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
47580 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 157 / Thursday, August 14, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay 

Service (FRS), toll free, at 1–800–877– 

8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Purpose of 

Program: The Capacity Building 

Program for Traditionally Underserved 

Populations under section 21(b)(2)(C) of 

the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as 

amended (Rehabilitation Act) (29 U.S.C. 

718(b)(2)(C)), provides outreach and 

technical assistance (TA) to minority 

entities and American Indian tribes to 

promote their participation in activities 

funded under the Rehabilitation Act, 

including assistance to enhance their 

capacity to carry out such activities. 

Program Authority: 29 U.S.C. 718(b)(2)(C). 

We published a notice of proposed 

priorities for this competition in the 

Federal Register on June 11, 2014 (79 

FR 33486). That notice contained 

background information and our reasons 

for proposing the particular priorities. 

Public Comment: In response to our 

invitation for public comment in the 

notice of proposed priorities, 10 parties 

submitted comments. 

We group major issues according to 

subject. Generally, we do not address 

technical and other minor changes. In 

addition, we do not address comments 

that raised concerns not directly related 

to the proposed priorities. 

There are differences between the 

proposed priorities and these final 

priorities as discussed under Analysis of 

Comments and Changes. We made 

several changes to strengthen and clarify 

the priorities. Specifically, the revised 

priorities require the Institute to consult 

with appropriate and relevant entities in 

developing and providing training and 

TA to AIVRS projects; ensure that all 

materials developed reflect the AIVRS 

target population and diversity among 

its communities to the maximum extent 

possible; provide training through a 

variety of delivery methods so as not to 

exclude any participants and to meet 

the needs of the particular community 

served to the maximum extent possible; 

and ensure that training focused on 

effective communication with business 

reflects the marketplace of tribal 

communities. Further, we clarify the 

Institute’s role, the target audience for 

this project, and the requirements for 

awarding a VR certificate. Finally, we 

substantially revise Priority 2 in order to 

clarify its purpose, requirements, and 

intended outcomes, and how applicants 

are to respond to this priority in the 

application. 

Analysis of Comments and Changes: 

An analysis of the comments and of any 

changes in the priorities since 

publication of the notice of proposed 

priorities follows. 

Comment: A number of commenters 

recognized the work of the Consortia of 

Administrators for Native American 

Rehabilitation (CANAR) and its TA 

project currently funded by RSA, Tribal 

Vocational Rehabilitation Continuous 

Improvement for Rehabilitation 

Counselors, Leaders, and Educators 

(TVR-Circle). Commenters suggested 

that, for the Institute to be effective, 

those already working, or with 

significant experience, in the field of 

tribal VR should be involved in the 

development of the curriculum for this 

project as well as in making decisions 

regarding methods of delivering the 

curriculum. Commenters suggested that 

a Native American-led entity with a 

national focus, such as CANAR, should 

serve as the lead consultant for the 

Institute. 

Discussion: We agree that CANAR’s 

TVR Circle currently serves as a 

valuable resource not only in 

understanding cultural competencies, 

but also in providing TA, organizational 

development, and educational training 

activities that are focused on the needs 

of AIVRS projects. Priority 1 does not 

require a lead entity or consultant for 

this project, other than the Institute. 

Priority 1 requires the Institute to 

conduct outreach activities and consult 

with appropriate and relevant entities in 

developing and providing training and 

TA to AIVRS projects. 

Changes: We added language to the 

introductory paragraph of Priority 1 to 

clarify the role of the Institute, which 

includes conducting outreach activities 

and consulting with appropriate and 

relevant entities in developing and 

providing training and TA to AIVRS 

projects. 

Comment: Several commenters 

emphasized the need for greater focus 

on the inclusion of cultural 

competencies within the priorities. 

Specifically, commenters stated that the 

Institute must ensure that its products, 

curriculum, and deliverables reflect the 

AIVRS target population, especially the 

diversity among American Indian and 

Native Alaskan communities. In 

addition, commenters noted that an 

understanding of how to deliver VR 

services within a particular cultural 

context is a critical component of the 

AIVRS program. 

Discussion: Priority 1 requires the 

Institute to develop a structured 

program of training in a culturally 

appropriate manner. Priority 1 also 

states that the Institute must provide 

culturally relevant training that goes 

beyond technical compliance with the 

program statute and regulations 

applicable to the AIVRS program 

(Section 121 of the Rehabilitation Act, 

34 CFR parts 369 and 371, and EDGAR). 

However, we believe that this priority 

should also specify that the products, 

curriculum, and deliverables must also 

reflect the AIVRS target population. 

Change: We added a sentence to the 

introductory paragraph of Priority 1 to 

emphasize the importance of reflecting 

the AIVRS target population and 

diversity among its communities in all 

materials developed by the Institute to 

the maximum extent possible. 

Comment: A commenter requested 

clarification as to whether the TA 

mentioned in Priority 1, paragraph (e), 

which requires the applicant to identify 

innovative methods and strategies for 

supporting AIVRS personnel when they 

have completed their training, and the 

TA mentioned in Priority 1, paragraph 

(g), which requires applicants to 

describe a plan to provide follow-up 

TA, either virtually or on-site to 

participants, applies to AIVRS projects 

seeking TA or only to participants who 

received training through the Institute. 

Discussion: It is important to 

distinguish between TA to be provided 

by the Institute and TA currently 

provided by the TVR Circle. The followup TA described in paragraphs (e) and 

(g) of Priority 1 states that it is for 

participants who have completed the 

structured program of training delivered 

by the Institute. The target audience for 

this structured program of training is 

AIVRS project personnel with little or 

no experience in VR processes and 

practices. By contrast, the TA provided 

by the TVR Circle is intended to 

improve the performance of AIVRS 

grantees that are determined to be ‘‘at 

risk’’ by the Department. Because both 

paragraphs (e) and (g) describe the 

follow-up as occurring only after 

successful completion of the structured 

program of training, we believe the 

priority is clear as written. 

Change: None. 

Comment: Several commenters 

recommended a diverse model for 

delivering the structured program of 

training to meet the needs of the target 

audience. Some commenters raised a 

concern that many AIVRS projects are 

located in rural and remote 

communities that present challenges to 

providing in-person training. In 

addition, commenters stated that, 

although web-based training is cost 

effective, it may not be the best option 

for all projects, as reliable Internet 

access may not be available in many 

tribal communities. Commenters 

suggested different methods of offering 

training such as on-line, in a traditional 

classroom setting, or at regional 

trainings throughout the country as an 

extension of national conferences. In 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 157 / Thursday, August 14, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 47581 

addition, commenters suggested that 

grant funds be used to cover the costs 

of participant travel in order to ensure 

that AIVRS project funds are used for 

program services. 

Discussion: We agree that training 

should be offered through a variety of 

delivery methods so as not to exclude 

any participants and to meet the needs 

of the particular community served as 

much as possible. Priority 1, as 

proposed, stated that the series of 

trainings may be offered in person, 

through distance learning, or through a 

combination of the two. In addition, the 

U.S. Department of Education General 

Administrative Regulations (EDGAR), 

and government-wide requirements, 

including applicable Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) cost 

principles, provides general guidance 

regarding costs and cost-related issues 

and requirements related to travel. The 

cost principles do not preclude grant 

funds from being used to offset costs 

associated with travel, such as 

transportation or lodging. However, we 

want to stress that travel expenses must 

be reasonable and should be used to 

ensure that AIVRS project personnel 

located in remote areas of the country 

are able to participate in the Institute. 

Change: In order to adequately 

address that the training should be 

offered through a variety of delivery 

methods, we added language in the 

introductory paragraph in Priority 1 to 

clarify that training may be offered in a 

traditional classroom setting, through 

distance learning, through week-long 

institutes, at regional trainings 

throughout the country as an extension 

of national conferences, and through 

other delivery methods, as appropriate, 

to meet the needs of the targeted 

audience. We also revised Priority 1 to 

specify that grant funds may be used to 

provide reasonable financial assistance 

to offset costs associated with travel for 

participants who may be located in 

remote areas of the country. 

Comment: Some commenters asked 

whether RSA intends for the Institute to 

award an academic certificate or a nonacademic certificate. Commenters 

indicated that an academic certificate is 

transferable to an Associate of Arts 

degree, an undergraduate degree, or a 

graduate degree, while a non-academic 

certificate may impart knowledge, skills, 

and abilities but will not benefit the 

AIVRS personnel in furthering their 

academic credentials and professional 

credibility. 

Discussion: Priority 1 does not 

distinguish between an academic and a 

non-academic certificate. It is our intent 

that a VR certificate, academic or nonacademic, represent more than 

successful completion of the program. 

The VR certificate demonstrates that a 

participant has received the 

foundational VR knowledge and skills 

in the provision of VR services and is 

able to provide appropriate, effective, 

and culturally relevant VR services to 

American Indians with disabilities to 

prepare for, and engage in, gainful 

employment consistent with their 

informed choice. A VR certificate could 

be used by participants to further their 

pursuit of a post-secondary degree. For 

example, an applicant could propose to 

award college credit to a participant 

who meets the requirements and criteria 

established for a VR certificate, which 

may then be used by the participant to 

support an application to a four-year 

IHE that offers an undergraduate degree 

in VR counseling. However, it is up to 

the applicant to determine whether the 

Institute will award an academic or nonacademic certificate. Further, the 

applicant must establish requirements 

and criteria for obtaining the VR 

certificate and define how the certificate 

may be used by participants, if desired, 

to pursue an advanced degree. 

Change: In order to clarify the 

purpose of a VR certificate, we added 

language to the introductory paragraph 

of Priority 1 to clarify that the Institute 

may determine whether the VR 

certificate awarded will be academic or 

non-academic, the requirements for 

obtaining such a certificate, and how the 

certificate may be used by participants 

who earn it. 

Comment: Commenters raised 

concerns regarding excessively high 

unemployment and an overall lack of 

industry in many tribal communities 

and how those issues may affect the 

training topic specified in Priority 1 to 

focus on effective communication with 

business. Commenters suggested that 

the content in this topic be expanded to 

include approaches for developing 

relationships and working with 

entrepreneurs, small businesses, and 

cooperative businesses that may offer 

emerging employment opportunities for 

tribal members with disabilities. 

Discussion: We recognize the 

commenters’ concerns related to high 

unemployment and accept their 

proposed suggestions for expanding the 

topic focused on effective 

communication with business to 

include working with entrepreneurs, 

small businesses, and cooperative 

businesses. 

Change: In order to ensure that the 

training module titled ‘‘Effective 

Communication with Business’’ is an 

accurate representation of the 

marketplace in tribal communities, we 

expanded the first sentence of Priority 1, 

paragraph (a)(3), to include all types of 

businesses, especially entrepreneurs, 

small businesses, and cooperative 

businesses that may offer employment 

opportunities for tribal members with 

disabilities. 

Comment: None. 

Discussion: In our own review of the 

priorities, it became apparent that 

paragraph (h)(4) of Priority 1 is unclear 

and that the language in that paragraph 

does not meaningfully add to the 

requirements for the priority. Therefore, 

we are removing this language. 

Change: In Priority 1, paragraph (h)(4) 

is removed. Therefore, paragraph (h)(5) 

in Priority 1 is renumbered as paragraph 

(h)(4). 

Comment: A few commenters 

requested clarification regarding 

whether Priority 2 is a subset of Priority 

1 and whether applicants will be 

required to meet both priorities. 

Discussion: We believe that the 

Institute, as proposed, must be 

developed and delivered through 

collaboration between a four-year IHE 

and a two-year community college or 

tribal college. We believe that the 

priorities, as written, are clear. 

Change: None. 

Comment: A few commenters 

requested clarification regarding Priority 

2, which, as proposed, requires 

collaboration between a four-year IHE 

and a two-year community college or 

tribal college. Commenters inquired as 

to whether other partners, in addition to 

a four-year IHE and a two-year 

community college or tribal college, 

could be involved in a collaboration 

agreement. 

Discussion: In Priority 2, as proposed, 

we require collaboration between a fouryear IHE and a two-year community 

college or tribal college. The 

collaboration may be expanded to 

include other relevant partners to 

support the goals and expected 

outcomes of this project, such as a 

business. However, the collaboration 

must include, at a minimum, a four-year 

IHE and a two-year community college 

or tribal college. We believe that the 

priority is clear as written. 

Change: None. 

Comment: None. 

Discussion: In our own review of the 

priorities and the comments we 

received, it became clear that applicants 

could benefit from additional details 

and clarification about our requirements 

in Priority 2. Therefore, we revised the 

priority to clarify its purpose, 

requirements, intended outcomes, and 

how applicants are to respond to the 

priority. First, the purpose of Priority 2 

is to require a partnership between a 

four-year IHE and a two-year 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES
47582 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 157 / Thursday, August 14, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

community college or tribal college to 

effectively implement the requirements 

of Priority 1. We believe that 

community colleges or tribal colleges 

are uniquely suited to provide the type 

of customized instruction necessary to 

meet the requirements of Priority 1. In 

addition, the involvement of a four-year 

IHE will improve the instruction by 

providing access to faculty who possess 

a breadth of knowledge and experience 

in the field of VR. Therefore, applicants 

will respond to Priority 2 by 

demonstrating, in the narrative portion 

of their application, that the Institute 

reflects a collaboration of knowledge, 

experience, skills, faculty, curriculum, 

resources, and technology between a 

four-year IHE and a two-year 

community college or tribal college in 

order to deliver a high-quality 

structured program of training on 

foundational VR knowledge and skills 

in a culturally appropriate manner. 

Second, Priority 2, as proposed, was 

written to require collaboration between 

a four-year IHE and a two-year 

community college or tribal college. We 

replaced the term ‘‘collaboration’’ in the 

proposed priority with the term 

‘‘partnership’’ in the final priority in 

order to better reflect the type of 

relationship that we intended between 

the four-year IHE and the two-year 

community college or tribal college. In 

addition, Priority 2, as proposed, was 

written to require a formal agreement 

between a four-year IHE and a two-year 

community or tribal college. We 

replaced the term ‘‘formal agreement’’ 

with the term ‘‘partnership agreement’’ 

in order to better reflect the purpose of 

the priority. In Priority 2, the 

partnership agreement is required to be 

submitted in addition to the narrative 

portion of the application. 

Third, Priority 2, as proposed, would 

have given the Secretary discretion to 

require the formal agreement to include 

the signatures of the president and chief 

financial officer from the four-year IHE 

and the two-year community college or 

tribal college. However, after review, we 

concluded that it is essential that the 

partnership agreement contain the 

signatures of the president and chief 

financial officer of both parties, and we 

make this a mandatory component of 

the agreement. In addition, we 

concluded that the remaining four 

elements of the agreement are also 

critical to ensuring that the partnership 

is able to effectively implement the 

requirements in Priority 1 and meet the 

goal of the Institute. Therefore, the 

partnership agreement described in 

Priority 2 must contain all four 

components, three of which we revised 

to clarify and streamline the 

applications. 

Finally, a component in Priority 2, as 

proposed, required the formal 

agreement to include in-kind or 

financial contributions from both 

parties. However, because there are no 

matching requirements in this program, 

we revised this component to make 

clear that these contributions are not 

required. Another component in Priority 

2, as proposed, required the formal 

agreement to include a plan to sustain 

the partnership after the Federal 

investment ends. We revised this 

requirement for the partnership 

agreement in the final priority to require 

applicants to provide a brief strategy to 

sustain the partnership after the Federal 

investment ends. 

Change: Priority 2 is revised to clarify 

the requirements for the partnership 

between a four-year IHE and two-year 

community college or tribal college, 

including its objective of delivering a 

high-quality structured program of 

training on foundational VR knowledge 

and skills in a culturally appropriate 

manner. Priority 2 also is revised to 

require a partnership agreement, which 

must be signed by the president and 

chief financial officer of both parties. 

The required partnership agreement 

must include a brief description of how 

the partnership will operate each year 

during the five-year grant period of 

performance. The agreement must also 

describe how information regarding the 

progress of the grant, as well as any 

issues and challenges, will be 

communicated; what steps will be taken 

to resolve conflicts; the roles, 

responsibilities, and deliverables of 

each party; and the arrangements, if any, 

for supporting the program with 

resources, that are not paid for by the 

award; and include a brief strategy to 

sustain the partnership and the 

structured training program after the 

Federal investment ends. 

Final Priorities 

Priority 1: Vocational Rehabilitation 

Training Institute for the Preparation of 

Personnel in American Indian 

Vocational Rehabilitation Services 

Projects 

The Assistant Secretary for Special 

Education and Rehabilitative Services 

establishes a priority to support one 

Institute under section 21(b)(2)(C) of the 

Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as 

amended—the Vocational Rehabilitation 

(VR) Training Institute for the 

Preparation of Personnel in American 

Indian Vocational Rehabilitation 

Services (AIVRS) Projects (the Institute). 

The Institute will provide a structured 

program of training in vocational 

rehabilitation (VR) to current personnel 

of the AIVRS projects to improve the 

delivery of VR services to American 

Indians with disabilities. The Institute 

will conduct outreach activities and 

consult with appropriate and relevant 

entities in developing and providing 

training and TA to AIVRS projects. All 

products, curricula, and deliverables 

developed by the Institute must reflect 

the AIVRS population and diversity 

among its communities to the maximum 

extent possible. The Institute will 

consist of a series of trainings 

specifically geared towards building 

foundational skills that, when 

satisfactorily completed, will lead to a 

VR certificate awarded by the Institute. 

The Institute may determine whether 

the VR certificate awarded will be 

academic or non-academic, the 

requirements for obtaining such a 

certificate, and how the certificate may 

be used by participants who earn it. The 

series of trainings may be offered in a 

traditional classroom setting, through 

distance learning, through week-long 

institutes, at regional trainings 

throughout the country as an extension 

of national conferences, and through 

other delivery methods, as appropriate, 

to meet the needs of the targeted 

audience. In addition, grant funds may 

be used to provide reasonable financial 

assistance to offset costs associated with 

travel for participants who may be 

located in remote areas of the country. 

The Institute will conduct an 

assessment before and after providing 

training for each participant in order to 

assess strengths and specific areas for 

improvement, educational attainment 

and application of skills, and any issues 

or challenges to be addressed posttraining to ensure improved delivery of 

VR services to American Indians with 

disabilities. The Institute will provide 

follow-up TA to participants to address 

any issues or challenges that are 

identified post-training and to ensure 

that the training they received is applied 

effectively in their work setting. Finally, 

the Institute will conduct an evaluation 

to obtain feedback on the training and 

follow-up TA and to determine whether 

this improvement contributed to 

increased employment outcomes for 

American Indians with disabilities. 

The Department will award this grant 

as a cooperative agreement to ensure 

that there is substantial involvement 

(i.e., significant communication and 

collaboration) between RSA and the 

grantee in carrying out the activities of 

the program (34 CFR 75.200(b)(4)). 

In coordination with the Department, 

the Institute must, in a culturally 

appropriate manner: 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 157 / Thursday, August 14, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 47583 

(a) Develop a structured program of 

training on foundational VR knowledge 

and skills that will lead to AIVRS 

personnel earning a VR certificate. The 

training would include, at a minimum: 

vocational assessment, determination of 

applicant eligibility, development of an 

individualized plan for employment 

(IPE), the acquisition and use of 

assistive technology, and obtaining and 

using up-to-date labor market 

information to understand the local 

economy and effectively match the 

skills of AIVRS consumers with the 

needs of employers. The Institute must 

provide culturally relevant training that 

goes beyond technical compliance with 

the program statute and regulations 

applicable to the AIVRS program 

(Section 121 of the Rehabilitation Act, 

34 CFR Parts 369 and 371, and EDGAR) 

and focuses on providing the basic 

foundational skills necessary to improve 

counseling and VR services provided by 

AIVRS personnel. The training topics 

must include, at a minimum: 

(1) Introduction to VR: An orientation 

to the field of VR, addressing in general 

terms the various disabilities a VR 

counselor is apt to encounter working in 

an AIVRS project. The training 

developed by the Institute must teach 

AIVRS personnel to understand the 

nature of a significant disability and the 

complexities a person with such a 

disability experiences and must teach 

how various disabilities affect an 

individual’s ability to participate in 

competitive employment; 

(2) Effective communication with 

AIVRS consumers including: 

Identification of approaches to, 

techniques for, and relevant examples of 

developing trust and rapport with 

individuals with a disability; 

appropriate conduct when engaging 

with individuals with a disability; and 

interacting with members of the tribal 

council; 

(3) Effective communication with 

business including: Identification of 

approaches to, techniques for, and 

relevant examples of building and 

maintaining relationships with all types 

of businesses, especially entrepreneurs, 

small businesses, and cooperative 

businesses that may offer emerging 

employment opportunities for tribal 

members with disabilities. This training 

topic includes educating potential 

employers about how reasonable 

accommodations and assistive 

technology can be used to support 

effectively the employment of 

individuals with disabilities. The 

Institute must also teach participants 

how to obtain accurate labor market 

information on available employment 

opportunities in their State and local 

area, and how to identify education, 

technical requirements, and necessary 

skill sets for the jobs available; 

(4) Conducting a vocational 

assessment and determining eligibility: 

How to obtain and evaluate necessary 

medical and other documentation and 

the results of assessments that may have 

been conducted by entities other than 

the AIVRS project. The Institute must 

teach AIVRS personnel how to use 

appropriate assessment tools that assist 

in determining an individual’s 

eligibility for VR services and in 

developing an IPE; 

(5) Managing caseload: How to 

manage cases so that information can be 

retrieved and communicated to the 

AIVRS consumer in a timely manner. 

The Institute must teach AIVRS 

personnel how to create, manage, and 

appropriately close consumer case files; 

(6) Development of an IPE: How to 

plan and provide VR services that lead 

to meaningful employment 

opportunities that are at appropriate 

skill levels and consistent with the 

consumer’s abilities, interests, and 

informed choice; and 

(7) Development of job-seeking skills: 

Identification of approaches to, 

techniques for, and relevant examples of 

improving job-seeking skills. This 

includes resume preparation, practicing 

interview skills, networking, navigating 

job sites, targeting job searches, and 

other effective skills that will lead to job 

placement for AIVRS consumers. 

(b) Develop a course syllabus that 

describes the proposed sequence of 

topical training. 

(c) Develop a training module for one 

of the seven topics in paragraph (a) to 

serve as an example for how 

participants will be trained in that area. 

(d) Develop a recruitment and 

retention plan that describes how the 

Institute will conduct outreach activities 

and recruitment efforts to enroll current 

AIVRS personnel in the Institute. 

Current AIVRS staff may nominate 

themselves or be nominated by the 

AIVRS project director to participate in 

the Institute. The plan must also 

describe how the Institute will provide 

academic support and counseling for 

AIVRS personnel to ensure successful 

completion, as well as steps that will be 

taken to provide assistance to AIVRS 

personnel who are not performing to 

their fullest potential in the Institute’s 

structured program of training. 

(e) Identify innovative methods and 

strategies for supporting AIVRS 

personnel when they have completed 

the training, including a plan for 

maintaining regular contact with AIVRS 

personnel upon successful completion 

of the structured program of training 

and providing follow-up TA on various 

situations and settings encountered by 

AIVRS personnel in working with 

American Indians with disabilities, as 

well as TA on effective programmatic 

and fiscal management of an AIVRS 

project. 

(f) Develop an assessment tool for use 

by the Institute before and after the 

training. The assessment must identify 

the strengths and specific areas in 

which participants need to improve 

prior to the beginning of the training. In 

addition, 90 days after the training is 

completed, the assessment must 

evaluate the attainment of skills, 

demonstrated application of those skill 

sets, and any issues or challenges for 

participating AIVRS personnel that may 

impact improved delivery of VR 

services to American Indians with 

disabilities. The Institute must 

administer the assessment tool and 

provide a copy to participants. The 

Institute must also ensure that the 

results are reviewed with participating 

AIVRS personnel and shared with their 

respective Directors. 

(g) Describe a plan to provide followup TA, either virtually or on-site, to 

participants. The purpose is to ensure 

that the training that AIVRS personnel 

received is applied effectively in their 

work settings and addresses any issues 

or challenges identified as a result of the 

assessment that is conducted 90 days 

after the training is completed. 

(h) Describe how the Institute will be 

evaluated. Such a description must 

include: 

(1) How the Institute will determine 

its impact over a period of time on 

improving the delivery of VR services to 

American Indians with disabilities and 

increasing employment outcomes; 

(2) How input from AIVRS project 

directors will be included in the 

evaluation; 

(3) How feedback from American 

Indians with disabilities will be 

included in the evaluation; 

(4) How the data and results from the 

evaluation will be used to make 

necessary adjustments and 

improvements to AIVRS projects and 

training of AIVRS personnel. 

Priority 2: Partnership Between a FourYear Institution of Higher Education 

and a Two-Year Community College or 

Tribal College 

Applicants will demonstrate, in the 

narrative portion of their application, 

that the Institute reflects a collaboration 

of knowledge, experience, skills, 

faculty, curricula resources, and 

technology between a four-year IHE and 

a two-year community college or tribal 

college in order to deliver a high-quality 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES
47584 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 157 / Thursday, August 14, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

structured program of training on 

foundational VR knowledge and skills 

in a culturally appropriate manner. 

Applicants are required to submit a 

partnership agreement, in addition to 

the narrative portion of their 

application. The partnership agreement 

must be signed by the president and 

chief financial officer of both parties. 

Applicants must include a brief 

description in the partnership 

agreement of how the partnership will 

operate each year during the five-year 

grant period of performance. Applicants 

must also summarize in the agreement 

how information regarding the progress 

of the grant, as well as any issues and 

challenges, will be communicated; what 

steps will be taken to resolve conflicts; 

the roles, responsibilities, and 

deliverables of each party; and the 

arrangements, if any, for supporting the 

program with resources, that are not 

paid for by the award. Finally, 

applicants must provide a brief strategy 

in the agreement to sustain the 

partnership and the structured training 

program after the Federal investment 

ends. 

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 these priorities, 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); 

(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 

stated 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 these final priorities 

only on a reasoned determination that 

their benefits justify their 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 

final 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, projects, and activities. 

Intergovernmental Review: This 

program is subject to Executive Order 

12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR 

part 79, unless the applicant is a 

federally recognized Indian tribe. 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– 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 157 / Thursday, August 14, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 47585 

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. 2014–19285 Filed 8–13–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS 

AFFAIRS 

38 CFR Part 3 

RIN 2900–AO84 

Specially Adapted Housing Eligibility 

for Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis 

Beneficiaries 

AGENCY: Department of Veterans Affairs. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Veterans 

Affairs (VA) amended by interim final 

rule its adjudication regulation 

regarding specially adapted housing 

(SAH) to authorize automatic issuance 

of a certificate of eligibility for SAH to 

all veterans and active-duty 

servicemembers with service-connected 

amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) 

rated totally disabling under the VA 

Schedule for Rating Disabilities. This 

document adopts as a final rule, without 

change, the interim final rule published 

in the Federal Register on December 3, 

2013. 

DATES: Effective date: August 14, 2014. 

Applicability date: The provisions of 

this regulatory amendment apply to all 

applications for SAH pending before VA 

on or received after December 3, 2013. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Randy A. McKevitt, Legal Consultant, 

Regulations Staff (211D), Compensation 

Service, Veterans Benefits 

Administration, Department of Veterans 

Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW., 

Washington, DC 20420, (202) 461–9700. 

This is not a toll-free number. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a 

document published in the Federal 

Register on December 3, 2013 (78 FR 

72573), VA amended its regulations 

concerning SAH. The amendment 

authorized automatic issuance of a 

certificate of eligibility for SAH to all 

veterans and active-duty 

servicemembers with service-connected 

ALS rated totally disabling under the 

VA Schedule for Rating Disabilities. The 

comment period for that interim final 

regulation ended February 3, 2014. VA 

received no comments. Based on the 

rationale set forth in the interim final 

rule, we are adopting the provisions of 

the interim final rule as a final rule 

without change. 

Administrative Procedure Act 

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) and 

(d)(3), VA found that there was good 

cause to dispense with advance public 

notice and opportunity to comment on 

the interim final rule and good cause to 

publish that rule with an immediate 

effective date. The interim final rule was 

necessary to implement immediately the 

Secretary’s decision to establish SAH 

eligibility for all persons with totallydisabling service-connected ALS. Delay 

in the implementation of this rule 

would have been impracticable and 

contrary to the public interest, 

particularly to veterans and active-duty 

servicemembers. 

Because the survival period for 

persons suffering from ALS is generally 

18–48 months or less from the onset of 

symptoms, any delay in establishing 

SAH eligibility is extremely detrimental 

to veterans and active-duty 

servicemembers who are currently 

afflicted with ALS. Any delay in 

implementation until after a publiccomment period could have delayed 

modifying the regulated certificate of 

eligibility process, depriving ALS 

veterans and active-duty 

servicemembers of quick and efficient 

access to SAH benefits. 

For the foregoing reasons, the 

Secretary issued the rule as an interim 

final rule with immediate effect. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

This final rule contains no provisions 

constituting a collection of information 

under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 

1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501–3521). 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Secretary hereby certifies that 

this final rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities as they are 

defined in the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act, 5 U.S.C. 601–612. This final rule 

will not affect any small entities. Only 

VA beneficiaries will be directly 

affected. Therefore, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 

605(b), this final rule is exempt from the 

initial and final regulatory flexibility 

analysis requirements of sections 603 

and 604. 

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 

direct agencies to assess the costs and 

benefits of available regulatory 

alternatives and, when regulation is 

necessary, to select regulatory 

approaches that maximize net benefits 

(including potential economic, 

environmental, public health and safety 

effects, and other advantages; 

distributive impacts; and equity). 

Executive Order 13563 (Improving 

Regulation and Regulatory Review) 

emphasizes the importance of 

quantifying both costs and benefits, 

reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and 

promoting flexibility. Executive Order 

12866 (Regulatory Planning and 

Review) defines a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action,’’ which requires 

review by the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB), as ‘‘any regulatory action 

that is likely to result in a rule that may: 

(1) Have an annual effect on the 

economy of $100 million or more or 

adversely affect in a material way the 

economy, a sector of the economy, 

productivity, competition, jobs, the 

environment, public health or safety, or 

State, local, or tribal governments or 

communities; (2) Create a serious 

inconsistency or otherwise interfere 

with an action taken or planned by 

another agency; (3) Materially alter the 

budgetary impact of entitlements, 

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 this Executive Order.’’ 

The economic, interagency, 

budgetary, legal, and policy 

implications of this final rule have been 

examined, and it has been determined 

not to be a significant regulatory action 

under Executive Order 12866. VA’s 

impact analysis can be found as a 

supporting document at http://

www.regulations.gov, usually within 48 

hours after the rulemaking document is 

published. Additionally, a copy of the 

rulemaking and its impact analysis are 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES