriculum and 

providing professional development for 

staff, are associated with improved 

student outcomes (Horng et al., 2010; 

Robinson, Lloyd, & Rowe, 2008). A 

number of possible explanations for this 

variation exist, including potential 

variation in the quantity of time spent 

on instructional management, the 

specific types of instruction-related 

activities school leaders engage in 

(Grissom, Loeb, & Master, 2013), and the 

quality of instructional management 

training received by school leaders. In 

particular, some researchers have 

argued that current training on 

instruction-related activities may be too 

narrow and may not include training in 

the organizational management skills 

that help school leaders target resources 

effectively in addressing the 

instructional needs of their students 

(Grissom & Loeb, 2011). 

The Center on Improving Literacy 

through Supporting Elementary School 

Leaders (the Center) will provide TA for 

school leaders on instructional content 

and leadership skills to improve teacher 

implementation of evidence-based (as 

defined in this notice) literacy practices 

and literacy skills of students with, or 

at risk for, literacy-related disabilities. 

Specifically, the Center will provide TA 

for LEAs and their school leaders on a 

variety of topics, namely: Providing 

professional development, including 

coaching, to their teachers and other 

instructional personnel on literacy; 

developing education programming 

related to literacy; allocating resources 

efficiently and effectively so that 

students with, or at risk for, literacyrelated disabilities have access to 

literacy instruction and interventions 

that meet their individual needs; and 

improving teacher implementation of 

evidence-based literacy instruction in 

their schools and, ultimately, literacy 

outcomes for their students with, or at 

risk for, literacy-related disabilities. The 

Center may build upon the work of, and 

collaborate with, other Department TA 

centers including the National Center on 

Improving Literacy, the National Center 

on Intensive Intervention, and the 

Center on Great Teachers and Leaders. 

The work of this Center will not 

duplicate work being conducted by 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 147 / Tuesday, July 31, 2018 / Notices 36917 

other Department TA Centers. This 

priority is consistent with the 

Secretary’s Final Supplemental 

Priorities and Definitions for 

Discretionary Grant Programs, 

published in the Federal Register on 

March 2, 2018 (83 FR 9096) 

(Supplemental Priorities): Supplemental 

Priority 5—Meeting the Unique Needs 

of Students and Children With 

Disabilities and/or Those With Unique 

Gifts and Talents; Supplemental Priority 

7—Promoting Literacy; and 

Supplemental Priority 8—Promoting 

Effective Instruction in Classrooms and 

Schools. 

Priority: 

The purpose of this priority is to fund 

a cooperative agreement to establish and 

operate a Center on Improving Literacy 

through Supporting Elementary School 

Leaders (Literacy through Leaders). The 

Center will provide targeted TA to 

school leaders on literacy skills and 

concepts (e.g., phonemic awareness, 

comprehension) and leadership skills 

(e.g., coaching, instructional 

management and programming, 

organizational management) related to 

improving teachers’ implementation of 

evidence-based literacy practices and 

literacy outcomes for their students 

with, or at risk for, literacy-related 

disabilities. The Center will support 

school leaders in recognizing evidencebased literacy practices for students 

with, or at risk for, literacy-related 

disabilities and facilitating the 

implementation of these practices 

through developing education 

programming and professional 

development efforts, including coaching 

teachers. The Center must achieve, at a 

minimum, the following expected 

outcomes: 

(a) Improved literacy achievement 

and skills of students with, or at risk for, 

literacy-related disabilities; 

(b) Improved capacity of school 

leaders for identifying and supporting 

the implementation of evidence-based 

literacy practices, including 

assessments, that improve teachers’ 

practices as well as literacy achievement 

and skills of students with, or at risk for, 

literacy-related disabilities; 

(c) Improved capacity of teachers and 

other instructional personnel to 

implement with fidelity evidence-based 

literacy practices, including 

assessments, that improve literacy 

achievement and skills of students with, 

or at risk for, literacy-related 

disabilities; 

(d) Improved quality of literacy 

instruction throughout the school; and 

(e) Reduction in the number of 

students inappropriately referred for 

special education and related services. 

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 of the Project,’’ how the 

proposed project will— 

(1) Address current and emerging 

needs of elementary school leaders to 

improve teacher implementation of 

evidence-based literacy practices and 

outcomes of their students with, or at 

risk for, literacy-related disabilities. To 

meet this requirement the applicant 

must— 

(i) Present applicable national, State, 

regional, or local data demonstrating the 

need to address elementary school 

leaders’ knowledge of evidence-based 

literacy practices and leadership skills 

with the goal of improving teacher 

implementation of evidence-based 

literacy practices and, ultimately, the 

literacy outcomes of their students with, 

or at risk for, literacy-related 

disabilities; 

(ii) Demonstrate knowledge of current 

educational issues and policy initiatives 

relating to implementing and sustaining 

professional learning practices and 

activities for elementary school leaders 

that have evidence for producing 

positive effects on teacher 

implementation of evidence-based 

literacy practices in their schools, 

students’ literacy achievement, or 

reducing the numbers of students 

inappropriately referred for needing 

special education and related services; 

and 

(iii) Present information about the 

current level of implementation of: 

(A) Practices and activities focused on 

improving leadership skills of 

elementary school leaders, including 

developing educational programming, 

allocating resources for instruction and 

intervention effectively and efficiently, 

and providing professional development 

to teachers in their schools; and 

(B) Evidence-based literacy 

instruction, intervention, and 

assessment for students with, or at risk 

for, literacy-related disabilities in 

elementary schools; 

(2) Improve elementary school 

leaders’ literacy-related knowledge and 

leadership skills; their schools’ literacyrelated core instruction, supplemental 

intervention, and assessment; and 

literacy-related outcomes for students 

with, or at risk for, disabilities and 

indicate the likely magnitude or 

importance of the improvements. 

(b) Demonstrate, in the narrative 

section of the application under 

‘‘Quality of the 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 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 evidence-based practices 

(EBPs). To meet this requirement, the 

applicant must describe— 

(i) The current research on 

professional learning practices for 

school leaders, particularly elementary 

school leaders, and school leader 

behaviors or characteristics that are 

associated with improved classroom 

teaching practices and positive student 

literacy-related outcomes and on related 

EBPs that will inform the proposed TA; 

(ii) The current research about adult 

learning principles and implementation 

science that will inform the proposed 

TA; 

(iii) How the proposed project will 

incorporate current research and EBPs 

in the development and delivery of its 

products and services; and 

(5) Develop products and provide 

services that are of high quality and 

sufficient intensity and duration to 

achieve the intended outcomes of the 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
36918 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 147 / Tuesday, July 31, 2018 / Notices 

2 ‘‘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, fact sheets, issues briefs, massive open 

online courses (MOOCs), 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. 

3 ‘‘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. 

4 ‘‘Intensive, sustained TA’’ means TA services 

often provided on-site and requiring a stable, 

ongoing relationship between the TA center staff 

and the TA recipient. ‘‘TA services’’ are defined as 

negotiated series of activities designed to reach a 

valued outcome. This category of TA should result 

in changes to policy, program, practice, or 

operations that support increased recipient capacity 

or improved outcomes at one or more systems 

levels. 

5A ‘‘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. 

proposed project. To address this 

requirement, the applicant must 

describe— 

(i) How it proposes to identify or 

develop the knowledge base on effective 

practices for improving literacy 

knowledge and instructional and 

organizational management capacity of 

elementary school leaders; 

(ii) Its proposed approaches to 

providing varying levels of intensity of 

TA (i.e., universal,2 targeted,3

intensive 4) based on the needs of the 

field and available resources. The 

applicant must identify the intended 

recipients (e.g., local educational 

agencies (LEAs) and school leaders in 

sites other than traditional public 

elementary school settings where 

students are supported under IDEA, 

including private schools), including 

the type and number of recipients, that 

will receive the products and services 

through each approach and how they 

plan to reach a variety of settings and 

populations (e.g., urban, rural, 

suburban); and 

(A) For implementing targeted, 

specialized TA, its proposed approach 

to measure the readiness of potential TA 

recipients (e.g., LEAs) to work with the 

project, assessing, at a minimum, their 

current infrastructure, available 

resources, and ability to build capacity 

at the local level; and 

(B) For implementing intensive, 

sustained TA, its proposed approach to 

measure the readiness of the LEAs and 

elementary school leaders to work with 

the project, including their commitment 

to the initiative, alignment of the 

initiative to their needs, current 

infrastructure, available resources, and 

ability to build capacity at the local 

district and school level; and its 

proposed plan for working with 

appropriate levels of the education 

system (e.g., State education agencies 

(SEAs), regional TA providers, districts, 

schools, families) to ensure that there is 

communication between each level and 

that there are systems in place to 

support the use of evidence-based 

literacy practices; 

(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 not duplicate (e.g., 

The National Center on Improving 

Literacy, National Center on Intensive 

Intervention, State Implementation and 

Scaling-up of Evidence-based Practices 

Center, and related professional 

organizations, including those that offer 

training programs targeting school 

leaders) 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 

Evaluation Plan,’’ include an evaluation 

plan for the project developed in 

consultation with and implemented by 

a third-party evaluator.5 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, including how 

successfully materials are disseminated 

to, and used by, relevant stakeholder 

groups and professional organizations, 

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 Project 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 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 147 / Tuesday, July 31, 2018 / Notices 36919 

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 

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 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; 

(3) 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; 

(4) Maintain a high-quality website, 

with an easy-to-navigate design, that 

meets government or industryrecognized standards for accessibility; 

and 

(5) Include, in Appendix A, an 

assurance to assist OSEP with the 

transfer of pertinent resources and 

products and to maintain the continuity 

of services to States during the 

transition to this new award period 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 

likely to result in the project achieving 

its intended outcomes. 

References 

Baker, S.K., Fien, H., & Baker, D.L. (2010). 

Robust reading instruction in the early 

grades: Conceptual and practical issues 

in the integration and evaluation of tier 

1 and tier 2 instructional supports. Focus 

on Exceptional Children, 42(9), 1–20. 

Connor, C.M., & Al Otaiba, S. (2015). Primary 

grade reading instruction in the United 

States. In A. Pollatsek & R. Treiman 

(Eds.), The Oxford handbook of reading 

(pp. 415–430). New York: Oxford 

University Press. 

Grissom, J.A., & Loeb, S. (2011). 

Triangulating principal effectiveness: 

How perspectives of parents, teachers, 

and assistant principals identify the 

central importance of managerial skills. 

American Educational Research Journal, 

48(5), 1091–1123. 

Grissom, J.A., Loeb, S., & Master, B. (2013). 

Effective instructional time use for 

school leaders: Longitudinal evidence 

from observations of principals. 

Educational Researcher, 42(8), 433–444. 

Herman, R., Gates, S.M., Arifkhanova, A., 

Bega, A., Chavez-Herrerias, E.R., Han, E., 

. . . & Wrabel, S. (2017). School 

leadership interventions under the Every 

Student Succeeds Act: Evidence review. 

Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation. 

Horng, E.L., Kalogrides, D., & Loeb, S. (2009). 

Principal preferences and the uneven 

distribution of principals across schools. 

School Leadership Research Report No. 

09–2. Stanford, CA: Stanford University 

Institute for Research on Education 

Policy and Practice. 

Horng, E.L., Klasik, D., & Loeb, S. (2010). 

Principal’s time use and school 

effectiveness. American Journal of 

Education, 116(4), 491–523. 

Kretlow, A.G., & Helf, S.S. (2013). Teacher 

implementation of evidence-based 

practices in tier 1: A national survey. 

Teacher Education and Special 

Education, 36(3), 167–185. 

Leithwood, K., Seashore-Louis, K., Anderson, 

S., & Wahlstrom, K. (2004). How 

leadership influences student learning. 

New York, NY: The Wallace Foundation. 

Retrieved from https://

conservancy.umn.edu/bitstream/handle/ 

11299/2035/CAREI%

20ReviewofResearch%20How%

20Leadership%20Influences.pdf?

sequence=1&isAllowed=y. 

National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching 

children to read: An evidence-based 

assessment of the scientific research 

literature on reading and its implications 

for reading instruction. Washington, DC: 

National Institutes of Health. 

Robinson, V.M., Lloyd, C.A., & Rowe, K.J. 

(2008). The impact of leadership on 

student outcomes: An analysis of the 

differential effects of leadership types. 

Educational Administration Quarterly, 

44(5), 635–674. 

Rotermund, S., DeRoche, J., & Ottem, R. 

(2017). Teacher Professional 

Development By Selected Teacher and 

School Characteristics: 2011–2012. 

Washington, DC: National Center for 

Education Statistics, Institute of 

Education Sciences, U.S. Department of 

Education. 

Snow, C.E. (2001). Reading for 

understanding. Santa Monica, CA: RAND 

Education and the Science and 

Technology Policy Institute. 

U.S. Department of Education, Institute of 

Education Sciences, National Center for 

Education Statistics. (2015). National 

Assessment of Educational Progress 

(NAEP) Reading Assessments. Accessed 

through the NAEP Data Explorer at 

http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/ 

naepdata/. 

Wei, R.C., Darling-Hammond, L., & Adamson, 

F. (2010). Professional development in 

the United States: Trends and challenges 

(Vol. 28). Dallas, TX: National Staff 

Development Council. 

Yoon, K.S., Duncan, T., Lee, S.W.Y., 

Scarloss, B., & Shapley, K.L. (2007). 

Reviewing the Evidence on How Teacher 

Professional Development Affects Student 

Achievement. Issues & Answers. REL 2007- 

No. 033. Regional Educational Laboratory 

Southwest (NJ1). 

Definitions: The following definitions 

are from 34 CFR 77.1 and section 8101 

of the Elementary and Secondary 

Education Act, as amended by the Every 

Student Succeeds Act (ESEA), as 

marked. 

Demonstrates a rationale (34 CFR 

77.1) 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 (34 CFR 77.1) means 

the proposed project component is 

supported by one or more of strong 

evidence, moderate evidence, promising 

evidence, or evidence that demonstrates 

a rationale. 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
36920 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 147 / Tuesday, July 31, 2018 / Notices 

Experimental study (34 CFR 77.1) 

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 singlecase 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 (34 CFR 77.1) (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 (34 CFR 77.1) 

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 (34 CFR 77.1) 

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 (34 CFR 77.1) 

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. 

Quasi-experimental design study (34 

CFR 77.1) 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 (34 CFR 77.1) 

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. 

School leader (section 8101 of the 

ESEA) means a principal, assistant 

principal, or other individual who is— 

(a) An employee or officer of an 

elementary school or secondary school, 

local educational agency, or other entity 

operating an elementary school or 

secondary school; and 

(b) Responsible for the daily 

instructional leadership and managerial 

operations in the elementary school or 

secondary school building. 

Strong evidence (34 CFR 77.1) 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 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 147 / Tuesday, July 31, 2018 / Notices 36921 

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) (34 CFR 77.1) 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. 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 

agreement. 

Estimated Available Funds: $750,000. 

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 $750,000 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: SEAs; State 

lead agencies under Part C of the IDEA; 

local 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) 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 

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 (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 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 listed below: 

(a) Significance (10 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: 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
36922 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 147 / Tuesday, July 31, 2018 / Notices 

(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 importance or magnitude of 

the results or outcomes likely to be 

attained by the proposed project. 

(b) Quality of project services (35 

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 there is a 

conceptual framework underlying the 

proposed research or demonstration 

activities and the quality of that 

framework. 

(iii) The extent to which the services 

to be provided by the proposed project 

reflect up-to-date knowledge from 

research and effective practice. 

(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 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 will provide performance 

feedback and permit periodic 

assessment of progress toward achieving 

intended outcomes. 

(iv) 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. 

(d) Adequacy of resources and quality 

of project personnel (15 points). 

(1) The Secretary considers the 

adequacy of resources for the proposed 

project and the quality of the personnel 

who will carry out 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 addition, 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 qualifications, including 

relevant training, experience, and 

independence, of the evaluator. 

(v) The adequacy of support, 

including facilities, equipment, 

supplies, and other resources, from the 

applicant organization or the lead 

applicant organization. 

(vi) The relevance and demonstrated 

commitment of each partner in the 

proposed project to the implementation 

and success of the project. 

(vii) The extent to which the budget 

is adequate to support the proposed 

project. 

(viii) 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 

responsibilities, timelines, and 

milestones for accomplishing project 

tasks. 

(ii) 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. 

(iii) The adequacy of mechanisms for 

ensuring high-quality products and 

services from 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. 

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 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 147 / Tuesday, July 31, 2018 / Notices 36923 

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 

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 

Technical Assistance and Dissemination 

to Improve Services and Results for 

Children With Disabilities program. 

These measures are: 

• Program Performance Measure #1: 

The percentage of Technical Assistance 

and Dissemination products and 

services deemed to be of high quality by 

an independent review panel of experts 

qualified to review the substantive 

content of the products and services. 

• Program Performance Measure #2: 

The percentage of Special Education 

Technical Assistance and Dissemination 

products and services deemed by an 

independent review panel of qualified 

experts to be of high relevance to 

educational and early intervention 

policy or practice. 

• Program Performance Measure #3: 

The percentage of all Special Education 

Technical Assistance and Dissemination 

products and services deemed by an 

independent review panel of qualified 

experts to be useful in improving 

educational or early intervention policy 

or practice. 

• Program Performance Measure #4: 

The cost efficiency of the Technical 

Assistance and Dissemination Program 

includes the percentage of milestones 

achieved in the current annual 

performance report period and the 

percentage of funds spent during the 

current fiscal year. 

• Long-term Program Performance 

Measure: The percentage of States 

receiving Special Education Technical 

Assistance and Dissemination services 

regarding scientifically or evidencebased practices for infants, toddlers, 

children, and youth with disabilities 

that successfully promote the 

implementation of those practices in 

school districts and service agencies. 

The 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, 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
36924 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 147 / Tuesday, July 31, 2018 / Notices 

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 26, 2018. 

Johnny W. Collett, 

Assistant Secretary for Special Education and 

Rehabilitative Services. 

[FR Doc. 2018–16382 Filed 7–30–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

[OE Docket No. EA–458] 

Application to Export Electric Energy; 

Sempra Gas & Power Marketing, LLC 

AGENCY: Office of Electricity, DOE. 

ACTION: Notice of application. 

SUMMARY: Sempra Gas & Power 

Marketing, LLC (Applicant) has applied 

for authority to transmit electric energy 

from the United States to Mexico 

pursuant to the Federal Power Act. 

DATES: Comments, protests, or motions 

to intervene must be submitted on or 

before August 30, 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: Exports of 

electricity from the United States to a 

foreign country are regulated by the 

United States Department of Energy 

(DOE) pursuant to sections 301(b) and 

402(f) of the Department of Energy 

Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7151(b) and 

7172(f)) and require authorization under 

section 202(e) of the Federal Power Act 

(16 U.S.C. 824a(e)). 

On July 23, 2018, DOE received an 

application from the Applicant for 

authority to transmit electric energy 

from the United States to Mexico as a 

power marketer for a five-year term 

using existing international 

transmission facilities. 

In its application, the Applicant states 

that it does not own or control any 

electric generation or transmission 

facilities, and it does not have a 

franchised service area. The electric 

energy that the Applicant proposes to 

export to Mexico 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 the Applicant 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’s) Rules of Practice and 

Procedure (18 CFR 385.211). Any 

person desiring to become a party to 

these proceedings 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 the Applicant’s application 

to export electric energy to Mexico 

should be clearly marked with OE 

Docket No. EA–458. An additional copy 

is to be provided to both Daniel A. King, 

Sempra Infrastructure, LLC, 488 8th 

Avenue, HQ12, San Diego, CA 92101 

and Kevin Ding, Sempra Infrastructure, 

LLC, 488 8th Avenue, HQ11, San Diego, 

CA 92101. 

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 a determination is 

made by DOE 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. 

Signed in Washington, DC, on July 24, 

2018. 

Christopher Lawrence, 

Electricity Policy Analyst, Office of Electricity. 

[FR Doc. 2018–16349 Filed 7–30–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission 

[Docket No. EL18–188–000] 

NRG Curtailment Solutions, Inc. v. New 

York Independent System Operator; 

Notice of Complaint 

Take notice that on July 24, 2018, 

pursuant to sections 206 and 306 of the 

Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 824e and 

825e and Rule 206 of the Federal Energy 

Regulatory Commission’s (Commission) 

Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 

385.206, NRG Curtailment Solutions, 

Inc. (Complainant) filed a formal 

complaint against New York 

Independent System Operator 

(Respondent) alleging that, 

Respondent’s rules that Curtailment 

Service Providers and Responsible 

Interface Parties must be certified by the 

New York Department of Public Service 

is unjust and unreasonable, all as more 

fully explained in the complaint. 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES