Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 22, 2022 / Notices 9603 

1Applicants should note that other laws, 

including the Americans with Disabilities Act of 

1990 (42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq.; 28 CFR part 35) and 

section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as 

amended (29 U.S.C. 794; 34 CFR part 104), may 

require that State educational agencies (SEAs) and 

local educational agencies (LEAs) provide 

captioning, video description, and other accessible 

educational materials to students with disabilities 

when these materials are necessary to provide 

equally integrated and equally effective access to 

the benefits of the educational program or activity, 

or as part of a ‘‘free appropriate public education’’ 

as defined in 34 CFR 104.33. 

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. 

Katherine Neas, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary, Delegated the 

authority to perform the functions and duties 

of the Assistant Secretary for the Office of 

Special Education and Rehabilitative 

Services. 

[FR Doc. 2022–03680 Filed 2–18–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

Applications for New Awards; 

Educational Technology, Media, and 

Materials for Individuals With 

Disabilities Program—Stepping-Up 

Technology Implementation 

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) 2022 for Stepping-up 

Technology Implementation, Assistance 

Listing Number 84.327S. This notice 

relates to the approved information 

collection under OMB control number 

1820–0028. 

DATES:

Applications Available: February 22, 

2022. 

Deadline for Transmittal of 

Applications: April 25, 2022. 

Deadline for Intergovernmental 

Review: June 22, 2022. 

Pre-Application Webinar Information: 

No later than February 28, 2022, the 

Office of Special Education Programs 

(OSEP) will post details on pre-recorded 

informational webinars designed to 

provide technical assistance (TA) to 

interested applicants. Links to the 

webinars may be found at www2.ed.gov/ 

fund/grant/apply/osep/new-osepgrants.html. 

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 December 27, 2021 

(86 FR 73264) and available at 

www.federalregister.gov/d/2021–27979. 

Please note that these Common 

Instructions supersede the version 

published on February 13, 2019, and, in 

part, describe the transition from the 

requirement to register in SAM.gov a 

Data Universal Numbering System 

(DUNS) number to the implementation 

of the Unique Entity Identifier (UEI). 

More information on the phase-out of 

DUNS numbers is available at https://

www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ofo/ 

docs/unique-entity-identifier-transitionfact-sheet.pdf. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Richelle Davis, U.S. Department of 

Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, 

Room 5025, Potomac Center Plaza, 

Washington, DC 20202–5076. 

Telephone: (202) 245–7401. Email: 

Richelle.Davis@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 purposes of 

the Educational Technology, Media, and 

Materials for Individuals with 

Disabilities Program are to improve 

results for children with disabilities by: 

(1) Promoting the development, 

demonstration, and use of technology; 

(2) supporting educational activities 

designed to be of educational value in 

the classroom for children with 

disabilities; (3) providing support for 

captioning and video description that is 

appropriate for use in the classroom; 

and (4) providing accessible educational 

materials to children with disabilities in 

a timely manner.1

Priorities: This competition includes 

one absolute priority and one 

competitive preference priority. In 

accordance with 34 CFR 75.105(b)(2)(v), 

the absolute priority is from allowable 

activities specified in sections 

674(c)(1)(D) and 681(d) of the 

Individuals with Disabilities Education 

Act (IDEA); 20 U.S.C. 1474(c)(1)(D) and 

1481(d). The competitive preference 

priority is from the Secretary’s 

Administrative Priorities for 

Discretionary Grant Programs published 

in the Federal Register on March 9, 

2020 (85 FR 13640) (Administrative 

Priorities). 

Absolute Priority: For FY 2022 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: 

Supporting Early Childhood and K–12 

Educators of English Learners (ELs) with 

Disabilities and ELs at Risk to Deliver 

Literacy Instruction Based on the 

Science of Reading. 

Background: 

Since 2010, the number of ELs in 

American public schools has increased 

by five million students (National 

Center on Education Statistics, 2020). 

Data has consistently shown poorer 

academic outcomes for ELs compared to 

their non-EL peers, particularly in 

reading (Mancilla-Martinez, 2020). 

These poor reading outcomes are even 

more apparent for ELs with disabilities. 

For example, a greater proportion of ELs 

with disabilities (4th grade: 89 percent; 

8th grade: 89 percent) scored below the 

basic level on the 2019 National 

Assessment of Educational Progress 

(NAEP) in reading, compared to all 

students with disabilities who scored 

below the basic level (4th grade: 67 

percent; 8th grade: 60 percent) or ELs 

without disabilities who scored below 

the basic level (4th grade: 61 percent; 

8th grade: 68 percent) (U.S. Department 

of Education, 2021). This reading 

achievement gap for ELs has remained 

static for over a decade. Given EL 

reading outcomes, increasing equity in 

educational opportunity and providing 

supports to improve literacy skills is a 

pressing educational necessity 

(Mancilla-Martinez, 2020). 

Many educators report using some 

type of digital learning resource or 

technologies to provide instruction on a 

daily or weekly basis to ELs (U.S. 

Department of Education, 2019). 

Improving the capacity of educators to 

use the most appropriate and effective 

technologies in their delivery of literacy 

instruction that meet their students’ 

needs is important for improving 

literacy outcomes. Technology that 

provides a range of support features 

(e.g., visual, auditory), in multiple 

languages, is also viewed by educators 

as critical for supporting ELs’ learning 

of content and building language and 

literacy skills. Educators are interested 

in how technologies can be used to 

individualize and adapt literacy 

instruction based on the student’s 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
9604 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 22, 2022 / Notices 

2Promising 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: (a) A practice 

guide prepared by the What Works Clearinghouse 

(WWC) reporting a ‘‘strong evidence base’’ or 

‘‘moderate evidence base’’ for the corresponding 

practice recommendation; (b) 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 (c) a single study assessed by the Department, as 

appropriate, that is an experimental study, a quasiexperimental design study, or a well-designed 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 includes at least one statistically 

significant and positive (i.e., favorable) effect on a 

relevant outcome. See 34 CFR 77.1 for definitions 

of ‘‘promising evidence,’’ ‘‘experimental study,’’ 

‘‘moderate evidence,’’ ‘‘quasi-experimental design 

study,’’ ‘‘relevant outcome,’’ and ‘‘strong evidence.’’ 

3For the purpose of this priority, ‘‘educators’’ 

include teachers, early childhood providers, 

administrators, paraprofessionals, and speechlanguage pathologists. 

4 ‘‘Rural site’’ is based on the National Center for 

Education Statistics (NCES) revised definitions of 

school locale types that can be found at https://

nces.ed.gov/surveys/ruraled/definitions.asp. Rural 

can be considered as ‘‘fringe, less than or equal to 

5 miles from an urbanized area, as well as rural 

territory that is less than or equal to 2.5 miles from 

an urban cluster’’; ‘‘distant, more than 5 miles but 

less than or equal to 25 miles from an urbanized 

area, as well as rural territory that is more than 2.5 

miles but less than or equal to 10 miles from an 

urban cluster’’; or ‘‘remote, more than 25 miles from 

an urbanized area and is also more than 10 miles 

from an urban cluster.’’ 

5 ‘‘Technology-based tool or approach’’ refers to 

the technology the applicant is proposing that is 

supported, at a minimum, by ‘‘promising evidence’’ 

with the population intended. 

individual needs while considering a 

student’s level of English language 

proficiency. 

Technology alone cannot be effective 

without the necessary professional 

learning and coaching to support 

educators on how to use the technology 

appropriately and effectively. 

Professional learning should focus on 

(1) how technology can improve literacy 

instruction; (2) how to effectively use 

the technology; (3) supporting 

meaningful collaborative learning 

opportunities with other educators and 

students; (4) aligning the technology 

enhanced instruction with existing 

curricula, State standards, and school 

initiatives; (5) promoting student 

motivation and engagement in language 

learning; and (6) fostering parentteacher partnerships, including 

understanding the vital role of EL’s 

families, becoming informed and 

appreciative of the various language and 

literacy practices, and building 

relationships between families and 

schools by changing instructional 

practices and outreach. 

Professional learning should 

emphasize the vital role that families 

play in building early literacy skills of 

ELs, the value of the relationships and 

interactions of the home and 

community, and strategies on how to 

draw on the unique personal and 

cultural perspectives that ELs bring to 

the classroom (Grant et al., 2017). 

Priority: 

The purpose of this priority is to fund 

three cooperative agreements to 

establish and operate projects that 

achieve, at a minimum, the following 

expected outcomes: 

(a) Proven strategies to effectively 

implement and integrate an existing 

accessible technology-based tool or 

approach, based on at least promising 

evidence,2 to deliver and improve 

reading instruction for ELs with, and at 

risk for, disabilities; 

(b) Increased educators’ 3 use and 

knowledge of technology to deliver 

effective reading instruction for ELs 

with, or at risk for, disabilities through 

professional learning and coaching; 

(c) Increased educator collaboration 

and professional learning opportunities 

to use technology to improve reading 

outcomes of ELs with, and at risk for, 

disabilities and to engage families to 

support their child’s learning in the 

classroom and at home; and 

(d) Improved engagement in reading 

instruction and self-regulated learning 

opportunities leading to improved 

reading achievement for ELs with, and 

at risk for, disabilities. 

To be considered for funding under 

this priority, in the application, 

applicants must describe how they 

will— 

(a) Build partnerships with early 

childhood programs or local educational 

agencies (LEAs), at least one of which is 

in a rural site,4 to support educators in 

the understanding, use, and delivery of 

a technology-based tool or approach 5 to 

deliver reading instruction for ELs with, 

and at risk for, disabilities in PK–12 

instructional settings, including 

classrooms and remote learning 

environments; 

(b) Increase the capacity of educators 

and families to effectively use and 

deliver a technology-based tool or 

approach that supports PK–12 

instructional settings, including 

classrooms and remote learning 

environments for instruction and 

professional growth; 

(c) Develop an implementation 

package of accessible products and 

resources that will help educators and 

families to effectively use a technologybased tool or approach; and 

(d) Evaluate whether the technologybased tool or approach meets the project 

goals and targeted outcomes. 

In addition to these programmatic 

requirements, to be considered for 

funding under this priority, applicants 

must meet the application and 

administrative requirements in this 

priority, which are: 

(a) Demonstrate, in the narrative 

section of the application under 

‘‘Significance,’’ how the proposed 

project will address the need for a 

technology-based tool or approach and 

identify specific gaps and challenges, 

infrastructure, or opportunities to 

support educators’ development. To 

meet this requirement the applicant 

must— 

(1) Identify a fully developed 

technology-based tool or approach that 

is based on at least promising evidence; 

(2) Identify how the technology-based 

tool or approach will improve 

educators’ pedagogy and their capacity 

to deliver reading instruction or services 

for ELs with, and at risk for, disabilities 

in PK–12 instructional settings, 

including classrooms and remote 

learning environments; 

(3) Present applicable national, State, 

regional, or local data demonstrating the 

need for the identified technology-based 

tool or approach to support ELs with, 

and at risk for, disabilities in PK–12 

instructional settings, including 

classrooms and remote learning 

environments; 

(4) Identify current policies, 

procedures, and practices used by 

educators that effectively incorporate 

technology-based tools or approaches to 

support reading outcomes for ELs with, 

and at risk for, disabilities; 

(5) Identify systemic barriers, gaps, or 

challenges, including challenges to 

using the identified technology-based 

tool or approach; and 

(6) Describe the potential impact of 

the identified technology-based tool or 

approach on educators, families, and 

children with disabilities. 

(b) Demonstrate, in the narrative 

section of the application under 

‘‘Quality of project services,’’ how the 

proposed project will— 

(1) Ensure equal access and treatment 

for members of groups that have 

traditionally been underrepresented 

based on race, color, national origin, 

gender, age, or disability. To meet this 

requirement, the applicant must 

describe how it will— 

(i) Identify the needs of the intended 

recipients for ongoing professional 

learning and coaching supports; and 

(ii) Ensure that products and 

resources meet the needs of the 

intended recipients of the grant; 

(2) Achieve its goals, objectives, and 

intended outcomes. To meet this 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 22, 2022 / Notices 9605 

6For this priority, a ‘‘site’’ is a school building or 

early childhood program within the local 

educational agency (LEA) or early childhood agency 

(ECA). 

7Logic 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. 

requirement, the applicant must provide 

measurable intended project outcomes; 

(3) Be based on current research. To 

meet this requirement, the applicant 

must— 

(i) Describe how the proposed project 

will align with current research, 

policies, and practices related to the 

benefits, services, or opportunities that 

are available using the technology-based 

tool or approach; 

(ii) Describe how the proposed project 

will incorporate current and sound 

research and practices to guide the 

development and delivery of its 

products and resources, including 

accessibility and usability; and 

(iii) Document that the technology 

tool used by the project is fully 

developed, has been tested and shown 

to have promising evidence, and 

addresses, at a minimum, the following 

principles of universal design for 

learning (UDL): 

(A) Multiple means of presentation so 

that information can be delivered in 

more than one way (e.g., specialized 

software and websites, screen readers 

that include features such as text-tospeech, changeable color contrast, 

alterable text size, or selection of 

different reading levels); 

(B) Multiple means of expression that 

allow knowledge to be exhibited 

through options such as writing, online 

concept mapping, or speech-to-text 

programs, where appropriate; and 

(C) Multiple means of engagement to 

stimulate interest in and motivation for 

learning (e.g., options among several 

different learning activities or content 

for a particular competency or skill and 

providing opportunities for increased 

collaboration consistent with UDL 

principles); and 

(4) Develop new products and 

resources that are of high quality and 

sufficient intensity and duration to 

achieve the intended outcomes of the 

proposed project. To address this 

requirement, the applicant must— 

(i) Provide a plan for recruiting and 

selecting a wide range of settings where 

ELs with, and at risk for, disabilities are 

served, which must include the 

following: 

(A) Three development sites.6

Development sites are the sites in which 

iterative development of the products 

and resources intended to support the 

implementation of the technology-based 

tool or approach will occur. The project 

must start implementing the technology 

tool with one development site in year 

one of the project period and two 

additional development sites in year 

two. 

(B) Four pilot sites. Pilot sites are the 

sites in which try-out, formative 

evaluation, and refinement of the 

products and resources will occur. The 

project must work with the four pilot 

sites during years three and four of the 

project period. 

(C) Ten dissemination sites. 

Dissemination/scale-up sites will be 

selected if the project is extended for a 

fifth year. Dissemination/scale-up sites 

will be used to (1) refine the products 

for use by educators and students, and 

(2) evaluate the performance of the 

technology tool on educators’ pedagogy 

and students’ reading outcomes. 

Dissemination/scale-up sites will 

receive less TA from the project than 

development and pilot sites. Also, 

dissemination/scale-up sites will extend 

the benefits of the technology tool to 

additional students. To be selected as a 

dissemination/scale-up site, eligible 

sites must commit to working with the 

project to implement the technology 

tool. 

Note: The following website provides 

more information about implementation 

research: https://nirn.fpg.unc.edu/ 

national-implementation-researchnetwork. 

(D) A site may not serve in more than 

one category (i.e., development, pilot, 

dissemination/scale-up). 

(E) A minimum of two of the seven 

development and pilot sites must 

include rural sites. A minimum of four 

of the 10 dissemination/scale-up sites 

must include rural sites. 

(ii) Provide information on the 

development and pilot sites, including 

student demographics and other 

pertinent data (e.g., whether the settings 

are schools identified for 

comprehensive or targeted support and 

improvement in accordance with 

section 1111(c)(4)(C)(iii), (c)(4)(D), or 

(d)(2)(C)–(D) of the Elementary and 

Secondary Education Act of 1965, as 

amended); 

(iii) Provide a plan for dissemination, 

which must address how the project 

will systematically distribute 

information, products, and services to 

varied intended audiences, using a 

variety of dissemination strategies, to 

promote awareness and use of the 

project’s products and resources that 

goes beyond conference presentations 

and research articles; 

(iv) Provide its plan for how the 

project will sustain project activities 

that go beyond conference presentations 

and research articles after funding ends; 

and 

(v) Provide assurances that the final 

products disseminated to help sites 

effectively implement the technologybased tool or approach will be both 

open educational resources (OER) and 

licensed through an open access 

licensing authority. 

(c) In the narrative section of the 

application under ‘‘Quality of the 

project evaluation,’’ include an 

evaluation plan for the project as 

described in the following paragraphs. 

The evaluation plan must describe 

measures of progress in implementation, 

including the criteria for determining 

the extent to which the project’s 

products and resources have met the 

goals for reaching the project’s target 

population; measures of intended 

outcomes or results of the project’s 

activities to evaluate those activities; 

and how the project will assess whether 

the goals or objectives of the proposed 

project, as described in its logic model,7

have been met. 

The applicant must provide an 

assurance that, in designing the 

evaluation plan, it will— 

(1) Provide a logic model or 

conceptual framework that depicts, at a 

minimum, the goals, activities, project 

evaluation, methods, performance 

measures, outputs, and outcomes of the 

proposed project; 

(2) Provide a plan to implement the 

activities described in this priority; 

(3) Provide a plan, linked to the 

proposed project’s logic model or 

conceptual framework, for a formative 

evaluation of the proposed project’s 

activities. The plan must describe how 

the formative evaluation will use clear 

performance objectives to ensure 

continuous improvement in the 

operation of the proposed project, 

including objective measures of progress 

in implementing the project and 

ensuring the quality of products and 

resources; 

(4) Describe a plan or method for 

assessing— 

(i) The development and pilot sites’ 

current educator training use and needs, 

any current technology investments, 

and the knowledge and availability of 

dedicated on-site technology training 

personnel; 

(ii) The readiness of development and 

pilot sites to pilot or try-out the 

technology-based tool or approach, 

including, at a minimum, their current 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
9606 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 22, 2022 / Notices 

infrastructure, available resources, and 

ability to build capacity; 

(iii) Whether the technology-based 

tool or approach has achieved its 

intended outcomes for PK–12 educators, 

families, and EL students with, and at 

risk for, disabilities; and 

(iv) The ongoing professional learning 

needs of educators to implement with 

fidelity; 

(5) Collect formative and summative 

data from the professional learning and 

coaching to refine and evaluate the 

products; 

(6) If the project is extended to a fifth 

year— 

(i) Provide the implementation 

package of products and resources 

developed for the technology-based tool 

or approach to no fewer than 10 

additional school sites, four of which 

must be rural, in year five; and 

(ii) Collect summative data about the 

success of the project’s products and 

resources in supporting implementation 

of the technology-based tool or 

approach for educators and families of 

ELs with, and at risk for, disabilities; 

and 

(7) By the end of the project period, 

provide— 

(i) Information on the products and 

resources, as supported by the project 

evaluation, including accessibility 

features, that will enable other sites to 

implement and sustain implementation 

of the technology-based tool or 

approach; 

(ii) Information in the project’s 

Implementation Report, including data 

on how intended users (e.g., educators, 

families, and students) utilized the 

technology-based tool or approach, how 

the technology-based tool or approach 

was implemented with fidelity, and 

how effective the technology-based tool 

or approach was in improving reading 

outcomes for ELs with, and at risk for, 

disabilities; 

(iii) Data on how the technologybased tool or approach changed 

educators’ practices; and 

(iv) A plan for disseminating or 

scaling up the technology-based tool or 

approach and accompanying products 

beyond the sites directly involved in the 

project. 

(d) Demonstrate, in the narrative 

section of the application under 

‘‘Adequacy of resources and quality of 

project personnel,’’ how— 

(1) The proposed project will 

encourage applications for employment 

from persons who are members of 

groups that have traditionally been 

underrepresented based on race, color, 

national origin, gender, age, or 

disability, as appropriate; 

(2) The proposed key project 

personnel, consultants, and 

subcontractors have the qualifications 

and experience to carry out the 

proposed activities and achieve the 

project’s intended outcomes; 

(3) The applicant and any key 

partners have adequate resources to 

carry out the proposed activities; and 

(4) The proposed costs are reasonable 

in relation to the anticipated results and 

benefits. 

(e) Demonstrate, in the narrative 

section of the application under 

‘‘Quality of the management plan,’’ 

how— 

(1) The proposed management plan 

will ensure that the project’s intended 

outcomes will be achieved on time and 

within budget. To address this 

requirement, the applicant must 

describe— 

(i) Clearly defined responsibilities for 

key project personnel, consultants, and 

subcontractors, as applicable; and 

(ii) Timelines and milestones for 

accomplishing the project tasks; 

(2) Key project personnel and any 

consultants and subcontractors will be 

allocated and how these allocations are 

appropriate and adequate to achieve the 

project’s intended outcomes; 

(3) The proposed management plan 

will ensure that the products and 

resources 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, 

researchers, and policy makers, among 

others, in its development and 

operation. 

(f) Address the following application 

requirements. The applicant must 

include— 

(1) In Appendix A, personnel-loading 

charts and timelines, as applicable, to 

illustrate the management plan 

described in the narrative; 

(2) In Appendix A, the logic model or 

conceptual framework by which the 

proposed project will develop project 

plans and activities and achieve its 

intended outcomes. The logic model or 

conceptual framework must include a 

description of 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 and depict, at a 

minimum, the goals, activities, outputs, 

and intended outcomes of the proposed 

project. 

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; and 

(3) In the budget, attendance at the 

following: 

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

meeting in Washington, DC, or virtually, 

after receipt of the award, and an annual 

planning meeting in Washington, DC, or 

virtually, with the Office of Special 

Education Programs (OSEP) project 

officer and other relevant staff during 

each subsequent year of the project 

period. 

Note: Within 30 days of receipt of the 

award, a post-award teleconference 

must be held between the OSEP project 

officer and the grantee’s project director 

or other authorized representative. 

(ii) A two and one-half-day project 

directors’ conference in Washington, 

DC, or virtually, during each year of the 

project period. 

(iii) Two annual two-day trips, or 

virtually, to attend Department 

briefings, Department-sponsored 

conferences, and other meetings, as 

requested by OSEP. 

(iv) A one-day intensive, virtual OSEP 

review meeting during the last half of 

the second year of the project period. 

Cohort Collaboration and Support 

OSEP project officer(s) will provide 

coordination support among the 

projects. Each project funded under this 

priority must— 

(a) Participate in monthly conferencecall discussions to share and collaborate 

on implementation and project issues; 

and 

(b) Provide information annually 

using a template that captures 

descriptive data on project site selection 

and the processes for implementation 

and use of the technology-based tool or 

approach. 

Fifth Year of Project 

The Secretary may extend a project 

one year beyond the initial 48 months 

to work with dissemination/scale-up 

sites if the grantee is substantially 

achieving the intended outcomes of the 

project (as demonstrated by data 

gathered as part of the project 

evaluation) and making a positive 

contribution to the implementation of a 

technology-based tool or approach 

based on at least promising evidence in 

the development and pilot sites. Each 

applicant must include in its 

application a plan for the full 60-month 

period. In deciding whether to continue 

funding the project for the fifth year, the 

Secretary will consider the requirements 

of 34 CFR 75.253(a), including— 

(a) The recommendations of a review 

team consisting of the OSEP project 

officer and other experts who have 

experience and knowledge in 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 22, 2022 / Notices 9607 

technology implementation for 

personnel serving children with 

disabilities. This review 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 degree to which the project’s 

activities have changed practices and 

improved outcomes for PK–12 

educators, and ELs with, and at risk for, 

disabilities. 

Under 34 CFR 75.253, the Secretary 

may reduce continuation awards or 

discontinue awards in any year of the 

project period for excessive carryover 

balances or a failure to make substantial 

progress. The Department intends to 

closely monitor unobligated balances 

and substantial progress under this 

program and may reduce or discontinue 

funding accordingly. 

Competitive Preference Priority: For 

FY 2022, this priority is a competitive 

preference priority. Under 34 CFR 

75.105(c)(2)(i), we award an additional 

three points to an application that meets 

the competitive preference priority. 

Applicants should indicate in the 

abstract if the competitive preference 

priority is addressed and must address 

the competitive preference priority in 

the narrative section. 

This priority is: 

Applications from New Potential 

Grantees (0 or 3 points). 

(a) Under this priority, an applicant 

must demonstrate that the applicant has 

not had an active discretionary grant 

under the 84.327S program from which 

it seeks funds, including through 

membership in a group application 

submitted in accordance with 34 CFR 

75.127–75.129, five years before the 

deadline date for submission of 

applications under the program. 

(b) For the purpose of this priority, a 

grant or contract is active until the end 

of the grant’s or contract’s project or 

funding period, including any 

extensions of those periods that extend 

the grantee’s or contractor’s authority to 

obligate funds. 

References 

Grant, L., Bell, A. B., Yoo, M., Jimenez, C., 

& Frye, B. (2017). Professional 

development for educators to promote 

literacy development of English learners: 

Valuing home connections. Reading 

Horizons: A Journal of Literacy and 

Language Arts, 56 (4). https://

scholarworks.wmich.edu/reading_

horizons/vol56/iss4/2. 

Mancilla-Martinez, J. (2020). Understanding 

and supporting literacy development 

among English learners: A deep dive into 

the role of language comprehension. 

AERA Open. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 

2332858420912198. 

U.S. Department of Education, National 

Center for Education Statistics. (2020). 

Condition of Education: English 

Language Learners in Public Schools 

[Annual report]. https://nces.ed.gov/ 

programs/coe/indicator/cgf. 

U.S. Department of Education, National 

Center for Education Statistics. (2021). 

National assessment of educational 

progress [Data file]. 

www.nationsreportcard.gov/ndecore/ 

xplore/nde. 

U.S. Department of Education, Office of 

Planning, Evaluation and Policy 

Development, Policy and Program 

Studies Service. (2019). Supporting 

English learners through technology: 

What districts and teachers say about 

digital learning resources for English 

learners. Volume I: Final Report. 

National Study of English Learners and 

Digital Learning Resources. https://

www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/title-iii/ 

180414.pdf. 

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. Section 681(d) of IDEA, 

however, makes the public comment 

requirements of the APA inapplicable to 

the absolute priority in this notice. 

Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1474 

and 1481. 

Note: Projects will be awarded and 

must be operated in a manner consistent 

with nondiscrimination requirements 

contained in Federal civil rights laws. 

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. (d) 

Administrative Priorities. 

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: The 

Administration has requested 

$29,547,000 for the Educational 

Technology, Media, and Materials for 

Individuals with Disabilities program 

for FY 2022, of which we intend to use 

an estimated $1,500,000 for this 

competition. The actual level of 

funding, if any, depends on final 

congressional action. However, we are 

inviting applications to allow enough 

time to complete the grant process if 

Congress appropriates funds for this 

program. 

Contingent upon the availability of 

funds and the quality of applications, 

we may make additional awards in FY 

2023 from the list of unfunded 

applications from this competition. 

Estimated Range of Awards: $450,000 

to $500,000 per year. 

Estimated Average Size of Awards: 

$475,000 per year. 

Maximum Award: We will not make 

an award exceeding $2,500,000 for the 

60-month project period. 

Estimated Number of Awards: 3. 

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; 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. a. Cost Sharing or Matching: This 

program does not require cost sharing or 

matching. 

b. Indirect Cost Rate Information: This 

program uses an unrestricted indirect 

cost rate. For more information 

regarding indirect costs, or to obtain a 

negotiated indirect cost rate, please see 

www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocfo/ 

intro.html. 

c. Administrative Cost Limitation: 

This program does not include any 

program-specific limitation on 

administrative expenses. All 

administrative expenses must be 

reasonable and necessary and conform 

to the Cost Principles described in 2 

CFR part 200 subpart E of the Uniform 

Guidance. 

3. Subgrantees: A grantee under this 

competition may not award subgrants to 

entities to directly carry out project 

activities described in its application. 

Under 34 CFR 75.708(e), a grantee may 

contract for supplies, equipment, and 

other services in accordance with 2 CFR 

part 200. 

4. Other General Requirements: 

a. Recipients of funding under this 

competition must make positive efforts 

to employ and advance in employment 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
9608 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 22, 2022 / Notices 

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: Applicants are required to 

follow the Common Instructions for 

Applicants to Department of Education 

Discretionary Grant Programs, 

published in the Federal Register on 

December 27, 2021 (86 FR 73264) and 

available at www.federalregister.gov/d/ 

2021–27979, which contain 

requirements and information on how to 

submit an application. Please note that 

these Common Instructions supersede 

the version published on February 13, 

2019, and, in part, describe the 

transition from the requirement to 

register in SAM.gov a DUNS number to 

the implementation of the UEI. More 

information on the phase-out of DUNS 

numbers is available at https://

www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ofo/ 

docs/unique-entity-identifier-transitionfact-sheet.pdf. 

2. Intergovernmental Review: This 

competition is subject to Executive 

Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 

CFR part 79. Information about 

Intergovernmental Review of Federal 

Programs under Executive Order 12372 

is in the application package for this 

competition. 

3. Funding Restrictions: We reference 

regulations outlining funding 

restrictions in the Applicable 

Regulations section of this notice. 

4. Recommended Page Limit: The 

application narrative is where you, the 

applicant, address the selection criteria 

that reviewers use to evaluate your 

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 the cover sheet; the budget 

section, including the narrative budget 

justification; 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 significance of the problem or 

issue to be addressed by the proposed 

project; 

(ii) 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; 

(iii) The potential contribution of the 

proposed project to increased 

knowledge or understanding of 

educational problems, issues, or 

effective strategies; and 

(iv) The potential replicability of the 

proposed project or strategies, 

including, as appropriate, the potential 

for implementation in a variety of 

settings. 

(b) Quality of project services (30 

points). 

(1) The Secretary considers the 

quality of the services to be provided by 

the proposed project. 

(2) In determining the quality of the 

services to be provided by the proposed 

project, the Secretary considers the 

quality and sufficiency of strategies for 

ensuring equal access and treatment for 

eligible project participants who are 

members of groups that have 

traditionally been underrepresented 

based on race, color, national origin, 

gender, age, or disability. 

(3) In addition, the Secretary 

considers the following factors: 

(i) The extent to which the services to 

be provided by the proposed project 

reflect up-to-date knowledge from 

research and effective practice; 

(ii) The extent to which the 

professional learning and coaching 

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; 

(iii) The extent to which the services 

to be provided by the proposed project 

involve the collaboration of appropriate 

partners for maximizing the 

effectiveness of project services; 

(iv) The extent to which the services 

to be provided by the proposed project 

are appropriate to the needs of the 

intended recipients or beneficiaries of 

those services; and 

(v) The likely impact of the services 

to be provided by the proposed project 

on the intended recipients of those 

services. 

(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 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; 

(iii) The extent to which the methods 

of evaluation provide for examining the 

effectiveness of project implementation 

strategies; 

(iv) The extent to which the methods 

of evaluation will provide performance 

feedback and permit periodic 

assessment of progress toward achieving 

intended outcomes; and 

(v) The extent to which the evaluation 

plan clearly articulates the key project 

components, mediators, and outcomes, 

as well as a measurable threshold for 

acceptable implementation. 

(d) Adequacy of resources and quality 

of project personnel (20 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 22, 2022 / Notices 9609 

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 key 

project personnel; 

(ii) The qualifications, including 

relevant training and experience, of 

project consultants or subcontractors; 

(iii) The adequacy of support, 

including facilities, equipment, 

supplies, and other resources, from the 

applicant organization or the lead 

applicant organization; 

(iv) The relevance and demonstrated 

commitment of each partner in the 

proposed project to the implementation 

and success of the project; and 

(v) 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 

(15 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) 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; and 

(iv) The adequacy of procedures for 

ensuring feedback and continuous 

improvement in the operation of the 

proposed project. 

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 (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 

200.206, before awarding grants under 

this competition the Department 

conducts a review of the risks posed by 

applicants. Under 2 CFR 200.208, the 

Secretary may impose specific 

conditions, and under 2 CFR 3474.10, 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 $250,000), under 2 

CFR 200.206(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. 

6. In General: In accordance with the 

Office of Management and Budget’s 

guidance located at 2 CFR part 200, all 

applicable Federal laws, and relevant 

Executive guidance, the Department 

will review and consider applications 

for funding pursuant to this notice 

inviting applications in accordance 

with— 

(a) Selecting recipients most likely to 

be successful in delivering results based 

on the program objectives through an 

objective process of evaluating Federal 

award applications (2 CFR 200.205); 

(b) Prohibiting the purchase of certain 

telecommunication and video 

surveillance services or equipment in 

alignment with section 889 of the 

National Defense Authorization Act of 

2019 (Pub. L. 115—232) (2 CFR 

200.216); 

(c) Providing a preference, to the 

extent permitted by law, to maximize 

use of goods, products, and materials 

produced in the United States (2 CFR 

200.322); and 

(d) Terminating agreements in whole 

or in part to the greatest extent 

authorized by law if an award no longer 

effectuates the program goals or agency 

priorities (2 CFR 200.340). 

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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
9610 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 22, 2022 / Notices 

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 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: For the 

purposes of reporting under 34 CFR 

75.110, we have established a set of 

performance measures, including longterm measures, that are designed to 

yield information on various aspects of 

the effectiveness and quality of the 

Educational Technology, Media, and 

Materials (ETechM2) for Individuals 

with Disabilities program. These 

measures are: 

• Program Performance Measure 1: 

The percentage of ETechM2 program 

products and services judged to be of 

high quality by an independent review 

panel of experts qualified to review the 

substantial content of the products and 

services. 

• Program Performance Measure 2: 

The percentage of ETechM2 program 

products and services judged to be of 

high relevance to improving outcomes 

for infants, toddlers, children, and 

youth with disabilities. 

• Program Performance Measure 3: 

The percentage of ETechM2 program 

products and services judged to be 

useful in improving results for infants, 

toddlers, children, and youth with 

disabilities. 

• Program Performance Measure 4.1: 

The Federal cost per unit of accessible 

educational materials funded by the 

ETechM2 program. 

• Program Performance Measure 4.2: 

The Federal cost per unit of accessible 

educational materials from the National 

Instructional Materials Access Center 

funded by the ETechM2 program. 

• Program Performance Measure 4.3: 

The Federal cost per unit of video 

description funded by the ETechM2 

program. 

These measures apply to projects 

funded under this competition, and 

grantees are required to submit data on 

these measures as directed by OSEP. 

Grantees will be required to report 

information on their project’s 

performance in annual performance 

reports and additional performance data 

to the Department (34 CFR 75.590 and 

75.591). 

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, whether the grantee has 

made substantial progress in achieving 

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: On request to the 

program contact person listed under FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, 

individuals with disabilities can obtain 

this document and a copy of the 

application package in an accessible 

format. The Department will provide the 

requestor with an accessible format that 

may include Rich Text Format (RTF) or 

text format (txt), a thumb drive, an MP3 

file, braille, large print, audiotape, or 

compact disc, or other accessible format. 

Electronic Access to This Document: 

The official version of this document is 

the document published in the Federal 

Register. You may access the official 

edition of the Federal Register and the 

Code of Federal Regulations at 

www.govinfo.gov. At this site you can 

view this document, as well as all other 

documents of this Department 

published in the Federal Register, in 

text or Portable Document Format 

(PDF). To use PDF, you must have 

Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is 

available free at the site. 

You may also access documents of the 

Department published in the Federal 

Register by using the article search 

feature at www.federalregister.gov. 

Specifically, through the advanced 

search feature at this site, you can limit 

your search to documents published by 

the Department. 

Katherine Neas, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary. Delegated the 

authority to perform the functions and duties 

of the Assistant Secretary for the Office of 

Special Education and Rehabilitative 

Services. 

[FR Doc. 2022–03679 Filed 2–18–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission 

[Docket No. ID–9395–000] 

Killamsetty, Pradeep; Notice of Filing 

Take notice that on February 11, 2022, 

Pradeep Killamsetty submitted for 

filing, application for authority to hold 

interlocking positions, pursuant to 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1