2018-15932.pdf

35247 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 143 / Wednesday, July 25, 2018 / Notices statements with the committee, or make verbal comments from the floor during the public meeting, at the times, and in the manner, permitted by the BoV.

Written Statements: Pursuant to 41 CFR 102–3.105(j) and 102–3.140 and section 10(a)(3) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the public or interested organizations may submit written comments or statements to the BoV about its mission and/or the topics to be addressed in this public meeting.

Written comments or statements should be submitted to Capt Campos, via electronic mail, the preferred mode of submission, at the email address listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section in the following formats: Adobe Acrobat or Microsoft Word. The comment or statement must include the author’s name, title, affiliation, address, and daytime telephone number. Written comments or statements being submitted in response to the agenda set forth in this notice must be received by the committee DFO at least five (5) business days (20 July) prior to the meeting so that they may be made available to the BoV Chairman for their consideration prior to the meeting.

Written comments or statements received after this date (20 July) may not be provided to the BoV until its next meeting. Please note that because the BoV operates under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, all written comments will be treated as public documents and will be made available for public inspection.

Verbal Comments: Members of the public will be permitted to make verbal comments during the meeting only at the time and in the manner allowed herein. If a member of the public is interested in making a verbal comment at the open meeting, that individual must submit a request, with a brief statement of the subject matter to be addressed by the comment, at least three

(3) business days (24 July) in advance, via electronic mail, the preferred mode of submission, at the email address listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. The BoV DFO will log each request to make a comment, in the order received, and the DFO and BoV Chairman will determine whether the subject matter of each comment is relevant to the BoV’s mission and/or the topics to be addressed in this public meeting. A period near the end of the meeting will be available for verbal public comments. Members of the public who have requested to make a verbal comment and whose comments have been deemed relevant under the process described in this paragraph, will be allotted no more than five (5) minutes during this period, and will be invited to speak in the order in which their requests were received by the DFO.

For the benefit of the public, rosters that list the names of BoV members and any releasable materials presented during the BoV meeting shall be made available upon request.

Henry Williams, Acting Air Force Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.

[FR Doc. 2018–15898 Filed 7–24–18; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 5001–10–P

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Air Force

Exchange of Air Force Real Property for Non-Air Force Real Property

AGENCY: Air Force Civil Engineer Center, United States Air Force, DoD.

ACTION: Notice of intent.

SUMMARY: The Air Force is publishing this Notice to identify Federal real property that it intends to exchange for property that is needed by the Air Force to limit encroachment and other constraints on military operations at Melrose Air Force Range (MAFR), NM.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

Joe Weathersby, Air Force Civil Engineer Center (AFCEC/CIUB), 2261 Hughes Avenue, Suite 155, Joint Base San Antonio (JBSA) Lackland, TX 78236–9853; telephone (210) 395–9516.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: MAFR is a long established training range, consisting of some 70,000 acres, 25 miles west of Cannon Air Force Base, New Mexico. Operations on Melrose Range also cover an area of 2,500 square miles of airspace. Melrose is used for training such as air to ground, small arms, and electronic combat.

Description of the Air Force Property:

Approximately 1,240 acres of undeveloped rangeland located on the southern perimeter of MAFR in Township 1S, Ranges 29E and 30E, in Roosevelt County, New Mexico. This undeveloped land is adjacent to private ranchlands owned by Davis Mesa Ranch, LLC, Davis Arch Ranch, LLC, and Davis Spear Ranch, LLC. The ranchland properties represent ideal conditions for the commercial development of wind energy generation.

For the exchange of 1,240 acres of Air Force real property the owner of these properties has agreed to convey 160 acres of ranchland on the eastern perimeter of the range utilizing 10 U.S.C. 2869 authority.

In conjunction with the exchange, the same landowner has agreed to convey a perpetual restrictive use easement on

29,319 acres to protect those acres adjoining MAFR from incompatible land uses. 10 U.S.C. 2869 authorizes the Air Force to convey real property at an installation in exchange for property interests to be acquired under the terms of an encroachment protection agreement executed in accordance with Title 10 U.S.C. 2684a. The Air Force executed an encroachment management agreement with The Conservation Fund on July 21, 2017.

The Air Force has notified the appropriate Congressional committees of the terms and conditions of the proposed exchange pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 2869(d)(2).

Authority: 10 U.S.C. 2869(d)(1) and 10 U.S.C. 2684a(d)(4)(B).

Dated: July 19, 2018.

Henry Williams, Acting Air Force Federal Register Liaison Officer.

[FR Doc. 2018–15901 Filed 7–24–18; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE P

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

Applications for New Awards;

Technical Assistance and Dissemination To Improve Services and Results for Children With Disabilities—Center on Dispute Resolution

AGENCY: Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative. Services, Department of Education.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: The Department of Education is issuing a notice inviting applications for new awards for fiscal year (FY) 2018 for Technical Assistance and Dissemination to Improve Services and Results for Children With Disabilities— Center on Dispute Resolution, Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) number 84.326X.

DATES:

Applications Available: July 25, 2018.

Deadline for Transmittal of

Applications: August 24, 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: Tina Diamond, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Room 5136, Potomac Center Plaza, VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:50 Jul 24, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\25JYN1.SGM 25JYN1da ltl an d on D

S K

B B

V 9H

B 2P

R O

D w ith N

O T

IC

E

S http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2018-02-12/pdf/2018-02558.pdf

35248 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 143 / Wednesday, July 25, 2018 / Notices

Washington, DC 20202–5108.

Telephone: (202) 245–6674.

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, 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:

Center on Dispute Resolution.

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. This priority is consistent with Supplemental Priority 1 in 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)—Empowering Families and Individuals To Choose a High-Quality Education That Meets Their Unique Needs; and Supplemental Priority 5—Meeting the Unique Needs of Students and Children With Disabilities and/or Those With Unique Gifts and Talents.

IDEA includes procedural safeguards that are designed to protect the rights of children with disabilities and their parents and to provide parents with mechanisms for resolving, at the earliest point in time, disputes with those who provide services to children with disabilities (State educational agencies (SEAs), local educational agencies (LEAs), schools, Part C State lead agencies, and early intervention service (EIS) providers). The procedural safeguards include the opportunity to seek a timely resolution of disputes about establishing a child’s eligibility under IDEA and providing a free appropriate public education (FAPE) to an eligible child or the appropriate EIS to infants and toddlers with disabilities.

Thus, IDEA encourages constructive relationships between parents of children with disabilities and those who provide services to children with disabilities by facilitating open communication between the parents and these entities and encouraging early resolution of disputes so that disagreements do not escalate and become adversarial and result in a delay in identifying, and providing needed services to, eligible children. IDEA’s dispute resolution procedures include provisions for State complaints, mediation, due process complaints, and resolution sessions, as described below.

State Complaints. IDEA’s State complaint procedures permit parents and other interested individuals or organizations to file a complaint with the SEA or Part C State lead agency to seek resolution of any alleged violations of IDEA. The goal of the State complaint procedures is to resolve disputes while avoiding costly or time-consuming due process hearings (34 CFR 300.151 through 300.153—Part B regulations; 34 CFR 303.432 through 303.434—Part C regulations). The State complaint procedures provide an important means of ensuring that the educational or early intervention needs of children with disabilities are met (34 CFR 300.151 and 303.432).

Mediation. In response to increasing numbers of due process complaints under Part B of IDEA, Congress amended IDEA in 1997 to require SEAs and Part C State lead agencies to make mediation available, at a minimum, whenever a due process complaint is filed. In 2004, Congress further amended section 615(e) of IDEA to allow parties to use mediation to resolve disputes involving any matter under IDEA, not just those matters that are the subject of a due process complaint, thus making mediation available at any time and on any matter under IDEA. (This amendment also applies to Part C through section 639(a)(8) of IDEA.) In mediation, the goal is for a neutral third party to facilitate the resolution of disputes without the need for an adversarial hearing. Thus, mediation is more likely than due process hearings to foster positive relationships between families and educators and EIS providers (Government Accountability Office, 2003).

Due Process Hearings. In due process hearings, IDEA requires that an impartial, knowledgeable decision-maker resolve disputes. While due process hearings are an important protection, they can be costly, time-consuming, and contentious, and they may damage relationships between the parties involved in the dispute.

Resolution Session. The 2004 amendments to IDEA added a requirement for a resolution session prior to a due process hearing. The resolution session requirement applies to all IDEA Part B due process complaints and to those IDEA Part C due process complaints filed in a State that has elected to adopt the Part B-type due process hearing procedures in 34 CFR 303.440 through 303.449. Under section 615(f)(1)(B) of IDEA, the LEA (or in the case of IDEA Part C, under 34 CFR 303.442, the State lead agency) must convene a meeting with the parents and relevant members of the child’s individualized education program (IEP) or individualized family service plan (IFSP) team who have specific knowledge of the facts identified in the complaint. This provides the parents and the agency responsible for providing service to a child with an opportunity to resolve the complaint and avoid a due process hearing.

Early Resolution Practices. In addition to these methods of dispute resolution specifically required under IDEA, there are a variety of informal or ‘‘early resolution’’ practices that can be used to resolve disputes at the school or district level and avoid time-consuming and costly litigation.

Each SEA and Part C State lead agency is responsible for annually reporting data on dispute resolution activity to the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) to help determine the extent to which States effectively implement dispute resolution practices. The data collected by OSEP include information on the timeliness of State complaint reports and due process hearing decisions, the percentage of due process complaints that were resolved through settlement agreements, and mediations resulting in agreements.

An analysis of national data trends in dispute resolution conducted by the Center for Appropriate Dispute Resolution in Special Education (CADRE) shows declines in processes, such as written State complaints and due process complaints, and increases in the use of collaborative approaches, VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:50 Jul 24, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\25JYN1.SGM 25JYN1da ltl an d on D

S K

B B

V 9H

B 2P

R O

D w ith N

O T

IC

E

S

35249 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 143 / Wednesday, July 25, 2018 / Notices such as mediation and IEP facilitation (CADRE, 2017). However, OSEP’s most recent analysis of Annual Performance Reports (APRs) shows that States continue to fall short of their targets for agreement rates in resolution sessions.

A survey of State officials indicated that a lack of public awareness about early resolution practices presents a challenge to expanding their use, which demonstrates a need for additional technical assistance (TA), dissemination of information, and coordination with parent organizations (Government Accountability Office, 2014). OSEP-funded parent TA providers have noted that this lack of awareness is prevalent among vulnerable populations due to language, informational, or economic barriers.

Priority: The purpose of this priority is to fund a cooperative agreement to establish and operate a Center on Dispute Resolution (Center). This Center will provide TA to SEAs, Part C State lead agencies, and OSEP-funded parent centers to improve the implementation of all of the dispute resolution practices required under IDEA, along with any optional early resolution strategies that may be available. The Center must achieve, at a minimum, the following expected outcomes:

(a) Increased capacity of SEAs and Part C State lead agencies to support local implementation of effective early resolution practices to resolve disputes and thereby decrease State complaints and due process complaints;

(b) Increased capacity of SEAs and Part C State lead agencies to collect, report, and use high-quality dispute resolution data;

(c) Increased body of knowledge on dispute prevention and exemplary dispute resolution practices to meet the dispute resolution needs of parents and families, including those from vulnerable populations who may be less likely to access dispute resolution due to language, informational, or economic barriers;

(d) Improved access for hearing officers to information on emerging issues related to special education and early intervention dispute resolution;

(e) Improved ability of SEAs and Part C State lead agencies to implement a range of dispute resolution options, including methods of dispute resolution required under IDEA and early resolution practices and to support SEAs and Part C State lead agencies in ensuring that dispute resolution options are not affected by administrative constraints (e.g., staffing or target agreement rates for mediation agreements and resolution sessions);

(f) Improved capacity of OSEP-funded parent centers to provide TA on the range of effective dispute resolution options;

(g) Increased knowledge of OSEP-funded parent centers, parents, and families about school choice as it relates to due process and procedural safeguards under IDEA; and

(h) An annual analysis of State and national trends and other data about dispute resolution to determine the extent to which SEAs and Part C State lead agencies have—

(i) Met the required timelines when resolving State complaints and issuing due process hearing decisions;

(ii) Used resolution meetings and mediation to successfully resolve disputes between parents and LEAs or EIS providers; and

(iii) Implemented effective methods of early dispute resolution.

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 gaps or weaknesses in State or local dispute resolution performance and compliance to meet the dispute resolution needs of SEA and Part C State lead agency personnel, as well as the needs of parents and families, including those from vulnerable populations who may be less likely to access dispute resolution due to language, informational, or economic barriers. To meet this requirement the applicant must—

(i) Demonstrate knowledge of exemplary dispute resolution practices that will assist SEAs and Part C State lead agencies in improving dispute resolution, especially practices that will assist agencies in meeting compliance and performance targets and implementing effective early resolution practices;

(ii) Present information about the current level of implementation of exemplary dispute resolution practices in SEAs and Part C State lead agencies, especially practices that will assist agencies in meeting compliance and performance targets and implementing effective early resolution practices; and

(iii) Present national, State, or local data on the financial and administrative burden of involvement in dispute resolution and discuss strategies for minimizing these burdens for all parties involved.

(2) Improve outcomes in dispute resolution compliance and performance for SEAs and Part C State lead agencies and increase the implementation of early resolution practices.

(3) Improve communication between parents and families and education professionals to minimize conflict and increase the use of collaborative problem-solving and dispute resolution practices.

(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-conceptual-framework.

(4) Be based on current research on effective dispute resolution practices, provide services that assist SEAs and Part C State lead agencies to comply with IDEA requirements, and draw from the knowledge base of effective early resolution evidence-based (as defined in this notice) practices (EBPs). To meet this requirement, the applicant must describe—

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:50 Jul 24, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\25JYN1.SGM 25JYN1da ltl an d on D

S K

B B

V 9H

B 2P

R O

D w ith N

O T

IC

E

S http://www.osepideasthatwork.org/logicModel https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-acoustic-technical-guidance https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-acoustic-technical-guidance https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-acoustic-technical-guidance https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-acoustic-technical-guidance

35250 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 143 / Wednesday, July 25, 2018 / Notices

1 ‘‘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 one-time, invited or offered conference presentations by TA center staff. This category of TA also includes information or products, such as newsletters, guidebooks, or research syntheses, downloaded from the TA center’s website by independent users.

Brief communications by TA center staff with recipients, either by telephone or email, are also considered universal, general TA.

2 ‘‘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 labor-intensive 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.

3 ‘‘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.

4 The major tasks of CIP3 are to guide, coordinate, and oversee the design of formative evaluations for every large discretionary investment (i.e., those awarded $500,000 or more per year and required to participate in the 3+2 process) in OSEP’s Technical Assistance and Dissemination; Personnel Development; Parent Training and Information Centers; and Educational Technology, Media, and Materials programs. The efforts of CIP3 are expected to enhance individual project evaluation plans by providing expert and unbiased TA in designing the evaluations with due consideration of the project’s budget. CIP3 does not function as a third-party evaluator.

(i) The current research on effective dispute resolution practices, including early resolution EBPs;

(ii) The current research about adult learning principles and implementation science that will inform the proposed TA; and

(iii) How the proposed project will incorporate current research and EBPs in the development and delivery of its products and services;

(5) Develop products and provide services that are of high quality and sufficient intensity and duration to achieve the intended outcomes of the proposed project. To address this requirement, the applicant must describe—

(i) How it proposes to identify or develop the knowledge base in special education dispute resolution;

(ii) Its proposed approach to universal, general TA,1 which must identify the intended recipients, including the type and number of recipients, that will receive the products and services, a description of the products and services that the Center proposes to make available, and the expected impact of those products and services under this approach;

(iii) Its proposed approach to targeted, specialized TA,2 which must identify—

(A) The intended recipients, including the type and number of recipients, that will receive the products and services, a description of the products and services that the Center proposes to make available, and the expected impact of those products and services under this approach; and

(B) Its proposed approach to measure the dispute resolution needs and readiness of potential TA recipients to work with the project, assessing, at a minimum, their current infrastructure, available resources, and ability to build capacity at the local level; and

(iv) Its proposed approach to intensive, sustained TA,3 which must identify—

(A) The intended recipients, including the type and number of recipients, that will receive the products and services, a description of the products and services that the Center proposes to make available, and the expected impact of those products and services under this approach;

(B) Its proposed approach to measure the dispute resolution needs and readiness of SEAs, Part C State lead agencies, and parent centers to work with the project, including their commitment to the initiative, alignment of the initiative to their needs, current infrastructure, available resources, and ability of the SEAs, Part C State lead agencies, and parent centers to build capacity at the local school district or program level;

(C) Its proposed plan for assisting SEAs and Part C State lead agencies to build or enhance training systems related to special education dispute resolution that include professional development based on adult learning principles and coaching; and

(D) Its proposed plan for working with appropriate levels of the education system (e.g., SEAs, Part C State lead agencies, regional TA providers, parents and families) to ensure that there is communication between each level and that there are systems in place to support the use of effective dispute resolution practices, including early resolution EBPs;

(6) Develop products and implement services that are impartial and maximize efficiency. To address this requirement, the applicant must describe—

(i) How the proposed project will use technology to achieve the intended project outcomes;

(ii) With whom the proposed project will collaborate and the intended outcomes of this collaboration; and

(iii) How the proposed project will use non-project resources to achieve the intended project outcomes.

(c) In the narrative section of the application under ‘‘Quality of the Evaluation Plan,’’ 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 services have met the goals for reaching its target population; measures of intended outcomes or results of the project’s activities in order to evaluate those activities; and how well the goals or objectives of the proposed project, as described in its logic model, have been met.

The applicant must provide an assurance that, in designing the evaluation plan, it will—

(1) Designate, with the approval of the OSEP project officer, a project liaison staff person with sufficient dedicated time, experience in evaluation, and knowledge of the project to work in collaboration with the Center to Improve Program and Project Performance (CIP3),4 the project director, and the OSEP project officer on the following tasks:

(i) Revise, as needed, the logic model submitted in the application to provide for a more comprehensive measurement of implementation and outcomes and to reflect any changes or clarifications to the model discussed at the kick-off meeting;

(ii) Refine the evaluation design and instrumentation proposed in the application consistent with the logic model (e.g., prepare evaluation questions about significant program processes and outcomes; develop quantitative or qualitative data collections that permit both the collection of progress data, including fidelity of implementation, as appropriate, and the assessment of project outcomes; and identify analytic strategies); and

(iii) Revise, as needed, the evaluation plan submitted in the application such that it clearly—

(A) Specifies the measures and associated instruments or sources for data appropriate to the evaluation questions, suggests analytic strategies for those data, provides a timeline for conducting the evaluation, and includes staff assignments for completing the plan;

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:50 Jul 24, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\25JYN1.SGM 25JYN1da ltl an d on D

S K

B B

V 9H

B 2P

R O

D w ith N

O T

IC

35251 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 143 / Wednesday, July 25, 2018 / Notices

(B) Delineates the data expected to be available by the end of the second project year for use during the project’s evaluation (3+2 review) for continued funding described under the heading Fourth and Fifth Years of the Project;

and

(C) Can be used to assist the project director and the OSEP project officer, with the assistance of CIP3, as needed, to specify the performance measures to be addressed in the project’s Annual Performance Report;

(2) Cooperate with CIP3 staff in order to accomplish the tasks described in paragraph (1) of this section; and

(3) Dedicate sufficient funds in each budget year to cover the costs of carrying out the tasks described in paragraphs (1) and (2) of this section and implementing the evaluation plan.

(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 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, 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) Two annual two-day trips to attend Department briefings, Department-sponsored conferences, and other meetings, as requested by OSEP;

and

(iv) A one-day intensive 3+2 review meeting 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 industry-recognized 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 TA recipients 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

Center for Appropriate Dispute Resolution in Special Education (CADRE). (2017).

Trends in dispute resolution under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Eugene, OR: CADRE.

Retrieved from www.cadreworks.org/ sites/default/files/TrendsinDispute Resolution%20DEC17.pdf.

Government Accountability Office. (2003).

Numbers of formal disputes are generally low and States are using mediation and other strategies to resolve conflicts (GAO Publication No. 03–897). Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

Government Accountability Office. (2014).

Improved performance measures could enhance oversight of dispute resolution (GAO Publication No. 14–390).

Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

Definitions: The following definitions are from 34 CFR 77.1:

Demonstrates a rationale means a key project component included in the project’s logic model is informed by research or evaluation findings that suggest the project component is likely to improve relevant outcomes.

Evidence-based means the proposed project component is supported by one or more of strong evidence, moderate evidence, promising evidence, or evidence that demonstrates a rationale.

Experimental study means a study that is designed to compare outcomes between two groups of individuals (such as students) that are otherwise equivalent except for their assignment to either a treatment group receiving a project component or a control group that does not. Randomized controlled trials, regression discontinuity design studies, and single-case design studies are the specific types of experimental studies that, depending on their design and implementation (e.g., sample attrition in randomized controlled trials and regression discontinuity design

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:50 Jul 24, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\25JYN1.SGM 25JYN1da ltl an d on D

S K

B B

V 9H

B 2P

R O

D w ith N

O T

IC

E

S http://www.cadreworks.org/sites/default/files/TrendsinDisputeResolution%20DEC17.pdf http://www.cadreworks.org/sites/default/files/TrendsinDisputeResolution%20DEC17.pdf http://www.cadreworks.org/sites/default/files/TrendsinDisputeResolution%20DEC17.pdf

35252 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 143 / Wednesday, July 25, 2018 / Notices studies), can meet What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) standards without reservations as described in the WWC Handbook:

(i) A randomized controlled trial employs random assignment of, for example, students, teachers, classrooms, or schools to receive the project component being evaluated (the treatment group) or not to receive the project component (the control group).

(ii) A regression discontinuity design study assigns the project component being evaluated using a measured variable (e.g., assigning students reading below a cutoff score to tutoring or developmental education classes) and controls for that variable in the analysis of outcomes.

(iii) A single-case design study uses observations of a single case (e.g., a student eligible for a behavioral intervention) over time in the absence and presence of a controlled treatment manipulation to determine whether the outcome is systematically related to the treatment.

Logic model (also referred to as a theory of action) means a framework that identifies key project components of the proposed project (i.e., the active ‘‘ingredients’’ that are hypothesized to be critical to achieving the relevant outcomes) and describes the theoretical and operational relationships among the key project components and relevant outcomes.

Moderate evidence means that there is evidence of effectiveness of a key project component in improving a relevant outcome for a sample that overlaps with the populations or settings proposed to receive that component, based on a relevant finding from one of the following:

(i) A practice guide prepared by the WWC using version 2.1 or 3.0 of the WWC Handbook reporting a ‘‘strong evidence base’’ or ‘‘moderate evidence base’’ for the corresponding practice guide recommendation;

(ii) An intervention report prepared by the WWC using version 2.1 or 3.0 of the WWC Handbook reporting a ‘‘positive effect’’ or ‘‘potentially positive effect’’ on a relevant outcome based on a ‘‘medium to large’’ extent of evidence, with no reporting of a ‘‘negative effect’’ or ‘‘potentially negative effect’’ on a relevant outcome; or

(iii) A single experimental study or quasi-experimental design study reviewed and reported by the WWC using version 2.1 or 3.0 of the WWC Handbook, or otherwise assessed by the Department using version 3.0 of the WWC Handbook, as appropriate, and that—

(A) Meets WWC standards with or without reservations;

(B) Includes at least one statistically significant and positive (i.e., favorable) effect on a relevant outcome;

(C) Includes no overriding statistically significant and negative effects on relevant outcomes reported in the study or in a corresponding WWC intervention report prepared under version 2.1 or 3.0 of the WWC Handbook; and

(D) Is based on a sample from more than one site (e.g., State, county, city, school district, or postsecondary campus) and includes at least 350 students or other individuals across sites. Multiple studies of the same project component that each meet requirements in paragraphs (iii)(A), (B), and (C) of this definition may together satisfy this requirement.

Project component means an activity, strategy, intervention, process, product, practice, or policy included in a project.

Evidence may pertain to an individual project component or to a combination of project components (e.g., training teachers on instructional practices for English learners and follow-on coaching for these teachers).

Promising evidence means that there is evidence of the effectiveness of a key project component in improving a relevant outcome, based on a relevant finding from one of the following:

(i) A practice guide prepared by WWC reporting a ‘‘strong evidence base’’ or ‘‘moderate evidence base’’ for the corresponding practice guide recommendation;

(ii) An intervention report prepared by the WWC reporting a ‘‘positive effect’’ or ‘‘potentially positive effect’’ on a relevant outcome with no reporting of a ‘‘negative effect’’ or ‘‘potentially negative effect’’ on a relevant outcome;

or

(iii) A single study assessed by the Department, as appropriate, that—

(A) Is an experimental study, a quasi-experimental 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

(B) Includes at least one statistically significant and positive (i.e., favorable) effect on a relevant outcome.

Quasi-experimental design study means a study using a design that attempts to approximate an experimental study by identifying a comparison group that is similar to the treatment group in important respects.

This type of study, depending on design and implementation (e.g., establishment of baseline equivalence of the groups being compared), can meet WWC standards with reservations, but cannot meet WWC standards without reservations, as described in the WWC Handbook.

Relevant outcome means the student outcome(s) or other outcome(s) the key project component is designed to improve, consistent with the specific goals of the program.

Strong evidence means that there is evidence of the effectiveness of a key project component in improving a relevant outcome for a sample that overlaps with the populations and settings proposed to receive that component, based on a relevant finding from one of the following:

(i) A practice guide prepared by the WWC using version 2.1 or 3.0 of the WWC Handbook reporting a ‘‘strong evidence base’’ for the corresponding practice guide recommendation;

(ii) An intervention report prepared by the WWC using version 2.1 or 3.0 of the WWC Handbook reporting a ‘‘positive effect’’ on a relevant outcome based on a ‘‘medium to large’’ extent of evidence, with no reporting of a ‘‘negative effect’’ or ‘‘potentially negative effect’’ on a relevant outcome;

or

(iii) A single experimental study reviewed and reported by the WWC using version 2.1 or 3.0 of the WWC Handbook, or otherwise assessed by the Department using version 3.0 of the WWC Handbook, as appropriate, and that—

(A) Meets WWC standards without reservations;

(B) Includes at least one statistically significant and positive (i.e., favorable) effect on a relevant outcome;

(C) Includes no overriding statistically significant and negative effects on relevant outcomes reported in the study or in a corresponding WWC intervention report prepared under version 2.1 or 3.0 of the WWC Handbook; and

(D) Is based on a sample from more than one site (e.g., State, county, city, school district, or postsecondary campus) and includes at least 350 students or other individuals across sites. Multiple studies of the same project component that each meet requirements in paragraphs (iii)(A), (B), and (C) of this definition may together satisfy this requirement.

What Works Clearinghouse Handbook (WWC Handbook) means the standards and procedures set forth in the WWC Procedures and Standards Handbook, Version 3.0 or Version 2.1 (incorporated by reference, see 34 CFR 77.2). Study findings eligible for review under WWC

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:50 Jul 24, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\25JYN1.SGM 25JYN1da ltl an d on D

S K

B B

V 9H

B 2P

R O

D w ith N

O T

IC

35253 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 143 / Wednesday, July 25, 2018 / Notices 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; 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: (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,…