Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 109 / Friday, June 6, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 32651 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

34 CFR Chapter VI 

[Docket ID ED–2014–OPE–0037; CFDA 

Number 84.229A] 

Final Priority; Language Resource 

Centers Program 

AGENCY: Office of Postsecondary 

Education (OPE), Department of 

Education. 

ACTION: Final Priority. 

SUMMARY: The Acting Assistant 

Secretary for Postsecondary Education 

announces a priority under the 

Language Resource Centers (LRC) 

Program administered by the 

International and Foreign Language 

Education Office. The Acting Assistant 

Secretary may use this priority for 

competitions in fiscal year (FY) 2014 

and later years. We take this action to 

focus Federal financial assistance on an 

identified national need. We intend the 

priority to make international education 

opportunities available to more 

American students. 

DATES: Effective Date: This priority is 

effective July 7, 2014. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Michelle Guilfoil. Telephone: (202) 

502–7625 or by email: michelle.guilfoil@

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 LRC 

Program provides grants to institutions 

of higher education or consortia of these 

institutions for establishing, 

strengthening, and operating centers 

that serve as resources for improving the 

Nation’s capacity for teaching and 

learning foreign languages through 

teacher training, research, materials 

development, and dissemination 

projects. 

Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1123. 

Applicable Program Regulations: 34 

CFR parts 655 and 669. 

We published a notice of proposed 

priority for this program in the Federal 

Register on March 18, 2014 (79 FR 

15074). That notice contained 

background information and our reasons 

for proposing this particular priority. 

There are differences between the 

proposed priority and this final priority 

as discussed in the Analysis of 

Comments and Changes section 

elsewhere in this notice. 

Public Comment: In response to our 

invitation in the notice of proposed 

priority, three parties submitted 

comments on the proposed priority. 

Generally, we do not address 

technical and other minor changes. 

Analysis of Comments and Changes: 

An analysis of the comments and any 

changes in the priority since publication 

of the notice of proposed priority 

follows. 

Comment: A commenter endorsed the 

proposed priorities and expressed 

appreciation for the Department of 

Education’s efforts to facilitate stronger 

participation of MSIs. In addition, the 

commenter urged us to use these 

priorities as absolute or competitive 

preference priorities. 

Discussion: We appreciate the 

commenter’s support. However, it is our 

practice to specify the priority types for 

each competition in the notice inviting 

applications, not in an NFP. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

that we include a priority for 

applications that include collaboration 

activities with MSIs to enhance access 

to international activities and foreign 

language learning. 

Discussion: We agree with the 

commenter and believe that the final 

priority, consistent with the proposed 

priority, clearly accomplishes this goal. 

Change: None. 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

that it would be helpful if we provide 

a list of institutions eligible under Title 

III, part A; Title III, part B; and Title V 

of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as 

amended (HEA). 

Discussion: We agree that making this 

information readily available to 

applicants will help them in addressing 

and meeting this priority. 

Change: None. We will provide the 

information on the institutions that 

currently meet this definition in the 

Federal Register notice inviting 

applications (NIA). 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended that we remove the 

singular modifier before minorityserving institutions (MSIs) and before 

community college to clarify that 

collaborative activities may be proposed 

with more than one MSI or more than 

one community college. 

Discussion: We agree with the 

commenter’s suggestion and are making 

this change to ensure we do not limit 

the number of entities that are able to 

collaborate under this priority. 

Change: We have revised this priority 

to make it clear that an institution can 

collaborate with multiple MSIs or 

community colleges. 

Comment: One commenter 

encouraged the Department to consider 

as broad a definition of MSI as possible 

so as to provide the greatest 

opportunities for applicant institutions 

to positively influence students and 

instructors alike at these underserved 

institutions. 

Discussion: We believe that the 

definition of an MSI to be used with this 

priority will serve a wide range of 

institutions and fulfill the Department’s 

intention of addressing the gap in the 

types of institutions, faculty, and 

students that have historically 

benefitted from the instruction, training, 

and outreach available at LRCs. 

Institutions that are eligible to receive 

assistance under Title III, part A; Title 

III part B; and Title V of the HEA 

include MSIs, Historically Black 

Colleges and Universities (HBCUs), 

predominately black institutions, 

Hispanic-serving institutions, and tribal 

colleges, among others. This range of 

institutional types provides sufficient 

options to language resource center 

institutions in terms of collaboration. 

Considering, too, that community 

colleges are included in this priority, 

there is flexibility, opportunity, and 

latitude for the Language Resource 

Center institutions to meet the intended 

outcomes of this priority. We, therefore, 

do not agree that the definition of an 

MSI for the purposes of this proposed 

priority is too narrow. 

Change: None. 

Comment: None. 

Discussion: Based on internal 

deliberation, and consistent with a 

change made to a similar priority for the 

National Resource Centers program in 

response to a comment, we have revised 

the final priority to allow an applicant 

that itself is an MSI or community 

college to propose to meet the priority 

by conducting intra-campus 

collaborative activities instead of, or in 

addition to, collaborative activities with 

other MSIs or community colleges. An 

example of an intra-campus 

collaborative activity would be a project 

involving the faculty in the Department 

of Social Sciences and the Yoruba 

language instructors to develop a 

language across the curriculum course 

about human rights issues in Africa. 

Changes: We have revised the priority 

language to permit institutions that are 

MSIs or community colleges to propose 

intra-campus collaborative activities 

instead of, or in addition to, 

collaborative activities with other MSIs 

or community colleges. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

32652 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 109 / Friday, June 6, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

Final Priority 

Final Priority 

Applications that propose significant 

and sustained collaborative activities 

with one or more Minority-Serving 

Institutions (MSIs) (as defined in this 

notice) or with one or more community 

colleges (as defined in this notice). 

These activities must be designed to 

incorporate foreign languages into the 

curriculum at the MSI(s) or community 

college(s), and to improve foreign 

language instruction at the MSI(s) or 

community college(s). If an applicant 

institution is an MSI or a community 

college (as defined in this notice), that 

institution can meet the intent of this 

priority by proposing intra-campus 

collaborative activities instead of, or in 

addition to, collaborative activities with 

other MSIs and/or community colleges. 

For the purpose of this priority: 

Community college means an 

institution that meets the definition in 

section 312(f) of the Higher Education 

Act of 1965, as amended (HEA) (20 

U.S.C. 1058(f)); or an institution of 

higher education (as defined in section 

101 of the HEA (20 U.S.C. 1001)) that 

awards degrees and certificates, more 

than 50 percent of which are not 

bachelor’s degrees (or an equivalent) or 

master’s, professional, or other 

advanced degrees. 

Minority-Serving Institution means an 

institution that is eligible to receive 

assistance under sections 316 through 

320 of part A of Title III, under part B 

of Title III, or under Title V of the HEA. 

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 one or more of 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 

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. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 109 / Friday, June 6, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 32653 

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) on 

request to the program contact person 

listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT. 

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: June 3, 2014. 

Lynn B. Mahaffie, 

Senior Director, Policy Coordination, 

Development, and Accreditation Service, 

delegated the authority to perform the 

functions and duties of the Assistant 

Secretary for Postsecondary Education. 

[FR Doc. 2014–13208 Filed 6–5–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS 

AFFAIRS 

38 CFR Part 3 

RIN 2900–A082 

Burial Benefits 

AGENCY: Department of Veterans Affairs. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Veterans 

Affairs (VA) is amending its regulations 

governing entitlement to monetary 

burial benefits, which include burial 

allowances for service-connected and 

non-service-connected deaths, a plot or 

interment allowance, and 

reimbursement of transportation 

expenses. As amended, the regulations 

establish rules to support VA’s 

automated payment of burial allowances 

to surviving spouses, conversion to flatrate burial and plot or interment 

allowances that are equal to the 

maximum benefit authorized by law, 

and priority of payment to non-spouse 

survivors. The purpose of these 

regulations is to streamline the program 

and make it easier for veterans and their 

families to receive the right benefits and 

meet their expectations for quality, 

timeliness, and responsiveness. 

DATES: Effective Date: The final rule is 

effective July 7, 2014. 

Applicability Date: This final rule 

applies to claims for burial benefits 

pending on or after July 7, 2014. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Damali Mason, Pension and Fiduciary 

Service (21PF), Veterans Benefits 

Administration, Department of Veterans 

Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW., 

Washington, DC 20420; (202) 632–8852. 

This is not a toll-free number. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a 

document published in the Federal 

Register on December 18, 2013 (78 FR 

76574), VA proposed revising its 

regulations governing eligibility for and 

payment of monetary burial benefits. 

The 30-day public comment period 

ended on January 17, 2014. VA received 

nine comments from interested 

individuals and organizations. The 

comments generally concerned priority 

of payments and who is a proper 

claimant for burial benefits. The 

comments are discussed below. Based 

on the rationale described in this 

document and in the notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NPRM), VA adopts the 

proposed rule as revised in this 

document. 

Section 3.1700—Types of VA Burial 

Benefits 

In proposed § 3.1700(b), we defined 

‘‘burial’’ for purposes of describing the 

types of services that VA has authority 

to pay for as a burial benefit. VA 

liberally defined burial as including, but 

not limited to, all legal methods for 

disposing of a deceased person’s 

remains. One commenter recommended 

that VA include alkaline hydrolysis 

within the proposed definition of burial. 

According to the commenter, alkaline 

hydrolysis is a water-based dissolution 

process for human remains that uses 

alkaline chemicals to accelerate natural 

decomposition. To the extent that 

alkaline hydrolysis is a lawful method 

for disposing of human remains in a 

particular State, the broad language in 

proposed § 3.1700(b), ‘‘all the legal 

methods,’’ would necessarily include 

this method of disposition in VA’s 

definition of burial. Because alkaline 

hydrolysis, where lawful, is a service 

that VA would pay for as a burial 

benefit under the language of proposed 

§ 3.1700(b), we make no change to the 

proposed rule because it is unnecessary. 

One commenter supported the crossreferences in proposed § 3.1700(c) to 

other benefits and services related to 

memorialization or interment because 

they reflect the options available to 

families. The commenter also approved 

of the specific reference to both 

‘‘memorialization’’ and ‘‘interment,’’ 

which are two distinct concepts, as 

discussed in the preamble of the 

proposed rule. VA appreciates the 

commenter’s support for these changes. 

Section 3.1702—Persons Who May 

Receive Burial Benefits; Priority of 

Payments 

Under 38 CFR 3.1601, VA accepted a 

claim for burial benefits from the 

funeral director, any person who used 

his or her funds to pay burial or funeral 

expenses, or the executor or 

administrator of the estate of the 

veteran. Those rules did not allow VA 

to automate or expedite the payment of 

these small, one-time benefit payments 

to survivors who generally have an 

immediate need for supplemental 

financial assistance after the veteran’s 

death. To facilitate efficient processing 

of claims, we proposed in§ 3.1702(a) to 

automate certain payments to surviving 

spouses based upon information in VA 

systems as a first priority and in 

§ 3.1702(b) to establish a priority of 

payments for other eligible individuals. 

We received several comments 

regarding the payment priority in 

proposed § 3.1702, whereby VA would 

automatically pay the burial allowance 

to an eligible surviving spouse in 

conjunction with the month-of-death 

benefit in 38 CFR 3.20, without the need 

for a separate claim, and regardless of a 

claim for the same benefit made by 

other claimants. If there were no 

surviving spouse, child, or parent, we 

stated that VA would pay an executor or 

administrator of the veteran’s estate 

based upon the executor’s or 

administrator’s claim, or in the case of 

an unclaimed veteran, a funeral service 

provider based upon the provider’s 

claim. As a result of this revised priority 

of payment, VA would no longer 

prioritize payment to funeral directors 

or other service providers. 

One commenter stated that benefits 

should not be paid to funeral homes and 

recommended that VA pay burial 

benefits directly to beneficiaries for use 

in paying for the burial. The commenter 

went on to state that, ‘‘once the process 

is automated and simplified, funeral 

homes will be natural beneficiaries of 

faster benefit payment.’’ Another 

commenter stated that the benefit 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES