33432 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 112 / Wednesday, June 11, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

5100 Paint Branch Pkwy., College Park, 

MD 20740–3835, 240–402–1264. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the 

Federal Register of April 11, 2014 (79 

FR 20095), we amended the color 

additive regulations in § 73.530 

Spirulina extract (21 CFR 73.530) to 

expand the permitted use of spirulina 

extract made from the dried biomass of 

the cyanobacteria A. platensis, as a color 

additive in confections (including candy 

and chewing gum), frostings, ice cream 

and frozen desserts, dessert coatings and 

toppings, beverage mixes and powders, 

yogurts, custards, puddings, cottage 

cheese, gelatin, breadcrumbs, and readyto-eat cereals (excluding extruded 

cereals). 

We gave interested persons until May 

12, 2014, to file objections or requests 

for a hearing. We received no objections 

or requests for a hearing on the final 

rule. Therefore, we find that the 

effective date of the final rule that 

published in the Federal Register of 

April 11, 2014, should be confirmed. 

List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 73 

Color additives, Cosmetics, Drugs, 

Medical devices. 

Therefore, under the Federal Food, 

Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 321, 

341, 342, 343, 348, 351, 352, 355, 361, 

362, 371, 379e) and under authority 

delegated to the Commissioner of Food 

and Drugs, and redelegated to the 

Director, Office of Food Additive Safety, 

we are giving notice that no objections 

or requests for a hearing were filed in 

response to the April 11, 2014, final 

rule. Accordingly, the amendments 

issued thereby became effective May 13, 

2014. 

Dated: June 6, 2014. 

Philip L. Chao, 

Acting Director, Office of Regulations, Policy 

and Social Sciences, Center for Food Safety 

and Applied Nutrition. 

[FR Doc. 2014–13524 Filed 6–10–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4160–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

34 CFR Chapter VI 

[Docket ID ED–2014–OPE–0036; CFDA 

Number 84.016A.] 

Final Priority; Undergraduate 

International Studies and Foreign 

Language Program 

AGENCY: Office of Postsecondary 

Education, Department of Education. 

ACTION: Final Priority. 

SUMMARY: The Acting Assistant 

Secretary for Postsecondary Education 

announces a priority under the 

Undergraduate International Studies 

and Foreign Language (UISFL) 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 address 

a gap in the types of institutions, 

faculty, and students that have 

historically benefited from international 

education opportunities. 

DATES: Effective Date: This priority is 

effective July 11, 2014. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Tanyelle Richardson, U.S. Department 

of Education, 1990 K Street NW., Room 

6099, Washington, DC 20006–8521. 

Telephone: (202) 502–7626 or by email: 

tanyelle.richardson@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 UISFL Program provides 

grants for planning, developing, and 

carrying out programs to strengthen and 

improve undergraduate instruction in 

international studies and foreign 

languages. 

Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1124. 

Applicable Program Regulations: 34 

CFR parts 655 and 658. 

We published a notice of proposed 

priority for this program in the Federal 

Register on March 18, 2014 (79 FR 

15087). That notice contained 

background information and our reasons 

for proposing this particular priority. 

There are technical differences 

between the proposed priority and this 

final priority. We have clarified how 

applicants that are consortia or 

partnerships may meet the priority. 

Public Comment: In response to our 

invitation in the notice of proposed 

priority, six parties submitted 

comments. 

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: Several commenters noted 

their support of the proposed priority, 

and praised the Department’s efforts to 

promote the participation of MinorityServing Institutions (MSIs) and 

community colleges in programs funded 

under Title VI of the Higher Education 

Act of 1965, as amended (HEA), and to 

serve students that are historically 

under-represented in international 

education programs. 

Discussion: We appreciate the 

commenters’ support. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

that traditional four-year colleges and 

universities are better prepared to serve 

as the lead applicant in a consortium 

than are community colleges and MSIs, 

as they are better able, in the current 

fiscal climate, to devote resources to 

study-abroad activities and the study of 

critical languages. The commenter also 

suggested that community colleges and 

MSIs struggle to continue and sustain 

efforts begun with UISFL grant funds. 

Discussion: We disagree that 

community colleges and MSIs would 

not be able to serve effectively as the 

lead applicant in a consortium for this 

program. This priority aims to increase 

the number of MSIs and community 

colleges that become grantees, in order 

to increase their students’ access to 

academic coursework, instructional 

activities, and training that would better 

prepare them for the 21st-century global 

economy, careers in international 

service, and lifelong engagement with 

the diverse communities in which they 

will live. 

Although the Department notes the 

commenter’s concerns, the UISFL 

Program is not meant to be utilized 

solely for study abroad or critical 

language study efforts. The program is 

also intended to support institutionwide internationalization efforts that are 

customized according to the 

institution’s and its students’ needs and 

goals. This could include a program of 

study that does not include study 

abroad or critical language study. 

Where fiscal and other resources are 

limited, the Department encourages 

applicants to the UISFL Program to 

design consortium applications in 

which institutions join together to build 

upon the resources, financial and 

otherwise, of their partners. In this way, 

the partnership increases the likelihood 

of projects being sustained and fully 

supported. In addition, the program’s 

matching requirement is meant to 

encourage sustainability and 

demonstrate commitment by an 

applicant institution’s administration. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

that the Department has underestimated 

the number of additional burden hours 

required to complete new, OMBapproved forms on project- specific 

performance measures. The commenter 

also suggested that new applicants to 

the program would be at a disadvantage 

until they are familiar with the forms. 


wreier-aviles on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 112 / Wednesday, June 11, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 33433 

Discussion: Consistent with the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and 

agency practice, the Department 

calculated burden hours only for 

applicants, not grantees. With regard to 

the additional burden hours related to 

evaluation and performance measures, 

applicants will not be required to fully 

complete the performance measure 

forms, but to provide a project goal 

statement with accompanying 

performance measures and project 

activities. 

Note that UISFL applicants that are 

selected as grantees will be required to 

collect and report on additional 

performance measure data, and the 

burden hours for these collections will 

be addressed through separate 

processes. We believe that the estimated 

burden hours to accomplish this task are 

accurate. Further, we believe that the 

minor burden is outweighed by the 

benefit because effective program 

evaluation will allow IFLE to monitor 

accountability for the expenditure of 

public funds, enhance congressional 

decision-making by providing Congress 

with objective information on the 

effectiveness of Federal programs, and 

promoting Federal programs’ results, 

delivery of services, and customers’ 

satisfaction. 

Changes: None. 

Final Priority 

Final Priority: Applications from 

Minority-Serving Institutions (MSIs) (as 

defined in this notice) or community 

colleges (as defined in this notice), 

whether as individual applicants or as 

part of a consortium of institutions of 

higher education (IHEs) (consortium) or 

a partnership between nonprofit 

educational organizations and IHEs 

(partnership). 

An application from a consortium or 

partnership that has an MSI or 

community college as the lead applicant 

will receive more points under this 

priority than applications where the 

MSI or community college is a member 

of a consortium or partnership but not 

the lead applicant. 

A consortium or partnership must 

undertake activities designed to 

incorporate foreign languages into the 

curriculum of the MSI or community 

college and to improve foreign language 

and international or area studies 

instruction on the MSI or community 

college campus. 

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 this priority, we invite applications 

through a notice in the Federal Register. 

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 

Regulatory Impact Analysis 

Under Executive Order 12866, the 

Secretary must determine whether this 

regulatory action is ‘‘significant’’ and, 

therefore, subject to the requirements of 

the Executive order and subject to 

review by 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 


wreier-aviles on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with RULES
33434 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 112 / Wednesday, June 11, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

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) 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 6, 2014. 

Lynn B. Mahaffie, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Postsecondary 

Education. 

[FR Doc. 2014–13654 Filed 6–10–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

National Park Service 

36 CFR Part 12 

[NPS–WASO–REGS–14841; 

PX.XVPAD0517.00.1; 1024–AE01] 

National Cemeteries, Demonstration, 

Special Event 

AGENCY: National Park Service, Interior. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The National Park Service is 

revising the definition of the terms 

demonstration and special event, 

applicable to the national cemeteries 

administered by the National Park 

Service. 

DATES: This rule is effective on July 11, 

2014. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A.J. 

North, National Park Service 

Regulations Program, by telephone: 

202–513–7742 or email: waso_

regulations@nps.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: We 

published a proposed rule on this 

subject in the Federal Register on 

August 29, 2013 (78 FR 53383). The 

proposed rule’s comment period ended 

on October 28, 2013, and resulted in 

three timely submitted comments, a 

portion of which were duplicative of 

each other. After carefully considering 

the comments, we have decided to 

adopt the proposed rule unchanged. The 

comments and our considerations are 

summarized in this preamble under 

Consideration of Comments. 

Background 

The National Park Service (NPS) is 

responsible for protecting and managing 

fourteen national cemeteries, which are 

administered as integral parts of larger 

NPS historical units. A list of the 

national cemeteries managed by the 

NPS may be viewed at http://

www.cem.va.gov/cem/cems/doi.asp. 

The national cemeteries administered 

by the NPS have been set aside as 

resting places for members of the 

fighting forces of the United States. 

Many activities and events that may be 

appropriate in other park areas are 

inappropriate in a national cemetery 

because of its protected atmosphere of 

peace, calm, tranquility, and reverence. 

The NPS continues to maintain its 

substantial interest in maintaining this 

protected atmosphere in its national 

cemeteries, where individuals can 

quietly visit, contemplate, and reflect 

upon the significance of the 

contributions made to the nation by 

those who have been interred there. 

In Boardley v. Department of the 

Interior, 605 F.Supp. 2d 8 (D.D.C. 2009), 

the United States District Court for the 

District of Columbia noted that the NPS 

definition of the term demonstration in 

36 CFR 2.51(a) and 7.96(g)(1)(i) could 

pose a problem on the scope of the 

agency’s discretion, insofar as it could 

be construed to allow NPS officials to 

restrict speech based on their 

determination that a person intended to 

draw a crowd with their conduct. The 

NPS had not applied, nor intended to 

apply, its regulations in an 

impermissible manner. Nevertheless, to 

address the District Court’s concerns in 

Boardley, the NPS narrowed the 

definition of demonstration in 36 CFR 

2.50, 2.51, and 7.96 (78 FR 14673, 

March 7, 2013; 78 FR 37713, June 24, 

2013). 

The NPS desires to maintain 

consistency in the regulations governing 

demonstrations and special events in 

park units, including our national 

cemeteries. Accordingly, we proposed 

to amend the terms demonstration and 

special event in § 12.3 to mirror the 

language used in 36 CFR 2.51 and 7.96. 

To avoid the possibility of a decision 

based on impermissible grounds, the 

rule revises the § 12.3 definitions of 

demonstration and special event by 

eliminating the terms ‘‘intent, effect, or 

likelihood’’ and replacing them with the 

term ‘‘reasonably likely to draw a crowd 

or onlookers.’’ These proposed revisions 

do not substantively alter the § 12.4 

prohibition of special events and 

demonstrations within national 

cemeteries. 

Consideration of Comments 

Comment 1: The first commenter 

suggests the phrase ‘‘that attracts or’’ be 

added to the definition before the 

phrase ‘‘is reasonably likely to attract.’’ 

The commenter suggests this would 

help ‘‘avoid quarrelsome demonstrator’s 

[sic] efforts to subvert the rule’s purpose 

by arguing what is ‘reasonably likely’.’’ 

Response: After review, we believe 

the suggested additional phrase is 

unnecessary. As explained in the 

proposed rule preamble, we believe that 

a ‘‘reasonably likely’’ standard is 

objective and easily and consistently 

understood. Further, this same standard 

has been successfully implemented in 


wreier-aviles on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with RULES