11048 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 39 / Thursday, February 27, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 3535(d) and 4321– 

4335; and Executive Order 11991, 3 CFR, 

1977 Comp., p. 123. 

■ 2. In § 50.18, designate the 

undesignated paragraph as paragraph (b) 

and add new paragraph (a) to read as 

follows: 

§ 50.18 General. 

(a) The Departmental Environmental 

Clearance Officer (DECO) shall establish 

a prescribed format to be used to 

document compliance with NEPA and 

the Federal laws and authorities cited in 

§ 50.4 where their applicability is 

indicated below. The DECO may 

prescribe alternative formats as 

necessary to meet specific program 

needs. 

* * * * * 

■ 3. Revise § 50.20(a) to read as follows: 

§ 50.20 Categorical exclusions subject to 

the Federal laws and authorities cited in 

§ 50.4. 

(a) The following actions, activities, 

and programs are categorically excluded 

from the NEPA requirements for further 

review in an Environmental Assessment 

or an Environmental Impact Statement 

as set forth in this part. They are not 

excluded from individual compliance 

requirements of other environmental 

statutes, Executive orders, and HUD 

standards cited in § 50.4, where 

appropriate. Where the responsible 

official determines that any proposed 

action identified below may have an 

environmental effect because of 

extraordinary circumstances (40 CFR 

1508.4), the requirements for further 

review under NEPA shall apply (see 

paragraph (b) of this section). 

* * * * * 

■ 4. Revise § 50.31(a) to read as follows: 

§ 50.31 The EA. 

(a) The Departmental Environmental 

Clearance Officer (DECO) shall establish 

a prescribed format used for the 

environmental analysis and 

documentation of projects and activities 

under subpart E. The DECO may 

prescribe alternative formats as is 

necessary to meet specific program 

needs. 

* * * * * 

PART 58—ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW 

PROCEDURES FOR ENTITIES 

ASSUMING HUD ENVIRONMENTAL 

RESPONSIBILITIES 

■ 5. The authority citation for part 58 is 

revised to read as follows: 

Authority: 12 U.S.C. 1707 note, 1715z– 

13a(k); 25 U.S.C. 4115 and 4226; 42 U.S.C. 

1437x, 3535(d), 3547, 4321–4335, 4852, 

5304(g), 12838, and 12905(h); title II of Pub. 

L. 105–276; E.O. 11514 as amended by E.O. 

11991, 3 CFR, 1977 Comp., p. 123. 

■ 6. In § 58.38, revise the introductory 

text to read as follows: 

§ 58.38 Environmental review record. 

The responsible entity must maintain 

a written record of the environmental 

review undertaken under this part for 

each project. This document will be 

designated the ‘‘Environmental Review 

Record’’ (ERR) and shall be available for 

public review. The Departmental 

Environmental Clearance Officer 

(DECO) shall establish a prescribed 

format that the responsible entity shall 

use to prepare the ERR. The DECO may 

prescribe alternative formats as is 

necessary to meet specific program 

needs. 

* * * * * 

■ 7. In § 58.40, revise the introductory 

text and paragraph (e) to read as follows: 

§ 58.40 Preparing the environmental 

assessment. 

The DECO shall establish a prescribed 

format that the responsible entity shall 

use to prepare the EA. The DECO may 

prescribe alternative formats as is 

necessary to meet specific program 

needs. In preparing an EA for a 

particular proposed project or other 

action, the responsible entity must: 

* * * * * 

(e) Discuss the need for the proposal, 

appropriate alternatives where the 

proposal involves unresolved conflicts 

concerning alternative uses of available 

resources, the environmental impacts of 

the proposed action and alternatives, 

and a listing of agencies and persons 

consulted. 

* * * * * 

Dated: January 31, 2014. 

Shaun Donovan, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2014–04206 Filed 2–26–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4210–67–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Office of the Secretary 

[Docket ID: DoD–2014–OS–0024] 

32 CFR Part 311 

Privacy Act; Implementation 

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, DoD. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Office of the Secretary of 

Defense (OSD) is amending its 

regulations to exempt portions of a new 

system of records from certain 

provisions of the Privacy Act. 

Specifically, the Department proposes to 

exempt portions of DMDC 16 DoD, 

entitled ‘‘Interoperability Layer Service 

(IoLS)’’ from one or more provisions of 

the Privacy Act because of criminal, 

civil, and administrative enforcement 

requirements. In 2008, the U.S. Congress 

passed legislation that obligated the 

Secretary of Defense to develop access 

standards for visitors applicable to all 

military installations in the U.S. The 

Department of Defense (DoD) developed 

a visitor system to manage multiple 

databases that are capable of identifying 

individuals seeking access to DoD 

installations who may be criminal and/ 

or security threats. The purpose of the 

vetting system is to screen individuals 

wishing to enter a DoD facility, to 

include those who have been previously 

given authority to access DoD 

installations, against the FBI National 

Crime Information Center (NCIC) 

Wanted Person File. The NCIC has a 

properly documented exemption rule 

and to the extent that portions of these 

exempt records may become part of 

IoLS, OSD hereby claims the same 

exemptions for the records as claimed at 

their source (JUSTICE/FBI–001, 

National Crime Information Center 

(NCIC)). 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before April 28, 2014 to be 

considered by this agency. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by docket number and/or RIN 

number and title, by any of the 

following methods: 

• Federal Rulemaking Portal: http://

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Mail: Federal Docket Management 

System Office, 4800 Mark Center Drive, 

2nd floor, East Tower, Suite 02G09, 

Alexandria, VA 22350–3100. 

Instructions: All submissions received 

must include the agency name and 

docket number or Regulatory 

Information Number (RIN) for this 

Federal Register document. The general 

policy for comments and other 

submissions from members of the public 

is to make these submissions available 

for public viewing on the Internet at 

http://www.regulations.gov as they are 

received without change, including any 

personal identifiers or contact 

information. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Cindy Allard at (571) 372–0461. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 39 / Thursday, February 27, 2014 / Proposed Rules 11049 

Executive Order 12866, ‘‘Regulatory 

Planning and Review’’ and Executive 

Order 13563, ‘‘Improving Regulation 

and Regulatory Review’’ 

It has been determined that this rule 

is not a significant rule. This rule does 

not (1) Have an annual effect on the 

economy of $100 million or more or 

adversely affect in a material way the 

economy; a sector of the economy; 

productivity; competition; jobs; the 

environment; public health or safety; or 

State, local, or tribal governments or 

communities; (2) Create a serious 

inconsistency or otherwise interfere 

with an action taken or planned by 

another Agency; (3) Materially alter the 

budgetary impact of entitlements, 

grants, user fees, or loan programs, or 

the rights and obligations of recipients 

thereof; or (4) Raise novel legal or policy 

issues arising out of legal mandates, the 

President’s priorities, or the principles 

set forth in these Executive orders. 

Public Law 96–354, ‘‘Regulatory 

Flexibility Act’’ (5 U.S.C. Chapter 6) 

It has been determined that this rule 

for does not have significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities because it is concerned only 

with the administration of Privacy Act 

systems of records within the 

Department of Defense. A Regulatory 

Flexibility Analysis is not required. 

Public Law 95–511, ‘‘Paperwork 

Reduction Act’’ (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) 

This rule does not contain any 

information collection requirements 

subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act 

of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). 

Section 202, Public Law 104–4, 

‘‘Unfunded Mandates Reform Act’’ 

It has been determined that this rule 

does not involve a Federal mandate that 

may result in the expenditure by State, 

local and tribal governments, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector, of 

$100 million or more and will not 

significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments. 

Executive Order 13132, ‘‘Federalism’’ 

Executive Order 13132 requires 

regulations be reviewed for Federalism 

effects on the institutional interest of 

states and local governments, and if the 

effects are sufficiently substantial, 

preparation of the Federal assessment is 

required to assist senior policy makers. 

The amendments will not have any 

substantial direct effects on state and 

local governments within the meaning 

of the EO. Therefore, no Federalism 

assessment is required. 

List of Subjects in 32 CFR Part 311 

Privacy. 

Accordingly, 32 CFR part 311 is 

proposed to be amended to read as 

follows: 

PART 311—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for 32 CFR 

part 311 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: Pub. L. 93–579, 88 Stat. 1986 

(5 U.S.C. 522a). 

■ 2. Section 311.8 is amended by adding 

paragraph (c)(21) as follows: 

§ 311.8 Procedures for exemptions. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(21) System identifier and name: 

DMDC 16 DoD, Interoperability Layer 

Service (IoLS). 

(i) Exemption: To the extent that 

copies of exempt records from JUSTICE/ 

FBI–001, National Crime Information 

Center (NCIC) are entered into the 

Interoperability Layer Systems records, 

the OSD hereby claims the same 

exemptions, (j)(2) and (k)(3), for the 

records as claimed in JUSTICE/FBI–001, 

National Crime Information Center 

(NCIC). Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a 

portions of this system that fall within 

(j)(2) and (k)(3) are exempt from the 

following provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552a, 

section (c)(3) and (4); (d); (e)(1) through 

(3); (e)(4)(G) through (I); (e)(5) and (8); 

(f); and (g) (as applicable) of the Act. 

(ii) Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2) and 

(k)(3). 

(iii) Reasons: (A) From subsection 

(c)(3) because making available to a 

record subject the accounting of 

disclosure from records concerning him 

or her would specifically reveal any 

investigative interest in the individual. 

Revealing this information could 

reasonably be expected to compromise 

ongoing efforts to investigate a known or 

suspected terrorist by notifying the 

record subject that he or she is under 

investigation. This information could 

also permit the record subject to take 

measures to impede the investigation, 

e.g., destroy evidence, intimidate 

potential witnesses, or flee the area to 

avoid or impede the investigation. 

(B) From subsection (c)(4) because 

portions of this system are exempt from 

the access and amendment provisions of 

subsection (d). 

(C) From subsection (d) because these 

provisions concern individual access to 

and amendment of certain records 

contained in this system, including law 

enforcement, counterterrorism, 

investigatory, and intelligence records. 

Compliance with these provisions could 

alert the subject of an investigation of 

the fact and nature of the investigation, 

and/or the investigative interest of 

intelligence or law enforcement 

agencies; compromise sensitive 

information related to national security; 

interfere with the overall law 

enforcement process by leading to the 

destruction of evidence, improper 

influencing of witnesses, fabrication of 

testimony, and/or flight of the subject; 

could identify a confidential source or 

disclose information which would 

constitute an unwarranted invasion of 

another’s personal privacy; reveal a 

sensitive investigative or intelligence 

technique; or constitute a potential 

danger to the health or safety of law 

enforcement personnel, confidential 

informants, and witnesses. Amendment 

of these records would interfere with 

ongoing counterterrorism, law 

enforcement, or intelligence 

investigations and analysis activities 

and impose an impossible 

administrative burden by requiring 

investigations, analyses, and reports to 

be continuously reinvestigated and 

revised. 

(D) From subsection (e)(1) because it 

is not always possible to determine 

what information is relevant and 

necessary to complete an identity 

comparison between the individual 

seeking access and a known or 

suspected terrorist. Also, because DoD 

and other agencies may not always 

know what information about an 

encounter with a known or suspected 

terrorist will be relevant to law 

enforcement for the purpose of 

conducting an operational response. 

(E) From subsection (e)(2) because 

application of this provision could 

present a serious impediment to 

counterterrorism, law enforcement, or 

intelligence efforts in that it would put 

the subject of an investigation, study, or 

analysis on notice of that fact, thereby 

permitting the subject to engage in 

conduct designed to frustrate or impede 

that activity. The nature of 

counterterrorism, law enforcement, or 

intelligence investigations is such that 

vital information about an individual 

frequently can be obtained only from 

other persons who are familiar with 

such individual and his/her activities. 

In such investigations, it is not feasible 

to rely upon information furnished by 

the individual concerning his own 

activities. 

(F) From subsection (e)(3) to the 

extent that this subsection is interpreted 

to require DoD to provide notice to an 

individual if DoD or another agency 

receives or collects information about 

that individual during an investigation 

or from a third party. Should this 

subsection be so interpreted, exemption 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
11050 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 39 / Thursday, February 27, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

from this provision is necessary to avoid 

impeding counterterrorism, law 

enforcement, or intelligence efforts by 

putting the subject of an investigation, 

study, or analysis on notice of that fact, 

thereby permitting the subject to engage 

in conduct intended to frustrate or 

impede the activity. 

(G) From subsection (e)(4)(G), 

(e)(4)(H), and (e)(4)(I) (Agency 

Requirements) because portions of this 

system are exempt from the access and 

amendment provisions of subsection 

(d). 

(H) From subsection (e)(5) because the 

requirement that records be maintained 

with attention to accuracy, relevance, 

timeliness, and completeness could 

unfairly hamper law enforcement 

processes. It is the nature of law 

enforcement to uncover the commission 

of illegal acts at diverse stages. It is often 

impossible to determine initially what 

information is accurate, relevant, timely, 

and least of all complete. With the 

passage of time, seemingly irrelevant or 

untimely information may acquire new 

significance as further details are 

brought to light. 

(I) From subsection (e)(8) because the 

requirement to serve notice on an 

individual when a record is disclosed 

under compulsory legal process could 

unfairly hamper law enforcement 

processes. It is the nature of law 

enforcement that there are instances 

where compliance with these provisions 

could alert the subject of an 

investigation of the fact and nature of 

the investigation, and/or the 

investigative interest of intelligence or 

law enforcement agencies; compromise 

sensitive information related to national 

security; interfere with the overall law 

enforcement process by leading to the 

destruction of evidence, improper 

influencing of witnesses, fabrication of 

testimony, and/or flight of the subject; 

reveal a sensitive investigative or 

intelligence technique; or constitute a 

potential danger to the health or safety 

of law enforcement personnel, 

confidential informants, and witnesses. 

(J) From subsection (f) because 

requiring the Agency to grant access to 

records and establishing agency rules 

for amendment of records would 

unfairly impede the agency’s law 

enforcement mission. To require the 

confirmation or denial of the existence 

of a record pertaining to a requesting 

individual may in itself provide an 

answer to that individual relating to the 

existence of an on-going investigation. 

The investigation of possible unlawful 

activities would be jeopardized by 

agency rules requiring verification of the 

record, disclosure of the record to the 

subject, and record amendment 

procedures. 

(K) From subsection (g) to the extent 

that the system is exempt from other 

specific subsections of the Privacy Act. 

Dated: February 21, 2014. 

Aaron Siegel, 

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison 

Officer, Department of Defense. 

[FR Doc. 2014–04273 Filed 2–26–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 5001–06–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R05–OAR–2013–0645; FRL–9907–07– 

Region 5] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; 

Wisconsin; Transportation Conformity 

Procedures 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a 

revision submitted by the State of 

Wisconsin on August 1, 2013, for the 

purpose of establishing transportation 

conformity (conformity) criteria and 

procedures related to interagency 

consultation, and the enforceability of 

certain transportation related control 

and mitigation measures. This revision 

replaces Wisconsin’s conformity State 

Implementaion Plan (SIP) that was 

approved on August 27, 1996. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before March 31, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05– 

OAR–2013–0645, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. Email: blakley.pamela@epa.gov. 

3. Fax: (312) 692–2450. 

4. Mail: Pamela Blakley, Chief, 

Control Strategies Section, Air Programs 

Branch (AR–18J), U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson 

Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. 

5. Hand Delivery: Pamela Blakley, 

Chief, Control Strategies Section, Air 

Programs Branch (AR–18J), U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 77 

West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, 

Illinois 60604. Such deliveries are only 

accepted during the Regional Office 

normal hours of operation, and special 

arrangements should be made for 

deliveries of boxed information. The 

Regional Office official hours of 

business are Monday through Friday, 

8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding 

Federal holidays. 

Please see the direct final rule which 

is located in the Rules section of this 

Federal Register for detailed 

instructions on how to submit 

comments. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Michael Leslie, Environmental 

Engineer, Control Strategies Section, Air 

Programs Branch (AR–18J), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 

Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 353–6680, 

leslie.michael@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the 

Rules section of this Federal Register, 

EPA is approving Wisconsin’s SIP 

submittal as a direct final rule without 

prior proposal because the Agency 

views this as a noncontroversial 

submittal and anticipates no adverse 

comments. A detailed rationale for the 

approval is set forth in the direct final 

rule. If no adverse comments are 

received in response to this rule, no 

further activity is contemplated. If EPA 

receives 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 rule. EPA will 

not institute a second comment period. 

Any parties interested in commenting 

on this action should do so at this time. 

Please note that if EPA receives adverse 

comment on an amendment, paragraph, 

or section of this rule and if that 

provision may be severed from the 

remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt 

as final those provisions 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. 

Dated: February 10, 2014. 

Susan Hedman, 

Regional Administrator, Region 5. 

[FR Doc. 2014–04167 Filed 2–26–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS