Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement: Rights in Technical Data and Validation of Proprietary Data Restrictions (DFARS Case 2012-D022), 61646-61647 [2016-21463]

Download as PDF 61646 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 173 / Wednesday, September 7, 2016 / Proposed Rules funding to provide family planning services for those most in need, and it will prevent future attempts to provide Title X funding to subrecipients for reasons other than their ability to best meet the objectives of the Title X program. We estimate costs of $11,400–$24,600 in the first year following publication of the final rule, and suggest that this rule is beneficial to society in increasing access to and quality of care. We note that the estimates provided here are uncertain. ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS E. Analysis of Regulatory Alternatives We carefully considered the option of not pursuing regulatory action. However, as discussed previously, not pursuing regulatory action means allowing the continued provision of Title X funds to subrecipients for reasons other than their ability to provide high quality family planning services. This, in turn, means accepting reductions in access to and quality of services to populations who rely on Title X. As a result, we chose to pursue regulatory action. F. Executive Order 13132 Federalism Review Executive Order 13132 establishes certain requirements that an agency must meet when it promulgates a final rule that imposes substantial direct requirement costs on state and local governments, preempts state law, or otherwise has federalism implications. The Department particularly invites comments from states and local governments, and will consult with them as needed in promulgating the final rule. While we do not believe this rule will cause substantial economic impact on the states, it will implicate some state laws if states wish to apply for federal Title X funds. Therefore, the following federalism impact statement is provided. E.O. 13132 establishes the need for Federal agency deference and restraint in taking action that would curtail the policy-making discretion of the states or otherwise have a substantial impact on the expenditure of state funds. The proposed rule simply sets the conditions to be eligible for federal funding for both public and private entities. The proposed rule will not have a significant impact on state funds as, by law, project grants must be funded with at least 90 percent federal funds. 42 U.S.C. 300a–4(a). Furthermore, states that are the project recipients of Title X grants are not required to issue subawards at all. However, those that choose to do so would be required to do so in a manner VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:04 Sep 06, 2016 Jkt 238001 that considers only the ability of the subrecipients to meet the statutory objectives. States remain entirely free to set their policies and funding preferences as to family planning services paid for with state funds. While this proposed rule will eliminate the ability of states to restrict subawards with Title X funds for reasons unrelated to the statutory objectives of Title X, they remain free to set their own preferences in providing state-funded family planning services. The rule does not impose any additional requirements on states in their performance under the Title X grant, other than to avoid discrimination in making subawards, should they choose to make such subawards. And states remain free to apply for federal program funds, subject to the eligibility conditions. For the reasons outlined above, the proposed rule is designed to achieve the objectives of Title X related to providing effective family planning services to program beneficiaries with the minimal intrusion on the ability of project recipients to select their subrecipients. G. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 The amendments proposed in this rule will not impose any additional data collection requirements beyond those already imposed under the current information collection requirements which have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget. List of Subjects in 42 CFR Part 59 Birth control, Family planning, Grant programs. Dated: August 31, 2016. Sylvia M. Burwell, Secretary. Therefore, under the authority of section 1006 of the Public Health Service Act as amended, and for the reasons stated in the preamble, the Department proposes to amend 42 CFR part 59 as follows: PART 59—GRANTS FOR FAMILY PLANNING SERVICES Subpart A—Project Grants for Family Planning Services 1. The authority citation for subpart A continues to read as follows: ■ Authority: 42 U.S.C. 300a–4. 2. Section 59.3 is revised to read as follows: ■ PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 § 59.3 Who is eligible to apply for a family planning services grant or to participate as a subrecipient as part of a family planning project? (a) Any public or nonprofit private entity in a State may apply for a grant under this subpart. (b) No recipient making subawards for the provision of services as part of its Title X project may prohibit an entity from participating for reasons unrelated to its ability to provide services effectively. [FR Doc. 2016–21359 Filed 9–2–16; 4:15 pm] BILLING CODE 5140–34–P DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Defense Acquisition Regulations System 48 CFR Parts 212, 227, and 252 [Docket DARS–2016–0017] RIN 0750–AI95 Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement: Rights in Technical Data and Validation of Proprietary Data Restrictions (DFARS Case 2012–D022) Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Department of Defense (DoD). ACTION: Proposed rule; extension of comment period. AGENCY: DoD is proposing to amend the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to implement a section of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 that revises the sections of title 10 of the United States Code (U.S.C.) that address technical data rights and validation of proprietary data restrictions. The comment period on the proposed rule is extended 16 days. DATES: For the proposed rule published on June 16, 2016 (81 FR 39481), submit comments by September 30, 2016. ADDRESSES: Submit comments identified by DFARS Case 2012–D022, using any of the following methods: Æ Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// www.regulations.gov. Search for ‘‘DFARS Case 2012–D022.’’ Select ‘‘Comment Now’’ and follow the instructions provided to submit a comment. Please include ‘‘DFARS Case 2012–D022’’ on any attached documents. Æ Email: osd.dfars@mail.mil. Include DFARS Case 2012–D022 in the subject line of the message. Æ Fax: 571–372–6094. Æ Mail: Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Attn: Ms. Amy SUMMARY: E:\FR\FM\07SEP1.SGM 07SEP1 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 173 / Wednesday, September 7, 2016 / Proposed Rules Williams, OUSD(AT&L)DPAP/DARS, Room 3B941, 3060 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301–3060. Comments received generally will be posted without change to http:// www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided. To confirm receipt of your comment(s), please check www.regulations.gov, approximately two to three days after submission to verify posting (except allow 30 days for posting of comments submitted by mail). Ms. Amy G. Williams, telephone 571–372– 6106. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background On June 16, 2016, DoD published a proposed rule in the Federal Register at 81 FR 39481 to implement section 815 of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2012, which— • Adds special provisions for handling technical data that are necessary for segregation and reintegration activities; • Codifies and revises the policies and procedures regarding deferred ordering of technical data necessary to support DoD major systems or subsystems, weapon systems, or noncommercial items or processes; • Expands the period in which DoD can challenge an asserted restriction on technical data from 3 years to 6 years; • Rescinds changes to 10 U.S.C. 2320 from the NDAA for FY 2011; and • Codifies Government purpose rights as the default rights for technical data related to technology developed with mixed funding. The comment period for the proposed rule is extended 16 days, from September 14, 2016 to September 30, 2016, to provide additional time for interested parties to comment on the proposed DFARS changes. List of Subjects in 48 CFR Parts 212, 227, and 252 ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Government procurement. Jennifer L. Hawes, Editor, Defense Acquisition Regulations System. [FR Doc. 2016–21463 Filed 9–6–16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001–06–P VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:04 Sep 06, 2016 Jkt 238001 SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD 49 CFR Chapter X [Docket No. EP 665 (Sub–No. 1); Docket No. EP 665 (Sub–No. 2)] Rail Transportation of Grain, Rate Regulation Review; Expanding Access to Rate Relief Surface Transportation Board. Advance notice of proposed rulemaking. AGENCY: ACTION: The Surface Transportation Board (Board) is seeking comments and suggestions through this Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) regarding the Board’s effort to develop a new rate reasonableness methodology for use in very small disputes, which would be available to shippers of all commodities. SUMMARY: Comments are due by November 14, 2016. Reply comments are due by December 19, 2016. ADDRESSES: Comments and replies may be submitted either via the Board’s efiling format or in the traditional paper format. Any person using e-filing should attach a document and otherwise comply with the instructions at the ‘‘E-FILING’’ link on the Board’s Web site, at ‘‘http://www.stb.dot.gov.’’ Any person submitting a filing in the traditional paper format should send an original and 10 copies to: Surface Transportation Board, Attn: Docket No. EP 665 (Sub–No. 2), 395 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20423–0001. Copies of written comments and replies will be posted to the Board’s Web site and will be available for viewing and self-copying at the Board’s Public Docket Room, Room 131. Copies will also be available (for a fee) by contacting the Board’s Chief Records Officer at (202) 245–0238 or 395 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20423–0001. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Allison Davis at (202) 245–0378. Assistance for the hearing impaired is available through the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at (800) 877–8339. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the Interstate Commerce Act, Congress charged the Board with protecting the public from unreasonable pricing by freight railroads, while fostering a sound, safe, and efficient rail transportation system by allowing carriers to earn adequate revenues. See 49 U.S.C. 10101. In the Staggers Rail Act of 1980, Public Law 96–448, 94 Stat. 1895, and subsequent legislation, including the ICC Termination Act of 1995 (ICCTA), Public Law 104–88, 109 DATES: PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 61647 Stat. 803, Congress established a careful balance between these two important yet conflicting goals. On the one hand, Congress permitted differential pricing and removed regulatory controls over railroad pricing for traffic with effective competition so that carriers would have greater ability to earn the revenues necessary to attract capital and reinvest in the network. On the other hand, Congress made clear that railroad rates for traffic without effective competition must be reasonable (see 49 U.S.C. 10702, 10707), and that shippers of grain, in particular, are entitled to some additional protections (see, e.g., 49 U.S.C. 10709(g) (providing that shippers may file a complaint with the Board asking it to review agricultural contracts on certain grounds)). By decision served in Rail Transportation of Grain, Rate Regulation Review, Docket No. EP 665 (Sub–No. 1) on December 12, 2013, the Board invited public comment on how to ensure that the Board’s existing rate complaint procedures are accessible to grain shippers and provide effective protection against unreasonable freight rail transportation rates, including proposals for modifying existing procedures or new alternative rate relief methodologies. The Board received opening and reply comments from interested shipper, railroad, and government entities. The Board then held a public hearing on June 10, 2015, to further examine issues related to the accessibility of rate relief for grain shippers and to provide interested persons the opportunity to comment on the suggestions made during the public comment period. Following the hearing, the Board received supplemental comments from three parties. The Board has considered all of the written comments and oral testimony received in Docket No. EP 665 (Sub–No. 1).1 A number of issues raised during the public comment period—related to the accessibility of the Board’s existing rate review processes, modifications to those processes, and alternative rate review processes set forth by parties— merit further discussion, and the Board is seeking further comment on those issues.2 Based on the comments and testimony received, the Board believes that the existing rate review processes 1 For a list of the numerous parties that have participated in Docket No. EP 665 (Sub–No. 1) at various stages, see Appendix A. To the extent this decision refers to parties by abbreviations, those abbreviations are listed in that appendix. 2 We note that other significant issues have been raised in this proceeding, such as the Board’s regulations concerning agricultural rate transparency and the standing required to bring a rate complaint. The Board will address these issues in a subsequent decision. E:\FR\FM\07SEP1.SGM 07SEP1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 173 (Wednesday, September 7, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 61646-61647]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-21463]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Defense Acquisition Regulations System

48 CFR Parts 212, 227, and 252

[Docket DARS-2016-0017]
RIN 0750-AI95


Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement: Rights in 
Technical Data and Validation of Proprietary Data Restrictions (DFARS 
Case 2012-D022)

AGENCY: Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Department of Defense 
(DoD).

ACTION: Proposed rule; extension of comment period.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: DoD is proposing to amend the Defense Federal Acquisition 
Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to implement a section of the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 that revises the 
sections of title 10 of the United States Code (U.S.C.) that address 
technical data rights and validation of proprietary data restrictions. 
The comment period on the proposed rule is extended 16 days.

DATES: For the proposed rule published on June 16, 2016 (81 FR 39481), 
submit comments by September 30, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments identified by DFARS Case 2012-D022, using 
any of the following methods:
    [cir] Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. 
Search for ``DFARS Case 2012-D022.'' Select ``Comment Now'' and follow 
the instructions provided to submit a comment. Please include ``DFARS 
Case 2012-D022'' on any attached documents.
    [cir] Email: osd.dfars@mail.mil. Include DFARS Case 2012-D022 in 
the subject line of the message.
    [cir] Fax: 571-372-6094.
    [cir] Mail: Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Attn: Ms. Amy

[[Page 61647]]

Williams, OUSD(AT&L)DPAP/DARS, Room 3B941, 3060 Defense Pentagon, 
Washington, DC 20301-3060.
    Comments received generally will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided. To 
confirm receipt of your comment(s), please check www.regulations.gov, 
approximately two to three days after submission to verify posting 
(except allow 30 days for posting of comments submitted by mail).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Amy G. Williams, telephone 571-
372-6106.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background

    On June 16, 2016, DoD published a proposed rule in the Federal 
Register at 81 FR 39481 to implement section 815 of the National 
Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2012, which--
     Adds special provisions for handling technical data that 
are necessary for segregation and reintegration activities;
     Codifies and revises the policies and procedures regarding 
deferred ordering of technical data necessary to support DoD major 
systems or subsystems, weapon systems, or noncommercial items or 
processes;
     Expands the period in which DoD can challenge an asserted 
restriction on technical data from 3 years to 6 years;
     Rescinds changes to 10 U.S.C. 2320 from the NDAA for FY 
2011; and
     Codifies Government purpose rights as the default rights 
for technical data related to technology developed with mixed funding.
    The comment period for the proposed rule is extended 16 days, from 
September 14, 2016 to September 30, 2016, to provide additional time 
for interested parties to comment on the proposed DFARS changes.

List of Subjects in 48 CFR Parts 212, 227, and 252

    Government procurement.

Jennifer L. Hawes,
Editor, Defense Acquisition Regulations System.
[FR Doc. 2016-21463 Filed 9-6-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-P