Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 104 / Friday, May 30, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 31031 

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. 

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: May 27, 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. 2014–12583 Filed 5–29–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

34 CFR Chapter VI 

[Docket ID ED–2014–OPE–0035] 

Final Priority; Foreign Language and 

Area Studies Fellowships Program 

AGENCY: Office of Postsecondary 

Education, Department of Education. 

ACTION: Final priority. 

[CFDA Number: 84.015B.] 

SUMMARY: The Acting Assistant 

Secretary for Postsecondary Education 

announces a priority under the Foreign 

Language and Area Studies Fellowships 

(FLAS) Program administered by the 

International and Foreign Language 

Education (IFLE) Office. The Assistant 

Secretary may use this priority for 

competitions in fiscal year (FY) 2014 

and later years. 

We take this action to lower 

postsecondary education costs for 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
31032 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 104 / Friday, May 30, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

students in the United States who have 

financial need and who seek to become 

language and area studies experts. We 

intend the priority to give FLAS 

institutions an incentive to award 

fellowships to students who would most 

benefit from financial relief. 

DATES: Effective Date: This priority is 

effective June 30, 2014. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kate 

Maloney, U.S. Department of Education, 

1990 K St. NW., Room 6082, 

Washington, DC 20006. Telephone: 

(202) 502–7521 or by email: 

kate.maloney@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 purpose of 

the FLAS Program is to provide 

allocations of academic year and 

summer fellowships to institutions of 

higher education or consortia of 

institutions of higher education to assist 

meritorious undergraduate and graduate 

students undergoing training in modern 

foreign languages and related area or 

international studies. 

Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1122. 

Applicable Program Regulations: 34 

CFR parts 655 and 657. 

We published a notice of proposed 

priority for this program in the Federal 

Register on March 18, 2014 (79 FR 

15081). That notice contained 

background information and our reasons 

for proposing the 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, 11 parties submitted comments 

on the proposed priority. 

We group major issues according to 

subject. 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. 

General Support 

Comments: Three commenters 

expressed support for the priority. Two 

commenters remarked that the priority 

was appropriate and feasible to 

implement. 

Discussion: We appreciate the 

commenters’ support. 

Changes: None. 

Legislative Authority 

Comments: Three commenters 

expressed concern that the priority went 

beyond the statutory authority that 

establishes that fellowship awards be 

merit based. Specifically, one 

commenter suggested that section 608 of 

the Higher Education Act of 1965, as 

amended (HEA), limits the Department 

to the criterion of ‘‘excellence’’ for FLAS 

awards. Another commenter stated that 

‘‘high academic achievement’’ as 

described in 34 CFR 657.3(c) is the only 

legally authorized criterion for selection 

of fellows. 

Discussion: The Department believes 

that it has legal authority to establish 

this priority. Neither the selection 

criteria in section 608(a) of the HEA nor 

the eligibility criteria in § 657.3, 

including the criteria regarding the type 

of program the applicant is enrolled in 

and whether the applicant shows 

potential for high academic 

achievement, is changed by this 

priority. In other words, a student must 

meet the criteria in section 608(a) of the 

HEA and in § 657.3 before the student 

could receive preference from an 

institution, based on financial need, 

under this priority. We also note that 

fellowship applicants who do not 

receive the preference described in the 

priority may still be awarded 

fellowships. 

Changes: None. 

Administrative Burden 

Comments: Four commenters 

remarked on the increased burden of 

administering the priority. One 

commenter noted that FLAS 

coordinators would have to field more 

financial aid inquiries from students. 

Two commenters claimed that it may be 

difficult or impossible to share financial 

aid information across institutions for 

FLAS fellows who apply from other 

institutions. 

One commenter suggested that an 

institution’s FLAS award selection 

processes would have to be significantly 

changed to meet the priority. Another 

commenter remarked that the 

institution’s admissions policies would 

have to be revised because its graduate 

programs do not require a 

demonstration of financial need to be 

eligible for scholarships or funding. 

Three commenters suggested that the 

inclusion of financial need criteria in 

the selection of students for FLAS 

fellowships would create student 

privacy concerns that would burden 

administrative staff. The commenters 

remarked that the inclusion of student 

financial data would require changes in 

the award process and additional staff 

training to securely process the sensitive 

information. 

Two commenters noted the increased 

burden for students to have to fill out 

the Free Application for Federal Student 

Aid (FAFSA) in order to be competitive 

for a FLAS award. One commenter cited 

that a minority of graduate students fills 

out a FAFSA form, and, accordingly, 

graduate students would have to 

complete a FAFSA solely to qualify for 

a preference under the priority. 

Discussion: We agree that 

administering this priority will require 

the academic department that awards 

fellowships to field more financial aid 

inquiries from students and coordinate 

with the institution’s financial aid 

office. We believe this additional work 

will not present an unreasonable burden 

on the institution. Additional student 

inquiries and increased coordination 

with other offices on campus do not 

outweigh the importance of directing 

fellowship aid where it is most needed. 

We also do not believe it is difficult or 

impossible for an institution to obtain 

financial aid information related to a 

summer applicant who attends another 

institution. A student may request that 

the Department send an Institutional 

Student Information Record (ISIR) to an 

additional school through FAFSA on 

the Web, and the new institution will 

receive the information the next 

business day. 

We also do not believe that the 

burden to protect the privacy of student 

information will be significant given 

that an institution should already have 

in place requirements for the protection 

of student information. In addition, the 

financial aid office could limit the 

information that it transmits to the 

academic department to cover only the 

student’s expected family contribution 

(EFC), rather than providing all of the 

student’s ISIR information to the 

academic department. In addition, an 

institution may meet the priority by 

committing to use a preference for 

students with financial need beginning 

in the 2015–2016 academic year, which 

will provide institutions with time to 

address any necessary staff training. 

We also do not believe that it is 

unreasonable to require a graduate 

student who seeks to obtain a 

competitive preference for a fellowship 

to submit a FAFSA. The potential 

benefit to the graduate student 

outweighs the inconvenience of 

completing a FAFSA. Moreover, a 

student may be awarded a FLAS 

fellowship even if he or she did not 

submit a FAFSA, depending on the 

number of fellowships available to the 

institution and the characteristics of the 

other applicants. Nonetheless, we 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 104 / Friday, May 30, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 31033 

recognize that this may require the 

institution to educate its students about 

the requirement to submit a FAFSA in 

order to potentially receive preference 

under the priority. 

Although this priority may add 

another layer to the fellowship selection 

process, we do not believe that the 

selection process will require significant 

changes, as an institution can obtain 

this financial information without an 

undue burden. Nonetheless, in response 

to commenters’ concerns regarding 

administrative burden we have revised 

the priority language to allow an 

institution at the time of application to 

propose a preference for students who 

have financial need only for 

undergraduate students, only for 

graduate students, or for both types of 

students. This allows an institution 

flexibility in deciding whether it is 

feasible to consider financial need for 

only its undergraduate students, its 

graduate students, or all students. 

We also have revised the priority to 

allow an institution to start using the 

preference in the 2015–2016 academic 

year. We believe this extra time for 

implementation will allow institutions 

to create the required processes on their 

campuses to implement the priority. 

Changes: We have made two revisions 

to the priority. First, we have revised 

the priority to allow an institution to 

use a preference for students who have 

financial need only for undergraduate 

students, only for graduate students, or 

for both types of students. We also 

revised the priority to provide that an 

institution may meet the priority by 

committing to start using the preference 

in the 2015–2016 academic year, rather 

than in the first year of the grant as we 

originally proposed. 

Timing of Competitions and 

Notifications 

Comments: Three commenters 

expressed concern regarding the 

feasibility of implementing the FLAS 

selection process under this priority due 

to the timing of the release of financial 

aid information. They noted that their 

selection committees typically meet in 

February and notify FLAS fellows who 

have been selected by March. These 

commenters believed that this 

timeframe was not achievable under the 

proposed priority because FAFSA data 

are not available until March or April. 

A commenter provided two reasons why 

FLAS awards need to be determined in 

March before the availability of FASFA 

data. First, the commenter said that 

summer FLAS fellows must be notified 

of the FLAS committee’s decision by 

March so that they can apply to summer 

programs and submit their overseas 

program requests to the Department’s 

IFLE staff. Second, the commenter noted 

that academic year awards for incoming 

students need to be determined by 

March so that the institution can recruit 

competitive students who must make 

graduate school decisions by April 15. 

Two commenters remarked that the 

financial aid criteria will complicate the 

selection process but have little impact 

on the selection of FLAS fellows at the 

graduate level. A commenter noted that 

most graduate students are full-time 

students with limited sources of 

funding, and so they would likely 

qualify on the basis of financial need 

anyway. A commenter noted that the 

principal determinant of a graduate 

student’s financial need would be the 

student’s marital status and presence or 

absence of dependents, and the 

commenter suggested that these factors 

are not appropriate selection criteria for 

making FLAS award decisions. 

Discussion: We do not agree that the 

requirements of the priority will impede 

institutions in making awards by their 

usual deadlines. Students may submit 

FAFSAs to the Department beginning 

January 1, including through FAFSA on 

the Web. The Department processes 

records every weekday, except Federal 

holidays, and institutions generally 

receive the results of a FAFSA within 

one to two days after the student 

submits the FAFSA. If the institution 

wants students to apply for FLAS grants 

by February, it can instruct applicants 

who want to be considered for a 

preference based on financial need that 

they must submit the FAFSA before the 

selection committee meets in February. 

Based on the previously described 

revisions to the priority language, 

institutions have the option to apply the 

priority to undergraduates only. 

Nonetheless, while it is possible that a 

preference for graduate students 

demonstrating financial need may 

consequently benefit students with 

spouses or children, we believe that 

assisting those students with financial 

need before awarding fellowships to 

students who have not demonstrated 

need is the most responsible use of 

scarce resources. 

Changes: None. 

Student Financial Aid Packages 

Comments: Three commenters 

suggested that the financial aid criterion 

will negatively affect the students whom 

the priority intends to assist. One 

commenter said that students with 

financial need who may be eligible to 

receive scholarships other than FLAS 

awards would appear to have low 

unmet need on account of scholarships 

the students may later turn down, and 

so they would be disadvantaged in the 

FLAS selection process. Another 

commenter noted that some academic 

departments provide more generous 

fellowship and teacher assistant 

stipends than others. Students from 

these departments would be categorized 

as less needy and therefore less 

competitive for FLAS awards, and the 

departments would be penalized for 

their financial aid policies. 

Discussion: Our intent through this 

priority is to provide FLAS fellowships 

to students with financial need. To 

avoid penalizing needy students who 

may have received other scholarship 

offers, we have revised the priority 

language to indicate that a student’s 

need should be determined based on the 

student’s EFC, which reflects the 

student’s financial circumstances before 

other aid, such as scholarships, is 

considered. 

Changes: We revised the priority to 

add language indicating that a student’s 

need is to be calculated using the 

student’s EFC, which reflects the 

student’s financial circumstances before 

other aid, such as scholarships, is taken 

into account. 

FLAS Student Eligibility 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

that FLAS awards be made available to 

students from other colleges and 

universities regardless of whether a 

student is enrolled in an institution 

with an allocation of FLAS fellowships. 

Discussion: Under § 657.3 (b)(1) of the 

FLAS Program regulations, a student is 

eligible to receive a fellowship if the 

student is enrolled in an institution 

receiving an allocation of fellowships. 

The Department does not have the 

authority to revise the priority absent a 

change to the regulations. 

Changes: None. 

Final Priority 

Priority: Applications that propose to 

give preference when awarding 

fellowships to undergraduate students, 

graduate students, or both, to students 

who demonstrate financial need as 

indicated by the students’ expected 

family contribution, as determined 

under part F of title IV of the Higher 

Education Act of 1965, as amended. 

This need determination will be based 

on the students’ financial circumstances 

and not on other aid. The applicant 

must describe how it will ensure that all 

fellows who receive such preference 

show potential for high academic 

achievement based on such indices as 

grade point average, class ranking, or 

similar measures that the institution 

may determine. For grants awarded with 

fiscal year 2014 funds, the preference 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
31034 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 104 / Friday, May 30, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

applies to fellowships awarded for 

study during academic years 2015–16, 

2016–17, and 2017–18. 

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 

proposed 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 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. 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 104 / Friday, May 30, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 31035 

Dated: May 27, 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. 2014–12582 Filed 5–29–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 49 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2003–0076; FRL–9909–78– 

OAR] 

RIN 2060–AR25 

Review of New Sources and 

Modifications in Indian Country— 

Amendments to the Federal Indian 

Country Minor New Source Review 

Rule 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is issuing final 

amendments to the federal minor New 

Source Review (NSR) program in Indian 

country. We refer to this NSR rule as the 

‘‘federal Indian country minor NSR 

program.’’ We are amending this rule in 

two ways. First, we are expanding the 

list of emissions units and activities that 

are exempt from the federal Indian 

country minor NSR program by adding 

several types of low-emitting units and 

activities. Second, we have clarified 

construction-related terms by defining 

‘‘commence construction’’ and ‘‘begin 

construction’’ to better reflect the 

regulatory requirements associated with 

construction activities. We believe both 

of these changes will simplify the 

program, and result in less burdensome 

implementation without detriment to air 

quality in Indian country. Finally, we 

have reconsidered the advance 

notification period for relocation of a 

true minor source in response to a 

petition on the rule from the American 

Petroleum Institute, the Independent 

Petroleum Association of America and 

America’s Natural Gas Alliance, but we 

are not changing that provision. 

DATES: The final rule is effective on June 

30, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2003–0076. All 

documents in the docket are listed in 

the www.regulations.gov index. 

Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

e.g., CBI or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, will be publicly 

available only in hard copy. Publicly 

available docket materials are available 

either electronically in 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Air and Radiation Docket, EPA/DC, 

William Jefferson Clinton West 

Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution 

Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460. 

The Public Reading Room is open from 

8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, excluding legal holidays. The 

telephone number for the Public 

Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, and 

the telephone number for the Air and 

Radiation Docket is (202) 566–1742. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Greg Nizich, Air Quality Policy 

Division, Office of Air Quality Planning 

and Standards (C504–03), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 

27711; telephone number (919) 541– 

3078; fax number (919) 541–5509; email 

address: nizich.greg@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

information in this Supplementary 

Information section of this preamble is 

organized as follows: 

I. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

B. Where can I get a copy of this document 

and other related information? 

C. What acronyms, abbreviations and units 

are used in this preamble? 

II. Purpose 

III. Background 

A. What are the general requirements for 

the minor NSR program in Indian 

country? 

B. What is the Indian country NSR rule? 

C. What is the status of NSR air quality 

programs in Indian country? 

IV. What final action is the EPA taking on 

amendments to the federal Indian 

country minor NSR rule? 

A. What additional emissions units and 

activities are exempted from the federal 

Indian country minor NSR rule? 

B. How are construction-related activities 

defined for permitting purposes? 

C. What is the deadline for advance 

notification to the reviewing authority 

for a true minor sources that is 

relocating? 

V. Summary of Significant Comments and 

Responses 

A. Emissions Unit and Activity 

Exemptions 

B. Definition of Begin Construction 

C. Source Relocation 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution or Use 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions 

To Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations 

K. Congressional Review Act 

L. Judicial Review 

VII. Statutory Authority 

I. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

Entities potentially affected by this 

final rule include owners and operators 

of emission sources in all industry 

groups planning to locate or located in 

Indian country. Categories and entities 

potentially affected by this action are 

expected to include: 

Category NAICSa Examples of regulated entities 

Industry ..................................................... 21111 Oil and Gas Production/Operations. 

211111 Crude Petroleum and Natural Gas Extraction. 

211112 Natural Gas Liquid Extraction. 

212321 Sand and Gravel Mining. 

22111 Electric Power Generation. 

221210 Natural Gas Distribution. 

22132 Sewage Treatment Facilities. 

23899 Sand and Shot Blasting Operations. 

311119 Animal Food Manufacturing. 

3116 Beef Cattle Complex, Slaughter House and Meat Packing Plant. 

321113 Sawmills. 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES