Education Contracts Under Johnson-O'Malley Act, 12301-12303 [2018-05749]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 55 / Wednesday, March 21, 2018 / Proposed Rules
Preferences,’’ Pharmacology,
Biochemistry, and Behavior, 97(1):55–62,
2010.
31. Palmatier, M.I., J.E. Lantz, L.C. O’Brien,
and S.P. Metz, ‘‘Effects of Nicotine on
Olfactogustatory Incentives: Preference,
Palatability, and Operant Choice Tests,’’
Nicotine & Tobacco Research,
15(9):1545–1554, 2013.
32. Singh, T., R.A. Arrazola, C.G. Corey, et
al., ‘‘Tobacco Use Among Middle and
High School Students—United States,
2011–2015,’’ Morbidity and Mortality
Weekly Report, 65(14):361–367, 2016.
33. Jamal, A., A. Gentzke, S.S. Hu, et al.,
‘‘Tobacco Use Among Middle and High
School Students—United States, 2011–
2016,’’ Morbidity and Mortality Weekly
Report, 66(23):597–603, 2017.
34. Miech, R.A., L.D. Johnston, P.M.
O’Malley, et al., Monitoring the Future,
National Survey Results on Drug Use,
1975–2016: Overview, Key Findings on
Adolescent Drug Use. Ann Arbor:
Institute for Social Research, The
University of Michigan, 2017.
35. Couch, E.T., E. Darius, M.M. Walsh, et al.,
‘‘Smokeless Tobacco Decision-Making
Among Rural Adolescent Males in
California,’’ Journal of Community
Health, 42(3):544–550, 2017.
36. Ambrose, B.K., H.R. Day, B. Rostron, et
al., ‘‘Flavored Tobacco Product Use
Among US Youth Aged 12–17 Years,
2013–2014,’’ Journal of the American
Medical Association, 314(17):1871–1873,
2015.
37. Villanti, A.C., A.L. Johnson, B.K.
Ambrose, et al., ‘‘Flavored Tobacco
Product Use in Youth and Adults:
Findings From the First Wave of the
PATH Study (2013–2014),’’ American
Journal of Preventive Medicine,
53(2):139–151, 2017.
38. Berg, C.J., ‘‘Preferred Flavors and Reasons
for E-cigarette Use and Discontinued Use
Among Never, Current, and Former
Smokers,’’ International Journal of
Public Health, 61(2):225–236, 2016.
39. Corey, C.G., B.K. Ambrose, B.J. Apelberg,
et al., ‘‘Flavored Tobacco Product Use
Among Middle and High School
Students—United States, 2014,’’
Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report,
64(38):1066–1070, 2015.
40. Miech, R.A., J. E. Schulenburg, L.D.
Johnston, et al., ‘‘National Adolescent
Drug Trends in 2017: Findings
Released.’’ Monitoring the Future: Ann
Arbor, MI, 2017, available at https://
www.monitoringthefuture.org.
41. Villanti, A.C., P.D. Mowery, C.D.
Delnevo, et al., ‘‘Changes in the
Prevalence and Correlates of Menthol
Cigarette Use in the USA, 2004–2014,’’
Tobacco Control, 25(Suppl 2):ii14-ii20,
2016.
42. Substance Abuse and Mental Health
Services Administration, ‘‘Behavioral
Health Trends in the United States:
Results from the 2014 National Survey
on Drug Use and Health,’’ available at
https://www.samhsa.gov/data/sites/
default/files/NSDUH-FRR1-2014/
NSDUH-FRR1-2014.pdf.
43. Food and Drug Administration,
‘‘Preliminary Scientific Evaluation of the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:00 Mar 20, 2018
Jkt 244001
Possible Public Health Effects of Menthol
Versus Nonmenthol Cigarettes,’’ 2013.
44. Fernander, A., M.K. Rayens, M. Zhang, et
al., ‘‘Are Age of Smoking Initiation and
Purchasing Patterns Associated With
Menthol Smoking?’’ Addiction, 105
Suppl 1(s1):39–45, 2010.
45. Hersey, J.C., SW Ng, J.M. Nonnemaker, et
al., ‘‘Are Menthol Cigarettes a Starter
Product for Youth?’’ Nicotine & Tobacco
Research, 8(3):403–413, 2006.
46. Song, A.V., H.E. Morrell, J.L. Cornell, et
al., ‘‘Perceptions of Smoking-Related
Risks and Benefits as Predictors of
Adolescent Smoking Initiation,’’
American Journal of Public Health,
99(3):487–492, 2009.
47. Huang, L.-L., H.M. Baker, C. Meernik, et
al., ‘‘Impact of Non-menthol Flavours in
Tobacco Products on Perceptions and
Use Among Youth, Young Adults and
Adults: A Systematic Review,’’ Tobacco
Control, 26(6):709–719, 2017.
48. Kowitt, S.D., C. Meernik, H.M. Baker, et
al., ‘‘Perceptions and Experiences With
Flavored Non-Menthol Tobacco
Products: A Systematic Review of
Qualitative Studies,’’ International
Journal of Environmental Research and
Public Health, 14(4):338, 2017.
49. Nonnemaker, J., J. Hersey, G. Homsi, et
al., ‘‘Initiation With Menthol Cigarettes
and Youth Smoking Uptake,’’ Addiction,
108(1):171–178, 2013.
50. Krishnan-Sarin, S., M.E. Morean, D.R.
Camenga, et al., ‘‘E-cigarette Use Among
High School and Middle School
Adolescents in Connecticut,’’ Nicotine &
Tobacco Research, 17(7):810–818, 2015.
51. Kong, G., M. E. Morean, D. A. Cavallo, et
al., ‘‘Reasons for Electronic Cigarette
Experimentation and Discontinuation
among Adolescents and Young Adults,’’
Nicotine & Tobacco Research, 2015
Jul;17(7):847–54.
52. Audrain-McGovern, J., A.A. Strasser, and
E.P. Wileyto, ‘‘The Impact of Flavoring
on the Rewarding and Reinforcing Value
of E-cigarettes With Nicotine Among
Young Adult Smokers,’’ Drug and
Alcohol Dependence, 166:263–267, 2016.
53. Goldenson, N.I., M.G. Kirkpatrick, J.L.
Barrington-Trimis, et al., ‘‘Effects of
Sweet Flavorings and Nicotine on the
Appeal and Sensory Properties of Ecigarettes Among Young Adult Vapers:
Application of a Novel Methodology,’’
Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 168:176–
180, 2016.
54. Bonhomme, M.G., E. Holder-Hayes, B.K.
Ambrose, et al., ‘‘Flavoured NonCigarette Tobacco Product Use Among
US Adults: 2013–2014,’’ Tobacco
Control, 25(Suppl 2):ii4-ii13, 2016.
55. Kim, H., J. Lim, S.S. Buehler, et al., ‘‘Role
of Sweet and Other Flavours in Liking
and Disliking of Electronic Cigarettes,’’
Tobacco Control, 25(Suppl 2):ii55-ii61,
2016.
56. Allen, J.G., S.S. Flanigan, M. LeBlanc, et
al., ‘‘Flavoring Chemicals in E-cigarettes:
Diacetyl, 2, 3-Pentanedione, and Acetoin
in a Sample of 51 Products, Including
Fruit-, Candy-, and Cocktail-Flavored Ecigarettes,’’ Environmental Health
Perspectives, 124(6):733–739, 2016.
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
12301
57. Hutzler, C., M. Paschke, S. Kruschinski,
et al., ‘‘Chemical Hazards Present in
Liquids and Vapors of Electronic
Cigarettes,’’ Archives of Toxicology,
88(7):1295–1308, 2014.
58. Tierney, P.A., C.D. Karpinski, J.E. Brown,
et al., ‘‘Flavour Chemicals in Electronic
Cigarette Fluids,’’ Tobacco Control,
25(e1):e10-e15, 2016.
59. Farsalinos, K.E., K.A. Kistler, G. Gillman,
et al., ‘‘Evaluation of Electronic Cigarette
Liquids and Aerosol for the Presence of
Selected Inhalation Toxins,’’ Nicotine &
Tobacco Research, 17(2):168–174, 2015.
60. National Institute for Occupational Safety
and Health, Criteria for a Recommended
Standard: Occupational Exposure to
Diacetyl and 2,3-Pentanedione.
Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services, Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention, National
Institute for Occupational Safety and
Health, 2016.
61. Klaassen, C.D., Casarett & Doull’s
Toxicology: The Basic Science of
Poisons, Eighth Edition. McGraw-Hill
Education, 2013.
62. Barbeau, A.M., J. Burda, and M. Siegel,
‘‘Perceived Efficacy of E-cigarettes
Versus Nicotine Replacement Therapy
Among Successful E-cigarette Users: A
Qualitative Approach,’’ Addiction
Science & Clinical Practice, 8(1):5, 2013.
63. Farsalinos, K.E., G. Romagna, D. Tsiapras,
et al., ‘‘Impact of Flavour Variability on
Electronic Cigarette Use Experience: An
Internet Survey,’’ International Journal
of Environmental Research and Public
Health, 10(12):7272–7282, 2013,
available at https://
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/
PMC3881166/.
64. Stratton, K., Y. Kwan, and D. L. Eaton
(Eds.), Public Health Consequences of ECigarettes, National Academies of
Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine,
Washington DC: The National
Academies Press, 2018. Doi: https://
doi.org/10.17226/24952 (prepublication
copy.)
Dated: March 15, 2018.
Leslie Kux,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2018–05655 Filed 3–20–18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Indian Affairs
[189D0102DR/DS5A300000/
DR.5A311.IA000118]
25 CFR Part 273
RIN 1076–AF24
Education Contracts Under JohnsonO’Malley Act
Bureau of Indian Affairs,
Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
E:\FR\FM\21MRP1.SGM
21MRP1
12302
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 55 / Wednesday, March 21, 2018 / Proposed Rules
This proposed rule would
update one section of the regulation
regarding when Indian students are
eligible for benefits of education
contracts under the Johnson-O’Malley
Act (JOM), to codify past practice and a
Federal District Court ruling by deleting
the requirement that the Indian student
must have 1⁄4 or more degree of Indian
blood.
DATES: Please submit comments by May
21, 2018.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
by any of the following methods:
You may submit comments by any of
the following methods:
—Federal rulemaking portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. The rule is
listed under the agency name ‘‘Bureau
of Indian Affairs.’’
—Email: comments@bia.gov. Include
the number 1076–AF24 in the subject
line of the message.
—Mail: Elizabeth Appel, Office of
Regulatory Affairs & Collaborative
Action, U.S. Department of the
Interior, 1849 C Street NW, MIB–
4660–MS, Washington, DC 20240.
Include the number 1076–AF24 in the
subject line of the message.
—Hand delivery: Elizabeth Appel,
Office of Regulatory Affairs &
Collaborative Action, U.S. Department
of the Interior, 1849 C Street NW, MS
4660, Washington, DC 20240. Include
the number 1076–AF24 in the subject
line of the message.
We cannot ensure that comments
received after the close of the comment
period (see DATES) will be included in
the docket for this rulemaking and
considered. Comments sent to an
address other than those listed above
will not be included in the docket for
this rulemaking.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Elizabeth Appel, Director, Office of
Regulatory Affairs & Collaborative
Action, (202) 273–4680;
elizabeth.appel@bia.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
SUMMARY:
I. Summary of Rule
II. Procedural Requirements
A. Regulatory Planning and Review (E.O.
12866, 13563, and 13771)
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
C. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
E. Takings (E.O. 12630)
F. Federalism (E.O. 13132)
G. Civil Justice Reform (E.O. 12988)
H. Consultation With Indian Tribes (E.O.
13175)
I. Paperwork Reduction Act
J. National Environmental Policy Act
K. Effects on the Energy Supply (E.O.
13211)
L. Clarity of This Regulation
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:00 Mar 20, 2018
Jkt 244001
M. Public Availability of Comments
I. Summary of Rule
This rule would revise a section of the
regulations governing education
contracts under the JOM. The JOM
authorizes the Secretary of the Interior
to enter into contracts with States,
schools, and private organizations, and
to expend appropriated funds in
support of Indian students under those
contracts. See, 25 U.S.C. 254. The
regulations at 25 CFR part 273
implement this authority.
This rule would revise section 273.12
of the regulations to correctly reflect the
requirements for students eligible for
JOM funding. Currently, the regulations
state that Indian students are eligible for
benefits of a JOM contract if they are of
1⁄4 or more degree Indian blood and are
recognized by the Secretary as being
eligible for Bureau services. Prior to the
1990’s, the Department implemented
this regulation to require 1⁄4 or more
degree Indian blood. In 1990, the United
States District Court for the District of
Nevada stated that this regulatory
requirement was too restrictive. See,
Nevada Urban Indians, Inc. v. United
States, CV–N–90–238 BRT (September
12, 1990). Since that Court ruling, the
Department has implemented this
regulatory provision as requiring only
membership in a federally recognized
Tribe. The Department does not require
a certain degree of Indian blood. As
such, this rule would delete the
requirement for a blood degree
quantum. With this deletion, the rule
codifies both the Court ruling and past
practice.
II. Procedural Requirements
A. Regulatory Planning and Review
(E.O. 12866, 13563, and 13771)
Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 provides
that the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) at the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB) will
review all significant rules. OIRA has
determined that this rule is not
significant.
E.O. 13563 reaffirms the principles of
E.O. 12866 while calling for
improvements in the Nation’s regulatory
system to promote predictability, to
reduce uncertainty, and to use the best,
most innovative, and least burdensome
tools for achieving regulatory ends. The
E.O. directs agencies to consider
regulatory approaches that reduce
burdens and maintain flexibility and
freedom of choice for the public where
these approaches are relevant, feasible,
and consistent with regulatory
objectives. E.O. 13563 emphasizes
further that regulations must be based
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
on the best available science and that
the rulemaking process must allow for
public participation and an open
exchange of ideas. We have developed
this rule in a manner consistent with
these requirements. This rule is also
part of the Department’s commitment
under the Executive Order to reduce the
number and burden of regulations.
E.O. 13771 of January 30, 2017,
directs Federal agencies to reduce the
regulatory burden on regulated entities
and control regulatory costs. E.O. 13771,
however, applies only to significant
regulatory actions, as defined in Section
3(f) of E.O. 12866. Therefore, E.O. 13771
does not apply to this proposed rule.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Department of the Interior
certifies that this rule will not have a
significant economic effect on a
substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.).
C. Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act
This rule is not a major rule under 5
U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act.
This rule:
(a) Does not have an annual effect on
the economy of $100 million or more
because it merely codifies eligibility
requirements that were already
established by past practice and a
Federal District Court ruling.
(b) Will not cause a major increase in
costs or prices for consumers,
individual industries, Federal, State, or
local government agencies, or
geographic regions because this rule
affects only individuals’ eligibility for
certain education contracts.
(c) Does not have significant adverse
effects on competition, employment,
investment, productivity, innovation, or
the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to
compete with foreign-based enterprises
because this rule affects only
individuals’ eligibility for certain
education contracts.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
This rule does not impose an
unfunded mandate on State, local, or
Tribal governments or the private sector
of more than $100 million per year. The
rule does not have a significant or
unique effect on State, local, or Tribal
governments or the private sector. A
statement containing the information
required by the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) is not
required.
E:\FR\FM\21MRP1.SGM
21MRP1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 55 / Wednesday, March 21, 2018 / Proposed Rules
E. Takings (E.O. 12630)
This rule does not affect a taking of
private property or otherwise have
taking implications under Executive
Order 12630 because this rule does not
affect individual property rights
protected by the Fifth Amendment or
involve a compensable ‘‘taking.’’ A
takings implication assessment is not
required.
F. Federalism (E.O. 13132)
Under the criteria in section 1 of
Executive Order 13132, this rule does
not have sufficient federalism
implications to warrant the preparation
of a federalism summary impact
statement because the rule affects only
individuals’ eligibility under certain
education contracts. A federalism
summary impact statement is not
required.
G. Civil Justice Reform (E.O. 12988)
This rule complies with the
requirements of Executive Order 12988.
Specifically, this rule: (a) Meets the
criteria of section 3(a) requiring that all
regulations be reviewed to eliminate
errors and ambiguity and be written to
minimize litigation; and (b) Meets the
criteria of section 3(b)(2) requiring that
all regulations be written in clear
language and contain clear legal
standards.
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
H. Consultation With Indian Tribes
(E.O. 13175)
The Department of the Interior strives
to strengthen its government-togovernment relationship with Indian
Tribes through a commitment to
consultation with Indian Tribes and
recognition of their right to selfgovernance and Tribal sovereignty. We
have evaluated this rule under the
Department’s consultation policy and
under the criteria in Executive Order
13175 and have determined that it has
no substantial direct effects on federally
recognized Indian Tribes and that
consultation under the Department’s
Tribal consultation policy is not
required because the eligibility
requirements established in this rule are
already in effect and have been in effect
for many years.
I. Paperwork Reduction Act
This rule does not contain any
information collection requirements,
and a submission to the Office of
Management and Budget under the
Paperwork Reduction Act is not
required.
J. National Environmental Policy Act
This rule does not constitute a major
Federal action significantly affecting the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:00 Mar 20, 2018
Jkt 244001
quality of the human environment. A
detailed statement under the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(NEPA) is not required because this is
an administrative and procedural
regulation. (For further information see
43 CFR 46.210(i)). We have also
determined that the rule does not
involve any of the extraordinary
circumstances listed in 43 CFR 46.215
that would require further analysis
under NEPA.
K. Effects on the Energy Supply (E.O.
13211)
This rule is not a significant energy
action under the definition in Executive
Order 13211. A Statement of Energy
Effects is not required.
L. Clarity of This Regulation
We are required by Executive Orders
12866 (section 1(b)(12)), and 12988
(section 3(b)(1)(B)), and 13563 (section
1(a)), and by the Presidential
Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write
all rules in plain language. This means
that each rule we publish must:
(a) Be logically organized;
(b) Use the active voice to address
readers directly;
(c) Use clear language rather than
jargon;
(d) Be divided into short sections and
sentences; and,
(e) Use lists and tables wherever
possible.
If you feel that we have not met these
requirements, send us comments by one
of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES
section. To better help us revise the
rule, your comments should be as
specific as possible. For example, you
should tell us the numbers of the
sections or paragraphs that are unclearly
written, which sections or sentences are
too long, the sections where you believe
lists or tables would be useful, etc.
M. Public Availability of Comments
Before including your address, phone
number, email address, or other
personal identifying information in your
comment, you should be aware that
your entire comment—including your
personal identifying information—may
be made publicly available at any time.
While you can ask us in your comment
to withhold your personal identifying
information from public review, we
cannot guarantee that we will be able to
do so.
List of Subjects in 25 CFR Part 273
Government contracts, Indians—
education, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
For the reasons stated in the
preamble, the Department of the
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
12303
Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs,
proposes to amend part 273 in Title 25
of the Code of Federal Regulations as
follows:
PART 273—EDUCATION CONTRACTS
UNDER JOHNSON-O’MALLEY ACT
1. The authority citation for part 273
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: Secs. 201–203, Pub. L. 93–638,
88 Stat. 2203, 2213–2214 (25 U.S.C. 455–
457), unless otherwise noted.
■
2. Revise § 273.12 to read as follows:
§ 273.12
Eligible students.
Indian students, from age 3 years
through grade(s) 12, except those who
are enrolled in Bureau or sectarian
operated schools, shall be eligible for
benefits provided by a contract pursuant
to this part if they are recognized by the
Secretary as being eligible for Bureau
services. Priority shall be given to
contracts:
(a) Which would serve Indian
students on or near reservations; and
(b) Where a majority of such Indian
students will be members of the Tribe(s)
of such reservations (as defined in
§ 273.2(o)).
Dated: February 27, 2018.
John Tahsuda,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary—Indian
Affairs, Exercising the Authority of the
Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs.
[FR Doc. 2018–05749 Filed 3–20–18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4337–15–P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 100
[Docket Number USCG–2018–0154]
RIN 1625–AA08
Special Local Regulation; USS
PORTLAND Commissioning, Portland,
OR
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
The Coast Guard proposes to
establish a temporary regulated area for
certain waters of the Willamette River.
This action is necessary to provide for
the safety of life on these navigable
waters near Port of Portland Terminal 2,
Portland, OR during a naval vessel
commissioning ceremony on April 14–
23, 2018. This proposed rulemaking
would prohibit persons and vessels
from being in the regulated area unless
authorized by the Captain of the Port
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\21MRP1.SGM
21MRP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 55 (Wednesday, March 21, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 12301-12303]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-05749]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Indian Affairs
[189D0102DR/DS5A300000/DR.5A311.IA000118]
25 CFR Part 273
RIN 1076-AF24
Education Contracts Under Johnson-O'Malley Act
AGENCY: Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 12302]]
SUMMARY: This proposed rule would update one section of the regulation
regarding when Indian students are eligible for benefits of education
contracts under the Johnson-O'Malley Act (JOM), to codify past practice
and a Federal District Court ruling by deleting the requirement that
the Indian student must have \1/4\ or more degree of Indian blood.
DATES: Please submit comments by May 21, 2018.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
--Federal rulemaking portal: https://www.regulations.gov. The rule is
listed under the agency name ``Bureau of Indian Affairs.''
--Email: [email protected]. Include the number 1076-AF24 in the subject
line of the message.
--Mail: Elizabeth Appel, Office of Regulatory Affairs & Collaborative
Action, U.S. Department of the Interior, 1849 C Street NW, MIB-4660-MS,
Washington, DC 20240. Include the number 1076-AF24 in the subject line
of the message.
--Hand delivery: Elizabeth Appel, Office of Regulatory Affairs &
Collaborative Action, U.S. Department of the Interior, 1849 C Street
NW, MS 4660, Washington, DC 20240. Include the number 1076-AF24 in the
subject line of the message.
We cannot ensure that comments received after the close of the
comment period (see DATES) will be included in the docket for this
rulemaking and considered. Comments sent to an address other than those
listed above will not be included in the docket for this rulemaking.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elizabeth Appel, Director, Office of
Regulatory Affairs & Collaborative Action, (202) 273-4680;
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Summary of Rule
II. Procedural Requirements
A. Regulatory Planning and Review (E.O. 12866, 13563, and 13771)
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
C. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
E. Takings (E.O. 12630)
F. Federalism (E.O. 13132)
G. Civil Justice Reform (E.O. 12988)
H. Consultation With Indian Tribes (E.O. 13175)
I. Paperwork Reduction Act
J. National Environmental Policy Act
K. Effects on the Energy Supply (E.O. 13211)
L. Clarity of This Regulation
M. Public Availability of Comments
I. Summary of Rule
This rule would revise a section of the regulations governing
education contracts under the JOM. The JOM authorizes the Secretary of
the Interior to enter into contracts with States, schools, and private
organizations, and to expend appropriated funds in support of Indian
students under those contracts. See, 25 U.S.C. 254. The regulations at
25 CFR part 273 implement this authority.
This rule would revise section 273.12 of the regulations to
correctly reflect the requirements for students eligible for JOM
funding. Currently, the regulations state that Indian students are
eligible for benefits of a JOM contract if they are of \1/4\ or more
degree Indian blood and are recognized by the Secretary as being
eligible for Bureau services. Prior to the 1990's, the Department
implemented this regulation to require \1/4\ or more degree Indian
blood. In 1990, the United States District Court for the District of
Nevada stated that this regulatory requirement was too restrictive.
See, Nevada Urban Indians, Inc. v. United States, CV-N-90-238 BRT
(September 12, 1990). Since that Court ruling, the Department has
implemented this regulatory provision as requiring only membership in a
federally recognized Tribe. The Department does not require a certain
degree of Indian blood. As such, this rule would delete the requirement
for a blood degree quantum. With this deletion, the rule codifies both
the Court ruling and past practice.
II. Procedural Requirements
A. Regulatory Planning and Review (E.O. 12866, 13563, and 13771)
Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 provides that the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) at the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) will review all significant rules. OIRA has determined
that this rule is not significant.
E.O. 13563 reaffirms the principles of E.O. 12866 while calling for
improvements in the Nation's regulatory system to promote
predictability, to reduce uncertainty, and to use the best, most
innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends.
The E.O. directs agencies to consider regulatory approaches that reduce
burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for the public
where these approaches are relevant, feasible, and consistent with
regulatory objectives. E.O. 13563 emphasizes further that regulations
must be based on the best available science and that the rulemaking
process must allow for public participation and an open exchange of
ideas. We have developed this rule in a manner consistent with these
requirements. This rule is also part of the Department's commitment
under the Executive Order to reduce the number and burden of
regulations.
E.O. 13771 of January 30, 2017, directs Federal agencies to reduce
the regulatory burden on regulated entities and control regulatory
costs. E.O. 13771, however, applies only to significant regulatory
actions, as defined in Section 3(f) of E.O. 12866. Therefore, E.O.
13771 does not apply to this proposed rule.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Department of the Interior certifies that this rule will not
have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small
entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.).
C. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. This rule:
(a) Does not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million
or more because it merely codifies eligibility requirements that were
already established by past practice and a Federal District Court
ruling.
(b) Will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for
consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government
agencies, or geographic regions because this rule affects only
individuals' eligibility for certain education contracts.
(c) Does not have significant adverse effects on competition,
employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of
U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises
because this rule affects only individuals' eligibility for certain
education contracts.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
This rule does not impose an unfunded mandate on State, local, or
Tribal governments or the private sector of more than $100 million per
year. The rule does not have a significant or unique effect on State,
local, or Tribal governments or the private sector. A statement
containing the information required by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
(2 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) is not required.
[[Page 12303]]
E. Takings (E.O. 12630)
This rule does not affect a taking of private property or otherwise
have taking implications under Executive Order 12630 because this rule
does not affect individual property rights protected by the Fifth
Amendment or involve a compensable ``taking.'' A takings implication
assessment is not required.
F. Federalism (E.O. 13132)
Under the criteria in section 1 of Executive Order 13132, this rule
does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the
preparation of a federalism summary impact statement because the rule
affects only individuals' eligibility under certain education
contracts. A federalism summary impact statement is not required.
G. Civil Justice Reform (E.O. 12988)
This rule complies with the requirements of Executive Order 12988.
Specifically, this rule: (a) Meets the criteria of section 3(a)
requiring that all regulations be reviewed to eliminate errors and
ambiguity and be written to minimize litigation; and (b) Meets the
criteria of section 3(b)(2) requiring that all regulations be written
in clear language and contain clear legal standards.
H. Consultation With Indian Tribes (E.O. 13175)
The Department of the Interior strives to strengthen its
government-to-government relationship with Indian Tribes through a
commitment to consultation with Indian Tribes and recognition of their
right to self-governance and Tribal sovereignty. We have evaluated this
rule under the Department's consultation policy and under the criteria
in Executive Order 13175 and have determined that it has no substantial
direct effects on federally recognized Indian Tribes and that
consultation under the Department's Tribal consultation policy is not
required because the eligibility requirements established in this rule
are already in effect and have been in effect for many years.
I. Paperwork Reduction Act
This rule does not contain any information collection requirements,
and a submission to the Office of Management and Budget under the
Paperwork Reduction Act is not required.
J. National Environmental Policy Act
This rule does not constitute a major Federal action significantly
affecting the quality of the human environment. A detailed statement
under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) is not
required because this is an administrative and procedural regulation.
(For further information see 43 CFR 46.210(i)). We have also determined
that the rule does not involve any of the extraordinary circumstances
listed in 43 CFR 46.215 that would require further analysis under NEPA.
K. Effects on the Energy Supply (E.O. 13211)
This rule is not a significant energy action under the definition
in Executive Order 13211. A Statement of Energy Effects is not
required.
L. Clarity of This Regulation
We are required by Executive Orders 12866 (section 1(b)(12)), and
12988 (section 3(b)(1)(B)), and 13563 (section 1(a)), and by the
Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write all rules in plain
language. This means that each rule we publish must:
(a) Be logically organized;
(b) Use the active voice to address readers directly;
(c) Use clear language rather than jargon;
(d) Be divided into short sections and sentences; and,
(e) Use lists and tables wherever possible.
If you feel that we have not met these requirements, send us
comments by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. To
better help us revise the rule, your comments should be as specific as
possible. For example, you should tell us the numbers of the sections
or paragraphs that are unclearly written, which sections or sentences
are too long, the sections where you believe lists or tables would be
useful, etc.
M. Public Availability of Comments
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or
other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be
aware that your entire comment--including your personal identifying
information--may be made publicly available at any time. While you can
ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying
information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be
able to do so.
List of Subjects in 25 CFR Part 273
Government contracts, Indians--education, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Department of the
Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, proposes to amend part 273 in Title
25 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
PART 273--EDUCATION CONTRACTS UNDER JOHNSON-O'MALLEY ACT
0
1. The authority citation for part 273 continues to read as follows:
Authority: Secs. 201-203, Pub. L. 93-638, 88 Stat. 2203, 2213-
2214 (25 U.S.C. 455-457), unless otherwise noted.
0
2. Revise Sec. 273.12 to read as follows:
Sec. 273.12 Eligible students.
Indian students, from age 3 years through grade(s) 12, except those
who are enrolled in Bureau or sectarian operated schools, shall be
eligible for benefits provided by a contract pursuant to this part if
they are recognized by the Secretary as being eligible for Bureau
services. Priority shall be given to contracts:
(a) Which would serve Indian students on or near reservations; and
(b) Where a majority of such Indian students will be members of the
Tribe(s) of such reservations (as defined in Sec. 273.2(o)).
Dated: February 27, 2018.
John Tahsuda,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary--Indian Affairs, Exercising the
Authority of the Assistant Secretary--Indian Affairs.
[FR Doc. 2018-05749 Filed 3-20-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4337-15-P
