Loan Guaranty-Specially Adapted Housing Assistive Technology Grant Program, 53146-53151 [2014-21138]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
53146
Proposed Rules
Federal Register
Vol. 79, No. 173
Monday, September 8, 2014
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER
contains notices to the public of the proposed
issuance of rules and regulations. The
purpose of these notices is to give interested
persons an opportunity to participate in the
rule making prior to the adoption of the final
rules.
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
28 CFR Part 36
[CRT Docket No. 126; AG Order No. 3462–
2014]
RIN 1190–AA63
Nondiscrimination on the Basis of
Disability by Public
Accommodations—Movie Theaters;
Movie Captioning and Audio
Description
Civil Rights Division,
Department of Justice.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking;
extension of comment period.
AGENCY:
On August 1, 2014, the
Department of Justice published a
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM)
in the Federal Register in order to
propose amendments to its Americans
with Disabilities Act title III regulation
to require the provision of closed movie
captioning and audio description to give
persons with hearing and vision
disabilities access to movies. The
comment period is scheduled to close
on September 30, 2014. The Department
of Justice is extending the comment
period until December 1, 2014 in order
to provide additional time for the public
to prepare comments.
DATES: For the proposed rule published
on August 1, 2014 (79 FR 44976), the
comment period is extended. All
comments must be received by
December 1, 2014.
ADDRESSES: Submit electronic
comments and other data identified by
RIN 1190–AA63, by any one of the
following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Web site at
https://www.regulations.gov/
#!docketDetail;D=DOJ-CRT-2014-0004.
Follow the Web site’s instructions for
submitting comments.
• Regular U.S. mail: Disability Rights
Section, Civil Rights Division, U.S.
Department of Justice, P.O. Box 2885,
Fairfax, VA 22031–0885.
• Overnight, courier, or hand
delivery: Disability Rights Section, Civil
rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:09 Sep 05, 2014
Jkt 232001
Rights Division, U.S. Department of
Justice, 1425 New York Avenue NW.,
Suite 4039, Washington, DC 20005.
Dated: September 2, 2014.
Eric H. Holder, Jr.,
Attorney General.
Zita
Johnson-Betts, Deputy Section Chief,
Disability Rights Section, Civil Rights
Division, U.S. Department of Justice, at
(202) 307–0663 (voice or TTY). This is
not a toll-free number. Information may
also be obtained from the Department’s
toll-free ADA Information Line at (800)
514–0301 (voice) or (800) 514–0383
(TTY).
You may obtain copies of this
document in alternative formats by
calling the ADA Information Line at
(800) 514–0301 (voice) and (800) 514–
0383 (TTY). This notice is also available
on the Department’s Web site at https://
www.ada.gov.
[FR Doc. 2014–21285 Filed 9–5–14; 8:45 am]
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Extension of Comment Period
The Department of Justice published
a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(NPRM) in the Federal Register on
August 1, 2014, proposing amendments
to its Americans with Disabilities Act
title III regulation to require the
provision of closed movie captioning
and audio description in order to give
persons with hearing and vision
disabilities access to movies. The NPRM
asked 21 multi-part questions, seeking
public comment on a wide range of
issues related to the proposed
requirements, as well as the
Department’s analysis of the costs and
benefits of the proposed rule. Following
publication of the NPRM, the
Department received a request to extend
the deadline for public comment by an
additional 60 days, citing the number
and complexity of the data requests on
a broad range of topics and the resulting
need for additional time in order to
provide an informed response to the
Department’s questions. The
Department has decided to grant an
extension of the comment period until
December 1, 2014. The Department
believes this extension provides ample
time to allow interested parties to
provide comments on this proposed
rule. Comments on the NPRM may be
provided by December 1, 2014 online at
https://www.regulations.gov/
#!docketDetail;D=DOJ-CRT-2014-0004
or by mail at P.O. Box 2885, Fairfax, VA
22031–0885.
PO 00000
Frm 00001
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
BILLING CODE 4410–13–P
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS
AFFAIRS
38 CFR Part 36
RIN 2900–AO70
Loan Guaranty—Specially Adapted
Housing Assistive Technology Grant
Program
Department of Veterans Affairs.
Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
The Department of Veterans
Affairs (VA) is proposing to implement
through regulation statutory authority to
provide grants for the development of
new assistive technologies for use in
specially adapted housing for eligible
veterans or servicemembers, as
authorized by the Veterans’ Benefits Act
of 2010 (the Act), enacted on October
13, 2010. The Act authorizes VA to
provide grants of up to $200,000 per
fiscal year to persons or entities to
encourage the development of specially
adapted housing assistive technologies.
VA is amending its regulations to
outline the process, the criteria, and the
priorities relating to the award of these
research and development grants.
DATES: Comments must be received by
VA on or before November 7, 2014.
ADDRESSES: Written comments may be
submitted through https://
www.Regulations.gov; by mail or handdelivery to: Director, Regulation Policy
and Management (02REG), Department
of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont
Avenue NW., Room 1068, Washington,
DC 20420; or by fax to (202) 273–9026.
Comments should indicate that they are
submitted in response to ‘‘RIN 2900–
AO70-Loan Guaranty—Specially
Adapted Housing Assistive Technology
Grant Program.’’ Copies of comments
received will be available for public
inspection in the Office of Regulation
Policy and Management, Room 1068,
between the hours of 8 a.m. and 4:30
p.m., Monday through Friday (except
holidays). Please call (202) 461–4923 for
an appointment (this is not a toll-free
number). In addition, during the
comment period, comments may be
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\08SEP1.SGM
08SEP1
rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 173 / Monday, September 8, 2014 / Proposed Rules
viewed online through the Federal
Docket Management System (FDMS) at
https://www.Regulations.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John
Bell III, Assistant Director for Loan
Policy and Valuation (262), Veterans
Benefits Administration, Department of
Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue
NW., Washington, DC 20420, (202) 632–
8786. (This is not a toll-free number.)
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Public
Law 111–275, the Veterans’ Benefits Act
of 2010 (the Act), was enacted on
October 13, 2010. Section 203 of the Act
amended chapter 21, title 38, United
States Code, to establish the Specially
Adapted Housing Assistive Technology
Grant Program. Veterans’ Benefits Act of
2010, Public Law 111–275, § 203, 124
Stat. 2874 (2010). The Act authorizes
VA to provide grants of up to $200,000
per fiscal year, through September 30,
2016, to a ‘‘person or entity’’ for the
development of specially adapted
housing assistive technologies and
limits to $1 million the aggregate
amount of such grants VA may award in
any fiscal year. Id. VA is publishing
these proposed regulations to outline
the process, the criteria, and the
priorities relating to the award of these
research and development grants.
The Specially Adapted Housing
(SAH) Grant Program is administered by
the Loan Guaranty Service (LGY) of the
Veterans Benefits Administration
(VBA). Through the SAH program, LGY
provides grants to servicemembers and
veterans with certain service-connected
disabilities to help purchase or
construct an adapted home, or modify
an existing home to allow them to live
more independently. Currently, most
SAH adaptations involve structural
modifications such as ramps, wider
halls and doorways, and lower
countertops.
Pursuant to the authority established
by the Act, VA is proposing to amend
its regulations to implement a new grant
program to encourage the development
of specially adapted housing assistive
technologies. As proposed,
§ 36.4412(a)(1) and (2) would state that
the Secretary will make grants for the
development of new assistive
technologies for specially adapted
housing and that a person or entity may
apply for such grants. Proposed
§ 36.4412(a)(3) would also require that
the new grant program be administered
in a manner as consistent as possible
with part 200 of title 2 of the Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR). Part 200 is
where the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) has issued regulatory
guidance to Federal agencies that
provide grant awards to non-Federal
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:09 Sep 05, 2014
Jkt 232001
entities, that is, to States, local
governments, Indian tribes, institutions
of higher education, or non-profit
organizations that carry out a Federal
award as recipient or subrecipient. See
2 CFR 200.69. The part broadly outlines
pre-award requirements on agencies and
applicants, as well as post-award
requirements related to financial and
program management, property
standards, procurement standards,
reports and records, and standards on
termination and enforcement. The part
also sets forth after-the-award
requirements related to closeout,
subsequent adjustments, continuing
responsibilities, and collections of
amounts due.
Since the new program would also be
open to individuals and private entities,
some of the applicants will not meet the
definition of non-Federal entity or
recipient, as defined under part 200,
and certain provisions of part 200 may
not be applicable to all applicants in
this technology grant program. Where
the Secretary determines a provision is
not applicable or where the Secretary
determines that additional requirements
are necessary due to the uniqueness of
a situation, the Secretary would apply
the same standard applicable to
exceptions under 2 CFR 200.102.
Although part 200 does not define the
term exception, § 200.102 is clear that
an exception can relax an existing
requirement or make additional, more
restrictive requirements on a
participant. Section 200.102 requires
that if an exception is more restrictive
on a certain class of participants than
that which is otherwise provided in part
200, VA must receive approval from
OMB. If an exception is less restrictive
than what is provided in part 200,
§ 200.102 authorizes VA to grant the
exception on a case-by-case basis. It is
impossible to anticipate every way in
which the Secretary can or should
exercise oversight authority. The
purpose of this provision is to ensure
that a loophole in a regulation does not
unduly hinder the Secretary’s ability to
protect the public interest or prevent
private individuals or organizations
from participating because of
technicalities related to oversight.
The regulation would also include
proposed paragraph (b) covering the
definitions applicable to the SAH
technology grant. The definitions found
at 38 CFR 36.4401 would be
incorporated by reference. New
definitions for ‘‘technology grant
applicant’’ and ‘‘new assistive
technology’’ would be added, but they
would not be relevant to the types of
SAH grants that are provided directly to
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
53147
veterans. They would solely be limited
to the SAH technology grant.
The new definitions would provide
who may apply for an SAH technology
grant and the type of product that would
have to be developed using SAH
technology grant funds. House Report
111–109 stated that the ‘‘research and
development community is diverse,
ranging from single-person inventors to
large corporations and academic
institutions.’’ H.R. Rep. No. 111–109, at
3 (2009). Accordingly, for the purpose of
determining who may apply to this
grant program, VA would define
‘‘technology grant applicant’’ to include
a person or entity that applies for a grant
pursuant to 38 U.S.C. 2108 and 38 CFR
36.4412 to develop new assistive
technology or technologies for specially
adapted housing. House Report 111–109
also explained that there are many
emerging technologies that could
improve home adaptions or otherwise
enhance a veteran or servicemember’s
ability to live independently, such as
voice-recognition and voice-command
operations, living environment controls,
and adaptive feeding equipment. Id.
Therefore, VA is proposing to define
‘‘new assistive technology’’ as an
advancement that the Secretary
determines could aid or enhance the
ability of an eligible individual, as
defined in 38 CFR 36.4401, to live in an
adapted home.
Proposed paragraph (c) would provide
that, as funds are made available for the
program, VA would publish in the
Federal Register a Notice of Funds
Availability (NoFA), soliciting
applications for the grant program and
information on applications. Upon
publication of a NoFA, a technology
grant applicant seeking a grant under
this section would submit an
application to the Secretary via
www.Grants.gov, as required under
proposed paragraph (d). Applications
would include: (1) Standard Form 424
(Application for Federal Assistance)
with the box labeled ‘‘application’’
marked; (2) a certification that the
applicant has not been debarred or
suspended and is eligible to participate
in the VA grant process and receive
Federal funds; (3) statements addressing
the scoring criteria; and (4) any
additional information as deemed
appropriate by VA.
Under proposed paragraph (e), the
NoFA would set forth the full and
specific procedural requirements for
assistive technology grant applicants,
such as whether the grant cycle would
be limited to applications submitted
during a particular timeframe or if
applications would be accepted on a
rolling basis.
E:\FR\FM\08SEP1.SGM
08SEP1
rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
53148
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 173 / Monday, September 8, 2014 / Proposed Rules
Under proposed paragraph (f), the
Secretary would establish the specific
scoring criteria used to evaluate all
technology grant applications received
by VA. The scoring criteria and the
maximum amount of points available
are as follows:
(i) A description of how the new
assistive technology is innovative (up to
50 points);
(ii) An explanation of how the new
assistive technology will meet a
specific, unmet need among eligible
individuals (up to 50 points);
(iii) An explanation of how the new
assistive technology is specifically
designed to promote the ability of
eligible individuals to live more
independently (up to 30 points);
(iv) A description of the new assistive
technology’s concept, size, and scope
(up to 30 points);
(v) An implementation plan with
major milestones for bringing the new
assistive technology into production
and to the market. Such milestones
must be meaningful and achievable
within a specific timeframe (up to 30
points); and
(vi) An explanation of what uniquely
positions the technology grant applicant
in the marketplace. This can include a
focus on characteristics such as the
economic reliability of the technology
grant applicant, the technology grant
applicant’s status as a minority or
veteran-owned business, or other
characteristics that the technology grant
applicant wants to include to show how
it will help protect the interests of, or
further the mission of, VA and the
program (up to 20 points).
As provided, each scoring criterion
would be capped at a maximum number
of points. Although VA would not set a
maximum aggregate score possible, an
application would have to receive 70
points or more to be considered for an
award. If an application does not score
a minimum of 70 points, VA would not
consider it for an award, even if it
means an award cannot be made during
a particular grant cycle. VA believes the
scoring framework would allow the
Secretary to make awards based on
priorities of veterans and VA, while also
ensuring that taxpayer funds are used
responsibly.
The actual number of points received
would not be based solely on the
technology grant applicant’s responses,
but also on a number of variables such
as specific needs of veterans and
servicemembers, number of technology
grant applicants, type of technology
grant applicants, the availability of
funds, and other factors related to VA’s
mission of serving veterans. VA would
explain scoring priorities in the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:09 Sep 05, 2014
Jkt 232001
published NoFA so that technology
grant applicants have the opportunity to
tailor their responses accordingly. The
change in priorities would not introduce
new scoring criteria. It would merely
help technology grant applicants
understand how the scores will be
weighted.
To illustrate: VA might emphasize in
one grant cycle the need for innovation,
and as a result, explain in the NoFA that
innovation will be a top priority. A
technology grant applicant would then
know to concentrate on how innovative
its product would be. In reviewing the
application, the Secretary might award
all 50 allowable points to the technology
grant applicant who best satisfies that
criterion. In the next grant cycle, the
Secretary might determine that a
particular need has gone unmet among
eligible individuals who are adapting
their homes. The Secretary might
choose to place more emphasis on
meeting that need than on general
innovation. As a result, the published
NoFA for that grant cycle would explain
the Secretary’s new priorities. A
technology grant applicant would then
know that its application would have
more success if it were to focus on how
the product would meet the need. When
reviewing applications, the Secretary
could choose to award all 50 points for
that criterion, while only scoring the
most innovative product 30 points.
As shown, proposed paragraph (f)
would provide technology grant
applicants all the substantive
information necessary for meeting VA
requirements. Meanwhile, it would
allow VA to adapt to veterans’ needs
and to the marketplace without
requiring a new regulatory change each
time a new grant cycle is introduced.
Proposed paragraph (g) would state
that deadlines for program applications
would be established in the NoFA.
Proposed paragraph (h) would also note
that decisions for awarding technology
grants would be made in accordance
with the guidelines (covering such
issues as timing and method of
notification) described in the NoFA. The
Secretary would provide written
approvals, denials, or requests for
additional information. As part of the
annual program report to Congress
required by the Act, VA would conduct
periodic audits of all approved grants
under this program to ensure that the
actual project size and scope are
consistent with those outlined in the
proposal and that established
milestones are achieved. Such audits
would be consistent with the
requirements under 2 CFR part 200.
Proposed paragraph (i) would also
include a new delegation of authority
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
specific to the technology grant
program. Currently, 38 CFR 36.4409
authorizes certain VA employees to act
on behalf of the Secretary with respect
to assisting eligible individuals in
acquiring specially adapted housing.
This delegation does not extend to the
technology grant program. Therefore,
VA proposes that the VA officials who
would be authorized to exercise the
powers and functions of the Secretary
with respect to providing assistance
under 38 U.S.C. 2108 would be as
follows: (a) Under Secretary for Benefits,
(b) Deputy Under Secretary for
Economic Development, (c) Director,
Loan Guaranty Service, and (d) Deputy
Director, Loan Guaranty Service.
Finally, we would note in proposed
paragraph (j) that the technology grant is
not a veterans’ benefit and, therefore, is
not subject to the same rights of appeal
as an adjudication of benefits. See 38
U.S.C. 7104(a). Moreover, although VA
would provide technology grant
applicants with as much information
and assistance as possible, the Secretary
does not have a duty to assist
technology grant applicants in obtaining
a grant. See 38 U.S.C. 5103A(a).
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
direct agencies to assess all costs and
benefits of available regulatory
alternatives and, when regulation is
necessary, to select regulatory
approaches that maximize net benefits
(including potential economic,
environmental, public health and safety
effects, and other advantages;
distributive impacts; and equity).
Executive Order 13563 (Improving
Regulation and Regulatory Review)
emphasizes the importance of
quantifying both costs and benefits,
reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and
promoting flexibility. Executive Order
12866 (Regulatory Planning and
Review) defines a ‘‘significant
regulatory action,’’ requiring review by
OMB, as ‘‘any regulatory action that is
likely to result in a rule that may: (1)
Have an annual effect on the economy
of $100 million or more or adversely
affect in a material way the economy, a
sector of the economy, productivity,
competition, jobs, the environment,
public health or safety, or State, local,
or tribal governments or communities;
(2) Create a serious inconsistency or
interfere with an action taken or
planned by another agency; (3)
Materially alter the budgetary impact of
entitlements, 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
E:\FR\FM\08SEP1.SGM
08SEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 173 / Monday, September 8, 2014 / Proposed Rules
the principles set forth in this Executive
Order.
The economic, interagency,
budgetary, legal, and policy
implications of this proposed rule have
been examined, and it has been
determined to be a significant regulatory
action under Executive Order 12866
because it is likely to result in a rule that
may raise novel legal or policy issues
arising out of legal mandates, the
President’s priorities, or the principles
set forth in Executive Orders 12866 or
13563. VA’s impact analysis can be
found as a supporting document at
https://www.regulations.gov, usually
within 48 hours after the rulemaking
document is published. Additionally, a
copy of the rulemaking and its impact
analysis are available on VA’s Web site
at https://www1.va.gov/orpm/, by
following the link for ‘‘VA Regulations
Published.’’
Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Secretary hereby certifies that
this proposed rule would not have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities as
they are defined in the Regulatory
Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601–612. There
would be no significant economic
impact on any small entities because
grant applicants are not required to
provide matching funds to receive the
maximum grant amount of $200,000.
The assistive technology grant program
would not impact a substantial number
of small entities because VA may only
award a maximum of $1 million in
aggregate grant funds per fiscal year,
and VA’s authority to award these
grants expires September 30, 2016. On
this basis, the Secretary certifies that the
adoption of this proposed rule would
not have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities
as they are defined in the Regulatory
Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601–612.
Therefore, under 5 U.S.C. 605(b), this
rulemaking is exempt from the initial
and final regulatory flexibility analysis
requirements of sections 603 and 604.
rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Unfunded Mandates
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 requires, at 2 U.S.C. 1532, that
agencies prepare an assessment of
anticipated costs and benefits before
issuing any rule that may result in an
expenditure by State, local, and tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or by the
private sector, of $100 million or more
(adjusted annually for inflation) in any
one year. This proposed rule would
have no such effect on State, local, and
tribal governments, or on the private
sector.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:09 Sep 05, 2014
Jkt 232001
Paperwork Reduction Act
This proposed rule includes
provisions constituting collections of
information under the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501–
3521) that require approval by OMB.
Accordingly, under 44 U.S.C. 3507(d),
VA has submitted a copy of this
rulemaking action to OMB for review.
OMB assigns control numbers to
collections of information it approves.
VA may not conduct or sponsor, and a
person is not required to respond to, a
collection of information unless it
displays a currently valid OMB control
number. Proposed 38 CFR 36.4412(d)
contains a collection of information
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995. If OMB does not approve the
collection of information as requested,
VA will immediately remove the
provisions containing a collection of
information or take such other action as
is directed by OMB.
Comments on the collections of
information contained in this proposed
rule should be submitted to the Office
of Management and Budget, Attention:
Desk Officer for the Department of
Veterans Affairs, Office of Information
and Regulatory Affairs, Washington, DC
20503, with copies sent by mail or hand
delivery to the Director, Regulation
Policy and Management (02REG),
Department of Veterans Affairs, 810
Vermont Avenue NW., Room 1068,
Washington, DC 20420; fax to (202)
273–9026; email to
www.Regulations.gov. Comments
should indicate that they are submitted
in response to ‘‘RIN 2900–AO70.’’
OMB is required to make a decision
concerning the collections of
information contained in this proposed
rule between 30 and 60 days after
publication of this document in the
Federal Register. Therefore, a comment
to OMB is best assured of having its full
effect if OMB receives it within 30 days
of publication. This does not affect the
deadline for the public to comment on
the proposed rule.
The Department considers comments
by the public on proposed collections of
information in—
• Evaluating whether the proposed
collections of information are necessary
for the proper performance of the
functions of the Department, including
whether the information will have
practical utility;
• Evaluating the accuracy of the
Department’s estimate of the burden of
the proposed collections of information,
including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhancing the quality, usefulness,
and clarity of the information to be
collected; and
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
53149
• Minimizing the burden of the
collections of information on those who
are to respond, including through the
use of appropriate automated,
electronic, mechanical, or other
technological collection techniques or
other forms of information technology,
e.g., permitting electronic submission of
responses.
The new collection of information
contained in 38 CFR 36.4412(d) is
described immediately following this
paragraph, under its title.
Title: Applicant Scoring Criteria and
Certification Regarding Debarment,
Suspension, Ineligibility and Voluntary
Exclusion.
• Summary of collection of
information: The new collection of
information in proposed 38 CFR
36.4412(d) would require applicants for
an SAH Assistive Technology grant to
submit VA Form 26–0967, ‘‘Certification
Regarding Debarment, Suspension,
Ineligibility and Voluntary Exclusion,’’
and to provide statements addressing
the scoring criteria for grant awards. VA
Form 26–0967 is currently pending
OMB approval. Additionally, 38 CFR
36.4412(d) contains an existing
information collection that is currently
approved by OMB and has been
assigned OMB control number 4040–
0004.
• Description of need for information
and proposed use of information:
Section 2108 of Title 38 of the United
States Code states that a person or entity
seeking an SAH technology grant shall
submit an application for the grant in
such form and manner as the Secretary
shall specify. VA is specifying in
regulation that the information provided
under this collection of information is
necessary for a complete SAH Assistive
Technology grant application. The
information will be used by Loan
Guaranty personnel in deciding whether
an applicant meets the requirements
and satisfies the scoring criteria for
award of an SAH Assistive Technology
grant under 38 U.S.C. 2108.
• Description of likely respondents:
Respondents will likely include nonFederal entities, private entities, and
individuals who choose to submit
applications for an SAH Assistive
Technology grant.
• Estimated number of respondents:
20 in Fiscal Year (FY) 2015; 20 in FY
2016.
• Estimated frequency of responses:
This is a one-time collection.
• Estimated average burden per
response: 120 minutes.
• Estimated total annual reporting
and recordkeeping burden: 40 hours in
FY 2015; 40 hours in FY 2016.
E:\FR\FM\08SEP1.SGM
08SEP1
53150
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 173 / Monday, September 8, 2014 / Proposed Rules
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance
The Catalog of Federal Domestic
Assistance program numbers and titles
for the programs affected by this
document are 64.106, Specially Adapted
Housing for Disabled Veterans and
64.118, Veterans Housing—Direct Loans
for Certain Disabled Veterans.
Signing Authority
The Acting Secretary of Veterans
Affairs, or designee, approved this
document and authorized the
undersigned to sign and submit the
document to the Office of the Federal
Register for publication electronically as
an official document of the Department
of Veterans Affairs. Jose D. Riojas, Chief
of Staff, Department of Veterans Affairs,
approved this document on August 15,
2014, for publication.
List of Subjects in 38 CFR Part 36
Condominiums, Housing, Indians,
Individuals with disabilities, Loan
programs—housing and community
development, Loan programs—Indians,
Loan programs—veterans, Manufactured
homes, Mortgage insurance, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements,
Veterans.
Dated: September 2, 2014.
Robert C. McFetridge,
Director, Regulation Policy and Management,
Office of the General Counsel, Department
of Veterans Affairs.
For the reasons set out in the
preamble, VA proposes to amend 38
CFR part 36, subpart C to read as
follows:
PART 36—LOAN GUARANTY
Subpart C—Assistance to Eligible
Individuals in Acquiring Specially
Adapted Housing
1. The authority citation for part 36,
subpart C continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501 and as otherwise
noted.
■
2. Add § 36.4412 to read as follows:
rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
§ 36.4412 Specially Adapted Housing
Assistive Technology Grant Program.
(a) General. (1) The Secretary will
make grants for the development of new
assistive technologies for specially
adapted housing.
(2) A person or entity may apply for,
and receive, a grant pursuant to this
section.
(3)(i) All technology grant recipients,
including individuals and entities
formed as for-profit entities, will be
subject to the rules on Uniform
Administrative Requirements for Grants
and Agreements With Institutions of
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:09 Sep 05, 2014
Jkt 232001
Higher Education, Hospitals, and other
Non-profit Organizations, as found at 2
CFR Part 200.
(ii) Where the Secretary determines
that 2 CFR Part 200 is not applicable or
where the Secretary determines that
additional requirements are necessary
due to the uniqueness of a situation, the
Secretary will apply the same standard
applicable to exceptions under 2 CFR
200.102.
(b) Definitions. To supplement the
definitions contained in § 36.4401, the
following terms are herein defined for
purposes of this section:
(1) A technology grant applicant is a
person or entity that applies for a grant
pursuant to 38 U.S.C. 2108 and this
section to develop new assistive
technology or technologies for specially
adapted housing.
(2) A new assistive technology is an
advancement that the Secretary
determines could aid or enhance the
ability of an eligible individual, as
defined in 38 CFR 36.4401, to live in an
adapted home.
(c) Grant application solicitation. As
funds are available for the program, VA
will publish in the Federal Register a
Notice of Funds Availability (NoFA),
soliciting applications for the grant
program and providing information on
applications.
(d) Application process and
requirements. Upon publication of the
NoFA, a technology grant applicant
must submit an application to the
Secretary via www.Grants.gov.
Applications must consist of the
following:
(1) Standard Form 424 (Application
for Federal Assistance) with the box
labeled ‘‘application’’ marked;
(2) VA Form 26–0967 (Certification
Regarding Debarment, Suspension,
Ineligibility and Voluntary Exclusion) to
ensure that the technology grant
applicant has not been debarred or
suspended and is eligible to participate
in the VA grant process and receive
Federal funds;
(3) Statements addressing the scoring
criteria in 38 CFR 36.4412(f); and
(4) Any additional information as
deemed appropriate by VA.
(e) Threshold requirements. The
NoFA will set out the full and specific
procedural requirements for technology
grant applicants.
(f) Scoring criteria. (1) The Secretary
will score technology grant applications
based on the scoring criteria in
paragraph (f)(2) of this section.
Although there is not a cap on the
maximum aggregate score possible, a
technology grant application must
receive a minimum aggregate score of 70
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
points to be considered for a technology
grant.
(2) The scoring criteria and maximum
points are as follows:
(i) A description of how the new
assistive technology is innovative (up to
50 points);
(ii) An explanation of how the new
assistive technology will meet a
specific, unmet need among eligible
individuals (up to 50 points);
(iii) An explanation of how the new
assistive technology is specifically
designed to promote the ability of
eligible individuals to live more
independently (up to 30 points);
(iv) A description of the new assistive
technology’s concept, size, and scope
(up to 30 points);
(v) An implementation plan with
major milestones for bringing the new
assistive technology into production
and to the market. Such milestones
must be meaningful and achievable
within a specific timeframe (up to 30
points); and
(vi) An explanation of what uniquely
positions the technology grant applicant
in the marketplace. This can include a
focus on characteristics such as the
economic reliability of the technology
grant applicant, the technology grant
applicant’s status as a minority or
veteran-owned business, or other
characteristics that the technology grant
applicant wants to include to show how
it will help protect the interests of, or
further the mission of, VA and the
program (up to 20 points).
(g) Application deadlines. Deadlines
for technology grant applications will be
established in the NoFA.
(h) Awards process. Decisions for
awarding technology grants under this
section will be made in accordance with
guidelines (covering such issues as
timing and method of notification)
described in the NoFA. The Secretary
will provide written approvals, denials,
or requests for additional information.
The Secretary will conduct periodic
audits of all approved grants under this
program to ensure that the actual project
size and scope are consistent with those
outlined in the proposal and that
established milestones are achieved.
(i) Delegation of authority. (1) Each
VA employee appointed to or lawfully
fulfilling any of the following positions
is hereby delegated authority, within the
limitations and conditions prescribed by
law, to exercise the powers and
functions of the Secretary with respect
to the grant program authorized by 38
U.S.C. 2108:
(i) Under Secretary for Benefits.
(ii) Deputy Under Secretary for
Economic Development.
(iii) Director, Loan Guaranty Service.
E:\FR\FM\08SEP1.SGM
08SEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 173 / Monday, September 8, 2014 / Proposed Rules
(iv) Deputy Director, Loan Guaranty
Service.
(2) [Reserved]
(j) Miscellaneous. (1) The grant
offered by this chapter is not a veterans’
benefit. As such, the decisions of the
Secretary are final and not subject to the
same appeal rights as decisions related
to veterans’ benefits.
(2) The Secretary does not have a duty
to assist technology grant applicants in
obtaining a grant.
(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 2108)
(The Office of Management and Budget has
approved the information collection
requirements in this section that are within
the scope of control number 4040–0004. The
additional information collection
requirements have been submitted to OMB
and are pending OMB approval.)
[FR Doc. 2014–21138 Filed 9–5–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8320–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
50 CFR Chapters II, III, IV, V, and VI
RIN 0648–XD411
Plan for Periodic Review of
Regulations
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of regulatory review;
request for comments.
rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
AGENCY:
• Mail: Submit written comments to
Chris Wright, National Marine Fisheries
Service, NOAA, Office of Sustainable
Fisheries, 1315 East-West Highway,
Silver Spring, MD 20910 (mark outside
of envelope ‘‘Comments on 610
Review’’).
• Fax: 301–713–1193; Attn: Chris
Wright.
Instructions: Comments must be
submitted by one of the above methods
to ensure that the comments are
received, documented, and considered
by NMFS. Comments sent by any other
method, to any other address or
individual, or received after the end of
the comment period, may not be
considered. All comments received are
a part of the public record and will
generally be posted for public viewing
on www.regulations.gov without change.
All personal identifying information
(e.g., name, address, etc.) submitted
voluntarily by the sender will be
publicly accessible. Do not submit
confidential business information, or
otherwise sensitive or protected
information. NMFS will accept
anonymous comments (enter ‘‘N/A’’ in
the required fields if you wish to remain
anonymous). Attachments to electronic
comments will be accepted in Microsoft
Word or Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe
PDF file formats only.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Chris Wright, (301) 427–8504.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The RFA, 5 U.S.C. 601, requires that
Federal agencies take into account how
their regulations affect ‘‘small entities,’’
SUMMARY: The Regulatory Flexibility Act including small businesses, small
(RFA) requires that NMFS periodically
Governmental jurisdictions and small
review existing regulations that have a
organizations. For regulations proposed
significant economic impact on a
after January 1, 1981, the agency must
substantial number of small entities,
either prepare a Regulatory Flexibility
such as small businesses, small
Analysis or certify that the regulation, if
organizations, and small governmental
promulgated, will not have a significant
jurisdictions. This plan describes how
economic impact on a substantial
NMFS will perform this review and
number of small entities. Section 602
describes the regulations that are being
requires that NMFS issue an Agenda of
proposed for review during the current
Regulations identifying rules the
review cycle.
Agency is developing that are likely to
DATES: Written comments must be
have a significant economic impact on
received by NMFS by October 8, 2014.
a substantial number of small entities.
Section 610 of the RFA requires
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
on this document, identified by NOAA– Federal agencies to review existing
regulations. It requires that NMFS
NMFS–2014–0106, by any of the
publish a plan in the Federal Register
following methods:
explaining how it will review its
• Electronic Submission: Submit all
existing regulations which have or will
electronic public comments via the
have a significant economic impact on
Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to
a substantial number of small entities.
www.regulations.gov/
Regulations that become effective after
#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2014January 1, 1981, must be reviewed
0106, click the ‘‘Comment Now!’’ icon,
within 10 years of the publication date
complete the required fields, and enter
of the final rule. Section 610(c) requires
or attach your comments.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:09 Sep 05, 2014
Jkt 232001
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
53151
that NMFS annually publish a list of
final rules it will review during the
succeeding 12 months in the Federal
Register. The list must describe, explain
the need for, and provide the legal basis
for the rule, as well as invite public
comment on the rule.
Criteria for Review of Existing
Regulations
The purpose of the review is to
determine whether existing rules should
be left unchanged, or whether they
should be revised or rescinded in order
to minimize significant economic
impacts on a substantial number of
small entities, consistent with the
objectives of other applicable statutes.
In deciding whether change is
necessary, the RFA establishes five
factors that NMFS must consider:
(1) Whether the rule is still needed;
(2) What type of complaints or
comments were received concerning the
rule from the public;
(3) The complexity of the rule;
(4) How much the rule overlaps,
duplicates or conflicts with other
Federal rules, and, to the extent feasible,
with State and local governmental rules;
and
(5) How long it has been since the rule
has been evaluated or how much the
technology, economic conditions, or
other factors have changed in the area
affected by the rule.
Plan for Periodic Review of Rules
NMFS will ensure that all rules for
which a Final Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis was prepared are reviewed
within 10 years of the year in which
they were originally issued. By
December 31, 2014, NMFS will review
the following rules issued during 2007
and 2008:
1. Fisheries of the Northeastern
United States; Atlantic Mackerel, Squid,
and Butterfish Fisheries; Specifications
and Management Measures. RIN 0648–
AT65 (72 FR 4211; January 30, 2007).
NMFS issued a final rule implementing
the 2007 specifications and management
measures for Atlantic mackerel, squid,
and butterfish, and modified existing
management measures. Specifically, it
implemented trimester quota allocations
for the Loligo squid fishery and
established the protocol for an inseason
adjustment to increase the mackerel
harvest, if landings approach harvest
limits. Lastly, the final rule clarified,
updated, and corrected existing
regulatory language that was misleading
or incorrect. The action promoted the
utilization and conservation of the
resource.
2. Atlantic Highly Migratory Species;
Atlantic Commercial Shark Management
E:\FR\FM\08SEP1.SGM
08SEP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 173 (Monday, September 8, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 53146-53151]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-21138]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
38 CFR Part 36
RIN 2900-AO70
Loan Guaranty--Specially Adapted Housing Assistive Technology
Grant Program
AGENCY: Department of Veterans Affairs.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is proposing to
implement through regulation statutory authority to provide grants for
the development of new assistive technologies for use in specially
adapted housing for eligible veterans or servicemembers, as authorized
by the Veterans' Benefits Act of 2010 (the Act), enacted on October 13,
2010. The Act authorizes VA to provide grants of up to $200,000 per
fiscal year to persons or entities to encourage the development of
specially adapted housing assistive technologies. VA is amending its
regulations to outline the process, the criteria, and the priorities
relating to the award of these research and development grants.
DATES: Comments must be received by VA on or before November 7, 2014.
ADDRESSES: Written comments may be submitted through https://www.Regulations.gov; by mail or hand-delivery to: Director, Regulation
Policy and Management (02REG), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810
Vermont Avenue NW., Room 1068, Washington, DC 20420; or by fax to (202)
273-9026. Comments should indicate that they are submitted in response
to ``RIN 2900-AO70-Loan Guaranty--Specially Adapted Housing Assistive
Technology Grant Program.'' Copies of comments received will be
available for public inspection in the Office of Regulation Policy and
Management, Room 1068, between the hours of 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m.,
Monday through Friday (except holidays). Please call (202) 461-4923 for
an appointment (this is not a toll-free number). In addition, during
the comment period, comments may be
[[Page 53147]]
viewed online through the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) at
https://www.Regulations.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Bell III, Assistant Director for
Loan Policy and Valuation (262), Veterans Benefits Administration,
Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC
20420, (202) 632-8786. (This is not a toll-free number.)
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Public Law 111-275, the Veterans' Benefits
Act of 2010 (the Act), was enacted on October 13, 2010. Section 203 of
the Act amended chapter 21, title 38, United States Code, to establish
the Specially Adapted Housing Assistive Technology Grant Program.
Veterans' Benefits Act of 2010, Public Law 111-275, Sec. 203, 124
Stat. 2874 (2010). The Act authorizes VA to provide grants of up to
$200,000 per fiscal year, through September 30, 2016, to a ``person or
entity'' for the development of specially adapted housing assistive
technologies and limits to $1 million the aggregate amount of such
grants VA may award in any fiscal year. Id. VA is publishing these
proposed regulations to outline the process, the criteria, and the
priorities relating to the award of these research and development
grants.
The Specially Adapted Housing (SAH) Grant Program is administered
by the Loan Guaranty Service (LGY) of the Veterans Benefits
Administration (VBA). Through the SAH program, LGY provides grants to
servicemembers and veterans with certain service-connected disabilities
to help purchase or construct an adapted home, or modify an existing
home to allow them to live more independently. Currently, most SAH
adaptations involve structural modifications such as ramps, wider halls
and doorways, and lower countertops.
Pursuant to the authority established by the Act, VA is proposing
to amend its regulations to implement a new grant program to encourage
the development of specially adapted housing assistive technologies. As
proposed, Sec. 36.4412(a)(1) and (2) would state that the Secretary
will make grants for the development of new assistive technologies for
specially adapted housing and that a person or entity may apply for
such grants. Proposed Sec. 36.4412(a)(3) would also require that the
new grant program be administered in a manner as consistent as possible
with part 200 of title 2 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). Part
200 is where the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has issued
regulatory guidance to Federal agencies that provide grant awards to
non-Federal entities, that is, to States, local governments, Indian
tribes, institutions of higher education, or non-profit organizations
that carry out a Federal award as recipient or subrecipient. See 2 CFR
200.69. The part broadly outlines pre-award requirements on agencies
and applicants, as well as post-award requirements related to financial
and program management, property standards, procurement standards,
reports and records, and standards on termination and enforcement. The
part also sets forth after-the-award requirements related to closeout,
subsequent adjustments, continuing responsibilities, and collections of
amounts due.
Since the new program would also be open to individuals and private
entities, some of the applicants will not meet the definition of non-
Federal entity or recipient, as defined under part 200, and certain
provisions of part 200 may not be applicable to all applicants in this
technology grant program. Where the Secretary determines a provision is
not applicable or where the Secretary determines that additional
requirements are necessary due to the uniqueness of a situation, the
Secretary would apply the same standard applicable to exceptions under
2 CFR 200.102.
Although part 200 does not define the term exception, Sec. 200.102
is clear that an exception can relax an existing requirement or make
additional, more restrictive requirements on a participant. Section
200.102 requires that if an exception is more restrictive on a certain
class of participants than that which is otherwise provided in part
200, VA must receive approval from OMB. If an exception is less
restrictive than what is provided in part 200, Sec. 200.102 authorizes
VA to grant the exception on a case-by-case basis. It is impossible to
anticipate every way in which the Secretary can or should exercise
oversight authority. The purpose of this provision is to ensure that a
loophole in a regulation does not unduly hinder the Secretary's ability
to protect the public interest or prevent private individuals or
organizations from participating because of technicalities related to
oversight.
The regulation would also include proposed paragraph (b) covering
the definitions applicable to the SAH technology grant. The definitions
found at 38 CFR 36.4401 would be incorporated by reference. New
definitions for ``technology grant applicant'' and ``new assistive
technology'' would be added, but they would not be relevant to the
types of SAH grants that are provided directly to veterans. They would
solely be limited to the SAH technology grant.
The new definitions would provide who may apply for an SAH
technology grant and the type of product that would have to be
developed using SAH technology grant funds. House Report 111-109 stated
that the ``research and development community is diverse, ranging from
single-person inventors to large corporations and academic
institutions.'' H.R. Rep. No. 111-109, at 3 (2009). Accordingly, for
the purpose of determining who may apply to this grant program, VA
would define ``technology grant applicant'' to include a person or
entity that applies for a grant pursuant to 38 U.S.C. 2108 and 38 CFR
36.4412 to develop new assistive technology or technologies for
specially adapted housing. House Report 111-109 also explained that
there are many emerging technologies that could improve home adaptions
or otherwise enhance a veteran or servicemember's ability to live
independently, such as voice-recognition and voice-command operations,
living environment controls, and adaptive feeding equipment. Id.
Therefore, VA is proposing to define ``new assistive technology'' as an
advancement that the Secretary determines could aid or enhance the
ability of an eligible individual, as defined in 38 CFR 36.4401, to
live in an adapted home.
Proposed paragraph (c) would provide that, as funds are made
available for the program, VA would publish in the Federal Register a
Notice of Funds Availability (NoFA), soliciting applications for the
grant program and information on applications. Upon publication of a
NoFA, a technology grant applicant seeking a grant under this section
would submit an application to the Secretary via www.Grants.gov, as
required under proposed paragraph (d). Applications would include: (1)
Standard Form 424 (Application for Federal Assistance) with the box
labeled ``application'' marked; (2) a certification that the applicant
has not been debarred or suspended and is eligible to participate in
the VA grant process and receive Federal funds; (3) statements
addressing the scoring criteria; and (4) any additional information as
deemed appropriate by VA.
Under proposed paragraph (e), the NoFA would set forth the full and
specific procedural requirements for assistive technology grant
applicants, such as whether the grant cycle would be limited to
applications submitted during a particular timeframe or if applications
would be accepted on a rolling basis.
[[Page 53148]]
Under proposed paragraph (f), the Secretary would establish the
specific scoring criteria used to evaluate all technology grant
applications received by VA. The scoring criteria and the maximum
amount of points available are as follows:
(i) A description of how the new assistive technology is innovative
(up to 50 points);
(ii) An explanation of how the new assistive technology will meet a
specific, unmet need among eligible individuals (up to 50 points);
(iii) An explanation of how the new assistive technology is
specifically designed to promote the ability of eligible individuals to
live more independently (up to 30 points);
(iv) A description of the new assistive technology's concept, size,
and scope (up to 30 points);
(v) An implementation plan with major milestones for bringing the
new assistive technology into production and to the market. Such
milestones must be meaningful and achievable within a specific
timeframe (up to 30 points); and
(vi) An explanation of what uniquely positions the technology grant
applicant in the marketplace. This can include a focus on
characteristics such as the economic reliability of the technology
grant applicant, the technology grant applicant's status as a minority
or veteran-owned business, or other characteristics that the technology
grant applicant wants to include to show how it will help protect the
interests of, or further the mission of, VA and the program (up to 20
points).
As provided, each scoring criterion would be capped at a maximum
number of points. Although VA would not set a maximum aggregate score
possible, an application would have to receive 70 points or more to be
considered for an award. If an application does not score a minimum of
70 points, VA would not consider it for an award, even if it means an
award cannot be made during a particular grant cycle. VA believes the
scoring framework would allow the Secretary to make awards based on
priorities of veterans and VA, while also ensuring that taxpayer funds
are used responsibly.
The actual number of points received would not be based solely on
the technology grant applicant's responses, but also on a number of
variables such as specific needs of veterans and servicemembers, number
of technology grant applicants, type of technology grant applicants,
the availability of funds, and other factors related to VA's mission of
serving veterans. VA would explain scoring priorities in the published
NoFA so that technology grant applicants have the opportunity to tailor
their responses accordingly. The change in priorities would not
introduce new scoring criteria. It would merely help technology grant
applicants understand how the scores will be weighted.
To illustrate: VA might emphasize in one grant cycle the need for
innovation, and as a result, explain in the NoFA that innovation will
be a top priority. A technology grant applicant would then know to
concentrate on how innovative its product would be. In reviewing the
application, the Secretary might award all 50 allowable points to the
technology grant applicant who best satisfies that criterion. In the
next grant cycle, the Secretary might determine that a particular need
has gone unmet among eligible individuals who are adapting their homes.
The Secretary might choose to place more emphasis on meeting that need
than on general innovation. As a result, the published NoFA for that
grant cycle would explain the Secretary's new priorities. A technology
grant applicant would then know that its application would have more
success if it were to focus on how the product would meet the need.
When reviewing applications, the Secretary could choose to award all 50
points for that criterion, while only scoring the most innovative
product 30 points.
As shown, proposed paragraph (f) would provide technology grant
applicants all the substantive information necessary for meeting VA
requirements. Meanwhile, it would allow VA to adapt to veterans' needs
and to the marketplace without requiring a new regulatory change each
time a new grant cycle is introduced.
Proposed paragraph (g) would state that deadlines for program
applications would be established in the NoFA. Proposed paragraph (h)
would also note that decisions for awarding technology grants would be
made in accordance with the guidelines (covering such issues as timing
and method of notification) described in the NoFA. The Secretary would
provide written approvals, denials, or requests for additional
information. As part of the annual program report to Congress required
by the Act, VA would conduct periodic audits of all approved grants
under this program to ensure that the actual project size and scope are
consistent with those outlined in the proposal and that established
milestones are achieved. Such audits would be consistent with the
requirements under 2 CFR part 200.
Proposed paragraph (i) would also include a new delegation of
authority specific to the technology grant program. Currently, 38 CFR
36.4409 authorizes certain VA employees to act on behalf of the
Secretary with respect to assisting eligible individuals in acquiring
specially adapted housing. This delegation does not extend to the
technology grant program. Therefore, VA proposes that the VA officials
who would be authorized to exercise the powers and functions of the
Secretary with respect to providing assistance under 38 U.S.C. 2108
would be as follows: (a) Under Secretary for Benefits, (b) Deputy Under
Secretary for Economic Development, (c) Director, Loan Guaranty
Service, and (d) Deputy Director, Loan Guaranty Service.
Finally, we would note in proposed paragraph (j) that the
technology grant is not a veterans' benefit and, therefore, is not
subject to the same rights of appeal as an adjudication of benefits.
See 38 U.S.C. 7104(a). Moreover, although VA would provide technology
grant applicants with as much information and assistance as possible,
the Secretary does not have a duty to assist technology grant
applicants in obtaining a grant. See 38 U.S.C. 5103A(a).
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, when
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public
health and safety effects, and other advantages; distributive impacts;
and equity). Executive Order 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory
Review) emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and
benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility.
Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) defines a
``significant regulatory action,'' requiring review by OMB, as ``any
regulatory action that is likely to result in a rule that may: (1) Have
an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely
affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy,
productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or
safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities; (2)
Create a serious inconsistency or interfere with an action taken or
planned by another agency; (3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of
entitlements, 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
[[Page 53149]]
the principles set forth in this Executive Order.
The economic, interagency, budgetary, legal, and policy
implications of this proposed rule have been examined, and it has been
determined to be a significant regulatory action under Executive Order
12866 because it is likely to result in a rule that may raise novel
legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's
priorities, or the principles set forth in Executive Orders 12866 or
13563. VA's impact analysis can be found as a supporting document at
https://www.regulations.gov, usually within 48 hours after the
rulemaking document is published. Additionally, a copy of the
rulemaking and its impact analysis are available on VA's Web site at
https://www1.va.gov/orpm/, by following the link for ``VA Regulations
Published.''
Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Secretary hereby certifies that this proposed rule would not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities as they are defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5
U.S.C. 601-612. There would be no significant economic impact on any
small entities because grant applicants are not required to provide
matching funds to receive the maximum grant amount of $200,000. The
assistive technology grant program would not impact a substantial
number of small entities because VA may only award a maximum of $1
million in aggregate grant funds per fiscal year, and VA's authority to
award these grants expires September 30, 2016. On this basis, the
Secretary certifies that the adoption of this proposed rule would not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities as they are defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5
U.S.C. 601-612. Therefore, under 5 U.S.C. 605(b), this rulemaking is
exempt from the initial and final regulatory flexibility analysis
requirements of sections 603 and 604.
Unfunded Mandates
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires, at 2 U.S.C.
1532, that agencies prepare an assessment of anticipated costs and
benefits before issuing any rule that may result in an expenditure by
State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the
private sector, of $100 million or more (adjusted annually for
inflation) in any one year. This proposed rule would have no such
effect on State, local, and tribal governments, or on the private
sector.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This proposed rule includes provisions constituting collections of
information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-
3521) that require approval by OMB. Accordingly, under 44 U.S.C.
3507(d), VA has submitted a copy of this rulemaking action to OMB for
review.
OMB assigns control numbers to collections of information it
approves. VA may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. Proposed 38 CFR 36.4412(d) contains
a collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
If OMB does not approve the collection of information as requested, VA
will immediately remove the provisions containing a collection of
information or take such other action as is directed by OMB.
Comments on the collections of information contained in this
proposed rule should be submitted to the Office of Management and
Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for the Department of Veterans Affairs,
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Washington, DC 20503,
with copies sent by mail or hand delivery to the Director, Regulation
Policy and Management (02REG), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810
Vermont Avenue NW., Room 1068, Washington, DC 20420; fax to (202) 273-
9026; email to www.Regulations.gov. Comments should indicate that they
are submitted in response to ``RIN 2900-AO70.''
OMB is required to make a decision concerning the collections of
information contained in this proposed rule between 30 and 60 days
after publication of this document in the Federal Register. Therefore,
a comment to OMB is best assured of having its full effect if OMB
receives it within 30 days of publication. This does not affect the
deadline for the public to comment on the proposed rule.
The Department considers comments by the public on proposed
collections of information in--
Evaluating whether the proposed collections of information
are necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the
Department, including whether the information will have practical
utility;
Evaluating the accuracy of the Department's estimate of
the burden of the proposed collections of information, including the
validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
Enhancing the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the
information to be collected; and
Minimizing the burden of the collections of information on
those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate
automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection
techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting
electronic submission of responses.
The new collection of information contained in 38 CFR 36.4412(d) is
described immediately following this paragraph, under its title.
Title: Applicant Scoring Criteria and Certification Regarding
Debarment, Suspension, Ineligibility and Voluntary Exclusion.
Summary of collection of information: The new collection
of information in proposed 38 CFR 36.4412(d) would require applicants
for an SAH Assistive Technology grant to submit VA Form 26-0967,
``Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, Ineligibility and
Voluntary Exclusion,'' and to provide statements addressing the scoring
criteria for grant awards. VA Form 26-0967 is currently pending OMB
approval. Additionally, 38 CFR 36.4412(d) contains an existing
information collection that is currently approved by OMB and has been
assigned OMB control number 4040-0004.
Description of need for information and proposed use of
information: Section 2108 of Title 38 of the United States Code states
that a person or entity seeking an SAH technology grant shall submit an
application for the grant in such form and manner as the Secretary
shall specify. VA is specifying in regulation that the information
provided under this collection of information is necessary for a
complete SAH Assistive Technology grant application. The information
will be used by Loan Guaranty personnel in deciding whether an
applicant meets the requirements and satisfies the scoring criteria for
award of an SAH Assistive Technology grant under 38 U.S.C. 2108.
Description of likely respondents: Respondents will likely
include non-Federal entities, private entities, and individuals who
choose to submit applications for an SAH Assistive Technology grant.
Estimated number of respondents: 20 in Fiscal Year (FY)
2015; 20 in FY 2016.
Estimated frequency of responses: This is a one-time
collection.
Estimated average burden per response: 120 minutes.
Estimated total annual reporting and recordkeeping burden:
40 hours in FY 2015; 40 hours in FY 2016.
[[Page 53150]]
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance
The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance program numbers and
titles for the programs affected by this document are 64.106, Specially
Adapted Housing for Disabled Veterans and 64.118, Veterans Housing--
Direct Loans for Certain Disabled Veterans.
Signing Authority
The Acting Secretary of Veterans Affairs, or designee, approved
this document and authorized the undersigned to sign and submit the
document to the Office of the Federal Register for publication
electronically as an official document of the Department of Veterans
Affairs. Jose D. Riojas, Chief of Staff, Department of Veterans
Affairs, approved this document on August 15, 2014, for publication.
List of Subjects in 38 CFR Part 36
Condominiums, Housing, Indians, Individuals with disabilities, Loan
programs--housing and community development, Loan programs--Indians,
Loan programs--veterans, Manufactured homes, Mortgage insurance,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Veterans.
Dated: September 2, 2014.
Robert C. McFetridge,
Director, Regulation Policy and Management, Office of the General
Counsel, Department of Veterans Affairs.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, VA proposes to amend 38
CFR part 36, subpart C to read as follows:
PART 36--LOAN GUARANTY
Subpart C--Assistance to Eligible Individuals in Acquiring
Specially Adapted Housing
0
1. The authority citation for part 36, subpart C continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501 and as otherwise noted.
0
2. Add Sec. 36.4412 to read as follows:
Sec. 36.4412 Specially Adapted Housing Assistive Technology Grant
Program.
(a) General. (1) The Secretary will make grants for the development
of new assistive technologies for specially adapted housing.
(2) A person or entity may apply for, and receive, a grant pursuant
to this section.
(3)(i) All technology grant recipients, including individuals and
entities formed as for-profit entities, will be subject to the rules on
Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Agreements With
Institutions of Higher Education, Hospitals, and other Non-profit
Organizations, as found at 2 CFR Part 200.
(ii) Where the Secretary determines that 2 CFR Part 200 is not
applicable or where the Secretary determines that additional
requirements are necessary due to the uniqueness of a situation, the
Secretary will apply the same standard applicable to exceptions under 2
CFR 200.102.
(b) Definitions. To supplement the definitions contained in Sec.
36.4401, the following terms are herein defined for purposes of this
section:
(1) A technology grant applicant is a person or entity that applies
for a grant pursuant to 38 U.S.C. 2108 and this section to develop new
assistive technology or technologies for specially adapted housing.
(2) A new assistive technology is an advancement that the Secretary
determines could aid or enhance the ability of an eligible individual,
as defined in 38 CFR 36.4401, to live in an adapted home.
(c) Grant application solicitation. As funds are available for the
program, VA will publish in the Federal Register a Notice of Funds
Availability (NoFA), soliciting applications for the grant program and
providing information on applications.
(d) Application process and requirements. Upon publication of the
NoFA, a technology grant applicant must submit an application to the
Secretary via www.Grants.gov. Applications must consist of the
following:
(1) Standard Form 424 (Application for Federal Assistance) with the
box labeled ``application'' marked;
(2) VA Form 26-0967 (Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension,
Ineligibility and Voluntary Exclusion) to ensure that the technology
grant applicant has not been debarred or suspended and is eligible to
participate in the VA grant process and receive Federal funds;
(3) Statements addressing the scoring criteria in 38 CFR
36.4412(f); and
(4) Any additional information as deemed appropriate by VA.
(e) Threshold requirements. The NoFA will set out the full and
specific procedural requirements for technology grant applicants.
(f) Scoring criteria. (1) The Secretary will score technology grant
applications based on the scoring criteria in paragraph (f)(2) of this
section. Although there is not a cap on the maximum aggregate score
possible, a technology grant application must receive a minimum
aggregate score of 70 points to be considered for a technology grant.
(2) The scoring criteria and maximum points are as follows:
(i) A description of how the new assistive technology is innovative
(up to 50 points);
(ii) An explanation of how the new assistive technology will meet a
specific, unmet need among eligible individuals (up to 50 points);
(iii) An explanation of how the new assistive technology is
specifically designed to promote the ability of eligible individuals to
live more independently (up to 30 points);
(iv) A description of the new assistive technology's concept, size,
and scope (up to 30 points);
(v) An implementation plan with major milestones for bringing the
new assistive technology into production and to the market. Such
milestones must be meaningful and achievable within a specific
timeframe (up to 30 points); and
(vi) An explanation of what uniquely positions the technology grant
applicant in the marketplace. This can include a focus on
characteristics such as the economic reliability of the technology
grant applicant, the technology grant applicant's status as a minority
or veteran-owned business, or other characteristics that the technology
grant applicant wants to include to show how it will help protect the
interests of, or further the mission of, VA and the program (up to 20
points).
(g) Application deadlines. Deadlines for technology grant
applications will be established in the NoFA.
(h) Awards process. Decisions for awarding technology grants under
this section will be made in accordance with guidelines (covering such
issues as timing and method of notification) described in the NoFA. The
Secretary will provide written approvals, denials, or requests for
additional information. The Secretary will conduct periodic audits of
all approved grants under this program to ensure that the actual
project size and scope are consistent with those outlined in the
proposal and that established milestones are achieved.
(i) Delegation of authority. (1) Each VA employee appointed to or
lawfully fulfilling any of the following positions is hereby delegated
authority, within the limitations and conditions prescribed by law, to
exercise the powers and functions of the Secretary with respect to the
grant program authorized by 38 U.S.C. 2108:
(i) Under Secretary for Benefits.
(ii) Deputy Under Secretary for Economic Development.
(iii) Director, Loan Guaranty Service.
[[Page 53151]]
(iv) Deputy Director, Loan Guaranty Service.
(2) [Reserved]
(j) Miscellaneous. (1) The grant offered by this chapter is not a
veterans' benefit. As such, the decisions of the Secretary are final
and not subject to the same appeal rights as decisions related to
veterans' benefits.
(2) The Secretary does not have a duty to assist technology grant
applicants in obtaining a grant.
(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 2108)
(The Office of Management and Budget has approved the information
collection requirements in this section that are within the scope of
control number 4040-0004. The additional information collection
requirements have been submitted to OMB and are pending OMB
approval.)
[FR Doc. 2014-21138 Filed 9-5-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8320-01-P
