Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 157 / Thursday, August 14, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 47575 

§ 801.3 Reporting requirements. 

Except for surveys subject to 

rulemaking in § 801.7, reporting 

requirements for all other surveys 

conducted by the Bureau of Economic 

Analysis shall be as follows: 

(a) Notice of specific reporting 

requirements, including who is required 

to report, the information to be reported, 

the manner of reporting, and the time 

and place of filing reports, will be 

published by the Director of the Bureau 

of Economic Analysis in the Federal 

Register prior to the implementation of 

a survey; 

(b) In accordance with section 

3104(b)(2) of title 22 of the United States 

Code, persons notified of these surveys 

and subject to the jurisdiction of the 

United States shall furnish, under oath, 

any report containing information 

which is determined to be necessary to 

carry out the surveys and studies 

provided for by the Act; and 

(c) Persons not notified in writing of 

their filing obligation by the Bureau of 

Economic Analysis are not required to 

complete the survey. 

■ 3. Revise § 801.4 to read as follows: 

§ 801.4 Recordkeeping requirements. 

In accordance with section 3104(b)(1) 

of title 22 of the United States Code, 

persons subject to the jurisdiction of the 

United States shall maintain any 

information essential for carrying out 

the surveys and studies provided for by 

the Act. 

■ 4. Add § 801.7 to read as follows: 

§ 801.7 Rules and regulations for the BE– 

13, Survey of New Foreign Direct 

Investment in the United States. 

The BE–13, Survey of New Foreign 

Direct Investment in the United States is 

conducted to collect data on the 

acquisition or establishment of U.S. 

business enterprises by foreign investors 

and the expansion of existing U.S. 

affiliates of foreign companies to 

establish a new production facility. All 

legal authorities, provisions, definitions, 

and requirements contained in §§ 801.1 

through 801.2 and §§ 801.4 through 

801.6 are applicable to this survey. 

Specific additional rules and regulations 

for the BE–13 survey are given in 

paragraphs (a) through (d) of this 

section. More detailed instructions are 

given on the report forms and 

instructions. 

(a) Response required. A response is 

required from persons subject to the 

reporting requirements of the BE–13, 

Survey of New Foreign Direct 

Investment in the United States, 

contained herein, whether or not they 

are contacted by BEA. Also, persons, or 

their agents, that are contacted by BEA 

about reporting in this survey, either by 

sending them a report form or by 

written inquiry, must respond in writing 

pursuant this section. This may be 

accomplished by filing the properly 

completed BE–13 report (BE–13A, BE– 

13B, BE–13C, BE–13D, BE–13E, or BE– 

13 Claim for Exemption) within 45 days 

of being contacted. 

(b) Who must report. A BE–13 report 

is required of any U.S. company in 

which: 

(1) A foreign direct investment in the 

United States relationship is created; 

(2) An existing U.S. affiliate of a 

foreign parent establishes a new U.S. 

legal entity, expands its U.S. operations, 

or acquires a U.S. business enterprise, 

or; 

(3) A U.S. business enterprise that 

previously filed a BE–13B or BE–13D 

indicating that the established or 

expanded entity is still under 

construction. Foreign direct investment 

is defined as the ownership or control 

by one foreign person (foreign parent) of 

10 percent or more of the voting 

securities of an incorporated U.S. 

business enterprise, or an equivalent 

interest of an unincorporated U.S. 

business enterprise, including a branch. 

(c) Forms to be filed. Depending on 

the type of investment transaction, U.S. 

affiliates shall report their information, 

on one of six forms—BE–13A, BE–13B, 

BE–13C, BE–13D, BE–13E, or BE–13 

Claim for Exemption. 

(1) Form BE–13A—Report for a U.S. 

business enterprise when a foreign 

entity acquires a voting interest 

(directly, or indirectly through an 

existing U.S. affiliate) in that enterprise, 

segment, or operating unit and: 

(i) The total cost of the acquisition is 

greater than $3 million; 

(ii) The U.S. business enterprise will 

operate as a separate legal entity, and; 

(iii) By this acquisition, at least 10 

percent of the voting interest in the 

acquired entity is now held (directly or 

indirectly) by the foreign entity. 

(2) Form BE–13B—Report for a U.S. 

business enterprise when a foreign 

entity, or an existing U.S. affiliate of a 

foreign entity, establishes a new legal 

entity in the United States and: 

(i) The projected total cost to establish 

the new legal entity is greater than $3 

million, and; 

(ii) The foreign entity owns 10 percent 

or more of the new business enterprise’s 

voting interest (directly or indirectly). 

(3) Form BE–13C—Report for an 

existing U.S. affiliate of a foreign parent 

when it acquires a U.S. business 

enterprise or segment that it then 

merges into its operations and the total 

cost to acquire the business enterprise is 

greater than $3 million. 

(4) Form BE–13D—Report for an 

existing U.S. affiliate of a foreign parent 

when it expands its operations to 

include a new facility where business is 

conducted and the projected total cost 

of the expansion is greater than $3 

million. 

(5) Form BE–13E—Report for a U.S. 

business enterprise that previously filed 

a BE–13B or BE–13D indicating that the 

established or expanded entity is still 

under construction. This form will 

collect updated cost information and 

will be collected annually until 

construction is complete. 

(6) Form BE–13 Claim for Not Filing— 

Report for a U.S. business enterprise 

that: 

(i) Was contacted by BEA but does not 

meet the requirements for filing forms 

BE–13A, BE–13B, BE–13C, or BE–13D; 

or 

(ii) Whether or not contacted by BEA, 

met all requirements for filing on Forms 

BE–13A, BE–13B, BE–13C, or BE–13D 

except the $3 million reporting 

threshold. 

(d) Due date. The BE–13 forms are 

due no later than 45 days after the 

acquisition is completed, the new legal 

entity is established, the expansion is 

begun, or the cost update is requested. 

[FR Doc. 2014–19256 Filed 8–13–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–06–P 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

34 CFR Chapter III 

[CFDA Number: 84.224D.] 

Final Priority; Rehabilitation Services 

Administration—Assistive Technology 

Alternative Financing Program 

AGENCY: Office of Special Education and 

Rehabilitative Services, Department of 

Education. 

ACTION: Final priority. 

SUMMARY: The Assistant Secretary for 

Special Education and Rehabilitative 

Services announces a priority under the 

Assistive Technology Alternative 

Financing Program administered by the 

Rehabilitation Services Administration 

(RSA). The Assistant Secretary may use 

this priority for competitions in fiscal 

year (FY) 2014 and later years. This 

priority is designed to ensure that the 

Department funds high-quality assistive 

technology (AT) alternative financing 

programs (AFPs) that meet rigorous 

standards in order to enable individuals 

with disabilities to access and acquire 

assistive technology devices and 

services necessary to achieve education, 

community living, and employment 

goals. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES
47576 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 157 / Thursday, August 14, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

DATES: Effective Date: This priority is 

effective September 15, 2014. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Robert Groenendaal, U.S. Department of 

Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., 

Room 5025, Potomac Center Plaza 

(PCP), Washington, DC 20202–2800. 

Telephone: (202) 245–7393 or by email: 

robert.groenendaal@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: 

Purpose of Program: The purpose of 

the Assistive Technology Alternative 

Financing Program (AFP) is to support 

programs that provide for the purchase 

of AT devices, such as a low-interest 

loan fund, an interest buy-down 

program, a revolving loan fund, a loan 

guarantee, or an insurance program. The 

Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014 

(the Act) requires applicants for these 

grants to provide an assurance that, and 

information describing the manner in 

which, the AFP will expand and 

emphasize consumer choice and 

control. It also specifies that State 

agencies and community-based 

disability organizations that are directed 

by and operated for individuals with 

disabilities are eligible to compete. 

Language in the Explanatory Statement 

accompanying the Act provides that 

successful applicants must emphasize 

consumer choice and control and build 

programs that will provide financing for 

the full array of AT devices and services 

and ensure that all people with 

disabilities, regardless of type of 

disability or health condition, age, level 

of income, and residence, have access to 

the program. In addition, the language 

provides that applicants should 

incorporate credit-building activities in 

their programs, including financial 

education and information about other 

possible funding sources. 

Program Authority: Consolidated 

Appropriations Act, 2014 (Pub. L. 113–76). 

We published a notice of proposed 

priority for this competition in the 

Federal Register on May 13, 2014 (79 

FR 27230). That notice contained 

background information and our reasons 

for proposing this particular priority. 

Except for minor editorial and 

technical revisions, there are no 

differences between the proposed 

priority and this final priority. 

Public Comment: In response to our 

invitation in the notice of proposed 

priority, 16 parties submitted comments 

on the proposed priority. Generally, we 

do not address technical or other minor 

changes. 

Analysis of Comments and Changes: 

An analysis of the comments and of any 

changes in the priority since publication 

of the notice of proposed priority 

follows. 

Comment: Two commenters suggested 

that there should be a provision for a 

multi-State consortium to apply. One 

commenter, however, expressed 

opposition to multi-State consortia AT 

loan programs because of a concern that 

these consortia would duplicate State 

programs. This commenter proposed 

that AFPs should have knowledge of 

State-specific AT resources. 

Discussion: There is nothing in the 

priority or regulations that prevents a 

multi-State consortium from applying. 

Under 34 CFR 75.127, eligible parties 

may apply as a group for a grant; and 

‘‘consortium’’ is a term that may be used 

to refer to a group of eligible parties. We 

will clarify in the notice inviting 

applications for this competition that 

multi-State groups or consortia are 

eligible to apply. 

We agree with the commenter that 

grantees should be knowledgeable about 

State-specific AT resources, and believe 

that the applicable selection criteria 

address this concern. Specifically, 

among the selection criteria in 34 CFR 

75.210(a) that the Secretary may 

consider when determining the need for 

a proposed project is the magnitude of 

the need for the services to be provided 

or the activities to be carried out and 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. 

We will use the peer review process to 

determine how well an applicant 

addresses the needs of the service area 

identified in the application. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: Seven commenters 

expressed opposition to the competitive 

preference points. On the other hand, 

three commenters supported the 

proposed competitive preference 

priorities, citing the need for AFPs in 

every State. One commenter suggested 

that priority points be awarded to 

existing AFPs with a history of 

successful operation. 

Discussion: Twenty of the States and 

outlying areas have not received 

funding for AT AFPs. While all States 

and outlying areas can apply, our 

objective is to establish AFPs in States 

that have not previously received 

funding from the Federal government 

for this purpose and to expand small or 

underfunded AFPs that have received 

less than $1 million from competitions 

under title III of the Assistive 

Technology Act of 1998 (AT Act of 

1998) during FYs 2000 through 2006, or 

under the Appropriations Acts for FY 

2012 and 2013. By awarding 

competitive preference points to 

applicants, we intend to address the 

need for the development of AFPs from 

these unserved or underfunded areas so 

individuals with disabilities across the 

nation have the opportunity to receive 

services and purchase AT devices 

through alternative loan programs. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: Two commenters suggested 

that consumers be entitled to exercise 

choice and control with respect to the 

makeup of the board of directors of 

grantees; and that the boards should 

include a majority of members with 

disabilities. One of these commenters 

questioned whether family members 

should be counted toward this majority. 

Discussion: The Act and the priority 

require that grantees emphasize and 

expand consumer choice and control, 

including oversight of the program. 

Although we encourage grantees to 

include individuals with disabilities 

and their family members on their 

boards of directors, the requirement in 

the Act does not specifically apply to 

the composition of the grantees’ boards. 

It applies to the involvement of 

consumers in the implementation of a 

program’s administration and policy 

decisions. This could be achieved in a 

number of ways, including having a 

majority of the members of the project’s 

board of directors or loan review 

committee be individuals with 

disabilities. In addition, consumer 

choice and control applies to consumers 

who are receiving financial loans having 

choices and control over the selection of 

devices and vendors. 

Each applicant is required to submit 

an assurance that, and information 

describing the manner in which, the 

AFP will expand and emphasize 

consumer choice and control. As AFPs 

must be designed to allow individuals 

with disabilities and their family 

members, guardians, advocates, and 

authorized representatives to purchase 

AT devices or services, the consumer 

choice and control requirement applies 

to family members of individuals with 

disabilities. As such, a family member 

could serve on a board of directors or 

loan review committee. We will use the 

competitive process to determine the 

extent to which an application proposes 

to achieve consumer choice and control. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter supported 

credit-building activities as an 

important component of AFPs. This 

commenter proposed that grantees be 

required to provide financial education 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 157 / Thursday, August 14, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 47577 

and counseling to consumers to improve 

their financial capability, knowledge, 

and skills and advance their economic 

stability. 

Discussion: The final priority requires 

applicants to submit an assurance that 

the AFP will incorporate credit-building 

activities into their programs, including 

financial education and information 

about other possible funding sources. 

We will use the competitive process to 

determine the extent to which an 

applicant proposes to meet this 

requirement. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended that the Department 

consider a State’s size, population, 

number of people with disabilities, and 

other unique qualities in evaluating a 

grant application. 

Discussion: Our objectives are to 

establish AFPs in States and outlying 

areas that have not previously received 

funding from the Federal government 

for this purpose and to expand small or 

underfunded AFPs that have received 

less than $1 million from competitions 

under title III of the AT Act of 1998 

during FYs 2000 through 2006 or under 

the Appropriations Acts for FYs 2012 

and 2013. However, we note that the 

‘‘Need for Project’’ selection criterion in 

34 CFR 75.210(a) includes ‘‘the 

magnitude of the need for the services 

to be provided or the activities to be 

carried out by the proposed project’’ and 

the ‘‘extent to which specific gaps or 

weaknesses in services, infrastructure, 

or opportunities have been identified 

and will be addressed by the proposed 

project.’’ We believe that this selection 

criterion addresses the commenter’s 

suggestion that we consider a State’s 

size, population, number of people with 

disabilities, and other unique qualities 

in evaluating a grant application. We 

encourage applicants to address these 

factors in the ‘‘Need for Project’’ section 

of the application. We also note that the 

State Grant for Assistive Technology 

program, a formula grant program 

funded under the AT Act of 1998, as 

amended, that provides grants to every 

State and outlying area and considers a 

grantee’s size and population in making 

awards, authorizes grantees to develop 

programs that are similar to the AFPs as 

one of their activities. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

that the Department support existing 

AFPs that have been effective but have 

little or no Federal funding remaining. 

Discussion: All States and outlying 

areas are eligible to apply. However, we 

believe that the States and outlying 

areas that have not previously received 

funding from the Federal government 

for this purpose or that have small or 

underfunded AFPs that have received 

less than $1 million from competitions 

under title III of the AT Act of 1998 

during FYs 2000 through 2006 or under 

the Appropriations Acts for FY 2012 

and 2013 should receive competitive 

priority. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

that no new programs be established 

with less than $3 million. According to 

this commenter, without this amount of 

funding, a State cannot meet the need 

for loans. This commenter also 

recommended that RSA encourage any 

State that has less than $1 million in 

loanable funds to freeze the program 

until adequate resources are available. 

Discussion: The Act provided a total 

of $2 million for the AT AFP 

competition, which is $1 million less 

than the minimum amount 

recommended by the commenter. We 

agree that small AFPs should have the 

opportunity to acquire additional funds, 

and are establishing a competitive 

preference priority for programs that 

received less than $1 million in funds 

from competitions under title III of the 

AT Act of 1998 during FYs 2000 

through 2006 or under the 

Appropriations Acts for FYs 2012 and 

2013. However, we do not agree that an 

AFP needs a minimum of $3 million to 

be effective or that an AFP with less 

than $1 million in loanable funds 

should be frozen. Many of the programs 

that received less than $1 million in 

Federal funding in the past make 

significant numbers of alternative 

financing loans and have proved 

themselves to be beneficial to 

individuals with disabilities in their 

States. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: Two commenters suggested 

that RSA should support only 

consumer-controlled, non-profit or 

community-based organizations as 

grantees under this program in FY 2014. 

Discussion: Because the Act states 

who is eligible for an award, we do not 

have the authority to change the 

program’s eligibility requirements. 

Specifically, the Act states, ‘‘State 

agencies and community-based 

disability organizations that are directed 

by and operated for individuals with 

disabilities shall be eligible to 

compete.’’ 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter expressed 

support for the 10 percent limit on 

indirect expenses, and suggested that 

RSA collect fiscal expenditure data on 

an annual basis to ensure compliance. 

Discussion: For each 12-month budget 

period, grantees must recalculate their 

allowable indirect cost rate, which may 

not exceed 10 percent of the portion of 

the grant award that is used annually for 

program administration related to the 

AFP. RSA supports the 10 percent limit 

on indirect expenses and will monitor 

grantees to ensure compliance with this 

requirement. 

Changes: None. 

Final Priority: 

Assistive Technology Alternative 

Financing Program. 

The Assistant Secretary for Special 

Education and Rehabilitative Services 

announces a priority to fund one-year 

grant awards to support AFPs that assist 

individuals with disabilities to obtain 

financial assistance for AT devices and 

services. 

Under this priority, applicants must 

establish or expand one or more of the 

following types of AFPs: 

(1) A low-interest loan fund. 

(2) An interest buy-down program. 

(3) A revolving loan fund. 

(4) A loan guarantee or insurance 

program. 

(5) Another mechanism that is 

approved by the Secretary. 

AFPs must be designed to allow 

individuals with disabilities and their 

family members, guardians, advocates, 

and authorized representatives to 

purchase AT devices or services. If 

family members, guardians, advocates, 

and authorized representatives 

(including employers who have been 

designated by an individual with a 

disability as an authorized 

representative) receive AFP support to 

purchase AT devices or services, the 

purchase must be solely for the benefit 

of an individual with a disability. 

To be considered for funding, an 

applicant must identify the type or 

types of AFP(s) to be supported by the 

grant and submit all of the following 

assurances: 

(1) Permanent Separate Account: An 

assurance from the applicant that— 

(a) All funds that support the AFP, 

including funds repaid during the life of 

the program, will be deposited in a 

permanent separate account and 

identified and accounted for separately 

from any other funds; 

(b) If the grantee administering the 

program invests funds within this 

account, the grantee will invest the 

funds in low-risk securities in which a 

regulated insurance company may 

invest under the law of the State; and 

(c) The grantee will administer the 

funds with the same judgment and care 

that a person of prudence, discretion, 

and intelligence would exercise in the 

management of the financial affairs of 

that person. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES
47578 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 157 / Thursday, August 14, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

(2) Permanence of the Program: An 

assurance that the AFP will continue on 

a permanent basis. 

An applicant’s obligation to 

implement the AFP consistent with all 

of the requirements, including reporting 

requirements, continues until there are 

no longer any funds available to operate 

the AFP and all outstanding loans have 

been repaid. If a grantee decides to 

terminate its AFP while there are still 

funds available to operate the program, 

the grantee must return the funds 

remaining in the permanent separate 

account to the U.S. Department of the 

Treasury except for funds being used for 

grant purposes, such as loan guarantees 

for outstanding loans. However, before 

closing out its grant, the grantee also 

must return any principal and interest 

remitted to it on outstanding loans and 

any other funds remaining in the 

permanent separate account, such as 

funds being used as loan guarantees for 

those loans. 

(3) Consumer Choice and Control: An 

assurance that, and information 

describing the manner in which, the 

AFP will expand and emphasize 

consumer choice and control. 

(4) Supplement-Not-Supplant: An 

assurance that the funds made available 

through the grant to support the AFP 

will be used to supplement and not 

supplant other Federal, State, and local 

public funds expended to provide 

alternative financing mechanisms. 

(5) Use and Control of Funds: An 

assurance that funds comprised of the 

principal and interest from the account 

described in paragraph (1) Permanent 

Separate Account of this priority will be 

available solely to support the AFP. 

This assurance regarding the use and 

control of funds applies to all funds 

derived from the AFP, including the 

original Federal award, AFP funds 

generated by either interest-bearing 

accounts or investments, and all 

principal and interest paid by borrowers 

of the AFP who are extended loans from 

the permanent separate account. 

(6) Indirect Costs: An assurance that 

the percentage of the funds used for 

indirect costs will not exceed 10 percent 

of the portion of the grant award that is 

used annually for program 

administration (excluding funds used 

for loan activity). 

For each 12-month budget period, 

grantees must recalculate their 

allowable indirect cost rate, which may 

not exceed 10 percent of the portion of 

the grant award that is used annually for 

program administration related to the 

AFP. 

(7) Administrative Policies and 

Procedures: An assurance that the 

applicant receiving a grant under this 

priority will submit to the Secretary for 

review and approval within the 12- 

month project period the following 

policies and procedures for 

administration of the AFP: 

(a) A procedure to review and process 

in a timely manner requests for financial 

assistance for immediate and potential 

technology needs, including 

consideration of methods to reduce 

paperwork and duplication of effort, 

particularly relating to need, eligibility, 

and determination of the specific AT 

device or service to be financed through 

the program. 

(b) A policy and procedure to ensure 

that individuals are allowed to apply for 

financing for a full array of AT devices 

and services regardless of type of 

disability or health condition, age, 

income level, location of residence in 

the State, or type of AT device or service 

for which financing is requested 

through the program. It is permissible 

for programs to target individuals with 

disabilities who would have been 

denied conventional financing as a 

priority for AFP funding. 

(c) A procedure to ensure consumer 

choice and consumer-controlled 

oversight of the program. 

(d) A sustainability plan, including 

information on the percentage of funds 

expected to be used for operating 

expenses and loan capital. 

(8) Data Collection: An assurance that 

the applicant will collect and report 

data requested by the Secretary in the 

format, with the frequency, and using 

the method established by the Secretary 

until there are no longer any funds 

available to operate the AFP and all 

outstanding loans have been repaid. 

(9) Credit Building Activities: An 

assurance that the AFP will incorporate 

credit-building activities into its 

programs, including financial education 

and information about other possible 

funding sources. 

Competitive Preference Priorities: 

Within this priority, we announce two 

competitive preference priorities. 

These priorities are: 

Need to Establish an AFP (10 

additional points): This applies to an 

applicant located in a State or outlying 

area where an AFP grant has not been 

previously awarded under title III of the 

AT Act of 1998 or under the 

Appropriations Acts for FYs 2012 and 

2013. 

Need to Expand an AFP (5 additional 

points): This applies to an applicant 

located in a State or outlying area where 

an AFP grant has been previously 

awarded under title III of the AT Act of 

1998 or under the Appropriations Acts 

for FYs 2012 and 2013, but the State or 

outlying area has received less than a 

total of $1 million in Federal grant 

funds for the operation of its AFP under 

title III of the AT Act of 1998 during 

fiscal years 2000 through 2006 and the 

appropriations Acts for FYs 2012 and 

2013. 

Types of Priorities: 

When inviting applications for a 

competition using one or more 

priorities, we designate the type of each 

priority as absolute, competitive 

preference, or invitational through a 

notice in the Federal Register.The effect 

of each type of priority follows: 

Absolute priority: Under an absolute 

priority, we consider only applications 

that meet the priority (34 CFR 

75.105(c)(3)). 

Competitive preference priority: 

Under a competitive preference priority, 

we give competitive preference to an 

application by (1) awarding additional 

points, depending on the extent to 

which the application meets the priority 

(34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i)); or (2) selecting 

an application that meets the priority 

over an application of comparable merit 

that does not meet the priority (34 CFR 

75.105(c)(2)(ii)). 

Invitational priority: Under an 

invitational priority, we are particularly 

interested in applications that meet the 

priority. However, we do not give an 

application that meets the priority a 

preference over other applications (34 

CFR 75.105(c)(1)). 

This notice does not preclude us from 

proposing additional priorities, 

requirements, definitions, or selection 

criteria, subject to meeting applicable 

rulemaking requirements. 

Note: This notice does not solicit 

applications. In any year in which we choose 

to use this priority, we invite applications 

through a notice in the Federal Register. 

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 

Regulatory Impact Analysis 

Under Executive Order 12866, the 

Secretary must determine whether this 

regulatory action is ‘‘significant’’ and, 

therefore, subject to the requirements of 

the Executive order and subject to 

review by the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB). Section 3(f) of Executive 

Order 12866 defines a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ as an action likely to 

result in a rule that may— 

(1) Have an annual effect on the 

economy of $100 million or more, or 

adversely affect a sector of the economy, 

productivity, competition, jobs, the 

environment, public health or safety, or 

State, local, or tribal governments or 

communities in a material way (also 

referred to as an ‘‘economically 

significant’’ rule); 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 157 / Thursday, August 14, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 47579 

(2) Create serious inconsistency or 

otherwise interfere with an action taken 

or planned by another agency; 

(3) Materially alter the budgetary 

impacts of entitlement grants, user fees, 

or loan programs or the rights and 

obligations of recipients thereof; or 

(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues 

arising out of legal mandates, the 

President’s priorities, or the principles 

set forth in the Executive order. 

This final regulatory action is not a 

significant regulatory action subject to 

review by OMB under section 3(f) of 

Executive Order 12866. 

We have also reviewed this final 

regulatory action under Executive Order 

13563, which supplements and 

explicitly reaffirms the principles, 

structures, and definitions governing 

regulatory review established in 

Executive Order 12866. To the extent 

permitted by law, Executive Order 

13563 requires that an agency— 

(1) Propose or adopt regulations only 

upon a reasoned determination that 

their benefits justify their costs 

(recognizing that some benefits and 

costs are difficult to quantify); 

(2) Tailor its regulations to impose the 

least burden on society, consistent with 

obtaining regulatory objectives and 

taking into account—among other things 

and to the extent practicable—the costs 

of cumulative regulations; 

(3) In choosing among alternative 

regulatory approaches, select those 

approaches that maximize net benefits 

(including potential economic, 

environmental, public health and safety, 

and other advantages; distributive 

impacts; and equity); 

(4) To the extent feasible, specify 

performance objectives, rather than the 

behavior or manner of compliance a 

regulated entity must adopt; and 

(5) Identify and assess available 

alternatives to direct regulation, 

including economic incentives—such as 

user fees or marketable permits—to 

encourage the desired behavior, or 

provide information that enables the 

public to make choices. 

Executive Order 13563 also requires 

an agency ‘‘to use the best available 

techniques to quantify anticipated 

present and future benefits and costs as 

accurately as possible.’’ The Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs of 

OMB has emphasized that these 

techniques may include ‘‘identifying 

changing future compliance costs that 

might result from technological 

innovation or anticipated behavioral 

changes.’’ 

We are issuing this final priority only 

on a reasoned determination that its 

benefits justify its costs. In choosing 

among alternative regulatory 

approaches, we selected those 

approaches that maximize net benefits. 

Based on the analysis that follows, the 

Department believes that this regulatory 

action is consistent with the principles 

in Executive Order 13563. 

We also have determined that this 

regulatory action does not unduly 

interfere with State, local, and tribal 

governments in the exercise of their 

governmental functions. 

In accordance with both Executive 

orders, the Department has assessed the 

potential costs and benefits, both 

quantitative and qualitative, of this 

regulatory action. The potential costs 

are those resulting from statutory 

requirements and those we have 

determined as necessary for 

administering the Department’s 

programs and activities. 

Intergovernmental Review: This 

program is subject to Executive Order 

12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR 

part 79. One of the objectives of the 

Executive order is to foster an 

intergovernmental partnership and a 

strengthened federalism. The Executive 

order relies on processes developed by 

State and local governments for 

coordination and review of proposed 

Federal financial assistance. 

This document provides early 

notification of our specific plans and 

actions for this program. 

Accessible Format: Individuals with 

disabilities can obtain this document in 

an accessible format (e.g., braille, large 

print, audiotape, or compact disc) by 

contacting the Grants and Contracts 

Services Team, U.S. Department of 

Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., 

Room 5075, PCP, Washington, DC 

20202–2550. Telephone: (202) 245– 

7363. If you use a TDD or a TTY, call 

the FRS, toll free, at 1–800–877–8339. 

Electronic Access to This Document: 

The official version of this document is 

the document published in the Federal 

Register. 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.gpo.gov/fdsys. At this site you 

can view this document, as well as all 

other documents of this Department 

published in the Federal Register, in 

text or Adobe Portable Document 

Format (PDF). To use PDF you must 

have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is 

available free at the site. 

You may also access documents of the 

Department published in the Federal 

Register by using the article search 

feature at: www.federalregister.gov. 

Specifically, through the advanced 

search feature at this site, you can limit 

your search to documents published by 

the Department. 

Dated: August 11, 2014. 

Michael K. Yudin, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Special 

Education and Rehabilitative Services. 

[FR Doc. 2014–19289 Filed 8–13–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

34 CFR Chapter III 

[Docket ID ED–2014–OSERS–0024; CFDA 

Number: 84.315C.] 

Final Priorities; Rehabilitation Services 

Administration—Capacity Building 

Program for Traditionally Underserved 

Populations—Vocational Rehabilitation 

Training Institute for the Preparation of 

Personnel in American Indian 

Vocational Rehabilitation Services 

Projects 

AGENCY: Office of Special Education and 

Rehabilitative Services, Department of 

Education. 

ACTION: Final priorities. 

SUMMARY: The Assistant Secretary for 

Special Education and Rehabilitative 

Services announces two priorities under 

the Capacity Building Program for 

Traditionally Underserved Populations 

administered by the Rehabilitation 

Services Administration (RSA). The 

Assistant Secretary may use one or more 

of these priorities for competitions in 

fiscal year (FY) 2014 and later years. 

Priority 1 establishes a new vocational 

rehabilitation (VR) training institute for 

the preparation of personnel in 

American Indian Vocational 

Rehabilitation Services (AIVRS) projects 

(the Institute). Priority 2 requires a 

partnership between a four-year 

institution of higher education (IHE) 

and a two-year community college or 

tribal college. This partnership is 

designed to successfully implement the 

VR training Institute established in 

Priority 1. In addition, the partnership 

agreement required under Priority 2 

provides a brief description of how the 

partnership will be managed, the 

partners’ roles and responsibilities and 

a strategy for sustaining the partnership 

after the Federal investment ends. 

DATES: Effective Date: These priorities 

are effective September 15, 2014. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Kristen Rhinehart-Fernandez, U.S. 

Department of Education, 400 Maryland 

Avenue SW., Room 5027, Potomac 

Center Plaza (PCP), Washington, DC 

20202–2800. Telephone: (202) 245–6103 

or by email: kristen.rhinehart@ed.gov. 

If you use a telecommunications 

device for the deaf (TDD) or a text 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES