2550 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 6 / Friday, January 10, 2025 / Proposed Rules 

1An SLA, as defined in 34 CFR 395.1(v), is the 

State Vocational Rehabilitation (VR) agency 

providing VR services to individuals who are blind 

in the State under the VR services portion of the 

Unified or Combined State Plan (see 34 CFR 395.2 

and 395.5) and that has been designated by the 

Secretary of Education to issue licenses to 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

34 CFR Part 395 

[Docket ID ED–2024–OSERS–0088] 

RIN 1820–AB83 

Amendments to Definitions and 

Related Provisions Under the 

Randolph-Sheppard Vending Facility 

Program 

AGENCY: Office of Special Education and 

Rehabilitative Services, Department of 

Education. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of 

Education (Department) proposes to 

amend certain definitions and add a 

new definition in the RandolphSheppard Act (R–S Act) regulations to 

clarify statutory requirements and make 

other conforming changes necessary for 

Federal agencies, States, and nongovernmental stakeholders to better 

implement the R–S Act, thereby 

allowing the Randolph-Sheppard 

Vending Facilities Program (RSVFP) to 

evolve with technology and everchanging customer demand. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before March 11, 2025. 

ADDRESSES: Comments must be 

submitted via the Federal eRulemaking 

Portal at www.regulations.gov. However, 

if you require an accommodation or 

cannot otherwise submit your 

comments via www.regulations.gov, 

please contact the program contact 

person listed under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT. The Department 

will not accept comments submitted by 

fax or by email, or comments submitted 

after the comment period closes. To 

ensure that we do not receive duplicate 

copies, please submit your comments 

only once. Additionally, 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 finding a rule on the site 

and submitting comments, is available 

on the site under ‘‘FAQ’’. 

Privacy Note: The Department’s 

policy is generally 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 include in their 

comments only information about 

themselves that they wish to make 

publicly available. Commenters should 

not include in their comments any 

information that identifies other 

individuals or that permits readers to 

identify other individuals. If, for 

example, your comment describes an 

experience of someone other than 

yourself, please do not identify that 

individual or include information that 

would allow readers to identify that 

individual. The Department reserves the 

right to redact at any time any 

information in comments that identifies 

other individuals, includes information 

that would allow readers to identify 

other individuals, or includes threats of 

harm to another person. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Corinne Weidenthal, U.S. Department of 

Education, 400 Maryland Ave. SW, 

Room 4A212, Washington, DC 20202. 

Telephone: (202) 245–6529. Email: 

Corinne.Weidenthal@ed.gov. 

If you are deaf, hard of hearing, or 

have a speech disability and wish to 

access telecommunications relay 

services, please dial 7–1–1. 

A brief summary of the proposed rule 

is available at http://www.regulations.

gov/docket/ED-2024-OSERS-0088. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

Executive Summary 

Background 

1. The R–S Act and the Need for 

Regulations 

2. States Participating in the RSVFP; 

Developments in the Vending Landscape 

3. Role of the Department 

4. Overview of Proposed Changes 

Significant Proposed Regulations 

Articles 

Vending Facility 

Vending Machine 

Location and Operation of Vending 

Facilities for Blind Vendors on Federal 

Property 

Severability 

Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 14094 

Regulatory Impact Analysis 

Background 

1. Need for Regulatory Action 

2. RSVFP Funding Sources 

VR Program Funds 

State Appropriations 

RSVFP Set-Aside Funds 

3. Fiscal Impact of RSVFP Expenditures on 

the VR Program 

Discussion of Costs and Benefits 

Overview 

Non-Monetized Benefits of the Proposed 

Regulations 

1. Definition of ‘‘Articles’’ 

2. Definition of ‘‘Vending Facility’’ 

3. Definition of ‘‘Vending Machine’’ 

4. Priority on Certain Federal Property 

Non-Monetized Costs of the Proposed 

Regulations 

1. Implementation of Proposed Definitions 

2. Definition of ‘‘Articles’’ 

3. Definition of ‘‘Vending Facility’’ 

4. Definition of ‘‘Vending Machine’’ 

5. Priority on Certain Federal Property 

6. Technical Changes 

Monetized Costs of the Proposed Regulations 

1. Administrative Costs 

Executive Summary 

Purpose of This Regulatory Action 

The purpose of this regulatory action 

is to clarify and modernize the R–S Act 

regulations to ensure that the RSVFP 

can evolve with technology and everchanging customer demand. To achieve 

the employment goals of the R–S Act by 

keeping current with vending 

technology and business practices and 

opportunities for individuals who are 

blind under the RSVFP, the Department 

proposes to add and amend certain 

definitions in the R–S Act regulations 

that would: 

• Define ‘‘articles,’’ thereby ensuring 

clarity and consistency for the scope of 

items that may be sold at vending 

facilities and by vending machines. 

• Modify the definition of ‘‘vending 

facility’’ to describe the scope of 

business models allowed. 

• Modify the definition of ‘‘vending 

machine’’ to dispense only ‘‘articles,’’ 

not services in exchange for cash or 

electronic payments. 

The Department also proposes to 

make the following other changes: 

• Amend the regulation pertaining to 

the location and operation of vending 

facilities for licensed blind vendors on 

Federal property to better implement 

the statute with respect to certain 

Federal properties. 

• Add a regulatory provision 

pertaining to severability for part 395. 

For a more detailed discussion of the 

purpose of this regulatory action, see the 

‘‘Background’’ and ‘‘Significant 

Proposed Regulations’’ sections further 

below in this document. 

The R–S Act authorizes the Secretary 

of Education to promulgate regulations 

implementing the blind vendors’ 

priority to operate vending facilities on 

Federal property and ensure that, 

wherever feasible, one or more vending 

facilities are established on all Federal 

property to the extent that any such 

facility or facilities would not adversely 

affect the interests of the United States. 

(20 U.S.C. 107(b).) The R–S Act further 

directs the Secretary to establish 

requirements for the uniform 

application of the R–S Act by each State 

agency designated by the Secretary to 

license blind vendors, the State 

licensing agency (SLA),1 including 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 6 / Friday, January 10, 2025 / Proposed Rules 2551 

individuals who are blind under the RSVFP. 

Therefore, there is a close administrative nexus 

between the State VR agency and the SLA. While 

the SLA and VR agency are the same entity 

organizationally, administratively the VR program 

and RSVFP operate separately and distinctly. These 

different administrative functions are 

operationalized at the State level through policy 

and fiscal decision-making responsibilities. In this 

NPRM, the Department refers to ‘‘SLA’’ when 

addressing requirements associated with the 

RSVFP; however, we use ‘‘VR agency’’ when 

addressing requirements, particularly those related 

to the use of VR funds under the VR program for 

the benefit of the RSVFP. 

2Although the VR program is separate and 

distinct from the RSVFP, section 103(b)(1) of the 

Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Rehabilitation Act) 

authorizes State VR agencies to expend VR program 

funds (both Federal and non-Federal matching) for 

the benefit of certain RSVFP costs, such as 

acquisition of vending facilities and equipment and 

the purchase of initial stocks and supplies. 

policies on the selection and 

establishment for new vending facilities, 

the operation of cafeterias, and 

distribution of vending machine income 

to blind vendors, as well as any other 

rules and regulations necessary or 

desirable in carrying out the provisions 

of the R–S Act. (20 U.S.C. 107(b), 

107a(a)(1) and (6), and 107d–3(e) and 

(g).) 

Summary of the Major Proposed 

Provisions of This Regulatory Action 

The proposed regulations would: 

• Define ‘‘articles’’ for the RSVFP as 

items of tangible personal property that 

can be felt or touched by an individual 

and can be physically relocated, thereby 

clarifying the wide scope of articles that 

may be sold through RSVFP vending 

facilities, including vending machines. 

• Amend the existing definition of 

‘‘vending facility’’ to state that vending 

facilities may be operated by blind 

licensees pursuant to a permit or 

contract, thereby removing any 

confusion about whether this definition 

applies to key requirements governing 

the operation of vending facilities in 

part 395. 

• Add illustrative examples to the 

definition of ‘‘vending facility’’ to 

further clarify the evolving applicability 

of the terms ‘‘snack bars,’’ ‘‘cart 

services,’’ ‘‘shelters,’’ and ‘‘counters,’’ 

thereby promoting consistency 

nationwide for the RSVFP and clarifying 

the evolution of the term ‘‘vending 

facility’’ with technology and the 

capabilities of licensed blind vendors. 

The proposed changes to this definition 

would codify aspects of current 

Department guidance. 

• Amend the existing RSVFP 

definition of ‘‘vending machine’’ by 

making clear that such machines sell or 

dispense only articles in exchange for 

cash or electronic payment. As a result 

of this proposed change, licensed blind 

vendors could dispense services but 

only through vending facilities that are 

not vending machines. 

• Amend 34 CFR 395.30 to clarify the 

nature and scope of the priority that 

blind vendors receive at National Park 

Service (NPS) and National Aeronautics 

and Space Administration (NASA) 

properties to operate those ‘‘vending 

facilities’’ that would meet the proposed 

updated definition of that term, thereby 

better implementing the statutory 

priority with respect to these Federal 

properties. 

A more detailed discussion of the 

proposed regulations is provided in the 

‘‘Significant Proposed Regulations’’ 

section of the preamble. 

Costs and Benefits 

This proposed regulatory action is a 

significant regulatory action subject to 

OMB review because it raises legal or 

policy issues for which centralized 

review would meaningfully further the 

President’s priorities or the principles 

set forth in Executive Order 14094. We 

believe that the proposed regulations 

would likely result in additional net 

costs for the acquisition of vending 

facilities and equipment for some SLAs 

and State Vocational Rehabilitation 

(VR) 2 agencies (or organizational units 

of those agencies), as they replace or 

improve outdated equipment and 

identify additional or more modern 

vending facility opportunities for blind 

vendors. We also expect that the 

proposed regulations would result in VR 

agencies incurring additional costs to 

convert existing vending facilities from 

one type of business model to another 

and purchase initial stocks and supplies 

for new vending facilities to allow them 

to evolve with the vendors’ needs to 

remain competitive and self-supporting, 

as is the purpose of the RSVFP. 

As discussed further in the Regulatory 

Impact Analysis (RIA) of this notice of 

proposed rulemaking (NPRM), the VR 

program is a significant funding source 

for many RSVFP-related costs, including 

those at issue in these proposed 

regulations. This means that States may 

use VR program funds (both Federal VR 

grant funds and non-Federal matching 

funds) to pay those RSVFP costs that are 

also allowable under the VR program. 

Therefore, the cost and benefits analysis 

of these proposed regulations will 

necessarily describe the critical nexus 

between the VR program and the 

RSVFP. To the extent that States use 

non-Federal funds to pay additional 

RSVFP-related costs anticipated by 

these proposed regulations, States may 

use those non-Federal expenditures to 

draw down more Federal VR funds that 

may be available to them. Specifically, 

for 21.3 percent of allowable costs paid 

with non-Federal funds, the State may 

draw down 78.7 percent Federal VR 

funds to pay the balance of the total 

cost. 

Furthermore, we believe that the 

proposed regulations would benefit 

blind vendors and customers who use 

the vending facilities through increased 

earnings and increased product 

selection, respectively, to the extent the 

products are not already available 

through the vending facilities. We invite 

the public to comment on the economic 

impact of the proposed changes. For a 

more comprehensive discussion of costs 

and benefits including the VR program 

match requirements, please see the 

‘‘Regulatory Impact Analysis’’ section of 

this document. 

Invitation to Comment: We invite you 

to submit comments regarding these 

proposed regulations. To ensure that 

your comments have maximum effect in 

developing the final regulations, you 

should identify clearly the specific 

section or sections of the proposed 

regulations that each of your comments 

address and arrange your comments in 

the same order as the proposed 

regulations. 

We invite you to assist us in 

complying with the specific 

requirements of Executive Orders 

12866, 13563, and 14094 and their 

overall goal of reducing regulatory 

burden that might result from the 

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. We also welcome comments 

on any alternative approaches to the 

subjects addressed by the proposed 

regulations. 

During and after the comment period, 

you may inspect public comments about 

the proposed regulations by accessing 

Regulations.gov. You may also inspect 

the comments in person. Please contact 

the person listed under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT to make 

arrangements to inspect the comments 

in person. 

Assistance to Individuals with 

Disabilities in Reviewing the 

Rulemaking Record: Upon 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 the proposed 

regulations. To schedule an 

appointment for this type of 

accommodation or auxiliary aid, please 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS2
2552 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 6 / Friday, January 10, 2025 / Proposed Rules 

3 Federal property means any building, land, or 

other real property owned, leased, or occupied by 

any department, agency or instrumentality of the 

United States (including the Department of Defense 

and the U.S. Postal Service), or any other 

instrumentality wholly owned by the United States, 

or by any department or agency of the District of 

Columbia or any territory or possession of the 

United States. 34 CFR 395.1(n). Other property 

means property which is not Federal property and 

on which vending facilities are established or 

operated by the use of any funds derived in whole 

or in part, directly or indirectly, from the operation 

of vending facilities on any Federal property. 34 

CFR 395.1(n). An example of ‘‘other property’’ is a 

vending facility on State property established with 

proceeds from unassigned Federal vending machine 

income (i.e., unassigned income from vending 

machines located on Federal property). 

4See footnote 1 for a description of the 

organizational and administrative relationship 

between the SLA and VR agency in each State that 

operates the RSVFP. This NPRM’s RIA will provide 

a comprehensive discussion of the nexus between 

the two, particularly with respect to the funding of 

the RSVFP. 

5TAC–24–06 is on RSA’s website at https://

rsa.ed.gov/about/programs/randolph-sheppardvending-facility-program/legislation-regulationsand-sub-regulatory-guidance. 

6The R–S Act, initially enacted in 1936, was 

amended by the Vocational Rehabilitation 

Amendments of 1954, which created a nexus 

between the VR program and the R–S Act. 

contact the person listed under FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. 

Background 

1. The R–S Act and the Need for 

Regulations 

The R–S Act, 20 U.S.C. 107 et seq., 

provides individuals who are blind with 

the opportunity to operate businesses on 

Federal and other property, as defined 

in 34 CFR part 395,3 through permits or 

contracts, with the goal of the 

individual becoming self-supporting. 

(20 U.S.C. 107(a).) To achieve this 

purpose, the R–S Act provides a priority 

to operate vending facilities on Federal 

property to individuals who are blind 

and licensed by the SLA, the State 

agency that provides services to 

individuals who are blind (i.e., the VR 

agency that provides VR services to 

individuals who are blind in the State).4

(20 U.S.C. 107(b).) 

It is important to note that in 1954, 

Congress expanded the R–S Act to 

include vending machines as vending 

facilities available to blind vendors 

operating in Federal buildings, thereby 

extending a preference to blind 

licensees to operate these vending 

machines. Congress added vending 

machines because employee groups had 

excluded blind vendors from operating 

vending machines and used those 

vending machines to create significant 

competition with vending stands 

operated by blind vendors. (100 Cong. 

Rec. 9940, 9946 (1954); The President’s 

Health Recommendations and Related 

Matters; Hearing Before the Subcomm. 

On Health of the S. Comm. Of Labor and 

Pub. Welfare, Part 2, 83rd Cong., 384 

(1954).) Congress further expanded the 

RSVFP by allowing blind vendors 

access to Federal property, not just 

Federal buildings, including military 

posts and atomic centers. (100 Cong. 

Rec. 9943–9944 (1954).) 

To ensure consistent implementation 

of the priority for blind vendors on 

Federal and other property nationwide, 

the R–S Act (20 U.S.C. 107e(7)) defines 

‘‘vending facility’’ as automatic vending 

machines, cafeterias, snack bars, cart 

services, shelters, counters, and such 

other appropriate auxiliary equipment 

necessary for the sale of the articles and 

services described in 20 U.S.C. 

107a(a)(5) and which may be operated 

by blind licensees. Section 107a(a)(5) 

states that the vending facilities 

operating on Federal and other 

properties under permits issued to the 

SLAs may sell newspapers, periodicals, 

confections, tobacco products, foods, 

beverages, and other articles or services 

dispensed automatically or manually 

and prepared on or off the premises in 

accordance with all the health laws, as 

determined by the SLA, and including 

the vending or exchange of chances for 

any lottery authorized by State law and 

conducted by an agency of the State. 

Although the R–S Act’s definition of 

‘‘vending facility’’ specifically mentions 

certain types of business models 

popular when the statute was enacted in 

1936 and amended in 1954 and 1974 

(i.e., vending machines, cafeterias, 

snack bars, cart services, shelters, and 

counters), the statute does not further 

define those terms with respect to their 

facilities or business models, and 

neither do the Department’s current 

RSVFP regulations. The lack of 

specificity as to these enumerated types 

of facilities has led to inconsistency 

with the implementation of the 

‘‘vending facility’’ definition across the 

country. 

According to the Department’s 

Program Assistance Circular (PAC)–89– 

02, dated January 3, 1989, RSVFP 

vending facilities historically fell into 

one of the following categories, with 

some facilities representing 

combinations of these categories: 

• dry or sundry facilities; 

• snack bars, which may involve the 

sale of food prepared on/off the 

premises; 

• cafeterias; and 

• automatic vending machines. 

In addition to mentioning certain 

examples of business models for the 

RSVFP but providing little guidance 

regarding their scope, the R–S Act 

permits vending facilities to sell ‘‘other 

articles or services dispensed 

automatically or manually,’’ without 

defining the nature and scope of those 

‘‘other articles or services’’ or defining 

the term ‘‘articles’’ itself. The lack of a 

definition for the term ‘‘articles’’ or the 

phrase ‘‘other articles or services’’ has 

led to inconsistency under the RSVFP. 

Since the inception of the RSVFP, 

vendors have pursued these business 

models as vending facilities and with 

changes in technology, have pursued 

more modern versions of the business 

models identified in the definition of 

‘‘vending facility.’’ In recent years, the 

Department has received an increasing 

number of inquiries from SLAs and 

licensed blind vendor constituent 

groups concerning the allowability of 

these newer business models under the 

RSVFP and the allowable funding 

sources to pay for such activities. In 

fielding these inquiries, the Department 

learned that there is inconsistency 

nationwide with the implementation of 

the RSVFP, with some States forging 

ahead to modernize while some remain 

locked in tradition, not enabling 

vendors to evolve or expand their 

vending facilities to keep up with 

customer demands or competition. 

To minimize inconsistency among the 

States and address identified areas of 

confusion, the Department issued a 

guidance document in 2024 for 

implementation of the RSVFP, which is 

relevant to the content of this NPRM. 

On August 13, 2024, the Department 

issued Technical Assistance Circular 

(TAC)–24–06, ‘‘Allowable Costs for 

Vending Facilities and Equipment for 

Vendors under the Randolph-Sheppard 

Vending Facility Program,’’ 5 which 

describes existing Federal requirements 

applicable to vending facilities and 

equipment acquired for the benefit of 

the RSVFP. In so doing, the Department 

hoped to help VR agencies and SLAs 

implement the requirements 

appropriately and consistently, given 

the evolution of the RSVFP since it was 

first introduced in connection with the 

VR Program in 1954,6 making certain 

RSVFP-related costs allowable under 

the VR program. 

Although TAC–24–06 provides much 

needed guidance to States about the 

flexibilities afforded by the R–S Act 

regarding the nature and scope of 

allowable business models that can exist 

and articles that can be sold under the 

RSVFP, questions persist. Specifically, 

some SLAs and Federal agencies are 

reluctant to allow licensed blind 

vendors to take advantage of all 

allowable opportunities under the 

RSVFP, particularly those not 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 6 / Friday, January 10, 2025 / Proposed Rules 2553 

7For purposes of the RSVFP, ‘‘State’’ means ‘‘a 

State, territory, possession, Puerto Rico, or the 

District of Columbia’’ (34 CFR 395.1(t).) Although 

the definition of ‘‘State’’ in the R–S Act and its 

regulations includes ‘‘possessions,’’ since the 

dissolution of the Trust Territory of the Pacific 

Islands, the United States does not have any 

‘‘possessions’’ that have their own local 

governments. Therefore, there are no ‘‘possessions’’ 

relevant to the RSVFP discussion or this NPRM. See 

e.g., https://www.irs.gov/individuals/internationaltaxpayers/persons-employed-in-us-possessions. 

8 In addition to the priority to operate vending 

machines on Federal property under the R–S Act, 

the Surface Transportation Act requires that, in 

placing vending machines at highway rest areas, 

States give priority to vending machines operated 

under the RSVFP (23 U.S.C. 111(c)). 

9RSA Annual Reports to the President and 

Congress are on RSA’s website at https://rsa.ed.gov/ 

about/rsa-annual-reports-to-congress. 

10 Id. 

11 Id. 

considered traditional RSVFP 

opportunities. Therefore, inconsistency 

in implementation of the RSVFP 

remains, making this NPRM necessary 

for the RSVFP, as well as the VR 

program, which is the primary source of 

funding for the RSVFP in States 

operating the RSVFP. 

2. States Participating in the RSVFP; 

Developments in the Vending 

Landscape 

There are 51 SLAs across the country, 

which include 49 U.S. States,7 the 

District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. 

The State of Wyoming and other 

territories do not participate in the 

RSVFP. However, Wyoming and any 

territory not participating in the RSVFP 

could apply to the Department to do so 

at any time since they meet the 

definition of ‘‘State’’ for purposes of the 

RSVFP. Under the RSVFP, SLAs recruit, 

train, license, and place individuals 

who are blind as operators of vending 

facilities, established through permits or 

contracts on Federal and other property 

in the State. Most States have enacted 

laws or promulgated regulations 

modeled on the R–S Act and include a 

priority for blind vendors at State, 

county, municipal, and certain private 

locations. 

In January 2012, President Obama 

issued a memorandum to the heads of 

executive departments and agencies 

emphasizing the importance of Federal 

support for the RSVFP. (77 FR 3915 

(Jan. 25, 2012).) That memorandum 

recognized that blind entrepreneurs had 

demonstrated a ‘‘proven ability’’ to 

provide exceptional service and ‘‘have 

challenged preconceived notions about 

disability,’’ citing successfully operated 

food services and commercial ventures, 

‘‘from a simple snack shop, to tourist 

services at the Hoover Dam, to full foodservices operations at military 

installations.’’ 

Further, technological and business 

landscapes have changed considerably 

over the last 50 years, providing 

expanded employment opportunities for 

blind vendors and, therefore, offering a 

wider array of vending opportunities 

from which to draw. Some blind 

vendors now operate retail facilities 

such as micro markets and gift shops 

and continue to explore new 

employment opportunities not 

considered to be those traditionally 

operated under the RSVFP. Blind 

vendors also operate commissaries in 

prisons that include such non-food 

items as clothing, cosmetics, and 

hygiene items, and provide laundry 

services, as well. 

In Fiscal Year (FY) 2023, 43 of the 51 

SLAs operated vending machines at rest 

areas along the interstate highways,8

ranging from two to 57 rest areas within 

each State for a total of 1,019 rest areas 

managed by SLAs. Of these rest areas, 

647 (63 percent) were operated by blind 

vendors, and the remaining 372 rest 

areas (37 percent) were operated by 

third party vendors. The Department 

believes, based upon its own 

observations and stakeholder feedback, 

many blind vendors sell products other 

than food items, such as tee shirts, 

baseball caps, and phone chargers, in 

vending machines located at these rest 

areas. 

RSA’s Annual Reports to the 

President and Congress show that the 

RSVFP has experienced a decline over 

time in the number of blind vendors and 

the number of facilities operated by 

blind vendors.9 Since FY 2013, the 

number of blind vendors has steadily 

declined from a total of 2,173 in FY 

2013 to 1,428 in FY 2023, which 

represents a 34.3 percent decrease of 

vendors over a ten-year period.10 The 

overall number of facilities (Federal and 

non-Federal) operated by blind vendors 

fluctuated over the same ten-year 

period; however, the number of Federal 

facilities operated by blind vendors 

decreased from 864 in FY 2013 to 635 

in FY 2023 representing a 26.6 percent 

decrease in the operation of Federal 

facilities over a ten-year period.11

Recent reasons for the declines include 

the COVID–19 pandemic in FYs 2020 

and 2021, which resulted in the closure 

of Federal and other buildings. 

While the number of vendors and 

Federal facilities have decreased over 

this ten-year period, with the exception 

of those fiscal years impacted by the 

COVID–19 pandemic (FYs 2020–2022), 

gross sales and vendor earnings have 

increased. In FY 2019, the last full fiscal 

year before the pandemic, gross sales for 

the program were $717,007,108, while 

in FY 2023, the amount rose to 

$747,455,376, an increase of 4.2 percent 

from FY 2019. Likewise, vendor income 

increased from $130,783,764 in FY 2019 

to $147,206,158 in FY 2023, an increase 

of 12.5 percent during this time period. 

3. Role of the Department 

Because Congress determined in 1974 

that some Federal agencies were failing 

to implement the R–S Act, it placed the 

authority for the administration of the 

R–S Act with the Department of Health, 

Education, and Welfare (HEW). The 

Committee Report relies heavily on a 

General Accountability Office (GAO) 

report from 1973 studying the RSVFP 

nationwide to support many of the 1974 

amendments to the R–S Act. The 

Comptroller General found that States 

reduced efforts to survey Federal sites 

for possible vending facility locations, 

‘‘particularly military and postal 

facilities,’’ because of the lack of success 

in obtaining permits or contracts at 

these locations. (Review of Vending 

Operations on Federally Controlled 

Property, No. B–176886, p. 13 (1973).) 

The Committee indicated that the 

amendments assigned HEW new 

responsibilities and authorities, which 

were previously held by each 

department, agency, and instrumentality 

of the United States. (Sen. Rep. 93–937 

pp. 15–19 (1974).) The Committee went 

further to find ‘‘there is a record of 

abuses and neglect of the RandolphSheppard program by officials of 

various Federal agencies that is 

adequate to justify the placement of 

increased overall authority for its 

operation with the Secretary of Health, 

Education, and Welfare.’’ (Id at 16.) 

When Congress divided HEW into the 

Department of Health and Human 

Services and the Department of 

Education, it transferred the authority 

for the administration of the R–S Act to 

the Department of Education. (Sec. 

301(4)(B) of the U.S. Department of 

Education Organization Act, Public Law 

93–88, 93 Stat. 678 (1979).) 

The R–S Act provides that ‘‘The 

Secretary of Education shall—insure 

that the Rehabilitation Services 

Administration is the principal agency 

for carrying out this chapter.’’ (20 U.S.C. 

107a(a)(1).) As the principal agency to 

administer the R–S Act, the 

Rehabilitation Services Administration 

(RSA) within the Office of Special 

Education and Rehabilitative Services in 

the Department has the authority to 

promulgate regulations designed to 

assure the priority to operate vending 

facilities is given to licensed blind 

persons and that wherever feasible, one 

or more vending facilities are 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS2
2554 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 6 / Friday, January 10, 2025 / Proposed Rules 

12The five RSVFP-related TACs mentioned 

herein are on RSA’s website at https://rsa.ed.gov/ 

about/programs/randolph-sheppard-vendingfacility-program/legislation-regulations-and-subregulatory-guidance. RSA’s website includes 

information related to the Memorandum of 

Understanding Between the Committee for 

Purchase from People who are Blind or Severely 

Disabled and the U.S. Department of Education 

Rehabilitation Services Administration (Jan. 2021). 

https://rsa.ed.gov/about/programs/randolphsheppard-vending-facility-program/resources. 

13RSA’s website includes information related to 

the Memorandum of Understanding Between the 

Committee for Purchase from People who are Blind 

or Severely Disabled and the U.S. Department of 

Education Rehabilitation Services Administration 

(Jan. 2021). https://rsa.ed.gov/about/programs/ 

randolph-sheppard-vending-facility-program/ 

resources. 

established on all Federal property to 

the extent that any such facility or 

facilities would not adversely affect the 

interests of the United States. (20 U.S.C. 

107(b).) 

In addition, the Secretary is directed 

to establish requirements for the 

uniform application of the R–S Act by 

each SLA, including policies on the 

selection and establishment for new 

vending facilities, the operation of 

cafeterias, and distribution of vending 

machine income to blind vendors, as 

well as any other rules and regulations 

necessary or desirable in carrying out 

the provisions of the R–S Act. (20 U.S.C. 

107a(a)(1) and (6), and 107d–3(e) and 

(g).) 

In support of the uniform application 

of the RSVFP, the Department regularly 

publishes TACs to provide updated 

guidance and clarify the R–S Act and its 

regulations as circumstances require. As 

an example, RSA has issued TACs on 

the active participation of the Elected 

Committee of Blind Vendors with SLAs 

in the RSVFP (RSA–TAC–21–01), the 

application of the R–S Act priority for 

blind vendors on Federal property 

related to the operation of vending 

machines and the use of contractors on 

that property (RSA–TAC–21–02), the 

process for RSA’s approval of State 

Rules (RSA–TAC–22–01), and the use of 

VR program funds for initial stocks and 

supplies and initial operating expenses 

for blind vendors under the RandolphSheppard vending facilities program 

(RSA–TAC–24–03), as well as TAC–24– 

06 discussed previously.12

In addition, RSA and the U.S. 

AbilityOne Commission (AbilityOne) 

executed a Memorandum of 

Understanding that establishes a process 

for AbilityOne and RSA to work more 

closely together. AbilityOne identifies 

the opportunities presented to it that 

may be appropriate opportunities for 

persons who are blind to operate 

vending facilities under the R–S Act and 

provides information about those 

opportunities to RSA, who determines 

whether the opportunities merit review 

by the appropriate SLA, who decides if 

it will pursue them under the R–S Act’s 

priority.13

The Department’s proposed changes 

in this NPRM would confirm the 

applicability of the RSVFP on any 

Federal or other property subject to the 

R–S Act, except as otherwise provided 

by statute. As directed by the R–S Act, 

the Secretary, through the RSA 

Commissioner, consulted with heads of 

departments and agencies when 

proposing these regulations 

implementing the RSVFP. (20 U.S.C. 

107(b).) However, the R–S Act, as 

amended in 1974, makes clear that the 

Department is the ‘‘principal agency’’ 

responsible for carrying out the statute 

and promulgating implementing 

regulations. 

4. Overview of Proposed Changes 

In recent years, RSA has learned of 

varied applications in the operation of 

the RSVFP by the SLAs, Federal 

agencies, and blind vendors with 

respect to the types of vending facility 

business models permitted and the 

types of articles dispensed. The 

Department proposes to clarify and 

modernize the program’s regulatory 

definitions to continue advancement of 

economic opportunities for blind 

vendors and to evolve with modern 

trends in business practices and 

vending technology, many of which 

already exist within the RSVFP, with 

the goal of ensuring the regulations best 

implement the statute. To that end, the 

Department has determined it is 

necessary to amend the RSVFP 

regulations in three overarching ways. 

First, the Department proposes to 

define the term ‘‘articles,’’ as it is 

authorized to do while administering 

and implementing the RSVFP, thereby 

clarifying the broad scope of items that 

can be sold. In so doing, the Department 

would improve consistency nationwide 

with respect to articles currently sold by 

RSVFP vendors and provide further 

clarity for the breadth of articles that 

could be sold or dispensed as the 

RSVFP continues to evolve. 

Second, the Department proposes to 

provide illustrative examples of the 

scope of business models allowed as a 

‘‘vending facility’’ to address how the 

types of business models named in the 

statute apply in a modern context. In 

proposing these changes, the 

Department studied the legislative 

history of the R–S Act, dating back to its 

enactment in 1936. While Congress took 

care to identify specific business models 

and articles that are permissible under 

the RSVFP, Congress also made clear in 

legislative history and in the text of the 

statute that neither the term ‘‘vending 

facility’’ nor the term ‘‘articles’’ were 

intended to be construed narrowly. For 

example, the 1974 legislative history 

made clear that the concept of a 

‘‘vending facility’’ was meant to reflect 

the capability of blind vendors to 

operate extensive and sophisticated 

businesses. (Sen. Rep. 93–937 at 25 

(June 17, 1974).) At the time, Congress 

expressed concern about the 

deployment of technological advances 

that competed with vending stands, 

specifically the vending machine, to 

circumvent ‘‘the intent and spirit of the 

Congress’’ when it passed the R–S Act. 

(Sen. Rep. 93–937 at 6.) Congress 

amended the statute with the goal of 

protecting blind vendors ‘‘in light of the 

new inventions.’’ Id. The best reading of 

the statute is that Congress intended for 

the term ‘‘vending facility’’ to be 

construed broadly and in a manner 

capable of protecting the interests of 

blind vendors through potential 

evolutions in the concept of vending. 

With respect to the articles to be sold, 

Congress not only added the catch-all 

phrase of ‘‘other articles’’ to signal that 

the list mentioned in the statutory 

definition of ‘‘vending facility’’ is not 

exhaustive, but also included legislative 

history with the 1974 amendments to 

describe its intent. With these proposed 

clarifying changes, the Department 

believes the RSVFP regulations would 

be applied more consistently 

nationwide over time as the vending 

industry evolves and customer needs 

and demands for vended articles 

change, while staying faithful to the 

statutory text and congressional intent. 

Third, the Department proposes to 

make clear that ‘‘a vending machine’’ 

dispenses only ‘‘articles,’’ not services. 

In so doing, the Department would 

ensure the RSVFP regulations are 

consistent with Congressional intent 

that vending machines would dispense 

articles of a tangible nature while still 

ensuring the continued advancement of 

economic opportunities for blind 

vendors. Under the proposed regulation, 

blind vendors could continue to provide 

services at vending facilities and thus, 

the proposed regulation is not intended 

to limit any currently known vending 

opportunities with respect to services. 

In addition to the above three 

overarching proposed changes to the 

RSVFP regulations, the Department 

proposes to make corresponding 

changes to 34 CFR 395.30. In so doing, 

the Department would ensure that the 

proposed updated definition of 

‘‘vending facility’’ would apply to those 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 6 / Friday, January 10, 2025 / Proposed Rules 2555 

14The 1977 regulations included a third 

exemption from the definition of a vending 

machine—machines operated by the U.S. Postal 

Service for the sale of postage stamps or other 

postal products and services. However, that 

exemption was not based on the understanding that 

these articles or services were not traditionally 

found in blind-operated vending facilities, but that 

these machines were ‘‘uniquely supportive of the 

United States Postal Service mission.’’ (Id.) 

15A Business Enterprise Program (BEP) is 

authorized under section 103(b)(1) of the 

Rehabilitation Act at 29 U.S.C. 723(b)(1) and 34 

CFR 361.49(a)(5). The statute refers to ‘‘any type of 

small business operated by individuals with 

significant disabilities the operation of which can 

be improved by management services and 

supervision provided by the designated State 

agency, the provision of such services and 

supervision, along or together with the acquisition 

by the designated State agency of vending facilities 

or other equipment and initial stocks and supplies.’’ 

While States can create BEPs other than the RSVFP, 

RSA is not aware of such other BEPs and recognizes 

that States typically refer to the operation of the 

RSVFP in their State synonymously with the 

operation of their BEP. 

RSVFP vending facilities on NPS and 

NASA properties. 

Last, the Department proposes to add 

a provision to reflect the Department’s 

intent that the regulatory provisions in 

the RSVFP regulations are severable. 

We believe that these proposed 

regulations would add clarity to the 

RSVFP with respect to advances in 

vending technology and new vending 

opportunities and minimize confusion 

for Federal agencies, State agencies that 

administer the RSVFP, and blind 

vendors. With this added clarity, we 

anticipate there would be increased 

consistency among the SLAs in terms of 

the implementation of the RSVFP 

nationwide, particularly with the types 

of vending facility opportunities 

available and the articles sold 

nationwide by blind vendors. In so 

doing, we believe these proposed 

regulations would further the legislative 

purpose of the R–S Act to assist 

individuals who are blind to become 

self-supporting. 

Significant Proposed Regulations 

Articles 

Statute: The statute uses the term 

‘‘article’’ in the definition of ‘‘vending 

facility’’ at 20 U.S.C. 107e(7) and 

107a(a)(5), describing what blind 

vendors can sell—newspapers, 

periodicals, confections, tobacco 

products, foods, beverages, and other 

articles or services, as well as chances 

for any lottery authorized by State law 

and conducted by an agency of a State. 

Current Regulations: The term 

‘‘article’’ is used in the regulatory 

definition of ‘‘vending facility’’ at 34 

CFR 395.1(x) in the same way it is used 

in the statute. It is also used in the 

definition of ‘‘vending machine’’ at 34 

CFR 395.1(y) to refer to what a vending 

machine can dispense—‘‘articles or 

services.’’ 

Proposed Regulations: The 

Department proposes to amend 34 CFR 

395.1 by adding a new paragraph (cc) 

that would define ‘‘articles’’ as items of 

tangible personal property that can be 

felt or touched by an individual and can 

be physically relocated. This proposed 

definition would apply throughout 34 

CFR part 395, including as used in the 

definitions of ‘‘vending facility’’ and 

‘‘vending machine,’’ §§ 395.1(x) and (y), 

respectively. 

Reasons: The Department proposes to 

define ‘‘articles’’ to clarify the 

definitions of ‘‘vending facility’’ and 

‘‘vending machine’’ in 34 CFR 395.1(x) 

and (y), respectively, since the term 

‘‘articles’’ is used in both definitions but 

is undefined. For purposes of the 

RSVFP, there is a wide breadth of what 

could constitute ‘‘articles’’ that are 

dispensed automatically or manually 

and prepared on or off the premises in 

accordance with all applicable health 

laws. The proposed new definition 

would further clarify that the scope of 

articles dispensed or sold at vending 

facilities and by vending machines for 

purposes of the RSVFP are not, and 

should not be, limited to those articles 

traditionally found in blind-operated 

vending facilities, but rather, should be 

able to evolve with the times and 

customer needs and demands. See also 

‘‘Vending Facility’’ and ‘‘Vending 

Machine’’ discussions below. 

In 1977, the Department promulgated 

final regulations which, among other 

things, defined terms applicable to the 

requirements of the R–S Act. (42 FR 

15802 (Mar. 23, 1977).) In the preamble 

to the final regulations, the Department 

explained that the purpose of each 

definition was to facilitate the effective 

implementation of the R–S Act. Further, 

those definitions reflected the 

Department’s belief and policy 

determination at the time of how to 

implement the statute’s purpose. 

While it did not define the term 

‘‘articles’’ in the 1977 regulations, the 

Department determined that it was 

necessary to clarify the definition of 

‘‘vending machine’’ for purposes of 

vending machine income distribution. 

The 1977 regulations, under which the 

RSVFP is currently operating, expressly 

excluded two types of machines from 

the definition of ‘‘vending machine’’: 

machines providing services of a 

recreational nature and pay telephones. 

While the Department acknowledged 

public comments in support of a 

broader interpretation of ‘‘articles or 

services’’ appropriate for dispensing by 

vending machines for vending machine 

income under the RSVFP, the 

Department’s rationale at that time for 

excluding certain types of machines 

from vending machine income sharing 

requirements was that Congress had not 

intended to change the scope of 

‘‘articles or services’’ beyond those 

‘‘traditionally found in blind-operated 

vending facilities.’’ (Id.) 14 This 

interpretation in the 1977 preamble has 

engendered confusion for Federal and 

State agencies as well as blind vendors 

and led some agencies and entities to 

adopt a limited concept of covered 

‘‘articles or services’’ that could be 

dispensed by vending facilities based on 

the Department’s interpretation at that 

time of the statute’s text regarding 

vending machine income sharing and a 

static understanding of blind vendor 

operations as of 1974. 

The trend of decreasing blind vendor 

opportunities, the majority of which are 

for food services, and the evolution of 

RSVFP vending facilities and vending 

machines selling a wide variety of 

articles over the years has prompted the 

Department to take a fresh look at the 

statutory interpretation underpinning its 

1977 regulations. The Department no 

longer believes that this aspect of the 

1977 regulations reflect the best reading 

of the statute and so is currently 

proposing changes that would specify 

that blind vendors are not limited to the 

vending opportunities that were 

traditionally found on Federal and other 

property in 1974. 

This view is informed by the 

Department’s review of the statutory 

language allowing for the sale of ‘‘other 

articles and services’’ in addition to 

specific items listed, legislative history 

that reveals Congress intended this 

language to ‘‘include anything 

susceptible of being sold by blind 

vendors’’ (Sen. Rep. at 25), the evolution 

of the business enterprise programs 

(BEPs) 15 to include emerging industry 

technologies, and the Department’s 

understanding of the state of 

employment opportunities for blind 

vendors on Federal and other property. 

The Department’s view of ‘‘articles’’ 

as tangible personal property is 

informed by the ordinary meaning of 

terms that make up how ‘‘articles’’ was 

understood in 1974 when Congress 

amended the R–S Act. The term 

‘‘article’’ was defined as ‘‘a particular 

object or substance, a material thing or 

a class of things.’’ See Black’s Law 

Dictionary (4th ed. 1968) ‘‘Object’’ was 

‘‘anything which comes within the 

cognizance or scrutiny of the senses, 

especially anything tangible or visible.’’ 

Id. Finally, ‘‘tangible’’ was defined as 

‘‘capable of being touched; also, 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS2
2556 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 6 / Friday, January 10, 2025 / Proposed Rules 

16See RSA–TAC–24–03 ‘‘Use of VR program 

funds for initial stocks and supplies and initial 

operating expenses for blind vendors under the 

Randolph-Sheppard vending facilities program’’ 

and TAC–24–06 ‘‘Allowable Costs for Vending 

Facilities and Equipment for Vendors under the 

Randolph-Sheppard Vending Facility Program.’’ 

17 34 CFR 395.16. 

18Merriam-Webster definition 4—a member of a 

class of things especially: an item of goods. https:// 

www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/article. 

19 Dictionary.com definition 2—an individual 

object, member, or portion of a class; an item or 

particular: an article of food; articles of clothing. 

Definition 4—an item for sale; commodity. https:// 

www.dictionary.com/browse/article. 

20 Goods, Merriam-Webster Dictionary, entry-2— 

‘‘personal property having intrinsic value but 

usually excluding money, securities, and negotiable 

instruments,’’ ‘‘something manufactured or 

produced for sale.’’ https://www.merriamwebster.com/dictionary/good#dictionary. 

perceptible to the touch; tactile; 

palpable, and as being capable of being 

possessed or realized. Id. Based on the 

meaning of the words used in the 

definition of ‘‘article’’ and the context of 

how ‘‘articles’’ is used in the statute, the 

Department believes that the proposed 

definition of ‘‘articles’’ as items of 

tangible personal property that can be 

felt or touched by an individual and can 

be physically relocated reflects the best 

reading of the R–S Act. 

Furthermore, the legislative history to 

the 1974 amendments to the R–S Act 

supports the breadth which Congress 

intended for the RSVFP with respect to 

the types of items to be sold: ‘‘[T]he 

kinds of articles which may be sold by 

blind vendors is expanded to include 

anything susceptible of being sold by 

blind vendors. There is no reason, 

physical or otherwise, to limit the kinds 

of articles a blind vendor may sell.’’ 

(emphasis added.) (Sen. Rep. 93–937, 25 

(1974)). Congress wanted to protect the 

livelihoods, rights, and economic 

interests of blind vendors on Federal 

property. (100 Cong. Rec. 9946 (1954), 

Sen. Rep. 93–937 (1974)). 

The Department believes the 

proposed regulations would better 

effectuate Congressional intent to 

support the economic interest of blind 

vendors by recognizing the evolution of 

the wide range of articles that can be 

sold through vending facilities and 

vending machines on Federal and other 

property. In fact, articles sold in RSVFP 

vending machines and vending facilities 

have continued to evolve beyond those 

traditionally sold by blind vendors in 

the years preceding the 1977 

regulations. For example, the 

Department believes, based upon 

stakeholder feedback and the 

Department’s observations, that blind 

vendors operate, and have been 

operating, vending facilities and 

vending machines that dispense a 

variety of items in addition to those 

listed in the statute, including 

souvenirs, cosmetics, flowers, 

electronics, and personal care and 

health products, which may include 

over-the-counter, but not prescription, 

medications. 

Therefore, through these proposed 

regulations, the Department is 

reconsidering the position taken in the 

preamble of the 1977 regulations that 

limited the articles and services blind 

vendors could sell to only those 

traditionally dispensed by blind 

vendors in the years preceding 1977. We 

no longer believe that interpretation best 

reflects the intent of Congress, as 

reflected in the text Congress enacted 

nor does it best effectuate the purposes 

of the R–S Act or reflect the actual 

vending of articles done by many 

licensed blind vendors under the 

RSVFP. 

Given the evolution of RSVFP 

vending facilities and vending machines 

over the years, the Department has 

determined it necessary to amend the 

RSVFP regulations to codify the 

Department’s interpretation regarding 

the wide array of what vendors can sell 

under the statute 16 and to address the 

questions raised by SLAs, blind 

vendors, and other stakeholders. 

Through this proposed definition, the 

Department would update the 

regulation to reflect the breadth of 

articles currently sold under the RSVFP 

by blind vendors through vending 

machines and vending facilities and 

clarify the scope of articles that could be 

sold by blind vendors under the RSVFP 

as the industry continues to evolve. 

The Department intends to clarify that 

it interprets ‘‘articles’’ broadly. 

However, this proposed definition 

should not be construed to require any 

specific item be sold on Federal 

property or, equally important, require 

only certain articles be sold on Federal 

property. The permit process 17 to 

operate a vending facility other than a 

cafeteria and the contracting process for 

a cafeteria would not change and would 

still include the negotiation process 

between the Federal agency and the 

SLA to determine what types of articles 

will be sold on Federal property or 

between the State Department of 

Transportation and the SLA for 

purposes of highway rest areas. Rather, 

the proposed definition would clarify 

that vending facilities that sell a wide 

variety of ‘‘articles’’ would be subject to 

the same permit and contracting 

processes. This proposed definition 

would enable the RSVFP to evolve over 

time and, thus, continue to provide 

economic opportunities to blind 

vendors so they may be self-supporting 

both now and in the future. 

Therefore, the Department proposes to 

define ‘‘articles’’ as items of tangible 

personal property that can be felt or 

touched by an individual and can be 

physically relocated. This proposed 

definition reflects the best reading of the 

statute that Congress intended vending 

machines to dispense only articles of 

tangible personal property, as discussed 

later in this document where we discuss 

the proposed definition of the term 

‘‘vending machine.’’ The Department’s 

proposed definition is consistent with 

commonly-used definitions of 

‘‘articles,’’ specifically that they are 

goods,18 objects and items for sale.19 In 

analyzing the commonly-used 

definitions of ‘‘articles,’’ the Department 

considered the individual terms used 

within those definitions, particularly 

‘‘goods,’’ which is defined, in pertinent 

part, as an item of tangible personal 

property having value but usually 

excluding money, securities, and 

negotiable instruments.20

To illustrate the breadth that the 

Department intends from the proposed 

definition, the Department also believes 

‘‘articles’’ could include items such as 

flowers, personal care products (e.g., 

deodorants, toothpaste, hairbrushes and 

combs, and cosmetics), and electronics. 

As with the items named in the statute, 

these, too, can be felt, touched, and 

physically relocated, thereby 

constituting tangible personal property. 

The Department understands that many 

blind vendors are already dispensing 

these articles at their vending facilities 

or in their vending machines, but also 

that SLAs and blind vendors nationwide 

have not consistently interpreted 

‘‘articles’’ this broadly. 

Therefore, the Department has 

determined these proposed regulations, 

and particularly this proposed 

definition, are necessary to ensure 

consistency with respect to the 

implementation of the RSVFP 

nationwide. See ‘‘Vending Machine’’ 

below for a more in-depth discussion of 

the scope of articles that could be 

dispensed by a vending machine under 

the RSVFP. 

Vending Facility 

Statute: The definition of ‘‘vending 

facility’’ in 20 U.S.C. 107e(7) means 

automatic vending machines, cafeterias, 

snack bars, cart services, shelters, 

counters, and such other appropriate 

auxiliary equipment necessary for the 

sale of the articles and services 

described in 20 U.S.C. 107a(a)(5) and 

which may be operated by blind 

licensees. Section 107a(a)(5) provides 

that RSA designate the State agency that 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 6 / Friday, January 10, 2025 / Proposed Rules 2557 

21 20 U.S.C. 107d–3(e); 34 CFR 395.33. 

provides services to the blind to issue 

licenses to blind persons to operate 

vending facilities on Federal and other 

property in its State. The statute states 

that the vending facilities may sell 

newspapers, periodicals, confections, 

tobacco products, foods, beverages, and 

other articles or services dispensed 

automatically or manually and prepared 

on or off the premises in accordance 

with all the health laws, as determined 

by the State licensing agency. The 1974 

amendments also added to the list of 

articles specifically identified the 

vending or exchange of chances for any 

lottery authorized by State law and 

conducted by an agency of the State. 

Current Regulations: 34 CFR 395.1(x) 

defines ‘‘vending facility’’ to mean 

automatic vending machines, cafeterias, 

snack bars, cart service, shelters, 

counters, and such other appropriate 

auxiliary equipment which may be 

operated by blind licensees and which 

is necessary for the sale of newspapers, 

periodicals, confections, tobacco 

products, foods, beverages, and other 

articles or services dispensed 

automatically or manually and prepared 

on or off the premises in accordance 

with all applicable health laws. It also 

added that vending facility includes the 

vending or exchange of changes for any 

lottery authorized by State law and 

conducted by an agency of a State 

within such State. 

Proposed Regulations: The 

Department proposes to amend the 

definition of ‘‘vending facility’’ in 

section 395.1(x) in two substantive ways 

by—(1) reinforcing other regulatory 

requirements that vending facilities are 

operated by blind licensees pursuant to 

a permit or contract, and (2) adding 

illustrative examples of vending 

facilities to further interpret the terms 

‘‘snack bars,’’ ‘‘cart services,’’ 

‘‘shelters,’’ and ‘‘counters’’ used in the 

statutory definition of ‘‘vending facility’’ 

as including micro markets, laundry and 

catering establishments, gift shops, 

retail stores, and temporary or mobile 

establishments such as pop-up stands 

and food trucks. 

The Department also proposes to 

make several non-substantive wording 

and organizational revisions that do not 

change the meaning of the definition but 

are intended to add clarity and 

minimize confusion. Specifically, the 

Department proposes to—(1) add the 

word ‘‘their’’ before ‘‘auxiliary 

equipment,’’ to clarify that appropriate 

auxiliary equipment alone is not a 

‘‘vending facility’’ but rather a 

component of a ‘‘vending facility;’’ (2) 

move mention of the lottery to be near 

the other articles sold; (3) remove the 

phrase ‘‘and including the vending or 

exchange of changes’’ when describing 

the authorization to sell lottery tickets; 

(4) restructure the definition from a 

single original paragraph to multiple 

paragraphs to improve clarity and 

readability; and (5) make other minor 

wording changes necessitated by the 

restructuring of the definition. 

Reasons: Consistent with the statutory 

language and the legislative history, the 

Department proposes to amend the 

definition of ‘‘vending facility’’ in 

§ 395.1(x) to accomplish two critical 

purposes—to clarify which vending 

opportunities on Federal and other 

property constitute a ‘‘vending facility’’ 

for purposes of the RSVFP; and add 

illustrative examples to provide clarity 

to ensure that the definition of ‘‘vending 

facility’’ can evolve with technology and 

the capabilities of blind vendors. The 

Department proposes other nonsubstantive wording and restructuring 

changes throughout to add clarity for 

Federal and State agencies 

administering the RSVFP and for blind 

vendors operating vending facilities. 

To ensure consistent implementation 

of the priority for blind vendors on 

Federal property nationwide, the R–S 

Act (20 U.S.C. 107e(7)) includes a 

definition of ‘‘vending facility’’ through 

which Congress establishes a general 

framework for the operation of these 

facilities and the types of articles and 

services to be sold or dispensed. To 

clarify this statutory purpose in 

regulation and address numerous 

inquiries to which the Department has 

responded in a variety of settings at the 

Federal and State levels, the Department 

proposes to amend the definition of 

‘‘vending facility’’ at 34 CFR 395.1(x) to 

add language clarifying the types of 

business opportunities on Federal or 

other property that constitute a 

‘‘vending facility’’ for purposes of the 

RSVFP. 

First, the Department proposes to add 

a clause stating that vending facilities 

may be operated by blind licensees 

pursuant to a contract or permit. The R– 

S Act requires cafeterias, which are a 

type of ‘‘vending facility,’’ to be 

operated pursuant to a contract.21 All 

other vending facilities are established 

by permit issued by the appropriate 

Federal agency to the SLA in 

accordance with the process outlined in 

34 CFR 395.16. While these 

requirements are already codified in 

separate sections of the R–S Act 

regulations, the Department believes 

adding this clause to the vending 

facility definition will bring added 

clarity to stakeholders and the public by 

reinforcing those requirements in the 

definition of ‘‘vending facility’’ itself. 

The changes to this definition are not 

intended to revise any requirements of 

34 CFR 395.16 and 395.33. 

The second purpose of the substantive 

changes to the vending facility 

definition is to provide additional 

examples of vending facilities to add 

clarity to the vending models in the 

definition, thereby ensuring evolution of 

vending facilities with technology and 

the capabilities of blind vendors. This 

proposed change would be consistent 

with existing guidance addressing 

modern illustrative examples of 

statutory terms used in the definition of 

‘‘vending facility.’’ 

Specifically, the R–S Act defines 

‘‘vending facility’’ at 20 U.S.C. 107e(7), 

in addition to vending machines and 

cafeterias, to include snack bars, cart 

services, shelters, and counters. Since 

the regulations were promulgated, new 

technologies and updated business 

models of those listed in the definition 

have emerged for meeting customer 

demand for articles and services on 

Federal and other property. 

Consequently, the Department has 

received questions from SLAs and other 

stakeholders about whether and to what 

extent the concept of a ‘‘vending 

facility’’ encompasses modern iterations 

of facilities that, like those articulated in 

the statute, sell or dispense articles and 

services of the type contemplated by the 

statute. Several stakeholders expressed 

concern that the current regulations do 

not clearly address the applicability of 

the definition of ‘‘vending facility’’ to 

modern vending operations and noted 

the risk of inconsistent application of 

the R–S priority across agencies for 

certain types of vending operations not 

expressly mentioned. 

In the Department’s view, the best 

reading of the statutory definition of a 

‘‘vending facility’’ encompasses modern 

iterations of facilities enumerated in the 

statute, consistent with the 1974 

amendments to the R–S Act and the 

shift in the statute away from the term 

‘‘vending stand’’ to ‘‘vending facility.’’ 

The text of the statute provides that 

automatic vending machines, cafeterias, 

snack bars, cart services, shelters, and 

counters are all vending facilities and 

leaves it to the Department to 

implement through regulation how 

those vending business models dispense 

articles and services. As explained in 

the legislative history, the concept of a 

‘‘vending facility’’ was meant to reflect 

the capability of blind vendors to 

operate extensive and sophisticated 

businesses. (Sen. Rep. 93–937 at 25.) 

The Committee report accompanying 

the 1974 amendments stated that the 

term ‘‘vending facility’’ was intended to 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS2
2558 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 6 / Friday, January 10, 2025 / Proposed Rules 

22Among the resources listed on the RSA website 

is a template for permits to operate vending 

facilities. The permit template contemplates 

vending facilities such as pop-up food services and 

food trucks. See https://rsa.ed.gov/sites/default/ 

files/programs/randolph-sheppard/UPDATE_-_RS_

Permit_3-09-21%20(1).pdf, Attachment G, 

Paragraph J. 

23National Automatic Merchandising 

Association, https://namanow.org/convenienceservices/micro-markets/. 

24Retail stores established under the R–S Act’s 

priority as vending facilities are distinct from the 

military commissaries and exchange stores 

(together, the exchange system) currently operating 

under the authority of Title 10 of the U.S. Code, that 

sell at reduced prices, food and other merchandise 

to active duty personnel and other persons 

authorized to use the system. The R–S Act and Title 

10 can be implemented in such a way that the 

military can further the purposes of both the RSVFP 

and the exchange systems on DOD property. 

encompass the enumerated examples 

‘‘as well as the stereotypical kiosk type 

stand.’’ Id. The Department believes it 

would be contrary to the goals of the 

statute to construe the term ‘‘vending 

facility’’ narrowly or in a manner that 

limits or restricts the application of the 

priority afforded to blind vendors to the 

evolution of vending operations on 

Federal property. 

For that reason, the Department 

proposes to add a non-exhaustive list of 

current examples of such facilities to 

demonstrate that the best reading of the 

terms ‘‘cafeterias, snack bars, cart 

services, shelters, and counters’’ 

captures a broad range of vending 

businesses. Based on interactions RSA 

held with SLAs during FYs 2022 and 

2023, many SLAs indicated that blind 

vendors are already operating such 

modern vending facilities including, but 

not limited to, micro markets, laundry 

and catering establishments, retail stores 

(such as gift shops, and convenience 

stores), and temporary or mobile 

establishments such as food trucks and 

pop-up stands.22 Guidance issued in 

2024 addressed some modern iterations 

of the vending facilities identified in the 

statute, and the proposed regulations 

would provide additional clarity on this 

issue. 

As an example, micro markets are 

unmanned retail environments where 

customers can engage with products on 

shelves and in open coolers with cash 

or electronic payment methods.23 Blind 

vendors are increasingly choosing to 

operate micro markets as more versatile 

vending facilities due to the wider range 

of product offerings generally available 

than vending machines and the 

relatively low costs of running these 

types of facilities compared to other 

manned alternatives, like snack bars. In 

addition, they are established by 

permits as opposed to contracts for 

cafeterias, and, unlike cafeterias and 

other manned retail facilities, can be in 

operation 24 hours a day without staff. 

As noted in section 107a(a)(5) of the 

R–S Act, articles and services sold 

include, but are not limited to, ‘‘foods, 

beverages, and other articles or services 

dispensed automatically or manually 

and prepared on or off the premises.’’ 

(20 U.S.C. 107a(a)(5).) (emphasis 

added.) Consistent with how the statute 

permits food and beverages dispensed at 

the Federal agency’s location to be 

prepared off the premises, such as by 

the manufacturers of those products, 

blind vendors use similar business 

models to provide other articles and 

services on the Federal property that are 

prepared off the premises, such as 

laundry and catering establishments. 

Laundry services involve distributing 

laundered articles at the agency’s 

location (dispensing automatically or 

manually) after washing and drying 

items at a laundry establishment offsite 

(prepared on or off the premises). 

Similarly, catering establishments 

prepare food and beverages (i.e., the 

articles to be dispensed through the 

vending facility) off the premises, as it 

is permitted to do, and then delivers the 

food and beverages to be dispensed (i.e., 

served) on the premises. Since the 1974 

amendments, the R–S Act specifically 

has included articles and services 

prepared off the premises. Including 

laundry and catering establishments as 

illustrative examples in the proposed 

definition of ‘‘vending facility’’ gives 

meaning to the words ‘‘prepared on or 

off the premises’’ which appear in the 

statute, is consistent with guidance 

provided to stakeholders over the years 

and improves consistency. 

In addition, SLAs and blind vendors 

are exploring the feasibility of operating 

food trucks as viable business 

opportunities due to the mobile nature 

of food trucks, which would allow them 

to meet the demand for vending 

facilities on large Federal properties 

such as military bases and national 

parks. The proposed inclusion of 

illustrative examples of modern types of 

vending facilities would clarify that 

food trucks can be vending facilities 

under the R–S Act. 

Retail stores 24 include convenience 

stores open to the public or agency 

employees that may sell a wide array of 

articles, beyond just food and beverages. 

Gift shops provide articles, which 

include souvenirs such as tee shirts, key 

chains, water bottles, and other items 

such as cosmetics and electronics. 

Including these illustrative examples 

in the proposed regulation of more 

modern versions of vending facilities 

already listed would clarify the 

permissibility of the methods for selling 

or dispensing articles and services that 

have already evolved in some States 

implementing the RSVFP, thereby 

ensuring consistency across all State 

RSVFPs. These business models have 

become increasingly prevalent on 

Federal and other property. If ‘‘vending 

facility’’ were to be interpreted narrowly 

to include only those business models 

listed in the statute as they existed in 

1974, these more modern ways of 

vending articles and services could not 

be considered vending facilities to 

which the R–S Act priority may be 

afforded. This would likely result in 

these business models being operated by 

contractors outside of the RSVFP and 

thus, competing directly with, or even 

replacing, the traditional cafeterias, 

vending machines, snack bars, and 

counters operated by blind vendors. 

This result would be inconsistent with 

the 1974 amendments, which made 

clear that vending facilities should 

encompass a broad array of facilities 

and that blind vendors should receive a 

priority in the operation of those 

facilities on Federal property. 

To clarify, these examples of vending 

facilities could dispense any article, as 

proposed to be defined in 395.1(cc) or 

service. The Department believes the 

proposed changes represent the best 

interpretation of the statute, which is to 

advance employment opportunities for 

blind vendors. The Department 

recognizes that there may be modern 

examples of vending facilities other 

than those listed in these proposed 

regulations and, accordingly, invites 

comment as to whether the Department 

should incorporate other illustrative 

examples in the regulatory text or 

further clarify how the statutory 

examples of a ‘‘vending facility’’ apply 

to modern vending operations. 

The Department of Education invites 

comments from the public and key 

stakeholders who ensure quality-of-life 

programs and provide support for the 

military community. The proposed 

definitions of ‘‘articles’’ and ‘‘vending 

facilities,’’ which would apply the R–S 

Act priority to blind vendors for various 

retail businesses on Department of 

Defense installations, could reduce the 

financial support that the military resale 

system provides to military members 

and their families. The Department of 

Education invites comment, particularly 

on the potential for the proposal to 

impact revenue streams that support 

essential quality-of-life benefits for 

military members and their families and 

seeks input on alternative definitions of 

the terms ‘‘articles’’ and ‘‘vending 

facilities’’ that could better support the 

existence of the military resale systems 

and blind vendors on DoD property. 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 6 / Friday, January 10, 2025 / Proposed Rules 2559 

25 In addition to the priority to operate vending 

machines on Federal property under the R–S Act, 

the Surface Transportation Act requires that in 

placing vending machines at highway rest areas, 

States give priority to vending machines operated 

under the RSVFP (23 U.S.C. 111(c)). 

Finally, the Department proposes 

other non-substantive, solely technical 

changes intended to add clarity. 

Specifically, the Department proposes to 

add the word ‘‘their’’ to modify 

‘‘appropriate auxiliary equipment,’’ to 

clarify that appropriate auxiliary 

equipment, by itself, does not constitute 

a ‘‘vending facility,’’ but rather is a 

component of a ‘‘vending facility.’’ 

The Department also proposes to 

revise text describing a lottery in the 

current regulations in two ways. The 

Department proposes to remove the 

phrase ‘‘and including the vending or 

exchange of changes’’ when describing 

the authorization to sell lottery tickets. 

This change would remove a 

typographical error that has existed 

since 1977 when the regulations were 

promulgated. Specifically, ‘‘changes’’ 

was supposed to read ‘‘chances’’ as 

provided in the statute and removing 

the phrase would improve readability of 

the sentence. The Department intends 

this change to be technical, and not 

substantive. 

The Department also proposes to 

move the mention of the lottery, so it is 

included with the other specified list of 

articles sold by blind vendors. This 

phrase is at the end of the current 

regulation, separate from the rest of the 

specified list of articles, thereby creating 

a potential for confusion as to the 

significance of its isolation from the 

other articles. As with the other 

proposed non-substantive changes, the 

Department intends this change to be 

solely technical in nature. 

The Department also proposes to 

restructure the definition from a single 

paragraph to multiple paragraphs. In so 

doing, most of the current regulatory 

definition content remains intact, with 

only the three minor changes just 

described, and the new text added in 

new paragraphs, thereby improving 

clarity and readability, and reducing 

confusion for those administering the 

RSVFP. 

Vending Machine 

Statute: The statute uses the term 

vending machine throughout 20 U.S.C. 

107, et seq. However, the section most 

pertinent is the inclusion of ‘‘vending 

machine’’ as a type of ‘‘vending facility’’ 

in 20 U.S.C. 107e(7) where vending 

facility includes automatic vending 

machines that may sell newspapers, 

periodicals, confections, tobacco 

products, foods, beverages, lottery, and 

other articles or services. 

Current Regulations: 34 CFR 395.1(y) 

defines ‘‘vending machine’’ for the 

purpose of assigning vending machine 

income under the regulations in part 

395. The term means a coin or currency 

operated machine that dispenses articles 

or services. However, machines 

operated by the United States Postal 

Service for the sale of stamps and other 

postal products and services, 

recreational machines, and pay 

telephones are excluded. 

Proposed Regulations: The 

Department proposes to amend the 

definition of ‘‘vending machine’’ in 

section 395.1(y) by—(1) removing ‘‘for 

purposes of assigning vending machine 

income under this part;’’ (2) removing 

‘‘services’’ as that which can be 

dispensed by a ‘‘vending machine;’’ (3) 

replacing ‘‘coin or currency’’ with 

‘‘cash’’ and adding ‘‘electronic payment 

methods’’ as allowable payment 

methods; (4) removing the specific 

exclusion for recreational machines and 

pay telephones; and (5) replacing the 

term ‘‘postal machine’’ with ‘‘self-serve 

postal center.’’ The Department also 

proposes to reorganize the definition 

from a single paragraph to multiple 

paragraphs to improve readability and 

clarity and make other technical, nonsubstantive changes. 

Reasons: The Department published 

proposed RSVFP regulations in 1975 

that sought to define ‘‘vending 

machine’’ because the statute does not 

define this term. (40 FR 59408 (Dec. 23, 

1975).) The proposed regulations at that 

time defined ‘‘vending machine’’ for 

purposes of vending machine income to 

mean ‘‘an unattended coin or currency 

operated machine which dispenses any 

articles automatically or manually or 

which dispense services when such 

services are authorized under a permit 

to be sold by a blind licensee, except 

that those machines operated by the 

United States Postal Service for the sale 

of postage stamps or other postal 

products and services shall not be 

considered to be vending machines.’’ 

(40 FR 59409.) The proposed regulations 

at that time did not include any 

explanation or rationale in support of 

the definition. 

The preamble of the 1977 final 

regulations states that the purpose of the 

regulatory definitions, including the 

definition of ‘‘vending machine,’’ is to 

facilitate the effective implementation of 

the R–S Act through providing precise 

interpretations of complex concepts. (42 

FR 15802.) The Department’s proposed 

definition of ‘‘vending machine’’ would 

govern the types of machines subject to 

the priority afforded to blind vendors on 

Federal property 25 and any applicable 

vending machine income sharing 

provisions. 

The Department proposes to revise 

the definition of ‘‘vending machine’’ in 

five substantive ways and to make other 

technical, non-substantive changes as 

described separately below to reflect the 

realities of ever-changing technology 

and the employment and economic 

opportunities for blind vendors. 

First, we propose to amend the 

definition of ‘‘vending machine’’ by 

removing ‘‘for purposes of assigning 

vending machine income under this 

part’’ because that qualifier could limit 

the application of the term ‘‘vending 

machine’’ throughout part 395. The 

Department addressed the definition of 

vending machine only in the context of 

the vending machine income provisions 

of part 395 to address the concerns 

raised to the 1975 NPRM. (42 FR 15804– 

15807 (Mar 23, 1977)). However, the 

current definition of ‘‘vending machine’’ 

created confusion as to whether the 

definition applies throughout part 395 

or is limited only to the vending 

machine income provisions. Therefore, 

the Department believes there is a need 

for a general definition to provide 

clarity and ensure consistency in the 

application of all provisions under the 

R–S Act. In deleting this phrase, the 

Department would make clear that the 

definition of ‘‘vending machine’’ would 

apply throughout part 395. 

Second, the Department proposes to 

remove ‘‘services’’ from the definition of 

‘‘vending machine.’’ Removing 

‘‘services’’ from the definition of 

‘‘vending machine’’ reflects the 

Department’s current view that Congress 

intended the term ‘‘vending machine,’’ 

as used in the definitions of ‘‘vending 

facility’’ and ‘‘vending machine 

income’’ in the R–S Act to be equipment 

that dispenses only articles of a tangible 

nature. While the statutory definition of 

‘‘vending facility’’ is broad, it uses the 

disjunctive in describing ‘‘other articles 

or services’’ related to what can be 

vended under the RSVFP to make it 

clear that a vending facility need not 

sell both articles and services to qualify 

as such. 20 U.S.C. 107(a)(5). The R–S 

Act defines a ‘‘vending facility’’ to 

include a variety of business models, 

including the ‘‘vending machine’’ 

business model, but only imposes 

income sharing requirements under the 

RSVFP on the income earned through 

vending machines. See generally, 20 

U.S.C. 107d–3. 

Congress made clear that while 

vending machines could operate 

separately as a vending facility, there 

were unique aspects to vending 

machines and the history of their use in 

Federal agencies that make them 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS2
2560 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 6 / Friday, January 10, 2025 / Proposed Rules 

26Merriam-Webster definition 4—a member of a 

class of things especially: an item of goods. https:// 

www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/article. 

27 Dictionary.com definition 2—an individual 

object, member, or portion of a class; an item or 

particular: an article of food; articles of clothing. 

Definition 4—an item for sale; commodity. https:// 

www.dictionary.com/browse/article. 

28 Goods, Merriam-Webster Dictionary, https://

www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ 

good#dictionary-entry-2 ‘‘personal property having 

intrinsic value but usually excluding money, 

securities, and negotiable instruments,’’ ‘‘something 

manufactured or produced for sale.’’ 

29See, e.g., Bentancourt, Roger R. Chapter 4: 

Distribution services, Technological Change and the 

Evolution of Retailing and Distribution in the 

Twenty-First Century, Handbook on the Economics 

of Retailing and Distribution, https://

www.econ.umd.edu/sites/www.econ.umd.edu/files/ 

pubs/04%20-%20Chapter%204%20- 

%20Betancourt.pdf. (Indicates when services are 

sold the term ‘‘cost of services sold’’ should be used 

in place of ‘‘costs of goods sold.’’) 

30See, e.g., Public Law 108–136 (using the term 

‘‘costs of services sold’’ when referring to an 

intranet contract). 

31See 34 CFR 361.63(b). OMB and Health and 

Human Services’ regulations also separately define 

‘‘costs of services sold’’ in various provisions. See 

2 CFR 200.1 (definition of central service cost 

allocation plan); 42 CFR 414.1465 (physicianfocused payment models). 

32 20 U.S.C. 107e(8). 

33The Evolution of the Electronic Payment 

System Until 2020 (TokenEx, Inc., Jan. 6, 2020). 

Further information can be found at the following 

website: https://www.tokenex.com/blog/evolutionelectronic-payment-systems-until-2020. 

34Contactless Payments Transaction Values to 

Surpass $10 Trillion Globally by 2027(Juniper 

Research, 2022). https://www.juniperresearch.com/ 

press/contactless-payments-transaction-values-tosurpass./ 

distinct from the other business models 

described in the statute. 

The Department’s current view is also 

consistent with the statutory definition 

of vending machine income at 20 U.S.C. 

107e(8) as ‘‘receipts from vending 

machine operations on Federal 

property, after cost of goods sold.’’ As 

noted in our above discussion of 

‘‘articles,’’ the proposed definition is 

based on commonly used definitions of 

‘‘articles,’’ that describe ‘‘articles’’ as 

goods,26 objects and items for sale.27

‘‘Goods’’ is commonly defined as an 

item of tangible personal property 

having value but usually excluding 

money, securities, and negotiable 

instruments.28 Further, nothing in the 

statutory definition of vending machine 

income refers to earnings from the sale 

of services. For purposes related to an 

entity’s income, ‘‘cost of services sold’’ 

is typically a distinct concept from 

‘‘costs of goods sold.’’ 29 Where 

Congress has intended for provisions to 

encompass service-related sales, it has 

used the term ‘‘costs of services sold.’’ 30

The Department has similarly used the 

term ‘‘costs of services’’ in its 

regulations concerning income under 

the State VR program.31 Therefore, 

when Congress used the phrase ‘‘cost of 

goods’’ in the definition of vending 

machine income, it is reasonable to 

conclude that it referred to the cost of 

the articles sold in vending machines.32

When the Department first defined 

‘‘vending machine for purposes of 

vending machine income’’ in 1977, it 

included the reference to ‘‘articles or 

services,’’ used in the definition of 

‘‘vending facility’’ when applying it to 

the definition of ‘‘vending machine,’’ 

without any discussion in the preamble, 

or without examples of RSVFP vending 

machines that dispense services. While 

there was a lengthy discussion in the 

preamble to the final regulations 

regarding the large number of comments 

received about vending machine 

income, the only mention of machines 

that dispense services occurs with the 

exclusion from the definition of a 

vending machine, specifically ‘‘pinball 

machines, telephones, perfume spray 

machines, and jukeboxes.’’ 42 FR 15802, 

15806. 

Finally, the Department does not 

believe this proposed change would 

significantly disadvantage blind vendors 

in the RSVFP, because the Department 

is not aware, based upon stakeholder 

feedback and the Department’s 

observations, of any vending machines, 

past or present, operated under the 

RSVFP, that dispense services. 

Moreover, should a blind vendor choose 

to dispense a service via a machine, the 

vendor could still do so within a 

vending facility. 

We invite public comment on the 

proposed removal of ‘‘services’’ from the 

vending machine definition, including 

the potential impact of this proposed 

change on the RSVFP. 

Third, the Department proposes to 

revise the listed payment methods in 

the current definition from ‘‘coin or 

currency’’ to ‘‘cash and electronic 

payment methods’’ to provide clarity 

and reflect more current methods of 

payment. The Department proposes to 

replace ‘‘coin or currency’’ with the 

term ‘‘cash,’’ to incorporate both coin 

and currency as payment methods and 

streamline the regulatory text. The 

proposed revision also would include 

electronic payment methods, which are 

a common payment method in the 21st 

century.33 The term ‘‘electronic 

payment methods’’ would be intended 

to encompass a range of non-cash 

transactions, including credit card, debit 

card, and mobile payments. Examples of 

mobile payment methods include 

mobile wallets, applications on 

electronic devices, such as cell phones 

or tablet computers for the transfer of 

funds, and mobile or wireless credit 

card readers. The value of these 

contactless payment transactions is 

expected to reach $10 trillion globally 

by 2027, an increase from $4.2 trillion 

in 2022. It is anticipated that contactless 

point of sales will be the key driver of 

contactless transactions over the next 

five years.34

The Department’s proposed use of 

‘‘cash or electronic payment methods’’ 

would reflect the changing customer 

demand and industry standards for the 

use of vending machines under the 

RSVFP. Further, the Department 

recognizes that there may be additional 

modern payment methods other than 

those listed in these proposed 

regulations and accordingly invites 

comments on whether we should 

incorporate other examples of payment 

methods used in connection with a 

‘‘vending machine.’’ 

Fourth, we propose to remove 

mention of the exemption for 

recreational machines and pay 

telephones from the proposed definition 

of ‘‘vending machine’’ since, under the 

proposed definition, no machines that 

dispense services would be included, 

making a specific exemption for these 

machines unnecessary. In the 1977 

regulations, the Department 

acknowledged that pay telephones and 

recreational or amusement machines 

were frequently found on Federal 

property at the time. However, the 

Department took the position, at that 

time, that such machines were outside 

the purview of the R–S Act, as 

amended, because ‘‘such machines 

[had] traditionally not been located in 

vending facilities operated by blind 

vendors.’’ (42 FR at 15806–07.) 

The proposed definition would 

remove mention of the specific 

exclusion of these machines because, 

we no longer believe ‘‘vending 

machines’’ should be defined to include 

machines that dispense services. To that 

end, recreational services provided by 

machines and pay telephones, which 

provide communications and 

entertainment services, would not be 

included in the proposed definition of 

‘‘vending machine’’ because they would 

fall outside the proposed definition of 

‘‘vending machine.’’ 

Fifth, while we believe it is no longer 

necessary to exempt recreational 

machines and pay telephones from the 

definition of ‘‘vending machine’’, we do 

propose to keep the exclusion for the 

U.S. Postal Service machines that 

dispense postage stamps or other postal 

products. Our last proposed substantive 

change to the definition of ‘‘vending 

machine,’’ would update the language 

related to this exemption by removing 

the word ‘‘machine’’ and replacing it 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 6 / Friday, January 10, 2025 / Proposed Rules 2561 

35National Park Service Concessions 

Management Improvement Act of 1998, 54 U.S.C. 

1001, et seq., provides that special contracting 

procedures are needed to preserve and conserve 

park resources. National Aeronautical Space 

Administration, 51 U.S.C. 30304, requires the 

agency to annually set goals of providing at least 8 

percent of the total value of prime and subcontracts 

to minority and disadvantaged small businesses. 

with ‘‘self-serve postal center.’’ The 

phrase ‘‘self-serve postal center’’ is 

defined in the postal service regulations 

at 39 CFR 255.7(a)(2)(iii), as 

‘‘contain[ing] vending equipment for the 

sale of stamps and stamp items, and 

deposit boxes for parcels and letter 

mail.’’ The Department views this 

change as technical in nature, but 

necessary, and is not intended to change 

the meaning of the exemption under the 

definition of ‘‘vending machine,’’ which 

has existed for nearly 50 years, for a 

‘‘self-serve postal center.’’ 

The Department believes that this 

exemption for a ‘‘self-serve postal 

center’’ remains necessary because, as 

we noted in 1977, certain machines 

located in post offices dispense purely 

postal products and are uniquely 

supportive of the United States Postal 

Service mission. In 1970, Congress 

passed the Postal Reorganization Act, 

which designed the U.S. Postal Service 

to be self-sufficient and operate like a 

business using the sales of postage and 

postage-related products to cover its 

operating expenses. (39 U.S.C. 101(d).) 

Therefore, an exemption for the sale of 

postal products is still required in the 

definition of ‘‘vending machine’’ for 

purposes of the R–S Act, since these 

self-serve postal centers dispense 

‘‘articles’’ under our proposed 

definition. 

Finally, the Department proposes to 

restructure the definition from a single 

paragraph to multiple paragraphs. This 

proposed restructuring of the definition 

of ‘‘vending machine’’ necessitates that 

some of the current definition, along 

with the proposed amendments, be 

reorganized into multiple paragraphs 

with some minor technical wording 

changes. 

The Department believes this 

restructuring of the definition would 

improve clarity and readability, 

reducing confusion for those 

administering the RSVFP at both the 

Federal and State levels and for blind 

vendors operating vending machines 

under the RSVFP. 

Location and Operation of Vending 

Facilities for Blind Vendors on Federal 

Property 

Statute: 20 U.S.C. 107(b) provides that 

in authorizing the operation of vending 

facilities on Federal property, priority 

shall be given to blind persons licensed 

by an SLA. 

Current Regulations: 34 CFR 395.30(c) 

requires that a priority be given to blind 

vendors in the operation of vending 

facilities in areas administered by the 

National Park Service (NPS) or the 

National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration (NASA). The priority in 

the awarding of contracts for the 

operation of concessions in such areas 

when such concessions provide 

accommodations, facilities, and services 

of a scope or of a character not generally 

available in vending facilities operated 

by blind vendors shall be given in 

accordance with the provisions of the 

Concession Policy Act (Pub. L. 98–249, 

16 U.S.C. 1) or the National Aeronautics 

and Space Act of 1958, as amended 

(Pub. L. 85–568, 42 U.S.C. 2473). 

Finally, the regulations provide that the 

provisions of the R–S Act and its 

regulations do not apply when all 

accommodations, facilities, or services 

in such areas are operated by a single 

responsible concessioner. 

Proposed Regulations: First, the 

Department proposes to substitute the 

words ‘‘on Federal property’’ for the 

words ‘‘in areas’’ in the phrase ‘‘in areas 

administered by the National Park 

Service or National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration.’’ Next, the 

Department proposes to remove the 

statement that ‘‘when such concessions 

in areas administered by the NPS or 

NASA provide accommodations, 

facilities, and services of a scope or of 

a character not generally available in 

vending facilities operated by blind 

vendors, priority for contracts awarded 

shall be given in accordance with the 

provisions of the Concession Policy Act 

or the National Aeronautics and Space 

Act of 1958, as amended.’’ The 

proposed regulatory text would 

continue to apply the priority for blind 

vendors in the operation of vending 

facilities on Federal property 

administered by the NPS or NASA. We 

also propose to remove the statement 

that the provisions of the R–S Act and 

its regulations do ‘‘not apply when all 

accommodations, facilities, or services 

in [areas administered by the NPS or 

NASA] are operated by a single 

responsible concessioner’’ and replace it 

with a statement that makes clear to the 

extent that these agencies seek to 

provide visitor services that meet the 

definition of ‘‘vending facility’’ under 

34 CFR 395.1(x) and are not combined 

with visitor services that do not meet 

that definition, the priority for blind 

vendors applies. 

Reasons: The Department proposes 

this amendment to change the term 

‘‘areas’’ used in this section to the term 

‘‘Federal property’’ because it is the 

appropriate term as defined under the 

Act. It is unclear why the 1977 

regulations used the term ‘‘areas’’ in this 

section, rather than the statutorily 

defined term ‘‘Federal property.’’ 

However, the Department intends for 

the proposed change to ‘‘Federal 

property’’ to clarify that the priority for 

the operation of vending facilities 

applies to the Federal property 

administered by NPS and NASA, just as 

it does for other Federal agencies. We do 

not intend that this change will have 

any substantive impact. 

The Department also proposes to align 

the application of the priority on 

Federal property administered by the 

NPS and NASA with the proposed 

revisions to the definition of ‘‘vending 

facility’’ and to reflect that the 

Concession Policy Act and the National 

Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958 have 

been repealed and replaced by statutes 

that continue to include specific 

procedures for obtaining contractors 

that provide services to visitors on NPS 

and NASA property.35 The substance of 

the current regulation provides that 

blind vendors receive a priority at those 

NPS and NASA locations to operate 

vending facilities that meet the 

definition of ‘‘vending facility’’ under 

34 CFR 395.1(x). The proposed 

regulation would continue with the 

premise that the RSVFP priority to 

operate a vending facility as defined in 

these regulations would apply to the 

NPS and NASA property and 

implemented consistent with any 

specific statutory procedures for 

awarding permits and contracts. To the 

extent that the NPS and NASA, or any 

Federal agency, seeks to provide 

services through an establishment that 

does not meet the definition of ‘‘vending 

facility’’ under the R–S Act, the RSVFP 

priority would not apply, and the 

business establishment would fall 

outside the scope of the RSVFP. 

To further the Department’s 

interpretation reflected throughout these 

proposed regulations that blind vendors 

are not limited to dispensing only 

articles and services traditionally sold 

by blind vendors, the Department is 

proposing to remove this limiting 

language from the current regulation 

addressing NPS and NASA property. As 

stated throughout this preamble, 

particularly in connection with the 

definitions of ‘‘vending facility,’’ 

‘‘vending machine,’’ and ‘‘articles,’’ the 

Department no longer believes the best 

interpretation of the statute limits blind 

vendors to selling articles and services 

traditionally sold by blind vendors. 

There is no such limitation in the 

language of the statute, and the 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS2
2562 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 6 / Friday, January 10, 2025 / Proposed Rules 

legislative history indicates that 

Congress intended a broader scope of 

what blind vendors could dispense; 

therefore, the Department believes the 

best reading of the statute does not limit 

blind vendors to selling only articles 

and services that had traditionally been 

sold under the RSVFP. 

Finally, we recognize that the NPS 

and NASA are uniquely situated in 

providing a variety of visitor services to 

customers visiting the Federal property 

administered by those agencies, unlike 

most Federal agencies. The proposed 

regulation would retain the concept that 

if the NPS or NASA combine into one 

contract visitor services that do not meet 

the RSVFP definition of vending facility 

with those that do meet the definition, 

the provisions of the R–S Act and its 

regulations do not apply. However, the 

Department proposes to clarify that to 

the extent that these agencies seek to 

provide visitor services through an 

establishment that meets the definition 

of ‘‘vending facility’’ under 34 CFR 

395.1(x) and are not combined with 

visitor services that do not fall within a 

covered vending facility, the RSVFP 

priority for blind vendors applies. 

Severability 

Statute: None. 

Current Regulations: None. 

Proposed Regulations: Proposed 

§ 395.50 would provide that, if any 

provision of part 395 or its application 

to any person, act, or practice is held 

invalid, the remainder of the part or the 

application of its provisions to any 

person, act, or practice shall not be 

affected thereby. 

Reasons: The Department believes 

that each of the proposed provisions 

discussed in this preamble would serve 

one or more important, related, but 

distinct, purposes. Each provision 

would provide a distinct value to blind 

vendors, State agencies that administer 

the RSVFP, the RSVFP generally, and 

the Federal and State governments 

separate from, and in addition to, the 

value provided by the other provisions. 

To best serve these purposes, we 

propose to include this administrative 

provision in the regulations to make 

clear that the regulations are designed to 

operate independently of each other and 

to convey the Department’s intent that 

the potential invalidity of one provision 

should not affect the remainder of the 

provisions. 

Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 

14094 

Regulatory Impact Analysis 

Under Executive Order 12866, OMB 

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, as amended by Executive Order 

14094, 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 $200 million or more 

(adjusted every 3 years by the 

Administrator of OIRA for changes in 

gross domestic product), or adversely 

affect in a material way a sector of the 

economy, productivity, competition, 

jobs, the environment, public health or 

safety, or State, local, territorial, or 

Tribal governments or communities; 

(2) Create a serious inconsistency or 

otherwise interfere with an action taken 

or planned by another agency; 

(3) Materially alter the budgetary 

impacts of entitlements, grants, user 

fees, or loan programs or the rights and 

obligations of recipients thereof; or 

(4) Raise legal or policy issues for 

which centralized review would 

meaningfully further, the President’s 

priorities, or the principles stated in the 

Executive order as specifically 

authorized in a timely manner by the 

Administrator of OIRA in each case. 

This proposed regulatory action is a 

significant regulatory action subject to 

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

Executive Order 12866, as amended by 

Executive Order 14094. Accordingly, we 

have assessed the potential costs and 

benefits, both quantitative and 

qualitative, of this proposed regulatory 

action and have determined that the 

benefits would justify the costs. 

We have also reviewed the proposed 

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 

on 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 justify 

any costs associated with them. Based 

on the analysis that follows, the 

Department believes that these 

regulations are consistent with the 

principles in Executive Order 13563. 

We also have determined that this 

regulatory action does not unduly 

interfere with State, local, territorial, or 

Tribal governments in the exercise of 

their governmental functions. 

In accordance with Executive Orders 

12866, 13563, and 14094, the 

Department has assessed the potential 

costs and benefits, both quantitative and 

qualitative, of this proposed regulatory 

action. The potential costs associated 

with this proposed regulatory action are 

those allowed by statutory requirements 

and those we have determined as 

necessary for administering the 

Department’s programs and activities. 

This regulatory impact analysis 

discusses the need for regulatory action, 

the potential costs and benefits, 

assumptions, limitations, and data 

sources, as well as regulatory 

alternatives considered. 

Because the proposed regulations 

would only require States to make 

changes to the definitions in their State 

rules and procedures for the RSVFP to 

align those definitions with the changes 

in the Federal definitions, there is 

uncertainty as to how such changes 

would impact further revisions in State 

policies and procedures and to what 

extent, if the proposed regulations were 

finalized. Therefore, the Department is 

unable to determine whether this 

proposed regulatory action would have 

an annual effect on the economy of 

more than $200 million, but we 

anticipate the impact will be less than 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 6 / Friday, January 10, 2025 / Proposed Rules 2563 

36Congress appropriated $20 million to the 

RSVFP Federal Relief and Restoration Program 

(FRRP) through the Consolidated Appropriations 

Act of 2021, Public Law 116–260, Division H, title 

III, section 318. These one-time financial relief and 

restoration grants to SLAs were to be used: (1) to 

offset losses incurred by blind vendors in calendar 

year 2020, so long as those losses were not 

otherwise compensated; and (2) to the extent funds 

remained available, for any of the set-aside 

purposes authorized under 34 CFR 395.9. 

37 In this NPRM, ‘‘VR program funds’’ refers to 

both Federal VR grant funds and non-Federal funds 

used for matching purposes under the VR program, 

unless specified otherwise. 

38Pursuant to section 101(a)(2) of the 

Rehabilitation Act, each State must designate an 

agency responsible for providing VR services to 

eligible individuals with disabilities in the State. 

When a State only has one VR agency that serves 

all individuals with disabilities, including those 

who are blind, this VR agency is also designated as 

the SLA. However, when a State has two VR 

agencies (one that serves individuals who are blind 

and visually impaired and another that serves all 

other disability groups), the SLA and the VR agency 

that serves individuals who are blind are the same 

State agency. However, as noted in footnote 1, the 

SLA and VR agency are responsible for 

administering their respective programs separately 

and distinctly. Because the VR agency director is 

solely responsible for the expenditure of VR 

program funds, including the expenditure of those 

funds for the benefit of the RSVFP, pursuant to 34 

CFR 361.13(c), we intentionally refer to the VR 

agency in this context rather than the SLA. 

39Pursuant to section 110(a) of the Rehabilitation 

Act, each State receives a VR grant award based on 

a statutory formula. The State may access those 

Federal VR grant funds to the extent it can provide 

the requisite match of 21.3 percent. At the end of 

each fiscal year, States may request additional VR 

grant funds, to the extent they will not be used by 

other States and have been relinquished by them 

(section 110(b) of the Rehabilitation Act) and to the 

extent they can provide the requisite match of 21.3 

percent. Once a State has fully matched all grant 

funds available to it, non-Federal expenditures no 

longer count toward the State’s match. 

that in the initial implementing years. 

We invite the public to comment on the 

economic impact of the proposed 

changes. 

Background 

1. Need for Regulatory Action 

Since the RSVFP regulations were 

promulgated in 1977, the business 

practices and technology associated 

with vending facilities and vending 

machines have advanced greatly. As 

discussed in the Background section, 

the number of blind vendors and the 

number of facilities operated by blind 

vendors, as well as gross sales for the 

program and gross income for blind 

vendors, have decreased substantially 

since 2013. For the RSVFP to remain a 

viable employment opportunity for 

blind individuals, the Department 

believes the definitions of ‘‘vending 

facility’’ and ‘‘vending machine’’ must 

be amended to ensure consistency 

within the RSVFP and continued 

advancement of economic opportunities 

for blind vendors. These proposed 

regulations would reflect evolving 

trends in business practices and 

vending technology, consistent with the 

R–S Act’s purpose of providing viable 

employment opportunities for blind 

individuals. 

To meet these needs, the Department 

proposes to amend the definitions of 

‘‘vending facility’’ and ‘‘vending 

machine’’ in various ways and add a 

definition of ‘‘articles’’ to improve 

clarity and consistency for the 

implementation of the RSVFP. These 

proposed regulations would clarify and 

improve the current regulations, 

ensuring they reflect evolving business 

practices, vending technology, and 

commercial payment methods. More 

specifically, the proposed regulations 

would define ‘‘articles,’’ for purposes of 

the items to be dispensed by a ‘‘vending 

facility’’ and ‘‘vending machine,’’ and 

would clarify that services may only be 

dispensed at a vending facility that is 

not a vending machine. The proposed 

definition of ‘‘vending facility’’ also 

would make clear that updated methods 

of operating a vending facility would 

constitute ‘‘vending facilities.’’ 

Furthermore, the Department proposes 

to align the application of the priority 

for blind vendors on Federal property 

administered by NPS and NASA with 

the proposed definition of ‘‘vending 

facility.’’ Finally, the Department 

proposes to add a regulation regarding 

the severability of the provisions in part 

395, which is not substantive and would 

not impact the analysis of costs or 

benefits of these proposed regulations. 

Although some of the changes 

proposed in this NPRM are already 

permissible, the Department has learned 

through inquiries from SLAs and 

licensed blind vendor constituent 

groups that there is inconsistency 

among SLAs with the implementation of 

available flexibilities to modernize and 

evolve the RSVFP, thereby making these 

proposed regulatory changes necessary. 

2. RSVFP Funding Sources 

When Congress enacted the R–S Act 

in 1936, and subsequently amended it 

in 1954 and 1974, it did not appropriate 

Federal funds for the RSVFP. It also has 

not done so through annual 

Appropriations laws, as it could have 

done.36 Therefore, there is no Federal 

funding specifically appropriated for the 

administration and operation of the 

RSVFP, which is administered by the 

SLA in 51 States. 

The RSVFP operates based on 

multiple funding sources. The three 

primary sources are: VR program 

funds,37 State appropriations, and 

RSVFP set-aside funds. The amount of 

each type of funds available in any 

given State varies and depends on a 

wide range of factors unique to each 

State. Each of these funding sources are 

discussed separately below. 

VR Program Funds: The VR program 

is the largest source of funding for the 

RSVFP. This has been true since 1954 

when the Vocational Rehabilitation 

Amendments (which also amended the 

R–S Act) amended the Smith-Fess Act 

to permit the VR program to engage in 

certain activities for the benefit of the 

RSVFP, such as the acquisition of 

vending facilities and equipment and 

the purchase of initial stocks and 

supplies. Prior to that time, States could 

not use VR program funds to pay for 

costs associated with the RSVFP. The 

acquisition of vending facilities and 

other equipment for the benefit of the 

RSVFP remained an authorized service 

to groups under the VR program when 

the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 

(Rehabilitation Act) superseded the 

Smith-Fess Act, and this service 

remains permissible today. 

To be clear, the VR program is 

separate and distinct from the RSVFP; 

however, section 103(b)(1) of the 

Rehabilitation Act continues to 

authorize States to use VR program 

funds to pay for certain RSVFP costs. 

Because it is an allowable VR activity, 

State VR agencies 38 may pay for cost of 

acquiring vending facilities and other 

equipment for the benefit of the RSVFP 

with either Federal VR grant funds or 

non-Federal funds, whereas previously 

SLAs relied on State funds, RSVFP setaside funds, and any other source of 

available funds to pay necessary RSVFP 

expenditures. 

The VR program operates on a 

mixture of Federal grant funds and nonFederal funds used to match those 

Federal grant funds. Specifically, 

section 110(a) of the Rehabilitation Act 

establishes a statutory formula that 

determines the Federal grant amount 

that each State receives; section 

111(a)(1) makes clear that this Federal 

grant pays only the Federal share of the 

total costs of the VR program. Section 

101(a)(3) of the Rehabilitation Act 

requires States to assure they will 

provide a non-Federal share of the total 

VR program costs, and section 7(14) of 

the Rehabilitation Act defines ‘‘Federal 

share’’ as 78.7 percent of the total costs, 

making the required non-Federal share 

21.3 percent of the total costs. This 

means that the State can draw down 

$78.70 in available 39 Federal VR grant 

funds for every $21.30 in non-Federal 

expenditures it incurs (i.e., almost a $4 

to $1 return of investment to the State 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS2
2564 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 6 / Friday, January 10, 2025 / Proposed Rules 

40 34 CFR 395.1(s). For purposes of RSVFP setaside funds, ‘‘assessments against the net proceeds’’ 

of each RSVFP vending facility vary from State to 

State and are generally based on a percentage of 

each vending facility’s net income (i.e., income 

minus costs, in other words, the profit). This 

percentage must be approved by the Secretary of 

Education as reasonable (34 CFR 395.9(a)) and is 

generally contained in the State’s RSVFP rules, 

which are developed in active participation with 

the State’s Elected Committee of Blind Vendors and 

approved by the Secretary of Education. 34 CFR 

395.4 and 395.14. Once the percentage is approved 

by the Secretary, each licensed blind vendor 

assigned to a RSVFP vending facility must 

contribute that percentage of their net income to the 

RSVFP set-aside funds. This contribution 

constitutes the ‘‘assessment’’ mentioned in the 

definition of ‘‘set-aside funds.’’ States are not 

required to have set-aside funds; therefore, there are 

States that do not assess a set-aside fee. 

41For purposes of the RSVFP, unassigned 

vending machine income refers to the percentage of 

the net proceeds (i.e., profits) paid to the SLA by 

the Federal agency on whose property the vending 

machine is located when there is no licensed blind 

vendor assigned to operate that vending machine. 

See 34 CFR 395.1(z). Authorized uses of unassigned 

Federal vending machine income by the SLA can 

be found at 34 CFR 395.8(c), and the income 

sharing requirements are found at 34 CFR 395.32. 

Vending machine income is assigned to a blind 

vendor if it accrues from a vending machine not 

operated by a blind vendor that is in direct 

competition with a vending facility operated by a 

blind vendor on the same Federal property 

pursuant to 34 CFR 395.32(b). Under 34 CFR 

395.33(c), 50% of the income received by the 

Federal agency from vending machines on Federal 

property that are not in direct competition with a 

vending facility operated by a blind vendor must be 

paid to the SLA. Under 34 CFR 395.33(d), 30 

percent of the income received by the Federal 

agency from vending machines on Federal property 

that are not in direct competition with a vending 

facility operated by a blind vendor, and which are 

on Federal property at which at least 50 percent of 

the total hour worked on the premises occurs 

during a period other than normal working hours 

must be paid to the SLA. 

42 In addition to unassigned Federal vending 

machine income, there can be vending machine 

income accruing to the SLA from non-Federal 

property. However, the vending machine income 

regulations in 34 CFR part 395 only govern income 

from vending machines on Federal property and its 

disposition. 

43For example, in FY 2023, SLAs reported that 

$16,717,487 in Federal VR funding, $1,198,602 in 

State funding, and $3,748,522 in RSVFP set-aside 

funds were used for the purchase, maintenance and 

replacement of equipment for the benefit of the 

RSVFP. 

for its non-Federal funds spent), even 

for those costs incurred under the VR 

program for the benefit of the RSVFP. 

Under the VR program, States may 

use a variety of sources for satisfying the 

non-Federal share requirement. 

However, the two primary sources in 

the context of the RSVFP are State 

appropriations and RSVFP set-aside 

funds. State VR agencies can use other 

non-Federal funds that may be available 

for these expenditures, and these 

amounts vary from State to State and 

from year to year. 

State Appropriations: With respect to 

State appropriations, the availability of 

funds dedicated to the RSVFP varies 

from State to State. Some States 

appropriate funds to the RSVFP, while 

others do not. However, State 

appropriations generally comprise the 

largest source of non-Federal funding 

for the VR program at the State level. As 

described above, States may use nonFederal funds under the VR program to 

pay allowable RSVFP costs; this means 

they may use State appropriations 

dedicated to the RSVFP or that are 

assigned to the VR program since these 

costs are allowable under both 

programs. 

RSVFP Set-Aside Funds: RSVFP setaside funds are the third primary source 

of funding available for certain costs 

associated with the administration and 

operation of the RSVFP. Pursuant to 34 

CFR 395.1(s), ‘‘set-aside funds’’ are 

funds that accrue to an SLA from an 

assessment against the net proceeds 40 of 

each vending facility in the RSVFP and 

any unassigned vending machine 

income 41 from vending machines on 

Federal property which accrues to the 

SLA.42 Therefore, RSVFP set-aside 

funds consist of contributions from 

RSVFP vendor profits and a percentage 

of unassigned Federal vending machine 

income that is provided to the SLA. 

The R–S Act authorizes the SLA to 

use RSVFP set-aside funds only for 

certain purposes; maintenance of 

equipment, replacement of equipment, 

and the purchase of new equipment are 

the three most relevant for purposes of 

this NPRM. The SLA is responsible for 

the administration and expenditure of 

these funds. When the SLA pays RSVFP 

costs that are also allowable under the 

VR program with set-aside funds, the 

State may count those expenditures 

towards its non-Federal share 

requirement under the VR program. By 

incurring these allowable RSVFP costs 

with RSVFP set-aside funds, the State 

can access more of its Federal VR grant 

funds that remain available to it. 

Following is a table that describes the 

amount of RSVFP expenditures incurred 

during a three-year period (FY 2021 

through FY 2023) and the source of 

funds used to pay those expenditures. It 

is important to note that the RSA–15, 

which is the annual data collection 

instrument by SLAs of income and 

expenditures for the RSVFP, collects 

data about expenditures paid with 

RSVFP set-aside funds and unassigned 

Federal vending machine income 

separately. To be clear, unassigned 

Federal vending machine income is 

included in the definition of ‘‘set-aside 

funds’’ at 34 CFR 395.1(s), but the RSA– 

15 collects the amount of expenditures 

paid with vendor assessments (which 

would be the ‘‘set-aside’’ amount) and 

unassigned Federal vending machine 

income separately. 

FY 2021–2023 RANDOLPH-SHEPPARD EXPENDITURES BY SOURCE OF FUNDING

FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023 

Federal Vending Machine Income ......................................................................................... $3,103,501 $3,077,666 $3,616,697 

Non-Federal Vending Machine Income ................................................................................. 10,589,070 10,662,860 10,480,002 

RSVFP Set-Aside .................................................................................................................. 9,943,153 8,783,719 10,446,738 

State Appropriated Funds ...................................................................................................... 8,002,944 9,929,055 9,353,040 

VR Federal Funds ................................................................................................................. 38,392,506 40,713,782 45,604,065 

Other Sources of Funding ..................................................................................................... 364,236 210,264 584,218 

Total Funds Expended ................................................................................................... 70,384,755 73,377,346 80,084,760 

3. Fiscal Impact of RSVFP Expenditures 

on the VR Program 

According to data submitted by SLAs 

to RSA annually through the RSA–15 

report, VR program funds represent the 

dominant source of funding used for 

most expenditures incurred for the 

benefit of the RSVFP with respect to 

vending facilities and other equipment 

and vending machines. RSVFP set-aside 

funds represent other critical sources of 

funding for these expenditures, albeit 

much smaller sources than those 

expenditures incurred under the VR 

program for the benefit of the RSVFP.43

When States pay RSVFP-related costs 

with non-Federal funds, it can have a 

direct impact on the VR program as 

described herein. 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 6 / Friday, January 10, 2025 / Proposed Rules 2565 

44 In recent years, Congress has provided the 

Department with authority, through appropriations 

language, to repurpose any available Federal VR 

program funds remaining after the VR reallotment 

process is complete. Recently, those funds were 

repurposed, for example, to provide new 

discretionary grant programs assisting individuals 

with disabilities obtain competitive integrated 

employment (CIE). 

45The VR funds that lapsed and are described 

herein are in addition to the funds that Congress 

repurposed for the DIF. Most of the lapsed funds 

were VR grant funds that were matched and carried 

over into the succeeding fiscal year, as permitted by 

section 19 of the Rehabilitation Act, but not spent 

for a variety of reasons. At least some of these 

lapsed funds represent a portion of the minimum 

15 percent in VR grant funds reserved by VR 

agencies for the provision of pre-employment 

transition services to students with disabilities, as 

required by section 110(d)(1) of the Rehabilitation 

Act, but never spent. When funds lapse, neither 

RSA nor the States can obligate or draw down the 

funds. The total amount of lapsed funds is an 

estimate until final closeout of awards. 

As noted in the ‘‘VR Program’’ section 

of ‘‘RSVFP Funding Sources’’ above, 

pursuant to sections 110(a) and 

111(a)(1) of the Rehabilitation Act, each 

State receives a Federal grant, based on 

a formula, to administer the VR program 

and pay the Federal share (i.e., 78.7 

percent) of costs of that program. RSA 

awards the VR grant to each State for a 

one-year period; however, a State may 

carry over unspent Federal funds for use 

into a second year, pursuant to section 

19 of the Rehabilitation Act, if the State 

provided sufficient non-Federal match 

(i.e., 21.3 percent) by September 30 of 

the year of appropriation (i.e., the year 

in which the grant was awarded). If a 

State is unable to spend all of its funds 

by the end of the year of appropriation 

or provide sufficient match to carry the 

funds over into a second year by the end 

of the year of appropriation, a State may 

relinquish its unspent VR funds to RSA 

in accordance with section 110(b) of the 

Rehabilitation Act; RSA, in turn, awards 

these funds to other States that can use 

them and provide the requisite match 

prior to the end of the year of 

appropriation. 

Despite statutory provisions that 

allow for the carryover of funds for use 

in a second year and the ability to 

relinquish Federal VR funds so they 

may be reallotted to other States that 

can use those funds, there has been an 

increasing trend in recent years in the 

amount of Federal VR funds remaining 

available after reallotment. The VR 

funds that remain available after the VR 

program reallotment process, because 

States did not request to receive all 

funds that were available during that 

process, are unavailable for VR program 

use after the expiration of the year of 

appropriation for which the funds were 

awarded and have been repurposed by 

Congress for new discretionary grant 

programs assisting individuals with 

disabilities under the Disability 

Innovation Fund (DIF).44 Similarly, the 

VR program funds that lapsed after the 

carryover year because they were 

retained by the VR agencies but not 

spent by the end of that year were 

unavailable for VR program use after the 

end of the carryover year and were 

returned to Treasury. According to 

RSA’s fiscal data at the end of the award 

period, in FYs 2021 and 2022 VR State 

agencies lapsed 45 a total of 

approximately $139.6 million and $90.8 

million, respectively, of Federal VR 

grant funds awarded to States. 

RSA has learned over the years as part 

of its monitoring efforts that there is no 

single reason for the unspent VR funds. 

For example, some States are not able to 

match their full VR grant award and, 

thus, relinquish the unmatched funds to 

RSA during the reallotment process. 

Other States match and reserve the full 

15 percent minimum required for the 

provision of pre-employment transition 

services to students with disabilities, 

but for a variety of reasons, are not able 

to expend the full amount reserved by 

the end of the carryover period; these 

funds, however, cannot be spent for any 

other VR program purpose and so they 

remain unspent and lapse. Still other 

States can match their full grant awards, 

but do not expend their full Federal 

award because they either do not have 

sufficient State personnel or community 

providers necessary to use the funds to 

serve VR program participants. 

Therefore, to the extent that States can 

provide additional match beyond the 

requisite match to access funds 

available through the reallotment 

process, and to the extent that States are 

not currently able to expend all of their 

fully matched funds, it appears there 

would be sufficient funds remaining 

available for States to access to cover at 

least some of the costs that could be 

generated by these proposed regulations 

without negatively impacting direct 

services to individuals with disabilities 

served under the VR program. 

However, the same is not likely to be 

true for those States that cannot match 

their full VR grant. Even though excess 

VR funds remain available, these States 

are not able to access those additional 

funds because they cannot provide the 

requisite non-Federal share of 21.3 

percent. Similarly, States reserving 

funds as required by section 110(d)(1) of 

the Rehabilitation Act for the provision 

of pre-employment transition services 

would not be able to use those funds for 

costs associated with RSVFP vending 

facilities and vending machines under 

these proposed regulations because 

those funds must be reserved solely for 

the provision of pre-employment 

transition services. 

While those funds appear to be 

available for expenditure, they are not 

available for an unfettered use. To the 

extent States in either of these categories 

(i.e., those unable to fully match their 

VR grant or those with reserved, but 

unspent, funds for the provision of preemployment transition services) would 

choose to acquire vending equipment, 

for example, in connection with these 

proposed regulations, it is likely there 

would be less funds available in those 

States for the delivery of direct services 

under the VR program to individuals 

with disabilities to assist them in 

achieving employment outcomes. 

Finally, as explained further in the 

‘‘RSVFP Funding Sources’’ section 

above, it is likely that the proposed 

regulations would result in SLAs 

receiving additional opportunities for 

blind vendors to operate vending 

facilities resulting in an increase in 

assessments on earnings from blind 

vendors set aside by the SLA and 

potentially an increase in unassigned 

Federal vending machine income if 

blind vendors are not available to 

operate all opportunities for vending 

machines on Federal property. See 

‘‘RSVFP Set-Aside Funds’’ in the 

‘‘RSVFP Funding Sources’’ section 

above for a more detailed discussion of 

RSVFP set aside funds and their 

requirements. 

The SLAs could use these increased 

set-aside funds to purchase new 

equipment or maintain or replace 

equipment for the benefit of the RSVFP, 

and these expenditures could count 

towards the State’s non-Federal share 

under the VR program. It is possible 

States receiving the increased set-aside 

funds under the RSVFP may be able to 

access more Federal VR funds (i.e., more 

of their own VR grant funds and, to the 

extent funds are available, more funds 

during reallotment), which would 

benefit both the RSVFP and individuals 

with disabilities. The interplay between 

the VR program and the RSVFP will be 

analyzed more fully below with respect 

to the benefits and costs of these 

proposed regulations. 

Furthermore, we believe that the 

proposed regulations would benefit 

blind vendors who would have more 

opportunities to operate evolving 

vending facilities and provide more 

choices for customers who use the 

vending facilities. 

Discussion of Costs and Benefits 

Overview: After conducting a costs 

and benefits analysis of these proposed 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS2
2566 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 6 / Friday, January 10, 2025 / Proposed Rules 

46While costs to convert vending facilities are 

allowable under the VR program for the benefit of 

the RSVFP and, thus, may be paid with VR program 

funds (both Federal and non-Federal), these costs 

are not allowable under the RSVFP with RSVFP setaside funds. 

regulations, the Department believes 

additional net costs are likely for the 

acquisition of vending facilities and 

equipment for some SLAs and State VR 

agencies, as they replace outdated 

equipment and identify additional or 

more modern vending facility 

opportunities for blind vendors to the 

extent they are not already doing so 

under current Department guidance. We 

also expect that the proposed 

regulations could result in VR agencies 

incurring additional costs to convert 

existing vending facilities from one type 

of business model to another and 

purchase initial stocks and supplies for 

those new vending facilities to allow 

them to evolve with the vendors’ needs 

to remain competitive and selfsupporting, as is the purpose of the 

RSVFP. Although current Department 

guidance permits these costs, the 

Department recognizes there is 

inconsistency among States, with some 

working with blind vendors to 

modernize and evolve the RSVFP, while 

others remain locked in more traditional 

RSVFP business models.46

Despite some anticipated increased 

expenditures to be incurred by States, 

particularly those incurred under the 

VR program, these same expenditures, if 

paid with non-Federal funds, could 

increase the amount of Federal VR 

funds States may draw down, to the 

extent Federal funds are available. 

When States use non-Federal funds to 

pay these allowable RSVFP 

expenditures and, thus, increase the 

amount of matching funds they could 

otherwise provide, States may receive 

more Federal VR funds to the extent 

they are available, thereby potentially 

incurring more costs under the VR 

program for purposes related to the 

RSVFP. See a more comprehensive 

discussion of the VR program as a 

‘‘RSVFP Funding Source’’ above. 

Furthermore, the Department believes 

that the proposed regulations would 

benefit blind vendors and customers 

who use RSVFP vending facilities 

through increased earnings and 

increased product selection, 

respectively, to the extent the products 

are not already available through the 

vending facilities, given the 

inconsistency nationwide with the 

scope of articles sold or dispensed 

through RSVFP vending facilities. In so 

doing, licensed blind vendors would 

benefit by increased earnings, expanded 

vending opportunities, and increased 

customer satisfaction. Through 

increased earnings to the licensed blind 

vendors, the State would benefit as well 

through increases to the RSVFP setaside funds, to the extent the State 

places assessments on vendor net 

proceeds to accrue such funds. 

The Department believes the benefits 

to blind vendors and their customers 

generated by the proposed rule’s 

flexibilities under the RSVFP will 

outweigh the increased expenditures by 

the states and the Federal Government. 

Non-Monetized Benefits of the Proposed 

Regulations 

1. Definition of ‘‘Articles’’ 

We anticipate that the proposed 

definition of ‘‘articles’’ would provide 

clarification on and consistency for 

implementation of the provisions 

relating to vending facilities and 

vending machines (which are a type of 

vending facility) and could result in an 

increase in the variety of articles sold in 

vending facilities under the RSVFP. 

This could also potentially lead to 

increased income for blind vendors and 

an increase in set-aside assessments 

received by the SLAs. 

In FY 2023, gross sales for the RSVFP 

were $747,455,376. Of this, blind 

vendor gross income represented 

$147,206,158. We estimate that up to 48 

of the 51 SLAs would make changes to 

increase the variety of articles that may 

be sold in vending facilities in their 

States due to this proposed change. The 

Department uses this estimate because 

three SLAs are quite small, with only 

one to two blind vendors in the 

program, and these small SLAs may not 

have the capacity or customer demand 

to increase the variety of articles sold in 

their vending facilities. While some 

States already allow vending facilities to 

sell articles that were not traditionally 

sold by blind vendors, since there is 

nothing in the R–S Act to preclude such 

sales, we expect that this clarification 

would lead to the sale of a larger variety 

of articles through existing vending 

facilities in most States. Because the 

permit for a vending facility, other than 

a cafeteria, is negotiated between the 

Federal agency and SLA prior to the 

placement of the blind vendor, it is 

necessary for all SLAs and Federal 

agencies to have greater clarity on what 

is permitted to ensure consistency 

throughout the RSVFP. 

While we do not know how much 

additional income for blind vendors 

would be generated by the sale of the 

increased variety of articles, we expect 

that this change could yield an increase 

in gross sales in the 48 SLAs that are 

likely to make at least some changes to 

existing vending facilities as a result of 

this proposed change because, while 

many blind vendors are already selling 

the types of articles clarified as 

allowable in these proposed regulations, 

it is likely that some Federal agencies 

and SLAs would provide additional 

opportunities for blind vendor sales as 

a result of the clarity provided by these 

proposed definitions, particularly in 

areas where blind vendors are not 

selling the types of articles clarified in 

this proposal. Additional income for 

blind vendors will also result in 

additional set-aside funds that SLAs in 

States that have an assessment on blind 

vendor net proceeds can use for the 

authorized purposes under 34 CFR 

395.9. 

In addition, if contractors are already 

operating vending machines that sell 

articles on Federal property, under the 

proposed regulations, SLAs would be 

entitled to receive a priority for 

establishing vending machines operated 

by blind vendors, and if no blind vendor 

in that State is available, receive any 

unassigned Federal vending machine 

income funds from the operation of 

such contractor operated vending 

machines. See ‘‘RSVFP Set-Aside 

Funds’’ in ‘‘RSVFP Funding Sources’’ 

section of the RIA’s Background above 

for a more detailed discussion. 

We welcome public comment 

regarding the likely impact on gross 

program sales and blind vendor income 

due to the proposed definition of 

‘‘articles’’ and the changes that would 

result from it. 

2. Definition of ‘‘Vending Facility’’ 

We anticipate that adding illustrative 

examples of vending facilities to 

provide the best interpretation of the 

terms ‘‘snack bars,’’ ‘‘cart services,’’ 

‘‘shelters,’’ and ‘‘counters’’ as including 

micro markets, laundry and catering 

establishments, shops that dispense 

articles, such as gift shops and retail 

stores, and other establishments, such as 

food trucks and pop-up stands, would 

provide additional clarity regarding the 

broad range of vending facilities 

encompassed by the RSVFP. 

While we know that some States 

already allow blind vendors to operate 

these types of vending facilities under 

the RSVFP, and as such is consistent 

with current Department guidance, we 

anticipate that the inclusion of this 

modernized, illustrative list would 

clarify that blind vendors are not 

limited to the business models listed in 

the statute, as they existed in 1974, and 

would encourage SLAs and Federal 

agencies to allow for the addition of 

modernized types of these vending 

facilities as technology continues to 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 6 / Friday, January 10, 2025 / Proposed Rules 2567 

47See preamble discussion related to proposed 

changes to 34 CFR 395.30 based on the vending 

requirements that maybe unique to NPS and NASA. 

48U.S. Department of the Interior (2023, April 4). 

National Park Service: Authorized Concessioners. 

National Park Service: Concessions. Retrieved May 

17, 2024, from https://www.nps.gov/subjects/ 

concessions/authorized-concessioners.htm. 

49The NPS analysis excludes sites in Wyoming 

since Wyoming does not currently participate in the 

RSVFP. 

evolve. For example, the Department is 

aware, through its work with SLAs, that 

many States already allow extensive use 

of micro markets under the RSVFP. 

While some SLAs have inquired about 

the option to allow food trucks, the 

extent to which State RSVFPs currently 

have any food trucks operating is 

unclear. 

The Department welcomes public 

comment on the number of blind 

vendors operating micro markets, 

laundry or catering establishments, 

retail shops, pop-up stands, or food 

trucks, either directly or through 

arrangements with third parties to do so 

under the RSVFP, as well as information 

on the costs associated with operating 

these types of vending facilities. The 

Department is also interested in 

information about the extent to which 

Federal agencies are issuing permits for 

such types of vending facilities and the 

likely impact of the addition of this 

illustrative list to the ‘‘vending facility’’ 

definition. 

3. Definition of ‘‘Vending Machine’’ 

The Department intends that the 

proposed change to amend the 

definition of ‘‘vending machine’’ by 

removing the qualifier ‘‘for purposes of 

assigning vending machine income 

under this part’’ would clarify that the 

definition of ‘‘vending machine’’ would 

apply throughout part 395. The 

Department expects that the proposed 

changes to the definition of vending 

machine to replace ‘‘coin or currency’’ 

with ‘‘cash’’ and add ‘‘electronic 

payment methods’’ to the payment 

methods specified would clarify the 

methods available to accept payment 

through vending machines, reflect 

modern methods of payment aligned 

with industry standards, simplify the 

current regulatory text, and meet 

changing demand from vending facility 

customers. 

For blind vendors who are not already 

accepting electronic payment, the 

addition of electronic payment as a 

payment option would likely result in 

additional sales as individuals who do 

not carry cash would be able to use the 

vending machines. To provide a 

reasonable estimate of the impact of this 

change, the Department is interested in 

public comment on the number of 

vending machines operated by blind 

vendors under the RSVFP and the 

number of such vending machines that 

do not already accept electronic 

payment. 

The proposed change to remove 

‘‘services’’ from the definition of 

‘‘vending machine’’ would clarify that 

vending machines may only dispense 

articles of a tangible nature, leaving the 

dispensing of services to other types of 

vending facilities and their appropriate 

auxiliary equipment (i.e., that are not 

vending machines). This change would 

better align the regulations with the 

statute’s intent. RSA is not aware of any 

blind vendor operating vending 

machines that dispense services so we 

do not believe this proposed change 

would have any quantifiable benefits. 

However, as noted above, we invite 

comment on the proposed removal of 

‘‘services’’ from within the vending 

machine definition and the impact of 

this proposed change. 

The proposal to remove the specific 

exclusion for machines providing 

recreational services and pay telephones 

would streamline the regulations. This 

exclusion would no longer be necessary 

as the proposed change to remove 

‘‘services’’ from the definition of 

vending machine would clarify that 

such services may not be dispensed by 

vending machines, as defined in the 

proposed regulations. We do not 

anticipate any quantifiable benefits to 

this change since it preserves the status 

quo. 

4. Priority on Certain Federal Property 

The proposed change to align the 

application of the priority for blind 

vendors on Federal property 

administered by the NPS and NASA 47

with the proposed definition of 

‘‘vending facility’’, to include the sale of 

a wider variety of articles, as well as the 

related changes, could provide 

additional employment opportunities 

for blind vendors and income for SLAs 

and blind vendors, but it is unclear how 

significant the impact would be. 

As of May 17, 2024, there were 50 

NPS 48 sites located in States with 

RSVFP programs that had only one 

concessioner. Based on the current 

regulations, blind vendors therefore do 

not receive a priority for the operation 

of concessions on these sites. However, 

under the proposed regulations, blind 

vendors would receive a priority if the 

concessions on the NPS site meet the 

proposed definition of ‘‘vending 

facility.’’ As a result, blind vendors 

could have additional employment 

opportunities at these sites once the 

existing concessioner contracts or 

permits expire and become available, 

thereby not only increasing income for 

licensed blind vendors personally but 

also for some SLAs through any 

assessments on the blind vendor’s net 

proceeds treated as set-aside funds. 

However, it is not clear to what extent 

the concessions on NPS sites meet the 

proposed definition of ‘‘vending 

facility’’; the Department invites public 

comment on this topic, particularly with 

respect to whether the income generated 

will help offset any costs incurred due 

to these proposed regulations. 

In addition, it is not clear to what 

extent blind vendors would take 

advantage of these potential 

opportunities due to the remoteness and 

lack of public transportation to many of 

these NPS sites; the Department also 

welcomes public comment on this topic 

to help inform the cost-benefit analysis 

associated with this proposed change. 

A significantly higher percentage of 

blind vendor income comes from the 

operation of cafeterias than other types 

of vending facilities. In FY 2023, 65 of 

the 635 vending facilities operated on 

Federal property were cafeterias. The 

gross sales from those 65 cafeterias were 

$429,396,840, while the gross sales from 

all 635 vending facilities were only 

$747,455,376, meaning that 57.44 

percent of the total gross sales came 

from cafeterias, even though cafeterias 

represented only 10.2 percent of the 

facilities. Twenty-six 49 of the NPS sites 

that have only one concessioner include 

food service operations. As a result, it is 

possible that this proposed change 

could result in a significant increase in 

the gross sales for blind vendors were 

they to operate the food service 

operations, or other concessions 

meeting the proposed updated 

definition of a vending facility, on these 

NPS sites. 

In addition, to the extent that existing 

commercial concessioners are operating 

vending machines on NPS sites, any 

income received by NPS generated by 

the vending machines would be 

considered unassigned Federal vending 

machine income, the sharing of which 

with SLAs would result in additional 

income transferred from NPS to the 

SLAs for the benefit of the RSVFP. 

Based on currently available 

information, at least four NPS sites with 

only one concessioner currently operate 

vending machines. 

Further, in addition to the new 

employment opportunities that could 

become available on NPS sites with only 

one concessioner, there are 46 other 

NPS sites in States with the RSVFP that 

contract with more than one 

concessioner. Under the current 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS2
2568 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 6 / Friday, January 10, 2025 / Proposed Rules 

regulations, the priority for blind 

vendors on NPS sites does not apply if 

the concessions provide 

accommodations, facilities, or services 

of a scope or of a character not generally 

available at that time in vending 

facilities operated by blind vendors. 

Therefore, the clarification that the 

articles and services that may be sold in 

vending facilities are not limited to 

those traditionally sold by blind 

vendors could lead to additional 

opportunities for blind vendors on these 

NPS sites. 

NASA already affords the priority to 

blind vendors on at least some of its 

sites. However, the Department 

welcomes input on the likely impact of 

these proposed changes for NASA sites. 

Non-Monetized Costs of the Proposed 

Regulations 

1. Implementation of Proposed 

Definitions 

While the Department anticipates that 

the proposed regulations would require 

States to make changes to their current 

implementation of the RSVFP, by 

amending their policies and procedures 

to align them with these proposed 

changes, the proposed regulations 

would provide clarity on the scope of 

other existing opportunities, which 

could lead to additional vending 

opportunities for blind vendors. 

Beyond the costs associated with 

updating their policies and procedures, 

the Department does not believe that 

implementation of the proposed 

regulations would necessitate any 

required costs for SLAs or blind vendors 

immediately. However, it is likely that 

blind vendors would increase the types 

of articles sold through vending 

facilities and vending machines, 

modernize with updates to their 

vending machine payment technology, 

and pursue new vending facility 

business models, which would likely 

lead to additional costs to the SLA and 

VR agency using, as applicable, RSVFP 

set-aside funds and VR program funds, 

for the costs to convert the facilities 

from one type of facility to another since 

these costs are typically borne by the VR 

program and not the blind vendor. To 

the extent the State uses non-Federal 

funds to pay these increased costs 

incurred for converting from one type of 

vending facility to another, the State 

may be able to draw down and expend 

additional Federal VR grant funds for 

the benefit of individuals with 

disabilities, including the RSVFP, 

thereby potentially further increasing 

costs to the State and Federal 

Governments. See ‘‘RSVFP Sources of 

Funding’’ in the ‘‘Background’’ section 

of this RIA for a more comprehensive 

discussion of the nexus between the VR 

program and RSVFP, including the use 

of non-Federal funds for matching 

purposes, to benefit the RSVFP. 

In addition, changes to the definition 

of ‘‘vending facility’’ could also lead to 

Federal agencies applying the priority 

more often with the introduction of 

more modern business models of 

vending. With the clarification of the 

broad array of articles that can be sold 

through vending machines, it could also 

be that Federal agencies will need to 

apply the priority for vending machines 

that were previously operated by nonblind vendors or share additional 

Federal vending machine income with 

the SLA that they receive from those 

vending machines. 

Due to limited information, the 

Department has no reliable method for 

estimating how many blind vendors will 

pursue these changes, or the likely 

resultant costs, but based on the 

information currently available, we do 

not anticipate that the proposed 

regulations would result in significant 

costs. However, the Department 

specifically requests public comments 

on whether the proposed definition of 

‘‘articles’’ and the proposed changes to 

the definition of ‘‘vending facility’’ 

would have a quantifiable effect on the 

implementation of the RSVFP on 

Federal agencies, and particularly on 

military bases. It is unclear to the 

Department how many RSVFP vending 

facilities on Department of Defense 

property are already dispensing articles 

as broadly defined in the proposed 

regulation or operating business models 

proposed as illustrative examples of 

those listed in the R–S Act. For that 

reason, we specifically request public 

comment on the impact that these 

proposed regulations may have. 

2. Definition of ‘‘Articles’’ 

While predicting how licensed blind 

vendors might change behavior due to 

the proposed revisions to the definition 

of ‘‘vending facility’’ and ‘‘vending 

machine’’ and the addition of a 

definition of ‘‘articles’’ to include 

tangible personal property is 

speculative, we anticipate that some 

blind vendors may choose to increase 

the variety of articles they sell in their 

vending facilities, including vending 

machines. We note that blind vendors 

would not be required to make any 

changes as a result of the proposed 

revisions to the definition of ‘‘articles’’ 

and that we do not estimate any certain 

costs resulting from this proposed 

change. These proposed revisions may 

initially result in additional costs to 

blind vendors in the form of initial 

supplies to the extent that blind vendors 

choose to take on such cost. The 

Department believes that blind vendors 

would only assume these optional costs 

if there is a reasonable assurance that 

the resultant income would offset the 

costs. Therefore, to the extent that blind 

vendors choose to make any changes as 

a result of this proposed change, we 

assume that blind vendors would be 

able to recoup their initial costs when 

the items are eventually sold. 

Similarly, these proposed revisions 

also could result in additional costs to 

SLAs and VR agencies in the purchase 

of new equipment or replacement (e.g., 

improvement) of existing equipment as 

blind vendors expand the variety of 

articles they sell. For example, this 

proposed revision may result in 

additional costs for SLAs and VR 

agencies as new shelving and other 

equipment may be needed to display the 

new items. To the extent the State pays 

these additional costs with non-Federal 

funds used for matching purposes under 

the VR program and, thus, increases the 

amount of Federal VR funds it may 

draw down and expend, this spending 

by the State could further increase costs 

for the Federal Government. 

In addition, if private contractors are 

already operating vending machines on 

Federal property that sell articles that 

the Department is now clarifying can be 

sold by blind vendors through vending 

machines (i.e., articles that may not 

have traditionally been provided by 

blind vendors), the Federal agencies, not 

contractors, would have to provide up 

to 50 percent of the vending machine 

income they receive from the operation 

of the contractor’s vending machines to 

the SLA under the vending income 

sharing requirements. The vending 

machine income sharing requirements 

impact Federal agencies for as long as 

vending machines are operated by a 

private contractor. This requirement 

continues even when an SLA does not 

have an available blind vendor to 

operate the vending machines at the 

Federal property in question. 

The Department recognizes the 

proposed regulation could increase the 

application of the priority on Federal 

property resulting in Federal agencies 

entering into permits with SLAs to 

allow blind vendors to operate vending 

facilities including vending machines 

once a private company’s contract 

expires. A consequence of SLAs seeking 

permits to assert the priority in the 

operation of vending facilities including 

vending machines on Federal property 

could be that the Federal agency would 

decline to enter into future contracts 

with private companies currently 

operating vending facilities including 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 6 / Friday, January 10, 2025 / Proposed Rules 2569 

50The total amount of lapsed funds is an estimate 

until final closeout of awards. 

51The VR program funds described herein as 

lapsing are in addition to the VR funds that were 

repurposed by Congress for the DIF. See also 

footnote 49. 

vending machines on such property. 

The Department recognizes this could 

be a cost to private companies. 

However, it is unclear how many 

private companies this would affect. 

The Department does not have data 

available on the number of private 

companies operating vending machines 

on Federal and other property and is 

therefore unable to quantify or monetize 

possible costs. The Department requests 

comment on potential costs for private 

companies operating vending machines 

on Federal and other property. 

The Department welcomes public 

comment on the likely cost impact of 

these changes to blind vendors, SLAs, 

and Federal agencies. We are especially 

interested in comments regarding the 

impact these costs could have on the 

State’s ability to draw down additional 

Federal funds under the VR program, 

thereby further increasing costs to the 

State and Federal Governments. We are 

particularly interested in receiving 

comments whether these potential costs, 

particularly those incurred with nonFederal funds and used for matching 

purposes, would be offset by the 

benefits received by blind vendors 

because of the increased vending 

opportunities and increased earnings 

and the benefits received by other 

individuals with disabilities because of 

services provided by the increased VR 

funds received as a result of the 

matching funds. 

3. Definition of ‘‘Vending Facility’’ 

Regarding the proposed revision to 

include modern illustrative examples of 

vending facilities, the Department 

believes that the proposed regulations 

may encourage some blind vendors to 

alter or expand their business model to 

include, for example, food trucks or 

micro markets. While we do not 

estimate any certain costs resulting from 

this proposed revision, if blind vendors 

determine that they require new 

equipment to pursue these options, 

there may be additional costs to the SLA 

and VR agency, including the purchase 

of equipment. Such equipment 

purchases may be paid for with Federal 

VR State grant funds, State funds, or R– 

S Act set-aside funds. Such equipment 

could also be rented or leased. 

In FY 2023, VR agencies used 

$12,446,353 of VR State grant funds to 

purchase new and replace (e.g., 

improve) equipment under the VR 

program for the benefit of the RSVFP. 

Because the proposed regulations could 

enable some vending facilities to 

convert from one type of facility to 

another, it is likely that the proposed 

regulations would result in States 

spending at least as much in the first 

year on equipment as they reported 

spending in FY 2023, namely 

$12,446,353. However, we believe that 

the proposed revisions would likely 

lead to States incurring additional costs 

under the VR State grant program in the 

year or years immediately following 

implementation of the proposed 

regulations as blind vendors and SLAs 

take advantage of the flexibilities 

provided by the clarifications in these 

proposed regulations. 

While the potential increase in the 

use of funds from the VR State grants 

program could negatively impact the 

availability of funds for the provision of 

services to individuals with disabilities 

under an approved Individualized Plan 

for Employment (IPE), this is potentially 

unlikely in some States. As discussed 

earlier, many VR State agencies are 

failing to use all of their VR State grant 

funds. See ‘‘Fiscal Impact of RSVFP 

Expenditures on the VR program’’ in the 

Background section of this RIA for a 

discussion of why States fail to expend 

their entire grant amounts. 

According to RSA’s fiscal data, 

between FY 2020 and FY 2022, States 

lapsed over $436.8 million.50 Of the 

total 163 VR awards to States during 

this time, there were at least 60 

instances of VR State agencies returning 

more than $1.3 million each in unused 

VR funds. In seven cases, VR State 

agencies left between $10 million and 

$30.8 million each unspent under the 

VR program, including for the benefit of 

the RSVFP.51 Additionally, in FY 2020, 

$130.1 million of Federal VR State grant 

funds remained available following the 

reallotment of funds, in accordance with 

section 110(b)(2) of the Rehabilitation 

Act, to those States that could match 

them prior to the end of the year of 

appropriation. 

Similarly, in FY 2021 and FY 2022, 

$177.4 million and $264.3 million, 

respectively, remained available 

following the reallotment of funds to 

States that could match the additional 

VR funds in each of those years. 

Although these funds were available to 

any State that could provide the 

requisite match under the VR program 

during the reallotment process, there 

were more funds available than 

requested by States during the VR 

reallotment process, and therefore 

became available under the DIF, through 

which Congress has authorized RSA to 

use the remaining VR funds for 

innovative activities that benefit 

individuals with disabilities in a wide 

variety of ways distinct from the RSVFP 

and the VR program, and other 

Congressionally-directed purposes. In 

other words, Federal funds initially 

appropriated for the VR program, but 

that remained unused by that program, 

were repurposed by Congress. 

When considering that these 

particular funds were initially 

appropriated for the VR program for its 

own use, including for the benefit of the 

RSVFP, it is reasonable to project that 

some of these same funds would likely 

be available to VR agencies—and not 

repurposed by Congress—if States could 

increase their ability to generate match 

to help pay for many of the costs 

resulting from these proposed 

regulations, as described above, such as 

the costs that SLAs and VR agencies 

would bear in purchasing new vending 

equipment or improving vending 

facilities in response to these proposed 

regulations. In other words, to the extent 

States can generate more matching 

funds than they had in previous years 

for the VR program, such as from 

expenditures incurred by SLAs with 

RSVFP set-aside funds, VR agencies 

may be able to access additional VR 

funds (i.e., more of their own VR grant 

funds and, to the extent funds are 

available, more funds during 

reallotment) that otherwise would have 

remained unspent and unused by the 

VR program without impacting the 

amount of VR funds available for 

services to individuals with disabilities. 

For those States that could provide 

the requisite match but were unable to 

spend their VR grants, thus resulting in 

funds lapsing at the end of the carryover 

year, the Department believes these 

proposed changes would clarify the 

breadth of allowable expenditures under 

both the RSVFP and the VR program. In 

clarifying the wide breadth of allowable 

expenditures under these programs, the 

Department anticipates that some SLAs 

and VR agencies could increase their 

expenditures for the benefit of the 

RSVFP and thereby significantly reduce 

the amount of VR funds lapsing each 

year. Because of the large amount of VR 

funds that some VR agencies have 

lapsed in recent years, the Department 

believes that these VR agencies could 

implement policy changes consistent 

with these proposed regulations without 

negatively impacting direct services to 

individual VR program participants. 

Due to the variety of approaches 

available to obtain equipment and the 

lack of relevant data, we cannot 

determine with specificity what the 

likely associated costs may be; the 

Department welcomes public comment 

on this topic so that we can provide a 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS2
2570 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 6 / Friday, January 10, 2025 / Proposed Rules 

52This range was identified based on a sample of 

electronic readers available for purchase from 

online vendors. See also Cramer, Jeff. ‘‘Should I 

Consider a Credit Card Reader Vending Machine?’’ 

Vending How. https://vendinghow.com/article/ 

should-i-consider-a-credit-card-reader-vendingmachine. 

reasonable estimate of the likely cost 

impact on SLAs, VR agencies, and the 

VR State grant program. We are 

particularly interested in comments 

regarding whether VR agencies and 

SLAs believe additional matching funds 

will be available to cover costs that 

might be incurred for some of the 

potential improvements resulting from 

these proposed regulations, thereby 

reducing the amount of VR funds 

remaining unspent and unused by the 

VR program each year. Likewise, we are 

interested in how these increased nonFederal expenditures under the VR 

program could further increase costs to 

the State and any projected offsets to 

those costs by the benefits received by 

the increased opportunities to licensed 

blind vendors and services provided 

under the RSVFP and VR program. We 

also are interested in receiving 

comments from SLAs regarding whether 

these proposed regulations would 

generate increased RSVFP set-aside 

funds, which could be used to pay for 

the costs of acquiring new vending 

machines and appropriate auxiliary 

equipment, as well as the maintenance 

and replacement (i.e., capital 

expenditures) of that equipment, for the 

benefit of the RSVFP. 

4. Definition of ‘‘Vending Machine’’ 

Regarding the proposed revisions to 

the listed payment methods in the 

definition of ‘‘vending machine,’’ to the 

extent that this updated technology has 

not been adopted, some blind vendors 

may choose to install new electronic 

readers on their vending machines. A 

new electronic reader costs 

approximately $300 to $500.52 Since the 

addition of an electronic reader to a 

vending machine would be an 

improvement to equipment as a capital 

expenditure, VR agencies and SLAs may 

pay for the improvement using VR 

program funds and RSVFP set-aside 

funds (as replacement of equipment). 

The Department welcomes public 

comment on the number of vending 

machines under the RSVFP that do not 

have electronic payment options and 

the average cost to purchase an 

electronic reader. In addition, the 

Department welcomes public comment 

on whether vending machines that 

accept electronic payment in addition to 

cash payment result in more vending 

machine income, and if so, how much 

more than those vending machines that 

only accept cash payment. We also are 

particularly interested in comments 

regarding the impact the increased 

revenues to blind vendors will have on 

the RSVFP with respect to set-aside 

funds and, in turn, the impact this could 

have on a State’s ability to generate 

more match under the VR program, 

thereby further potentially increasing 

costs to the State and Federal 

Governments. 

The proposed regulations would no 

longer permit dispensing of services 

through vending machines; however, 

this proposed change will not likely 

have any impact on the RSVFP since we 

are unaware of blind vendors operating 

vending machines that dispense 

services and blind vendors may 

continue to sell services through 

vending facilities and use appropriate 

auxiliary equipment to provide those 

services. 

Similarly, we do not expect the 

proposed change to remove the specific 

exclusion for machines providing 

recreational services and pay telephones 

to have any impact since the machines 

that sell such services would continue 

not to meet the definition of a vending 

machine under the proposed 

regulations. As a result, the Department 

does not estimate any cost associated 

with these proposed changes. To ensure 

that we are not overlooking any 

potential costs associated with these 

proposed changes, as noted earlier, we 

invite public comment on whether there 

is any impact of the proposed change on 

the RSVFP. 

5. Priority on Certain Federal Property 

The proposed revisions to align the 

application of the priority for blind 

vendors on Federal property 

administered by NPS and NASA with 

the proposed definition of ‘‘vending 

facility’’, as well as the related changes, 

are likely to result in additional costs for 

State agencies and NPS, and potentially 

NASA. To the extent that licensed blind 

vendors receive a priority on NPS and 

NASA sites, and the SLAs receive a 

permit to operate a vending facility, 

there would likely be significant startup costs to SLAs, and to VR agencies to 

the extent VR funds are used to benefit 

the RSVFP under these circumstances, 

for the new vending facilities. The 

actual cost would vary significantly 

based on the number of NPS and NASA 

sites on which SLAs receive a permit, 

the type of vending facility on each site, 

and the number of locations. In addition 

to the costs associated with new 

equipment and start-up supplies, these 

proposed revisions would likely result 

in a significant amount of time for SLA 

staff to consult with the on-site official 

responsible for each NPS and NASA site 

to determine what articles and services 

are suitable for sale at a particular 

location. 

In addition, if private contractors are 

already operating vending facilities, 

including vending machines, on NPS or 

NASA sites, the NPS or NASA, would 

have to provide the priority to SLAs for 

blind vendors to operate such vending 

facilities when a contractor’s contract 

expires. However, there is no guarantee 

that an SLA would seek to obtain a 

permit at these sites. A consequence of 

more blind vendors operating vending 

facilities on NPS or NASA property 

could be that the Federal agency would 

decline to enter into future contracts 

with private companies currently 

operating those vending facilities. The 

Department recognizes this could be a 

cost to private companies. However, as 

noted previously, it is unclear how 

many private companies this would 

affect. 

We note that if no blind vendor is 

available to operate vending machines 

on certain NPS or NASA properties and 

the Federal agency does use a private 

company for that operation, the agency 

is required to provide up to 50 percent 

of the vending machine income it 

receives to the SLA. As noted earlier, 

any income an SLA receives due to 

these proposed regulations would 

increase the amount of funds the SLA 

has at its disposal to pay for the costs 

of the equipment. These expenditures 

can be used by the State to count toward 

its match requirement under the VR 

program, thereby increasing its ability to 

potentially access more VR program 

funds (i.e., more of their own VR grant 

funds and, to the extent funds are 

available, more funds during 

reallotment), and thus potentially 

increasing the costs to the State and the 

Federal government. The Department 

welcomes public comment on the cost 

impact to SLAs and Federal agencies of 

these revisions, particularly the NPS 

and NASA, as well as the impact they 

could have on the VR program. 

6. Technical Changes 

The Department does not expect there 

to be any additional costs, beyond the 

time needed to review the revised 

regulations and develop revised policies 

and procedures, as needed, associated 

with the non-substantive wording and 

organizational revisions to 34 CFR 

395.1(x), including removing the phrase 

‘‘and including the vending or exchange 

of changes’’ when describing the 

authorization to sell lottery tickets; and 

removal of the qualifier ‘‘for purposes of 

assigning vending machine income 

under this part’’ to 34 CFR 395.1(y). 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 6 / Friday, January 10, 2025 / Proposed Rules 2571 

53BLS Occupational Employment and Wage 

Statistics, May 2023, State Government Chief 

Executive 11–1011. 

Monetized Costs of the Proposed 

Regulations 

1. Administrative Costs 

While some SLAs may need to only 

align the definitions in their policies 

and procedures with the new proposed 

Federal definitions applicable to the 

RSVFP, other SLAs and VR agencies 

will likely need to make extensive 

changes. To ensure that the Department 

does not underestimate the burden 

associated with these proposed 

regulations in part 395, we are 

calculating the administrative cost 

burden to be $209,299.41 assuming all 

51 SLAs operating their RSVFP review 

the revised regulations and make 

conforming changes to their policies 

and procedures. 

The Department estimates that each 

SLA would have one director spend an 

average of 25 hours, at an hourly rate of 

$135.72 ($67.86 53 per hour multiplied 

by 2.0 to reflect the loaded wage rate), 

reviewing the regulations and making 

conforming changes to their rules. This 

would result in a total cost to the State 

Government of $173,043 (51 SLAs × 25 

hours × $135.72 per hour). 

The Department estimates that each 

SLA would have one State Government 

attorney spend an average of three 

hours, at an hourly rate of $102.32 

($51.16 per hour multiplied by 2.0 to 

reflect the loaded wage rate), reviewing 

the regulations and the conforming 

changes to their rules. This would result 

in a total cost to the State Government 

of $15,654.96 (51 SLAs × 3 hours per 

SLA × $102.32 per hour). 

The Department estimates that it 

would take three hours for an RSA staff 

member to review each State rule 

submitted. This would result in a total 

review time of 153 hours, with an 

hourly loaded wage rate to the 

Government of $61.96. This would 

result in a total cost to the Government 

of $9,479.88 (51 submissions × 3 hours 

per submission × $61.96 per hour). 

The Department estimates that it 

would take three hours for an attorney 

from the Office of the General Counsel 

to review each State rule submitted. 

This would result in a total review time 

of 153 hours, with an hourly loaded 

wage rate to the Federal government of 

$72.69. This would result in a total cost 

to the Federal government of $11,121.57 

(51 submissions × 3 hours per 

submission × $111.03 per hour). 

In total, we estimate that total costs of 

$188,698 to State governments and total 

costs of $20,601 to the Department in 

Year 1 for grand total Year 1 cost of 

$209,299. The Department estimates net 

present value cost of $209,299 over ten 

years. This is equivalent to an 

annualized net cost of $23,300 over ten 

years. 

ANNUAL ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS, 

YEARS 1 THROUGH 10 

Year Net annual 

costs 

Year 1 ................................... $209,299 

Year 2 ................................... 0 

Year 3 ................................... 0 

Year 4 ................................... 0 

Year 5 ................................... 0 

Year 6 ................................... 0 

Year 7 ................................... 0 

Year 8 ................................... 0 

Year 9 ................................... 0 

Year 10 ................................. 0 

Total Net Present Value 

(NPV) ......................... 209,299 

Annualized ..................... 23,300 

Assumptions 

We assume that licensed blind 

vendors and vending facility customers 

would support the proposed changes as 

the proposed changes are likely to result 

in the availability of a wider variety of 

articles sold on Federal and other 

property, more modern business models 

focused on customer convenience, 

additional payment options in vending 

machines, and a resultant increase in 

the revenue generated by vending 

facilities and vending machines. 

While we assume that SLAs would 

support most of the proposed changes, 

some SLAs may have concerns that 

these changes could cause them to 

consider altering plans in their State. 

We acknowledge that some Federal 

agencies may have concerns about the 

proposed changes to what can be sold 

through vending facilities and 

machines. Specifically, because the 

definition of vending machines would 

be clarified by defining ‘‘articles’’ to 

include tangible personal property, 

additional articles that have not 

traditionally been considered articles 

sold through vending machines would 

fall under the proposed definition. As a 

result, the requirement for extending a 

priority to licensed blind vendors for 

vending machines on Federal property 

would apply, as well as the vending 

machine income sharing provisions in 

the R–S Act requiring Federal agencies 

to pay SLAs a portion of vending 

machine income earned by agencies 

when contractors operate vending 

machines on the Federal property. In 

addition, the revised definitions may 

raise concerns for such agencies about 

applying the priority for blind vendors 

to operate more modern business 

models for vending facilities where they 

had not previously considered those 

business models covered under the R– 

S Act. 

Accounting Statement 

As required by OMB Circular A–4, in 

the following table, the Department has 

prepared an accounting statement 

showing the classification of the 

expenditures associated with the 

provisions of these proposed 

regulations. This table provides the best 

estimate of the changes in annual costs 

of these proposed regulations. As 

discussed throughout the RIA, the 

Department is not able to monetize the 

projected benefits of these proposed 

regulations because it is unclear how 

many licensed blind vendors and SLAs 

will take advantage of the flexibilities 

afforded by these proposed regulations 

since some are already doing so based 

on the R–S Act itself. Finally, as the 

Department described previously in the 

background of the preamble, the RSVFP 

suffered some declines as a result of the 

COVID–19 pandemic and the closure of 

Federal buildings. However, even if 

more individuals, whether employees or 

visitors, were to frequent Federal office 

buildings and RSVFP vending facilities 

and vending machines, their increased 

use would result in increased costs to 

the RSVFP. Therefore, it is difficult to 

project any net benefit these policy 

changes would have on the RSVFP. 

ACCOUNTING STATEMENT ANNUALIZED COSTS

Annualized costs 

2% discount rate 

SLAs updating policies and procedures ...................................................................................................................................... $21,007 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS2
2572 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 6 / Friday, January 10, 2025 / Proposed Rules 

ACCOUNTING STATEMENT ANNUALIZED COSTS—Continued 

Annualized costs 

2% discount rate 

Department of Education staff review ......................................................................................................................................... 2,293 

Total ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 23,300 

Alternatives Considered 

We considered adding a definition of 

appropriate auxiliary equipment while 

maintaining all other regulatory 

language as currently written, including 

additional examples of articles that may 

be sold in vending facilities and 

vending machines instead of defining 

‘‘articles’’ to be tangible personal 

property and continuing the practice of 

permitting blind vendors to dispense 

services through vending machines. The 

Department decided the best course of 

action was to proceed with the 

proposals in this document because we 

believe these proposed changes strike 

the right balance of clarity, consistency, 

and future flexibility; costs to Federal 

agencies, SLAs, and licensed blind 

vendors; meeting the needs of today’s 

customer and supporting current and 

future technological advances and 

industry trends while implementing 

Congressional intent to increase 

employment opportunities for blind 

individuals. 

Elsewhere in this section under 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we 

identify and explain burdens 

specifically associated with information 

collection requirements. 

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 

Department invites comments on how to 

make the regulation 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 (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, 

§ 395.1 Terms.) 

• 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 Department certifies that the 

proposed regulation would not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

The U.S. Small Business 

Administration Size Standards define 

vending machine operators (NAICS 

code 445132) as ‘‘small entities’’ if they 

have a total annual revenue below 

$18,500,000 and convenience operators 

as ‘‘small entities’’ if they have a total 

annual revenue below $32,000,000. 

These proposed regulations would affect 

blind vendors and other concessioners 

that meet this definition; therefore, 

these proposed regulations would affect 

small entities, but they would not have 

a significant economic impact on these 

entities based on the information 

currently available. 

The proposed regulations would not 

compel blind vendors to modify their 

operations. While SLAs may request 

additional permits and contracts, there 

is nothing that would require a blind 

vendor to pursue such opportunities. 

Proposed changes would provide blind 

vendors with the opportunity to 

modernize their vending operations and 

increase the types of vending facilities 

they might pursue. Adoption of such 

opportunities is voluntary. 

For concessioners who are not 

licensed blind vendors on NPS sites, 

future contracts may no longer be 

available if the visitor services offered 

meet the revised definition of ‘‘vending 

facility.’’ Despite the potential 

opportunities on at least 46 NPS sites, 

we do not have data that would support 

the determination that this would have 

a significant economic impact on the 

entities. 

For this reason, the proposed 

priorities would impose little to no 

burden on small entities. Blind vendors 

would determine whether to avail 

themselves of these opportunities and 

could weigh any associated costs against 

the likelihood of such changes resulting 

in additional off-setting revenue. Blind 

vendors most likely would implement 

changes or pursue new vending 

opportunities only if they determine 

that the likely revenue exceeds the costs 

associated with implementing the 

changes. Thus, licensed blind vendors 

would likely experience a positive 

economic impact due to these proposed 

regulations. 

Concessioners who are not licensed 

blind vendors on NPS sites may be 

unable to renew their concession 

contracts; however, there is no 

guarantee of future contracts for such 

concessioners. 

The Department invites comment 

regarding our estimates and whether 

this proposed rule may have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities, 

particularly concessioners on NPS sites. 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

These proposed regulations do not 

contain any information collection 

requirements. 

Intergovernmental Review 

The RSVFP is not subject to Executive 

Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 

CFR part 79. 

Assessment of Educational Impact 

In accordance with section 411 of the 

General Education Provisions Act 

(GEPA), 20 U.S.C. 1221e–4, the 

Department particularly requests 

comments on whether the proposed 

regulations would require transmission 

of information that any other agency or 

authority of the United States gathers or 

makes available. 

Accessible Format: On request to the 

program contact person listed under FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, 

individuals with disabilities can obtain 

this document and a copy of the 

application package in an accessible 

format. The Department will provide the 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 6 / Friday, January 10, 2025 / Proposed Rules 2573 

requestor with an accessible format that 

may include Rich Text Format (RTF) or 

text format (txt), a thumb drive, an MP3 

file, braille, large print, audiotape, 

compact disc, or other accessible format. 

Electronic Access to This Document: 

The official version of this document is 

the document published in the Federal 

Register. You may access the official 

edition of the Federal Register and the 

Code of Federal Regulations at 

www.govinfo.gov. 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 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. 

List of Subjects in 34 CFR Part 395 

Blind, Concessions, Federal buildings 

and facilities, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

Miguel A. Cardona, 

Secretary of Education. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Department proposes to 

revise part 395 of title 34 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations as follows: 

PART 395—VENDING FACILITY 

PROGRAM FOR THE BLIND ON 

FEDERAL AND OTHER PROPERTY 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 395 

is revised to read as follows: 

Authority: 20 U.S.C. 107(b), 107a(a) and 

107d–3(g). 

■ 2. Section 395.1 is amended by: 

■ a. Revising paragraphs (x) and (y). 

■ b. Adding paragraph (cc). 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: 

§ 395.1 Terms. 

* * * * * 

(x) Vending facility means automatic 

vending machines, cafeterias, snack 

bars, cart service, shelters, and counters, 

and their appropriate auxiliary 

equipment— 

(1) Which are necessary for the sale of 

newspapers, periodicals, confections, 

tobacco products, foods, beverages, 

tickets for any lottery authorized by 

State law and conducted by an agency 

of that State, and other articles or 

services— 

(i) Dispensed automatically or 

manually; 

(ii) Prepared on or off the premises in 

accordance with all applicable health 

laws; and 

(2) Which may be operated by blind 

licensees pursuant to a contract or 

permit. 

(3) Which include facilities meeting 

the requirements of paragraphs (x)(1) 

and (2), such as micro markets, laundry 

or catering establishments, retail stores, 

gift shops, and temporary or mobile 

establishments, such as food trucks and 

pop-up stands. 

(y) Vending machine means a 

machine that— 

(1) Automatically dispenses articles; 

(2) Is operated by cash or electronic 

payment methods; and 

(3) Does not include a self-serve 

postal center, or any part thereof, 

operated by the United Postal Service 

for the sale of postage stamps or other 

postal products and services. 

* * * * * 

(cc) Articles mean items of tangible 

personal property that can be felt or 

touched by an individual and can be 

physically relocated. 

■ 3. Section 395.30 is amended by 

revising paragraph (c) to read as follows: 

§ 395.30 The location and operation of 

vending facilities for blind vendors on 

Federal property. 

* * * * * 

(c) Priority in the operation of 

vending facilities on Federal property 

administered by the National Park 

Service or the National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration shall be given to 

blind vendors. To the extent that these 

agencies seek to provide visitor services 

that meet the definition of ‘‘vending 

facility’’ under 34 CFR 395.1(x) and are 

not combined with other visitor services 

that do not meet that definition, the 

priority for blind vendors applies. 

■ 4. Subpart D is added to part 395 to 

read as follows: 

Subpart D—Severability 

Sec. 

395.50 Severability. 

395.51 Reserved. 

§ 395.50 Severability. 

If any provision of this part or its 

application to any person, act, or 

practice is held invalid, the remainder 

of the part or the application of its 

provisions to any person, act, or practice 

shall not be affected thereby. 

§ 395.51 [Reserved] 

[FR Doc. 2025–00124 Filed 1–8–25; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS2