Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 238 / Wednesday, December 13, 2023 / Proposed Rules 86285 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Bureau of Safety and Environmental 

Enforcement 

30 CFR Parts 250 and 290 

[Docket ID: BSEE–2023–0014 EEEE500000 

245E1700D2 ET1SF0000.EAQ000] 

RIN: 1014–AA57 

Bonding Requirements When Filing an 

Appeal of a Bureau of Safety and 

Environmental Enforcement Civil 

Penalty 

AGENCY: Bureau of Safety and 

Environmental Enforcement (BSEE), 

Interior. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Department of the 

Interior (Interior) is proposing to amend 

regulations administered by the Bureau 

of Safety and Environmental 

Enforcement (BSEE) regarding the 

bonding requirements for entities filing 

an appeal of a BSEE decision that 

assesses a civil penalty. The proposed 

regulations would clarify that entities 

appealing a BSEE civil penalty decision 

to the Interior Board of Land Appeals 

(IBLA) must have a bond covering the 

civil penalty assessment amount for the 

IBLA to have jurisdiction over the 

appeal. 

DATES: Submit comments on the 

proposed rule to BSEE by February 12, 

2024. BSEE may not fully consider 

comments received after this date. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

on the proposed rulemaking by any of 

the following methods. Please use the 

Regulation Identifier Number (RIN) 

1014–AA57 as an identifier in your 

message. 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

https://www.regulations.gov. In the 

entry titled Enter Keyword or ID, enter 

BSEE–2023–0014 then click search. 

Follow the instructions to submit public 

comments and view supporting and 

related materials available for this 

rulemaking. BSEE may post all 

comments submitted. 

• Mail or hand-carry comments to the 

Department of the Interior; Bureau of 

Safety and Environmental Enforcement; 

Attention: Regulations and Standards 

Branch; 45600 Woodland Road, 

Sterling, Virginia 20166. Please 

reference ‘‘Bonding Requirements When 

Filing an Appeal of a Bureau of Safety 

and Environmental Enforcement Civil 

Penalty, 1014–AA57’’ in your comments 

and include your name and return 

address. 

Before including your address, phone 

number, email address, or other 

personal identifying information in your 

comment, you should be aware that 

your entire comment—including your 

personal identifying information—may 

be made publicly available at any time. 

In order for BSEE to withhold from 

disclosure your personal identifying 

information, you must identify any 

information contained in your comment 

submittal that, if released, would 

constitute a clearly unwarranted 

invasion of your personal privacy. You 

must also briefly describe any possible 

harmful consequence(s) of the 

disclosure of information, such as 

embarrassment, injury, or other harm. 

While you can ask us in your comment 

to withhold your personal identifying 

information from public review, we 

cannot guarantee that we will be able to 

do so. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

technical questions, contact Janine 

Marie Tobias at Janine.Tobias@bsee.gov 

or (202) 208–4657. For procedural 

questions, contact Kirk Malstrom at 

(703) 787–1751 or by email at regs@

bsee.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Executive Summary 

Pursuant to the Outer Continental 

Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA) (43 U.S.C. 

1350), BSEE has the delegated authority 

to assess civil penalties to certain 

entities engaged in oil and gas 

exploration, development, and 

production operations on the Outer 

Continental Shelf (OCS) following 

certain violations by those entities of a 

statutory provision, regulation, order, or 

lease term. The Department’s 

implementing regulations for this 

authority are located at 30 CFR part 250, 

subpart N—Outer Continental Shelf 

Civil Penalties (§§ 250.1400–250.1409). 

Additional relevant regulations 

regarding the procedures for appealing 

civil penalty assessments are at 30 CFR 

part 290, subpart A-Bureau of Safety 

and Environmental Enforcement Appeal 

Procedures (§§ 290.1–290.8). 

BSEE recently commenced a review of 

its civil penalty assessment appeal 

processes at 30 CFR part 250, subpart N 

and 30 CFR part 290, subpart A. BSEE’s 

review was initiated following the 

IBLA’s July 7, 2022, order in Petro 

Ventures, Inc. (IBLA No. 2020–48) 

analyzing the effect of the civil penalty 

appeal bonding requirements in 30 CFR 

250.1409. This regulation, at paragraph 

(b), requires that an entity filing an 

appeal of a civil penalty assessment 

must either ‘‘[s]ubmit a surety bond in 

the amount of the penalty’’ or request 

that ‘‘your lease-specific/area-wide bond 

on file be used as the bond for the 

penalty amount.’’ When Interior 

proposed what is now 30 CFR 250.1409 

in 1999, it explained that the civil 

penalty appeal bonding requirement 

was ‘‘designed to ensure that funds will 

be available to cover the final civil 

penalty assessment if the appeal is 

denied, and to discourage any appeals 

filed for the sole purpose of delaying 

payment of that assessment.’’ 64 FR 

1930, 1966 (January 12, 1999). BSEE and 

its predecessors have consistently 

intended and understood this bonding 

requirement to operate as a condition 

precedent to an entity’s right to pursue 

an appeal, and most entities pursuing 

civil penalty appeals have a similar 

understanding. The IBLA, however, 

concluded in Petro Ventures, Inc. that 

while 30 CFR 250.1409 requires that the 

appealing entity have bonding covering 

the appealed civil penalty amount, the 

regulation is not phrased in such a way 

as to make it a jurisdictional 

precondition or to support dismissal of 

the appeal if the bonding requirement is 

not met. 

Accordingly, Interior is proposing 

revisions to 30 CFR 250.1409, What are 

my appeal rights?, and 30 CFR 290.4, 

How do I file an appeal?, to effectuate 

the original intent of the bonding 

requirement by ensuring that bonding is 

a jurisdictional precondition for 

maintaining an appeal of a BSEE civil 

penalty assessment at the IBLA. 

Section-by-Section Discussion of 

Proposed Changes 

What are my appeal rights? (§ 250.1409) 

BSEE proposes to change the 

introductory sentence of § 250.1409(b) 

from ‘‘If you file an appeal, you must 

either:’’ to ‘‘In order to file an appeal, 

you must perform one of the following 

actions within the 60-day appeal period 

to have your appeal heard:’’. BSEE also 

proposes to move existing § 250.1409(d) 

to a new § 250.1409(e). The new 

proposed § 250.1409(d) would state: 

‘‘Satisfying the bonding requirement in 

paragraph (b) of this section is a 

jurisdictional precondition for a civil 

penalty appeal. If you have timely filed 

a request with BOEM pursuant to 

paragraph (b)(2) of this section to use 

your lease-specific/area-wide bond on 

file as the bond for the penalty amount, 

the IBLA’s jurisdiction over the appeal 

is preserved while BOEM’s decision on 

your request is pending. Should BOEM 

deny your request or require additional 

security pursuant to paragraph (c) of 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
86286 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 238 / Wednesday, December 13, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

this section, you have 30 days to satisfy 

paragraph (b)(1) of this section or post 

the required additional security, as 

applicable, and jurisdiction is preserved 

during that 30-day period. If you fail to 

satisfy these bonding requirements, the 

IBLA will lose jurisdiction and must 

dismiss your appeal.’’ Together, these 

proposed provisions would effectuate 

the intended functions of BSEE’s 

bonding requirements for filing and 

maintaining a civil penalty appeal at the 

IBLA. BSEE requires bonding covering 

the civil penalty amount for all civil 

penalty appeals to ensure that funds 

will be available to cover the civil 

penalty amount if the assessment is 

upheld and to discourage appeals filed 

for the sole purpose of delaying 

payment of that assessment. 

Lastly, BSEE proposes to modify the 

existing § 250.1409(d), which would 

become the new § 250.1409(e), by 

changing the introductory sentence from 

‘‘If you do not either pay the penalty or 

file a timely appeal, BSEE will take one 

or more of the following actions:’’ to ‘‘If 

you do not either pay the penalty or 

fully satisfy the appeal requirements, 

the Department may take one or more of 

the following actions:’’. In paragraph 

(e)(1), BSEE proposes to delete ‘‘We 

will’’ and start the sentence with 

‘‘Collect.’’ In paragraph (e)(2), BSEE 

proposes to delete ‘‘We may’’ and start 

the sentence with ‘‘Initiate.’’ In 

paragraph (e)(3), BSEE proposes to 

delete ‘‘We may’’ and start the sentence 

with ‘‘Bar.’’ BSEE proposes these edits 

because different entities within Interior 

may take the listed actions and to 

improve the grammatical structure of 

the overall provision. 

How do I file an appeal? (§ 290.4) 

BSEE proposes to add a new 

paragraph (c) to § 290.4. Existing § 290.4 

sets forth the items that BSEE must 

receive within 60 days after a party 

receives the appealed decision for the 

appeal to be considered properly filed. 

The proposed paragraph (c) would add 

to that list: ‘‘If you are appealing a civil 

penalty assessment, either notification 

of payment of the penalty or 

documentation demonstrating 

satisfaction of the requirements in 30 

CFR 250.1409(b).’’ As with the other 

appeal filing requirements in the 

section, it would also expressly state 

that the appellant ‘‘cannot extend the 

60-day period for satisfying this 

requirement, except as specifically 

provided in 30 CFR 250.1409(d).’’ BSEE 

is proposing these additions to ensure 

awareness of, and consistency with, the 

requirements in the proposed 

§ 250.1409; to ensure that appealing 

entities timely provide BSEE with 

documentation demonstrating 

compliance with § 250.1409; and to 

further emphasize the nature of the 

bonding requirement as a jurisdictional 

precondition to maintenance of an 

appeal. 

Procedural Matters 

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 

et seq.) 

When an agency issues a rulemaking 

proposal, the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(RFA) requires the agency to ‘‘prepare 

and make available for public comment 

an initial regulatory flexibility analysis’’ 

that will ‘‘describe the impact of the 

proposed rule on small entities.’’ (5 

U.S.C. 603(a)). Section 605 of the RFA 

allows an agency to certify a rule, in lieu 

of preparing an analysis, if the proposed 

rulemaking is not expected to have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

BSEE estimates that at least 80 entities 

(lessees, grant holders, and operators) 

would be subject to this proposed rule, 

of which approximately 60 percent are 

small according to the U.S. Small 

Business Administration size standards 

based on each firm’s North American 

Industry Classification System code, 

number of employees, and annual 

revenues. Therefore, BSEE has 

determined that this proposed rule 

would apply to a substantial number of 

small entities. 

However, BSEE has determined that 

the impact on entities affected by the 

proposed rule would not be significant. 

The provisions would only align the 

language of the regulations with BSEE’s 

and the regulated industry’s 

longstanding understanding of the 

effects of the existing requirement. 

Existing regulations have long required 

satisfaction of appeal bonding 

requirements for appeals of civil penalty 

assessments, and the proposed revisions 

would only clarify the procedural 

effects of noncompliance with that 

requirement. They would not add any 

cost burdens to entities that would be 

subject to the proposed rule. 

Accordingly, the Department hereby 

certifies that this proposed rule would 

not have a significant economic impact 

on a substantial number of small 

entities. BSEE invites comments from 

members of the public who believe 

there would be a significant impact on 

companies subject to the proposed rule. 

Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801– 

808) 

The Congressional Review Act (CRA) 

defines a rule as major if it meets any 

of three criteria. The three criteria are: 

A. Does the rule have an annual effect 

on the economy of $100 million or 

more? 

B. Will the rule cause a major increase 

in the cost or prices for consumers, 

individual industries, Federal, State, or 

local government agencies, or 

geographic regions? 

C. Does the rule have significant 

adverse effects on competition, 

employment, investment, productivity, 

innovation, or the ability of U.S.-based 

enterprises to compete with foreignbased enterprises? 

This proposed rule is not a major rule 

under the CRA. This rule would neither 

generate an annual economic effect of 

$100 million or more; nor cause major 

price increases for consumers, 

businesses, or governments, or 

geographic regions; nor degrade 

competition, employment, investment, 

productivity, innovation, or the ability 

of U.S. businesses to compete against 

foreign businesses. Its effects would be 

purely administrative, legal, and 

procedural. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

(2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.) 

This proposed rule would not impose 

an unfunded mandate on state, local, or 

Tribal governments or the private sector 

of more than $189 million per year. The 

proposed rule would not have a 

significant or unique effect on State, 

local, or Tribal governments or the 

private sector. A statement containing 

the information required by the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act is not 

required. 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) 

This proposed rule does not contain 

information collection requirements, 

and a submission to the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) under 

the Paperwork Reduction Act is not 

required. We may not conduct or 

sponsor, and you are not required to 

respond to, a collection of information 

unless it displays a currently valid OMB 

control number. 

National Environmental Policy Act of 

1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321–4347) 

This proposed rule would not 

constitute a major Federal action 

significantly affecting the quality of the 

human environment. A detailed 

statement under the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA) is not required because, as a 

regulation of an administrative, legal, 

and procedural nature, this proposed 

rule is covered by a categorical 

exclusion (see 43 CFR 46.210(i)). BSEE 

also determined that the proposed rule 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 238 / Wednesday, December 13, 2023 / Proposed Rules 86287 

would not implicate any of the 

extraordinary circumstances listed in 43 

CFR 46.215 that would require further 

analysis under NEPA. Therefore, a 

detailed statement under NEPA is not 

required. 

Regulatory Planning and Review 

(Executive Orders (E.O.) 12866 and 

13563) 

E.O. 12866, Regulatory Planning and 

Review, as amended by E.O. 14094, 

provides that OMB’s Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs 

(OIRA) will review all significant 

regulatory actions. A significant 

regulatory action is one that is likely to 

result in a rule that: 

A. Has an annual effect on the 

economy of $200 million or more 

(adjusted every 3 years by the 

Administrator of OIRA for changes in 

gross domestic product); or adversely 

affects in a material way the economy, 

a sector of the economy, productivity, 

competition, jobs, the environment, 

public health or safety, or State, local, 

territorial, or Tribal governments or 

communities; 

B. Creates a serious inconsistency or 

otherwise interferes with an action 

taken or planned by another agency; 

C. Materially alters the budgetary 

impacts of entitlements, grants, user 

fees, loan programs, or the rights and 

obligations of recipients thereof; or 

D. Raises legal or policy issues for 

which centralized review would 

meaningfully further the President’s 

priorities or the principles set forth in 

E.O. 12866. 

OIRA has concluded that this 

proposed rule is not a significant action 

under E.O. 12866. The provisions would 

only align the language of the 

regulations with BSEE’s and the 

regulated industry’s longstanding 

understanding of the effects of the 

existing requirements and would not 

add any cost burdens to entities that 

would be subject to the proposed rule, 

yielding only procedural effects. 

Accordingly, BSEE does not anticipate 

that this proposed rule would have an 

annual economic impact of $200 million 

or more or would have a material 

adverse effect on the economy, a sector 

of the economy, productivity, 

competition, jobs, public health or 

safety, the environment, or State, local, 

or Tribal governments or communities. 

This proposed rule also would not raise 

novel legal or policy issues. 

E.O. 13563, Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review, reaffirms the 

principles of E.O. 12866 while calling 

for improvements in the Nation’s 

regulatory system to promote 

predictability, to reduce uncertainty, 

and to use the best, most innovative, 

and least burdensome tools for 

achieving regulatory ends. E.O. 13563 

directs agencies to consider regulatory 

approaches that reduce burdens and 

maintain flexibility and freedom of 

choice for the public where these 

approaches are relevant, feasible, and 

consistent with regulatory objectives. 

E.O. 13563 further emphasizes that 

regulations must be based on the best 

available science and that the 

rulemaking process must allow for 

public participation and an open 

exchange of ideas. We have developed 

this proposed rule in a manner 

consistent with these requirements. 

Takings Implication Assessment (E.O. 

12630) 

Under the criteria in E.O. 12630, this 

proposed rule does not have significant 

takings implications. The proposed rule 

is not a governmental action capable of 

interference with constitutionally 

protected property rights. A Takings 

Implication Assessment is not required. 

Federalism (E.O. 13132) 

Under the criteria in E.O. 13132, this 

proposed rule does not have federalism 

implications. This proposed rule would 

not substantially and directly affect the 

relationship between the Federal and 

State governments. To the extent that 

State and local governments have a role 

in OCS activities, this proposed rule 

would not affect that role. A federalism 

assessment is not required. 

Civil Justice Reform (E.O. 12988) 

This proposed rule complies with the 

requirements of E.O. 12988. 

Specifically, this proposed rule: 

A. Meets the criteria of section 3(a) 

requiring that all regulations be 

reviewed to eliminate errors and 

ambiguity and be written to minimize 

litigation; and 

B. Meets the criteria of section 3(b)(2) 

requiring that all regulations be written 

in clear language and contain clear legal 

standards. 

Consultation and Coordination With 

Indian Tribal Governments (E.O. 13175) 

BSEE strives to strengthen its 

government-to-government 

relationships with Tribal Nations and 

Alaska Natives through a commitment 

to consultation with Tribes and 

recognition of their right to selfgovernance and Tribal sovereignty. We 

are also respectful of our responsibilities 

for consultation with Alaska Native 

Claims Settlement Act Corporations. 

BSEE has reviewed this proposed rule 

pursuant to the criteria in E.O. 13175, 

Consultation and Coordination with 

Indian Tribal Governments (dated 

November 6, 2000), Interior’s Policy on 

Consultation with Indian Tribes and 

Policy on Consultation with Alaska 

Native Claims Settlement Act 

Corporations (512 Departmental Manual 

4, dated November 30, 2022, and 512 

Departmental Manual 6, dated 

November 30, 2022, respectively), and 

Interior’s Procedures for Consultation 

with Indian Tribes and Procedures for 

Consultation with Alaska Native Claims 

Settlement Act Corporations (512 

Departmental Manual 5, dated 

November 30, 2022, and 512 

Departmental Manual 7, dated 

November 30, 2022, respectively) and 

has determined that this rule would not 

have substantial direct effects on Tribal 

Nations or Alaska Natives, on the 

relationship between the Federal 

government and Tribal Nations or 

Alaska Natives, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities between the 

federal government and Tribal Nations 

or Alaska Natives. 

Effects on the Nation’s Energy Supply 

(E.O. 13211) 

This proposed rule is not a significant 

energy action under the definition in 

E.O. 13211. This proposed rule is not 

likely to have a significant adverse effect 

on the supply, distribution, or use of 

energy. A Statement of Energy Effects is 

not required. 

Effects on Environmental Justice for 

Minority and Low-Income Populations 

(E.O. 12898) 

E.O. 12898 requires Federal agencies 

to make achieving environmental justice 

part of their mission by identifying and 

addressing disproportionately high and 

adverse human health or environmental 

effects of their programs, policies, and 

activities on minority and low-income 

populations. BSEE has determined that 

this proposed rule would not have a 

disproportionately high or adverse 

human health or environmental effect 

on native, minority, or low-income 

communities because its provisions are 

administrative and procedural in nature 

and do not affect public safety, 

environmental protection, or OCS 

operational requirements. 

Clarity of This Regulation 

We are required by E.O. 12866, E.O. 

12988, and by the Presidential 

Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write 

all rules in plain language. This means 

that each rule we publish must: 

A. Be logically organized; 

B. Use the active voice to address 

readers directly; 

C. Use clear language rather than 

jargon; 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
86288 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 238 / Wednesday, December 13, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

D. Be divided into short sections and 

sentences; and 

E. Use lists and tables whenever 

possible. 

If you feel that we have not met these 

requirements, send us comments by one 

of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES

section. To better help us revise the 

rule, your comments should be as 

specific as possible. For example, you 

should tell us the numbers of the 

sections or paragraphs that you find 

unclear, which sections or sentences are 

too long, or the sections where you feel 

lists or tables would be useful. 

List of Subjects 

30 CFR Part 250 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Continental shelf, 

Environmental impact statements, 

Environmental protection, Government 

contracts, Investigations, Mineral 

resources, Oil and gas exploration, 

Penalties, Pipelines, Continental Shelf— 

mineral resources, Continental Shelf— 

rights-of-way, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur. 

30 CFR Part 290 

Administrative practice and 

procedure. 

Steven H. Feldgus, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary, Land and 

Minerals Management. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, the Department of the Interior 

is proposing to revise 30 CFR parts 250 

and 290 as follows: 

PART 250—OIL AND GAS AND 

SULPHUR OPERATIONS IN THE 

OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 250 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 30 U.S.C. 1751, 31 U.S.C. 9701, 

33 U.S.C. 1321(j)(1)(C), 43 U.S.C. 1334. 

Subpart N—Outer Continental Shelf 

Civil Penalties 

■ 2. Amend § 250.1409 by: 

■ a. Revising paragraph (b) introductory 

text; 

■ b. Redesignating paragraph (d) as 

paragraph (e); 

■ c. Adding new paragraph (d); and 

■ d. Revising paragraph (e). 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: 

§ 250.1409 What are my appeal rights? 

* * * * * 

(b) In order to file an appeal, you must 

perform one of the following actions 

within the 60-day appeal period to have 

your appeal heard: 

* * * * * 

(d) Satisfying the bonding 

requirement in paragraph (b) of this 

section is a jurisdictional precondition 

for a civil penalty appeal. If you have 

timely filed a request with BOEM 

pursuant to paragraph (b)(2) of this 

section to use your lease-specific/areawide bond on file as the bond for the 

penalty amount, the IBLA’s jurisdiction 

over the appeal is preserved while 

BOEM’s decision on your request is 

pending. Should BOEM deny your 

request or require additional security 

pursuant to paragraph (c) of this section, 

you have 30 days to satisfy paragraph 

(b)(1) of this section or post the required 

additional security, as applicable, and 

jurisdiction is preserved during that 30- 

day period. If you fail to satisfy these 

bonding requirements, the IBLA will 

lose jurisdiction and must dismiss your 

appeal. 

(e) If you do not either pay the penalty 

or fully satisfy the appeal requirements, 

the Department may take one or more of 

the following actions: 

(1) Collect the amount you were 

assessed, plus interest, late payment 

charges, and other fees as provided by 

law, from the date you received the 

Reviewing Officer’s final decision until 

the date we receive payment; 

(2) Initiate additional enforcement, 

including, if appropriate, cancellation of 

the lease, right-of-way, license, permit, 

or approval, or the forfeiture of a bond 

under this part; or 

(3) Bar you from doing further 

business with the Federal Government 

according to Executive Orders 12549 

and 12689, and section 2455 of the 

Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 

1994, 31 U.S.C. 6101. The Department 

of the Interior’s regulations 

implementing these authorities are 

found at 43 CFR part 12, subpart D. 

PART 290—APPEAL PROCEDURES 

■ 3. The authority citation for part 290 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 305; 43 U.S.C. 1334. 

Subpart A—Bureau of Safety and 

Environmental Enforcement Appeal 

Procedures 

■ 4. Amend § 290.4 by: 

■ a. Removing the text ‘‘and’’ at the end 

of paragraph (a); 

■ b. Removing the text ‘‘.’’ at the end of 

the sentence and adding the text ‘‘; and’’ 

at the end of the paragraph (b) 

introductory text; and 

■ c. Adding paragraph (c). 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: 

§ 290.4 How do I file an appeal? 

* * * * * 

(c) If you are appealing a civil penalty 

assessment, either notification of 

payment of the penalty or 

documentation demonstrating 

satisfaction of the requirements in 30 

CFR 250.1409(b). You cannot extend the 

60-day period for satisfying this 

requirement, except as specifically 

provided in 30 CFR 250.1409(d). 

[FR Doc. 2023–27079 Filed 12–12–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–VH–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Office of the Secretary 

32 CFR Part 117 

[Docket ID: DoD–2023–OS–0061] 

RIN 0790–AL52 

National Industrial Security Program 

Operating Manual (NISPOM); 

Amendment 

AGENCY: Office of the Under Secretary of 

Defense for Intelligence & Security, 

Department of Defense (DoD). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: DoD is proposing 

amendments to the National Industrial 

Security Program Operating Manual 

(NISPOM) based on public comments 

received on a final rule published on 

December 21, 2020. The proposed 

amendments address implementation 

guidance and costs for the Security 

Executive Agent Directive (SEAD) 3, 

clarifications on procedures for the 

protection and reproduction of 

classified information, controlled 

unclassified information (CUI), National 

Interest Determination (NID) 

requirements for cleared contractors 

operating under a Special Security 

Agreement for Foreign Ownership, 

Control or Influence, and eligibility 

determinations for personnel security 

clearance processes and requirements. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before February 12, 2024. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by docket number and/or 

Regulatory Identifier Number (RIN) and 

title, by any of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Mail: Department of Defense, Office 

of the Assistant to the Secretary of 

Defense for Privacy, Civil Liberties, and 

Transparency, Regulatory Directorate, 

4800 Mark Center Drive, Attn: Mailbox 

24, Suite 08D09, Alexandria, VA 22350– 

1700. 

Instructions: All submissions received 

must include the agency name and 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS