May 17, 2016 – Federal Register Recent Federal Regulation Documents

In accordance with 10 U.S.C. Section 9355, the U.S. Air Force Academy (USAFA) Board of Visitors (BoV) will hold a meeting at the Rayburn House Office Building, Gold Room 2168, Washington, DC, on June 9, 2016. On Thursday, the meeting will begin at 8:30 a.m. and will conclude at 3:45 p.m. The purpose of this meeting is to review morale and discipline, social climate, strategic communications, and other matters relating to the Academy. Specific topics for this meeting include a Superintendent's Update; USAFA Diversity Update; and Strategic Communications. Public attendance at this USAFA BoV meeting shall be accommodated on a first-come, first-served basis up to the reasonable and safe capacity of the meeting room. In addition, any member of the public wishing to provide input to the USAFA BoV should submit a written statement in accordance with 41 CFR Section 102- 3.140(c) and section 10(a)(3) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act and the procedures described in this paragraph. Written statements must address the following details: The issue, discussion, and a recommended course of action. Supporting documentation may also be included as needed to establish the appropriate historical context and provide any necessary background information. Written statements can be submitted to the Designated Federal Officer (DFO) at the Air Force address detailed below at any time. However, if a written statement is not received at least 10 calendar days before the first day of the meeting which is the subject of this notice, then it may not be provided to or considered by the BoV until its next open meeting. The DFO will review all timely submissions with the BoV Chairman and ensure they are provided to members of the BoV before the meeting that is the subject of this notice. If after review of timely submitted written comments and the BoV Chairman and DFO deem appropriate, they may choose to invite the submitter of the written comments to orally present the issue during an open portion of the BoV meeting that is the subject of this notice. Members of the BoV may also petition the Chairman to allow specific personnel to make oral presentations before the BoV. In accordance with 41 CFR Section 102-3.140(d), any oral presentations before the BoV shall be in accordance with agency guidelines provided pursuant to a written invitation and this paragraph. Direct questioning of BoV members or meeting participants by the public is not permitted except with the approval of the DFO and Chairman. For the benefit of the public, rosters that list the names of BoV members and any releasable materials presented during the open portions of this BoV meeting shall be made available upon request. Contact Information: For additional information or to attend this BoV meeting, contact Lt Col Veronica Senia, Chief, Officer Accessions and Training, AF/A1PT, 1040 Air Force Pentagon, Washington, DC 20330, (703) 692-5577, Veronica.V.Senia.mil@mail.mil.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry entitled ``Use of Electronic Health Record Data in Clinical Investigations.'' The draft guidance is intended to assist sponsors, clinical investigators, contract research organizations, institutional review boards (IRBs), and other interested parties on the use of electronic health record (EHR) data in FDA-regulated clinical investigations.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) is issuing its final rule to amend the regulations and interpretive guidance implementing Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) to provide guidance on the extent to which employers may use incentives to encourage employees to participate in wellness programs that ask them to respond to disability-related inquiries and/or undergo medical examinations. This rule applies to all wellness programs that include disability-related inquiries and/or medical examinations whether they are offered only to employees enrolled in an employer-sponsored group health plan, offered to all employees regardless of whether they are enrolled in such a plan, or offered as a benefit of employment by employers that do not sponsor a group health plan or group health insurance. Published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register, the EEOC also issued a final rule to amend the regulations implementing Title II of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) that addresses the extent to which employers may offer incentives for an employee's spouse to participate in a wellness program.

The invention listed below is owned by an agency of the U.S. Government and is available for licensing and/or co-development in the U.S. in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR part 404 to achieve expeditious commercialization of results of federally-funded research and development. Foreign patent applications are filed on selected inventions to extend market coverage for companies and may also be available for licensing and/or co-development.

The Coast Guard proposes to establish a safety zone on the Columbia River in Hood River, OR. This action is necessary to help ensure the safety of the maritime public during a cross-channel swimming event and would do so by prohibiting unauthorized persons and vessels from entering the safety zone unless authorized by the Sector Columbia River Captain of the Port or a designated representative. We invite your comments on this proposed rulemaking.

On August 10, 2015, HUD published in the Federal Register, a proposed rule that would revise HUD's regulations for reviewing the previous participation of Federal programs of certain participants seeking to take part in multifamily housing and healthcare programs administered by HUD's Office of Housing. Specifically, the rulemaking proposed to clarify and simplify the process by which HUD reviews the previous participation of participants that have decision-making authority over their projects as one component of HUD's responsibility to assess financial and operational risk to the projects in these programs. The approach offered by the proposed rule was to not only bring greater certainty and clarity to the process but greater flexibility, avoiding a one-size fits all approach. This document opens the public comment period solely for the provisions addressed in this document to address concerns that while the proposed rule provided greater flexibility, it lacked the greater certainty to which HUD committed, and how HUD would provide such certainty.