Final Priority; Foreign Language and Area Studies Fellowships Program, 31031-31035 [2014-12582]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 104 / Friday, May 30, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
preference over other applications (34
CFR 75.105(c)(1)).
This notice does not preclude us from
proposing additional priorities,
requirements, definitions, or selection
criteria, subject to meeting applicable
rulemaking requirements.
Note: This notice does not solicit
applications. In any year in which we choose
to use one or more of these priorities, we
invite applications through a notice in the
Federal Register.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Regulatory Impact Analysis
Under Executive Order 12866, the
Secretary must determine whether this
regulatory action is ‘‘significant’’ and,
therefore, subject to the requirements of
the Executive order and subject to
review by the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB). Section 3(f) of Executive
Order 12866 defines a ‘‘significant
regulatory action’’ as an action likely to
result in a rule that may—
(1) Have an annual effect on the
economy of $100 million or more, or
adversely affect a sector of the economy,
productivity, competition, jobs, the
environment, public health or safety, or
State, local, or tribal governments or
communities in a material way (also
referred to as an ‘‘economically
significant’’ rule);
(2) Create serious inconsistency or
otherwise interfere with an action taken
or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary
impacts of entitlement grants, user fees,
or loan programs or the rights and
obligations of recipients thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues
arising out of legal mandates, the
President’s priorities, or the principles
stated in the Executive order.
This final regulatory action is not a
significant regulatory action subject to
review by OMB under section 3(f) of
Executive Order 12866.
We have also reviewed this final
regulatory action under Executive Order
13563, which supplements and
explicitly reaffirms the principles,
structures, and definitions governing
regulatory review established in
Executive Order 12866. To the extent
permitted by law, Executive Order
13563 requires that an agency—
(1) Propose or adopt regulations only
upon a reasoned determination that
their benefits justify their costs
(recognizing that some benefits and
costs are difficult to quantify);
(2) Tailor its regulations to impose the
least burden on society, consistent with
obtaining regulatory objectives and
taking into account—among other things
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:58 May 29, 2014
Jkt 232001
and to the extent practicable—the costs
of cumulative regulations;
(3) In choosing among alternative
regulatory approaches, select those
approaches that maximize net benefits
(including potential economic,
environmental, public health and safety,
and other advantages; distributive
impacts; and equity);
(4) To the extent feasible, specify
performance objectives, rather than the
behavior or manner of compliance a
regulated entity must adopt; and
(5) Identify and assess available
alternatives to direct regulation,
including economic incentives—such as
user fees or marketable permits—to
encourage the desired behavior, or
provide information that enables the
public to make choices.
Executive Order 13563 also requires
an agency ‘‘to use the best available
techniques to quantify anticipated
present and future benefits and costs as
accurately as possible.’’ The Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs of
OMB has emphasized that these
techniques may include ‘‘identifying
changing future compliance costs that
might result from technological
innovation or anticipated behavioral
changes.’’
We are issuing these final priorities
only on a reasoned determination that
their benefits justify their costs. In
choosing among alternative regulatory
approaches, we selected those
approaches that maximize net benefits.
Based on the analysis that follows, the
Department believes that this regulatory
action is consistent with the principles
in Executive Order 13563.
We also have determined that this
regulatory action does not unduly
interfere with State, local, and tribal
governments in the exercise of their
governmental functions.
In accordance with both Executive
orders, the Department has assessed the
potential costs and benefits, both
quantitative and qualitative, of this
regulatory action. The potential costs
are those resulting from statutory
requirements and those we have
determined as necessary for
administering the Department’s
programs and activities.
Intergovernmental Review: This
program is subject to Executive Order
12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR
part 79. One of the objectives of the
Executive order is to foster an
intergovernmental partnership and a
strengthened federalism. The Executive
order relies on processes developed by
State and local governments for
coordination and review of proposed
Federal financial assistance.
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
31031
This document provides early
notification of our specific plans and
actions for this program.
Accessible Format: Individuals with
disabilities can obtain this document in
an accessible format (e.g., braille, large
print, audiotape, or compact disc) on
request to the program contact person
listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT.
Electronic Access to This Document:
The official version of this document is
the document published in the Federal
Register. Free Internet access to the
official edition of the Federal Register
and the Code of Federal Regulations is
available via the Federal Digital System
at: www.gpo.gov/fdsys. At this site you
can view this document, as well as all
other documents of this Department
published in the Federal Register, in
text or Adobe Portable Document
Format (PDF). To use PDF you must
have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is
available free at the site. You may also
access documents of the Department
published in the Federal Register by
using the article search feature at:
www.federalregister.gov.
Specifically, through the advanced
search feature at this site, you can limit
your search to documents published by
the Department.
Dated: May 27, 2014.
Lynn B. Mahaffie,
Senior Director, Policy Coordination,
Development, and Accreditation Service,
delegated the authority to perform the
functions and duties of the Assistant
Secretary for Postsecondary Education.
[FR Doc. 2014–12583 Filed 5–29–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
34 CFR Chapter VI
[Docket ID ED–2014–OPE–0035]
Final Priority; Foreign Language and
Area Studies Fellowships Program
Office of Postsecondary
Education, Department of Education.
ACTION: Final priority.
AGENCY:
[CFDA Number: 84.015B.]
The Acting Assistant
Secretary for Postsecondary Education
announces a priority under the Foreign
Language and Area Studies Fellowships
(FLAS) Program administered by the
International and Foreign Language
Education (IFLE) Office. The Assistant
Secretary may use this priority for
competitions in fiscal year (FY) 2014
and later years.
We take this action to lower
postsecondary education costs for
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\30MYR1.SGM
30MYR1
31032
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 104 / Friday, May 30, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
students in the United States who have
financial need and who seek to become
language and area studies experts. We
intend the priority to give FLAS
institutions an incentive to award
fellowships to students who would most
benefit from financial relief.
DATES: Effective Date: This priority is
effective June 30, 2014.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kate
Maloney, U.S. Department of Education,
1990 K St. NW., Room 6082,
Washington, DC 20006. Telephone:
(202) 502–7521 or by email:
kate.maloney@ed.gov.
If you use a telecommunications
device for the deaf (TDD) or a text
telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay
Service (FRS), toll free, at 1–800–877–
8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Purpose of Program: The purpose of
the FLAS Program is to provide
allocations of academic year and
summer fellowships to institutions of
higher education or consortia of
institutions of higher education to assist
meritorious undergraduate and graduate
students undergoing training in modern
foreign languages and related area or
international studies.
Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1122.
Applicable Program Regulations: 34
CFR parts 655 and 657.
We published a notice of proposed
priority for this program in the Federal
Register on March 18, 2014 (79 FR
15081). That notice contained
background information and our reasons
for proposing the particular priority.
There are differences between the
proposed priority and this final priority
as discussed in the Analysis of
Comments and Changes section
elsewhere in this notice.
Public Comment: In response to our
invitation in the notice of proposed
priority, 11 parties submitted comments
on the proposed priority.
We group major issues according to
subject. Generally, we do not address
technical and other minor changes.
Analysis of Comments and Changes:
An analysis of the comments and any
changes in the priority since publication
of the notice of proposed priority
follows.
ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
General Support
Comments: Three commenters
expressed support for the priority. Two
commenters remarked that the priority
was appropriate and feasible to
implement.
Discussion: We appreciate the
commenters’ support.
Changes: None.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:58 May 29, 2014
Jkt 232001
Legislative Authority
Comments: Three commenters
expressed concern that the priority went
beyond the statutory authority that
establishes that fellowship awards be
merit based. Specifically, one
commenter suggested that section 608 of
the Higher Education Act of 1965, as
amended (HEA), limits the Department
to the criterion of ‘‘excellence’’ for FLAS
awards. Another commenter stated that
‘‘high academic achievement’’ as
described in 34 CFR 657.3(c) is the only
legally authorized criterion for selection
of fellows.
Discussion: The Department believes
that it has legal authority to establish
this priority. Neither the selection
criteria in section 608(a) of the HEA nor
the eligibility criteria in § 657.3,
including the criteria regarding the type
of program the applicant is enrolled in
and whether the applicant shows
potential for high academic
achievement, is changed by this
priority. In other words, a student must
meet the criteria in section 608(a) of the
HEA and in § 657.3 before the student
could receive preference from an
institution, based on financial need,
under this priority. We also note that
fellowship applicants who do not
receive the preference described in the
priority may still be awarded
fellowships.
Changes: None.
Administrative Burden
Comments: Four commenters
remarked on the increased burden of
administering the priority. One
commenter noted that FLAS
coordinators would have to field more
financial aid inquiries from students.
Two commenters claimed that it may be
difficult or impossible to share financial
aid information across institutions for
FLAS fellows who apply from other
institutions.
One commenter suggested that an
institution’s FLAS award selection
processes would have to be significantly
changed to meet the priority. Another
commenter remarked that the
institution’s admissions policies would
have to be revised because its graduate
programs do not require a
demonstration of financial need to be
eligible for scholarships or funding.
Three commenters suggested that the
inclusion of financial need criteria in
the selection of students for FLAS
fellowships would create student
privacy concerns that would burden
administrative staff. The commenters
remarked that the inclusion of student
financial data would require changes in
the award process and additional staff
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
training to securely process the sensitive
information.
Two commenters noted the increased
burden for students to have to fill out
the Free Application for Federal Student
Aid (FAFSA) in order to be competitive
for a FLAS award. One commenter cited
that a minority of graduate students fills
out a FAFSA form, and, accordingly,
graduate students would have to
complete a FAFSA solely to qualify for
a preference under the priority.
Discussion: We agree that
administering this priority will require
the academic department that awards
fellowships to field more financial aid
inquiries from students and coordinate
with the institution’s financial aid
office. We believe this additional work
will not present an unreasonable burden
on the institution. Additional student
inquiries and increased coordination
with other offices on campus do not
outweigh the importance of directing
fellowship aid where it is most needed.
We also do not believe it is difficult or
impossible for an institution to obtain
financial aid information related to a
summer applicant who attends another
institution. A student may request that
the Department send an Institutional
Student Information Record (ISIR) to an
additional school through FAFSA on
the Web, and the new institution will
receive the information the next
business day.
We also do not believe that the
burden to protect the privacy of student
information will be significant given
that an institution should already have
in place requirements for the protection
of student information. In addition, the
financial aid office could limit the
information that it transmits to the
academic department to cover only the
student’s expected family contribution
(EFC), rather than providing all of the
student’s ISIR information to the
academic department. In addition, an
institution may meet the priority by
committing to use a preference for
students with financial need beginning
in the 2015–2016 academic year, which
will provide institutions with time to
address any necessary staff training.
We also do not believe that it is
unreasonable to require a graduate
student who seeks to obtain a
competitive preference for a fellowship
to submit a FAFSA. The potential
benefit to the graduate student
outweighs the inconvenience of
completing a FAFSA. Moreover, a
student may be awarded a FLAS
fellowship even if he or she did not
submit a FAFSA, depending on the
number of fellowships available to the
institution and the characteristics of the
other applicants. Nonetheless, we
E:\FR\FM\30MYR1.SGM
30MYR1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 104 / Friday, May 30, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
recognize that this may require the
institution to educate its students about
the requirement to submit a FAFSA in
order to potentially receive preference
under the priority.
Although this priority may add
another layer to the fellowship selection
process, we do not believe that the
selection process will require significant
changes, as an institution can obtain
this financial information without an
undue burden. Nonetheless, in response
to commenters’ concerns regarding
administrative burden we have revised
the priority language to allow an
institution at the time of application to
propose a preference for students who
have financial need only for
undergraduate students, only for
graduate students, or for both types of
students. This allows an institution
flexibility in deciding whether it is
feasible to consider financial need for
only its undergraduate students, its
graduate students, or all students.
We also have revised the priority to
allow an institution to start using the
preference in the 2015–2016 academic
year. We believe this extra time for
implementation will allow institutions
to create the required processes on their
campuses to implement the priority.
Changes: We have made two revisions
to the priority. First, we have revised
the priority to allow an institution to
use a preference for students who have
financial need only for undergraduate
students, only for graduate students, or
for both types of students. We also
revised the priority to provide that an
institution may meet the priority by
committing to start using the preference
in the 2015–2016 academic year, rather
than in the first year of the grant as we
originally proposed.
Timing of Competitions and
Notifications
Comments: Three commenters
expressed concern regarding the
feasibility of implementing the FLAS
selection process under this priority due
to the timing of the release of financial
aid information. They noted that their
selection committees typically meet in
February and notify FLAS fellows who
have been selected by March. These
commenters believed that this
timeframe was not achievable under the
proposed priority because FAFSA data
are not available until March or April.
A commenter provided two reasons why
FLAS awards need to be determined in
March before the availability of FASFA
data. First, the commenter said that
summer FLAS fellows must be notified
of the FLAS committee’s decision by
March so that they can apply to summer
programs and submit their overseas
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:58 May 29, 2014
Jkt 232001
program requests to the Department’s
IFLE staff. Second, the commenter noted
that academic year awards for incoming
students need to be determined by
March so that the institution can recruit
competitive students who must make
graduate school decisions by April 15.
Two commenters remarked that the
financial aid criteria will complicate the
selection process but have little impact
on the selection of FLAS fellows at the
graduate level. A commenter noted that
most graduate students are full-time
students with limited sources of
funding, and so they would likely
qualify on the basis of financial need
anyway. A commenter noted that the
principal determinant of a graduate
student’s financial need would be the
student’s marital status and presence or
absence of dependents, and the
commenter suggested that these factors
are not appropriate selection criteria for
making FLAS award decisions.
Discussion: We do not agree that the
requirements of the priority will impede
institutions in making awards by their
usual deadlines. Students may submit
FAFSAs to the Department beginning
January 1, including through FAFSA on
the Web. The Department processes
records every weekday, except Federal
holidays, and institutions generally
receive the results of a FAFSA within
one to two days after the student
submits the FAFSA. If the institution
wants students to apply for FLAS grants
by February, it can instruct applicants
who want to be considered for a
preference based on financial need that
they must submit the FAFSA before the
selection committee meets in February.
Based on the previously described
revisions to the priority language,
institutions have the option to apply the
priority to undergraduates only.
Nonetheless, while it is possible that a
preference for graduate students
demonstrating financial need may
consequently benefit students with
spouses or children, we believe that
assisting those students with financial
need before awarding fellowships to
students who have not demonstrated
need is the most responsible use of
scarce resources.
Changes: None.
Student Financial Aid Packages
Comments: Three commenters
suggested that the financial aid criterion
will negatively affect the students whom
the priority intends to assist. One
commenter said that students with
financial need who may be eligible to
receive scholarships other than FLAS
awards would appear to have low
unmet need on account of scholarships
the students may later turn down, and
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
31033
so they would be disadvantaged in the
FLAS selection process. Another
commenter noted that some academic
departments provide more generous
fellowship and teacher assistant
stipends than others. Students from
these departments would be categorized
as less needy and therefore less
competitive for FLAS awards, and the
departments would be penalized for
their financial aid policies.
Discussion: Our intent through this
priority is to provide FLAS fellowships
to students with financial need. To
avoid penalizing needy students who
may have received other scholarship
offers, we have revised the priority
language to indicate that a student’s
need should be determined based on the
student’s EFC, which reflects the
student’s financial circumstances before
other aid, such as scholarships, is
considered.
Changes: We revised the priority to
add language indicating that a student’s
need is to be calculated using the
student’s EFC, which reflects the
student’s financial circumstances before
other aid, such as scholarships, is taken
into account.
FLAS Student Eligibility
Comment: One commenter suggested
that FLAS awards be made available to
students from other colleges and
universities regardless of whether a
student is enrolled in an institution
with an allocation of FLAS fellowships.
Discussion: Under § 657.3 (b)(1) of the
FLAS Program regulations, a student is
eligible to receive a fellowship if the
student is enrolled in an institution
receiving an allocation of fellowships.
The Department does not have the
authority to revise the priority absent a
change to the regulations.
Changes: None.
Final Priority
Priority: Applications that propose to
give preference when awarding
fellowships to undergraduate students,
graduate students, or both, to students
who demonstrate financial need as
indicated by the students’ expected
family contribution, as determined
under part F of title IV of the Higher
Education Act of 1965, as amended.
This need determination will be based
on the students’ financial circumstances
and not on other aid. The applicant
must describe how it will ensure that all
fellows who receive such preference
show potential for high academic
achievement based on such indices as
grade point average, class ranking, or
similar measures that the institution
may determine. For grants awarded with
fiscal year 2014 funds, the preference
E:\FR\FM\30MYR1.SGM
30MYR1
31034
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 104 / Friday, May 30, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
applies to fellowships awarded for
study during academic years 2015–16,
2016–17, and 2017–18.
Types of Priorities
When inviting applications for a
competition using one or more
priorities, we designate the type of each
priority as absolute, competitive
preference, or invitational through a
notice in the Federal Register. The
effect of each type of priority follows:
Absolute priority: Under an absolute
priority, we consider only applications
that meet the priority (34 CFR
75.105(c)(3)).
Competitive preference priority:
Under a competitive preference priority,
we give competitive preference to an
application by (1) awarding additional
points, depending on the extent to
which the application meets the priority
(34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i)); or (2) selecting
an application that meets the priority
over an application of comparable merit
that does not meet the priority (34 CFR
75.105(c)(2)(ii)).
Invitational priority: Under an
invitational priority, we are particularly
interested in applications that meet the
priority. However, we do not give an
application that meets the priority a
preference over other applications (34
CFR 75.105(c)(1)).
This notice does not preclude us from
proposing additional priorities,
requirements, definitions, or selection
criteria, subject to meeting applicable
rulemaking requirements.
Note: This notice does not solicit
applications. In any year in which we choose
to use this priority, we invite applications
through a notice in the Federal Register.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Regulatory Impact Analysis
Under Executive Order 12866, the
Secretary must determine whether this
proposed regulatory action is
‘‘significant’’ and, therefore, subject to
the requirements of the Executive order
and subject to review by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB).
Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866
defines a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’
as an action likely to result in a rule that
may—
(1) Have an annual effect on the
economy of $100 million or more, or
adversely affect a sector of the economy,
productivity, competition, jobs, the
environment, public health or safety, or
State, local, or tribal governments or
communities in a material way (also
referred to as an ‘‘economically
significant’’ rule);
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:58 May 29, 2014
Jkt 232001
(2) Create serious inconsistency or
otherwise interfere with an action taken
or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary
impacts of entitlement grants, user fees,
or loan programs or the rights and
obligations of recipients thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues
arising out of legal mandates, the
President’s priorities, or the principles
stated in the Executive order.
This final regulatory action is not a
significant regulatory action subject to
review by OMB under section 3(f) of
Executive Order 12866.
We have also reviewed this final
regulatory action under Executive Order
13563, which supplements and
explicitly reaffirms the principles,
structures, and definitions governing
regulatory review established in
Executive Order 12866. To the extent
permitted by law, Executive Order
13563 requires that an agency—
(1) Propose or adopt regulations only
upon a reasoned determination that
their benefits justify their costs
(recognizing that some benefits and
costs are difficult to quantify);
(2) Tailor its regulations to impose the
least burden on society, consistent with
obtaining regulatory objectives and
taking into account—among other things
and to the extent practicable—the costs
of cumulative regulations;
(3) In choosing among alternative
regulatory approaches, select those
approaches that maximize net benefits
(including potential economic,
environmental, public health and safety,
and other advantages; distributive
impacts; and equity);
(4) To the extent feasible, specify
performance objectives, rather than the
behavior or manner of compliance a
regulated entity must adopt; and
(5) Identify and assess available
alternatives to direct regulation,
including economic incentives—such as
user fees or marketable permits—to
encourage the desired behavior, or
provide information that enables the
public to make choices.
Executive Order 13563 also requires
an agency ‘‘to use the best available
techniques to quantify anticipated
present and future benefits and costs as
accurately as possible.’’ The Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs of
OMB has emphasized that these
techniques may include ‘‘identifying
changing future compliance costs that
might result from technological
innovation or anticipated behavioral
changes.’’
We are issuing this final priority only
on a reasoned determination that its
benefits justify its costs. In choosing
among alternative regulatory
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
approaches, we selected those
approaches that maximize net benefits.
Based on the analysis that follows, the
Department believes that this regulatory
action is consistent with the principles
in Executive Order 13563.
We also have determined that this
regulatory action does not unduly
interfere with State, local, and tribal
governments in the exercise of their
governmental functions.
In accordance with both Executive
orders, the Department has assessed the
potential costs and benefits, both
quantitative and qualitative, of this
regulatory action. The potential costs
are those resulting from statutory
requirements and those we have
determined as necessary for
administering the Department’s
programs and activities.
Intergovernmental Review: This
program is subject to Executive Order
12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR
part 79. One of the objectives of the
Executive order is to foster an
intergovernmental partnership and a
strengthened federalism. The Executive
order relies on processes developed by
State and local governments for
coordination and review of proposed
Federal financial assistance.
This document provides early
notification of our specific plans and
actions for this program.
Accessible Format: Individuals with
disabilities can obtain this document in
an accessible format (e.g., braille, large
print, audiotape, or compact disc) on
request to the program contact person
listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT.
Electronic Access to This Document:
The official version of this document is
the document published in the Federal
Register. Free Internet access to the
official edition of the Federal Register
and the Code of Federal Regulations is
available via the Federal Digital System
at: www.gpo.gov/fdsys. At this site you
can view this document, as well as all
other documents of this Department
published in the Federal Register, in
text or Adobe Portable Document
Format (PDF). To use PDF you must
have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is
available free at the site.
You may also access documents of the
Department published in the Federal
Register by using the article search
feature at: www.federalregister.gov.
Specifically, through the advanced
search feature at this site, you can limit
your search to documents published by
the Department.
E:\FR\FM\30MYR1.SGM
30MYR1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 104 / Friday, May 30, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
Dated: May 27, 2014.
Lynn B. Mahaffie,
Senior Director, Policy Coordination,
Development, and Accreditation Service,
delegated the authority to perform the
functions and duties of the Assistant
Secretary for Postsecondary Education.
[FR Doc. 2014–12582 Filed 5–29–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000–01–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 49
[EPA–HQ–OAR–2003–0076; FRL–9909–78–
OAR]
RIN 2060–AR25
Review of New Sources and
Modifications in Indian Country—
Amendments to the Federal Indian
Country Minor New Source Review
Rule
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is issuing final
amendments to the federal minor New
Source Review (NSR) program in Indian
country. We refer to this NSR rule as the
‘‘federal Indian country minor NSR
program.’’ We are amending this rule in
two ways. First, we are expanding the
list of emissions units and activities that
are exempt from the federal Indian
country minor NSR program by adding
several types of low-emitting units and
activities. Second, we have clarified
construction-related terms by defining
‘‘commence construction’’ and ‘‘begin
construction’’ to better reflect the
regulatory requirements associated with
construction activities. We believe both
of these changes will simplify the
program, and result in less burdensome
implementation without detriment to air
quality in Indian country. Finally, we
have reconsidered the advance
notification period for relocation of a
true minor source in response to a
petition on the rule from the American
SUMMARY:
ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Industry .....................................................
14:58 May 29, 2014
I. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
B. Where can I get a copy of this document
and other related information?
C. What acronyms, abbreviations and units
are used in this preamble?
II. Purpose
III. Background
A. What are the general requirements for
the minor NSR program in Indian
country?
NAICS a
Category
VerDate Mar<15>2010
Petroleum Institute, the Independent
Petroleum Association of America and
America’s Natural Gas Alliance, but we
are not changing that provision.
DATES: The final rule is effective on June
30, 2014.
ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a
docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2003–0076. All
documents in the docket are listed in
the www.regulations.gov index.
Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available,
e.g., CBI or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute.
Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, will be publicly
available only in hard copy. Publicly
available docket materials are available
either electronically in
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at
the Air and Radiation Docket, EPA/DC,
William Jefferson Clinton West
Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution
Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460.
The Public Reading Room is open from
8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The
telephone number for the Public
Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, and
the telephone number for the Air and
Radiation Docket is (202) 566–1742.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.
Greg Nizich, Air Quality Policy
Division, Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards (C504–03),
Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711; telephone number (919) 541–
3078; fax number (919) 541–5509; email
address: nizich.greg@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
information in this Supplementary
Information section of this preamble is
organized as follows:
Jkt 232001
21111
211111
211112
212321
22111
221210
22132
23899
311119
3116
321113
PO 00000
B. What is the Indian country NSR rule?
C. What is the status of NSR air quality
programs in Indian country?
IV. What final action is the EPA taking on
amendments to the federal Indian
country minor NSR rule?
A. What additional emissions units and
activities are exempted from the federal
Indian country minor NSR rule?
B. How are construction-related activities
defined for permitting purposes?
C. What is the deadline for advance
notification to the reviewing authority
for a true minor sources that is
relocating?
V. Summary of Significant Comments and
Responses
A. Emissions Unit and Activity
Exemptions
B. Definition of Begin Construction
C. Source Relocation
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory
Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation
and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of
Children From Environmental Health
and Safety Risks
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution or Use
I. National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions
To Address Environmental Justice in
Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
K. Congressional Review Act
L. Judicial Review
VII. Statutory Authority
I. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
Entities potentially affected by this
final rule include owners and operators
of emission sources in all industry
groups planning to locate or located in
Indian country. Categories and entities
potentially affected by this action are
expected to include:
Examples of regulated entities
Oil and Gas Production/Operations.
Crude Petroleum and Natural Gas Extraction.
Natural Gas Liquid Extraction.
Sand and Gravel Mining.
Electric Power Generation.
Natural Gas Distribution.
Sewage Treatment Facilities.
Sand and Shot Blasting Operations.
Animal Food Manufacturing.
Beef Cattle Complex, Slaughter House and Meat Packing Plant.
Sawmills.
Frm 00015
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
31035
E:\FR\FM\30MYR1.SGM
30MYR1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 104 (Friday, May 30, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 31031-31035]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-12582]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
34 CFR Chapter VI
[Docket ID ED-2014-OPE-0035]
Final Priority; Foreign Language and Area Studies Fellowships
Program
AGENCY: Office of Postsecondary Education, Department of Education.
ACTION: Final priority.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[CFDA Number: 84.015B.]
SUMMARY: The Acting Assistant Secretary for Postsecondary Education
announces a priority under the Foreign Language and Area Studies
Fellowships (FLAS) Program administered by the International and
Foreign Language Education (IFLE) Office. The Assistant Secretary may
use this priority for competitions in fiscal year (FY) 2014 and later
years.
We take this action to lower postsecondary education costs for
[[Page 31032]]
students in the United States who have financial need and who seek to
become language and area studies experts. We intend the priority to
give FLAS institutions an incentive to award fellowships to students
who would most benefit from financial relief.
DATES: Effective Date: This priority is effective June 30, 2014.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kate Maloney, U.S. Department of
Education, 1990 K St. NW., Room 6082, Washington, DC 20006. Telephone:
(202) 502-7521 or by email: kate.maloney@ed.gov.
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text
telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1-
800-877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Purpose of Program: The purpose of the FLAS Program is to provide
allocations of academic year and summer fellowships to institutions of
higher education or consortia of institutions of higher education to
assist meritorious undergraduate and graduate students undergoing
training in modern foreign languages and related area or international
studies.
Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1122.
Applicable Program Regulations: 34 CFR parts 655 and 657.
We published a notice of proposed priority for this program in the
Federal Register on March 18, 2014 (79 FR 15081). That notice contained
background information and our reasons for proposing the particular
priority.
There are differences between the proposed priority and this final
priority as discussed in the Analysis of Comments and Changes section
elsewhere in this notice.
Public Comment: In response to our invitation in the notice of
proposed priority, 11 parties submitted comments on the proposed
priority.
We group major issues according to subject. Generally, we do not
address technical and other minor changes.
Analysis of Comments and Changes: An analysis of the comments and
any changes in the priority since publication of the notice of proposed
priority follows.
General Support
Comments: Three commenters expressed support for the priority. Two
commenters remarked that the priority was appropriate and feasible to
implement.
Discussion: We appreciate the commenters' support.
Changes: None.
Legislative Authority
Comments: Three commenters expressed concern that the priority went
beyond the statutory authority that establishes that fellowship awards
be merit based. Specifically, one commenter suggested that section 608
of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (HEA), limits the
Department to the criterion of ``excellence'' for FLAS awards. Another
commenter stated that ``high academic achievement'' as described in 34
CFR 657.3(c) is the only legally authorized criterion for selection of
fellows.
Discussion: The Department believes that it has legal authority to
establish this priority. Neither the selection criteria in section
608(a) of the HEA nor the eligibility criteria in Sec. 657.3,
including the criteria regarding the type of program the applicant is
enrolled in and whether the applicant shows potential for high academic
achievement, is changed by this priority. In other words, a student
must meet the criteria in section 608(a) of the HEA and in Sec. 657.3
before the student could receive preference from an institution, based
on financial need, under this priority. We also note that fellowship
applicants who do not receive the preference described in the priority
may still be awarded fellowships.
Changes: None.
Administrative Burden
Comments: Four commenters remarked on the increased burden of
administering the priority. One commenter noted that FLAS coordinators
would have to field more financial aid inquiries from students. Two
commenters claimed that it may be difficult or impossible to share
financial aid information across institutions for FLAS fellows who
apply from other institutions.
One commenter suggested that an institution's FLAS award selection
processes would have to be significantly changed to meet the priority.
Another commenter remarked that the institution's admissions policies
would have to be revised because its graduate programs do not require a
demonstration of financial need to be eligible for scholarships or
funding.
Three commenters suggested that the inclusion of financial need
criteria in the selection of students for FLAS fellowships would create
student privacy concerns that would burden administrative staff. The
commenters remarked that the inclusion of student financial data would
require changes in the award process and additional staff training to
securely process the sensitive information.
Two commenters noted the increased burden for students to have to
fill out the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) in order
to be competitive for a FLAS award. One commenter cited that a minority
of graduate students fills out a FAFSA form, and, accordingly, graduate
students would have to complete a FAFSA solely to qualify for a
preference under the priority.
Discussion: We agree that administering this priority will require
the academic department that awards fellowships to field more financial
aid inquiries from students and coordinate with the institution's
financial aid office. We believe this additional work will not present
an unreasonable burden on the institution. Additional student inquiries
and increased coordination with other offices on campus do not outweigh
the importance of directing fellowship aid where it is most needed. We
also do not believe it is difficult or impossible for an institution to
obtain financial aid information related to a summer applicant who
attends another institution. A student may request that the Department
send an Institutional Student Information Record (ISIR) to an
additional school through FAFSA on the Web, and the new institution
will receive the information the next business day.
We also do not believe that the burden to protect the privacy of
student information will be significant given that an institution
should already have in place requirements for the protection of student
information. In addition, the financial aid office could limit the
information that it transmits to the academic department to cover only
the student's expected family contribution (EFC), rather than providing
all of the student's ISIR information to the academic department. In
addition, an institution may meet the priority by committing to use a
preference for students with financial need beginning in the 2015-2016
academic year, which will provide institutions with time to address any
necessary staff training.
We also do not believe that it is unreasonable to require a
graduate student who seeks to obtain a competitive preference for a
fellowship to submit a FAFSA. The potential benefit to the graduate
student outweighs the inconvenience of completing a FAFSA. Moreover, a
student may be awarded a FLAS fellowship even if he or she did not
submit a FAFSA, depending on the number of fellowships available to the
institution and the characteristics of the other applicants.
Nonetheless, we
[[Page 31033]]
recognize that this may require the institution to educate its students
about the requirement to submit a FAFSA in order to potentially receive
preference under the priority.
Although this priority may add another layer to the fellowship
selection process, we do not believe that the selection process will
require significant changes, as an institution can obtain this
financial information without an undue burden. Nonetheless, in response
to commenters' concerns regarding administrative burden we have revised
the priority language to allow an institution at the time of
application to propose a preference for students who have financial
need only for undergraduate students, only for graduate students, or
for both types of students. This allows an institution flexibility in
deciding whether it is feasible to consider financial need for only its
undergraduate students, its graduate students, or all students.
We also have revised the priority to allow an institution to start
using the preference in the 2015-2016 academic year. We believe this
extra time for implementation will allow institutions to create the
required processes on their campuses to implement the priority.
Changes: We have made two revisions to the priority. First, we have
revised the priority to allow an institution to use a preference for
students who have financial need only for undergraduate students, only
for graduate students, or for both types of students. We also revised
the priority to provide that an institution may meet the priority by
committing to start using the preference in the 2015-2016 academic
year, rather than in the first year of the grant as we originally
proposed.
Timing of Competitions and Notifications
Comments: Three commenters expressed concern regarding the
feasibility of implementing the FLAS selection process under this
priority due to the timing of the release of financial aid information.
They noted that their selection committees typically meet in February
and notify FLAS fellows who have been selected by March. These
commenters believed that this timeframe was not achievable under the
proposed priority because FAFSA data are not available until March or
April. A commenter provided two reasons why FLAS awards need to be
determined in March before the availability of FASFA data. First, the
commenter said that summer FLAS fellows must be notified of the FLAS
committee's decision by March so that they can apply to summer programs
and submit their overseas program requests to the Department's IFLE
staff. Second, the commenter noted that academic year awards for
incoming students need to be determined by March so that the
institution can recruit competitive students who must make graduate
school decisions by April 15.
Two commenters remarked that the financial aid criteria will
complicate the selection process but have little impact on the
selection of FLAS fellows at the graduate level. A commenter noted that
most graduate students are full-time students with limited sources of
funding, and so they would likely qualify on the basis of financial
need anyway. A commenter noted that the principal determinant of a
graduate student's financial need would be the student's marital status
and presence or absence of dependents, and the commenter suggested that
these factors are not appropriate selection criteria for making FLAS
award decisions.
Discussion: We do not agree that the requirements of the priority
will impede institutions in making awards by their usual deadlines.
Students may submit FAFSAs to the Department beginning January 1,
including through FAFSA on the Web. The Department processes records
every weekday, except Federal holidays, and institutions generally
receive the results of a FAFSA within one to two days after the student
submits the FAFSA. If the institution wants students to apply for FLAS
grants by February, it can instruct applicants who want to be
considered for a preference based on financial need that they must
submit the FAFSA before the selection committee meets in February.
Based on the previously described revisions to the priority
language, institutions have the option to apply the priority to
undergraduates only. Nonetheless, while it is possible that a
preference for graduate students demonstrating financial need may
consequently benefit students with spouses or children, we believe that
assisting those students with financial need before awarding
fellowships to students who have not demonstrated need is the most
responsible use of scarce resources.
Changes: None.
Student Financial Aid Packages
Comments: Three commenters suggested that the financial aid
criterion will negatively affect the students whom the priority intends
to assist. One commenter said that students with financial need who may
be eligible to receive scholarships other than FLAS awards would appear
to have low unmet need on account of scholarships the students may
later turn down, and so they would be disadvantaged in the FLAS
selection process. Another commenter noted that some academic
departments provide more generous fellowship and teacher assistant
stipends than others. Students from these departments would be
categorized as less needy and therefore less competitive for FLAS
awards, and the departments would be penalized for their financial aid
policies.
Discussion: Our intent through this priority is to provide FLAS
fellowships to students with financial need. To avoid penalizing needy
students who may have received other scholarship offers, we have
revised the priority language to indicate that a student's need should
be determined based on the student's EFC, which reflects the student's
financial circumstances before other aid, such as scholarships, is
considered.
Changes: We revised the priority to add language indicating that a
student's need is to be calculated using the student's EFC, which
reflects the student's financial circumstances before other aid, such
as scholarships, is taken into account.
FLAS Student Eligibility
Comment: One commenter suggested that FLAS awards be made available
to students from other colleges and universities regardless of whether
a student is enrolled in an institution with an allocation of FLAS
fellowships.
Discussion: Under Sec. 657.3 (b)(1) of the FLAS Program
regulations, a student is eligible to receive a fellowship if the
student is enrolled in an institution receiving an allocation of
fellowships. The Department does not have the authority to revise the
priority absent a change to the regulations.
Changes: None.
Final Priority
Priority: Applications that propose to give preference when
awarding fellowships to undergraduate students, graduate students, or
both, to students who demonstrate financial need as indicated by the
students' expected family contribution, as determined under part F of
title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended. This need
determination will be based on the students' financial circumstances
and not on other aid. The applicant must describe how it will ensure
that all fellows who receive such preference show potential for high
academic achievement based on such indices as grade point average,
class ranking, or similar measures that the institution may determine.
For grants awarded with fiscal year 2014 funds, the preference
[[Page 31034]]
applies to fellowships awarded for study during academic years 2015-16,
2016-17, and 2017-18.
Types of Priorities
When inviting applications for a competition using one or more
priorities, we designate the type of each priority as absolute,
competitive preference, or invitational through a notice in the Federal
Register. The effect of each type of priority follows:
Absolute priority: Under an absolute priority, we consider only
applications that meet the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(3)).
Competitive preference priority: Under a competitive preference
priority, we give competitive preference to an application by (1)
awarding additional points, depending on the extent to which the
application meets the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i)); or (2)
selecting an application that meets the priority over an application of
comparable merit that does not meet the priority (34 CFR
75.105(c)(2)(ii)).
Invitational priority: Under an invitational priority, we are
particularly interested in applications that meet the priority.
However, we do not give an application that meets the priority a
preference over other applications (34 CFR 75.105(c)(1)).
This notice does not preclude us from proposing additional
priorities, requirements, definitions, or selection criteria, subject
to meeting applicable rulemaking requirements.
Note:
This notice does not solicit applications. In any year in which
we choose to use this priority, we invite applications through a
notice in the Federal Register.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
Regulatory Impact Analysis
Under Executive Order 12866, the Secretary must determine whether
this proposed regulatory action is ``significant'' and, therefore,
subject to the requirements of the Executive order and subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Section 3(f) of
Executive Order 12866 defines a ``significant regulatory action'' as an
action likely to result in a rule that may--
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more,
or adversely affect a sector of the economy, productivity, competition,
jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or
tribal governments or communities in a material way (also referred to
as an ``economically significant'' rule);
(2) Create serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impacts of entitlement grants,
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles stated in the
Executive order.
This final regulatory action is not a significant regulatory action
subject to review by OMB under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866.
We have also reviewed this final regulatory action under Executive
Order 13563, which supplements and explicitly reaffirms the principles,
structures, and definitions governing regulatory review established in
Executive Order 12866. To the extent permitted by law, Executive Order
13563 requires that an agency--
(1) Propose or adopt regulations only upon a reasoned determination
that their benefits justify their costs (recognizing that some benefits
and costs are difficult to quantify);
(2) Tailor its regulations to impose the least burden on society,
consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives and taking into
account--among other things and to the extent practicable--the costs of
cumulative regulations;
(3) In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, select
those approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential
economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other
advantages; distributive impacts; and equity);
(4) To the extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather
than the behavior or manner of compliance a regulated entity must
adopt; and
(5) Identify and assess available alternatives to direct
regulation, including economic incentives--such as user fees or
marketable permits--to encourage the desired behavior, or provide
information that enables the public to make choices.
Executive Order 13563 also requires an agency ``to use the best
available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future
benefits and costs as accurately as possible.'' The Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB has emphasized that these
techniques may include ``identifying changing future compliance costs
that might result from technological innovation or anticipated
behavioral changes.''
We are issuing this final priority only on a reasoned determination
that its benefits justify its costs. In choosing among alternative
regulatory approaches, we selected those approaches that maximize net
benefits. Based on the analysis that follows, the Department believes
that this regulatory action is consistent with the principles in
Executive Order 13563.
We also have determined that this regulatory action does not unduly
interfere with State, local, and tribal governments in the exercise of
their governmental functions.
In accordance with both Executive orders, the Department has
assessed the potential costs and benefits, both quantitative and
qualitative, of this regulatory action. The potential costs are those
resulting from statutory requirements and those we have determined as
necessary for administering the Department's programs and activities.
Intergovernmental Review: This program is subject to Executive
Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. One of the
objectives of the Executive order is to foster an intergovernmental
partnership and a strengthened federalism. The Executive order relies
on processes developed by State and local governments for coordination
and review of proposed Federal financial assistance.
This document provides early notification of our specific plans and
actions for this program.
Accessible Format: Individuals with disabilities can obtain this
document in an accessible format (e.g., braille, large print,
audiotape, or compact disc) on request to the program contact person
listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
Electronic Access to This Document: The official version of this
document is the document published in the Federal Register. Free
Internet access to the official edition of the Federal Register and the
Code of Federal Regulations is available via the Federal Digital System
at: www.gpo.gov/fdsys. At this site you can view this document, as well
as all other documents of this Department published in the Federal
Register, in text or Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF). To use PDF
you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at the
site.
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
Federal Register by using the article search feature at:
www.federalregister.gov. Specifically, through the advanced search
feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published
by the Department.
[[Page 31035]]
Dated: May 27, 2014.
Lynn B. Mahaffie,
Senior Director, Policy Coordination, Development, and Accreditation
Service, delegated the authority to perform the functions and duties of
the Assistant Secretary for Postsecondary Education.
[FR Doc. 2014-12582 Filed 5-29-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
