Federal Register Vol. 80, No.48,

A. Instructions

All comments must be in writing and submitted through one of the methods specified in the ADDRESSES section above. All submissions must include the title of the action and RIN for this rulemaking. Please include your name, title, organization, postal address, telephone number, and email address in the text of the message.

Comments submitted by email must be included in the text of the email or attached as a PDF file. Please avoid using special characters and any form of encryption. Please note, however, that because security screening precautions have slowed the delivery and dependability of surface mail to USAID/Washington, USAID recommends sending all comments to the Federal eRulemaking Portal.

All comments will be made available for public review without change, including any personal information provided, from three workdays after receipt to finalization of the action at http://www.regulations.gov. Do not submit information that you consider Confidential Business Information (CBI) or any information that is otherwise protected from disclosure by statute.

USAID is publishing this revision as a direct final rule as the Agency views this as an administrative amendment and does not anticipate any adverse comments. This rule will be effective on the date specified in the Dates section above without further notice unless adverse comment(s) are received by the date specified in the Dates section above. If adverse comments are received, USAID will publish a timely withdrawal of the rule in the Federal Register. Only comments that explain why the rule would be inappropriate, ineffective or unacceptable without a change will be considered.

The following changes are implemented by this final rule:

(1) To enhance and elevate the independent authority of the suspending and debarring official (SDO) at USAID, the Agency is transferring the duties of the SDO from the procurement office to the Assistant Administrator, Bureau for Management or designee. This rule is implementing this change as applicable to nonprocurement debarment and suspension.

(2) The authorities to grant an exception permitting an excluded person to participate in a particular covered transaction, previously delegated to the Director of the Office of Acquisition and Assistance is re-delegated to the Assistant Administrator, Bureau for Management or designee.

This rule has been determined to be “nonsignificant” under the Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, dated September 30, 1993 and, therefore, is not subject to review. This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804.

The U.S. Agency for International Development certifies that this final rule will not 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 revisions of this rule will not impose any costs on either small or large businesses; therefore, an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis has not been performed.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, USAID amends 2 CFR part 780, subparts A and I as set forth below:

The gypsy moth, Lymantria dispar (Linnaeus), is a destructive pest of forest, shade, and commercial trees such as nursery stock and Christmas trees. The gypsy moth regulations (contained in 7 CFR 301.45 through 301.45-12 and referred to below as the regulations) restrict the interstate movement of regulated articles from generally infested areas to prevent the artificial spread of the gypsy moth.

In accordance with § 301.45-2 of the regulations, generally infested areas are, with certain exceptions, those States or portions of States in which a gypsy moth general infestation has been found by an inspector, or each portion of a State that the Administrator deems necessary to regulate because of its proximity to infestation or its inseparability for quarantine enforcement purposes from infested localities. Less than an entire State will be designated as a generally infested area only if: (1) The State has adopted and is enforcing a quarantine or regulation that imposes restrictions on the intrastate movement of regulated articles that are substantially the same as those that are imposed with respect to the interstate movement of such articles; and (2) the designation of less than the entire State as a generally infested area will be adequate to prevent the artificial interstate spread of infestations of the gypsy moth.

Section 301.45-3 of the regulations lists generally infested areas. In this rule, we are amending § 301.45-3(a) by adding the following areas to the list of generally infested areas: Cook and Lake Counties in Minnesota; Tazewell County in Virginia; McDowell, Mercer, Raleigh, Summers, and Wyoming Counties in West Virginia; and Iowa County in Wisconsin. As a result of this rule, the interstate movement of regulated articles from these areas will be restricted.

On December 4, 2012, January 2, 2013, and August 21, 2014, respectively, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) issued Federal Orders to quarantine the counties listed above for gypsy moth in response to confirmed infestations in those counties. This was done in cooperation with the respective State officials. By adding the above-named counties in Minnesota, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wisconsin to the list of generally infested areas, this rule will help prevent the artificial spread of the gypsy moth to noninfested areas of the United States.

We are also removing the requirement in § 301.45-4 that regulated articles originating outside of any generally infested area and moving interstate directly through any generally infested area must be covered to prevent access by the gypsy moth in any of its life stages. That requirement was put in place out of an abundance of caution when we had a more limited understanding of the biology and behavior of the gypsy moth. In the intervening time, advances in our understanding of the pest have led APHIS to conclude that the requirement does not provide additional protection from the spread of gypsy moth during shipment. We are therefore removing a requirement that we no longer view as necessary, thus lightening the regulatory burden on shippers of regulated articles.

This rulemaking is necessary on an emergency basis because of the possibility that the gypsy moth could be artificially spread to noninfested areas of the United States, where it could cause economic losses due to the defoliation of susceptible forest and shade trees. Under these circumstances, the Administrator has determined that prior notice and opportunity for public comment are contrary to the public interest and that there is good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553 for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register.

We will consider comments we receive during the comment period for this interim rule (see DATES above). After the comment period closes, we will publish another document in the Federal Register. The document will include a discussion of any comments we receive and any amendments we are making to the rule.

This interim rule is subject to Executive Order 12866. However, for this action, the Office of Management and Budget has waived its review under Executive Order 12866.

In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, we have analyzed the potential economic effects of this action on small entities. The analysis is summarized below. The full analysis may be viewed on the Regulations.gov Web site (see ADDRESSES above for instructions for accessing Regulations.gov) or obtained from the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

We are amending the gypsy moth regulations by adding areas in Minnesota, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wisconsin to the list of generally infested areas based on detected infestations of gypsy moth. As a result of this action, the interstate movement of regulated articles from those areas is restricted.

This interim rule will affect businesses such as nurseries, Christmas tree farms, and timber companies that are located within the newly quarantined areas and that transport regulated articles interstate. Agricultural entities in the newly quarantined areas are predominantly, if not entirely, small entities.

We do not anticipate any significant economic impacts resulting from this action. APHIS works closely with State officials through quarantines and regulatory programs to limit the artificial spread of gypsy moth beyond infested areas, and stakeholders support these efforts. Many of the potentially affected entities are already operating under compliance agreements. Businesses with compliance agreements can self-inspect regulated articles moved from quarantined areas. Businesses without compliance agreements can have inspection and certification services provided by State or Federal officials at no cost.

Under these circumstances, the Administrator of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service has determined that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

This program/activity is listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance under No. 10.025 and is subject to Executive Order 12372, which requires intergovernmental consultation with State and local officials. (See 7 CFR part 3015, subpart V.)

This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This rule: (1) Preempts all State and local laws and regulations that are inconsistent with this rule; (2) has no retroactive effect; and (3) does not require administrative proceedings before parties may file suit in court challenging this rule.

This rule contains no new information collection or recordkeeping requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

Accordingly, we are amending 7 CFR part 301 as follows:

I. Direct Final Rule Published Concurrently With Companion Proposed Rule

In direct final rulemaking, an agency publishes a direct final rule in the Federal Register with a statement that the rule will go into effect unless the agency receives significant adverse comment within a specified period. The agency concurrently publishes an identical proposed rule. If the agency receives no significant adverse comment in response to the direct final rule, the rule goes into effect. If the agency receives significant adverse comment, the agency withdraws the direct final rule and treats such comment as submissions on the proposed rule. An agency typically uses direct final rulemaking when it anticipates the rule will be non-controversial.

OWCP has determined that this rule, which modifies the existing regulations to facilitate the exchange of documents and information, is suitable for direct final rulemaking. The rule expands the methods by which employers, claimants, insurers, and OWCP can transmit documents and information to each other; the rule does not eliminate current methods. Thus, OWCP does not expect to receive significant adverse comment on this rule.

OWCP is also publishing a companion notice of proposed rulemaking in the “Proposed Rules” section of today's Federal Register to expedite notice-and-comment rulemaking in the event OWCP receives significant adverse comment and withdraws this direct final rule. The proposed and direct final rules are substantively identical, and their respective comment periods run concurrently. OWCP will treat comments received on the companion proposed rule as comments regarding the direct final rule and vice versa. Thus, if OWCP receives significant adverse comment on either this direct final rule or the companion proposed rule, OWCP will publish a Federal Register notice withdrawing this direct final rule and will proceed with the proposed rule. If no significant adverse comment is received, this direct final rule will become effective June 10, 2015.

For purposes of this direct final rule, a significant adverse comment is one that explains: (1) Why the rule is inappropriate, including challenges to the rule's underlying premise or approach; or (2) why the direct final rule will be ineffective or unacceptable without a change. In determining whether a significant adverse comment necessitates withdrawal of this direct final rule, OWCP will consider whether the comment raises an issue serious enough to warrant a substantive response had it been submitted in a standard notice-and-comment process. A comment recommending an addition to the rule will not be considered significant and adverse unless the comment explains how this direct final rule would be ineffective without the addition.

OWCP requests comments on all issues related to this rule, including economic or other regulatory impacts of this rule on the regulated community. All interested parties should comment at this time because OWCP will not initiate an additional comment period on the proposed rule even if it withdraws the direct final rule.

The LHWCA, 33 U.S.C. 901-950, establishes a comprehensive federal workers' compensation system for an employee's disability or death arising in the course of covered maritime employment. Metropolitan Stevedore Co. v. Rambo, 515 U.S. 291, 294 (1995). The Act's provisions have been extended to: (1) Contractors working on military bases or U.S. government contracts outside the United States (Defense Base Act, 42 U.S.C. 1651-54); (2) employees of nonappropriated fund instrumentalities (Nonappropriated Fund Instrumentalities Act, 5 U.S.C. 8171-73); (3) employees engaged in operations that extract natural resources from the outer continental shelf (Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, 43 U.S.C. 1333(b)); and (4) private employees in the District of Columbia injured prior to July 26, 1982 (District of Columbia Workers' Compensation Act of May 17, 1928, Public Law 70-419 (formerly codified at 36 D.C. Code 501 et seq. (1973) (repealed 1979)). Consequently, the Act and its extensions cover a broad range of claims for injuries that occur throughout the United States and around the world.

The Department's regulations implementing the LHWCA and its extensions (20 CFR parts 701-704) currently contemplate that private parties and OWCP file and exchange documents only in paper form and, in some instances, require transmission via specific methods such as certified mail, U.S. mail, or hand delivery. Because many of these procedural rules were last amended in 1985 and 1986, see 51 FR 4270 (February 3, 1986); 50 FR 384 (January 3, 1985), they do not address whether the parties or OWCP may use electronic communication methods (e.g., facsimile, email, web portal) or commercial delivery services (e.g., United Parcel Service, Federal Express). These communication methods have now become ubiquitous and are routinely relied upon by individuals, businesses, and government agencies alike.

Recently, OWCP has been employing electronic technology to improve the program's administration. In 2009, OWCP began accepting reports of insurance coverage electronically. See Notice from Chief, Branch of Financial Management, Insurance and Assessments (December 2, 2009) http://www.regulations.gov (docket folder for RIN 1240-AA09); Industry Notice No. 138 (January 3, 2012) http://www.dol.gov/owcp/dlhwc/lsindustrynotices/industrynotice138.htm. In 2013, OWCP began creating electronic case files for all new LHWCA cases. See LHWCA Bulletin No. 14-03 (November 26, 2013), http://www.dol.gov/owcp/dlhwc/LSBulletin14-03.pdf. And in 2014, OWCP launched SEAPortal, a web-based electronic portal that parties may use to submit case-specific documents to OWCP. See Industry Notice No. 148 (October 31, 2014), http://www.dol.gov/owcp/dlhwc/lsindustrynotices/industrynotice148.pdf. These advancements have enhanced claims administration within OWCP and the parties' ability to submit documents to OWCP. But they do not adequately expand the methods employers, claimants, insurers, and OWCP may use to transmit documents and information to each other.

Consistent with other workers' compensation schemes, the LHWCA provides “limited liability for employers” and “certain, prompt recovery for employees.” Roberts v. Sea-Land Servs., Inc., _ U.S. _, 132 S.Ct. 1350, 1354 (2012). These goals are advanced through efficient and effective communications between the private parties and OWCP. This rule thus revises the regulations to: (1) Remove bars to using electronic and other commonly used communication methods wherever possible; (2) provide flexibility for OWCP to allow the use of technological advances in the future; and (3) ensure that all parties remain adequately apprised of claim proceedings.

Because the revisions are procedural in nature, this rule applies to all matters pending on the date the rule is effective as well as those that arise thereafter. This will not work a hardship on the private parties or their representatives since, as explained below, the revisions either codify current practice or broaden the methods by which documents and information may be transmitted.

Section 39(a) of the LHWCA, 33 U.S.C. 939(a), authorizes the Secretary of Labor to prescribe all rules and regulations necessary for the administration and enforcement of the Act and its extensions. The LHWCA also grants the Secretary authority to determine by regulation how certain statutory notice and filing requirements are met. See 33 U.S.C. 907(j)(1) (the Secretary is authorized to “make rules and regulations and to establish procedures” regarding debarment of physicians and health care providers under 33 U.S.C. 907(c)); 33 U.S.C. 912(c) (employer must notify employees of the official designated to receive notices of injury “in a manner prescribed by the Secretary in regulations”); 33 U.S.C. 919(a) (claim for compensation may be filed “in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary”); 33 U.S.C. 919(b) (notice of claim to be made “in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary”); 33 U.S.C. 935 (“the Secretary shall by regulation provide for the discharge, by the carrier,” of the employer's liabilities under the Act). This rule falls well within these statutory grants of authority.

In developing these rules, the Department has also considered the principles underlying two additional statutes: The Government Paperwork Elimination Act (GPEA), 44 U.S.C. 3504, and the Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act (E-SIGN), 15 U.S.C. 7001 et seq. GPEA requires agencies, when practicable, to store documents electronically and to allow individuals and entities to communicate with agencies electronically. It also provides that electronic documents and signatures will not be denied legal effect merely because of their electronic form. Similarly, E-SIGN generally provides that electronic documents have the same legal effect as their hard copy counterparts and allows electronic records to be used in place of hard copy documents with appropriate safeguards. 15 U.S.C. 7001. Under E-SIGN, federal agencies retain the authority to specify the means by which they receive documents, 15 U.S.C. 7004(a), and to modify the disclosures required by Section 101(c), 15 U.S.C. 7001(c), under appropriate circumstances. These rules are consistent with and further the purposes of GPEA and E-SIGN.

This rule makes several general revisions to advance the goals set forth in Executive Order 13563 (January 18, 2011). That Order states that regulations must be “accessible, consistent, written in plain language, and easy to understand.” 76 FR 3821; see also E.O. 12866, 58 FR 51735 (September 30, 1993) (“Each agency shall draft its regulations to be simple and easy to understand, with the goal of minimizing the potential for uncertainty and litigation arising from such uncertainty.”). Accordingly, this rule removes the imprecise term “shall” throughout those sections it amends and substitutes “must,” “must not,” “will,” or other situation-appropriate terms. These changes are designed to make the regulations clearer and more user-friendly. See generally Federal Plain Language Guidelines, http://www.plainlanguage.gov/howto/guidelines.

Executive Order 13563 also instructs agencies to review “rules that may be outmoded, ineffective, insufficient, or excessively burdensome, and to modify, streamline, expand, or repeal them.” As a result, this rule ceases publication of two rules that are obsolete or unnecessary. These rules are set forth in the Section-by-Section Explanation below.

This section is new. It sets out general rules for transmitting documents and information that apply except when another rule or OWCP requires a specific form of communication.

Paragraph (a) specifies the methods by which documents and information must be sent to OWCP. Paragraph (a)(1) specifies that hard copy documents and information must be submitted by postal mail, commercial delivery service, or delivered by hand. Paragraph (a)(2) specifies that electronic documents and information must be submitted through an electronic system that has been authorized by OWCP. OWCP's SEAPortal is an example of such a system. Paragraph (a)(3) recognizes that occasions may arise where transmission methods other than those enumerated would be preferable and provides that additional methods may be used when allowed by OWCP.

Paragraph (b) specifies the methods by which documents and information must be sent from OWCP to parties and their representatives or exchanged between parties and party representatives. Paragraph (b)(1) specifies that hard copy documents must be sent or exchanged by postal mail, commercial delivery service, or hand delivery. Paragraph (b)(2) specifies that documents and information can be sent or exchanged electronically, but only if they are sent through a reliable method and the receiving party agrees in writing to accept electronic transmission by the particular method used. Requiring written confirmation protects all parties and representatives from misunderstandings about service and ensures that the recipient has the technology necessary to receive documents by the selected method. The Department does not intend that this process be overly formalistic; a letter, email or other writing memorializing the receiving party's agreement would be sufficient to satisfy the regulatory requirement. A party's agreement to receive documents or information electronically, although required before a sender can elect to use an electronic transmission method, does not obligate the sender to use an electronic transmission method. Finally, paragraph (b)(3) specifies that documents and information can be sent or exchanged through any OWCP-authorized electronic system that allows for service of documents. Although not currently available, this provision is added for use in the event OWCP adopts such a system in the future.

Paragraph (c) provides a non-exhaustive list of reliable electronic transmission methods.

Paragraph (d) specifies that parties or representatives who agree to receive documents electronically in accordance with paragraph (b)(2) can revoke their agreement by giving written notice to the person or entity with whom they initially agreed to receive documents electronically. For example, if a claimant's legal representative no longer wishes to receive documents electronically from the employer's attorney, the representative can revoke the agreement by simply notifying opposing counsel in writing. Similarly, if a pro se claimant initially agrees to receive documents electronically from OWCP, he or she may terminate that agreement by sending a letter or some other form of writing to OWCP. As with the procedure for agreeing to electronic service, the Department does not intend this procedure to be overly formalistic.

Paragraph (e) recognizes that the Longshore regulations use various terms to describe the process of exchanging documents and information with OWCP and between parties. It provides that paragraphs (a) through (d) apply when those terms are used.

Paragraph (f) clarifies that references to documents include both electronic and hard copy documents.

Paragraph (g) explains that a requirement that something be in writing, signed, certified, or executed does not presuppose that the document must be in hard copy.

Paragraph (h) states that an entity's address may include its electronic address or Web portal.

Finally, paragraphs (i)(1) and (2) clarify that when a document must be sent to a particular district director's office or a district director must take an action with respect to a document in his or her office, the physical or electronic address or file location provided for that district director's office by OWCP rather than that district director's physical location controls. These provisions accommodate the Department's current and anticipated future plans to have most mail for district offices sent to a central mail receipt location and eventually to an electronic location and to handle documents in an electronic case file environment.

Current § 702.102(a) explains that the Director has established compensation districts as required under the Act and specifies that the Director must notify interested parties “by mail” of changes to the compensation districts. Revised § 701.102(a) removes the phrase “by mail” to broaden the methods by which the Director may notify interested parties of a change to the compensation districts.

Current § 702.103 explains that the Director may require claims-related materials to be filed in suboffices. Revised § 702.103 changes the phrase “at the suboffice” to “with the suboffice” to reflect that documents being filed with a suboffice will not necessarily be filed at that suboffice per se, but rather will be filed at the physical or electronic address provided by OWCP.

Current § 702.104(b) provides that the district director who is transferring a case to a different district office may give advice, comments, or suggestions to the district director receiving the case. The regulation also specifies that the transfer must be made by registered or certified mail. District directors now have the capacity to transfer many cases by secure electronic means, or may prefer to use a commercial delivery service such as Federal Express or the United Parcel Service. Accordingly, revised § 702.104 removes the requirement that cases be transferred by registered or certified mail to broaden the methods by which district directors may transfer cases between offices.

Current § 702.174(b)(1) provides that in cases where the Director approves an employer's application for an exemption from coverage under the Act, the Director shall notify the employer of its exemption by certified mail, return receipt requested. This non-statutory requirement limits the Director's ability to take advantage of other efficient means of service that may be less costly. Accordingly, revised § 702.174(b)(1) removes the certified mail requirement to broaden the methods by which the Director may notify employers that their application for exemption has been approved. The revised rule also includes a technical amendment to § 702.174(b)(2) to conform the language regarding notification of a denial of exempt status to the language in revised subsection (b)(1).

Current § 702.203 provides that employers must submit their injury reports by delivering or mailing an original and one copy to the office of the district director. The rule implements the statutory directive to employers to “send to the Secretary a report” of injury and “a copy of such report” to the district director within ten days of an employee's injury or death. 33 U.S.C. 930(a), (b). Although not reflected in the current regulation, the Act also provides that “mailing” a report “in a stamped envelope” within the ten-day time period satisfies the statute's requirements. 33 U.S.C. 930(d).

Revised § 702.203 alters the current rule in two ways. First, revised paragraph (a) eliminates the requirement that employers provide an original and a copy of their injury reports. OWCP has instituted a policy of storing documents electronically; thus, there is no continuing need to submit multiple copies of the same document. Instead, submission of one report to the district director will satisfy the employer's statutory obligation to notify both the Secretary and the district director. Second, revised paragraph (b) modifies the current regulation to address what actions satisfy the ten-day time period for filing the injury report. Consistent with Section 30(d), revised paragraph (b) specifies that when sent by U.S. postal mail, an employer's report of injury will be deemed filed on the date mailed. The rule extends this same statutory concept—that an employer meets the reporting obligation when it sends the report, not when the report is received by OWCP—to commercial delivery services and electronic filings. Thus, the rule provides that the report will be considered filed on the date given to a commercial delivery service or, when sent by permissible electronic means, the date the employer completes all steps necessary for electronic delivery.

Current § 702.215 provides that an employee's notice of injury or survivor's notice of death must be given to the employer by hand delivery or by mail. It further provides that notice of an injury may be given to the district director by hand delivery, mail, orally in person, or by telephone. Revised § 702.215 modifies the current section to allow the use of additional means of providing notice to the employer and to the district director.

For employer notice, the revised rule allows an employee or survivor to provide notice at the physical or electronic address supplied by the employer. Using the broader “physical” address term encompasses the current hand and mail delivery, and expands it to other methods such as a commercial delivery service. And by allowing notice to be delivered to an electronic address, employers will be able to adopt electronic systems (e.g., email, web portal) that may speed the injury reporting process. For district director notice, the revised regulation provides that the employee's or survivor's notice of injury may be given to the district director by submitting the correct form. Using the word “submitting” brings this document within the general transmission rule set forth in 20 CFR 702.101(a), thus implementing the statutory directive that notice be given to the district director “by delivering it to him or sending it by mail addressed to his office.” 33 U.S.C. 912(c). The revised rule retains the option of reporting injuries to the district director either in person or by telephone.

Current § 702.224 requires the district director to give the employer or insurance carrier written notice of claims for compensation served “personally or by mail.” This regulation implements the statutory requirement that the district director provide notice of claims to interested parties, which “may be served personally upon the employer or other person, or sent to such employer or person by registered mail.” 33 U.S.C. 919(b). Revised § 702.224 deletes the current rule's reference to specific service methods. Using the phrase “give notice” brings the notice within the general transmission rule set forth in 20 CFR 702.101(a), which allows for methods of service beyond mailing and what is traditionally considered personal service. Because the statute uses the permissive term “may” in addressing service methods for this notice and does not mandate any particular method, the revised rule is also consistent with the statute.

Current § 702.234 provides that the employer shall immediately notify the district director having jurisdiction over the place where the injury or death occurred when it makes its first payment of compensation or suspends payment of compensation. The Department recognizes that cases are not always adjudicated by the district director who has jurisdiction over the place where the injury or death occurred. For example, cases may be transferred to a district other than the district where the injury occurred if a worker moves his or her residence to a different compensation district. 20 CFR 702.104. Thus, revised § 702.234 removes the reference to the district director having jurisdiction over the place where the injury or death occurred and instead directs the employer to notify the district director who is administering the claim.

Current § 702.243(a) requires that settlement applications be sent to the adjudicator by certified mail, return receipt requested, submitted in person, or sent by any other delivery service with proof of delivery to the adjudicator. The revised rule modifies this subsection to explicitly allow parties to submit settlement applications via commercial delivery service with tracking capability or electronically through an OWCP-authorized system.

Current § 702.243(c) requires that when the adjudicator disapproves a settlement application, he or she must serve a disapproval letter or order on the parties by certified mail. This requirement both limits the adjudicator's ability to take advantage of more efficient means of service and imposes an unnecessary expense. Accordingly, the revised rule removes the requirement that notice be sent by certified mail in order to broaden the methods by which adjudicators may notify parties that their settlement applications have been disapproved.

Current § 702.251 requires that employers notify the district director of their election to controvert a claim by sending the “original notice” of controversion form to the district director and a copy to the claimant. By requiring the “original” form, the regulation implies that the employer must deliver a hard copy form bearing its authorized signature in ink. There is no statutory requirement that an employer submit an original form in that manner and requiring the employer to do so by regulation unduly limits the means by which the employer would otherwise be permitted to submit the form. For example, OWCP has instituted a policy of accepting case-related documents electronically through its web portal. Further, OWCP now scans and electronically stores the documents it receives, so the “original” document submitted by the employer would not be retained in hard copy. For these reasons, there is no need to require employers to send an “original” document to the district director. Thus, revised § 702.251 omits the requirement that an original document be provided.

Current § 702.261 provides that a claimant who contests a reduction, termination, or suspension of benefits by the employer or carrier must notify the office of the district director having jurisdiction either in person or in writing and explain the basis for his or her complaint. New § 702.101 specifies the methods by which the claimant can provide documents or information to OWCP, and there is no statutory requirement pertaining to claimants' contests of employer or carrier action that justifies treating transmission of this type of information differently. Accordingly, revised § 702.261 eliminates the requirement that notice be given in person or in writing. In addition, the revised rule substitutes the phrase “the district director who is administering the claim” for the phrase “the district director having jurisdiction.” As noted, claims are not always handled by the district director for the district where the injury or death occurred. See 20 CFR 702.104. To clarify the regulation, revised § 702.234 directs the claimant to notify the district director who is administering the claim when he or she wishes to contest the employer's or carrier's actions.

Current § 702.272 concerns informal recommendations by the district director regarding claims of improper discharge or discrimination against employees who seek compensation under the Act or testify in a compensation claim under the Act. Paragraph (a) provides that where the employee and employer agree to the district director's recommendation, that recommendation shall be incorporated into an order and mailed to the parties. The revised rule removes the reference to service by mail and instead indicates that service should be accomplished under the same procedures that govern service of compensation orders under § 702.349.

Current § 702.272(b) provides that where the parties do not agree to the district director's recommendation, the director must “mail” a memorandum to the parties that summarizes the disagreement. This requirement precludes the Director from using other methods of service. Accordingly, the revised rule deletes the word “mail” and replaces it with the word “send” so that delivery of the memorandum is governed by the general rule in § 702.101.

Current § 702.281(b) provides that in order for an employee to settle a claim with a third party for an amount less than the employee would receive under the Act, the employee must first receive prior written approval from the employer and the employer's carrier. That approval must be filed with the district director with jurisdiction where the injury occurred. As noted, claims are not always handled by the district director for the district where the injury or death occurred. See 20 CFR 702.104. Thus, revised § 702.281(b) directs that the approval be filed with the district director who is administering the claim.

Current § 702.315(a) provides that when an informal conference results in a formal compensation order, the order must be “filed and mailed in accordance with § 702.349.” This rule also provides that when the problem considered is resolved by telephone or by exchange of written correspondence, the parties shall be notified by the same method through which agreement was reached, and the district director will also issue a memorandum or order setting forth the agreed terms. Revised § 702.315(a) modifies the rule in two ways. First, the revised rule substitutes the phrase “filed and served” for “filed and mailed” to conform the language to the addition of § 702.349(b), which would allow parties and their representatives to waive registered and certified mail service of compensation orders. Second, to allow more flexibility, revised § 702.315(a) eliminates the requirement that the district director use the same method to communicate the results of the conference but preserves the authority to communicate those results by telephone.

Current § 702.317 provides rules for transferring a case from the district director's office to the Office of Administrative Law Judges (OALJ) for hearing. When the district director receives pre-hearing statement forms from the parties and determines that no further conferences will help resolve the dispute, § 702.317(c) instructs the district director to transmit the pre-hearing statements, a transmittal letter, and certain other evidence to OALJ. Paragraph (c) excepts from this requirement materials “not suitable for mailing.” To avoid any implication that these documents must be mailed between the district director and OALJ rather than transmitted by some other method (e.g., commercial delivery service, electronically), the revised rule substitutes the term “transmission” for “mailing” in paragraph (c).

Current § 702.319 provides that upon receipt of a request for a document from the administrative file, the district director shall give the original document to the requester and retain a copy in the file. OWCP has instituted a policy of storing documents electronically rendering it unable to send requesters original documents. A properly reproduced copy of the electronically stored document can be used in adjudicative proceedings. See United States v. Hampton, 464 F.3d 687, 690 (7th Cir. 2006) (holding that copies of documents are admissible to the same extent as the original documents unless there is an issue with the authenticity of the original); United States v. Georgalis, 631 F.2d 1199, 1205 (5th Cir. 1980) (“A duplicate may be admitted into evidence unless . . . there is a genuine issue as to the authenticity of the unintroduced original, or as to the trustworthiness of the duplicate . . .”). Accordingly, revised § 702.319 specifies that the district director will send a copy of the requested document(s) to the requester and retain a copy of the record request and a statement of whether it has been satisfied in the administrative file.

Current § 702.321(a)(1) requires employers or carriers who file applications under Section 8(f) of the Act to file those applications in duplicate. As OWCP has instituted a policy of storing documents electronically, there is no continuing need to file multiple copies of the same document. Accordingly, the revised rule deletes that requirement from § 702.321(a)(1). The Department has also eliminated the mid-paragraph numbering in this provision. This technical change is made to conform to the current formatting rules of the Office of the Federal Register.

Current § 702.349 provides that at the conclusion of the administrative hearing, the administrative law judge shall deliver the administrative record “by mail or otherwise” to the district director that had original jurisdiction over the case. As noted above, cases are not always administered by the district director who has “original” jurisdiction over the controversy. For example, cases may be transferred to a district other than the district where the injury occurred if a worker moves his or her residence to a different compensation district. See 20 CFR 702.104. Thus, the revised rule removes the reference to the district director that had original jurisdiction and instead directs the administrative law judge to forward the record to the district director who administered the case.

This rule contains two additional revisions to the existing language designed to accommodate transmission of decisions and case records electronically between OWCP and the Office of Administrative Law Judges. First, the revised rule eliminates the language that the case record be sent to the district director “together with” a signed compensation order. Currently, the Office of Administrative Law Judges does not always transmit the full case record at the same time as the compensation order. Moreover, OWCP also anticipates that, as an intermediate step to transitioning to a full electronic case file environment, a system may be adopted for administrative law judge decisions to be transmitted electronically to OWCP for filing and service. Second, the revised rule eliminates reference to the “original” compensation order in anticipation of future expansion of the electronic case file system. The term “original” implies that the district director must file a paper copy of a compensation order. This process may not be required in a full electronic case file environment.

This rule is also revised to add a new paragraph (b) that allows parties and their representatives to receive compensation orders by other service methods in cases where they explicitly waive service by registered or certified mail. Under Section 19(e) of the Act, 33 U.S.C. 919(e), all parties have the right to be served with a compensation order via registered or certified mail (at OWCP's option). By practice, OWCP has extended this service to the parties' representatives. See 20 CFR 702.349. Service via registered or certified mail has many benefits, but unlike electronic service, it cannot be accomplished immediately. Several days will generally elapse between the date that an order is mailed by the district director and the date the parties receive it. Some parties and their representatives have requested that the Department begin serving compensation orders immediately by electronic means.

The right to registered or certified mail service of compensation orders is a personal right that is conveyed by the Act. But there is no indication in the Act that the right to registered or certified mail service cannot be waived, contra 33 U.S.C. 915(b), 916, and it is generally presumed that statutory rights can be knowingly and voluntarily waived. See New York v. Hill, 528 U.S. 110, 114 (2000). Accordingly, § 702.349(b) institutes a procedure allowing parties and their representatives who are entitled to registered or certified mail service to waive their right to such service. The waiver applies only to service of compensation orders and does not extend to other documents or information transmitted by OWCP.

New § 702.349(b) provides that a party or their representative can waive registered or certified mail service of compensation orders by filing the appropriate form with the district director that is administering the party's case. Waivers will only be accepted if they are submitted on the proper form, and a separate form must be submitted for each party or representative. Paragraph (b) emphasizes that submission of a completed form constitutes a knowing and voluntary waiver of registered or certified mail service.

New § 702.349(b)(1)-(b)(5) flesh out important details related to the waiver of service by registered or certified mail. Paragraph (b)(1) provides that all parties and representatives must provide a valid electronic address on the waiver form for the service waiver to be effective.

Paragraph (b)(2) provides that parties and their representatives must submit a separate waiver form for each case in which they intend to waive service. Although it is common for certain employers, carriers, and attorneys to have an interest in several Longshore Act cases pending at the same time, the district director will not accept blanket service waivers. This will ensure that the party or representative has in fact waived registered or certified mail service in the particular case. Similarly, paragraph (b)(3) prohibits a party's representative from signing the waiver form on the party's behalf. Instead, to ensure that waivers are knowing and voluntary, the parties themselves must sign the waiver forms.

Paragraph (b)(4) provides that all compensation orders issued after the service waiver form is received will be served in accordance with the instructions on the form provided by the party or representative. This includes supplementary compensation orders and orders on modification. This paragraph also specifies that individuals must submit another waiver form to change their service address or to revoke the waiver.

Finally, paragraph (b)(5) provides that the district director will serve parties and their representatives by certified mail despite the existence of a waiver form if there is some problem with the service method selected. Thus, for example, the district director will effect service by certified or registered mail if he or she receives an error message when trying to serve a party or representative via email.

Current § 702.372(b) requires that supplementary compensation orders declaring amounts of compensation in default be served by certified mail on the parties and their representatives. This provision implements Section 18(a) of the Act, which requires that supplementary orders “be filed in the same manner as the compensation order.” 33 U.S.C. 918(a). As discussed above, Section 19(e) of the Act requires that compensation orders be filed in the office of the district director, and then served by registered or certified mail. 33 U.S.C. 919(e). The revised rule incorporates the filing provisions found in § 702.349. This revision clarifies that supplementary compensation orders must be treated like any other compensation order for purposes of filing and service. In addition, by cross-referencing § 702.349, the Department intends to extend the provisions allowing voluntary waiver of registered or certified mail service in § 702.349(b) to supplementary compensation orders.

Current § 702.432(b) provides that when the Director determines that debarment proceedings are appropriate against a physician, health care provider or claims representative, he or she will notify the individual by certified mail, return receipt requested. Similarly, current § 702.432(e) requires that the Director send a copy of his or her decision regarding debarment to the individual by certified mail, return receipt requested. This method of service is not required by the statute in either instance. And requiring certified mail service both limits the Director's ability to take advantage of electronic means of service and imposes an unnecessary expense. Accordingly, to broaden the methods by which the Director may notify individuals of debarment proceedings and decisions rendered in them, the revised rule removes the requirement that notice be sent by certified mail with return receipt requested from paragraphs (b) and (e).

Current § 702.433(b) requires that the administrative law judge who will conduct a hearing regarding debarment serve a copy of a notice of hearing on the individual who may be subject to debarment via certified mail, return receipt requested. This method of service is not required by the statute, and it both limits the administrative law judge's ability to take advantage of electronic service methods and imposes an unnecessary expense. Accordingly, revised § 702.433(b) eliminates the certified mail requirement so as to broaden the means by which the administrative law judge may notify individuals of hearings regarding debarment.

Current § 703.2(a) provides that information sent by insurance carriers and self-insured employers to OWCP pursuant to Part 703 must be submitted on Forms specified by the Director. In order to facilitate the most efficient processing of Part 703 information, revised § 703.2(a) specifies that the forms must be submitted to OWCP in the manner it specifies.

This set of regulations governs how matters related to insurance coverage are reported to OWCP and the consequences of those reports. In the past, insurance companies reported issuance of policies and endorsements by filing a Form LS-570 (Carrier's Report of Issuance of Policy) in hard copy with the district director in whose compensation district the insured employer operated. These hard copy reports of insurance were retained in the compensation district because that was the district most likely to use the record. OWCP now stores insurance information electronically in a system maintained by the Division of Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation (DLHWC) in OWCP's national office. This system is accessible to the district offices. Thus, there is no continuing need for carriers to report insurance information to individual district directors.

To facilitate reporting of insurance information, OWCP began instituting an electronic system for such reports in 2009. See Notice from Chief, Branch of Financial Management, Insurance and Assessments (December 2, 2009) http://www.regulations.gov (docket folder for RIN 1240-AA09); Industry Notice No. 138 (January 3, 2012) http://www.dol.gov/owcp/dlhwc/lsindustrynotices/industrynotice138.htm. Many insurance companies now report coverage, including policy cancellations, to industry data collection organizations (e.g., New York Compensation Rating Board, National Council on Compensation Insurance, Inc.) that, in turn, report the information to DLHWC on the carriers' behalf. DLHWC receives that information via a daily electronic data interchange with the data collection organizations and places it in a centralized electronic repository that the individual district directors can access immediately. It is common practice in the insurance industry to provide this sort of information electronically, and many carriers have been voluntarily reporting coverage under the Act and its extensions to DLHWC electronically for several years now. The system has proven to be efficient and preferable for both OWCP and the reporting carriers who use it. Centralized reporting also reduces the recordkeeping burden on the district offices, thereby freeing up resources for claims administration.

For these reasons, the revised rule eliminates those provisions that require insurance companies to report coverage to individual district directors. In addition, the revised rules are drafted broadly to accommodate future methods of electronic reporting that OWCP may choose to adopt. Although OWCP prefers receiving insurance information electronically, the revised rules do not require carriers to report electronically. Carriers can still fulfill their reporting obligations by submitting Form LS-570 to DLHWC.

Section 703.113 allows for a longshoremen's policy or endorsement to specify the particular vessel(s) to which it applies. It provides that the carrier shall send the report of issuance of a policy or endorsement that is required by § 703.116 to the district director for the compensation district where the vessel(s)' home port is located. To conform this regulation to the centralized reporting system, revised § 703.113 replaces references to the district director with references to DLHWC.

Section 703.114 provides that cancellation of a contract or policy of insurance will not be effective unless done in compliance with Section 36(b) of the Act, which requires that insurance providers send a notice of cancellation to the district director and the employer 30 days prior to the date that a policy termination is effective. See 33 U.S.C. 936(b). The Act also requires that the notice be in writing and given to the district director “by delivering it to him or sending it by mail addressed to his office, and to the employer by delivering it to him or by sending it by mail addressed to him at his last known place of business.” 33 U.S.C. 912(c); see also 33 U.S.C. 936(b).

The revised rule specifies the methods an insurer can use to give notice of cancellation. For notice to the district director, the revised rule allows insurers to report cancellations to DLHWC either in a manner prescribed under § 702.101(a) or in the same manner as they report coverage under § 703.116 (including, where applicable, through industry data collection organizations). Reporting through these established channels satisfies the statutory requirement that notice be delivered to the district director. For notice to the employer, the revised rule requires that the cancellation notice be sent in accordance with the methods set forth in § 702.101(b). Complying with § 702.101(b) satisfies the statutory requirement that the cancellation notice be delivered to the employer. Importantly, an electronic report made to DLHWC does not relieve the carrier of its obligation to also provide written notice of cancellation to the employer. Moreover, the revised rule retains the statutory requirement that notice to both DLHWC and the employer must be provided 30 days before the cancellation is intended to be effective.

Section 703.116, as currently written, requires insurance carriers to report all policies and endorsements issued by them to employers carrying on business within a compensation district to that particular district director. To conform this regulation to the centralized reporting system, revised § 703.116 replaces references to the district director with references to DLHWC. In addition, revised § 703.116 specifically acknowledges that reports made through an OWCP-authorized electronic system, such as an industry data collection organization, satisfy the carrier's reporting obligation. Instructions for submitting coverage information to DLHWC electronically will be posted on OWCP's Web site at http://www.dol.gov/owcp/dlhwc/carrier.htm.

Section 703.117 specifies that the report required by § 703.116 must be sent by the insurance carrier's home office or authorized agent. The regulation assumes that such reports will be made to the district director in the compensation district where the employer is located, and requires the carrier to tell the district director which agency is authorized to issue reports on its behalf. To conform this regulation to the centralized reporting system, revised § 703.117 replaces references to the district director with references to DLHWC.

Section 703.118 provides that all applicants for authority to write insurance under the Act shall be deemed to have agreed to accept full liability for the insured's obligations under the Act. The current regulation presumes that the district director for the compensation district where an insured employer carries on operations will receive and accept the carrier's report of insurance. To conform this regulation to the centralized reporting system, revised § 703.118 replaces references to the district director with references to DLHWC.

Section 703.119 governs the situation where an employer that is carrying on operations covered by the Act in one compensation district plans to begin operations in a second. The regulation provides that the carrier may submit the report required by § 703.116 to the district director in the new compensation district before the employer has an address in the new district. Because carriers will no longer be expected to provide notice regarding insurance coverage to individual district directors, there is no longer any need for the procedure set forth in current § 703.119. Accordingly, the Department has deleted this section.

Section 703.120 provides that a separate report required by § 703.116 must be made for each employer that is covered by a policy. DLHWC is able to automatically extract employer-specific coverage information from most electronic reports that it receives, so this requirement is often unnecessary when coverage is reported electronically. Accordingly, revised § 703.120 is limited to reports made on Form LS-570 (Carrier's Report of Issuance of Policy.) The current regulation also presumes that the district director for the compensation district where an insured employer carries on operations will receive and accept the carrier's report of insurance. To conform this regulation to the centralized reporting system, revised § 703.120 replaces references to the district director with references to DLHWC.

Section 703.502 provides that district directors who receive a report of the issuance of a policy that is authorized by current § 703.119 shall file the report until they receive an address for the employer in the new compensation district, at which point they shall issue a certificate of compliance. The Department has deleted current § 703.119 because carriers will no longer be expected to provide notice regarding insurance coverage to individual district directors. Thus, there is no further need for the special procedure laid out in § 703.502. Accordingly, the Department has deleted this section.

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., and its attendant regulations, 5 CFR part 1320, require that the Department consider the impact of paperwork and other information collection burdens imposed on the public. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless it is approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the PRA and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that does not display a valid Control Number. See 5 CFR 1320.5(a) and 1320.6.

This rule allows parties to voluntarily waive their statutory right to receive compensation orders by registered or certified mail and to instead receive them by email. See 20 CFR 703.349. To implement the waiver process, this rule imposes two new collections of information, OWCP Form LS-801, Waiver of Service by Registered or Certified Mail for Claimants and Authorized Representatives, and OWCP Form LS-802, Waiver of Service by Registered or Certified Mail for Employers and/or Insurance Carriers. The Department has submitted an Information Collection Request (ICR) for both of these new forms under the emergency procedures for review and clearance contained in 5 CFR 1320.13.

This rule does not materially change any other ICR with regard to the information collected, but does change the manner in which forms that collect information may be submitted. Instead of mandating the transmission of information by postal mail, the rule allows OWCP and private parties to use electronic and other commonly used communication methods. It also provides flexibility for OWCP to allow submission of information using future technologies.

The collection of information requirements are contained within ICRs assigned OMB control numbers: 1240-0003, 1240-0004, 1240-0005, 1240-0014, 1240-0025, 1240-0026, 1240-0029, 1240-0036, 1240-0040, 1240-0041, 1240-0042 and 1240-0043. The regulatory sections specifying the submission procedures are found in paragraphs: 20 CFR 702.111, 702.121, 702.162, 702.174, 702.175, 702.201, 702.202, 702.221, 702.234, 702.235, 702.236, 702.242, 702.251, 702.285, 702.317, 702.321, 702.407, 702.419, 703.116, 703.203, 703.204, 703.205, 703.209, 703.210, 703.212, 703.303 and 703.310.

Although the rule does not eliminate any current methods of submission for these collections, because its allowance of electronic submission will result in mailing cost savings (envelopes and postage), OWCP anticipates some savings for the public. Given the response rate for each of the existing collections, current combined mailing costs are estimated at $113,977. The Department anticipates a 13% rate of electronic submission, an accompanying reduction in postal mail submission, and a resulting cost savings of $14,817. In the future, as electronic transmission submission options increase and are used more frequently, this savings will likely increase. The Department has submitted a request for a non-substantive change for each existing ICR cited above in order to obtain approval for the changed cost estimate resulting from the availability of electronic submission methods.

The submitted ICRs for the two new collections imposed by this rule will be available for public inspection for at least thirty days under the “Currently Under Review” portion of the Information Collection Review section reginfo.gov Web site, available at: http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. The Department will publish a separate notice in the Federal Register that will announce the result of the OMB reviews. Currently approved information collections are available for public inspection under the “Current Inventory” portion of the same Web site.

Request for Comments: As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, the Department conducts a pre-clearance consultation program to provide the general public and Federal agencies an opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing collections of information. This program helps to ensure requested data can be provided in the desired format, reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are clearly understood, and the impact of collection requirements can be properly assessed. Comments on the information collection requirements may be submitted to the Department in the same manner as for any other portion of this rule.

In addition to having an opportunity to file comments with the agency, the PRA provides that an interested party may file comments on the information collection requirements in a direct final rule directly with the Office of Management and Budget, at Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for DOL-OWCP Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503; by Fax: 202-395-5806 (this is not a toll-free number); or by email: [email protected]. Commenters are encouraged, but not required, to send a courtesy copy of any comments to the general addressee for this rulemaking. The OMB will consider all written comments that agency receives within 30 days of publication of this direct final rule in the Federal Register. In order to help ensure appropriate consideration, comments should mention at least one of the control numbers mentioned in this rule.

The OMB and the Department are particularly interested in comments that:

• Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

The information collections in this rule may be summarized as follows:

OMB Control Number: 1240-0003.

Total Estimated Number of Responses: 28,829.

Total Estimated Annual Time Burden: 7,208 hours.

Total Estimated Annual Other Costs Burden: $14,126.

OMB Control Number: 1240-0004.

Total Estimated Number of Responses: 5,000.

Total Estimated Annual Time Burden: 83 hours.

Total Estimated Annual Other Costs Burden: $2,650.

OMB Control Number: 1240-0005.

Total Estimated Number of Responses: 668.

Total Estimated Annual Time Burden: 454 hours.

Total Estimated Annual Other Costs Burden: $344.

OMB Control Number: 1240-0014.

Total Estimated Number of Responses: 130,036.

Total Estimated Annual Time Burden: 44,955 hours.

Total Estimated Annual Other Costs Burden: $46,866.

OMB Control Number: 1240-0025.

Total Estimated Number of Responses: 1,100.

Total Estimated Annual Time Burden: 275 hours.

Total Estimated Annual Other Costs Burden: $528.

OMB Control Number: 1240-0026.

Total Estimated Number of Responses: 20.

Total Estimated Annual Time Burden: 10 hours.

Total Estimated Annual Other Costs Burden: $10.

OMB Control Number: 1240-0029.

Total Estimated Number of Responses: 96,000.

Total Estimated Annual Time Burden: 52,000 hours.

Total Estimated Annual Other Costs Burden: $2,088,960.

OMB Control Number: 1240-0036.

Total Estimated Number of Responses: 3,100.

Total Estimated Annual Time Burden: 527 hours.

Total Estimated Annual Other Costs Burden: $1,612.

OMB Control Number: 1240-0040.

Total Estimated Number of Responses: 75.

Total Estimated Annual Time Burden: 19 hours.

Total Estimated Annual Other Costs Burden: $39.

OMB Control Number: 1240-0041.

Total Estimated Number of Responses: 21,000.

Total Estimated Annual Time Burden: 5,250 hours.

Total Estimated Annual Other Costs Burden: $16,590.

OMB Control Number: 1240-0042.

Total Estimated Number of Responses: 18,000.

Total Estimated Annual Time Burden: 4,500 hours.

Total Estimated Annual Other Costs Burden: $9,013.

OMB Control Number: 1240-0043.

Total Estimated Number of Responses: 16,800.

Total Estimated Annual Time Burden: 4,200 hours.

Total Estimated Annual Other Costs Burden: $8,736.

Executive Orders 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). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. The Department has considered this rule with these principles in mind and has concluded that the regulated community will greatly benefit from this regulation.

This rule's greatest benefit is that it provides the Longshore Program and the affected public the flexibility to make greater use of technology as it exists today and as it may be developed in the future. In some instances, the current regulations restrict the means of delivery or receipt when not required by the statute's terms. See, e.g., 20 CFR 702.215 (notice effected by “delivery by hand or mail”); 20 CFR 702.104(b) (case transfers must be accomplished by “registered or certified mail”). Eliminating these restrictions where appropriate and consistent with the statute broadens available transmission methods. From the Department's view, this rule allows easier and more efficient transmission of critical documents and information to OWCP, and allows OWCP to take advantage of more efficient means of delivery to parties. And the regulated community, which has asked the Department to allow more modern transmission methods to be used, can use electronic technologies that they routinely employ when communicating with other entities.

All currently used methods of submitting documents remain available to OWCP, the parties, and the parties' representatives. OWCP will continue to accept documents delivered by hand or routine mail and the parties may communicate with each other in the same way. Thus, a party or representative may continue to send and receive claim-related documents and information in the same manner as it currently does. But the rule in many cases gives the parties additional transmission options.

In addition, allowing parties and representatives to waive their right to registered or certified mail service of compensation orders will expedite compensation payments. This is an important benefit to the rule: Faster delivery of compensation orders via electronic transmission will result in more expeditious payment of benefits to injured workers.

The Department has also considered whether the parties will realize any monetary benefits or incur any additional costs in light of this rule. The rule expands opportunities for parties and their representatives to submit and receive documents and does not require deviation from current practice. So the rule imposes no additional expense. To the contrary, the Department anticipates that the rule will provide some savings because an electronically transmitted document does not require postage or reproduction of multiple hard copies. Although difficult to quantify, the Department estimates that initial usage of electronic means of transmission will be approximately 13%, with increased usage possible in the future.

Finally, because this is not a “significant” rule within the meaning of Executive Order 12866, the Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it prior to publication.

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, 2 U.S.C. 1531 et seq., directs agencies to assess the effects of Federal Regulatory Actions on State, local, and tribal governments, and the private sector, “other than to the extent that such regulations incorporate requirements specifically set forth in law.” 2 U.S.C. 1531. For purposes of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, this rule does not include any Federal mandate that may result in increased expenditures by State, local, tribal governments, or increased expenditures by the private sector of more than $100,000,000.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. (RFA), requires agencies to evaluate the potential impacts of their proposed and final rules on small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions and to prepare an analysis (called a “regulatory flexibility analysis”) describing those impacts. See 5 U.S.C. 601, 603-604. But if the rule is not expected to “have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities[,]” the RFA allows an agency to so certify in lieu of preparing the analysis. See 5 U.S.C. 605.

The Department has determined that a regulatory flexibility analysis under the RFA is not required for this rulemaking. Many Longshore employers and a handful of insurance carriers may be considered small entities within the meaning of the RFA. See generally 77 FR 19471-72 (March 30, 2012); 69 FR 12222-23 (March 15, 2004). But this rule will not have a significant economic impact on these entities for several reasons. First, the revisions do not impose mandatory change on the employers. Instead, employers may choose to transmit documents and related information in the same manner as they do under the current rules. Second, although the rules allow insurance companies to report the issuance of policies and endorsements electronically, these companies—virtually without exception—have been voluntarily reporting coverage in the manner the rule allows for several years. No change in their conduct will be required. Third, because the rule provides more flexibility for employers and insurers in transmitting documents and information, the Department anticipates that these entities could see some economic savings by having the freedom to choose the most cost-effective transmission method for their businesses.

Based on these facts, the Department certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Thus, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required. The Department invites comments from members of the public who believe the regulations will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small Longshore employers or insurers. The Department has provided the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration with a copy of this certification. See 5 U.S.C. 605.

The Department has reviewed this rule in accordance with Executive Order 13132 regarding federalism, and has determined that it does not have “federalism implications.” E.O. 13132, 64 FR 43255 (August 4, 1999). The rule will not “have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.” Id.

This rule meets the applicable standards in Sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Department of Labor amends 20 CFR parts 702 and 703 as follows:

BNSF has requested that the BNSF Swing Bridge across the Columbia River, mile 105.6, remain closed to vessel traffic to install final components of a Washington State DOT funded program for passenger service. During this installation period, the swing span of the BNSF Railway Bridge across the Columbia River at Vancouver, WA, will be in the closed-to-navigation position, however, the span may be opened for emergency vessels responding to any calls. The BNSF Swing Bridge, mile 105.6, provides 39 feet of vertical clearance above Columbia River Datum 0.0 while in the closed position. Vessels able to pass through the bridge in the closed positions may do so at anytime. The current operating schedule for the bridge is set out in 33 CFR 117.5. The normal operating schedule for the BNSF Swing Bridge states that the bridge must open promptly and fully on request. This deviation allows the swing span of the BNSF Railway Bridge across the Columbia River, mile 105.6, to remain in the closed-to-navigation position, and need not open for maritime traffic from 5 p.m. on April 27, 2015 until 9 a.m. on April 28, 2015. The bridge shall operate in accordance to 33 CFR 117.5 at all other times. Waterway usage on this part of the Columbia River includes vessels ranging from commercial tug and tow vessels to recreational pleasure craft including cabin cruisers and sailing vessels. The bridge can be opened for emergency vessels in response to a call, however, if an opening for emergencies is needed, an extension of this deviation will be required to complete the work. No immediate alternate route for vessels to pass is available on this part of the river. The Coast Guard will also inform the users of the waterways through our Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the change in operating schedule for the bridge so that vessels can arrange their transits to minimize any impact caused by the temporary deviation.

In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the designated time period. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

In rule FR Doc. 2014-26051 published in the Federal Register at 79 FR 74985, December 16, 2015, make the following corrections:

I. Background

The NASA FAR Supplement (NFS) is codified at 48 CFR part 1800. Periodically, NASA performs a comprehensive review and analysis of the regulation, makes updates and corrections, and reissues the NASA FAR Supplement. The last reissue was in 2004. The goal of the review and analysis is to reduce regulatory burden where justified and appropriate and make the NFS content and processes more efficient and effective, faster and simpler, in support of NASA's mission. Consistent with Executive Order (E.O.) 13563, Improving Regulations and Regulatory Review, NASA is currently reviewing and revising the NFS with an emphasis on streamlining it and reducing associated burdens. Due to the volume of the NFS, these revisions are being made in increments.

NASA published two proposed rules as the first two incremental steps to update and revise the NASA FAR Supplement: 78 FR 23199-23203, April 18, 2013, and 79 FR 57015-57032, September 24, 2014. Together, these two rules proposed regulatory changes to 19 Parts of the NFS. The two rules also advised the public that no regulatory changes were being made to an additional 13 NFS Parts.

This final rule finalizes these two proposed rules.

NASA reviewed the public comments in the development of the final rule. A discussion of the comments and the changes made to the rule as a result of those comments are provided as follows:

The definitions of “counterfeit goods” and “legally authorized source” at 1846.101 are deleted. NASA, in conjunction with the FAR Council, is working to develop and implement a definition of counterfeit part in the Federal Acquisition Regulation, which would also address the concept of “legally authorized sources”. Consequently, the NFS will not have an independent definition of either “counterfeit goods” or “legally authorized source”. Rather, use of the term counterfeit part in the NFS will be consistent with the FAR definition.

Comment: In response to proposed rule #1, NASA received comments from three respondents. The three respondents suggested that the proposed definitions of “counterfeit goods” and “legally authorized source” were problematic in that they introduce inconsistencies with standard industry usage of the terms and potential FAR definitions.

Response: The definitions of both terms have been deleted. NASA concurs that a Federal definition in the FAR is appropriate, and has been part of team working to implement FAR definitions. (Reference FAR Case 2013-002)

Comment: In response to proposed rule #2, NASA received comments from one respondent requesting that NASA delete 1852.227-14(c)(1)(iv) because it adds unnecessary notice and marking requirements.

Response: NASA revised Part 1827 to conform to recent FAR changes to Part 27, and 14 CFR 1245.100-117, but did not make significant changes to current coverage regarding NASA requirements related to data rights. The FAR clause at FAR 52.227-14(c)(1), Copyright, does not address the NASA-specific rights afforded NASA under the Space Act (51 U.S.C. 20135(b). Consequently, the notice and marking requirements at 1852.227-14 (c)(1)(iv) are appropriate and remain in the final rule.

Comment: In response to proposed rule # 2, NASA received comments from one respondent suggesting that 1852.227-88 lacked a prescription and rationale.

Response: Clause 1852.227-88 will be included in solicitations and contracts on a case-by-case basis dependent upon the Government-owned software provided under the contract. NASA will utilize the clause judiciously in order to reduce contract costs. Offerors will be reimbursed for any associated costs when the clause is utilized.

In proposed rule # 2, NASA notes an error in the publication and makes a technical correction in this final rule. At 1816.402.274(g)(3), the proposed rule should have stated a flat rate of 10% in lieu of a recommended rate of “up to 15%” for use when evaluating contractor performance related to compliance with subcontracting plans. Instead, the proposed rule retained the current, extraneous language “up to” before the 10% which is inappropriate. The final rule removes “up to”.

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 not a significant regulatory action and, therefore, was not subject to review under Section 6(b) of E.O. 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, dated September 30, 1993. This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804.

NASA certifies that this final rule will not 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 it mainly clarifies or updates existing regulations. In several instances, this rule deletes existing requirements which eases the regulatory burden on all entities.

The proposed rule #1 included an application for clearance of a new information collection requirement that requires the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). The collection is at 1852.215-77(c), Pre-proposal/pre-bid conference, wherein attendees at pre-proposal or pre-bid conferences will be required to submit personal identity information. NASA did not receive any comments on the information collection request.

Needs and Uses: This information collection requires contractors to supply personal identity information for attendees at pre-proposal conferences that are held at NASA facilities. The information includes, but is not limited to name, social security number, place of birth, and citizenship. NASA will utilize the information to perform security checks for entrance to NASA facilities. Without the collection of this information, NASA will be unable to permit entrance to NASA facilities for attendance at pre-proposal conferences.

Affected Public: Businesses or other for-profit and not-for-profit institutions.

Frequency: On occasion.

Approval of the information collection request from the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35) is expected concurrent with the final rule.

Accordingly, 48 CFR parts 1809, 1815, 1816, 1817, 1819, 1823, 1827, 1828, 1831, 1832, 1834, 1837, 1841, 1842, 1846, 1849, 1951, and 1852 are amended as follows: