Program Fraud Civil Remedies, 49138-49140 [2015-20263]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
49138
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 158 / Monday, August 17, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
description of the construct validity of
the device.
Æ A warning that the device does not
identify the presence or absence of
clinical diagnoses.
Æ A warning that the device is not a
stand-alone diagnostic.
Æ The intended use population and
the intended use environment.
Æ Any instructions technicians must
convey to patients regarding the
administration of the test and collection
of cognitive test data.
Computerized cognitive assessment
aids are prescription devices restricted
to patient use only upon the
authorization of a practitioner licensed
by law to administer or use the device;
see 21 CFR 801.109 (Prescription
devices).
Section 510(m) of the FD&C Act
provides that FDA may exempt a class
II device from the premarket notification
requirements under section 510(k), if
FDA determines that premarket
notification is not necessary to provide
reasonable assurance of the safety and
effectiveness of the device. For this type
of device, FDA has determined that
premarket notification is necessary to
provide reasonable assurance of the
safety and effectiveness of the device.
Therefore, this device type is not
exempt from premarket notification
requirements. Persons who intend to
market this type of device must submit
to FDA a premarket notification, prior to
marketing the device, which contains
information about the computerized
cognitive assessment aid they intend to
market.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
II. Environmental Impact
The Agency has determined under 21
CFR 25.34(b) that this action is of a type
that does not individually or
cumulatively have a significant effect on
the human environment. Therefore,
neither an environmental assessment
nor an environmental impact statement
is required.
III. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
This final order establishes special
controls that refer to previously
approved collections of information
found in other FDA regulations. These
collections of information are subject to
review by the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501–
3520). The collections of information in
part 807, subpart E regarding premarket
notification submissions have been
approved under OMB control number
0910–0120, and the collections of
information in 21 CFR part 801,
regarding labeling have been approved
under OMB control number 0910–0485.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:26 Aug 14, 2015
Jkt 235001
IV. Reference
The following reference has been
placed on display in the Division of
Dockets Management (HFA–305), Food
and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers
Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852,
and may be seen by interested persons
between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday
through Friday, and is available
electronically at https://
www.regulations.gov.
1. DEN130033: De Novo Request per 513(f)(2)
of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic
Act from Cerebral Assessment Systems,
Inc., dated June 24, 2013.
List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 882
Medical devices, Neurological
devices.
Therefore, under the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under
authority delegated to the Commissioner
of Food and Drugs, 21 CFR part 882 is
amended as follows:
PART 882—NEUROLOGICAL DEVICES
1. The authority citation for 21 CFR
part 882 continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 21 U.S.C. 351, 360, 360c, 360e,
360j, 371.
2. Add § 882.1470 to subpart B to read
as follows:
■
§ 882.1470 Computerized cognitive
assessment aid.
(a) Identification. The computerized
cognitive assessment aid is a
prescription device that uses an
individual’s score(s) on a battery of
cognitive tasks to provide an
interpretation of the current level of
cognitive function. The computerized
cognitive assessment aid is used only as
an assessment aid to determine level of
cognitive functioning for which there
exists other valid methods of cognitive
assessment and does not identify the
presence or absence of clinical
diagnoses. The computerized cognitive
assessment aid is not intended as a
stand-alone or adjunctive diagnostic
device.
(b) Classification. Class II (special
controls). The special control(s) for this
device are:
(1) The technical parameters of the
device’s hardware and software must be
fully characterized and be accompanied
by appropriate non-clinical testing:
(i) Hardware specifications must be
provided. Appropriate verification,
validation, and hazard analysis must be
performed.
(ii) Software, including any
proprietary algorithm(s) used by the
device to arrive at its interpretation of
the patient’s cognitive function, must be
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
described in detail in the software
requirements specification (SRS) and
software design specification (SDS).
Appropriate software verification,
validation, and hazard analysis must be
performed.
(2) The device must be designed and
tested for electrical safety.
(3) The labeling must include:
(i) A summary of any testing
conducted to demonstrate how the
device functions as an interpretation of
the current level of cognitive function.
The summary of testing must include
the following, if available: Any expected
or observed adverse events and
complications; any performance
measurements including sensitivity,
specificity, positive predictive value
(PPV), and negative predictive value
(NPV) per the devices intended use; a
description of the repeatability of
measurements; a description of how the
cut-off values for categorization of
measurements were determined; and a
description of the construct validity of
the device.
(ii) A warning that the device does not
identify the presence or absence of
clinical diagnoses.
(iii) A warning that the device is not
a stand-alone diagnostic.
(iv) The intended use population and
the intended use environment.
(v) Any instructions technicians must
convey to patients regarding the
administration of the test and collection
of cognitive test data.
Dated: August 11, 2015.
Leslie Kux,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2015–20177 Filed 8–14–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
22 CFR Part 35
[Public Notice 9220]
RIN 1400–AD85
Program Fraud Civil Remedies
Department of State.
Final rule.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
The Department of State is
updating its regulations regarding its
implementation of the Program Fraud
Civil Remedies Act of 1986, to remove
a conflict between the ‘‘reviewing
official’’ and the ‘‘authority head’’ as
defined by the implementing
regulations.
DATES: This rule is effective August 17,
2015.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Alice Kottmyer, Attorney-Adviser,
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\17AUR1.SGM
17AUR1
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 158 / Monday, August 17, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
Office of the Legal Adviser, (202) 647–
2318, or kottmyeram@state.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act of
1986, 31 U.S.C. 3801 et seq. (the Act),
outlines a procedure for establishing
administrative procedures for imposing
civil penalties and assessments against
persons who make, submit, or present,
or cause to be made, submitted, or
presented, false fictitious, or fraudulent
claims or written statements to
authorities or to their agents; and
specifying the hearing and appeal rights
of persons subject to allegations of
liability for such penalties and
assessments. In a nutshell, the
‘‘investigating official’’ (who is in the
Office of the Inspector General) presents
a case to the ‘‘reviewing official’’
(currently defined as the Chief Financial
Officer) who, if appropriate, forwards
the case to the Department of Justice.
The Department of Justice will approve
a ‘‘claim’’ if it believes further action is
warranted. The reviewing official serves
the claim on the respondent. There is a
hearing before an administrative law
judge (ALJ), and a disposition adverse to
the respondent can be appealed to the
‘‘authority head,’’ defined in the rule as
the Under Secretary for Management.
Currently, the Under Secretary for
Management is designated by the
President as the Chief Financial Officer
for the Department of State. Therefore,
he is the reviewing official as well as the
authority head, which of course is
unacceptable. This rule corrects that
anomaly, by defining the ‘‘reviewing
official’’ as the Assistant Legal Adviser
for Buildings and Acquisitions
(hereinafter, ‘‘the ALA’’). The Under
Secretary for Management remains the
authority head.
The Act (in 31 U.S.C. 3801(a)(8))
outlines the qualifications for the
reviewing official, all of which are met
by the ALA. (1) He or she must be
designated by the authority head to
make the determination under 31 U.S.C.
3803(a)(2) to send the case to the
Department of Justice for its review and
action, if appropriate. (2) He or she must
be serving in a position for which the
rate of basic pay is not less than the
minimum rate of basic pay for grade
GS–16 under the General Schedule; the
ALA is a member of the Senior
Executive Service, and thus has a rate of
pay at least as high as GS–16, a grade
which was eliminated under the
provisions of the Civil Service Reform
Act of 1978. (3) He or she must not be
subject to supervision by, or required to
report to, the investigating official, and
not employed in the organizational unit
of the authority in which the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:26 Aug 14, 2015
Jkt 235001
investigating official is employed; the
ALA is not in the Office of the Inspector
General and is not (nor will he or she
ever be) subject to the supervision of
anyone in that office.
Accordingly, 22 CFR 35.2(r), the
definition of ‘‘reviewing official,’’ is
changed by this rulemaking.
Regulatory Findings
Administrative Procedure Act
This regulation amends a ‘‘rule of
agency organization, procedure, or
practice’’, which is not subject to the
notice-and-comment rulemaking
procedures set forth in 5 U.S.C. 553. See
5 U.S.C. 553(b). Therefore, the
Department is issuing this amendment
as a final rule.
Regulatory Flexibility Act/Executive
Order 13272: Small Business
Because this final rule is exempt from
notice and comment rulemaking under
5 U.S.C. 553, it is exempt from the
regulatory flexibility analysis
requirements set forth by the Regulatory
Flexibility Act. Nonetheless, consistent
with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, the
Department certifies that this rule will
not have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small
entities.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
Section 202 of the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995, 2 U.S.C.
1532, generally requires agencies to
prepare a statement before proposing
any rule that may result in an annual
expenditure of $100 million or more by
State, local, or tribal governments, or by
the private sector. This rule will not
result in any such expenditure, nor will
it significantly or uniquely affect small
governments.
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996
This rule is not a major rule as
defined by 5 U.S.C. 804. The
Department is aware of no monetary
effect on the economy that would result
from this rulemaking, nor will there be
any increase in costs or prices; or any
effect on competition, employment,
investment, productivity, innovation, or
the ability of United States-based
companies to compete with foreignbased companies in domestic and
import markets.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
The Department of State has reviewed
this rule to ensure its consistency with
the regulatory philosophy and
principles set forth in Executive Orders
12866 and 13563, and has determined
that the benefits of this regulation
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
49139
outweigh any cost. The Department
does not consider this rule to be a
economically significant rulemaking
action.
Executive Orders 12372 and 13132:
Federalism
This regulation will not have
substantial direct effects on the States,
on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or the
distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government. The rule will not
have federalism implications warranting
the application of Executive Orders
12372 and 13132.
Executive Order 12988: Civil Justice
Reform
The Department has reviewed the
regulation in light of sections 3(a) and
3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988 to
eliminate ambiguity, minimize
litigation, establish clear legal
standards, and reduce burden.
Executive Order 13175
The Department of State has
determined that this rulemaking will
not have tribal implications, will not
impose substantial direct compliance
costs on Indian tribal governments, and
will not preempt tribal law.
Accordingly, the requirements of
Executive Order 13175 do not apply to
this rulemaking.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This rule does not impose or revise
information collection requirements
under the provisions of the Paperwork
Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35.
List of Subjects in 22 CFR Part 35
Administrative practice and
procedure, Claims, Fraud, Penalties.
For the reasons stated in the
preamble, amend part 35 of title 22 of
the Code of Federal Regulations as
follows:
PART 35—PROGRAM FRAUD CIVIL
REMEDIES
1. The authority citation for part 35 is
revised to read as follows:
■
Authority: 22 U.S.C. 2651a; 31 U.S.C. 3801
et seq.
■
2. Revise § 35.2(r) to read as follows:
§ 35.2
Definitions.
*
*
*
*
*
(r) Reviewing official means the
Assistant Legal Adviser for Buildings
and Acquisitions or her or his designee
who is—
E:\FR\FM\17AUR1.SGM
17AUR1
49140
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 158 / Monday, August 17, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
(1) Not subject to supervision by, or
required to report to, the investigating
official;
(2) Not employed in the
organizational unit of the authority in
which the investigating official is
employed; and
(3) Serving in a position for which the
rate of basic pay is not less than the
minimum rate of basic pay for grade
GS–16 under the General Schedule.
*
*
*
*
*
Dated: August 3, 2015.
Patrick F. Kennedy,
Under Secretary of State for Management,
Department of State.
[FR Doc. 2015–20263 Filed 8–14–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710–08–P
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND
URBAN DEVELOPMENT
24 CFR Part 15
[Docket No. FR–5624–F–02]
RIN 2501–AD57
Revision of Freedom of Information
Act Regulation
AGENCY:
Office of the Deputy Secretary,
HUD.
ACTION:
Final rule.
This final rule amends HUD’s
regulations implementing the Freedom
of Information Act (FOIA) to update and
streamline HUD’s current FOIA
regulation. Specifically, it updates
HUD’s regulations to reflect statutory
changes to the FOIA, current HUD
organizational structure, and current
HUD policies and practices with respect
to the FOIA. In addition, the rule uses
current cost figures in calculating and
charging fees. This final rule also
incorporates changes made upon further
evaluation of HUD’s FOIA Regulation
and in response to public comments
received.
SUMMARY:
DATES:
Effective: September 16, 2015.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Dolores W. Cole, Director, FOIA and
Executive Correspondence, Office of
Administration, Department of Housing
and Urban Development, 451 7th Street
SW., Room 10139, Washington, DC
20410–0500; telephone number 202–
402–2671 (this is not a toll-free
number). Hearing- or speech-impaired
individuals may access this number via
TTY by calling the Federal Relay
Service at telephone number 1–800–
877–8339 (this is a toll-free number).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:26 Aug 14, 2015
Jkt 235001
I. Background
HUD’s regulations at 24 CFR part 15
contain the policies and procedures
governing public access to HUD records
under the FOIA (5 U.S.C. 552). Subject
to certain statutory exceptions, the FOIA
gives persons the right to request and
receive a wide range of information
from any Federal agency. The FOIA has
been amended several times since its
enactment in 1966. In 2007, significant
amendments to the FOIA were made by
the Openness Promotes Effectiveness in
our National Government Act of 2007
(OPEN Government Act) (Pub. L. 110–
175, approved December 31, 2007). The
OPEN Government Act made several
amendments to procedural issues
affecting FOIA administration,
including the protection of the fee status
for news media, the time limits for
agencies to act upon FOIA requests, the
availability of agency records
maintained by a private entity, the
establishment of a FOIA Public Liaison
and FOIA Requester Service Center, and
the requirement to describe the
exemptions authorizing the redaction of
material provided under the FOIA.
In addition to these statutory changes,
several policy directives have been
issued that affect HUD’s FOIA program.
These policy directives include
Presidential memoranda dated January
21, 2009, entitled ‘‘Freedom of
Information Act’’ (74 FR 4683, January
26, 2009), which applies a presumption
of disclosure in FOIA decision-making
and ‘‘Transparency and Open
Government’’ (74 FR 4685, January 26,
2009), which encourages Federal
agencies to harness new technologies to
proactively post online information
about their operations and decisions
consistent with applicable law. As
required by the Presidential
memoranda, on March 19, 2009,
Attorney General Eric Holder issued
comprehensive new FOIA guidelines
(see https://www.justice.gov/ag/foiamemo-march2009.pdf). The Attorney
General’s guidance further advises that
agencies should release information to
the fullest extent of the law, including
information that may be legally
withheld, provided there is no
foreseeable harm to an interest protected
by an exemption or the disclosure is not
prohibited by law. In addition, the
Attorney General’s FOIA guidelines
emphasized that agencies must have
effective systems in place for
responding to FOIA requests.
Consistent with this law and
guidance, HUD undertook a
comprehensive review of its FOIA
regulation. As part of this review, HUD
looked to the proposed updated FOIA
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
regulation published by the Department
of Justice (DOJ) on March 21, 2011 (76
FR 15236). DOJ intended that its
regulation serve as a model for all
agencies in updating their own FOIA
regulations.1 As a result of its review,
HUD published a proposed rule on May
31, 2013 (78 FR 32595), modeled on
DOJ’s proposed regulation, to
incorporate changes enacted by the
OPEN Government Act of 2007, reflect
developments in case law, include
current cost figures for calculating and
charging fees, and enhance the
administration and operation of HUD’s
FOIA program by increasing the
transparency and clarity of the
regulation.
II. Changes and Clarifications Made in
This Final Rule
This final rule follows publication of
the May 31, 2013, proposed rule and
takes into consideration the public
comments received on the proposed
rule. In response to public comment, a
discussion of which is presented in the
following section of this preamble, and
in further consideration of issues
addressed at the proposed rule stage, the
Department is making the following
changes at this final rule:
• HUD is revising § 15.103(c) to state
that HUD will provide written notice to
requesters when the time limits for
HUD’s response will be delayed. HUD
will also provide the requester with the
date by which HUD expects to complete
its processing of the request.
• HUD is revising § 15.104(c)(3) to
mirror the language of the FOIA.
Specifically, HUD is removing the
requirement that a representative of the
news media, if not a full-time member
of the news media, should establish that
he or she is a person whose main
professional activity or occupation is
information dissemination.
• HUD is revising § 15.106(c) to
reduce the duplication costs that HUD
will charge for a paper photocopy of a
record from $0.18 per page to $0.10 per
page.
• HUD is revising § 15.107(a) to refer
to the most current Executive order
regarding classified information, which
is Executive Order 13526, issued
December 29, 2009.
• HUD is removing proposed § 15.109
from this final rule. Upon review HUD
has determined that, § 15.109, entitled
‘‘Mortgage sales,’’ directed itself to a
specific HUD program rather than
establish disclosure policy applicable
1 See, https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/
testimonies/witnesses/attachments/03/15/11/03-1511-oip-pustay-testimony-re-the-freedom-ofinformation-act---ensuring-transparency-andaccountability-in-the-digital-age.pdf.
E:\FR\FM\17AUR1.SGM
17AUR1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 158 (Monday, August 17, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 49138-49140]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-20263]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
22 CFR Part 35
[Public Notice 9220]
RIN 1400-AD85
Program Fraud Civil Remedies
AGENCY: Department of State.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Department of State is updating its regulations regarding
its implementation of the Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act of 1986, to
remove a conflict between the ``reviewing official'' and the
``authority head'' as defined by the implementing regulations.
DATES: This rule is effective August 17, 2015.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alice Kottmyer, Attorney-Adviser,
[[Page 49139]]
Office of the Legal Adviser, (202) 647-2318, or kottmyeram@state.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act of
1986, 31 U.S.C. 3801 et seq. (the Act), outlines a procedure for
establishing administrative procedures for imposing civil penalties and
assessments against persons who make, submit, or present, or cause to
be made, submitted, or presented, false fictitious, or fraudulent
claims or written statements to authorities or to their agents; and
specifying the hearing and appeal rights of persons subject to
allegations of liability for such penalties and assessments. In a
nutshell, the ``investigating official'' (who is in the Office of the
Inspector General) presents a case to the ``reviewing official''
(currently defined as the Chief Financial Officer) who, if appropriate,
forwards the case to the Department of Justice. The Department of
Justice will approve a ``claim'' if it believes further action is
warranted. The reviewing official serves the claim on the respondent.
There is a hearing before an administrative law judge (ALJ), and a
disposition adverse to the respondent can be appealed to the
``authority head,'' defined in the rule as the Under Secretary for
Management.
Currently, the Under Secretary for Management is designated by the
President as the Chief Financial Officer for the Department of State.
Therefore, he is the reviewing official as well as the authority head,
which of course is unacceptable. This rule corrects that anomaly, by
defining the ``reviewing official'' as the Assistant Legal Adviser for
Buildings and Acquisitions (hereinafter, ``the ALA''). The Under
Secretary for Management remains the authority head.
The Act (in 31 U.S.C. 3801(a)(8)) outlines the qualifications for
the reviewing official, all of which are met by the ALA. (1) He or she
must be designated by the authority head to make the determination
under 31 U.S.C. 3803(a)(2) to send the case to the Department of
Justice for its review and action, if appropriate. (2) He or she must
be serving in a position for which the rate of basic pay is not less
than the minimum rate of basic pay for grade GS-16 under the General
Schedule; the ALA is a member of the Senior Executive Service, and thus
has a rate of pay at least as high as GS-16, a grade which was
eliminated under the provisions of the Civil Service Reform Act of
1978. (3) He or she must not be subject to supervision by, or required
to report to, the investigating official, and not employed in the
organizational unit of the authority in which the investigating
official is employed; the ALA is not in the Office of the Inspector
General and is not (nor will he or she ever be) subject to the
supervision of anyone in that office.
Accordingly, 22 CFR 35.2(r), the definition of ``reviewing
official,'' is changed by this rulemaking.
Regulatory Findings
Administrative Procedure Act
This regulation amends a ``rule of agency organization, procedure,
or practice'', which is not subject to the notice-and-comment
rulemaking procedures set forth in 5 U.S.C. 553. See 5 U.S.C. 553(b).
Therefore, the Department is issuing this amendment as a final rule.
Regulatory Flexibility Act/Executive Order 13272: Small Business
Because this final rule is exempt from notice and comment
rulemaking under 5 U.S.C. 553, it is exempt from the regulatory
flexibility analysis requirements set forth by the Regulatory
Flexibility Act. Nonetheless, consistent with the Regulatory
Flexibility Act, the Department certifies that this rule will not have
a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, 2 U.S.C.
1532, generally requires agencies to prepare a statement before
proposing any rule that may result in an annual expenditure of $100
million or more by State, local, or tribal governments, or by the
private sector. This rule will not result in any such expenditure, nor
will it significantly or uniquely affect small governments.
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996
This rule is not a major rule as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804. The
Department is aware of no monetary effect on the economy that would
result from this rulemaking, nor will there be any increase in costs or
prices; or any effect on competition, employment, investment,
productivity, innovation, or the ability of United States-based
companies to compete with foreign-based companies in domestic and
import markets.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
The Department of State has reviewed this rule to ensure its
consistency with the regulatory philosophy and principles set forth in
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563, and has determined that the benefits
of this regulation outweigh any cost. The Department does not consider
this rule to be a economically significant rulemaking action.
Executive Orders 12372 and 13132: Federalism
This regulation will not have substantial direct effects on the
States, on the relationship between the national government and the
States, or the distribution of power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government. The rule will not have federalism
implications warranting the application of Executive Orders 12372 and
13132.
Executive Order 12988: Civil Justice Reform
The Department has reviewed the regulation in light of sections
3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988 to eliminate ambiguity,
minimize litigation, establish clear legal standards, and reduce
burden.
Executive Order 13175
The Department of State has determined that this rulemaking will
not have tribal implications, will not impose substantial direct
compliance costs on Indian tribal governments, and will not preempt
tribal law. Accordingly, the requirements of Executive Order 13175 do
not apply to this rulemaking.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This rule does not impose or revise information collection
requirements under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44
U.S.C. Chapter 35.
List of Subjects in 22 CFR Part 35
Administrative practice and procedure, Claims, Fraud, Penalties.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, amend part 35 of title 22
of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
PART 35--PROGRAM FRAUD CIVIL REMEDIES
0
1. The authority citation for part 35 is revised to read as follows:
Authority: 22 U.S.C. 2651a; 31 U.S.C. 3801 et seq.
0
2. Revise Sec. 35.2(r) to read as follows:
Sec. 35.2 Definitions.
* * * * *
(r) Reviewing official means the Assistant Legal Adviser for
Buildings and Acquisitions or her or his designee who is--
[[Page 49140]]
(1) Not subject to supervision by, or required to report to, the
investigating official;
(2) Not employed in the organizational unit of the authority in
which the investigating official is employed; and
(3) Serving in a position for which the rate of basic pay is not
less than the minimum rate of basic pay for grade GS-16 under the
General Schedule.
* * * * *
Dated: August 3, 2015.
Patrick F. Kennedy,
Under Secretary of State for Management, Department of State.
[FR Doc. 2015-20263 Filed 8-14-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-08-P
