Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 31 / Wednesday, February 17, 2016 / Proposed Rules 8031 

(913) 551–7039, or by email at 

hamilton.heather@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the 

final rules section of this Federal 

Register, EPA is approving the state’s 

SIP revision as a direct final rule 

without prior proposal because the 

Agency views this as a noncontroversial 

revision amendment and anticipates no 

relevant adverse comments to this 

action. A detailed rationale for the 

approval is set forth in the direct final 

rule. If no relevant adverse comments 

are received in response to this action, 

no further activity is contemplated in 

relation to this action. If EPA receives 

relevant adverse comments, the direct 

final rule will be withdrawn and all 

public comments received will be 

addressed in a subsequent final rule 

based on this proposed action. EPA will 

not institute a second comment period 

on this action. Any parties interested in 

commenting on this action should do so 

at this time. Please note that if EPA 

receives adverse comment on part of 

this rule and if that part can be severed 

from the remainder of the rule, EPA may 

adopt as final those parts of the rule that 

are not the subject of an adverse 

comment. For additional information, 

see the direct final rule which is located 

in the rules section of this Federal 

Register. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Intergovernmental 

relations, Incorporation by reference, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Dated: February 1, 2016. 

Mark Hague, 

Regional Administrator, Region 7. 

[FR Doc. 2016–03107 Filed 2–16–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Federal Emergency Management 

Agency 

44 CFR Part 67 

[Docket ID FEMA–2016–0002; Internal 

Agency Docket No. FEMA–B–1187 

Proposed Flood Elevation 

Determinations for Gladwin County, 

Michigan (All Jurisdictions) 

AGENCY: Federal Emergency 

Management Agency, DHS. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; withdrawal. 

SUMMARY: The Federal Emergency 

Management Agency (FEMA) is 

withdrawing its proposed rule 

concerning proposed flood elevation 

determinations for Gladwin County, 

Michigan (All Jurisdictions). 

DATES: This withdrawal is effective on 

February 17, 2016. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by Docket No. FEMA–B–1187 

to Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering 

Management Branch, Federal Insurance 

and Mitigation Administration, Federal 

Emergency Management Agency, 500 C 

Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, 

(202) 646–4064, or (email) 

Luis.Rodriguez3@fema.dhs.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Luis 

Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering 

Management Branch, Federal Insurance 

and Mitigation Administration, Federal 

Emergency Management Agency, 500 C 

Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, 

(202) 646–4064, or (email) 

Luis.Rodriguez3@fema.dhs.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On April 

6, 2011 FEMA published a proposed 

rule at 76 FR 19007, proposing flood 

elevation determinations along one or 

more flooding sources in Gladwin 

County, Michigan (All Jurisdictions). 

FEMA is withdrawing the proposed rule 

because FEMA has or will be issuing a 

Revised Preliminary Flood Insurance 

Rate Map, and if necessary a Flood 

Insurance Study report, featuring 

updated flood hazard information. A 

Notice of Proposed Flood Hazard 

Determinations will be published in the 

Federal Register and in the affected 

community’s local newspaper following 

issuance of the Revised Preliminary 

Flood Insurance Rate Map. 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4104; 44 CFR 67.4. 

Dated: February 2, 2016. 

Roy E. Wright, 

Deputy Associate Administrator for Insurance 

and Mitigation, Department of Homeland 

Security, Federal Emergency Management 

Agency. 

[FR Doc. 2016–03243 Filed 2–16–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–12–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

GENERAL SERVICES 

ADMINISTRATION 

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND 

SPACE ADMINISTRATION 

48 CFR Part 31 

[FAR Case 2015–016; Docket 2015–0016; 

Sequence 1] 

RIN 9000–AM97 

Federal Acquisition Regulation; 

Prohibition on Reimbursement for 

Congressional Investigations and 

Inquiries 

AGENCY: Department of Defense (DoD), 

General Services Administration (GSA), 

and National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration (NASA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: DoD, GSA, and NASA are 

proposing to amend the Federal 

Acquisition Regulation (FAR) to 

implement section 857 of the Carl Levin 

and Howard P. ‘Buck’ McKeon National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2015. This section provides 

additional requirements relative to the 

allowability of costs incurred by a 

contractor in connection with a 

congressional investigation or inquiry. 

DATES: Interested parties should submit 

written comments to the Regulatory 

Secretariat on or before April 18, 2016 

to be considered in the formulation of 

a final rule. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in 

response to FAR Case 2015–016 by any 

of the following methods: 

• Regulations.gov: http://

www.regulations.gov. Submit comments 

via the Federal eRulemaking portal by 

searching for ‘‘FAR Case 2015–016’’. 

Select the link ‘‘Comment Now’’ that 

corresponds with FAR Case 2015–016. 

Follow the instructions provided at the 

‘‘Comment Now’’ screen. Please include 

your name, company name (if any), and 

‘‘FAR Case 2015–016’’ on your attached 

document. 

• Mail: General Services 

Administration, Regulatory Secretariat 

(MVCB), ATTN: Ms. Flowers, 1800 F 

Street NW., 2nd Floor, Washington, DC 

20405. 

Instructions: Please submit comments 

only and cite FAR Case 2015–016, in all 

correspondence related to this case. 

Comments received generally will be 

posted without change to http://

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal and/or business confidential 

information provided. To confirm 

receipt of your comment(s), please 


Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
8032 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 31 / Wednesday, February 17, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

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. 

Kathlyn Hopkins, Procurement Analyst, 

at 202–969–7226 for clarification of 

content. For information pertaining to 

status or publication schedules, contact 

the Regulatory Secretariat Division at 

202–501–4755. Please cite FAR case 

2015–016. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

Section 857 of the Carl Levin and 

Howard P. ‘Buck’ McKeon National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2015 (Pub. L. 113–291) amended 

10 U.S.C. 2324(e)(1) to disallow costs 

incurred by a contractor in connection 

with a Congressional investigation or 

inquiry into an issue that is the subject 

matter of a proceeding resulting in a 

disposition as described in 10 U.S.C. 

2324(k)(2). 

While Section 857 only applies to 

contracts with the DoD, NASA, and the 

Coast Guard, for the purpose of 

promoting consistency in the 

accounting systems of Federal 

contractors, it was decided to apply the 

section’s requirements to all agencies 

subject to the FAR. 

Additionally, conforming language on 

unallowable costs is proposed for FAR 

31.603–16, as well as for 31.603–15 (to 

update language associated with 

Whistleblower complaints). 

II. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 

Executive Orders (E.O.s) 12866 and 

13563 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, distributive impacts, and 

equity). E.O. 13563 emphasizes the 

importance of quantifying both costs 

and benefits, of reducing costs, of 

harmonizing rules, and of promoting 

flexibility. This is a significant 

regulatory action and, therefore, was 

subject to review under Section 6(b) of 

Executive Order 12866, Regulatory 

Planning and Review, dated September 

30, 1993. This rule is not a major rule 

under 5 U.S.C. 804. 

III. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

DoD, GSA and NASA do not expect 

this proposed rule to have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities within the 

meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq., because the 

rule merely disallows the costs incurred 

in the extremely rare instances when a 

contractor incurs costs in connection 

with a congressional investigation or 

inquiry into an issue regarding a 

criminal, civil, or administrative 

proceeding relating to a violation of, or 

failure to comply with, a Federal or 

State statute or regulation. However, an 

initial regulatory flexibility analysis 

(IRFA) has been prepared consistent 

with 5 U.S.C. 603. The analysis is 

summarized as follows: 

The proposed rule will be manifested as a 

cost principle to which only select small 

businesses are subject. An analysis of 

contracts awarded during Fiscal Year 2014 

revealed that fewer than 200 small businesses 

were performing contracts subject to FAR 31. 

Given the small segment of the small 

business population that could be impacted 

by the rule, in concert with the low 

likelihood of the conditions being met, the 

impact on small businesses is insignificant. 

The Regulatory Secretariat Division 

has submitted a copy of the IRFA to the 

Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 

Business Administration. A copy of the 

IRFA may be obtained from the 

Regulatory Secretariat Division. DoD, 

GSA and NASA invite comments from 

small business concerns and other 

interested parties on the expected 

impact of this rule on small entities. 

DoD, GSA, and NASA will also consider 

comments from small entities 

concerning the existing regulations in 

subparts affected by the rule in 

accordance with 5 U.S.C. 610. Interested 

parties must submit such comments 

separately and should cite 5 U.S.C. 610 

(FAR Case 2015–016), in 

correspondence. 

C. Paperwork Reduction Act 

The rule does not contain any 

information collection requirements that 

require the approval of the Office of 

Management and Budget under 44 

U.S.C. chapter 35. 

List of Subject in 48 CFR Part 31 

Government procurement. 

William Clark, 

Director, Office of Government-wide 

Acquisition Policy, Office of Acquisition 

Policy, Office of Government-wide Policy. 

Therefore, DoD, GSA, and NASA 

propose amending 48 CFR part 31 as set 

forth below: 

PART 31—CONTRACT COST 

PRINCIPLES AND PROCEDURES 

■ 1. The authority citation for 48 CFR 

part 31 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 40 U.S.C. 121(c); 10 U.S.C. 

chapter 137; and 51 U.S.C. 20113. 

■ 2. Amend section 31.205–47 by— 

■ a. In paragraph (a)— 

■ i. Removing the words 

‘‘Fraudmeans—’’ and adding ‘‘Fraud 

means—’’ in its place; 

■ ii. Removing the words ‘‘Penalty, 

does’’ and adding ‘‘Penalty does’’ in its 

place; and 

■ iii. Removing the words ‘‘Proceeding, 

includes’’ and adding ‘‘Proceeding 

includes’’ in its place; 

■ b. Removing from the introductory 

text of paragraph (b) ‘‘employees),’’ and 

adding ‘‘employees);’’ in its place; and 

■ c. Adding paragraph (f)(9). 

The addition reads as follows: 

31.205–47 Costs related to legal and other 

proceedings. 

* * * * * 

(f) * * * 

(9) A Congressional investigation or 

inquiry into an issue that is the subject 

matter of a proceeding resulting in a 

disposition as described in paragraphs 

(b)(1) through (5) of this section (see 10 

U.S.C. 2324(e)(1)(Q)). 

* * * * * 

■ 3. Amend section 31.603 by revising 

paragraphs (b) introductory text and 

(b)(15) and adding paragraph (b)(16) to 

read as follows: 

31.603 Requirements. 

* * * * * 

(b) Agencies are not expected to place 

additional restrictions on individual 

items of cost. However, under 10 U.S.C. 

2324, 41 U.S.C. 4304, 31 U.S.C. 3730, 

and 41 U.S.C. 4310, the following costs 

are unallowable: 

* * * * * 

(15) Unless any of the exceptions at 

31.205–47(c), (d) or (e) apply, costs 

incurred by a contractor in connection 

with any criminal, civil, or 

administrative proceedings that result in 

dispositions as described in 10 U.S.C. 

2324(k) or 41 U.S.C. 4310 commenced 

by a Federal, State, local, or foreign 

government, or by a contractor or 

subcontractor employee submitting a 

whistleblower complaint of reprisal in 

accordance with 41 U.S.C. 4712 or 10 

U.S.C. 2409, for violation of, or a failure 

to comply with, law or regulation by the 

contractor (including its agents or 

employees); or costs incurred in 

connection with any proceeding brought 

by a third party in the name of the 

United States under the False Claims 

Act, 31 U.S.C. 3730. 

(16) Costs incurred in connection 

with a Congressional investigation or 

inquiry into an issue that is the subject 

matter of a proceeding resulting in a 

disposition as described in 10 U.S.C. 

2324(k) or 41 U.S.C. 4310, unless any of 


Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 31 / Wednesday, February 17, 2016 / Proposed Rules 8033 

the exceptions at 31.205–47(c), (d) or (e) 

apply. 

[FR Doc. 2016–03044 Filed 2–16–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6820–EP–P 


Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS