This rule is issued under Marketing Agreement and Order No. 906, as amended (7 CFR part 906), regulating the handling of oranges and grapefruit grown in the Lower Rio Grande Valley in Texas, hereinafter referred to as the “order.” The order is effective under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-674), hereinafter referred to as the “Act.”

The Department of Agriculture (USDA) is issuing this rule in conformance with Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 13175.

This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. Under the marketing order now in effect, orange and grapefruit handlers are subject to assessments. Funds to administer the order are derived from such assessments. It is intended that the assessment rate as issued herein will be applicable to all assessable oranges and grapefruit beginning August 1, 2014, and continue until amended, suspended, or terminated.

The Act provides that administrative proceedings must be exhausted before parties may file suit in court. Under section 608c(15)(A) of the Act, any handler subject to an order may file with USDA a petition stating that the order, any provision of the order, or any obligation imposed in connection with the order is not in accordance with law and request a modification of the order or to be exempted therefrom. Such handler is afforded the opportunity for a hearing on the petition. After the hearing, USDA would rule on the petition. The Act provides that the district court of the United States in any district in which the handler is an inhabitant, or has his or her principal place of business, has jurisdiction to review USDA's ruling on the petition, provided an action is filed not later than 20 days after the date of the entry of the ruling.

This rule decreases the assessment rate established for the Committee for the 2014-15 and subsequent fiscal periods from $0.16 to $0.11 per 7/10-bushel carton or equivalent of oranges and grapefruit handled.

The Texas orange and grapefruit marketing order provides authority for the Committee, with the approval of USDA, to formulate an annual budget of expenses and collect assessments from handlers to administer the program (7 CFR 906.34). The members of the Committee are producers and handlers of Texas oranges and grapefruit. They are familiar with the Committee's needs and the costs for goods and services in their local area and are thus in a position to formulate an appropriate budget and assessment rate. The assessment rate is formulated and discussed in a public meeting. Thus, all directly affected persons have an opportunity to participate and provide input.

For the 2012-13 and subsequent fiscal periods, the Committee recommended, and USDA approved, an assessment rate that would continue in effect from fiscal period to fiscal period unless modified, suspended, or terminated by USDA upon recommendation and information submitted by the Committee or other information available to USDA.

The Committee met on June 5, 2014, and recommended 2014-15 expenditures of $809,500 and an assessment rate of $0.11 per 7/10-bushel carton or equivalent of oranges and grapefruit handled. In comparison, last year's budgeted expenditures were $1,353,300. The assessment rate of $0.11 is $0.05 lower than the rate currently in effect. The Committee reviewed and recommended 2014-15 expenditures of $809,500, which includes a decrease in the marketing program and management fees. The Committee considered proposed expenses and recommended decreasing the assessment rate to more closely align assessment income to the lower budget.

The major expenditures recommended by the Committee for the 2014-15 year include $503,000 for the Mexican fruit fly control program, $175,000 for management and compliance, and $100,000 for marketing and promotion. Budgeted expenses for these items in 2013-14 were $503,000, $200,000, and $600,000, respectively.

The assessment rate recommended by the Committee was derived by dividing anticipated expenses by expected shipments of Texas oranges and grapefruit. Orange and grapefruit shipments for the 2014-2015 year are estimated at 8.2 million 7/10-bushel cartons or equivalent, which should provide $902,000 in assessment income. That is approximately $92,500 above the anticipated expenses of $809,500; therefore income derived from handler assessments will be adequate to cover budgeted expenses. Excess funds will be added to the reserve, (currently $0.00), which will be kept within the maximum permitted by the order (approximately one fiscal period's expenses as stated in § 906.35).

The assessment rate established in this rule will continue in effect indefinitely unless modified, suspended, or terminated by USDA upon recommendation and information submitted by the Committee or other available information.

Although this assessment rate is effective for an indefinite period, the Committee will continue to meet prior to or during each fiscal period to recommend a budget of expenses and consider recommendations for modification of the assessment rate. The dates and times of Committee meetings are available from the Committee or USDA. Committee meetings are open to the public and interested persons may express their views at these meetings. USDA will evaluate Committee recommendations and other available information to determine whether modification of the assessment rate is needed. Further rulemaking will be undertaken as necessary. The Committee's 2014-15 budget and those for subsequent fiscal periods will be reviewed and, as appropriate, approved by USDA.

Pursuant to requirements set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601-612), the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) has considered the economic impact of this rule on small entities. Accordingly, AMS has prepared this initial regulatory flexibility analysis.

The purpose of the RFA is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of businesses subject to such actions in order that small businesses will not be unduly or disproportionately burdened. Marketing orders issued pursuant to the Act, and the rules issued thereunder, are unique in that they are brought about through group action of essentially small entities acting on their own behalf.

There are approximately 170 producers of oranges and grapefruit in the production area and 13 handlers subject to regulation under the marketing order. Small agricultural producers are defined by the Small Business Administration (SBA) as those having annual receipts of less than $750,000, and small agricultural service firms are defined as those whose annual receipts are less than $7,000,000. (13 CFR 121.201)

According to Committee data and information from the National Agricultural Statistics Service, the weighted average grower price for Texas citrus during the 2012-13 season was around $12.98 per box and total shipments were near 8.5 million boxes. Using the weighted average price and shipment information, and assuming a normal distribution, the majority of growers would have annual receipts of less than $750,000. In addition, based on available information, the majority of handlers have annual receipts of less than $7,000,000 and could be considered small businesses under SBA's definition. Thus, the majority of producers and handlers of Texas citrus may be classified as small entities.

This rule decreases the assessment rate established for the Committee and collected from handlers for the 2014-15 and subsequent fiscal periods from $0.16 to $0.11 per 7/10-bushel carton or equivalent of Texas citrus. The Committee recommended 2014-15 expenditures of $809,500 and an assessment rate of $0.11 per 7/10-bushel carton or equivalent handled. The assessment rate of $0.11 is $0.05 lower than the 2013-14 rate. The quantity of assessable oranges and grapefruit for the 2014-15 fiscal period is estimated at 8.2 million 7/10-bushel cartons. Thus, the $0.11 rate should provide $902,000 in assessment income and be adequate to meet this year's expenses.

The major expenditures recommended by the Committee for the 2014-15 year include $503,000 for the Mexican fruit fly control program, $175,000 for management and compliance, and $100,000 for marketing and promotion. Budgeted expenses for these items in 2013-14 were $503,000, $200,000, and $600,000, respectively.

The Committee reviewed and recommended 2014-15 expenditures of $809,500, which includes decreases in the amount budgeted for the marketing program and management. The Committee considered proposed expenses and recommended decreasing the assessment rate to more closely align assessment income to the lower budget.

Prior to arriving at this budget, the Committee considered information from various sources, such as the Committee's Budget and Personnel Committee and the Market Development Committee. Alternate expenditure levels were discussed by these groups, based upon the relative value of various research and promotion projects to the Texas citrus industry. The assessment rate of $0.11 per 7/10-bushel carton or equivalent of assessable oranges and grapefruit was then determined by considering the total recommended budget in relation to the quantity of assessable oranges and grapefruit, estimated at 8.2 million 7/10-bushel cartons for the 2014-15 fiscal period. Based on estimated shipments, the recommended assessment rate of $0.11 should provide $902,000 in assessment income. This is approximately $92,500 above the anticipated expenses of $809,500, which the Committee determined to be acceptable as any assessments collected above expenditures are to be added to reserves.

A review of historical information and preliminary information pertaining to the upcoming fiscal period indicates that the grower price for the 2014-15 season could range between $3.02 and $19.22 per 7/10-bushel carton or equivalent of oranges and grapefruit. Therefore, the estimated assessment revenue for the 2014-15 fiscal period, as a percentage of total grower revenue, could range between .5 and 3.6 percent.

This action decreases the assessment obligation imposed on handlers. Assessments are applied uniformly on all handlers, and some of the costs may be passed on to producers. However, decreasing the assessment rate reduces the burden on handlers, and may reduce the burden on producers.

In addition, the Committee's meeting was widely publicized throughout the Texas citrus industry and all interested persons were invited to attend the meeting and participate in Committee deliberations on all issues. Like all Committee meetings, the June 5, 2014, meeting was a public meeting and all entities, both large and small, were able to express views on this issue. Finally, interested persons are invited to submit comments on this interim rule, including the regulatory and informational impacts of this action on small businesses.

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the order's information collection requirements have been previously approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and assigned OMB No. 0581-0189 Generic Fruit Crops. No changes in those requirements as a result of this action are necessary. Should any changes become necessary, they would be submitted to OMB for approval.

This action imposes no additional reporting or recordkeeping requirements on either small or large Texas orange and grapefruit handlers. As with all Federal marketing order programs, reports and forms are periodically reviewed to reduce information requirements and duplication by industry and public sector agencies.

AMS is committed to complying with the E-Government Act, to promote the use of the internet and other information technologies to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information and services, and for other purposes.

USDA has not identified any relevant Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this rule.

A small business guide on complying with fruit, vegetable, and specialty crop marketing agreements and orders may be viewed at: http://www.ams.usda.gov/MarketingOrdersSmallBusinessGuide. Any questions about the compliance guide should be sent to Jeffrey Smutny at the previously mentioned address in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

After consideration of all relevant material presented, including the information and recommendation submitted by the Committee and other available information, it is hereby found that this rule, as hereinafter set forth, will tend to effectuate the declared policy of the Act.

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553, it is also found and determined upon good cause that it is impracticable, unnecessary, and contrary to the public interest to give preliminary notice prior to putting this rule into effect, and that good cause exists for not postponing the effective date of this rule until 30 days after publication in the Federal Register because: (1) The 2014-15 fiscal period begins on August 1, 2014, and the marketing order requires that the rate of assessment for each fiscal period apply to all assessable oranges and grapefruit handled during such fiscal period; (2) this action decreases the assessment rate for assessable oranges and grapefruit grown in Texas beginning with the 2014-15 fiscal period; (3) handlers are aware of this action which was recommended by the Committee at a public meeting and is similar to other assessment rate actions issued in past years; and (4) this interim rule provides a 60-day comment period, and all comments timely received will be considered prior to finalization of this rule.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 7 CFR part 906 is amended as follows:

Reason for No Prior Notice and Comment Before Adoption

The FAA has determined that notice and opportunity for public comment are unnecessary because the substance of these special conditions has been subjected to the notice and comment period previously and has been derived without substantive change from those previously issued. As it is unlikely that we will receive new comments, the FAA finds that good cause exists for making these special conditions effective upon issuance.

While we did not precede this with a notice of proposed special conditions, we invite interested people to take part in this action by sending written comments, data, or views. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the special conditions, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data.

We will consider all comments we receive by the closing date for comments. We will consider comments filed late if it is possible to do so without incurring expense or delay. We may change these special conditions based on the comments we receive.

If you want us to let you know we received your mailed comments on these special conditions, send us a pre-addressed, stamped postcard on which the docket number appears. We will stamp the date on the postcard and mail it back to you.

On November 1, 2006, the Robinson Helicopter Company applied to amend type certificate (TC) Number H11NM to install a HeliSAS AP/SAS on the Robinson Helicopter Company model R44 and R44 II helicopters. The Robinson Helicopter Company model R44 and R44 II helicopters are 14 CFR part 27 normal category, single reciprocating engine, conventional helicopters designed for civil operation. These helicopter models are capable of carrying up to four passengers with one pilot, and have a maximum gross weight of up to 2,500 pounds, depending on the model configuration. The major design features include a 2-blade, fully articulated main rotor, an anti-torque tail rotor system, a skid landing gear, and a visual flight rule basic avionics configuration. Robinson Helicopter Company proposes to modify these model helicopters by installing a two-axis HeliSAS AP/SAS.

Under 14 CFR 21.101, Robinson Helicopter Company must show that the model R44 and R44 II helicopters, as modified by the installed HeliSAS AP/SAS, continue to meet the applicable regulations in effect on the date of application for the change to the type certificate. The baseline of the certification basis for the unmodified Robinson Helicopter Company model R44 and R44 II helicopters is listed in TC Number H11NM. Additionally, compliance must be shown to any applicable equivalent level of safety findings, exemptions, and special conditions prescribed by the Administrator as part of the certification basis.

The Administrator has determined the applicable airworthiness regulations (that is, 14 CFR part 27), as they pertain to this amended TC, do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for the Robinson Helicopter Company model R44 and R44 II helicopters because of a novel or unusual design feature. Therefore, special conditions are prescribed under § 21.16.

In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special conditions, the Robinson Helicopter Company must show compliance of the HeliSAS AP/SAS amended TC altered model R44 and R44 II helicopters with the noise certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36.

The FAA issues special conditions, as defined in § 11.19, in accordance with § 11.38 and they become part of the type certification basis under § 21.101(d).

The HeliSAS AP/SAS incorporates novel or unusual design features for installation in a Robinson Helicopter Company model R44 and R44 II helicopter, TC Number H11NM. This HeliSAS AP/SAS performs non-critical control functions, since these model helicopters have been certificated to meet the applicable requirements independent of this system. However, the possible failure conditions for this system, and their effect on the continued safe flight and landing of the helicopters, are more severe than those envisioned by the present rules.

The effect on safety is not adequately covered under § 27.1309 for the application of new technology and new application of standard technology. Specifically, the present provisions of § 27.1309(c) do not adequately address the safety requirements for systems whose failures could result in catastrophic or hazardous/severe-major failure conditions, or for complex systems whose failures could result in major failure conditions. The current regulations are inadequate because when § 27.1309(c) were promulgated, it was not envisioned that this type of rotorcraft would use systems that are complex or whose failure could result in “catastrophic” or “hazardous/severe-major” effects on the rotorcraft. This is particularly true with the application of new technology, new application of standard technology, or other applications not envisioned by the rule that affect safety.

To comply with the provisions of the special conditions, we require that Robinson Helicopter Company provide the FAA with a systems safety assessment (SSA) for the final HeliSAS AP/SAS installation configuration that will adequately address the safety objectives established by a functional hazard assessment (FHA) and a preliminary system safety assessment (PSSA), including the fault tree analysis (FTA). This will ensure that all failure conditions and their resulting effects are adequately addressed for the installed HeliSAS AP/SAS. The SSA process, FHA, PSSA, and FTA are all parts of the overall safety assessment process discussed in FAA Advisory Circular 27-1B (Certification of Normal Category Rotorcraft) and Society of Automotive Engineers document Aerospace Recommended Practice 4761 (Guidelines and Methods for Conducting the Safety Assessment Process on Civil Airborne Systems and Equipment).

These special conditions require that the HeliSAS AP/SAS installed on Robinson Helicopter Company model R44 and R44 II helicopter meet the requirements to adequately address the failure effects identified by the FHA, and subsequently verified by the SSA, within the defined design integrity requirements.

Failure Condition Categories. Failure conditions are classified, according to the severity of their effects on the rotorcraft, into one of the following categories:

1. No Effect. Failure conditions that would have no effect on safety. For example, failure conditions that would not affect the operational capability of the rotorcraft or increase crew workload; however, could result in an inconvenience to the occupants, excluding the flight crew.

2. Minor. Failure conditions which would not significantly reduce rotorcraft safety, and which would involve crew actions that are well within their capabilities. Minor failure conditions would include, for example, a slight reduction in safety margins or functional capabilities, a slight increase in crew workload such as routine flight plan changes or result in some physical discomfort to occupants.

3. Major. Failure conditions which would reduce the capability of the rotorcraft or the ability of the crew to cope with adverse operating conditions to the extent that there would be, for example, a significant reduction in safety margins or functional capabilities, a significant increase in crew workload or result in impairing crew efficiency, physical distress to occupants, including injuries, or physical discomfort to the flight crew.

4. Hazardous/Severe-Major.

a. Failure conditions which would reduce the capability of the rotorcraft or the ability of the crew to cope with adverse operating conditions to the extent that there would be:

(1) A large reduction in safety margins or functional capabilities;

(2) physical distress or excessive workload that would impair the flight crew's ability to the extent that they could not be relied on to perform their tasks accurately or completely; or

(3) possible serious or fatal injury to a passenger or a cabin crewmember, excluding the flight crew.

b. “Hazardous/severe-major” failure conditions can include events that are manageable by the crew by the use of proper procedures, which, if not implemented correctly or in a timely manner, may result in a catastrophic event.

5. Catastrophic —Failure conditions which would result in multiple fatalities to occupants, fatalities or incapacitation to the flight crew, or result in loss of the rotorcraft.

Radio Technical Commission for Aeronautics, Inc. (RTCA) Document DO-178C (Software Considerations in Airborne Systems And Equipment Certification) provides software design assurance levels most commonly used for the major, hazardous/severe-major, and catastrophic failure condition categories. The HeliSAS AP/SAS system equipment must be qualified for the expected installation environment. The test procedures prescribed in RTCA Document DO-160G (Environmental Conditions and Test Procedures for Airborne Equipment) are recognized by the FAA as acceptable methodologies for finding compliance with the environmental requirements. Equivalent environment test standards may also be acceptable. This is to show that the HeliSAS AP/SAS system performs its intended function under any foreseeable operating condition, which includes the expected environment in which the HeliSAS AP/SAS is intended to operate. Some of the main considerations for environmental concerns are installation locations and the resulting exposure to environmental conditions for the HeliSAS AP/SAS system equipment, including considerations for other equipment that may be affected environmentally by the HeliSAS AP/SAS equipment installation. The level of environmental qualification must be related to the severity of the considered failure conditions and effects on the rotorcraft.

These special conditions are applicable to the HeliSAS AP/SAS installed as an amended TC approval in Robinson Helicopter Company model R44 and R44 II helicopters, TC Number H11NM.

This action affects only certain novel or unusual design features for a HeliSAS AP/SAS amended TC installed on two model helicopters. It is not a rule of general applicability and affects only the applicant who applied to the FAA for approval of these features.

The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:

The FAA published in the Federal Register a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend jet routes J-64 and J-80, and cancel jet route J-77, in the northeastern United States (79 FR 13948, March 12, 2014). Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal. One comment was received expressing support for the proposal.

This action amends Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by modifying two jet routes and cancelling one jet route in the northeastern United States to remove inefficient or minimally used route segments. This action makes the following modifications to the routes:

J-64: J-64 extends between Los Angeles, CA, and Robbinsville, NJ. This route now terminates at the intersection of the Ravine, PA, 102° radial and the Lancaster, PA, 044° radial, instead of Robbinsville, NJ. This new termination point is the charted SARAA fix, which is approximately 65 nautical miles northwest of Robbinsville, NJ.

J-77: J-77 is removed. Numerous other routes are available for navigation between the Baltimore, MD, area and Boston, MA.

J-80: J-80 extends between Oakland, CA, and Bangor, ME. This route now terminates at Bellaire, OH, eliminating the segments between Bellaire, OH, and Bangor, ME. RNAV route Q-480 and jet route J-581 provide alternative routing between Bellaire, OH, and Bangor, ME.

Except for editorial changes, this rule is the same as published in the NPRM.

Jet routes are published in paragraph 2004 of FAA Order 7400.9X dated August 7, 2013, and effective September 15, 2013, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The jet routes and VOR Federal airways listed in this document will be subsequently published in the Order.

The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. Therefore, this regulation: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under Department of Transportation (DOT) Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation because the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority.

This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it modifies the route structure as required to preserve the safe and efficient flow of air traffic within the National Airspace System.

The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1E, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” paragraph 311a. This action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.

In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

The Gerald R. Ford International Airport, Grand Rapids, MI, is located 5.7 miles north of the Grand Rapids VOR/DME. The airport and the VOR/DME have the same three-letter identifier (GRR) which has caused some safety concerns. In addition to the airport and the VOR/DME having the same identifier, pilots and air traffic controllers routinely refer to both as “Grand Rapids.” Cases have been observed where GPS-equipped aircraft have navigated via the GRR airport rather than the GRR VOR/DME as expected by air traffic control (ATC), or vice versa, as well as ATC instructions issued relative to the airport or VOR/DME having been mistaken by pilots as relative to the other. To preclude this in the future, the name of the VOR/DME facility is being changed to Victory VOR/DME with the new three-letter identifier “VIO.”

This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by amending the legal descriptions of Jet Route J-34 and VOR Federal airways V-274, V-285, and V-510 to reflect the name change of one of the navigation aids used to define the routes. To eliminate confusion, and potential flight safety issues, the Grand Rapids VOR/DME is renamed the Victory VOR/DME and is assigned a new three-letter identifier (VIO). The VOR/DME name change does not alter the current alignment of the affected routes.

Since this action merely involves editorial changes in the legal descriptions of the above ATS routes, and does not involve a change in the dimensions or operating requirements of the affected routes, I find that notice and public procedures under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are unnecessary.

The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. Therefore, this regulation: (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority.

This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it revises the legal descriptions of jet routes and VOR Federal airways in the vicinity of Grand Rapids, MI, to eliminate pilot confusion.

Jet Routes are published in paragraph 2004 and Domestic VOR Federal airways are published in paragraph 6010(a), respectively, of FAA Order 7400.9X, dated August 7, 2013, and effective September 15, 2013, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The domestic Jet Routes and VOR Federal airways listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1E, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures, paragraph 311a. This airspace action consists of editorial changes only and is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.

In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

History

The FAA published in the Federal Register a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend VOR Federal airway V-243 and establish RNAV route T-325, in the Huntingburg, IN, area (78 FR 78302, December 26, 2013). Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal. Two comments were received. The Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association supported the modification, but encouraged the FAA to utilize stakeholders in developing a national air traffic service route modernization plan.

The second commenter requested inclusion of the WEGEE fix in the T-325 routing, even if it and/or the BUNKA fix had to be moved to accommodate, and that the route have a single course change using the APALO fix for that course change. In considering the commenter's request, the FAA determined the WEGEE fix supports a reporting point on VOR Federal airway V-305, an instrument departure procedure from Indianapolis International Airport, and an instrument approach procedure to a different airport. Additionally, the BUNKA fix supports a reporting point on VOR Federal airway V-221, a holding pattern, and five instrument approach procedures to three different airports. To minimize changes to the National Airspace System (NAS) infrastructure, beyond the decommissioning of the Huntingburg VOR/DME, and to avoid a host of cascading route and procedure changes that would be required by moving the WEGEE and BUNKA fixes, this action establishes RNAV route T-325 as proposed in the NPRM.

The FAA is amending Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by modifying VOR Federal airway V-243 and establishing RNAV route T-325. The scheduled decommissioning of the HNB VOR/DME facility has made this action necessary. The route modification and establishment actions are outlined below.

V-243: V-243, previously extending between the Craig, FL, VOR/Tactical Air Navigation (VORTAC) and the Terre Haute, IN, VORTAC, is modified to retain the airway routing between the Craig, FL, VORTAC and Bowling Green, KY, VORTAC. The route segment between the Bowling Green, KY, VORTAC and the Terre Haute, IN, VORTAC is removed. The new RNAV route T-325, described below, replaces the V-243 route segment removed.

T-325: T-325 is established between the Bowling Green, KY, VORTAC and the Terre Haute, IN, VORTAC, replacing the V-243 route segment removed as described above. The RNAV route segments between the Bowling Green, KY, VORTAC and the APALO, IN, waypoint (WP) fix and between the BUNKA, IN, WP fix and the Terre Haute, IN, VORTAC overlay the V-243 route segments that were removed. The route segment between the APOLO and BUNKA WP fixes provides a shorter and almost direct RNAV routing between the Bowling Green, KY, and Terre Haute, IN, VORTAC facilities. Additionally, T-325 uses existing waypoints to minimize changes to the NAS infrastructure and to retain the existing functionality and supported procedures by the waypoints used to describe the route.

In the NPRM, the geographic coordinates published for the Bowling Green, KY, and Terre Haute, IN, VORTAC facilities in the T-325 route description contained errors and are corrected in this rule. The Bowling Green, KY, VORTAC coordinates are changed from “lat. 36°55′43″ N., long. 086°26′36″ W.” to “lat. 36°55′44″ N., long. 086°26′36″ W.”; and the Terre Haute, IN, VORTAC coordinates are changed from “lat. 39°29′20″ N., long. 087°14′56″ W.” to “lat. 39°29′20″ N., long. 087°14′57″ W.” With the exception of these changes, this rule is the same as that proposed in the NPRM.

Domestic VOR Federal airways are published in paragraph 6010(a) and low altitude RNAV routes (T) are published in paragraph 6011, respectively, of FAA Order 7400.9X dated August 7, 2013, and effective September 15, 2013, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The VOR Federal airway and low altitude RNAV route listed in this document will be subsequently published in the Order.

The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. Therefore, this regulation: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under Department of Transportation (DOT) Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority.

This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it modifies the route structure as necessary to preserve the safe and efficient flow of air traffic within the NAS.

The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1E, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” paragraph 311a. This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.

In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

This rule updates and expands the Defense Priorities and Allocations System (DPAS) regulations (15 CFR part 700). BIS relies upon and uses the DPAS regulations to implement priority and allocation actions involving industrial resources. The DPAS has two principal components—priorities and allocations. Under the priorities component, contracts needed to support programs that have been approved for priorities support are required to be given priority over other contracts to facilitate expedited delivery in promotion of the U.S. national defense. Such contracts may be between the government and private parties or between private parties. Under the allocations component, materials, services, and facilities may be allocated to promote the national defense. For both components, the term “national defense” means programs for military and energy production or construction, homeland security, stockpiling, space, emergency preparedness, and critical infrastructure protection and restoration. The term also includes foreign military and critical infrastructure assistance.

The Reauthorization Act (123 Stat. 2006) (Pub. L. 111-67) required agencies with priorities and allocations authorities to issue rules establishing standards and procedures by which those authorities will be used to promote the national defense, under both emergency and non-emergency conditions. Pursuant to the Reauthorization Act, BIS issued two proposed rules to amend its DPAS regulations. The first such proposed rule was published on June 7, 2010 (75 FR 32122) (herein the first proposed rule). BIS received one comment in response to that rule. Based on that comment and on its internal deliberations, BIS concluded that sufficient changes would be needed from its proposal to require a second proposed rule. Accordingly, BIS published a second proposed rule on January 31, 2014 (79 FR 5332) (herein the second proposed rule). The principal differences between the first proposed rule and the second proposed rule are summarized in the latter at 79 FR 5332 and not repeated here. BIS received no comments on the second proposed rule. Therefore, BIS is publishing the text that it proposed in the second proposed rule, without substantive change, as this final rule.

The Reauthorization Act requires each Federal agency that is delegated priorities and allocations authority consistent with section 101 of the Defense Production Act (50 U.S.C. app. 2071, et seq. ) to issue final rules establishing standards and procedures by which that authority is used to promote the national defense, during both emergency and non-emergency conditions. In the Reauthorization Act, Congress further directed that, to the extent practicable, the Federal agencies with priorities and allocations authority should work together to develop a consistent and unified Federal priorities and allocations system. In order to meet this mandate, BIS worked in conjunction with the Departments of Agriculture (USDA), Defense (DoD), Energy (DOE), Health and Human Services (HHS), Homeland Security (DHS), and Transportation (DOT) to develop common provisions based on the DPAS that can be used by each Department in its own regulation. The regulations promulgated, or to be promulgated, by each Department with delegated DPA Title I authority comprise the Federal priorities and allocations system.

The following lists provide highlights of the changes to the DPAS implemented by this rule. A more detailed explanation of the changes and reasons therefor appears in the preamble to the second proposed rule. Because this final rule adopts the changes to the DPAS that were in the second proposed rule for the reasons set forth in the preamble to that rule without substantive change, BIS is not repeating them in full here. Interested persons may read them at 79 FR 5332, 5332-5341, January 31, 2014.

• The scope of reasons for which rated orders may be issued has been expanded to include homeland security, emergency preparedness, and critical infrastructure protection and restoration activities.

• The definitions section has been expanded to include definitions of terms related to allocations and terms related to emergency preparedness activities.

• Most rated orders will continue to require acceptance or rejection within 10 or 15 days depending on the type of rating; however, rated orders for emergency preparedness requirements may require acceptance or rejection within a shorter timeframe but no less than six hours for emergencies that have occurred, or 12 hours if needed to prepare for an imminent hazard.

• Procedures for persons to obtain priority ratings for items supporting homeland security, emergency preparedness, critical infrastructure protection and restoration, and information about how persons in the United States may seek such assistance have been added.

• Procedures for persons in Canada to obtain priority ratings for items in the United States and information about how persons in the United States may seek assistance in obtaining defense items in Canada have been updated and moved into a separate section.

• Procedures for persons in foreign nations other than Canada to obtain priority ratings for items in the United States and information about how persons in the United States may seek assistance in obtaining defense items from Australia, Finland, Italy, the Netherlands, Sweden and the United Kingdom have been updated and moved into a separate section. This section has been expanded to provide procedures for international organizations to obtain priority ratings.

• The table in Schedule I to part 700 has been updated to list all programs currently approved for priorities support and the delegate agency for each program.

• The rule provides that allocations will be used only when there is insufficient supply of a material, service, or facility to satisfy national defense requirements through the use of the priorities authority, or when the use of the priorities authority would cause a severe and prolonged disruption in the supply of materials, services, or facilities available to support normal U.S. economic activities, and precludes use of allocations to ration materials or services at the retail level.

• No allocation action may be used to control the general distribution of a material in the civilian market unless the Department of Commerce makes, and the President approves, a finding that the requirements of the national defense for such material cannot otherwise be met without creating a significant dislocation of the normal distribution of such material in the civilian market to such a degree as to create appreciable hardship.

• The rule specifies the minimum information that must be included in an allocation order and provides for issuing the order directly to affected persons or through publication of a constructive notice in the Federal Register . All allocation orders must explain the relationship between the allocation order and any previously or subsequently issued rated or unrated orders and the start and end dates of the order.

• Allocation orders must be accepted and complied with. A person who is subject to an allocation order who believes that compliance is not possible must notify the Office of Strategic Industries and Economic Security. An allocation must be complied with to the extent possible until the Department of Commerce notifies the person that the order has been changed or cancelled.

1. Executive Orders 13563 and 12866 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distribute impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This rule has been designated a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the rule has been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

2. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information, subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ) (PRA), unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number. This regulation contains two collections previously approved by OMB. OMB control number 0694-0053 authorizes the requirement that recipients of rated orders notify the party placing the order whether or not they will fulfill the rated order. BIS believes that this rule will not materially change the burden imposed by this collection. OMB control number 0694-0057 authorizes the collection of information that parties must send to BIS when seeking special priorities assistance or priority rating authority. BIS believes that this rule will not materially change the burden imposed by this collection. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of these collections of information, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to Jasmeet K. Seehra, Office of Management and Budget, by email at jseehra@omb.eop.gov or by fax to (202) 395-7285 and to Liam McMenamin, liam.mcmenamin@bis.doc.gov .

3. This rule does not contain policies with Federalism implications as that term is defined under E.O. 13132.

4. The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to the notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553) or any other statute. Under section 605(b) of the RFA, however, if the head of an agency certifies that a rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities, the statute does not require the agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis. Pursuant to section 605(b), the Chief Counsel for Regulation, Department of Commerce, certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy, Small Business Administration that this rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities for the reasons explained below. No other law requires such an analysis. Consequently, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required and none has been prepared. The factual support for this certification is provided below.

Small entities include small businesses, small organizations and small governmental jurisdictions. For purposes of assessing the impacts of this rule on small entities, a small business, as described in the Small Business Administration's Table of Small Business Size Standards Matched to North American Industry Classification System Codes (Effective January 22, 2014), has a maximum annual revenue of $35.5 million and a maximum of 1,500 employees (for some business categories, these numbers are lower). A small governmental jurisdiction is a government of a city, town, school district or special district with a population of less than 50,000. A small organization is any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.

This rule sets criteria under which BIS (or agencies to which BIS delegates authority) will authorize prioritization of certain orders or contracts as well as criteria under which BIS would issue orders allocating resources or production facilities. This rule would affect organizations that enter into contracts to supply materials, services and facilities that are necessary for the national defense (broadly defined to include “Programs for military and energy production or construction, military or critical infrastructure assistance to any foreign nation, homeland security, stockpiling, space, and any directly related activity”). BIS's experience in administering its priorities authority indicates that for-profit businesses are the organizations that provide such materials, services and facilities. If it becomes necessary to exercise allocations authority, the same types of materials, services and facilities and the same types of providers are the ones likely to be affected. Therefore, BIS believes that two of the categories of small entities identified by the RFA, small organizations and small government jurisdictions, are unlikely to experience any economic impact as a result of this rule. However, BIS has no basis on which to estimate the number of small businesses that are likely to be affected by this rule.

BIS believes that any impact that this rule might have on small businesses would be minor. The rule has two principal components: Prioritization and allocation. Prioritization is the process that is, by far, more likely to be used. Under prioritization, BIS designates certain orders, which may be placed by Government or by private entities, and assigned under one of two possible priority levels. Once so designated, such orders are referred to as “rated orders.” The recipient of a rated order must give it priority over an unrated order. The recipient of a rated order with the higher priority rating must give that order priority over any rated orders with the lower priority rating and over unrated orders. A recipient of a rated order may place one or more orders at the same priority level with suppliers and subcontractors for supplies and services necessary to fulfill the recipient's rated order and the suppliers and subcontractors must treat the request from the rated order recipient as a rated order with the same priority level as the original rated order. The rule does not require recipients to fulfill rated orders if the price or terms of sale are not consistent with the price or terms of sale of similar non-rated orders. The rule provides a defense from liability for damages or penalties for actions or inactions made in compliance with the rule.

BIS expects that this rule will not result in any increase in the use of rated orders. The changes to the provisions of 15 CFR part 700 that apply to rated orders are primarily simplifications and clarifications. The standards under which a rated order would be issued are not changed by this rule.

Although rated orders could require a firm to fill one order prior to filling another, they would not require a reduction in the total volume of orders nor would they require the recipient to reduce prices or provide rated orders with more favorable terms than a similar non-rated order. Under these circumstances, the economic effects on the rated order recipient of substituting one order for another are likely to be offsetting, resulting in no net loss.

Allocations could be used to control the general distribution of materials or services in the civilian market. Specific allocation actions that BIS might take are set-asides, directives and allotments. A set-aside is an official action that requires a person to reserve resource capacity in anticipation of receipt of rated orders. A directive is an official action that requires a person to take or refrain from taking certain actions in accordance with its provisions. A directive can require a person to stop or reduce production of an item, prohibit the use of selected items, or divert supply of one type of product to another, or to supply a specific quantity, size, shape, and type of an item within a specific time period. An allotment is an official action that specifies the maximum quantity of a material, service or facility authorized for use in a specific program or application.

According to available records, BIS has not taken any actions under its existing allocations authority in decades and any future allocations actions would be used only in extraordinary circumstances. As required by section 101(b) of the Defense Production Act of 1950, as amended, (50 U.S.C. app. 2071), hereinafter “DPA,” and by Section 201(e) of Executive Order 13603 of March 16, 2012, BIS may implement allocations to control the general distribution of a material in the civilian market only if the Department of Commerce made, and the President approved, a finding (1) that the material [or service] is a scarce and critical material [or service] essential to the national defense, and (2) that the requirements of the national defense for such material [or service] cannot otherwise be met without creating a significant dislocation of the normal distribution of such material [or service] in the civilian market to such a degree as to create appreciable hardship. The term “national defense” is defined to mean “programs for military and energy production or construction, military or critical infrastructure assistance to any foreign nation, homeland security, stockpiling, space, and any related activity. Such term includes emergency preparedness activities conducted pursuant to title VI of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5195 et seq. ) and critical infrastructure protection and restoration.”

Even a narrower use of allocations authority under this rule will be subject to the policy that this rule will set forth in 15 CFR 700.30, providing that allocations will be used only when there is insufficient supply of a material, service, or facility to satisfy national defense requirements through use of priorities authority or when the use of priorities authority would cause a severe and prolonged disruption in the supply of materials, services or facilities available to support normal U.S. economic activity.

Any allocation actions taken by BIS would also have to comply with Section 701(e) of the DPA (50 U.S.C. app. 2151(e)), which provides that “small business concerns shall be accorded, to the extent practicable, a fair share of the such material, in proportion to the share received by such business concerns under normal conditions, giving such special consideration as may be possible to emerging business concerns.”

Although BIS cannot determine precisely the number of small entities that would be affected by this rule, BIS believes that the overall impact on such entities would not be significant. With respect to priorities authority, this rule is not likely to increase the number of priority rated contracts compared to the number being issued currently. Therefore the priorities authorities' provisions of this rule are unlikely to have any economic impact. BIS's lack of recent experience with allocations makes gauging the impact of an allocation, should one occur, difficult. However, because (1) all allocation actions require planning that includes evaluation of the impact on the civilian market, (2) allocations to control the general distribution of a material in the civilian market may be imposed only after a determination by the President, and (3) BIS has taken no allocation actions in decades, one can expect allocations will be a rare occurrence going forward. BIS believes that the expected unchanged level of contract prioritizations, planning and review requirements and requirements of section 701 of the DPA, which are directed at protecting the interests of small businesses, provide reasonable assurance that any impact on small business will not be significant. For the reasons set forth above, the Chief Counsel for Regulations at the Department of Commerce certified that this action would not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, 15 CFR part 700 is amended as follows:

On May 28, 2014, BEA published a notice of proposed rulemaking that set forth revised reporting criteria for the BE-13, Survey of New Foreign Direct Investment in the United States (79 FR 30503-30506). No comments on the proposed rule were received. Thus the proposed rule is adopted without change. This final rule adds 15 CFR 801.7 to set forth the reporting requirements for the BE-13, Survey of New Foreign Direct Investment in the United States.

BEA conducts the BE-13 survey under the authority of the International Investment and Trade in Services Survey Act (22 U.S.C. 3101-3108).

By rule issued in 2012 (77 FR 24373), BEA established guidelines for collecting data on international trade in services and direct investment through notices, rather than through rulemaking. This final rule amends the regulations to provide for a revised BE-13 survey and requires a response from persons subject to the reporting requirements of the BE-13, whether or not they are contacted by BEA, in order to ensure complete coverage of new foreign direct investments.

The BE-13 survey collects data on the acquisition or establishment of U.S. business enterprises by foreign investors and the expansion of existing U.S. affiliates of foreign companies to establish new production facilities. The data collected on the survey are used to measure the amount of new foreign direct investment in the United States, assess the impact on the U.S. economy, and based on this assessment, make informed policy decisions regarding foreign direct investment in the United States. Foreign direct investment in the United States is defined as the ownership or control, directly or indirectly, by one foreign person (foreign parent) of 10 percent or more of the voting securities of an incorporated U.S. business enterprise, or an equivalent interest of an unincorporated U.S. business enterprise, including a branch.

BEA will make the survey available via eFile, BEA's electronic filing system. Survey respondents will be notified of their obligation to file in November 2014 and BEA will collect data retroactively back to January 1, 2014. Thereafter, notifications will be mailed to respondents as BEA becomes aware of a potentially reportable investment or when annual cost updates are needed. The forms are due no later than 45 days after the acquisition is completed, the new legal entity is established, the expansion is begun, or the cost update is requested.

The changes amend the regulations and the survey forms for the BE-13 survey. These amendments include changes in reporting requirements and questionnaire design as well as data items collected.

Under the revised regulations, U.S. affiliates report information on expansions, acquisitions, and establishments of U.S. business enterprises by foreign investors. Unlike other BEA surveys conducted pursuant to the Act, persons subject to the reporting requirements of the BE-13, Survey of New Foreign Direct Investment in the United States, are required to respond whether or not they are contacted by BEA.

Depending on the type of investment transaction, U.S. affiliates shall report their information on one of six forms—BE-13A, BE-13B, BE-13C, BE-13D, BE-13E, or BE-13 Claim for Exemption. The reporting requirements for the six forms are:

a. Form BE-13A—Report for a U.S. business enterprise when a foreign entity acquires a voting interest (directly, or indirectly through an existing U.S. affiliate) in that enterprise, segment, or operating unit and (i) the total cost of the acquisition is greater than $3 million, (ii) the U.S. business enterprise will operate as a separate legal entity, and (iii) by this acquisition, at least 10 percent of the voting interest in the acquired entity is now held (directly or indirectly) by the foreign entity.

b. Form BE-13B—Report for a U.S. business enterprise when a foreign entity, or an existing U.S. affiliate of a foreign entity, establishes a new legal entity in the United States and (i) the projected total cost to establish the new legal entity is greater than $3 million, and (ii) the foreign entity owns 10 percent or more of the new business enterprise's voting interest (directly or indirectly).

c. Form BE-13C—Report for an existing U.S. affiliate of a foreign parent when it acquires a U.S. business enterprise or segment that it then merges into its operations and the total cost to acquire the business enterprise is greater than $3 million.

d. Form BE-13D—Report for an existing U.S. affiliate of a foreign parent when it expands its operations to include a new facility where business is conducted and the projected total cost of the expansion is greater than $3 million.

e. Form BE-13E—Report for a U.S. business enterprise that previously filed a BE-13B or BE-13D indicating that the established or expanded entity is still under construction.

f. Form BE-13 Claim for Exemption—Report for a U.S. business enterprise that (i) was contacted by BEA but does not meet the requirements for filing forms BE-13A, BE-13B, BE-13C, or BE-13D, or (ii) whether or not contacted by BEA, met all requirements for filing on Forms BE-13A, BE-13B, BE-13C, or BE-13D except the $3 million reporting threshold.

In addition to the changes in the reporting criteria and form design, BEA hereby adds and deletes some data items from the information collected on the previous BE-13 survey. The following items are added to the survey:

1. Equity and debt components of the foreign parent funding;

2. A question asking if the new U.S. operation will have research and development activities;

3. A question asking if the new operation is under construction;

4. Employment projections;

5. Actual and projected construction expenditures by type and by year.

BEA is eliminating the following items from the new BE-13 survey: Investment incentives, sales by industry (total sales and the overall industry code for the new operation is still collected), equity ownership interest (voting interest is still collected), address of the foreign parent (country is still collected), and acres of U.S. land owned.

This final rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of E.O. 12866.

This final rule does not contain policies with Federalism implications sufficient to warrant preparation of a Federalism assessment under E.O. 13132.

The collection of information in this final rule was submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) pursuant to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). OMB approved the information collection under OMB control number 0608-0035.

Notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the PRA unless that collection displays a currently valid OMB control number.

The BE-13 survey is expected to result in the filing of reports from approximately 1,350 U.S. affiliates each year. The respondent burden for this collection of information will vary from one company to another, but is estimated to average 1.6 hours per response, including time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Thus the total respondent burden for this survey is estimated at 2,160 hours, compared to 900 hours for the previous BE-13 survey. The increase in burden hours is due to the increase in the number of respondents expected to file.

Written comments regarding the burden-hour estimates or other aspects of the collection-of-information requirements contained in the final rule should be sent to both BEA via email at Barbara.Hubbard@bea.gov or by FAX at (202) 606-2894, and to OMB, O.I.R.A., Paperwork Reduction Project 0608-0035, Attention PRA Desk Officer for BEA, via email at pbugg@omb.eop.gov or by FAX at (202) 395-7245.

The Chief Counsel for Regulation, Department of Commerce, certified at the proposed rule stage to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy, Small Business Administration, under the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 605(b), that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The factual basis for the certification was published in the proposed rule and is not repeated here. No comments were received regarding the certification or the economic impact of the rule more generally. No final regulatory flexibility analysis was prepared.

For reasons set forth in the preamble, BEA amends 15 CFR part 801 as follows:

Purpose of Program: The purpose of the Assistive Technology Alternative Financing Program (AFP) is to support programs that provide for the purchase of AT devices, such as a low-interest loan fund, an interest buy-down program, a revolving loan fund, a loan guarantee, or an insurance program. The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014 (the Act) requires applicants for these grants to provide an assurance that, and information describing the manner in which, the AFP will expand and emphasize consumer choice and control. It also specifies that State agencies and community-based disability organizations that are directed by and operated for individuals with disabilities are eligible to compete. Language in the Explanatory Statement accompanying the Act provides that successful applicants must emphasize consumer choice and control and build programs that will provide financing for the full array of AT devices and services and ensure that all people with disabilities, regardless of type of disability or health condition, age, level of income, and residence, have access to the program. In addition, the language provides that applicants should incorporate credit-building activities in their programs, including financial education and information about other possible funding sources.

We published a notice of proposed priority for this competition in the Federal Register on May 13, 2014 (79 FR 27230). That notice contained background information and our reasons for proposing this particular priority.

Except for minor editorial and technical revisions, there are no differences between the proposed priority and this final priority.

Public Comment: In response to our invitation in the notice of proposed priority, 16 parties submitted comments on the proposed priority. Generally, we do not address technical or other minor changes.

Analysis of Comments and Changes: An analysis of the comments and of any changes in the priority since publication of the notice of proposed priority follows.

Comment: Two commenters suggested that there should be a provision for a multi-State consortium to apply. One commenter, however, expressed opposition to multi-State consortia AT loan programs because of a concern that these consortia would duplicate State programs. This commenter proposed that AFPs should have knowledge of State-specific AT resources.

Discussion: There is nothing in the priority or regulations that prevents a multi-State consortium from applying. Under 34 CFR 75.127, eligible parties may apply as a group for a grant; and “consortium” is a term that may be used to refer to a group of eligible parties. We will clarify in the notice inviting applications for this competition that multi-State groups or consortia are eligible to apply.

We agree with the commenter that grantees should be knowledgeable about State-specific AT resources, and believe that the applicable selection criteria address this concern. Specifically, among the selection criteria in 34 CFR 75.210(a) that the Secretary may consider when determining the need for a proposed project is the magnitude of the need for the services to be provided or the activities to be carried out and the extent to which specific gaps or weaknesses in services, infrastructure, or opportunities have been identified and will be addressed by the proposed project, including the nature and magnitude of those gaps or weaknesses. We will use the peer review process to determine how well an applicant addresses the needs of the service area identified in the application.

Changes: None.

Comment: Seven commenters expressed opposition to the competitive preference points. On the other hand, three commenters supported the proposed competitive preference priorities, citing the need for AFPs in every State. One commenter suggested that priority points be awarded to existing AFPs with a history of successful operation.

Discussion: Twenty of the States and outlying areas have not received funding for AT AFPs. While all States and outlying areas can apply, our objective is to establish AFPs in States that have not previously received funding from the Federal government for this purpose and to expand small or underfunded AFPs that have received less than $1 million from competitions under title III of the Assistive Technology Act of 1998 (AT Act of 1998) during FYs 2000 through 2006, or under the Appropriations Acts for FY 2012 and 2013. By awarding competitive preference points to applicants, we intend to address the need for the development of AFPs from these unserved or underfunded areas so individuals with disabilities across the nation have the opportunity to receive services and purchase AT devices through alternative loan programs.

Changes: None.

Comment: Two commenters suggested that consumers be entitled to exercise choice and control with respect to the makeup of the board of directors of grantees; and that the boards should include a majority of members with disabilities. One of these commenters questioned whether family members should be counted toward this majority.

Discussion: The Act and the priority require that grantees emphasize and expand consumer choice and control, including oversight of the program. Although we encourage grantees to include individuals with disabilities and their family members on their boards of directors, the requirement in the Act does not specifically apply to the composition of the grantees' boards. It applies to the involvement of consumers in the implementation of a program's administration and policy decisions. This could be achieved in a number of ways, including having a majority of the members of the project's board of directors or loan review committee be individuals with disabilities. In addition, consumer choice and control applies to consumers who are receiving financial loans having choices and control over the selection of devices and vendors.

Each applicant is required to submit an assurance that, and information describing the manner in which, the AFP will expand and emphasize consumer choice and control. As AFPs must be designed to allow individuals with disabilities and their family members, guardians, advocates, and authorized representatives to purchase AT devices or services, the consumer choice and control requirement applies to family members of individuals with disabilities. As such, a family member could serve on a board of directors or loan review committee. We will use the competitive process to determine the extent to which an application proposes to achieve consumer choice and control.

Changes: None.

Comment: One commenter supported credit-building activities as an important component of AFPs. This commenter proposed that grantees be required to provide financial education and counseling to consumers to improve their financial capability, knowledge, and skills and advance their economic stability.

Discussion: The final priority requires applicants to submit an assurance that the AFP will incorporate credit-building activities into their programs, including financial education and information about other possible funding sources. We will use the competitive process to determine the extent to which an applicant proposes to meet this requirement.

Changes: None.

Comment: One commenter recommended that the Department consider a State's size, population, number of people with disabilities, and other unique qualities in evaluating a grant application.

Discussion: Our objectives are to establish AFPs in States and outlying areas that have not previously received funding from the Federal government for this purpose and to expand small or underfunded AFPs that have received less than $1 million from competitions under title III of the AT Act of 1998 during FYs 2000 through 2006 or under the Appropriations Acts for FYs 2012 and 2013. However, we note that the “Need for Project” selection criterion in 34 CFR 75.210(a) includes “the magnitude of the need for the services to be provided or the activities to be carried out by the proposed project” and the “extent to which specific gaps or weaknesses in services, infrastructure, or opportunities have been identified and will be addressed by the proposed project.” We believe that this selection criterion addresses the commenter's suggestion that we consider a State's size, population, number of people with disabilities, and other unique qualities in evaluating a grant application. We encourage applicants to address these factors in the “Need for Project” section of the application. We also note that the State Grant for Assistive Technology program, a formula grant program funded under the AT Act of 1998, as amended, that provides grants to every State and outlying area and considers a grantee's size and population in making awards, authorizes grantees to develop programs that are similar to the AFPs as one of their activities.

Changes: None.

Comment: One commenter suggested that the Department support existing AFPs that have been effective but have little or no Federal funding remaining.

Discussion: All States and outlying areas are eligible to apply. However, we believe that the States and outlying areas that have not previously received funding from the Federal government for this purpose or that have small or underfunded AFPs that have received less than $1 million from competitions under title III of the AT Act of 1998 during FYs 2000 through 2006 or under the Appropriations Acts for FY 2012 and 2013 should receive competitive priority.

Changes: None.

Comment: One commenter suggested that no new programs be established with less than $3 million. According to this commenter, without this amount of funding, a State cannot meet the need for loans. This commenter also recommended that RSA encourage any State that has less than $1 million in loanable funds to freeze the program until adequate resources are available.

Discussion: The Act provided a total of $2 million for the AT AFP competition, which is $1 million less than the minimum amount recommended by the commenter. We agree that small AFPs should have the opportunity to acquire additional funds, and are establishing a competitive preference priority for programs that received less than $1 million in funds from competitions under title III of the AT Act of 1998 during FYs 2000 through 2006 or under the Appropriations Acts for FYs 2012 and 2013. However, we do not agree that an AFP needs a minimum of $3 million to be effective or that an AFP with less than $1 million in loanable funds should be frozen. Many of the programs that received less than $1 million in Federal funding in the past make significant numbers of alternative financing loans and have proved themselves to be beneficial to individuals with disabilities in their States.

Changes: None.

Comment: Two commenters suggested that RSA should support only consumer-controlled, non-profit or community-based organizations as grantees under this program in FY 2014.

Discussion: Because the Act states who is eligible for an award, we do not have the authority to change the program's eligibility requirements. Specifically, the Act states, “State agencies and community-based disability organizations that are directed by and operated for individuals with disabilities shall be eligible to compete.”

Changes: None.

Comment: One commenter expressed support for the 10 percent limit on indirect expenses, and suggested that RSA collect fiscal expenditure data on an annual basis to ensure compliance.

Discussion: For each 12-month budget period, grantees must recalculate their allowable indirect cost rate, which may not exceed 10 percent of the portion of the grant award that is used annually for program administration related to the AFP. RSA supports the 10 percent limit on indirect expenses and will monitor grantees to ensure compliance with this requirement.

Changes: None.

Final Priority:

Assistive Technology Alternative Financing Program .

The Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services announces a priority to fund one-year grant awards to support AFPs that assist individuals with disabilities to obtain financial assistance for AT devices and services.

Under this priority, applicants must establish or expand one or more of the following types of AFPs:

(1) A low-interest loan fund.

(2) An interest buy-down program.

(3) A revolving loan fund.

(4) A loan guarantee or insurance program.

(5) Another mechanism that is approved by the Secretary.

AFPs must be designed to allow individuals with disabilities and their family members, guardians, advocates, and authorized representatives to purchase AT devices or services. If family members, guardians, advocates, and authorized representatives (including employers who have been designated by an individual with a disability as an authorized representative) receive AFP support to purchase AT devices or services, the purchase must be solely for the benefit of an individual with a disability.

To be considered for funding, an applicant must identify the type or types of AFP(s) to be supported by the grant and submit all of the following assurances:

(1) Permanent Separate Account: An assurance from the applicant that—

(a) All funds that support the AFP, including funds repaid during the life of the program, will be deposited in a permanent separate account and identified and accounted for separately from any other funds;

(b) If the grantee administering the program invests funds within this account, the grantee will invest the funds in low-risk securities in which a regulated insurance company may invest under the law of the State; and

(c) The grantee will administer the funds with the same judgment and care that a person of prudence, discretion, and intelligence would exercise in the management of the financial affairs of that person.

(2) Permanence of the Program: An assurance that the AFP will continue on a permanent basis.

An applicant's obligation to implement the AFP consistent with all of the requirements, including reporting requirements, continues until there are no longer any funds available to operate the AFP and all outstanding loans have been repaid. If a grantee decides to terminate its AFP while there are still funds available to operate the program, the grantee must return the funds remaining in the permanent separate account to the U.S. Department of the Treasury except for funds being used for grant purposes, such as loan guarantees for outstanding loans. However, before closing out its grant, the grantee also must return any principal and interest remitted to it on outstanding loans and any other funds remaining in the permanent separate account, such as funds being used as loan guarantees for those loans.

(3) Consumer Choice and Control: An assurance that, and information describing the manner in which, the AFP will expand and emphasize consumer choice and control.

(4) Supplement-Not-Supplant: An assurance that the funds made available through the grant to support the AFP will be used to supplement and not supplant other Federal, State, and local public funds expended to provide alternative financing mechanisms.

(5) Use and Control of Funds: An assurance that funds comprised of the principal and interest from the account described in paragraph (1) Permanent Separate Account of this priority will be available solely to support the AFP.

This assurance regarding the use and control of funds applies to all funds derived from the AFP, including the original Federal award, AFP funds generated by either interest-bearing accounts or investments, and all principal and interest paid by borrowers of the AFP who are extended loans from the permanent separate account.

(6) Indirect Costs: An assurance that the percentage of the funds used for indirect costs will not exceed 10 percent of the portion of the grant award that is used annually for program administration (excluding funds used for loan activity).

For each 12-month budget period, grantees must recalculate their allowable indirect cost rate, which may not exceed 10 percent of the portion of the grant award that is used annually for program administration related to the AFP.

(7) Administrative Policies and Procedures: An assurance that the applicant receiving a grant under this priority will submit to the Secretary for review and approval within the 12-month project period the following policies and procedures for administration of the AFP:

(a) A procedure to review and process in a timely manner requests for financial assistance for immediate and potential technology needs, including consideration of methods to reduce paperwork and duplication of effort, particularly relating to need, eligibility, and determination of the specific AT device or service to be financed through the program.

(b) A policy and procedure to ensure that individuals are allowed to apply for financing for a full array of AT devices and services regardless of type of disability or health condition, age, income level, location of residence in the State, or type of AT device or service for which financing is requested through the program. It is permissible for programs to target individuals with disabilities who would have been denied conventional financing as a priority for AFP funding.

(c) A procedure to ensure consumer choice and consumer-controlled oversight of the program.

(d) A sustainability plan, including information on the percentage of funds expected to be used for operating expenses and loan capital.

(8) Data Collection: An assurance that the applicant will collect and report data requested by the Secretary in the format, with the frequency, and using the method established by the Secretary until there are no longer any funds available to operate the AFP and all outstanding loans have been repaid.

(9) Credit Building Activities: An assurance that the AFP will incorporate credit-building activities into its programs, including financial education and information about other possible funding sources.

Competitive Preference Priorities: Within this priority, we announce two competitive preference priorities.

These priorities are:

Need to Establish an AFP (10 additional points): This applies to an applicant located in a State or outlying area where an AFP grant has not been previously awarded under title III of the AT Act of 1998 or under the Appropriations Acts for FYs 2012 and 2013.

Need to Expand an AFP (5 additional points): This applies to an applicant located in a State or outlying area where an AFP grant has been previously awarded under title III of the AT Act of 1998 or under the Appropriations Acts for FYs 2012 and 2013, but the State or outlying area has received less than a total of $1 million in Federal grant funds for the operation of its AFP under title III of the AT Act of 1998 during fiscal years 2000 through 2006 and the appropriations Acts for FYs 2012 and 2013.

Types of Priorities:

When inviting applications for a competition using one or more priorities, we designate the type of each priority as absolute, competitive preference, or invitational through a notice in the Federal Register .The effect of each type of priority follows:

Absolute priority: Under an absolute priority, we consider only applications that meet the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(3)).

Competitive preference priority: Under a competitive preference priority, we give competitive preference to an application by (1) awarding additional points, depending on the extent to which the application meets the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i)); or (2) selecting an application that meets the priority over an application of comparable merit that does not meet the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(ii)).

Invitational priority: Under an invitational priority, we are particularly interested in applications that meet the priority. However, we do not give an application that meets the priority a preference over other applications (34 CFR 75.105(c)(1)).

This notice does not preclude us from proposing additional priorities, requirements, definitions, or selection criteria, subject to meeting applicable rulemaking requirements.

Under Executive Order 12866, the Secretary must determine whether this regulatory action is “significant” and, therefore, subject to the requirements of the Executive order and subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 defines a “significant regulatory action” as an action likely to result in a rule that may—

(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, or adversely affect a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities in a material way (also referred to as an “economically significant” rule);

(2) Create serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency;

(3) Materially alter the budgetary impacts of entitlement grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or

(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive order.

This final regulatory action is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by OMB under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866.

We have also reviewed this final regulatory action under Executive Order 13563, which supplements and explicitly reaffirms the principles, structures, and definitions governing regulatory review established in Executive Order 12866. To the extent permitted by law, Executive Order 13563 requires that an agency—

(1) Propose or adopt regulations only upon a reasoned determination that their benefits justify their costs (recognizing that some benefits and costs are difficult to quantify);

(2) Tailor its regulations to impose the least burden on society, consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives and taking into account—among other things and to the extent practicable—the costs of cumulative regulations;

(3) In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, select those approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity);

(4) To the extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather than the behavior or manner of compliance a regulated entity must adopt; and

(5) Identify and assess available alternatives to direct regulation, including economic incentives—such as user fees or marketable permits—to encourage the desired behavior, or provide information that enables the public to make choices.

Executive Order 13563 also requires an agency “to use the best available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future benefits and costs as accurately as possible.” The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB has emphasized that these techniques may include “identifying changing future compliance costs that might result from technological innovation or anticipated behavioral changes.”

We are issuing this final priority only on a reasoned determination that its benefits justify its costs. In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, we selected those approaches that maximize net benefits. Based on the analysis that follows, the Department believes that this regulatory action is consistent with the principles in Executive Order 13563.

We also have determined that this regulatory action does not unduly interfere with State, local, and tribal governments in the exercise of their governmental functions.

In accordance with both Executive orders, the Department has assessed the potential costs and benefits, both quantitative and qualitative, of this regulatory action. The potential costs are those resulting from statutory requirements and those we have determined as necessary for administering the Department's programs and activities.

Intergovernmental Review: This program is subject to Executive Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. One of the objectives of the Executive order is to foster an intergovernmental partnership and a strengthened federalism. The Executive order relies on processes developed by State and local governments for coordination and review of proposed Federal financial assistance.

This document provides early notification of our specific plans and actions for this program.

Accessible Format: Individuals with disabilities can obtain this document in an accessible format (e.g., braille, large print, audiotape, or compact disc) by contacting the Grants and Contracts Services Team, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 5075, PCP, Washington, DC 20202-2550. Telephone: (202) 245-7363. If you use a TDD or a TTY, call the FRS, toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.

Electronic Access to This Document: The official version of this document is the document published in the Federal Register . Free Internet access to the official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of Federal Regulations is available via the Federal Digital System at: www.gpo.gov/fdsys . At this site you can view this document, as well as all other documents of this Department published in the Federal Register , in text or Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF). To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at the site.

You may also access documents of the Department published in the Federal Register by using the article search feature at: www.federalregister.gov . Specifically, through the advanced search feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published by the Department.

Purpose of Program: The Capacity Building Program for Traditionally Underserved Populations under section 21(b)(2)(C) of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended (Rehabilitation Act) (29 U.S.C. 718(b)(2)(C)), provides outreach and technical assistance (TA) to minority entities and American Indian tribes to promote their participation in activities funded under the Rehabilitation Act, including assistance to enhance their capacity to carry out such activities.

We published a notice of proposed priorities for this competition in the Federal Register on June 11, 2014 (79 FR 33486). That notice contained background information and our reasons for proposing the particular priorities.

Public Comment: In response to our invitation for public comment in the notice of proposed priorities, 10 parties submitted comments.

We group major issues according to subject. Generally, we do not address technical and other minor changes. In addition, we do not address comments that raised concerns not directly related to the proposed priorities.

There are differences between the proposed priorities and these final priorities as discussed under Analysis of Comments and Changes. We made several changes to strengthen and clarify the priorities. Specifically, the revised priorities require the Institute to consult with appropriate and relevant entities in developing and providing training and TA to AIVRS projects; ensure that all materials developed reflect the AIVRS target population and diversity among its communities to the maximum extent possible; provide training through a variety of delivery methods so as not to exclude any participants and to meet the needs of the particular community served to the maximum extent possible; and ensure that training focused on effective communication with business reflects the marketplace of tribal communities. Further, we clarify the Institute's role, the target audience for this project, and the requirements for awarding a VR certificate. Finally, we substantially revise Priority 2 in order to clarify its purpose, requirements, and intended outcomes, and how applicants are to respond to this priority in the application.

Analysis of Comments and Changes: An analysis of the comments and of any changes in the priorities since publication of the notice of proposed priorities follows.

Comment: A number of commenters recognized the work of the Consortia of Administrators for Native American Rehabilitation (CANAR) and its TA project currently funded by RSA, Tribal Vocational Rehabilitation Continuous Improvement for Rehabilitation Counselors, Leaders, and Educators (TVR-Circle). Commenters suggested that, for the Institute to be effective, those already working, or with significant experience, in the field of tribal VR should be involved in the development of the curriculum for this project as well as in making decisions regarding methods of delivering the curriculum. Commenters suggested that a Native American-led entity with a national focus, such as CANAR, should serve as the lead consultant for the Institute.

Discussion: We agree that CANAR's TVR Circle currently serves as a valuable resource not only in understanding cultural competencies, but also in providing TA, organizational development, and educational training activities that are focused on the needs of AIVRS projects. Priority 1 does not require a lead entity or consultant for this project, other than the Institute. Priority 1 requires the Institute to conduct outreach activities and consult with appropriate and relevant entities in developing and providing training and TA to AIVRS projects.

Changes: We added language to the introductory paragraph of Priority 1 to clarify the role of the Institute, which includes conducting outreach activities and consulting with appropriate and relevant entities in developing and providing training and TA to AIVRS projects.

Comment: Several commenters emphasized the need for greater focus on the inclusion of cultural competencies within the priorities. Specifically, commenters stated that the Institute must ensure that its products, curriculum, and deliverables reflect the AIVRS target population, especially the diversity among American Indian and Native Alaskan communities. In addition, commenters noted that an understanding of how to deliver VR services within a particular cultural context is a critical component of the AIVRS program.

Discussion: Priority 1 requires the Institute to develop a structured program of training in a culturally appropriate manner. Priority 1 also states that the Institute must provide culturally relevant training that goes beyond technical compliance with the program statute and regulations applicable to the AIVRS program (Section 121 of the Rehabilitation Act, 34 CFR parts 369 and 371, and EDGAR). However, we believe that this priority should also specify that the products, curriculum, and deliverables must also reflect the AIVRS target population.

Change: We added a sentence to the introductory paragraph of Priority 1 to emphasize the importance of reflecting the AIVRS target population and diversity among its communities in all materials developed by the Institute to the maximum extent possible.

Comment: A commenter requested clarification as to whether the TA mentioned in Priority 1, paragraph (e), which requires the applicant to identify innovative methods and strategies for supporting AIVRS personnel when they have completed their training, and the TA mentioned in Priority 1, paragraph (g), which requires applicants to describe a plan to provide follow-up TA, either virtually or on-site to participants, applies to AIVRS projects seeking TA or only to participants who received training through the Institute.

Discussion: It is important to distinguish between TA to be provided by the Institute and TA currently provided by the TVR Circle. The follow-up TA described in paragraphs (e) and (g) of Priority 1 states that it is for participants who have completed the structured program of training delivered by the Institute. The target audience for this structured program of training is AIVRS project personnel with little or no experience in VR processes and practices. By contrast, the TA provided by the TVR Circle is intended to improve the performance of AIVRS grantees that are determined to be “at risk” by the Department. Because both paragraphs (e) and (g) describe the follow-up as occurring only after successful completion of the structured program of training, we believe the priority is clear as written.

Change: None.

Comment: Several commenters recommended a diverse model for delivering the structured program of training to meet the needs of the target audience. Some commenters raised a concern that many AIVRS projects are located in rural and remote communities that present challenges to providing in-person training. In addition, commenters stated that, although web-based training is cost effective, it may not be the best option for all projects, as reliable Internet access may not be available in many tribal communities. Commenters suggested different methods of offering training such as on-line, in a traditional classroom setting, or at regional trainings throughout the country as an extension of national conferences. In addition, commenters suggested that grant funds be used to cover the costs of participant travel in order to ensure that AIVRS project funds are used for program services.

Discussion: We agree that training should be offered through a variety of delivery methods so as not to exclude any participants and to meet the needs of the particular community served as much as possible. Priority 1, as proposed, stated that the series of trainings may be offered in person, through distance learning, or through a combination of the two. In addition, the U.S. Department of Education General Administrative Regulations (EDGAR), and government-wide requirements, including applicable Office of Management and Budget (OMB) cost principles, provides general guidance regarding costs and cost-related issues and requirements related to travel. The cost principles do not preclude grant funds from being used to offset costs associated with travel, such as transportation or lodging. However, we want to stress that travel expenses must be reasonable and should be used to ensure that AIVRS project personnel located in remote areas of the country are able to participate in the Institute.

Change: In order to adequately address that the training should be offered through a variety of delivery methods, we added language in the introductory paragraph in Priority 1 to clarify that training may be offered in a traditional classroom setting, through distance learning, through week-long institutes, at regional trainings throughout the country as an extension of national conferences, and through other delivery methods, as appropriate, to meet the needs of the targeted audience. We also revised Priority 1 to specify that grant funds may be used to provide reasonable financial assistance to offset costs associated with travel for participants who may be located in remote areas of the country.

Comment: Some commenters asked whether RSA intends for the Institute to award an academic certificate or a non-academic certificate. Commenters indicated that an academic certificate is transferable to an Associate of Arts degree, an undergraduate degree, or a graduate degree, while a non-academic certificate may impart knowledge, skills, and abilities but will not benefit the AIVRS personnel in furthering their academic credentials and professional credibility.

Discussion: Priority 1 does not distinguish between an academic and a non-academic certificate. It is our intent that a VR certificate, academic or non-academic, represent more than successful completion of the program. The VR certificate demonstrates that a participant has received the foundational VR knowledge and skills in the provision of VR services and is able to provide appropriate, effective, and culturally relevant VR services to American Indians with disabilities to prepare for, and engage in, gainful employment consistent with their informed choice. A VR certificate could be used by participants to further their pursuit of a post-secondary degree. For example, an applicant could propose to award college credit to a participant who meets the requirements and criteria established for a VR certificate, which may then be used by the participant to support an application to a four-year IHE that offers an undergraduate degree in VR counseling. However, it is up to the applicant to determine whether the Institute will award an academic or non-academic certificate. Further, the applicant must establish requirements and criteria for obtaining the VR certificate and define how the certificate may be used by participants, if desired, to pursue an advanced degree.

Change: In order to clarify the purpose of a VR certificate, we added language to the introductory paragraph of Priority 1 to clarify that the Institute may determine whether the VR certificate awarded will be academic or non-academic, the requirements for obtaining such a certificate, and how the certificate may be used by participants who earn it.

Comment: Commenters raised concerns regarding excessively high unemployment and an overall lack of industry in many tribal communities and how those issues may affect the training topic specified in Priority 1 to focus on effective communication with business. Commenters suggested that the content in this topic be expanded to include approaches for developing relationships and working with entrepreneurs, small businesses, and cooperative businesses that may offer emerging employment opportunities for tribal members with disabilities.

Discussion: We recognize the commenters' concerns related to high unemployment and accept their proposed suggestions for expanding the topic focused on effective communication with business to include working with entrepreneurs, small businesses, and cooperative businesses.

Change: In order to ensure that the training module titled “Effective Communication with Business” is an accurate representation of the marketplace in tribal communities, we expanded the first sentence of Priority 1, paragraph (a)(3), to include all types of businesses, especially entrepreneurs, small businesses, and cooperative businesses that may offer employment opportunities for tribal members with disabilities.

Comment: None.

Discussion: In our own review of the priorities, it became apparent that paragraph (h)(4) of Priority 1 is unclear and that the language in that paragraph does not meaningfully add to the requirements for the priority. Therefore, we are removing this language.

Change: In Priority 1, paragraph (h)(4) is removed. Therefore, paragraph (h)(5) in Priority 1 is renumbered as paragraph (h)(4).

Comment: A few commenters requested clarification regarding whether Priority 2 is a subset of Priority 1 and whether applicants will be required to meet both priorities.

Discussion: We believe that the Institute, as proposed, must be developed and delivered through collaboration between a four-year IHE and a two-year community college or tribal college. We believe that the priorities, as written, are clear.

Change: None.

Comment: A few commenters requested clarification regarding Priority 2, which, as proposed, requires collaboration between a four-year IHE and a two-year community college or tribal college. Commenters inquired as to whether other partners, in addition to a four-year IHE and a two-year community college or tribal college, could be involved in a collaboration agreement.

Discussion: In Priority 2, as proposed, we require collaboration between a four-year IHE and a two-year community college or tribal college. The collaboration may be expanded to include other relevant partners to support the goals and expected outcomes of this project, such as a business. However, the collaboration must include, at a minimum, a four-year IHE and a two-year community college or tribal college. We believe that the priority is clear as written.

Change: None.

Comment: None.

Discussion: In our own review of the priorities and the comments we received, it became clear that applicants could benefit from additional details and clarification about our requirements in Priority 2. Therefore, we revised the priority to clarify its purpose, requirements, intended outcomes, and how applicants are to respond to the priority. First, the purpose of Priority 2 is to require a partnership between a four-year IHE and a two-year community college or tribal college to effectively implement the requirements of Priority 1. We believe that community colleges or tribal colleges are uniquely suited to provide the type of customized instruction necessary to meet the requirements of Priority 1. In addition, the involvement of a four-year IHE will improve the instruction by providing access to faculty who possess a breadth of knowledge and experience in the field of VR. Therefore, applicants will respond to Priority 2 by demonstrating, in the narrative portion of their application, that the Institute reflects a collaboration of knowledge, experience, skills, faculty, curriculum, resources, and technology between a four-year IHE and a two-year community college or tribal college in order to deliver a high-quality structured program of training on foundational VR knowledge and skills in a culturally appropriate manner.

Second, Priority 2, as proposed, was written to require collaboration between a four-year IHE and a two-year community college or tribal college. We replaced the term “collaboration” in the proposed priority with the term “partnership” in the final priority in order to better reflect the type of relationship that we intended between the four-year IHE and the two-year community college or tribal college. In addition, Priority 2, as proposed, was written to require a formal agreement between a four-year IHE and a two-year community or tribal college. We replaced the term “formal agreement” with the term “partnership agreement” in order to better reflect the purpose of the priority. In Priority 2, the partnership agreement is required to be submitted in addition to the narrative portion of the application.

Third, Priority 2, as proposed, would have given the Secretary discretion to require the formal agreement to include the signatures of the president and chief financial officer from the four-year IHE and the two-year community college or tribal college. However, after review, we concluded that it is essential that the partnership agreement contain the signatures of the president and chief financial officer of both parties, and we make this a mandatory component of the agreement. In addition, we concluded that the remaining four elements of the agreement are also critical to ensuring that the partnership is able to effectively implement the requirements in Priority 1 and meet the goal of the Institute. Therefore, the partnership agreement described in Priority 2 must contain all four components, three of which we revised to clarify and streamline the applications.

Finally, a component in Priority 2, as proposed, required the formal agreement to include in-kind or financial contributions from both parties. However, because there are no matching requirements in this program, we revised this component to make clear that these contributions are not required. Another component in Priority 2, as proposed, required the formal agreement to include a plan to sustain the partnership after the Federal investment ends. We revised this requirement for the partnership agreement in the final priority to require applicants to provide a brief strategy to sustain the partnership after the Federal investment ends.

Change: Priority 2 is revised to clarify the requirements for the partnership between a four-year IHE and two-year community college or tribal college, including its objective of delivering a high-quality structured program of training on foundational VR knowledge and skills in a culturally appropriate manner. Priority 2 also is revised to require a partnership agreement, which must be signed by the president and chief financial officer of both parties. The required partnership agreement must include a brief description of how the partnership will operate each year during the five-year grant period of performance. The agreement must also describe how information regarding the progress of the grant, as well as any issues and challenges, will be communicated; what steps will be taken to resolve conflicts; the roles, responsibilities, and deliverables of each party; and the arrangements, if any, for supporting the program with resources, that are not paid for by the award; and include a brief strategy to sustain the partnership and the structured training program after the Federal investment ends.

The Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services establishes a priority to support one Institute under section 21(b)(2)(C) of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended—the Vocational Rehabilitation (VR) Training Institute for the Preparation of Personnel in American Indian Vocational Rehabilitation Services (AIVRS) Projects (the Institute). The Institute will provide a structured program of training in vocational rehabilitation (VR) to current personnel of the AIVRS projects to improve the delivery of VR services to American Indians with disabilities. The Institute will conduct outreach activities and consult with appropriate and relevant entities in developing and providing training and TA to AIVRS projects. All products, curricula, and deliverables developed by the Institute must reflect the AIVRS population and diversity among its communities to the maximum extent possible. The Institute will consist of a series of trainings specifically geared towards building foundational skills that, when satisfactorily completed, will lead to a VR certificate awarded by the Institute. The Institute may determine whether the VR certificate awarded will be academic or non-academic, the requirements for obtaining such a certificate, and how the certificate may be used by participants who earn it. The series of trainings may be offered in a traditional classroom setting, through distance learning, through week-long institutes, at regional trainings throughout the country as an extension of national conferences, and through other delivery methods, as appropriate, to meet the needs of the targeted audience. In addition, grant funds may be used to provide reasonable financial assistance to offset costs associated with travel for participants who may be located in remote areas of the country. The Institute will conduct an assessment before and after providing training for each participant in order to assess strengths and specific areas for improvement, educational attainment and application of skills, and any issues or challenges to be addressed post-training to ensure improved delivery of VR services to American Indians with disabilities. The Institute will provide follow-up TA to participants to address any issues or challenges that are identified post-training and to ensure that the training they received is applied effectively in their work setting. Finally, the Institute will conduct an evaluation to obtain feedback on the training and follow-up TA and to determine whether this improvement contributed to increased employment outcomes for American Indians with disabilities.

The Department will award this grant as a cooperative agreement to ensure that there is substantial involvement (i.e., significant communication and collaboration) between RSA and the grantee in carrying out the activities of the program (34 CFR 75.200(b)(4)).

In coordination with the Department, the Institute must, in a culturally appropriate manner:

(a) Develop a structured program of training on foundational VR knowledge and skills that will lead to AIVRS personnel earning a VR certificate. The training would include, at a minimum: vocational assessment, determination of applicant eligibility, development of an individualized plan for employment (IPE), the acquisition and use of assistive technology, and obtaining and using up-to-date labor market information to understand the local economy and effectively match the skills of AIVRS consumers with the needs of employers. The Institute must provide culturally relevant training that goes beyond technical compliance with the program statute and regulations applicable to the AIVRS program (Section 121 of the Rehabilitation Act, 34 CFR Parts 369 and 371, and EDGAR) and focuses on providing the basic foundational skills necessary to improve counseling and VR services provided by AIVRS personnel. The training topics must include, at a minimum:

(1) Introduction to VR: An orientation to the field of VR, addressing in general terms the various disabilities a VR counselor is apt to encounter working in an AIVRS project. The training developed by the Institute must teach AIVRS personnel to understand the nature of a significant disability and the complexities a person with such a disability experiences and must teach how various disabilities affect an individual's ability to participate in competitive employment;

(2) Effective communication with AIVRS consumers including: Identification of approaches to, techniques for, and relevant examples of developing trust and rapport with individuals with a disability; appropriate conduct when engaging with individuals with a disability; and interacting with members of the tribal council;

(3) Effective communication with business including: Identification of approaches to, techniques for, and relevant examples of building and maintaining relationships with all types of businesses, especially entrepreneurs, small businesses, and cooperative businesses that may offer emerging employment opportunities for tribal members with disabilities. This training topic includes educating potential employers about how reasonable accommodations and assistive technology can be used to support effectively the employment of individuals with disabilities. The Institute must also teach participants how to obtain accurate labor market information on available employment opportunities in their State and local area, and how to identify education, technical requirements, and necessary skill sets for the jobs available;

(4) Conducting a vocational assessment and determining eligibility: How to obtain and evaluate necessary medical and other documentation and the results of assessments that may have been conducted by entities other than the AIVRS project. The Institute must teach AIVRS personnel how to use appropriate assessment tools that assist in determining an individual's eligibility for VR services and in developing an IPE;

(5) Managing caseload: How to manage cases so that information can be retrieved and communicated to the AIVRS consumer in a timely manner. The Institute must teach AIVRS personnel how to create, manage, and appropriately close consumer case files;

(6) Development of an IPE: How to plan and provide VR services that lead to meaningful employment opportunities that are at appropriate skill levels and consistent with the consumer's abilities, interests, and informed choice; and

(7) Development of job-seeking skills: Identification of approaches to, techniques for, and relevant examples of improving job-seeking skills. This includes resume preparation, practicing interview skills, networking, navigating job sites, targeting job searches, and other effective skills that will lead to job placement for AIVRS consumers.

(b) Develop a course syllabus that describes the proposed sequence of topical training.

(c) Develop a training module for one of the seven topics in paragraph (a) to serve as an example for how participants will be trained in that area.

(d) Develop a recruitment and retention plan that describes how the Institute will conduct outreach activities and recruitment efforts to enroll current AIVRS personnel in the Institute. Current AIVRS staff may nominate themselves or be nominated by the AIVRS project director to participate in the Institute. The plan must also describe how the Institute will provide academic support and counseling for AIVRS personnel to ensure successful completion, as well as steps that will be taken to provide assistance to AIVRS personnel who are not performing to their fullest potential in the Institute's structured program of training.

(e) Identify innovative methods and strategies for supporting AIVRS personnel when they have completed the training, including a plan for maintaining regular contact with AIVRS personnel upon successful completion of the structured program of training and providing follow-up TA on various situations and settings encountered by AIVRS personnel in working with American Indians with disabilities, as well as TA on effective programmatic and fiscal management of an AIVRS project.

(f) Develop an assessment tool for use by the Institute before and after the training. The assessment must identify the strengths and specific areas in which participants need to improve prior to the beginning of the training. In addition, 90 days after the training is completed, the assessment must evaluate the attainment of skills, demonstrated application of those skill sets, and any issues or challenges for participating AIVRS personnel that may impact improved delivery of VR services to American Indians with disabilities. The Institute must administer the assessment tool and provide a copy to participants. The Institute must also ensure that the results are reviewed with participating AIVRS personnel and shared with their respective Directors.

(g) Describe a plan to provide follow-up TA, either virtually or on-site, to participants. The purpose is to ensure that the training that AIVRS personnel received is applied effectively in their work settings and addresses any issues or challenges identified as a result of the assessment that is conducted 90 days after the training is completed.

(h) Describe how the Institute will be evaluated. Such a description must include:

(1) How the Institute will determine its impact over a period of time on improving the delivery of VR services to American Indians with disabilities and increasing employment outcomes;

(2) How input from AIVRS project directors will be included in the evaluation;

(3) How feedback from American Indians with disabilities will be included in the evaluation;

(4) How the data and results from the evaluation will be used to make necessary adjustments and improvements to AIVRS projects and training of AIVRS personnel.

Applicants will demonstrate, in the narrative portion of their application, that the Institute reflects a collaboration of knowledge, experience, skills, faculty, curricula resources, and technology between a four-year IHE and a two-year community college or tribal college in order to deliver a high-quality structured program of training on foundational VR knowledge and skills in a culturally appropriate manner.

Applicants are required to submit a partnership agreement, in addition to the narrative portion of their application. The partnership agreement must be signed by the president and chief financial officer of both parties. Applicants must include a brief description in the partnership agreement of how the partnership will operate each year during the five-year grant period of performance. Applicants must also summarize in the agreement how information regarding the progress of the grant, as well as any issues and challenges, will be communicated; what steps will be taken to resolve conflicts; the roles, responsibilities, and deliverables of each party; and the arrangements, if any, for supporting the program with resources, that are not paid for by the award. Finally, applicants must provide a brief strategy in the agreement to sustain the partnership and the structured training program after the Federal investment ends.

Types of Priorities:

When inviting applications for a competition using one or more priorities, we designate the type of each priority as absolute, competitive preference, or invitational through a notice in the Federal Register. The effect of each type of priority follows:

Absolute priority: Under an absolute priority, we consider only applications that meet the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(3)).

Competitive preference priority: Under a competitive preference priority, we give competitive preference to an application by (1) awarding additional points, depending on the extent to which the application meets the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i)); or (2) selecting an application that meets the priority over an application of comparable merit that does not meet the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(ii)).

Invitational priority: Under an invitational priority, we are particularly interested in applications that meet the priority. However, we do not give an application that meets the priority a preference over other applications (34 CFR 75.105(c)(1)).

This notice does not preclude us from proposing additional priorities, requirements, definitions, or selection criteria, subject to meeting applicable rulemaking requirements.

Under Executive Order 12866, the Secretary must determine whether this regulatory action is “significant” and, therefore, subject to the requirements of the Executive order and subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 defines a “significant regulatory action” as an action likely to result in a rule that may—

(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, or adversely affect a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities in a material way (also referred to as an “economically significant” rule);

(2) Create serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency;

(3) Materially alter the budgetary impacts of entitlement grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or

(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles stated in the Executive order.

This final regulatory action is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by OMB under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866.

We have also reviewed this final regulatory action under Executive Order 13563, which supplements and explicitly reaffirms the principles, structures, and definitions governing regulatory review established in Executive Order 12866. To the extent permitted by law, Executive Order 13563 requires that an agency—

(1) Propose or adopt regulations only upon a reasoned determination that their benefits justify their costs (recognizing that some benefits and costs are difficult to quantify);

(2) Tailor its regulations to impose the least burden on society, consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives and taking into account—among other things and to the extent practicable—the costs of cumulative regulations;

(3) In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, select those approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity);

(4) To the extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather than the behavior or manner of compliance a regulated entity must adopt; and

(5) Identify and assess available alternatives to direct regulation, including economic incentives—such as user fees or marketable permits—to encourage the desired behavior, or provide information that enables the public to make choices.

Executive Order 13563 also requires an agency “to use the best available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future benefits and costs as accurately as possible.” The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB has emphasized that these techniques may include “identifying changing future compliance costs that might result from technological innovation or anticipated behavioral changes.”

We are issuing these final priorities only on a reasoned determination that their benefits justify their costs. In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, we selected those approaches that maximize net benefits. Based on the analysis that follows, the Department believes that this regulatory action is consistent with the principles in Executive Order 13563.

We also have determined that this final regulatory action does not unduly interfere with State, local, and tribal governments in the exercise of their governmental functions.

In accordance with both Executive orders, the Department has assessed the potential costs and benefits, both quantitative and qualitative, of this regulatory action. The potential costs are those resulting from statutory requirements and those we have determined as necessary for administering the Department's programs, projects, and activities.

Intergovernmental Review: This program is subject to Executive Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79, unless the applicant is a federally recognized Indian tribe. One of the objectives of the Executive order is to foster an intergovernmental partnership and a strengthened federalism. The Executive order relies on processes developed by State and local governments for coordination and review of proposed Federal financial assistance.

This document provides early notification of our specific plans and actions for this program.

Accessible Format: Individuals with disabilities can obtain this document in an accessible format (e.g., braille, large print, audiotape, or compact disc) by contacting the Grants and Contracts Services Team, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 5075, PCP, Washington, DC 20202-2550. Telephone: (202) 245- 7363. If you use a TDD or a TTY, call the FRS, toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.

Electronic Access to This Document: The official version of this document is the document published in the Federal Register . Free Internet access to the official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of Federal Regulations is available via the Federal Digital System at: www.gpo.gov/fdsys. At this site you can view this document, as well as all other documents of this Department published in the Federal Register , in text or Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF). To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at the site.

You may also access documents of the Department published in the Federal Register by using the article search feature at: www.federalregister.gov. Specifically, through the advanced search feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published by the Department.

In a document published in the Federal Register on December 3, 2013 (78 FR 72573), VA amended its regulations concerning SAH. The amendment authorized automatic issuance of a certificate of eligibility for SAH to all veterans and active-duty servicemembers with service-connected ALS rated totally disabling under the VA Schedule for Rating Disabilities. The comment period for that interim final regulation ended February 3, 2014. VA received no comments. Based on the rationale set forth in the interim final rule, we are adopting the provisions of the interim final rule as a final rule without change.

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) and (d)(3), VA found that there was good cause to dispense with advance public notice and opportunity to comment on the interim final rule and good cause to publish that rule with an immediate effective date. The interim final rule was necessary to implement immediately the Secretary's decision to establish SAH eligibility for all persons with totally-disabling service-connected ALS. Delay in the implementation of this rule would have been impracticable and contrary to the public interest, particularly to veterans and active-duty servicemembers.

Because the survival period for persons suffering from ALS is generally 18-48 months or less from the onset of symptoms, any delay in establishing SAH eligibility is extremely detrimental to veterans and active-duty servicemembers who are currently afflicted with ALS. Any delay in implementation until after a public-comment period could have delayed modifying the regulated certificate of eligibility process, depriving ALS veterans and active-duty servicemembers of quick and efficient access to SAH benefits.

For the foregoing reasons, the Secretary issued the rule as an interim final rule with immediate effect.

This final rule contains no provisions constituting a collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521).

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. This final rule will not affect any small entities. Only VA beneficiaries will be directly affected. Therefore, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), this final rule is exempt from the initial and final regulatory flexibility analysis requirements of sections 603 and 604.

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,” which requires review by the Office of Management and Budget (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 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 final rule have been examined, and it has been determined not to be a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. VA's impact analysis can be found as a supporting document at http://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 http://www1.va.gov/orpm/, by following the link for “VA Regulations Published.”

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.

The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance program numbers and titles for this rule are 64.106, Specially Adapted Housing for Disabled Veterans and 64.109, Veterans Compensation for Service-Connected Disability.

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 A. McDonald, Secretary, Department of Veterans Affairs, approved this document on August 6, 2014, for publication.

EPA Region 6 is publishing this direct final Notice of Deletion of the Monroe Auto Pit. Superfund Site (Site), from the National Priorities List (NPL). The NPL constitutes Appendix B of 40 CFR Part 300 which is the Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP), which EPA promulgated pursuant to Section 105 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended. EPA maintains the NPL as the list of sites that appear to present a significant risk to public health, welfare, or the environment. Sites on the NPL may be the subject of remedial actions financed by the Hazardous Substance Superfund (Fund). As described in § 300.425(e)(3) of the NCP, sites deleted from the NPL remains eligible for Fund-financed remedial action if future conditions warrant such actions.

Because EPA considers this action to be noncontroversial and routine, this action will be effective October 14, 2014 unless EPA receives adverse comments by September 15, 2014. Along with this direct final Notice of Deletion, EPA is co-publishing a Notice of Intent for Deletion in the “Proposed Rules” section of this Federal Register . If adverse comments are received within the 30-day public comment period on this deletion action, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of this direct final Notice of Deletion before the effective date of the deletion and the deletion will not take effect. EPA will, as appropriate, prepare a response to comments and continue with the deletion process on the basis of the Notice of Intent for Deletion and the comments already received. There will be no additional opportunity to comment.

Section II of this document explains the criteria for deleting sites from the NPL. Section III discusses procedures that EPA is using for this action. Section IV discusses the Monroe Auto Pit Superfund Site and demonstrates how it meets the deletion criteria. Section V discusses EPA's action to delete the Site from the NPL unless adverse comments are received during the public comment period.

The NCP establishes the criteria that EPA uses to delete sites from the NPL. In accordance with 40 CFR 300.425(e), sites may be deleted from the NPL where no further response is appropriate. In making such a determination pursuant to 40 CFR 300.425(e), EPA will consider, in consultation with the State, whether any of the following criteria have been met:

i. Responsible parties or other persons have implemented all appropriate response actions required;

ii. All appropriate Fund-financed response under CERCLA has been implemented, and no further response action by responsible parties is appropriate; or

iii. The remedial investigation has shown that the release poses no significant threat to public health or the environment and, therefore, the taking of remedial measures is not appropriate.

The following procedures apply to the deletion of the Site:

(1) EPA has consulted with the state of Arkansas prior to developing this direct final Notice of Deletion and the Notice of Intent for Deletion co-published in the “Proposed Rules” section of this Federal Register .

(2) EPA has provided the state 30 working days for review of this notice and the parallel Notice of Intent to Delete prior to their publication today, and the state, through the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality, has concurred on this deletion of the Site from the NPL.

(3) Concurrently with the publication of this direct final Notice of Deletion, a notice of the availability of the parallel Notice of Intent for Deletion is being published in a major local newspaper, the Paragould Daily Press. The newspaper notice announces the 30-day public comment period concerning the Notice of Intent for Deletion of the Site from the NPL.

(4) The EPA placed copies of documents supporting the deletion in the deletion docket and made these items available for public inspection and copying at the Site information repositories identified above.

(5) If adverse comments are received within the 30-day public comment period on this deletion action, EPA will publish a timely notice of withdrawal of this direct final Notice of Deletion before its effective date and will prepare a response to comments and continue with the deletion process on the basis of the Notice of Intent for Deletion and the comments already received.

Deletion of a site from the NPL does not itself create, alter, or revoke any individual's rights or obligations. Deletion of a site from the NPL does not in any way alter EPA's right to take enforcement actions, as appropriate. The NPL is designed primarily for informational purposes and to assist EPA management. Section 300.425(e)(3) of the NCP states that the deletion of a site from the NPL does not preclude eligibility for further response actions, should future conditions warrant such actions.

The following information provides EPA's rationale for deleting the Site from the NPL.

The Monroe Auto Equipment (Paragould Pit) Superfund Site (CERCLIS ID ARD980864110) is located in northeastern Arkansas in an unincorporated portion of Greene County, approximately three miles southwest of Paragould, Arkansas. The site lies immediately west of Arkansas Highway 358, approximately three miles west of its intersection with U.S. Highway 49. The site lies in the Northwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 17, Township 16 North, Range 5 East, in the Paragould West 7.5-minute quadrangle. The southwestern corner of the site is at latitude 36°01′0″ and longitude 90°34′30″. The site occupies seven (7) acres of a former sand and gravel borrow pit. The area is rural and lightly populated with private residences located immediately south, north, and northeast of the site.

Monroe Auto Equipment Company (now Tenneco Automotive, Inc.) purchased the described property for disposal of alum and lime electroplating sludge that originated from settling ponds used for the treatment of wastewater from Monroe Auto Equipment's Paragould manufacturing plant. The waste material was placed on the site from 1973 to 1978, resulting in over 10,000 cubic yards (CY) of sludge at the site in the sand and gravel pit. In July 1987, the EPA conducted a Site Assessment inspection to assess the potential for public exposure to contaminants being released from the site. Principal pollutants in groundwater identified by the EPA included solvents and degreasing agents such as 1,1-Dichloroethane (1,1-DCA), 1,2-Dichloroethene (1,2-DCE), Xylenes, and metals. As an interim action, Tenneco initiated sampling of private residential wells located within one-half mile of the site beginning in July 1987. The EPA proposed that the Site be added to the National Priorities List (NPL) on October 26, 1989 and was finalized to the NPL on August 30, 1990. On-site monitoring wells and a private drinking water well 300 feet southeast (down-gradient) of the pit are contaminated with 1,1-dichloroethane and 1,2-dichloroethylene, according to tests conducted in 1987-88 by the Arkansas Department of Health and a Monroe consultant. The consultant also found arsenic, nickel, and lead in the monitoring wells. An estimated 2,100 people obtain drinking water from private wells within 3 miles of the site.

A Potentially Responsible Party (PRP) search conducted in 1990 under CERCLA Section 104 (e) 42 U.S.C. 9604(e), indicated that Monroe Auto Equipment was the only PRP for the site. On March 14, 1991, the EPA issued notice of an impending Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study (RI/FS) to the PRP. Monroe Auto Equipment, now Tenneco, responded to the notice with a good faith offer to perform the RI/FS. On June 28, 1991, Monroe Auto Equipment Company entered into an Administrative Order on Consent with the EPA to conduct a RI/FS under CERCLA. The RI was completed in August 1993, and the FS was completed in April 1995. The RI/FS identified the types, quantities, and locations of contaminants found at the Site and developed ways to address the contamination. A Human Health Risk Assessment and an Ecological Risk Assessment were performed to determine the current and future effects of contaminants on human health and the environment.

Remedial Action Objectives (RAOs) were developed for Site to address the contaminated soils and ground water. The remedy is comprised of the following major components as stipulated in the Remedial Action Workplan:

• Excavate, segregate and stage sludge, stained soils, and overburden (clean soil) and unstained soils;

• Stockpile overburden and unstained soils for use as backfill;

• Stabilize sludge material with 5 to 10 percent lime addition;

• Analyze stained soil and solidified sludge;

• Transport and dispose of stained soil that exhibits concentrations of constituents of concern (COC) below toxicity characteristic leaching procedure (TCLP) levels and EPA Region VI Medium Specific Health Based Screening Levels in a Subtitle D landfill;

• Stockpile stabilized sludge in an on-site lined containment cell;

• Apply for de-listing of stabilized sludge;

• Verify removal of impacted materials from the sludge pit through analytical testing of the bottom and sides of the excavation area;

• Restore the site by backfilling, grading and seeding;

• Transport and dispose of stabilized sludge in accordance with the results of the de-listing petition; and

• Conduct groundwater monitoring to ensure the effectiveness of the RA.

In order to achieve these RAOs, numerical risk-based cleanup levels were established for each environmental medium based on the residential scenario.

• Prevent exposure to current and future human and ecological receptors through ingestion, dermal contact, and inhalation of contaminated soil/sludge containing trichloroethylene, vinyl chloride, antimony, arsenic, beryllium, chromium VI, and lead.

• Prevent exposure to current and future human and ecological receptors through ingestion, dermal contact, and inhalation of contaminated groundwater containing cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene, trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene, bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate, beryllium, chromium, lead, manganese.

In order to achieve these RAOs, numerical risk-based cleanup levels were established for each environmental medium based on the residential scenario.

A proposed plan for the Site was issued on July 17, 1995, presenting the preferred alternative of capping the sludge disposal area, installing a groundwater interception system (french drain), and addressing the groundwater contamination through natural attenuation, degradation and monitoring. On September 26, 1996, the Record of Decision (ROD) was issued and signed for the Site.

In February 1998, the ADPC&E (current ADEQ) signed a Consent Administrative Order directing Tenneco to conduct the Remedial Design/Remedial Action (RD/RA) under ADPC&E oversight presenting the preferred alternative of excavation and offsite disposal for the waste, contaminated soil, and contaminated sediment at the Site.

In 1999, Tenneco submitted a petition to modify the ROD to change the method of contaminated soil remediation from containment of the contaminated soil and sludge, to excavation and treatment as required by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act for removal and disposal of contaminated soil and sludge in an off-site permitted secure Subtitle D disposal facility. The amended ROD was signed by the ADEQ on September 15, 2000, and by the EPA on November 9, 2000. The amendment to the ROD did not alter the Remedial Action Objectives established by the 1996 ROD, or the Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements listed in the 1996 ROD. The revised soil remedy did not alter the previous requirement of monitored natural attenuation of constituents in the groundwater. The new remedy was consistent with the statements and expressed wishes regarding remediation activities from nearby residents. By treatment and removal of the waste from the site, the site is available for future development. The amended soil or source remedy included: Excavation of sludge and stained soils; verifying removal of impacted materials from the sludge disposal area; transporting and disposing of stained soil in a Subtitle D landfill; solidifying and stabilizing sludge material; stockpiling stabilized sludge; applying for de-listing of stabilized sludge and transporting and disposing of stabilized sludge in accordance with the results of the delisting petition.

The final remedy is detailed in the Remedial Design Submittal Quality Assurance Project Plan, Remedial Action Workplan, Remedial Design Submittal Sampling and Analysis Plan (SAP), and Remedial Design Submittal Health and Safety Plan. The final remedy represents the culmination of activities that resulted from the preliminary site investigation completed in 1988, the RI/FS, the ROD and Amended ROD.

Tenneco began on-site Remedial Action construction in September 1999. The soil remedial action consisted of the excavation and segregation of 14,633 cubic yards of soil and started in September 1999. Based on field calculations, a total of 3,348 cubic yards of overburden (clean fill material), 8,553 cubic yards of stained soil and 2,732 yards of sludge (prior to stabilization and consolidation) were removed during the excavation activities.

The overburden was removed, stockpiled, sampled and confirmed to meet the RA goals for soil and used as backfill. In accordance with the SAP, one grab sample was collected for every 2,000 cubic yards of overburden, unstained soil or clean backfill. A total of 8,160 cubic yards of additional soil was imported for use as backfill, yielding a total of 11,508 yards of backfill used to replace the stained soil and sludge removed from the site. The site was recontoured to provide better drainage, enabling use of a smaller amount of soil required for backfill (11,508 cubic yards backfilled as compared to 14,633 cubic yards removed). A total of seven samples were collected from the overburden and imported backfill and confirmed the backfill material met the soil remedial clean-up requirements for the Site.

The 8,553 cubic yards of stained soil was stockpiled, sampled to confirm disposal in accordance with ADEQ requirements and disposed in two Subtitle D Landfills upon confirmation of soil constituent levels. In accordance with the SAP, at a minimum, one grab sample was collected for every 500 cubic yards of stained soil. A total of 26 samples were collected from the stained soil to confirm this material met the disposal requirements for the permitted landfill. The weigh tickets from the Subtitle D Landfills confirm the disposal of the 8,553 cubic yards or 14,599 tons (1.7 tons/cubic yard) of stained soil as part of the Soil RA. A total of 11,621 tons of stained soil was transported and disposed at the Butler County Landfill in Poplar Bluff, Missouri and 2,978 tons of stained soil were transported and disposed at the Waste Management—Two Pines Landfill in North Little Rock, Arkansas.

The 2,732 cubic yards of sludge removed was stabilized with approximately 241 tons of quicklime and stockpiled in an on-site lined containment cell. In accordance with the SAP, at a minimum, one grab sample was collected for every 500 cubic yards of stabilized sludge. A total of seven samples were collected from the stabilized sludge to provide the basis for preparation of a petition for de-listing of this material. The 2,723 cubic yards of sludge removed was based on field measurements prior to stabilization. Surveying of this material after stabilization and consolidation over several months after placement in the containment cell yielded a volume of 1,798 cubic yards. A De-listing Petition (Petition) was prepared by the PRP in August 2000. The Petition was approved by EPA and subsequently by the ADEQ in an August 27, 2001 letter entitled Exclusion of F006 Waste at the Tenneco/Monroe Facility from the Definition of Hazardous Waste. Upon approval of the Petition, the 1,798 cubic yards or 3,243 tons (1.8 tons/cubic yard) of stabilized sludge was transported and disposed of at the Waste Management—Two Pines Landfill in North Little Rock, Arkansas. The bottom and sidewalls of the sludge pit excavation were extended until the visually impacted material had been removed. Prior to the collection of verification samples, an additional 1-foot of material was removed and disposed as stained soil. In accordance with the SAP, a verification soil sample was collected for every 500 square feet of sidewall or floor. A total of 81 verification samples were collected which confirmed that the excavation activities met the RA Goals for Soil at the site. In accordance with oral field instructions by the EPA Remedial Project Manager (RPM), and later included in the amendment to the ROD, the PRP excavated all of the stained soil and sludge until levels were at or below the RA Goals for Soil at the site. The stained soil that had concentrations of the COCs below the TCLP levels and the EPA Region 6's Medium Specific Health Based Screening Levels was excavated and disposed in a Subtitle D Landfill. The final shipment of stained soil was on December 16, 1999. The contractor also stabilized all of the contaminated soil and sludge which exhibited contaminant levels above the TCLP levels. The final shipment of the stabilized material was on September 13, 2001. The final inspection was conducted on September 14, 2001, and the Preliminary Close Out Report was signed on September 19, 2001.

Natural attenuation and monitoring was the remedy selected in the ROD to address the groundwater contamination on and offsite. The ROD amendment did not change the groundwater remedy. The ROD required the PRP to develop and implement a Groundwater Monitoring Plan (GMP) and beginning in September 2001, semiannual monitoring of eighteen (18) wells began. The PRP conducted groundwater monitoring events through March 2009. The PRP has discontinued monitoring groundwater at the Site.

The Groundwater Remedy portion of the September 26, 1996 ROD and the 2000 ROD Amendment included conducting long-term groundwater monitoring of wells at the Site and local private wells located in the vicinity of the Site. As part of the Groundwater Remedy, a Groundwater Monitoring Plan (GMP) was prepared for the Site. The GMP specified procedures to be followed for long-term groundwater monitoring to ensure compliance with the requirements of the ROD and the ROD Amendment. Tenneco initiated GMP activities in September 2001. The GMP also specified quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC) protocols for ground water sampling. The EPA Remedial Project Manager and State regulators visited the site during ground water monitoring activities to observe ground water sampling. ADEQ also took independent samples to that confirmed the results of the samples taken by the PRP. No deviations or non-adherence to QA/QC protocols, or specifications were identified.

Based on analysis of semi-annual groundwater sampling results since March 2001, a request was made and approved to reduce the number of groundwater monitoring wells and COCs included in the Site GMP. The requested revised GMP focused only on volatile organic chemicals (VOCs) at six select groundwater monitoring well locations. A request to remove the requirements for sampling of the private wells was submitted to EPA and ADEQ on March 31, 2002. The request was approved following submittal of the Private Well Report in 2004. The Private Well Report provided a summary of available information for each of the twenty-nine (29) wells and presented a comparative analysis of the analytical results from over ten (10) years of sampling the private wells relative to the maximum contaminant levels (MCLs). Based on the findings presented in the report, no VOCs were detected in any of the private wells above the MCLs over the past ten (10) years. Select inorganics, primarily lead, were detected at varying concentrations, periodically exceeding the respective MCL in select samples collected prior to 1996. These detections of lead however were within background concentration levels for the surrounding area and not believed to have resulted from contamination at the site. Based on the data review presented in the Private Well Report, none of the private wells located within one-half mile of the site have been impacted by contamination from the site.

The results of the semi-annual/annual sampling events are presented in respective Semi-Annual/Annual Sampling Reports. Based on the most recent groundwater sampling results from the site groundwater monitoring wells, presented in the March 2009 Comprehensive Summary Report Annual Groundwater Sampling Event for the Monroe Superfund Site, the concentrations of VOCs continue to remain below the remedial goals for the Site in all of the groundwater monitoring wells sampled with the approved groundwater monitoring program. The concentrations in all of the Site groundwater monitoring wells have continued to exhibit concentrations of VOCs below the remedial goals established in the ROD over the past eight semi-annual and two annual sampling events. The results of the groundwater monitoring since July 2003 confirm the effectiveness of the completed soil remedy and demonstrates site RA goals for groundwater are maintained through natural degradation and attenuation.

The soil/sludge remedial action at the Site consisted of the sampling, excavation, solidification, and proper disposal of contaminated soils/sludges. The EPA and ADEQ reviewed the remedial action report and the construction work for compliance with quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC) protocols. Construction activities at the Site were determined to be consistent with the ROD and ROD Amendment and adhered to the approved quality assurance plan which incorporated all EPA and State requirements. Confirmatory inspections, independent testing, audits, and evaluations of materials and workmanship were performed in accordance with the technical specifications and plans. The EPA Remedial Project Manager and State regulators visited the site during construction activities to review construction progress and evaluate and review the results of QA/QC activities. No deviations or non-adherence to QA/QC protocols, or specifications were identified.

The Remedial Design contained provisions for performing sampling during all remedial activities in order to verify that remedial objectives were met, to ensure quality control and assurance for all excavation and construction activity, and to ensure protection and safety of the public, the environment, and the onsite worker. Sampling was conducted in accordance with the Site Field Sampling Plan and all analytical results are below the established cleanup levels for a residential reuse scenario. In addition, all backfill confirmation sample results met the established cleanup levels for a residential reuse scenario. All analytical data was independently validated, and the EPA and the State determined that analytical results were accurate to the degree needed to assure satisfactory execution of the RA.

The ROD specified monitored natural attenuation as the remedy for ground water remediation based on implementation of a containment onsite of contaminated soils. The soil remedy was modified in the ROD Amendment to include removal of stained soil and sludge from the site to below the Site RA Goals for Soil. The results of groundwater monitoring since removal of the stained soil and sludge demonstrate that the natural attenuation remedy was effective and that the remedial goals for the groundwater as stated in the ROD have been achieved. Groundwater monitoring at the Site was discontinued after the Second Five Year Review in 2009. The monitoring wells were properly plugged and abandoned in 2010. There are no operation and maintenance activities required at the Site.

The ROD required that restrictions on the use of ground water be placed on the Site. A deed notice/covenant identifying restrictions on the Site was filed by the PRP with the Greene County Clerk in November 2003. The covenant prohibited the installation of any private, commercial, industrial or other water well or other device for the removal or extraction of subsurface water. The only ground water allowed to be extracted from beneath the property is for the purpose or purposes associated with environmental sampling and testing of the property. The RA goals for the groundwater have been met and the monitor wells have been removed. No restrictions on the use or sale of the property are necessary and the existing restrictions may be removed by the PRP.

Five-Year Reviews were statutorily required because hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants remained at the Site above levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure. There have been two five-year reviews conducted at the Site, with the last one in 2009. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 6 and the ADEQ conducted the second five-year review for the response action implemented at the Monroe Auto Pit Superfund Site. Also participating in the five-year inspection were representatives of Tenneco.

The 2009 Five Year Review found that all hazardous substances in the groundwater had naturally attenuated at the Site below clean up levels. The remedial action of natural attenuation for the groundwater is completed and no hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants remain above levels that could prevent unlimited use and unrestricted exposure. Per the 2009 Five Year Review, unlimited use and unrestricted exposure has been achieved: therefore, additional Five Year Reviews will not be required for the Site after its deletion from the NPL.

Public participation activities have been satisfied as required in CERCLA Section 113(k), 42 U.S.C. 9613(k) and CERCLA Section 117, 42 U.S.C. 9617. Throughout the Site's history, the community has been interested and involved with Site activity. The EPA has kept the community and other interested parties updated on Site activities through informational meetings, fact sheets, and public meetings. Documents in the deletion docket which the EPA relied on for recommendation for the deletion from the NPL are available to the public in the information repositories, and a notice of availability of the Notice of Intent for Deletion has been published in the Paragould Daily Press to satisfy public participation procedures required by 40 CFR 300.425(e)(4).

The implemented remedy achieves the degree of cleanup specified in the ROD and ROD Amendment for all pathways of exposure. All selected remedial action objectives and clean-up goals are consistent with agency policy and guidance. No further Superfund responses are needed to protect human health and the environment at the Site.

In accordance with 40 CFR 300.425(e), sites may be deleted from the NPL where no further response is appropriate.

The EPA, with concurrence of the State of Arkansas, through the ADEQ, has determined that all appropriate response actions under CERCLA have been completed. Therefore, EPA is deleting the Site from the NPL.

Because EPA considers this action to be noncontroversial and routine, EPA is taking it without prior publication. This action will be effective October 14, 2014 unless EPA receives adverse comments by September 15, 2014. If adverse comments are received within the 30-day public comment period, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of this direct final notice of deletion before the effective date of the deletion and it will not take effect. EPA will prepare a response to comments and continue with the deletion process on the basis of the notice of intent to delete and the comments already received. There will be no additional opportunity to comment.

For the reasons set out in this document, 40 CFR Part 300 is amended as follows:

On August 20, 2013, NHTSA published a final rule amending certain provisions of the EWR regulations at 49 CFR part 579 Subpart C “Reporting of Early Warning Information.” 78 FR 51382. In summary, the new provisions:

• Require light vehicle manufacturers to specify the vehicle type and the fuel and/or propulsion system type in their quarterly EWR reports.

• Add new component categories for reporting on light vehicles: Electronic stability control, forward collision avoidance, lane departure prevention, and backover prevention, foundation brakes, and automatic brake controls.

• Add one new component category for buses, emergency vehicles, and medium-heavy vehicle manufacturers: Electronic stability control/roll stability control.

The final rule stated that these new provisions will be effective August 20, 2014. On July 28, 2014, at 79 FR 43670, NHTSA intended to delay the effective date of the amendments to §§ 579.21 and 579.22 until January 1, 2015, but did not correctly state that in the DATES section.

In FR Doc. 2014-17497 appearing on page 43671 in the Federal Register of Monday, July 28, 2014, the following corrections are made:

In the DATES section in the left column, revise the second paragraph to read as follows:

“The effective date for the amendments to 49 CFR 579.21 in this final rule is January 1, 2015. The effective date for the amendments to 49 CFR 579.21 and 579.22, published August 20, 2013 (78 FR 51382), and effective August 20, 2014, is delayed until January 1, 2015.”