35502 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 120 / Monday, June 23, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

regulatory text is revised to read as 

follows: 

‘‘Any eligible entity that seeks 

interconnection or transmission services 

with respect to Interconnection 

Customer’s Interconnection Facilities 

for which a waiver is in effect pursuant 

to this paragraph (d)(2) shall follow the 

procedures in sections 210, 211, and 

212 of the Federal Power Act, 18 CFR 

§ 2.20, and 18 CFR part 36.’’ 

■ 3. On page 31070, third column, in 

Paragraph 62, the following topics are 

revised to read as follows: 

‘‘Title: FERC–917, NonDiscriminatory Open Access 

Transmission Tariff; FERC–582, Electric 

Fees and Annual Charges’’ 

‘‘OMB Control No. 1902–0233; 1902– 

0132’’ 

■ 4. On page 31071, first column, the 

last sentence of Paragraph 64 is revised 

to read as follows: 

‘‘Please reference OMB Control No. 

1902–0233, 1902–0132, and the docket 

number (RM14–11–000) of this 

proposed rulemaking in your 

submission.’’ 

Issued: June 16, 2014. 

Kimberly D. Bose, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2014–14425 Filed 6–20–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6717–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

34 CFR Parts 369 and 371 

[Docket ID ED–2013–OSERS–0083] 

RIN 1820–AB66 

Vocational Rehabilitation Services 

Projects for American Indians With 

Disabilities 

AGENCY: Rehabilitation Services 

Administration, Office of Special 

Education and Rehabilitative Services, 

Department of Education (RSA). 

ACTION: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Secretary proposes to 

amend the definition of ‘‘reservation’’ 

under the regulations governing the 

American Indian Vocational 

Rehabilitation Services (AIVRS) 

program in one of two ways. 

The first proposed amendment, 

‘‘Alternative A,’’ would conform the 

definition to the Department’s current 

interpretation and practices. In order to 

be eligible for a grant, a federally or 

State recognized tribe must be located 

on a Federal or State reservation. The 

statutory definition of ‘‘reservation’’ 

includes Federal or State Indian 

reservations; public domain Indian 

allotments; former Indian reservations 

in Oklahoma; and land held by 

incorporated Native groups, regional 

corporations, and village corporations 

under the provisions of the Alaska 

Native Claims Settlement Act. The 

Department’s ‘‘Alternative A’’ definition 

would also include as a reservation 

‘‘defined areas of land recognized by a 

State or the Federal Government where 

there is a concentration of tribal 

members and on which the tribal 

government is providing structured 

activities and services.’’ 

The second proposed amendment to 

the regulatory definition of 

‘‘reservation,’’ ‘‘Alternative B,’’ would 

limit the areas of land the Department 

considers to be reservations to those that 

are listed in the statutory definition of 

‘‘reservation’’: Federal or State Indian 

reservations; public domain Indian 

allotments; former Indian reservations 

in Oklahoma; or land held by 

incorporated Native groups, regional 

corporations, and village corporations 

under the provisions of the Alaska 

Native Claims Settlement Act. 

The Secretary seeks comment on both 

alternatives. 

DATES: We must receive your comments 

on or before August 22, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments 

through the Federal eRulemaking Portal 

or via postal mail, commercial delivery, 

or hand delivery. We will not accept 

comments submitted by fax or by email 

or those submitted after the comment 

period. To ensure that we do not receive 

duplicate copies, please submit your 

comments only once. In addition, please 

include the Docket ID at the top of your 

comments. 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

www.regulations.gov to submit your 

comments electronically. Information 

on using Regulations.gov, including 

instructions for accessing agency 

documents, submitting comments, and 

viewing the docket, is available on the 

site under ‘‘Are you new to the site?’’ 

• Postal Mail, Commercial Delivery, 

or Hand Delivery: If you mail or deliver 

your comments about these proposed 

regulations, address them to Thomas 

Finch, U.S. Department of Education, 

400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 5147 

Potomac Center Plaza (PCP), 

Washington, DC 20202–2800. 

Privacy Note: The Department’s policy is 

to make all comments received from 

members of the public available for public 

viewing in their entirety on the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal at www.regulations.gov. 

Therefore, commenters should be careful to 

include in their comments only information 

that they wish to make publicly available. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Thomas Finch, U.S. Department of 

Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., 

Room 5147, Potomac Center Plaza 

(PCP), Washington, DC 20202–2800. 

Telephone: (202) 245–7343, or by email: 

Tom.Finch@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: 

Invitation to Comment: We invite you 

to submit comments regarding these 

proposed regulations. Specifically, we 

invite comments from tribal officials, 

tribal governments, tribal organizations, 

affected tribal members, State vocational 

rehabilitation (VR) agencies, VR 

counselors, and all other concerned 

parties. 

We also invite you to assist us in 

complying with the specific 

requirements of Executive Orders 12866 

and 13563 and their overall requirement 

of reducing regulatory burden that 

might result from these proposed 

regulations. Please let us know of any 

further ways we could reduce potential 

costs or increase potential benefits 

while preserving the effective and 

efficient administration of the 

Department’s programs and activities. 

During and after the comment period, 

you may inspect all public comments 

about these proposed regulations by 

accessing Regulations.gov. You may also 

inspect the comments in person in room 

5147 Potomac Center Plaza (PCP), 

Washington, DC 20202–2800, between 

8:30 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. Washington, DC 

time, Monday through Friday of each 

week except Federal holidays. Please 

contact the person listed under FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. 

Assistance to Individuals With 

Disabilities in Reviewing the 

Rulemaking Record: On request we will 

provide an appropriate accommodation 

or auxiliary aid to an individual with a 

disability who needs assistance to 

review the comments or other 

documents in the public rulemaking 

record for these proposed regulations. If 

you want to schedule an appointment 

for this type of accommodation or 

auxiliary aid, please contact the person 

listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT. 

Background 

Under section 121(a) of the 

Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended 

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

741(a)), the RSA Commissioner may 

make grants to the governing bodies of 

Indian tribes located on Federal and 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 120 / Monday, June 23, 2014 / Proposed Rules 35503 

State reservations (and consortia of such 

governing bodies) to pay 90 percent of 

the costs of VR services for American 

Indians who are individuals with 

disabilities residing on or near such 

reservations. The purpose of the 

program is for the tribes to provide VR 

services to these individuals so that they 

can prepare for and engage in gainful 

employment. 

Section 121(c) of the Rehabilitation 

Act defines the term ‘‘reservation’’ as: 

‘‘The term ‘reservation’ includes Indian 

reservations, public domain Indian 

allotments, and former Indian 

reservations in Oklahoma, and land 

held by incorporated Native groups, 

regional corporations, and village 

corporations under the provisions of the 

Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act.’’ 

The current regulatory definition of 

‘‘reservation’’ under the AIVRS program 

at 34 CFR 371.4(b) is similar: 

‘‘Reservation means a Federal or State 

Indian reservation, public domain 

Indian allotment, former Indian 

reservation in Oklahoma, and land held 

by incorporated Native groups, regional 

corporations and village corporations 

under the provisions of the Alaska 

Native Claims Settlement Act.’’ 

The Department currently interprets 

the term ‘‘includes’’ in the statutory 

definition of ‘‘reservation’’ to mean that 

the list of land areas in the statute is not 

exhaustive. As a result, the Department 

considers other land areas that it 

determines are consistent with both the 

purpose of the program and the list of 

land areas provided in the statute to be 

within the meaning of ‘‘reservation.’’ 

Thus, the Department’s longstanding 

interpretation of the statute is that tribes 

that are located on a defined and 

contiguous (i.e. attached, bordering, 

adjacent) area of land where there is a 

concentration of tribal members and on 

which the tribal government is 

providing structured activities and 

services meet the statutory definition of 

‘‘reservation.’’ 

From FY 2007 through FY 2011, five 

grantees, serving six tribes, were 

awarded AIVRS grants using the 

Department’s long-standing 

interpretation of ‘‘reservation.’’ In FY 

2013, these grantees provided services 

to 559 American Indians with 

disabilities. The Department has 

received no complaints about the 

grantees’ eligibility at any time during 

the life of these grants. 

We are proposing Alternative A 

because the current definition of 

‘‘reservation’’ in § 371.4(b) does not 

clearly reflect our statutory 

interpretation. The Department seeks 

comment on the amended definition in 

Alternative A that would make its 

current interpretation explicit. 

The proposed Alternative B definition 

of ‘‘reservation’’ arises out of a May 9, 

2012, U.S. Government Accountability 

Office (GAO) report, ‘‘Federal Funding 

for Non-Federally Recognized Tribes,’’ 

GAO–12–348 (available at 

www.gao.gov/products/GAO–12–348). 

The report questions whether the 

Department’s interpretation of 

‘‘reservation’’ is broader than the term’s 

statutory definition. 

Specifically, the GAO questioned the 

Department’s view that a Staterecognized tribe is eligible for AIVRS 

program grants when it is not located on 

a State reservation but on a defined area 

of land where there is a concentration 

of tribal members and on which the 

tribal government is providing 

structured activities and services— 

described in the tribal service area 

outlined in a tribe’s grant application. 

The Department provided comments on 

the GAO’s draft report supporting its 

current practice. The GAO, in its final 

report, recommended that the Secretary 

review the eligibility requirements for 

AIVRS grants and take appropriate 

action. 

The Department has done so, and here 

continues to consider how best to 

interpret the statute in light of the 

purposes of the program. The 

Department is therefore also seeking 

comment on a proposed definition of 

‘‘reservation’’ that limits eligibility to 

tribes located only on those areas of 

land specifically identified in the 

statutory definition—Alternative B. This 

proposed change would align the 

Department’s interpretation of 

‘‘reservation’’ in the AIVRS program 

with that of the GAO. 

In considering these alternative 

definitions of ‘‘reservation’’ in the 

AIVRS program, we have consulted 

internally, as well as with officials of 

other Federal government agencies. In 

addition, as required by Executive Order 

13175, the Department consulted tribal 

officials, tribal governments, tribal 

organizations, and affected tribal 

members regarding this matter. The 

tribal consultation conducted by the 

Department is described further in the 

Tribal Summary Impact Statement 

section of this notice. 

Finally, the same definition of 

‘‘reservation’’ found in 34 CFR 371.4(b) 

is included in 34 CFR 369.4(b), the 

regulations governing special project 

activities, including the AIVRS program, 

that provide vocational rehabilitation 

services. We therefore propose 

conforming amendments to 34 CFR 

369.4. 

Summary of Proposed Changes 

The proposed regulation in 

Alternative A would amend § 371.4(b) 

to reflect the Department’s current 

interpretation and practices. Tribes 

eligible for AIVRS grants would 

continue to be those located on land 

specifically identified in the statute, as 

well as those located on a defined area 

of land recognized by a State or the 

Federal Government where there is a 

concentration of tribal members and on 

which the tribal government is 

providing structured activities and 

services. 

In refining our current interpretation 

in these proposed regulations, we have 

removed the requirement that the tribal 

lands be contiguous and added the 

requirement that they be recognized by 

a State or the Federal Government. 

While in the past, many of the tribal 

lands of tribes that received grants 

under our current interpretation have 

been contiguous, we have determined 

that requiring the lands to be contiguous 

is not essential to be considered a 

‘‘reservation’’ for the purposes of the 

AIVRS program. We believe that, in 

order to have similar characteristics to 

a reservation, the tribal lands must be 

located on a defined area of land 

recognized by a State or the Federal 

Government where there is a 

concentration of tribal members and on 

which the tribal government is 

providing structured activities and 

services. We understand that some tribal 

lands so recognized are not necessarily 

contiguous. 

The proposed regulation in 

Alternative B would limit eligibility to 

tribes located only on those areas of 

land specifically identified in the 

statutory definition. Statute: Section 

121(a) of the Rehabilitation Act 

authorizes the RSA Commissioner to 

‘‘make grants to the governing bodies of 

Indian tribes located on Federal and 

State reservations (and consortia of such 

governing bodies) to pay 90 percent of 

the costs of vocational rehabilitation 

services for American Indians who are 

individuals with disabilities residing on 

or near such reservations.’’ Section 

121(c) of the Rehabilitation Act defines 

the term ‘‘reservation’’ as: ‘‘The term 

‘reservation’ includes Indian 

reservations, public domain Indian 

allotments, former Indian reservations 

in Oklahoma, and land held by 

incorporated Native groups, regional 

corporations, and village corporations 

under the provisions of the Alaska 

Native Claims Settlement Act.’’ 

Current Regulations: Section 371.2 of 

the current regulations implementing 

section 121 of the Rehabilitation Act 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
35504 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 120 / Monday, June 23, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

provides that applications may be made 

only by the governing bodies of Indian 

tribes and consortia of those governing 

bodies located on Federal and State 

reservations. Current § 371.4(b) defines 

‘‘reservation’’ as ‘‘a Federal or State 

Indian reservation, public domain 

Indian allotment, former Indian 

reservation in Oklahoma, and land held 

by incorporated Native groups, regional 

corporations and village corporations 

under the provisions of the Alaska 

Native Claims Settlement Act.’’ 

Proposed Regulations: Under 

proposed Alternative A, we would 

amend current § 371.4 to reflect more 

clearly the Department’s current 

eligibility determination practices and 

interpretation of ‘‘reservation.’’ 

Specifically, we would amend the 

definition of ‘‘reservation’’ to include ‘‘a 

defined area of land recognized by a 

State or the Federal Government where 

there is a concentration of tribal 

members and on which the tribal 

government is providing structured 

activities and services.’’ This definition 

would include lands identified in the 

U.S. Census as a State-designated tribal 

statistical area or a tribal-designated 

statistical area and lands designated as 

tribal service areas by statute, judicial 

decision, or administrative 

determination. 

Under proposed Alternative B, we 

would amend current § 371.4 to state 

that only those land areas specifically 

listed in the statutory definition of 

‘‘reservation’’ qualify as a reservation. 

Consequently, under § 371.2, only those 

tribes that are located on land areas that 

are listed under the definition of 

‘‘reservation’’ would be eligible to apply 

for a grant under the AIVRS program. 

This alternative would constitute a 

change in the Department’s 

interpretation such that federally 

recognized tribes without Federal 

reservations, State recognized tribes 

without State reservations, or other 

areas of land not specifically listed in 

the statutory definition of ‘‘reservation’’ 

would not be eligible to apply for grants 

under the AIVRS program. 

Reasons: The Department is 

proposing two alternative regulatory 

interpretations of the statutory 

definition of ‘‘reservation’’ in the AIVRS 

program because we believe that the 

statute is capable of these different 

interpretations, and we are seeking 

public comment on both of them, 

including their policy ramifications, to 

inform our decision. 

The statutory definition of 

‘‘reservation’’ specifically includes land 

areas that meet the requirements for a 

reservation (past or present). Use of the 

term ‘‘includes’’ in the definition, 

however, indicates that the list need not 

be exhaustive. Proposed Alternative A 

areas of land would be identified by the 

Federal or State Government as discrete 

areas of land in which tribes provide 

governmental services to their members, 

although they do not share all of the 

characteristics of the areas of land listed 

in the statute. 

For example, tribal land areas 

proposed as ‘‘reservations’’ in 

Alternative A are identified by States (in 

the case of State-designated tribal 

statistical areas) or by federally 

recognized Indian tribes (in the case of 

tribal designated statistical areas) and 

are accepted by the U.S. Census Bureau, 

which recognizes them as compact and 

contiguous areas of land that contain a 

concentration of people who identify 

with the tribe and in which there is 

structured or organized tribal activity. 

Other service areas that would be 

covered by proposed Alternative A are 

defined by State or Federal statute. See, 

e.g., the Ponca Restoration Act, which 

establishes a service area for members of 

the Ponca Tribe of Nebraska in various 

counties in Nebraska, Iowa, and South 

Dakota. 25 U.S.C. 983c. Still other areas 

identified by judicial decision or 

administrative determination could be 

covered. Please refer to the discussion of 

proposed Alternative B below to 

understand how the characteristics of 

these types of land areas differ from the 

land areas specified in the statute. 

Arguably, including these areas of 

land in addition to those listed in the 

statute furthers the purpose of the 

AIVRS program, which the Department 

administers with the goal of assisting 

tribes to provide vocational 

rehabilitation services in a culturally 

sensitive manner to as many American 

Indians with disabilities as possible, 

resulting in meaningful employment. 

In proposed Alternative B, we are 

considering the interpretation 

recommended by GAO in its report, that 

the list of land areas contained in the 

statutory definition of ‘‘reservation’’ 

should be exclusive and no other areas 

of land can be ‘‘reservations’’ under the 

AIVRS program. There may be some 

support for such an interpretation in 

other Federal statutes we have 

examined that authorize financial 

assistance to Indian tribes and that have 

been interpreted to include the tribes 

whose eligibility is at issue here. These 

statutes use language defining the 

eligibility of tribes that is broader than 

the AIVRS governing statute and that 

authorizes financial assistance to tribes 

with or without reservations. These 

statutes use either the phrase ‘‘including 

but not limited to’’ or explicitly include 

the authority to provide assistance, for 

example, to Indian organizations or 

public or private nonprofit agencies 

serving Indians. See, e.g., Native 

Americans Program Act of 1974, 42 

U.S.C. 2991b and the Indian Health Care 

statute, 25 U.S.C. 1644(c). 

The Department acknowledges that 

the areas of land it currently accepts and 

proposes to include in Alternative A as 

‘‘reservations’’ are not specifically 

identified in the statute and are 

distinguishable in two respects. All of 

the statutorily specified land areas— 

reservations, public domain Indian 

allotments, former Indian reservations 

in Oklahoma, and land held by 

incorporated Native groups, regional 

corporations, and village corporations 

under the provisions of the Alaska 

Native Claims Settlement Act—are (or 

were) formally recognized and set aside 

by the Federal or State government for 

use by Indians and are (or were) subject 

to Federal or State supervision. 

The additional areas of land proposed 

in Alternative A are not located on 

reservations, or on any of the other areas 

listed in the statute as reservations, and 

do not share these characteristics: They 

are not set aside for Indians by the 

Federal or State government, and 

neither the Federal nor State 

governments have oversight over them. 

One reason for limiting AIVRS 

eligibility to only those tribes that have 

reservations or other land areas listed in 

the statute, is to contain the program to 

tribes that have a certain relationship 

with a State or the Federal Government 

that the traditional reservation status 

implies. 

Because we believe either 

interpretation is supportable, we 

propose alternative regulations that 

would each clarify eligibility for the 

program but have different 

consequences for affected tribes. We 

welcome comment on both. 

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 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 120 / Monday, June 23, 2014 / Proposed Rules 35505 

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 proposed regulatory action is a 

significant regulatory action subject to 

review by OMB under section 3(f)(4) of 

Executive Order 12866. 

We have also reviewed these 

regulations 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 proposed 

regulations only on a reasoned 

determination that their benefits would 

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 these proposed regulations 

are consistent with the principles in 

Executive Order 13563. 

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 

associated with this regulatory action 

are those resulting from our 

interpretation of statutory requirements 

and those we have determined are 

necessary for administering the 

Department’s programs and activities. 

The amendment to the regulatory 

definition of ‘‘reservation’’ proposed in 

Alternative A would produce no change 

in costs or benefits as it conforms the 

definition to the Department’s current 

interpretation and practices. The 

proposed change to ‘‘reservation’’ in 

Alternative B would affect five current 

grantees (six tribes, as one grantee is a 

consortium of two tribes) that currently 

receive funding through the AIVRS 

program and at least 29 other federally 

or state-recognized tribes that we have 

identified through census data. These 

tribes would be significantly affected in 

that they would not be eligible to apply 

for grants under the AIVRS program. 

Also significantly affected would be the 

American Indians with disabilities (559 

in FY 2013) who would have sought VR 

services through these tribes. 

The obvious sources to continue to 

provide VR services to American 

Indians with disabilities are the State 

VR programs. Section 121(b)(3) of the 

Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, 

requires States to ‘‘provide vocational 

rehabilitation services under its State 

plan to American Indians residing on or 

near a reservation whenever such State 

includes any such American Indians in 

its State population under section 

110(a)(1).’’ 

Of the six tribes that would be 

immediately affected by the change in 

proposed Alternative B, two tribes are in 

Washington State, three tribes are in 

Louisiana, and one tribe is in North 

Carolina. Information obtained from 

discussions with State VR Directors 

suggests that the State Division of 

Rehabilitation Services in Washington 

would be able to serve consumers 

currently being served by the two 

AIVRS grantees in that State, whereas 

Louisiana and North Carolina indicated 

that they would not be able to absorb 

the large number of individuals who 

would need to be served. In addition, 

Louisiana is under an order of selection 

whereby it only serves individuals with 

the most severe or significant 

disabilities. Therefore, it is unlikely that 

the current 121 consumers who do not 

have the most significant disabilities 

served by that project would be able to 

receive VR services under an order of 

selection. 

On the other hand, because new 

grantees would replace the current 

grantees and provide VR services to 

American Indians with disabilities who 

need them in order to secure or 

maintain employment, the change 

would primarily involve a shift of 

resources among projects. Thus, there 

may not be a net effect in terms of the 

purpose of the program, which is to 

serve and place American Indians with 

disabilities into competitive 

employment. 

In addition, the pool of eligible 

applicants for a grant under the AIVRS 

program includes all federally- and 

State-recognized tribes that are located 

on reservations as defined specifically 

by the statute. This is a large majority 

of the tribes. Currently, RSA provides 

funds to 85 tribal VR programs to 

provide VR services to American 

Indians with disabilities; consequently, 

the pool of potential applicants is still 

quite large, and the Department has 

information that eligible tribes that have 

not previously applied for an AIVRS 

grant are preparing to do so. 

Under the capacity-building projects 

in section 21 of the Rehabilitation Act, 

the Department awards grants to 

provide support to traditionally 

underserved populations by conducting 

research, training, technical assistance, 

or a related activity to improve services 

provided under the Act. The grants 

included a project that conducted grantwriting workshops for American Indian 

tribes. The Director of this project 

indicated that, at a minimum, there are 

at least 12 eligible tribes that have 

attended the grant writing workshops 

that have not previously submitted 

applications for this program, and the 

tribes have expressed an intent to apply 

when the Department holds its next 

competition. 

In summary, proposed Alternative B 

would have a major effect on a small 

number of current and future grantees. 

However, we would expect to fund new 

grantees at the same level as the current 

grantees. Therefore, the net effect of this 

proposed change is likely to be that it 

will not have a noticeable effect on the 

number of American Indians with 

disabilities served and placed in 

employment by the AIVRS program. 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
35506 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 120 / Monday, June 23, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

Clarity of the Regulations 

Executive Order 12866 and the 

Presidential memorandum ‘‘Plain 

Language in Government Writing’’ 

require each agency to write regulations 

that are easy to understand. 

The Secretary invites comments on 

how to make these proposed regulations 

easier to understand, including answers 

to questions such as the following: 

• Are the requirements in the 

proposed regulations clearly stated? 

• Do the proposed regulations contain 

technical terms or other wording that 

interferes with their clarity? 

• Does the format of the proposed 

regulations (grouping and order of 

sections, use of headings, paragraphing, 

etc.) aid or reduce their clarity? 

• Would the proposed regulations be 

easier to understand if we divided them 

into more (but shorter) sections? (A 

‘‘section’’ is preceded by the symbol 

‘‘§ ’’ and a numbered heading; for 

example, § 350.6.) 

• Could the description of the 

proposed regulations in the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this preamble be more helpful in 

making the proposed regulations easier 

to understand? If so, how? 

• What else could we do to make the 

proposed regulations easier to 

understand? 

To send any comments that concern 

how the Department could make these 

proposed regulations easier to 

understand, see the instructions in the 

ADDRESSES section. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification 

The Secretary certifies that these 

proposed regulations would not have a 

significant impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. Applicants to 

RSA’s AIVRS program are the governing 

bodies of Indian tribes or consortia of 

such governing bodies located on 

Federal and State reservations and are 

not considered small entities under the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act. 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

This proposed regulation does not 

contain any information collection 

requirements. 

Intergovernmental Review 

This program is not subject to 

Executive Order 12372 and the 

regulations in 34 CFR part 79. 

Tribal Summary Impact Statement 

As the first step in soliciting feedback 

on a possible change in the 

Department’s interpretation of 

‘‘reservation’’ under the AIVRS 

program, and consistent with Executive 

Order 13175 entitled ‘‘Consultation and 

Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments,’’ the Department of 

Education published a Notice of Tribal 

Consultation and Request for Comments 

in the Federal Register on July 5, 2013 

(78 FR 40458). That notice sought input 

from tribal officials, tribal governments, 

tribal organizations, and affected tribal 

members about a possible change in the 

Department’s interpretation of the term 

of ‘‘reservation’’ as that term is used in 

determining AIVRS program grant 

eligibility. 

The Department’s request seeking 

input focused on three areas: (1) The 

potential effect on limiting eligibility for 

AIVRS grants to those Indian tribes (and 

consortia of tribes) located only on 

Federal and State reservations and the 

other land areas specifically listed in the 

statutory definition of ‘‘reservation’’; (2) 

for tribes that currently provide services 

under this program and that would not 

meet the revised interpretation of 

‘‘reservation,’’ how the individuals 

receiving those services would continue 

to receive vocational rehabilitation 

services to help them in obtaining 

employment or returning to work; and 

(3) how a revised interpretation of 

‘‘reservation’’ might affect the pool of 

potential applicants for the AIVRS 

program that have not previously 

applied but may consider applying for 

an AIVRS grant. 

The Department received a total of 72 

comments in response to the published 

notice, three of which did not respond 

directly to the areas on which the 

Department focused. The 69 remaining 

comments supported retaining the 

Department’s current interpretation of 

‘‘reservation.’’ With regard to the three 

specific areas on which the Department 

sought comment, 58 commenters 

believed that limiting eligibility to only 

those Indian tribes on Federal or State 

reservations as defined specifically in 

the statute would result in a loss of 

services or the availability of services to 

American Indians with disabilities; 25 

commenters did not believe that the 

State VR program is as well prepared as 

the AIVRS projects to provide VR 

services, including traditional healing 

services, in a way that would be 

culturally sensitive to tribal consumers; 

and 11 commenters believed that a 

change to the interpretation of 

‘‘reservation’’ would reduce the pool of 

potential applicants. 

As a supplement to the Federal 

Register notice seeking input, program 

officials from the Department also 

participated in two face-to-face Tribal 

Consultation Listening Sessions that 

were held in August (Smith River, 

California) and September (Scottsdale, 

Arizona) 2013. The participants were 

asked to respond to the same three areas 

identified in the Federal Register 

notice. The comments provided by 

participants during these ‘‘Listening 

Sessions,’’ while much fewer in 

number, were comparable to those 

received in response to the Federal 

Register notice and were primarily from 

the same tribes that provided responses 

to the notice. These commenters 

supported retaining the current 

interpretation of ‘‘reservation.’’ They 

believed that, for those consumers 

receiving services under the AIVRS 

program, such services would not 

continue because tribal members would 

be reluctant to seek services from the 

State VR agencies or the agencies’ case 

load would not be able to absorb them. 

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 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. Catalog of Federal 

Domestic Assistance Number 84.250. 

List of Subjects 

34 CFR Part 369 

Grant programs—social programs, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Vocational rehabilitation. 

34 CFR Part 371 

Grant programs—Indians, Grant 

programs—social programs Indians, 

Vocational rehabilitation. 

Dated: June 16, 2014. 

Michael K. Yudin, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Special 

Education and Rehabilitative Services. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Secretary proposes to 

amend parts 369 and 371 of title 34 of 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 120 / Monday, June 23, 2014 / Proposed Rules 35507 

the Code of Federal Regulations as 

follows: 

PART 369—VOCATIONAL 

REHABILITATION SERVICE 

PROJECTS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 369 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 29 U.S.C. 7011(c), 732, 750, 

777(a)(1), 777b, 777f and 795g, unless 

otherwise noted. 

■ 2. Section 369.4(b) is amended by 

revising the definition of ‘‘Reservation’’ 

to read as follows: 

[Alternative A] 

§ 369.4 What definitions apply to these 

programs? 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

Reservation means a Federal or State 

Indian reservation; public domain 

Indian allotment; former Indian 

reservation in Oklahoma; land held by 

incorporated Native groups, regional 

corporations, and village corporations 

under the provisions of the Alaska 

Native Claims Settlement Act; or a 

defined area of land recognized by a 

State or the Federal Government where 

there is a concentration of tribal 

members and on which the tribal 

government is providing structured 

activities and services. 

* * * * * 

[Alternative B] 

§ 369.4 What definitions apply to this 

program? 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

Reservation means only a Federal or 

State Indian reservation, public domain 

Indian allotment, former Indian 

reservation in Oklahoma, and land held 

by incorporated Native groups, regional 

corporations, and village corporations 

under the provisions of the Alaska 

Native Claims Settlement Act. 

* * * * * 

PART 371—VOCATIONAL 

REHABILITATION SERVICES 

PROJECTS FOR AMERICAN INDIANS 

WITH DISABILITIES 

■ 3. The authority citation for part 371 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 29 U.S.C. 709(c) and 741, 

unless otherwise noted. 

■ 4. Section 371.4(b) is amended by 

revising the definition of ‘‘Reservation’’ 

to read as follows: 

[Alternative A] 

§ 371.4 What definitions apply to this 

program? 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

Reservation means a Federal or State 

Indian reservation; public domain 

Indian allotment; former Indian 

reservation in Oklahoma; land held by 

incorporated Native groups, regional 

corporations, and village corporations 

under the provisions of the Alaska 

Native Claims Settlement Act; or a 

defined area of land recognized by a 

State or the Federal Government where 

there is a concentration of tribal 

members and on which the tribal 

government is providing structured 

activities and services. 

* * * * * 

[Alternative B] 

§ 371.4 What definitions apply to this 

program? 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

Reservation means only a Federal or 

State Indian reservation, public domain 

Indian allotment, former Indian 

reservation in Oklahoma, and land held 

by incorporated Native groups, regional 

corporations, and village corporations 

under the provisions of the Alaska 

Native Claims Settlement Act. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2014–14387 Filed 6–20–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Defense Acquisition Regulations 

System 

48 CFR Part 252 

RIN 0750–AI30 

Defense Federal Acquisition 

Regulation Supplement: Flowdown of 

Specialty Metals Restrictions (DFARS 

Case 2014–D011) 

AGENCY: Defense Acquisition 

Regulations System, Department of 

Defense (DoD). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: DoD is proposing to amend 

the Defense Federal Acquisition 

Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to 

clarify the flowdown requirements for 

the DFARS clause entitled ‘‘Restriction 

on Acquisition of Certain Articles 

Containing Specialty Metals.’’ 

DATES: Comment date: Comments on the 

proposed rule should be submitted in 

writing to the address shown below on 

or before August 22, 2014, to be 

considered in the formation of a final 

rule. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments 

identified by DFARS Case 2014–D011, 

using any of the following methods: 

Æ Regulations.gov: http://

www.regulations.gov. Submit comments 

via the Federal eRulemaking portal by 

entering ‘‘DFARS Case 2014–D011’’ 

under the heading ‘‘Enter keyword or 

ID’’ and selecting ‘‘Search.’’ Select the 

link ‘‘Submit a Comment’’ that 

corresponds with ‘‘DFARS Case 2014– 

D011.’’ Follow the instructions provided 

at the ‘‘Submit a Comment’’ screen. 

Please include your name, company 

name (if any), and ‘‘DFARS Case 2014– 

D011’’ on your attached document. 

Æ Email: osd.dfars@mail.mil. Include 

DFARS Case 2014–D011 in the subject 

line of the message. 

Æ Fax: 571–372–6094. 

Æ Mail: Defense Acquisition 

Regulations System, Attn: Ms. Amy G. 

Williams, OUSD(AT&L)DPAP/DARS, 

Room 3B941, 3060 Defense Pentagon, 

Washington, DC 20301–3060. 

Comments received generally will be 

posted without change to http://

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided. To 

confirm receipt of your comment(s), 

please check www.regulations.gov, 

approximately two to three days after 

submission to verify posting (except 

allow 30 days for posting of comments 

submitted by mail). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Amy G. Williams, Defense Acquisition 

Regulations System, 

OUSD(AT&L)DPAP/DARS, Room 

3B941, 3060 Defense Pentagon, 

Washington, DC 20301–3060. 

Telephone 571–372–6106. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

The clause at DFARS 252.225–7009, 

Restriction on Acquisition of Certain 

Articles Containing Specialty Metals, as 

prescribed at DFARS 225.7003–5(a)(2), 

implements 10 U.S.C. 2533b. This 

clause is used in solicitations and 

contracts, including solicitations and 

contracts using FAR part 12 procedures 

for the acquisition of commercial items, 

that exceed the simplified acquisition 

threshold and require the delivery of the 

following items, if such items contain 

specialty metals: Aircraft, missile or 

space systems, ships, tank or automotive 

systems, weapon systems, or 

ammunition, and components thereof. 

Except as provided in paragraph (c) of 

the clause, any specialty metals 

incorporated in items delivered under 

the contract shall be melted or produced 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS