Loan Guaranty-Specially Adapted Housing Assistive Technology Grant Program, 55763-55766 [2015-23280]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 180 / Thursday, September 17, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 117
[Docket No. USCG–2015–0850]
Drawbridge Operation Regulations;
Delaware River, Burlington County, NJ
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of deviation from
drawbridge regulations.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
The Coast Guard has issued a
temporary deviation from the operating
schedules that govern the TaconyPalmyra (Route 73) Bridge over
Delaware River, mile 107.2, between
Tacony, PA and Palmyra, NJ and
Burlington-Bristol (Route 413) Bridge
over Delaware River, mile 117.8,
between Burlington, NJ and Bristol, PA.
This deviation allows the bridges to
remain in the closed-to-navigation
position to facilitate the 2015 Papal
Visit to Philadelphia, PA.
DATES: This deviation is effective from
6 a.m. on September 26, 2015, to 9 p.m.
on September 27, 2015.
ADDRESSES: The docket for this
deviation, [USCG–2015–0850], is
available at https://www.regulations.gov.
Type the docket number in the
‘‘SEARCH’’ box and click ‘‘SEARCH’’.
Click on Open Docket Folder on the line
associated with this deviation. You may
also visit the Docket Management
Facility in Room W12–140 on the
ground floor of the Department of
Transportation West Building, 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington,
DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If
you have questions on this temporary
deviation, call or email Mr. Hal R. Pitts,
Bridge Administration Branch Fifth
District, Coast Guard; telephone (757)
398–6222, email Hal.R.Pitts@uscg.mil. If
you have questions on viewing the
docket, call Cheryl Collins, Program
Manager, Docket Operations, telephone
202–366–9826.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
Burlington County Bridge Commission,
who owns and operates the TaconyPalmyra (Route 73) Bridge over
Delaware River and Burlington-Bristol
(Route 413) Bridge over Delaware River,
has requested a temporary deviation
from the current operating regulations
set out in 33 CFR 117.716 to facilitate
movement of vehicles during the 2015
Papal Visit to Philadelphia, PA.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:04 Sep 16, 2015
Jkt 235001
Under the normal operating schedule
for Tacony-Palmyra (Route 73) Bridge
over Delaware River, mile 107.2,
between Tacony, PA and Palmyra, NJ
and Burlington-Bristol (Route 413)
Bridge over Delaware River, mile 117.8,
between Burlington, NJ and Bristol, PA;
opening of the bridge may not be
delayed more than five minutes after the
signal to open is given. The vertical
clearances in the closed-to-navigation
position of the Tacony-Palmyra (Route
73) Bridge over Delaware River and
Burlington-Bristol (Route 413) Bridge
over Delaware River are 53 feet and 62
feet, respectively, above mean high
water.
Under this temporary deviation, the
bridges will remain in the closed-tonavigation position from 6 a.m. to 9
p.m. on September 26 and September
27, 2015, except for scheduled daily
openings at 12 noon and 6 p.m. Vessels
signaling an intention to transit through
both bridges during a scheduled
opening will receive openings at both
bridges. The bridges will operate as
required per 33 CFR 117.716 from 9
p.m. on September 26 to 6 a.m. on
September 27, 2015. The Delaware River
is used by a variety of vessels including
deep draft ocean-going vessels, small
commercial fishing vessels, recreational
vessels and tug and barge traffic. The
Coast Guard has carefully coordinated
the restrictions with commercial and
recreational waterway users.
Vessels able to pass through the
bridges in the closed position may do so
at anytime. The bridges will be able to
open for emergencies and there is no
alternate route for vessels unable to pass
through the bridges in the closed
position. The Coast Guard will also
inform the users of the waterways
through our Local and Broadcast Notice
to Mariners of the change in operating
schedules for these bridges so that
vessels can arrange their transits to
minimize any impacts caused by this
temporary deviation.
In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e),
the drawbridges must return to their
regular operating schedules
immediately at the end of the effective
period of this temporary deviation. This
deviation from the operating regulations
is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.
Dated: September 10, 2015.
Hal R. Pitts,
Bridge Program Manager, Fifth Coast Guard
District.
[FR Doc. 2015–23343 Filed 9–16–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110–04–P
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
55763
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS
AFFAIRS
38 CFR Part 36
RIN 2900–AO70
Loan Guaranty—Specially Adapted
Housing Assistive Technology Grant
Program
Department of Veterans Affairs.
Final rule.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
This rule adopts as final,
without change, a proposed rule of the
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to
amend its regulations to provide grants
for the development of new assistive
technologies for use in specially
adapted housing for eligible veterans or
servicemembers. The Veterans’ Benefits
Act of 2010 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. This
final rule implements changes to VA
regulations to clarify the process, the
criteria, and the priorities relating to the
award of these research and
development grants.
DATES: Effective Date: This rule is
effective October 19, 2015.
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:
SUMMARY:
The September 8, 2014 Proposed Rule
On September 8, 2014, VA published
a proposed rule in the Federal Register
at 79 FR 53146, implementing VA’s
statutory authority to provide grants for
the development of new assistive
technologies for use in specially
adapted housing for eligible veterans or
servicemembers. Section 203 of the
Veterans’ Benefits Act of 2010 (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, section 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.
The public comment period for the
proposed rule closed on November 7,
E:\FR\FM\17SER1.SGM
17SER1
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
55764
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 180 / Thursday, September 17, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
2014. VA received one comment. The
comment received on the proposed rule
is discussed below. VA adopts without
substantive change the proposed rule
that implements the grant program to
encourage the development of specially
adapted housing assistive technologies.
As explained below, however, VA is
making one administrative correction to
the proposed delegation of authority.
VA received one public comment on
the proposed rule from an individual.
The commenter expressed support for
the proposed rule, but believed the
application scoring criteria should be
revised. The commenter explained that
the prioritization of the criteria outlined
in the proposed rule should be changed
to reflect ‘‘those characteristics that
make the project most likely to produce
a successful and impactful result.’’ The
commenter recommended changing the
maximum point values that may be
awarded for certain scoring criteria,
with a feasible implementation plan
being eligible for the highest number of
maximum possible points and
innovation and minority or economic
status being eligible for the lowest
number of maximum possible points.
Additionally, the commenter proposed
that ‘‘empirical research’’ should be
added as a distinct scoring criterion
utilized in the review process.
VA is publishing the scoring criteria
set forth in proposed 38 CFR 36.4412(f)
without change because VA believes
that the criteria as proposed effectively
carry out Congress’s intent for the Grant
program and satisfy the commenter’s
interest in successful and impactful
results. Specifically, in regard to the
legislative history of the Act, the
preamble to the proposed rule explained
that ‘‘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 voicerecognition and voice-command
operations, living environment controls,
and adaptive feeding equipment.’’ 79 FR
53147. In its scoring criteria, VA
provided that a new advancement’s
innovation and ability to meet an unmet
need may be awarded the maximum
possible points because it understood a
central goal of the law to be the
development of original, potentially
groundbreaking technologies. VA also
prioritized a new advancement’s
promotion of independent living in the
scoring criteria based on Congress’s
statement that emerging technologies (as
supported through this Grant program)
could enhance the ability for veterans or
servicemembers to live independently.
See 79 FR 53148. Additionally, to
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:04 Sep 16, 2015
Jkt 235001
ensure that these advancements may be
feasibly developed and effectively
utilized by eligible individuals, VA’s
proposed scoring criteria also include a
description of the new assistive
technology’s concept, size, and scope
and an implementation plan for
bringing the technology to the
marketplace. See id. Accordingly, VA is
maintaining its scoring criteria as set
forth in the proposed rule because this
prioritization effectively carries out
congressional intent while addressing
the commenter’s stated interest in
successful and impactful results.
Additionally, VA is publishing the
scoring criteria set forth in proposed 38
CFR 36.4412(f) without change because
the criteria provide VA flexibility to
ensure that grant awards are made based
on the identified priorities and/or needs
of veterans and VA at the time the
Notice of Funds Availability (NoFA) is
published. See 79 FR 53147, 53148.
Specifically, in setting out the scoring
criteria and maximum points that may
be awarded for each criterion, VA
explained that ‘‘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.’’
79 FR 53148. As explained in the
preamble to the proposed rule, while
the regulation text sets forth the
maximum number of points that may be
awarded based on any one criterion,
each NoFA would explain the specific
scoring priorities for that grant
application cycle. Id. This change in
priorities would not introduce new
scoring criteria, but would instead help
technology grant applicants understand
how the scores will be weighted and
provide them an opportunity to tailor
their responses accordingly. Id.
The preamble to the proposed rule
also provides an example to illustrate
VA’s flexibility to emphasize certain
criterion in each NoFA. It explains that
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
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
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. Id.
Accordingly, VA believes this flexibility
to weigh criteria based on the identified
needs and priorities of veterans and VA
at the time a NoFA is published will
ensure grant awards successfully carry
out program goals and positively impact
eligible individuals.
Finally, the commenter suggested
adding ‘‘empirical research’’ as a
criterion to be evaluated when scoring
grant applications. VA understands
empirical research to be defined as
‘‘originating in or based on observation
or experience’’ (https://www.merriamwebster.com/dictionary/empirical).
VA’s scoring criteria anticipate VA’s
consideration of empirical research in
evaluating applications and determining
points awarded for each criterion. For
example, an application for a new
assistive technology may utilize
empirical research surrounding
currently-available technologies on the
market to demonstrate the
advancement’s level of innovation. Or, a
successful description of how the new
advancement is specifically designed to
promote the ability of eligible
individuals to live independently may
utilize empirical research to explain, for
example, the most common disabilities
among eligible individuals, the critical
factors that affect an eligible
individual’s ability to live
independently, and how the new
assistive technology may enable
individuals to overcome barriers to
independent living. VA will consider
the presence of empirical research in its
review of applications and
determination of points to be awarded.
As empirical research may be utilized to
support applications and impact
application scoring under the existing
criteria, it does not need to be added as
a stand-alone factor for evaluation.
Administrative Correction
The proposed rule included a
delegation of authority to various
officials in the Department. The title of
the Deputy Under Secretary for
Economic Opportunity was incorrectly
listed as the Deputy Under Secretary for
Economic Development. This rule
corrects the error. The change is only for
administrative accuracy and has no
substantive effect on the rule.
E:\FR\FM\17SER1.SGM
17SER1
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 180 / Thursday, September 17, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
direct agencies to assess the 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
the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB), unless OMB waives such
review, 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
otherwise 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
the principles set forth in this Executive
Order.
The economic, interagency,
budgetary, legal, and policy
implications of this regulatory action
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://www.va.gov/orpm/, by
following the link for ‘‘VA Regulations
Published from FY 2004 Through Fiscal
Year to Date.’’
Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Secretary hereby certifies that
this final rule will not have a significant
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:04 Sep 16, 2015
Jkt 235001
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 will 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 will 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 final rule will
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 the
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 final rule will have no
such effect on State, local, and tribal
governments, or on the private sector.
Paperwork Reduction Act
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires that VA
consider the impact of paperwork and
other information collection burdens
imposed on the public. Under 44 U.S.C.
3507(a), an agency may not collect or
sponsor the collection of information,
nor may it impose an information
collection requirement unless it
displays a currently valid OMB control
number. 5 CFR 1320.8(b)(1) and (3)(vi).
This final rule will impose the
following new information collection
requirements. Section 36.4412(d) of title
38 CFR will 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. The
information provided under this
collection of information is necessary
for a complete SAH Assistive
Technology grant application. The
information will be used by VA in
deciding whether an applicant meets
the requirements and satisfies the
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
55765
scoring criteria for award of an SAH
Assistive Technology grant under 38
U.S.C. 2108. As required by the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (at 44
U.S.C. 3507(d)), VA has submitted these
information collections to OMB for its
review. OMB approved these new
information collection requirements
associated with the final rule and
assigned OMB control number 2900–
0821.
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 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.
Robert L. Nabors II, Chief of Staff,
Department of Veterans Affairs,
approved this document on September
11, 2015, 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 11, 2015.
Michael P. Shores,
Chief Impact Analyst, Office of Regulation
Policy & Management, Office of the General
Counsel, Department of Veterans Affairs.
For the reasons set out in the
preamble, VA amends 38 CFR part 36,
subpart C to read as follows:
PART 36—LOAN GUARANTY
1. The authority citation for part 36
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501 and as otherwise
noted.
■
2. Add § 36.4412 to read as follows:
§ 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.
E:\FR\FM\17SER1.SGM
17SER1
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
55766
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 180 / Thursday, September 17, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
(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 § 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 paragraph (f) of this section;
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:04 Sep 16, 2015
Jkt 235001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
to the grant program authorized by 38
U.S.C. 2108:
(i) Under Secretary for Benefits.
(ii) Deputy Under Secretary for
Economic Opportunity.
(iii) Director, Loan Guaranty Service.
(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 under control
numbers 4040–0004 and 2900–0821.)
[FR Doc. 2015–23280 Filed 9–16–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8320–01–P
POSTAL SERVICE
39 CFR Part 957
Rules of Practice Before the Judicial
Officer
Postal Service.
Final rule.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
This document contains the
final revisions to the rules of practice
before the Judicial Officer in
proceedings relative to debarment from
contracting.
DATES: Effective: September 17, 2015.
ADDRESSES: Written inquiries may be
directed to: Postal Service Judicial
Officer Department, 2101 Wilson
Boulevard, Suite 600, Arlington, VA
22201–3078.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Associate Judicial Officer Gary E.
Shapiro, (703) 812–1910.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
SUMMARY:
A. Executive Summary
On July 1, 2015, the Judicial Officer
Department published for comment
proposed revisions to the rules of
practice before the Judicial Officer for
proceedings relative to debarment from
contracting (80 FR 37565–7). The period
for comments closed on July 31, 2015,
and no comments were received. The
Judicial Officer has made no further
revisions to the original proposed rules,
which are adopted as final. The new
rules completely replace the former
rules of 39 CFR part 957.
E:\FR\FM\17SER1.SGM
17SER1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 180 (Thursday, September 17, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 55763-55766]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-23280]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This rule adopts as final, without change, a proposed rule of
the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to amend its regulations to
provide grants for the development of new assistive technologies for
use in specially adapted housing for eligible veterans or
servicemembers. The Veterans' Benefits Act of 2010 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. This final rule implements changes to VA regulations to
clarify the process, the criteria, and the priorities relating to the
award of these research and development grants.
DATES: Effective Date: This rule is effective October 19, 2015.
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:
The September 8, 2014 Proposed Rule
On September 8, 2014, VA published a proposed rule in the Federal
Register at 79 FR 53146, implementing VA's statutory authority to
provide grants for the development of new assistive technologies for
use in specially adapted housing for eligible veterans or
servicemembers. Section 203 of the Veterans' Benefits Act of 2010 (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, section 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.
The public comment period for the proposed rule closed on November
7,
[[Page 55764]]
2014. VA received one comment. The comment received on the proposed
rule is discussed below. VA adopts without substantive change the
proposed rule that implements the grant program to encourage the
development of specially adapted housing assistive technologies. As
explained below, however, VA is making one administrative correction to
the proposed delegation of authority.
VA received one public comment on the proposed rule from an
individual. The commenter expressed support for the proposed rule, but
believed the application scoring criteria should be revised. The
commenter explained that the prioritization of the criteria outlined in
the proposed rule should be changed to reflect ``those characteristics
that make the project most likely to produce a successful and impactful
result.'' The commenter recommended changing the maximum point values
that may be awarded for certain scoring criteria, with a feasible
implementation plan being eligible for the highest number of maximum
possible points and innovation and minority or economic status being
eligible for the lowest number of maximum possible points.
Additionally, the commenter proposed that ``empirical research'' should
be added as a distinct scoring criterion utilized in the review
process.
VA is publishing the scoring criteria set forth in proposed 38 CFR
36.4412(f) without change because VA believes that the criteria as
proposed effectively carry out Congress's intent for the Grant program
and satisfy the commenter's interest in successful and impactful
results. Specifically, in regard to the legislative history of the Act,
the preamble to the proposed rule explained that ``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.'' 79 FR 53147. In its scoring criteria,
VA provided that a new advancement's innovation and ability to meet an
unmet need may be awarded the maximum possible points because it
understood a central goal of the law to be the development of original,
potentially groundbreaking technologies. VA also prioritized a new
advancement's promotion of independent living in the scoring criteria
based on Congress's statement that emerging technologies (as supported
through this Grant program) could enhance the ability for veterans or
servicemembers to live independently. See 79 FR 53148. Additionally, to
ensure that these advancements may be feasibly developed and
effectively utilized by eligible individuals, VA's proposed scoring
criteria also include a description of the new assistive technology's
concept, size, and scope and an implementation plan for bringing the
technology to the marketplace. See id. Accordingly, VA is maintaining
its scoring criteria as set forth in the proposed rule because this
prioritization effectively carries out congressional intent while
addressing the commenter's stated interest in successful and impactful
results.
Additionally, VA is publishing the scoring criteria set forth in
proposed 38 CFR 36.4412(f) without change because the criteria provide
VA flexibility to ensure that grant awards are made based on the
identified priorities and/or needs of veterans and VA at the time the
Notice of Funds Availability (NoFA) is published. See 79 FR 53147,
53148. Specifically, in setting out the scoring criteria and maximum
points that may be awarded for each criterion, VA explained that ``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.'' 79 FR 53148. As explained in the preamble to
the proposed rule, while the regulation text sets forth the maximum
number of points that may be awarded based on any one criterion, each
NoFA would explain the specific scoring priorities for that grant
application cycle. Id. This change in priorities would not introduce
new scoring criteria, but would instead help technology grant
applicants understand how the scores will be weighted and provide them
an opportunity to tailor their responses accordingly. Id.
The preamble to the proposed rule also provides an example to
illustrate VA's flexibility to emphasize certain criterion in each
NoFA. It explains that 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. Id. Accordingly, VA believes this flexibility to
weigh criteria based on the identified needs and priorities of veterans
and VA at the time a NoFA is published will ensure grant awards
successfully carry out program goals and positively impact eligible
individuals.
Finally, the commenter suggested adding ``empirical research'' as a
criterion to be evaluated when scoring grant applications. VA
understands empirical research to be defined as ``originating in or
based on observation or experience'' (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/empirical). VA's scoring criteria anticipate VA's
consideration of empirical research in evaluating applications and
determining points awarded for each criterion. For example, an
application for a new assistive technology may utilize empirical
research surrounding currently-available technologies on the market to
demonstrate the advancement's level of innovation. Or, a successful
description of how the new advancement is specifically designed to
promote the ability of eligible individuals to live independently may
utilize empirical research to explain, for example, the most common
disabilities among eligible individuals, the critical factors that
affect an eligible individual's ability to live independently, and how
the new assistive technology may enable individuals to overcome
barriers to independent living. VA will consider the presence of
empirical research in its review of applications and determination of
points to be awarded. As empirical research may be utilized to support
applications and impact application scoring under the existing
criteria, it does not need to be added as a stand-alone factor for
evaluation.
Administrative Correction
The proposed rule included a delegation of authority to various
officials in the Department. The title of the Deputy Under Secretary
for Economic Opportunity was incorrectly listed as the Deputy Under
Secretary for Economic Development. This rule corrects the error. The
change is only for administrative accuracy and has no substantive
effect on the rule.
[[Page 55765]]
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
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 the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB), unless OMB waives such review, 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 otherwise 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 the principles set forth in this Executive Order.
The economic, interagency, budgetary, legal, and policy
implications of this regulatory action 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://www.va.gov/orpm/, by following the link for ``VA Regulations
Published from FY 2004 Through Fiscal Year to Date.''
Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Secretary hereby certifies that this final rule will 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 will 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 will 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
final rule will 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 the 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 final rule will have no such effect on
State, local, and tribal governments, or on the private sector.
Paperwork Reduction Act
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires
that VA consider the impact of paperwork and other information
collection burdens imposed on the public. Under 44 U.S.C. 3507(a), an
agency may not collect or sponsor the collection of information, nor
may it impose an information collection requirement unless it displays
a currently valid OMB control number. 5 CFR 1320.8(b)(1) and (3)(vi).
This final rule will impose the following new information
collection requirements. Section 36.4412(d) of title 38 CFR will
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. The information
provided under this collection of information is necessary for a
complete SAH Assistive Technology grant application. The information
will be used by VA 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. As required by the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (at 44 U.S.C. 3507(d)), VA has
submitted these information collections to OMB for its review. OMB
approved these new information collection requirements associated with
the final rule and assigned OMB control number 2900-0821.
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 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. Robert L.
Nabors II, Chief of Staff, Department of Veterans Affairs, approved
this document on September 11, 2015, 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 11, 2015.
Michael P. Shores,
Chief Impact Analyst, Office of Regulation Policy & Management, Office
of the General Counsel, Department of Veterans Affairs.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, VA amends 38 CFR part 36,
subpart C to read as follows:
PART 36--LOAN GUARANTY
0
1. The authority citation for part 36 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.
[[Page 55766]]
(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 paragraph (f) of
this section; 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 Opportunity.
(iii) Director, Loan Guaranty Service.
(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 under control numbers 4040-
0004 and 2900-0821.)
[FR Doc. 2015-23280 Filed 9-16-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8320-01-P