Final Priority; Language Resource Centers Program, 32651-32653 [2014-13208]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 109 / Friday, June 6, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
34 CFR Chapter VI
[Docket ID ED–2014–OPE–0037; CFDA
Number 84.229A]
Final Priority; Language Resource
Centers Program
Office of Postsecondary
Education (OPE), Department of
Education.
ACTION: Final Priority.
AGENCY:
The Acting Assistant
Secretary for Postsecondary Education
announces a priority under the
Language Resource Centers (LRC)
Program administered by the
International and Foreign Language
Education Office. The Acting Assistant
Secretary may use this priority for
competitions in fiscal year (FY) 2014
and later years. We take this action to
focus Federal financial assistance on an
identified national need. We intend the
priority to make international education
opportunities available to more
American students.
DATES: Effective Date: This priority is
effective July 7, 2014.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Michelle Guilfoil. Telephone: (202)
502–7625 or by email: michelle.guilfoil@
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.
SUMMARY:
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Purpose of Program: The LRC
Program provides grants to institutions
of higher education or consortia of these
institutions for establishing,
strengthening, and operating centers
that serve as resources for improving the
Nation’s capacity for teaching and
learning foreign languages through
teacher training, research, materials
development, and dissemination
projects.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1123.
Applicable Program Regulations: 34
CFR parts 655 and 669.
We published a notice of proposed
priority for this program in the Federal
Register on March 18, 2014 (79 FR
15074). That notice contained
background information and our reasons
for proposing this 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.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:43 Jun 05, 2014
Jkt 232001
Public Comment: In response to our
invitation in the notice of proposed
priority, three parties submitted
comments on the proposed priority.
Generally, we do not address
technical and other minor changes.
Analysis of Comments and Changes:
An analysis of the comments and any
changes in the priority since publication
of the notice of proposed priority
follows.
Comment: A commenter endorsed the
proposed priorities and expressed
appreciation for the Department of
Education’s efforts to facilitate stronger
participation of MSIs. In addition, the
commenter urged us to use these
priorities as absolute or competitive
preference priorities.
Discussion: We appreciate the
commenter’s support. However, it is our
practice to specify the priority types for
each competition in the notice inviting
applications, not in an NFP.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter suggested
that we include a priority for
applications that include collaboration
activities with MSIs to enhance access
to international activities and foreign
language learning.
Discussion: We agree with the
commenter and believe that the final
priority, consistent with the proposed
priority, clearly accomplishes this goal.
Change: None.
Comment: One commenter suggested
that it would be helpful if we provide
a list of institutions eligible under Title
III, part A; Title III, part B; and Title V
of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as
amended (HEA).
Discussion: We agree that making this
information readily available to
applicants will help them in addressing
and meeting this priority.
Change: None. We will provide the
information on the institutions that
currently meet this definition in the
Federal Register notice inviting
applications (NIA).
Comment: One commenter
recommended that we remove the
singular modifier before minorityserving institutions (MSIs) and before
community college to clarify that
collaborative activities may be proposed
with more than one MSI or more than
one community college.
Discussion: We agree with the
commenter’s suggestion and are making
this change to ensure we do not limit
the number of entities that are able to
collaborate under this priority.
Change: We have revised this priority
to make it clear that an institution can
collaborate with multiple MSIs or
community colleges.
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
32651
Comment: One commenter
encouraged the Department to consider
as broad a definition of MSI as possible
so as to provide the greatest
opportunities for applicant institutions
to positively influence students and
instructors alike at these underserved
institutions.
Discussion: We believe that the
definition of an MSI to be used with this
priority will serve a wide range of
institutions and fulfill the Department’s
intention of addressing the gap in the
types of institutions, faculty, and
students that have historically
benefitted from the instruction, training,
and outreach available at LRCs.
Institutions that are eligible to receive
assistance under Title III, part A; Title
III part B; and Title V of the HEA
include MSIs, Historically Black
Colleges and Universities (HBCUs),
predominately black institutions,
Hispanic-serving institutions, and tribal
colleges, among others. This range of
institutional types provides sufficient
options to language resource center
institutions in terms of collaboration.
Considering, too, that community
colleges are included in this priority,
there is flexibility, opportunity, and
latitude for the Language Resource
Center institutions to meet the intended
outcomes of this priority. We, therefore,
do not agree that the definition of an
MSI for the purposes of this proposed
priority is too narrow.
Change: None.
Comment: None.
Discussion: Based on internal
deliberation, and consistent with a
change made to a similar priority for the
National Resource Centers program in
response to a comment, we have revised
the final priority to allow an applicant
that itself is an MSI or community
college to propose to meet the priority
by conducting intra-campus
collaborative activities instead of, or in
addition to, collaborative activities with
other MSIs or community colleges. An
example of an intra-campus
collaborative activity would be a project
involving the faculty in the Department
of Social Sciences and the Yoruba
language instructors to develop a
language across the curriculum course
about human rights issues in Africa.
Changes: We have revised the priority
language to permit institutions that are
MSIs or community colleges to propose
intra-campus collaborative activities
instead of, or in addition to,
collaborative activities with other MSIs
or community colleges.
E:\FR\FM\06JNR1.SGM
06JNR1
32652
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 109 / Friday, June 6, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
Final Priority
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Final Priority
Applications that propose significant
and sustained collaborative activities
with one or more Minority-Serving
Institutions (MSIs) (as defined in this
notice) or with one or more community
colleges (as defined in this notice).
These activities must be designed to
incorporate foreign languages into the
curriculum at the MSI(s) or community
college(s), and to improve foreign
language instruction at the MSI(s) or
community college(s). If an applicant
institution is an MSI or a community
college (as defined in this notice), that
institution can meet the intent of this
priority by proposing intra-campus
collaborative activities instead of, or in
addition to, collaborative activities with
other MSIs and/or community colleges.
For the purpose of this priority:
Community college means an
institution that meets the definition in
section 312(f) of the Higher Education
Act of 1965, as amended (HEA) (20
U.S.C. 1058(f)); or an institution of
higher education (as defined in section
101 of the HEA (20 U.S.C. 1001)) that
awards degrees and certificates, more
than 50 percent of which are not
bachelor’s degrees (or an equivalent) or
master’s, professional, or other
advanced degrees.
Minority-Serving Institution means an
institution that is eligible to receive
assistance under sections 316 through
320 of part A of Title III, under part B
of Title III, or under Title V of the HEA.
Types of Priorities
When inviting applications for a
competition using one or more
priorities, we designate the type of each
priority as absolute, competitive
preference, or invitational through a
notice in the Federal Register. The
effect of each type of priority follows:
Absolute priority: Under an absolute
priority, we consider only applications
that meet the priority (34 CFR
75.105(c)(3)).
Competitive preference priority:
Under a competitive preference priority,
we give competitive preference to an
application by (1) awarding additional
points, depending on the extent to
which the application meets the priority
(34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i)); or (2) selecting
an application that meets the priority
over an application of comparable merit
that does not meet the priority (34 CFR
75.105(c)(2)(ii)).
Invitational priority: Under an
invitational priority, we are particularly
interested in applications that meet the
priority. However, we do not give an
application that meets the priority a
VerDate Mar<15>2010
13:35 Jun 05, 2014
Jkt 232001
preference over other applications (34
CFR 75.105(c)(1)).
This notice does not preclude us from
proposing additional priorities,
requirements, definitions, or selection
criteria, subject to meeting applicable
rulemaking requirements.
Note: This notice does not solicit
applications. In any year in which we choose
to use one or more of these priorities, we
invite applications through a notice in the
Federal Register.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
Regulatory Impact Analysis
Under Executive Order 12866, the
Secretary must determine whether this
regulatory action is ‘‘significant’’ and,
therefore, subject to the requirements of
the Executive order and subject to
review by the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB). Section 3(f) of Executive
Order 12866 defines a ‘‘significant
regulatory action’’ as an action likely to
result in a rule that may—
(1) Have an annual effect on the
economy of $100 million or more, or
adversely affect a sector of the economy,
productivity, competition, jobs, the
environment, public health or safety, or
State, local, or tribal governments or
communities in a material way (also
referred to as an ‘‘economically
significant’’ rule);
(2) Create serious inconsistency or
otherwise interfere with an action taken
or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary
impacts of entitlement grants, user fees,
or loan programs or the rights and
obligations of recipients thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues
arising out of legal mandates, the
President’s priorities, or the principles
stated in the Executive order.
This final regulatory action is not a
significant regulatory action subject to
review by OMB under section 3(f) of
Executive Order 12866.
We have also reviewed this final
regulatory action under Executive Order
13563, which supplements and
explicitly reaffirms the principles,
structures, and definitions governing
regulatory review established in
Executive Order 12866. To the extent
permitted by law, Executive Order
13563 requires that an agency—
(1) Propose or adopt regulations only
upon a reasoned determination that
their benefits justify their costs
(recognizing that some benefits and
costs are difficult to quantify);
(2) Tailor its regulations to impose the
least burden on society, consistent with
obtaining regulatory objectives and
taking into account—among other things
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
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.
E:\FR\FM\06JNR1.SGM
06JNR1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 109 / Friday, June 6, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
This document provides early
notification of our specific plans and
actions for this program.
Accessible Format: Individuals with
disabilities can obtain this document in
an accessible format (e.g., braille, large
print, audiotape, or compact disc) on
request to the program contact person
listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT.
Electronic Access to This Document:
The official version of this document is
the document published in the Federal
Register. Free Internet access to the
official edition of the Federal Register
and the Code of Federal Regulations is
available via the Federal Digital System
at: www.gpo.gov/fdsys. At this site you
can view this document, as well as all
other documents of this Department
published in the Federal Register, in
text or Adobe Portable Document
Format (PDF). To use PDF you must
have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is
available free at the site.
You may also access documents of the
Department published in the Federal
Register by using the article search
feature at: www.federalregister.gov.
Specifically, through the advanced
search feature at this site, you can limit
your search to documents published by
the Department.
Dated: June 3, 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. 2014–13208 Filed 6–5–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS
AFFAIRS
38 CFR Part 3
RIN 2900–A082
Burial Benefits
Department of Veterans Affairs.
Final rule.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
The Department of Veterans
Affairs (VA) is amending its regulations
governing entitlement to monetary
burial benefits, which include burial
allowances for service-connected and
non-service-connected deaths, a plot or
interment allowance, and
reimbursement of transportation
expenses. As amended, the regulations
establish rules to support VA’s
automated payment of burial allowances
to surviving spouses, conversion to flatrate burial and plot or interment
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
13:35 Jun 05, 2014
Jkt 232001
allowances that are equal to the
maximum benefit authorized by law,
and priority of payment to non-spouse
survivors. The purpose of these
regulations is to streamline the program
and make it easier for veterans and their
families to receive the right benefits and
meet their expectations for quality,
timeliness, and responsiveness.
DATES: Effective Date: The final rule is
effective July 7, 2014.
Applicability Date: This final rule
applies to claims for burial benefits
pending on or after July 7, 2014.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.
Damali Mason, Pension and Fiduciary
Service (21PF), Veterans Benefits
Administration, Department of Veterans
Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW.,
Washington, DC 20420; (202) 632–8852.
This is not a toll-free number.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a
document published in the Federal
Register on December 18, 2013 (78 FR
76574), VA proposed revising its
regulations governing eligibility for and
payment of monetary burial benefits.
The 30-day public comment period
ended on January 17, 2014. VA received
nine comments from interested
individuals and organizations. The
comments generally concerned priority
of payments and who is a proper
claimant for burial benefits. The
comments are discussed below. Based
on the rationale described in this
document and in the notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM), VA adopts the
proposed rule as revised in this
document.
Section 3.1700—Types of VA Burial
Benefits
In proposed § 3.1700(b), we defined
‘‘burial’’ for purposes of describing the
types of services that VA has authority
to pay for as a burial benefit. VA
liberally defined burial as including, but
not limited to, all legal methods for
disposing of a deceased person’s
remains. One commenter recommended
that VA include alkaline hydrolysis
within the proposed definition of burial.
According to the commenter, alkaline
hydrolysis is a water-based dissolution
process for human remains that uses
alkaline chemicals to accelerate natural
decomposition. To the extent that
alkaline hydrolysis is a lawful method
for disposing of human remains in a
particular State, the broad language in
proposed § 3.1700(b), ‘‘all the legal
methods,’’ would necessarily include
this method of disposition in VA’s
definition of burial. Because alkaline
hydrolysis, where lawful, is a service
that VA would pay for as a burial
benefit under the language of proposed
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
32653
§ 3.1700(b), we make no change to the
proposed rule because it is unnecessary.
One commenter supported the crossreferences in proposed § 3.1700(c) to
other benefits and services related to
memorialization or interment because
they reflect the options available to
families. The commenter also approved
of the specific reference to both
‘‘memorialization’’ and ‘‘interment,’’
which are two distinct concepts, as
discussed in the preamble of the
proposed rule. VA appreciates the
commenter’s support for these changes.
Section 3.1702—Persons Who May
Receive Burial Benefits; Priority of
Payments
Under 38 CFR 3.1601, VA accepted a
claim for burial benefits from the
funeral director, any person who used
his or her funds to pay burial or funeral
expenses, or the executor or
administrator of the estate of the
veteran. Those rules did not allow VA
to automate or expedite the payment of
these small, one-time benefit payments
to survivors who generally have an
immediate need for supplemental
financial assistance after the veteran’s
death. To facilitate efficient processing
of claims, we proposed in§ 3.1702(a) to
automate certain payments to surviving
spouses based upon information in VA
systems as a first priority and in
§ 3.1702(b) to establish a priority of
payments for other eligible individuals.
We received several comments
regarding the payment priority in
proposed § 3.1702, whereby VA would
automatically pay the burial allowance
to an eligible surviving spouse in
conjunction with the month-of-death
benefit in 38 CFR 3.20, without the need
for a separate claim, and regardless of a
claim for the same benefit made by
other claimants. If there were no
surviving spouse, child, or parent, we
stated that VA would pay an executor or
administrator of the veteran’s estate
based upon the executor’s or
administrator’s claim, or in the case of
an unclaimed veteran, a funeral service
provider based upon the provider’s
claim. As a result of this revised priority
of payment, VA would no longer
prioritize payment to funeral directors
or other service providers.
One commenter stated that benefits
should not be paid to funeral homes and
recommended that VA pay burial
benefits directly to beneficiaries for use
in paying for the burial. The commenter
went on to state that, ‘‘once the process
is automated and simplified, funeral
homes will be natural beneficiaries of
faster benefit payment.’’ Another
commenter stated that the benefit
E:\FR\FM\06JNR1.SGM
06JNR1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 109 (Friday, June 6, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 32651-32653]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-13208]
[[Page 32651]]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
34 CFR Chapter VI
[Docket ID ED-2014-OPE-0037; CFDA Number 84.229A]
Final Priority; Language Resource Centers Program
AGENCY: Office of Postsecondary Education (OPE), Department of
Education.
ACTION: Final Priority.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Acting Assistant Secretary for Postsecondary Education
announces a priority under the Language Resource Centers (LRC) Program
administered by the International and Foreign Language Education
Office. The Acting Assistant Secretary may use this priority for
competitions in fiscal year (FY) 2014 and later years. We take this
action to focus Federal financial assistance on an identified national
need. We intend the priority to make international education
opportunities available to more American students.
DATES: Effective Date: This priority is effective July 7, 2014.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michelle Guilfoil. Telephone: (202)
502-7625 or by email: michelle.guilfoil@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 LRC Program provides grants to institutions
of higher education or consortia of these institutions for
establishing, strengthening, and operating centers that serve as
resources for improving the Nation's capacity for teaching and learning
foreign languages through teacher training, research, materials
development, and dissemination projects.
Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1123.
Applicable Program Regulations: 34 CFR parts 655 and 669.
We published a notice of proposed priority for this program in the
Federal Register on March 18, 2014 (79 FR 15074). That notice contained
background information and our reasons for proposing this 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, three parties submitted comments on the proposed
priority.
Generally, we do not address technical and other minor changes.
Analysis of Comments and Changes: An analysis of the comments and
any changes in the priority since publication of the notice of proposed
priority follows.
Comment: A commenter endorsed the proposed priorities and expressed
appreciation for the Department of Education's efforts to facilitate
stronger participation of MSIs. In addition, the commenter urged us to
use these priorities as absolute or competitive preference priorities.
Discussion: We appreciate the commenter's support. However, it is
our practice to specify the priority types for each competition in the
notice inviting applications, not in an NFP.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter suggested that we include a priority for
applications that include collaboration activities with MSIs to enhance
access to international activities and foreign language learning.
Discussion: We agree with the commenter and believe that the final
priority, consistent with the proposed priority, clearly accomplishes
this goal.
Change: None.
Comment: One commenter suggested that it would be helpful if we
provide a list of institutions eligible under Title III, part A; Title
III, part B; and Title V of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as
amended (HEA).
Discussion: We agree that making this information readily available
to applicants will help them in addressing and meeting this priority.
Change: None. We will provide the information on the institutions
that currently meet this definition in the Federal Register notice
inviting applications (NIA).
Comment: One commenter recommended that we remove the singular
modifier before minority-serving institutions (MSIs) and before
community college to clarify that collaborative activities may be
proposed with more than one MSI or more than one community college.
Discussion: We agree with the commenter's suggestion and are making
this change to ensure we do not limit the number of entities that are
able to collaborate under this priority.
Change: We have revised this priority to make it clear that an
institution can collaborate with multiple MSIs or community colleges.
Comment: One commenter encouraged the Department to consider as
broad a definition of MSI as possible so as to provide the greatest
opportunities for applicant institutions to positively influence
students and instructors alike at these underserved institutions.
Discussion: We believe that the definition of an MSI to be used
with this priority will serve a wide range of institutions and fulfill
the Department's intention of addressing the gap in the types of
institutions, faculty, and students that have historically benefitted
from the instruction, training, and outreach available at LRCs.
Institutions that are eligible to receive assistance under Title III,
part A; Title III part B; and Title V of the HEA include MSIs,
Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs), predominately
black institutions, Hispanic-serving institutions, and tribal colleges,
among others. This range of institutional types provides sufficient
options to language resource center institutions in terms of
collaboration. Considering, too, that community colleges are included
in this priority, there is flexibility, opportunity, and latitude for
the Language Resource Center institutions to meet the intended outcomes
of this priority. We, therefore, do not agree that the definition of an
MSI for the purposes of this proposed priority is too narrow.
Change: None.
Comment: None.
Discussion: Based on internal deliberation, and consistent with a
change made to a similar priority for the National Resource Centers
program in response to a comment, we have revised the final priority to
allow an applicant that itself is an MSI or community college to
propose to meet the priority by conducting intra-campus collaborative
activities instead of, or in addition to, collaborative activities with
other MSIs or community colleges. An example of an intra-campus
collaborative activity would be a project involving the faculty in the
Department of Social Sciences and the Yoruba language instructors to
develop a language across the curriculum course about human rights
issues in Africa.
Changes: We have revised the priority language to permit
institutions that are MSIs or community colleges to propose intra-
campus collaborative activities instead of, or in addition to,
collaborative activities with other MSIs or community colleges.
[[Page 32652]]
Final Priority
Final Priority
Applications that propose significant and sustained collaborative
activities with one or more Minority-Serving Institutions (MSIs) (as
defined in this notice) or with one or more community colleges (as
defined in this notice).
These activities must be designed to incorporate foreign languages
into the curriculum at the MSI(s) or community college(s), and to
improve foreign language instruction at the MSI(s) or community
college(s). If an applicant institution is an MSI or a community
college (as defined in this notice), that institution can meet the
intent of this priority by proposing intra-campus collaborative
activities instead of, or in addition to, collaborative activities with
other MSIs and/or community colleges.
For the purpose of this priority:
Community college means an institution that meets the definition in
section 312(f) of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (HEA)
(20 U.S.C. 1058(f)); or an institution of higher education (as defined
in section 101 of the HEA (20 U.S.C. 1001)) that awards degrees and
certificates, more than 50 percent of which are not bachelor's degrees
(or an equivalent) or master's, professional, or other advanced
degrees.
Minority-Serving Institution means an institution that is eligible
to receive assistance under sections 316 through 320 of part A of Title
III, under part B of Title III, or under Title V of the HEA.
Types of Priorities
When inviting applications for a competition using one or more
priorities, we designate the type of each priority as absolute,
competitive preference, or invitational through a notice in the Federal
Register. The effect of each type of priority follows:
Absolute priority: Under an absolute priority, we consider only
applications that meet the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(3)).
Competitive preference priority: Under a competitive preference
priority, we give competitive preference to an application by (1)
awarding additional points, depending on the extent to which the
application meets the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i)); or (2)
selecting an application that meets the priority over an application of
comparable merit that does not meet the priority (34 CFR
75.105(c)(2)(ii)).
Invitational priority: Under an invitational priority, we are
particularly interested in applications that meet the priority.
However, we do not give an application that meets the priority a
preference over other applications (34 CFR 75.105(c)(1)).
This notice does not preclude us from proposing additional
priorities, requirements, definitions, or selection criteria, subject
to meeting applicable rulemaking requirements.
Note: This notice does not solicit applications. In any year in
which we choose to use one or more of these priorities, we invite
applications through a notice in the Federal Register.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
Regulatory Impact Analysis
Under Executive Order 12866, the Secretary must determine whether
this regulatory action is ``significant'' and, therefore, subject to
the requirements of the Executive order and subject to review by the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Section 3(f) of Executive Order
12866 defines a ``significant regulatory action'' as an action likely
to result in a rule that may--
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more,
or adversely affect a sector of the economy, productivity, competition,
jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or
tribal governments or communities in a material way (also referred to
as an ``economically significant'' rule);
(2) Create serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impacts of entitlement grants,
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles stated in the
Executive order.
This final regulatory action is not a significant regulatory action
subject to review by OMB under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866.
We have also reviewed this final regulatory action under Executive
Order 13563, which supplements and explicitly reaffirms the principles,
structures, and definitions governing regulatory review established in
Executive Order 12866. To the extent permitted by law, Executive Order
13563 requires that an agency--
(1) Propose or adopt regulations only upon a reasoned determination
that their benefits justify their costs (recognizing that some benefits
and costs are difficult to quantify);
(2) Tailor its regulations to impose the least burden on society,
consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives and taking into
account--among other things and to the extent practicable--the costs of
cumulative regulations;
(3) In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, select
those approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential
economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other
advantages; distributive impacts; and equity);
(4) To the extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather
than the behavior or manner of compliance a regulated entity must
adopt; and
(5) Identify and assess available alternatives to direct
regulation, including economic incentives--such as user fees or
marketable permits--to encourage the desired behavior, or provide
information that enables the public to make choices.
Executive Order 13563 also requires an agency ``to use the best
available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future
benefits and costs as accurately as possible.'' The Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB has emphasized that these
techniques may include ``identifying changing future compliance costs
that might result from technological innovation or anticipated
behavioral changes.''
We are issuing these final priorities only on a reasoned
determination that their benefits justify their costs. In choosing
among alternative regulatory approaches, we selected those approaches
that maximize net benefits. Based on the analysis that follows, the
Department believes that this regulatory action is consistent with the
principles in Executive Order 13563.
We also have determined that this regulatory action does not unduly
interfere with State, local, and tribal governments in the exercise of
their governmental functions.
In accordance with both Executive orders, the Department has
assessed the potential costs and benefits, both quantitative and
qualitative, of this regulatory action. The potential costs are those
resulting from statutory requirements and those we have determined as
necessary for administering the Department's programs and activities.
Intergovernmental Review: This program is subject to Executive
Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. One of the
objectives of the Executive order is to foster an intergovernmental
partnership and a strengthened federalism. The Executive Order relies
on processes developed by State and local governments for coordination
and review of proposed Federal financial assistance.
[[Page 32653]]
This document provides early notification of our specific plans and
actions for this program.
Accessible Format: Individuals with disabilities can obtain this
document in an accessible format (e.g., braille, large print,
audiotape, or compact disc) on request to the program contact person
listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
Electronic Access to This Document: The official version of this
document is the document published in the Federal Register. Free
Internet access to the official edition of the Federal Register and the
Code of Federal Regulations is available via the Federal Digital System
at: www.gpo.gov/fdsys. At this site you can view this document, as well
as all other documents of this Department published in the Federal
Register, in text or Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF). To use PDF
you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at the
site.
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
Federal Register by using the article search feature at:
www.federalregister.gov. Specifically, through the advanced search
feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published
by the Department.
Dated: June 3, 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. 2014-13208 Filed 6-5-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P