42212 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 162 / Tuesday, August 21, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

34 CFR Chapter III 

[Docket ID ED–2018–OSERS–0024] 

Final Requirement—State Technical 

Assistance Projects To Improve 

Services and Results for Children Who 

Are Deaf-Blind and National Technical 

Assistance and Dissemination Center 

for Children Who Are Deaf-Blind 

(TA&D–DB) 

AGENCY: Office of Special Education and 

Rehabilitative Services, Department of 

Education. 

ACTION: Final requirement. 

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance 

(CFDA) Number: 84.326T. 

SUMMARY: The Assistant Secretary for 

Special Education and Rehabilitative 

Services announces a requirement 

under the Technical Assistance and 

Dissemination to Improve Services and 

Results for Children with Disabilities 

(TA&D) program. The Assistant 

Secretary may use this requirement for 

competitions in fiscal year (FY) 2018 

and later years. 

DATES: This requirement is effective 

September 20, 2018. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jo 

Ann McCann, U.S. Department of 

Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., 

Room 5162, Potomac Center Plaza, 

Washington, DC 20202–5076. 

Telephone: (202) 245–7434. Email: 

Jo.Ann.McCann@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 1–800–8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Purpose of 

Program: The purpose of the Technical 

Assistance and Dissemination to 

Improve Services and Results for 

Children with Disabilities program is to 

promote academic achievement and to 

improve results for children with 

disabilities by providing technical 

assistance (TA), supporting model 

demonstration projects, disseminating 

useful information, and implementing 

activities that are supported by 

scientifically based research. 

Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1461, 

1463, 1481, and 1482. 

We published a notice of proposed 

requirement (NPR) in the Federal 

Register on June 20, 2018 (83 FR 28566). 

That notice contained background 

information and our reasons for 

proposing this particular requirement. 

The only difference between the 

proposed requirement and this final 

requirement is that we included a 

footnote within the final requirement 

explaining that this requirement does 

not apply to the National Technical 

Assistance and Dissemination Center for 

Children Who Are Deaf-Blind. This is 

not a substantive change because we 

explained in the Background section of 

the NPR that it was not our intent to 

apply this requirement to that Center. 

Public Comment: In response to our 

invitation in the NPR, 10 parties 

submitted comments on the proposed 

requirement. Generally, we do not 

address technical and other minor 

changes, or suggested changes that the 

law does not authorize us to make under 

applicable statutory authority. In 

addition, we do not address general 

comments that raised concerns not 

directly related to the proposed 

priorities or definitions. 

Analysis of the Comments and 

Changes: An analysis of the comments 

follows. 

Comment: The majority of 

commenters expressed support for 

limiting the indirect cost rate to 10 

percent, indicating that this would 

allow more funding for the State DeafBlind Projects to provide TA to families 

and caregivers, professionals, and others 

providing services to children who are 

deaf-blind. 

Discussion: We appreciate the 

commenters’ support and agree with the 

comments for the reasons stated. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter expressed 

support for the cap on indirect cost rates 

but raised a concern that some current 

State Deaf-Blind Projects that are 

university-based may not apply for 

future competitions because of the cap, 

leading to a loss of services for children 

who are deaf-blind within those States. 

The commenter suggested that the 

Department consider allowing 

universities to reach individual 

agreements with the Department on 

indirect cost rates. Another commenter 

opposed the proposed cap, arguing that 

negotiated indirect cost rates better 

ensure that necessary administrative 

costs for university-based State projects 

are covered and, therefore, that the 

proposed cap on indirect cost rates 

could jeopardize sound administration 

of State projects. 

Discussion: We appreciate the 

commenters’ concern regarding the 

potential for disruption of services for 

children who are deaf-blind within a 

State in the event an incumbent 

applicant does not apply for a new 

award under this program. We also 

appreciate the commenter’s concern 

about the proper administrative 

oversight of State projects and we agree 

that strong administrative oversight is 

essential. However, many State deafblind projects, including universitybased projects, have operated effectively 

while applying indirect costs at or 

below 10 percent of their modified total 

direct costs. For this reason, we do not 

believe that the 10 percent cap 

established in this final rule will 

deprive the Deaf-Blind program of 

university-based applicants. We also 

believe that limiting the indirect cost 

rate, for university-based and nonuniversity based projects, will not 

undermine sound administrative 

oversight of projects, but rather will be 

beneficial to the program and its 

intended beneficiaries and can be 

achieved with minimal disruption to 

project activities. 

Finally, since this is a competitive 

grant competition, it would be 

inappropriate, as one commenter 

suggests, to have separate requirements 

for incumbent grantees unavailable to 

other grantees. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter stated that 

changes to the indirect cost rate for this 

program could cause confusion if a 

grantee also has other approved indirect 

cost rates from a Federal agency. 

Discussion: We appreciate the 

commenter’s concern about potential 

confusion if a grantee has another 

negotiated indirect cost rate granted by 

either the Department of Education or 

another Federal agency. We believe that 

grantees with sufficient administrative 

capacity to participate in this program 

will not find it difficult to apply 

different indirect cost rates to grants 

from different agencies. However, to 

minimize the risk of confusion cited by 

the commenter, the Department is 

prepared to provide all necessary 

technical assistance to grantees under 

this program to ensure that they 

understand the new requirement and 

charge the appropriate indirect cost rate 

to the grant. 

Changes: None. 

Final Requirement 

The Assistant Secretary establishes 

the following requirement for this 

program. We may apply this 

requirement in any fiscal year in which 

this program is in effect. 

Final Requirement: 

Allowable indirect costs. 

A grantee may recover the lesser of (a) 

its actual indirect costs as determined 

by the grantee’s negotiated indirect cost 

rate agreement and (b) 10 percent of its 

modified total direct costs. If a grantee’s 

allocable indirect costs exceed 10 

percent of its modified total direct costs, 

the grantee may not recoup the excess 

by shifting the cost to other grants or 

contracts with the U.S. Government, 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 162 / Tuesday, August 21, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 42213 

1The National Technical Assistance and 

Dissemination Center for Children Who Are DeafBlind (CFDA number 84.326T) (National Center) is 

not subject to this limitation on recovery of indirect 

costs. 

unless specifically authorized by 

legislation. The grantee must use nonFederal revenue sources to pay for such 

unrecovered costs.1

This notice does not preclude the 

Department 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 and these 

requirements, we invite applications 

through a notice in the Federal Register. 

Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 

13771 

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. 

Under Executive Order 13771, for 

each new regulation that the 

Department proposes for notice and 

comment or otherwise promulgates that 

is a significant regulatory action under 

Executive Order 12866 and that imposes 

total costs greater than zero, it must 

identify two deregulatory actions. For 

FY 2018, any new incremental costs 

associated with a new regulation must 

be fully offset by the elimination of 

existing costs through deregulatory 

actions, unless required by law or 

approved in writing by the Director of 

OMB. However, Executive Order 13771 

does not apply to ‘‘transfer rules’’ that 

cause only income transfers between 

taxpayers and program beneficiaries, 

such as those regarding discretionary 

grant programs. Because this final 

requirement would be utilized in 

connection with a discretionary grant 

program, the requirement to offset new 

regulations in Executive Order 13771 

does not apply. 

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 requirement 

based on a reasoned determination that 

the benefits would justify the costs. In 

choosing among alternative regulatory 

approaches, we selected this approach 

to 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 would 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. This regulatory action 

may result in a subset of grantees under 

this program recovering less funds for 

indirect costs than they would 

otherwise have recovered prior to this 

final new maximum indirect cost rate, 

which could impact their operations. 

Further, it could result in particular 

entities not seeking funding under this 

program because of an inability to 

operate under this final new maximum 

indirect cost rate. However, we believe 

that the benefits to program 

beneficiaries of utilizing a higher 

percentage of program funds for direct 

services outweigh these costs. 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995: 

This document does not contain 

Paperwork Reduction Act requirements. 

The Technical Assistance and 

Dissemination to Improve Services and 

Results for Children with Disabilities 

program has been approved by OMB to 

collect data under OMB 1820–0028. The 

final requirement would not impact the 

approved and active data collection. 

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 final 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) on 

request to the program contact persons 

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. You may access the official 

edition of the Federal Register and the 

Code of Federal Regulations via the 

Federal Digital System at: www.gpo.gov/ 

fdsys. At this site you can view this 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
42214 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 162 / Tuesday, August 21, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

1 75 FR 6474 (February 9, 2010). The annual NO2

standard of 0.053 parts per million (ppm) is listed 

in ppb for ease of comparison with the new 1-hour 

standard. 

2 75 FR 35520 (June 22, 2010). The annual SO2

standard of 0.5 ppm is listed in ppb for ease of 

comparison with the new 1-hour standard. 

document, as well as all other 

documents of this Department 

published in the Federal Register, in 

text or Portable Document Format 

(PDF). To use PDF you must have 

Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is 

available free at the site. 

You may also access documents of the 

Department published in the Federal 

Register by using the article search 

feature at: www.federalregister.gov. 

Specifically, through the advanced 

search feature at this site, you can limit 

your search to documents published by 

the Department. 

Dated: August 16, 2018. 

Johnny W. Collett, 

Assistant Secretary for Special Education and 

Rehabilitative Services. 

[FR Doc. 2018–18027 Filed 8–20–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2015–0472; FRL–9982– 

23—Region 9] 

Partial Approval and Partial 

Disapproval of Air Quality State 

Implementation Plans; Arizona; 

Infrastructure Requirements for 

Nitrogen Dioxide and Sulfur Dioxide 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is partially approving and 

partially disapproving several state 

implementation plan (SIP) submissions 

from the State of Arizona pursuant to 

the requirements of section 110(a)(1) 

and 110(a)(2) of the Clean Air Act (CAA 

or ‘‘the Act’’) for the implementation, 

maintenance, and enforcement of the 

2010 nitrogen dioxide (NO2) and 2010 

sulfur dioxide (SO2) national ambient 

air quality standards (NAAQS or 

‘‘standards’’). We refer to such SIP 

submissions as ‘‘infrastructure’’ SIP 

submissions because they are intended 

to address basic structural SIP 

requirements for new or revised 

standards including, but not limited to, 

legal authority, regulatory structure, 

resources, permit programs, monitoring, 

and modeling necessary to assure 

implementation, maintenance, and 

enforcement of the NAAQS. In addition, 

the EPA is reclassifying Pima County 

from Priority II to Priority III for SO2

emergency episode planning purposes. 

The EPA is also approving into the 

Arizona SIP sections of an Arizona 

Revised Statute related to air quality 

modeling and the submission of 

modeling data to the EPA. Finally, the 

EPA is clarifying several inconsistencies 

between its technical support document 

and notice of proposed rulemaking. 

DATES: This rule is effective on 

September 20, 2018. 

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–R09–OAR–2015–0472. All 

documents in the docket are listed on 

the https://www.regulations.gov 

website. Although listed in the index, 

some information is not publicly 

available, e.g., Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available through http://

www.regulations.gov, or please contact 

the person identified in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section for 

additional availability information. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John 

Ungvarsky, Air Planning Office (AIR–2), 

EPA Region IX, (415) 972–3963, 

ungvarsky.john@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, the terms 

‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ and ‘‘our’’ refer to the EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

II. Public Comments 

III. Final Action 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background 

Section 110(a)(1) of the CAA requires 

states to make a SIP submission within 

three years after the promulgation of a 

new or revised primary NAAQS. 

Section 110(a)(2) includes a list of 

specific elements that the SIP must 

include. Many of the section 110(a)(2) 

SIP elements relate to the general 

information and authorities that 

constitute the ‘‘infrastructure’’ of a 

state’s air quality management program. 

SIP submittals that address these 

requirements are referred to as 

‘‘infrastructure SIP submissions’’ or ‘‘I– 

SIP submissions.’’ The I–SIP elements 

required by section 110(a)(2) are as 

follows: 

• Section 110(a)(2)(A): Emission 

limits and other control measures; 

• section 110(a)(2)(B): Ambient air 

quality monitoring/data system; 

• section 110(a)(2)(C): Program for 

enforcement of control measures and 

regulation of new and modified 

stationary sources (excluding the 

requirements applicable only in 

nonattainment areas); 

• section 110(a)(2)(D)(i): Interstate 

pollution transport; 

• section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii): Interstate 

and international pollution abatement; 

• section 110(a)(2)(E): Adequate 

resources and authority, conflict of 

interest, and oversight of local and 

regional government agencies; 

• section 110(a)(2)(F): Stationary 

source monitoring and reporting; 

• section 110(a)(2)(G): Emergency 

episodes; 

• section 110(a)(2)(H): SIP revisions; 

• section 110(a)(2)(J): Consultation 

with government officials, public 

notification, prevention of significant 

deterioration (PSD), and visibility 

protection; 

• section 110(a)(2)(K): Air quality 

modeling and submittal of modeling 

data; 

• section 110(a)(2)(L): Permitting fees; 

and 

• section 110(a)(2)(M): Consultation/ 

participation by affected local entities. 

Two elements identified in section 

110(a)(2) are not governed by the threeyear submittal deadline of section 

110(a)(1) and are therefore not 

addressed in this action. These two 

elements are: Section 110(a)(2)(C) to the 

extent it refers to nonattainment new 

source review (NSR) permit programs 

required under part D, and section 

110(a)(2)(I), pertaining to the 

nonattainment planning requirements of 

part D. As a result, this action does not 

address SIP requirements for the 

nonattainment NSR portion of section 

110(a)(2)(C) or of section 110(a)(2)(I). 

In 2010, the EPA promulgated revised 

NAAQS for NO2 and SO2, triggering a 

requirement for states to submit 

infrastructure SIP submissions. The 

NAAQS addressed by this infrastructure 

SIP rulemaking include the following: 

• 2010 NO2 NAAQS, which revised 

the primary 1971 NO2 annual standard 

of 53 parts per billion (ppb) by 

supplementing it with a new 1-hour 

average NO2 standard of 100 ppb, and 

retained the secondary annual standard 

of 53 ppb; 1 and 

• 2010 SO2 NAAQS, which 

established a new 1-hour average SO2

standard of 75 ppb, retained the 

secondary 3-hour average SO2 standard 

of 500 ppb, and established a 

mechanism for revoking the existing 

annual and 24-hour SO2 standards.2


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES