82 FR 18436 - List of Correspondence From July 1, 2015, Through September 30, 2015, and October 1, 2015, Through December 31, 2015
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Federal Register Volume 82, Issue 74 (April 19, 2017)
Federal Register Volume 82, Issue 74 (April 19, 2017)
| Page Range | 18436-18438 | |
| FR Document | 2017-07857 |
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 74 (Wednesday, April 19, 2017)] [Notices] [Pages 18436-18438] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [FR Doc No: 2017-07857] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION List of Correspondence From July 1, 2015, Through September 30, 2015, and October 1, 2015, Through December 31, 2015 AGENCY: Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, Department of Education. [[Page 18437]] ACTION: Notice. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: The Secretary is publishing the following list of correspondence from the U.S. Department of Education (Department) received by individuals during the third and fourth quarters of 2015. The correspondence describes the Department's interpretations of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) or the regulations that implement the IDEA. This list and the letters or other documents described in this list, with personally identifiable information redacted, as appropriate, can be found at: www2.ed.gov/policy/speced/guid/idea/index.html. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jessica Spataro or Mary Louise Dirrigl. Telephone: (202) 245-7605. If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text telephone (TTY), you can call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1-800-877-8339. Individuals with disabilities can obtain a copy of this list and the letters or other documents described in this list in an accessible format (e.g., braille, large print, audiotape, or compact disc) by contacting Jessica Spataro or Mary Louise Dirrigl at (202) 245-7605. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The following list identifies correspondence from the Department issued from July 1, 2015, through September 30, 2015, and October 1, 2015, through December 31, 2015. Under section 607(f) of the IDEA, the Secretary is required to publish this list quarterly in the Federal Register. The list includes those letters that contain interpretations of the requirements of the IDEA and its implementing regulations, as well as letters and other documents that the Department believes will assist the public in understanding the requirements of the law. The list identifies the date and topic of each letter and provides summary information, as appropriate. To protect the privacy interests of the individual or individuals involved, personally identifiable information has been redacted, as appropriate. Part A--General Provisions Section 602--Definitions Topics Addressed: Individualized Education Program; Individualized Family Service Plan [cir] Dear Colleague Letter dated July 6, 2015, regarding the role of speech language pathologists and other professionals in determining appropriate services for infants, toddlers, and children with autism spectrum disorder. Part B--Assistance for Education of All Children With Disabilities Section 612--State Eligibility Topic Addressed: Free Appropriate Public Education [cir] Dear Colleague Letter dated November 16, 2015, clarifying that individualized education program (IEP) Teams must ensure that annual IEP goals are aligned with the State's academic content standards for the grade in which the child is enrolled. Topic Addressed: Confidentiality [cir] Letter dated November 23, 2015, to Alabama attorney Julie J. Weatherly, regarding requirements that govern the destruction of information collected, maintained, or used under Part B of the IDEA. Topic Addressed: Children Enrolled in Private Schools by Their Parents [cir] Letter dated July 6, 2015, to New York attorney Edward Sarzynski, regarding the requirements in Part B of the IDEA that apply when parents from other countries enroll their children with disabilities in private schools. [cir] Letter dated November 23, 2015, to New Jersey attorney Michael I. Inzelbuch, clarifying whether a local educational agency (LEA) may use a portion of the funds it must spend to provide equitable services to children with disabilities placed by their parents in private schools to pay the costs of a settlement agreement. Topic Addressed: State Educational Agency (SEA) General Supervisory Authority [cir] Letter dated July 16, 2015, to Michigan Protection and Advocacy Services, Inc., Director of Public Policy Mark McWilliams, regarding the resolution of State complaints under Part B of the IDEA that allege that a public agency has not implemented a behavioral intervention plan. [cir] Letter dated September 18, 2015, to education advocate Marcie Lipsett, clarifying an SEA's responsibility to issue a written decision on a State complaint under Part B of the IDEA even if the SEA accepts an LEA's proposed resolution of the complaint. Section 613--Local Educational Agency Eligibility Topic Addressed: Maintenance of Effort [cir] Letter dated November 23, 2015, to New Mexico Public Education Department, Director of Special Education Michael Lovato, regarding the exception to the LEA maintenance of effort requirement due to the voluntary or just cause departure of special education or related services personnel. Section 614--Evaluations, Eligibility Determinations, Individualized Education Programs, and Educational Placements Topic Addressed: Eligibility Determinations [cir] Dear Colleague Letter dated October 23, 2015, regarding evaluations, eligibility determinations, and IEPs for children with dyslexia, dyscalculia, or dysgraphia. Section 615--Procedural Safeguards Topic Addressed: Impartial Due Process Hearings [cir] Letter dated September 16, 2015, to Illinois attorney Matthew D. Cohen, regarding various issues arising in due process complaints, resolution sessions, and due process hearings, including whether an LEA can unilaterally amend a child's IEP during a resolution meeting on a due process complaint and present that IEP as evidence in a subsequent due process hearing on that complaint. [cir] Letter dated December 9, 2015, to Lehigh University Professor of Education and Law Perry A. Zirkel, regarding the statute of limitations for filing a request for a due process hearing. [cir] Letter dated December 13, 2015, to California attorney Colleen A. Snyder, regarding the application of the expedited due process hearing procedures. Electronic Access to This Document: The official version of this document is the document published in the Federal Register. Free internet access to the official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of Federal Regulations is available via the Federal Digital System at: www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys. At this site you can view this document, as well as all other documents of this Department published in the Federal Register, in text or Portable Document Format (PDF). To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at the site. You may also access documents of the Department published in the Federal Register by using the article search feature at: www.federalregister.gov. Specifically, through the advanced search feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published by the Department. [[Page 18438]] Dated: April 13, 2017. Ruth E. Ryder, Deputy Director, Office of Special Education Programs, delegated the duties of the Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services. [FR Doc. 2017-07857 Filed 4-18-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
![18436 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 74 / Wednesday, April 19, 2017 / Notices
located at the base were deployed. Thus, decided. The Panel decided, however, panel ruling in 2002, ‘‘the contract for
the Army had to contract for cooks to to give that case ‘‘respectful [mess attendant] services in 2006 would
provide food service to those located on consideration.’’ have been issued under the [Act].’’
the base. As the number of troops The Army argued that the Panel For the reasons stated in the decision,
deployed decreased, the cooks from Fort should give great deference to the the Panel found that the Army violated
Campbell returned to the base. Military decision of the Contracting Officer. The the Act when it issued the solicitation
personnel began to perform multiple Panel majority disagreed with that for Dining Facility Attendant Services at
tasks, including selecting the menus, argument. While there was no Fort Campbell without applying the
preparing and cooking the food, disagreement that the Army had full provisions of the Act to the Army’s
ordering supplies, maintaining quality authority to have its own cooks handle source selection process. In terms of a
control of all food prepared and served, food preparation and manage the dining remedy, the Panel recognized that the
maintaining equipment, conducting facility, the issue was whether the Act requires that, when a violation has
headcount of soldiers served, and noting Army’s conclusion that the remaining been found, the Federal agency must
accountability of cash received. While work was not covered by the Act was ‘‘cause such acts or practices to be
these duties had been performed by the correct. The Panel determined that terminated promptly and shall take such
SLA, due to these changes, the Army no resolution of the issues in this case other action as may be necessary to
longer needed to have a contractor involved statutory interpretation, and, carry out the decision of the panel.’’ The
provide these services. However, the because the Department is charged with Panel directed the Army to notify the
Army still had a need for a contractor interpreting the Act, by extension, so is current contractor that its contract
to perform certain services because the Panel. would not be renewed at expiration and
soldiers are precluded by Army The remaining question then was
to begin negotiations with the SLA for
Regulation 30–22 from performing whether the Act was intended to apply
services to commence upon the
dining facility attendant duties in a to the discrete dining facility attendant
expiration of the current contract.
garrison environment. services that were to be provided at the
dining halls at Fort Campbell. The Panel One panel member concurred in part
The Performance Work Statement and dissented in part.
outlined the duties the contractor would majority noted that because
interpretations had changed over the Electronic Access to This Document:
now be required to perform. According The official version of this document is
to the Panel’s decision: years, to understand what the Act, as it
stands today, was intended to cover, it the document published in the Federal
[T]he contractor is to ‘‘hire and staff of had to explore this history. As a result, Register. Free internet access to the
qualified personnel . . . provide an on-site official edition of the Federal Register
the Panel reviewed and discussed the
contract manager and with full authority to and the Code of Federal Regulations is
obligate the company and be responsible for 1974 Amendments, various
pronouncements from the Department available via the Federal Digital System
overall performance . . . provide all
employees with uniforms . . . establish and and the Comptroller General’s various at: www.gpo.gov/fdsys. At this site you
maintain a comprehensive quality control court decisions, the relationship can view this document, as well as all
plan . . . train employees . . . maintain between the Act and the Javits-Wagner- other documents of this Department
certificates and records . . . operate, and O’Day Act (JWOD), and the passage of published in the Federal Register, in
clean after each use, mechanical vegetable the National Defense Authorization Act text or Portable Document Format
peeling machine . . . requisition, wash, peel of 2007 (NDAA). (PDF). To use PDF you must have
and cut potatoes and fruit.’’ The majority ultimately concluded Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is
The Army Contracting Officer the Act applies to this solicitation at available free at the site.
concluded that the required services did Fort Campbell. In reaching that You may also access documents of the
not fall within the scope of the Act. conclusion, the Panel rejected the Department published in the Federal
Because of the Army Contracting Army’s assertion that Washington State Register by using the article search
Officer’s decision, the SLA filed a Department of Services for the Blind v. feature at www.federalregister.gov.
request for arbitration with the United States, 58 Fed. Cl. 781 (2003), Specifically, through the advanced
Department contending the Army was binding on the Panel. The Panel search feature at this site, you can limit
violated the Act and its applicable determined that the Washington case your search to documents published by
regulations, in 34 CFR part 395, when was limited to just ‘‘busboy’’ services, the Department.
it issued this solicitation without whereas the Fort Campbell solicitation
Dated: April 13, 2017.
applying the provisions of the Act to the also involved food handling. The Panel
Ruth E. Ryder,
Army’s source selection process. The also discussed the impact of the NDAA
and the interplay between the services Deputy Director, Office of Special Education
matter was then submitted to the Panel.
Programs, delegated the duties of the
covered by the Act and JWOD. In
Synopsis of the Panel Decision Assistant Secretary for Special Education and
determining that the NDAA defined Rehabilitative Services.
A similar issue had arisen at Fort food services to include mess attendant
[FR Doc. 2017–07858 Filed 4–18–17; 8:45 am]
Campbell in the late 1990s. In 2002, an services, the Panel concluded that this
BILLING CODE 4000–01–P
arbitration panel concluded that the ‘‘impliedly indicated those services are
services described in that Performance covered by the [Act].’’
Work Statement fell within the terms of Finally, in rejecting the argument that
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
the Act. The Panel was asked whether the NDAA did not apply because the
the 2002 decision was binding through contract in effect at Fort Campbell was
jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
List of Correspondence From July 1,
the principle of res judicata, given the not awarded under the Act, the Panel 2015, Through September 30, 2015,
similarity of issues and parties. The concluded that the NDAA was still a and October 1, 2015, Through
Panel concluded unanimously that the ‘‘pronouncement by Congress as to the December 31, 2015
2002 decision was not binding on the coverage of the [NDAA] and is,
Panel because there had been several therefore, a significant factor here.’’ The AGENCY: Office of Special Education and
judicial rulings and pronouncements by Panel then concluded that had the Army Rehabilitative Services, Department of
Congress since the earlier case was complied with the earlier arbitration Education.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:06 Apr 18, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\19APN1.SGM 19APN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/82_FR_18510/page/1.svg)
![18438 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 74 / Wednesday, April 19, 2017 / Notices
Dated: April 13, 2017. Priority: In accordance with 34 CFR based on evidence. States reported in
Ruth E. Ryder, 75.105(b)(2)(v), this priority is from their SSIPs multiple challenges that
Deputy Director, Office of Special Education allowable activities specified in the affect States’ abilities to successfully
Programs, delegated the duties of the statute (see sections 663 and 681(d) of implement their SSIPs, including the
Assistant Secretary for Special Education and the Individuals with Disabilities high turnover of State administrators
Rehabilitative Services. Education Act (IDEA) (20 U.S.C. 1463 and limited collaboration across those
[FR Doc. 2017–07857 Filed 4–18–17; 8:45 am] and 1481)(d)). agencies that are part of delivering high-
BILLING CODE 4000–01–P Absolute Priority: For FY 2017 and quality inclusive programs.5
any subsequent year in which we make In order to increase high-quality
awards from the list of unfunded inclusive opportunities for children
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION applications from this competition, this with disabilities, State IDEA Part C and
priority is an absolute priority. Under 34 Part B, section 619 coordinators must be
Applications for New Awards; CFR 75.105(c)(3), we consider only active collaborators with other early
Technical Assistance and applications that meet this priority. childhood systems (e.g., home visiting
Dissemination To Improve Services This priority is: programs, Head Start programs, child
and Results for Children With Early Childhood Systems Technical care programs, public preschool
Disabilities—Early Childhood Systems Assistance Center. programs) and engage in broader early
Technical Assistance Center Background: childhood initiatives within the State.
To improve outcomes for, and protect Further, IDEA Part C and Part B, section
AGENCY: Office of Special Education and
the rights of, infants, toddlers, and 619 coordinators report that they are
Rehabilitative Services, Department of
preschool children (young children) often not included as partners on State
Education.
with disabilities and their families, and local leadership teams that are
ACTION: Notice. developed to address broader early
States must have effective systems 1 for
SUMMARY: The Department of Education implementing IDEA and providing high- childhood initiatives, but that
is issuing a notice inviting applications quality services under Part C and Part B, collaboration with their IDEA
for new awards for fiscal year (FY) 2017 section 619. Effective systems must counterparts is necessary for developing
for Technical Assistance and include implementation supports 2 that and increasing access and meaningful
Dissemination to Improve Services and enable local programs and practitioners participation in inclusive settings for
Results for Children with Disabilities— to implement, with fidelity, services and young children with disabilities.
interventions 3 supported by evidence This priority will fund a cooperative
Early Childhood Systems Technical
(as defined in this notice). The majority agreement to establish and operate a
Assistance Center, Catalog of Federal
of States, however, have identified areas national Early Childhood Systems
Domestic Assistance (CFDA) number
for improvement within their systems Technical Assistance Center (Center).
84.326P.
(Lucas et al., 2015), and local programs The Center will provide TA to States to
DATES: Applications Available: April 19, often lack necessary implementation enable them to maintain high-quality
2017. supports. systems with implementation supports
Deadline for Transmittal of States can use the State Systemic to implement IDEA consistent with its
Applications: June 5, 2017. Improvement Plan (SSIP),4 a requirements and to provide high-
Deadline for Intergovernmental comprehensive, multiyear plan that is quality IDEA services for young
Review: August 2, 2017. focused on improving a State-identified children with disabilities and their
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Julia measureable result (SIMR), to plan how families. The Center will work with
Martin Eile, U.S. Department of to enhance their systems to better IDEA Part C and Part B, section 619
Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., implement IDEA and interventions coordinators to increase their
Room 5175, Potomac Center Plaza, competencies to lead systemic
Washington, DC 20202–5108. 1 For the purpose of this priority, ‘‘systems’’ improvements and work collaboratively
Telephone: (202) 245–7431. include: governance; finance; personnel and with other early childhood systems to
If you use a telecommunications workforce; data; accountability and quality increase access to, and participation in,
improvement; and quality standards (The Early high-quality inclusive programs for
device for the deaf (TDD) or a text Childhood Technical Assistance Center, 2015).
telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay 2 For the purpose of this priority, young children with disabilities.
Service (FRS), toll free, at 1–800–877– ‘‘implementation supports’’ include: professional Priority:
8339. development and training; ongoing consultation The purpose of this priority is to fund
and coaching; performance assessments; data a cooperative agreement to establish and
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: systems to support decision making; administrative operate an Early Childhood Systems
supports; and systems interventions to align
Full Text of Announcement policies and funding mechanisms across multiple Technical Assistance Center to achieve,
levels of a system (Fixsen, Blasé, Naoom, & Wallace, at a minimum, the following:
I. Funding Opportunity Description 2009).
Purpose of Program: The purpose of 3 For the purpose of this priority, ‘‘interventions’’ 5 IDEA Part C requires that, to the maximum
the Technical Assistance and include the Division for Early Childhood (DEC) extent appropriate, factoring in each child’s
recommended practices. The DEC recommended routines, needs, and outcomes, early intervention
Dissemination to Improve Services and practices bridge the gap between research and services be made available to all eligible infants and
Results for Children with Disabilities practice, providing guidance to families of young toddlers with disabilities in ‘‘natural
program is to promote academic children with disabilities and practitioners who environments,’’ including the home and community
achievement and to improve results for work with them. The practices have been shown to settings in which children without disabilities
jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
result in better outcomes for young children with participate. IDEA Part B, section 619 requires that
children with disabilities by providing disabilities, their families, and the professionals to the maximum extent appropriate, all children
technical assistance (TA), supporting who serve them (Division for Early Childhood, with disabilities, including preschool children with
model demonstration projects, 2014). disabilities, must be educated in the least restrictive
4 Each State was required to submit an SSIP as environment, and removal from the regular
disseminating useful information, and
part of its State Performance Plan/Annual education environment occurs only if the nature
implementing activities that are Performance Report beginning in Federal Fiscal and severity of the disability is such that education
supported by scientifically based Year 2013. Each State identified a SIMR under Parts in regular classes with the use of supplementary
research. C and B of IDEA. aids and services cannot be achieved satisfactorily.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:06 Apr 18, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\19APN1.SGM 19APN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/82_FR_18510/page/3.svg)
Document Created: 2018-11-14 09:44:03
Document Modified: 2018-11-14 09:44:03
| Category | Regulatory Information | |
| Collection | Federal Register | |
| sudoc Class | AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106: | |
| Publisher | Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration | |
| Section | Notices | |
| Action | Notice. | |
| Contact | Jessica Spataro or Mary Louise Dirrigl. Telephone: (202) 245-7605. | |
| FR Citation | 82 FR 18436 |
2026 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR