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
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 238 / Wednesday, December 13, 2023 / Proposed Rules 86289 

docket number or 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 at http://www.regulations.gov 

as they are received without change, 

including any personal identifiers or 

contact information. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Allyson Renzella, 703–697–9209. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The NISPOM establishes 

requirements for the protection of 

classified information disclosed to or 

developed by contractors, licensees, 

grantees, or certificate holders to 

prevent unauthorized disclosure. The 

National Industrial Security Program 

(NISP) is established by Executive Order 

(E.O.) 12829 ‘‘National Industrial 

Security Program (NISP)’’ (available at 

https://www.archives.gov/files/isoo/ 

policy-documents/eo-12829-with-eo13691-amendments.pdf) provides a 

single integrated, cohesive industrial 

security program to protect classified 

information to preserve our Nation’s 

economic and technological interests. 

Under the NISP, the USG establishes 

requirements for the protection of 

classified information to be safeguarded 

in a manner equivalent to its protection 

within the executive branch of USG, 

where practicable. For industry, those 

requirements are included in the 

NISPOM. When bound by contract, 

license, or grant, industry must comply 

with the NISPOM and any Cognizant 

Security Agency (CSA)-specific 

supplementary guidance for unique 

CSA mission requirements. As the 

Executive Agent of the NISP, the 

Secretary of Defense is responsible for 

overall implementation of the program. 

The Department of Defense (DoD) issues 

and maintains the NISPOM with the 

concurrence of the other four NISP 

CSAs and in consultation with other 

affected Federal agencies. 

DoD codified the NISPOM in a final 

rule on December 21, 2020 (85 FR 

83300–83364) National Industrial 

Security Program Operating Manual 

(NISPOM) to add 32 CFR part 117 to the 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). The 

rule was effective on February 24, 2021. 

In addition to adding the NISPOM to the 

CFR, the final rule incorporated 

requirements of Security Executive 

Agent Directive (SEAD) 3, Reporting 

Requirements for Personnel with Access 

to Classified Information or Who Hold a 

Sensitive Position. SEAD 3 requires 

reporting by all contractor cleared 

personnel who have been granted 

eligibility for access to classified 

information. The final rule provided a 

single nation-wide implementation plan 

to include SEAD 3 reporting by all 

contractor cleared personnel to report 

specific activities that may adversely 

impact their continued national security 

eligibility, such as reporting of foreign 

travel and foreign contacts. NISP CSAs 

are required to conduct an analysis of 

such reported activities to determine 

whether they pose a potential threat to 

national security and take appropriate 

action. Finally, the rule also 

implemented the provisions of Section 

842 of Public Law 155–232, which 

removed the requirement for a covered 

National Technology and Industrial 

Base (NTIB) entity operating under a 

special security agreement pursuant to 

the NISP to obtain a national interest 

determination as a condition for access 

to proscribed information. The 60-day 

public comment period ended on 

February 19, 2021. 

On August 19, 2021, DoD published a 

technical amendment to the December 

final rule (at 86 FR 46597–46599) to 

extend until August 24, 2022, the 

implementation date for those 

contractors under DoD security 

cognizance to report and obtain preapproval of unofficial foreign travel to 

the DoD. The technical amendment was 

effective on August 19, 2021 and was 

done to allow DoD to make 

modifications to its information 

technology (IT) systems. The technical 

amendment addressed comments from 

regulated parties on the burdensome 

nature of submitting individual foreign 

travel reports for those contractors 

under DoD security cognizance. The 

technical amendment allowed DoD 

more time to make the necessary 

changes to the IT system for multiple 

foreign travel reports in a single 

submission. 

This proposed rule addresses the 

comments received on the final rule 

published in December 2020 and further 

amends the 32 CFR 117 to make the 

following changes as discussed below. 

Discussion of Comments and Changes 

The December 21, 2020 final rule 

received nine sets of public comments 

from five individuals who provided 11 

comments, two companies that 

provided 41 comments, an industry 

representative organization that 

provided 28 comments, and a law firm 

that provided four comments, for a total 

of 84 comments. 

Clarification on Procedures 

The vast majority of the comments 

related to a request for clarification on 

procedures for those contractors under 

DoD security cognizance. Many of the 

comments did not result in a change to 

the rule because they related to 

procedures that a NISP CSA would 

provide to supplement unique CSA 

mission requirements. For contractors 

under DoD security cognizance, DoD 

provides unique CSA mission guidance 

via industrial security letters (ISLs) 

when applicable. ISLs are published on 

the Defense Counterintelligence and 

Security Agency (DCSA) website 

(https://www.dcsa.mil/) and will 

address the comments received and reissue previous NISPOM ISLs, as needed. 

Previous ISLs were tied to the content 

of the NISPOM when it was a DoD 

manual. Some of the guidance 

contained in prior ISLs has been 

incorporated into the rule and is no 

longer needed. Those ISLs that are still 

needed in order to provide further 

guidance to those contractors under 

DoD security cognizance will be reissued in accordance with the rule. 

Comments Related to SEAD 3 

Implementation 

Many comments were received on 

§ 117.8, relating to implementation of 

SEAD 3, Reporting Requirements for 

Personnel with Access to Classified 

Information or Who Hold a Sensitive 

Position, published by the Office of the 

Director of National Intelligence. 

Commenters were concerned with the 

lack of guidance on how information 

systems will be used to report foreign 

travel and when foreign travel reporting 

should be accomplished by contractors. 

Also, commenters requested more 

details as to who approves foreign travel 

requests: the contractor security staff, 

the government customer, or CSA. DoD 

also received comments from regulated 

parties stating it would be burdensome 

for contractors under DoD security 

cognizance to submit individual foreign 

travel reports. Regulated parties 

recommended DoD modify its 

information technology (IT) system so a 

contractor may submit multiple or 

batched foreign travel reports in a single 

submission. As discussed earlier, to 

allow time for the completion of 

modifications to DoD’s IT system, DoD 

published an amendment on August 19, 

2021, to extend until August 24, 2022, 

the implementation date for contractors 

under DoD security cognizance to report 

and obtain pre-approval of unofficial 

foreign travel to DoD. The IT system was 

modified prior to the August 2022 

implementation date and can now 

receive multiple foreign travel reports at 

a time. 

Additionally, one commenter opined 

the cost to contractors to implement 

SEAD 3 was underestimated—both in 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
86290 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 238 / Wednesday, December 13, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

the time it will take to report and the 

number of reports that will be 

generated. We agree with this 

assessment and the corrected numbers 

can be found in the cost analysis section 

of the preamble. Further, commenters 

asked how the CSA will analyze the 

reported data and if the analysis will be 

shared with the contractor or the cleared 

employee going on foreign travel. For 

those contractors under DoD 

cognizance, guidance was provided via 

an ISL (https://www.dcsa.mil/Portals/ 

128/Documents/CTP/tools/ISL2021-02_

SEAD-3.pdf) to provide supplementary 

procedures and inform industry how 

compliance with SEAD 3 will be 

accomplished for unique DoD mission 

needs. 

Controlled Unclassified Information 

DoD received seven comments on CUI 

as it relates to the paragraphs on 

security reviews (§ 117.7), training 

(§ 117.12), and safeguarding CUI 

(§ 117.15). DoD did not make any 

changes to the rule as compliance with 

CUI is outside the scope of the NISP. 

For the purposes of this rule, if a 

contractor has a classified contract that 

also includes provisions for CUI, then, 

under certain circumstances, CUI 

assessments may be conducted by the 

CSA in conjunction with NISP USG 

reviews. The contractor must follow the 

requirements as stated in their contract 

concerning the safeguarding of CUI. 

Security Reviews 

DoD received several comments on 

§ 117.7, to include that a facility 

security officer (FSO) should be a U.S. 

citizen with no exceptions; and the text 

was updated accordingly in 117.7(b). 

The text clarifies that the only exception 

for U.S. citizenship may apply to the 

Senior Management Official or Insider 

Threat Program Senior Official if the 

entity has a limited entity eligibility 

determination due to foreign ownership, 

control, or influence. Two commenters 

observed that § 117.7(h)(1)(i) did not 

include the frequency of security review 

cycles. DoD is accepting this change and 

has modified § 117.7(h)(1)(i) to reflect 

security reviews will only occur once 

every 12 months unless special 

circumstances exist, to include 

addressing security vulnerabilities 

found during a previous security 

review. Another commenter expressed 

concern the final rule allowed a CSA to 

conduct unannounced reviews at its 

discretion without any specific 

guidelines. Based on this comment, DoD 

has proposed to update 

§ 117.7(h)(1)(ii)(A) to clarify 

unannounced security reviews will be 

conducted only if there is a possibility 

of the imminent loss or compromise of 

classified information. 

Eligibility Determinations 

DoD received several comments on 

eligibility determinations in § 117.10, to 

include a request for clarification on the 

system of record for personnel security 

clearances, clarification of requirements 

for current investigations, 

reinvestigation, and continuous 

evaluation requirements, definition of 

what is considered a break in access and 

break in employment, and the process 

for requesting and granting an extension 

if a temporary eligibility determination 

goes beyond a year. DoD is not 

proposing any changes based on these 

comments as clarification to contractors 

under DoD cognizance will be provided 

when applicable via ISLs. 

National Interest Determination (NID) 

Requirements 

DoD received comments on the 

changes to the NID requirements for a 

covered National Technology and 

Industrial Base (NTIB) entity based on 

section 842 of Public Law 115–232 

included in § 117.11. Commenters asked 

for clarification on which specific 

entities fall under section 842 of Public 

Law 115–232 and recommended that 

NIDs be eliminated completely. The 

final NISPOM rule reflects language 

taken directly from section 842 of Public 

Law 115–232, which includes 

eliminating a NID requirement for U.S.- 

cleared companies owned by Australia, 

Canada, and the United Kingdom. DoD 

is not making any changes based on 

these comments as DoD is unable to 

eliminate NIDs, since the provisions for 

NID requirements are driven by 32 CFR 

part 2004, National Industrial Security 

Program, and not this rule. There has 

been no change to the NID requirements 

in 32 CFR part 2004 outside of section 

842 Public Law 115–232. 

Safeguarding 

Eight comments were received on 

safeguarding, § 117.15, to include four 

on open storage areas and another four 

on intrusion detection systems (IDS). 

Commenters also requested more 

guidance on open storage area 

requirements included in the previous 

NISPOM DoD Manual, to include 

procedures for leaving an open storage 

area unattended during business hours, 

whether self-approval authority can still 

be delegated to FSOs by a CSA, 

procedures to ensure the structural 

integrity of the space, and whether open 

bin and open shelf storage is still 

permitted. DoD is proposing updated 

text in § 117.15(a) and (c) to address 

several of these comments (e.g., 

procedures for leaving an open storage 

area unattended during business hours 

and delegation of approval authority to 

FSOs if agreed to by the CSA, 

respectively) and as a result added a 

definition for ‘‘pedestrian door locks’’ 

from the added text on security checks. 

DoD is also proposing updated text in 

paragraph 117.15(d) to provide more 

clarity on required investigative 

response to alarms for IDS. More 

guidance on safeguarding for those 

contractors under DoD cognizance will 

be provided via forthcoming ISLs, as 

appropriate. DoD is also proposing 

additional text to § 117.15(e) regarding 

information management systems to 

more accurately reflect the terminology 

for classified information systems, and 

as a result added the term 

‘‘authorization to operate’’ to the 

definitions section in § 117.3. Finally, 

DoD is proposing additional text to 

§ 117.15(e)(6) to provide more clarity on 

the requirements for the reproduction of 

classified information, to include 

accountability, control, and marking 

requirements of the reproduced 

classified information, and procedures 

for waste products resulting from the 

reproduction. 

A commenter questioned the accuracy 

of the text in § 117.17(a)(3) which stated 

that if an entity eligibility determination 

could not be completed in time to 

qualify the prospective subcontractor for 

participation in a procurement action, 

that the CSA will continue the entity 

eligibility determination processing for 

future contract consideration. After 

review of this text, DoD has concluded 

this text provides guidance to CSAs, 

rather than contractors and is proposing 

it for deletion. 

Joint Personnel Adjudication System 

Finally, the reference to the Joint 

Personnel Adjudication System is 

proposed for deletion from the list of 

approved information collections as part 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act section 

because it has been discontinued and 

replaced by the Defense Information 

System for Security. The text in 

§ 117.5(d) has also been proposed for 

updating to reflect only the Defense 

Information System for Security is used 

for the initiation, investigation, and 

adjudication of information relevant to 

DoD security clearances and 

employment suitability determinations. 

Expected Impact of the Proposed Rule 

and Changes Being Proposed Based on 

Public Comment 

The proposed rule changes seek to 

provide clarification on safeguarding 

terminology and correct identified 

paragraph numbering errors, as well as 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 238 / Wednesday, December 13, 2023 / Proposed Rules 86291 

address comments from regulated 

parties seeking more detail or guidance 

on existing requirements from the final 

rule published December 21, 2020. The 

proposed changes are mostly 

insignificant in that by themselves, 

these proposed changes create no 

additional requirements to current NISP 

policy. For example, a paragraph on 

subcontracting was removed because it 

was deemed to be guidance for the 

government, rather than contractors 

(i.e., the regulated parties). Also, the 

references to the Joint Personnel 

Adjudication System as the system of 

record for personnel security clearance 

processing were removed and replaced 

with the current system of record, 

Defense Information System for 

Security. These changes create no 

additional burden or cost to contractors; 

but rather seek to provide updated, 

accurate information. The proposed 

changes also seek to clarify terminology 

in relation to safeguarding requirements, 

which were initially incorporated into 

the final rule published December 21, 

2020 to be in line with 32 CFR part 

2001. These changes are not expected to 

result in any changes to cost estimates 

or burden on the regulated parties, but 

rather provide a more consistent, 

uniform means to comply with existing 

NISP requirements across the federal 

government. 

Costs 

As stated under the Discussion of 

Comments and Changes section, DoD 

received one comment that the cost for 

implementing SEAD 3 was 

underestimated in the original rule. DoD 

agrees with the commenter and the cost 

estimates have been updated 

accordingly. 

We are including here the summary of 

information on the baseline cost from 

the original rule for reference. DCSA 

began the cost analysis for the baseline 

costs for fiscal year 2017 by randomly 

selecting active NISP contractor 

facilities that have existing DoD 

approval for classified storage at their 

own physical locations and having 

those facilities submit security costs. 

The randomly selected contractor 

facilities also have an active facility 

security clearance and a permanent 

Commercial and Government Entity 

(CAGE) Code. In addition to the 

randomly selected cleared facilities 

having approved classified storage, 

DCSA categorizes these contractor 

facilities for the survey based on the 

size, scope, and complexity of each 

contractor’s security program. 

The general methodology used to 

estimate security costs incurred by 

contractor cleared facilities with 

approved storage of classified 

information is based on the costs 

incurred by respondent contractors for 

the protection of classified information. 

The methodology captures the most 

significant portion of industry’s costs, 

which is labor. Security labor in the 

survey is defined as personnel whose 

positions exist to support operations 

and staff in the implementation of 

government security requirements for 

the protection of classified information. 

Guards who are required as 

supplemental controls are included in 

security labor. The respondent 

contractors are requested to compile 

their cleared facility’s current annual 

security labor cost in burdened, current 

year dollars with the most recent data 

being from the 2017 survey. The labor 

cost, when identified as an estimated 

percent of each contractor’s total 

security costs, enables the respondent 

contractors to calculate their total 

security costs. 

Information collected is compiled to 

create an aggregate estimated cost of 

NISP classification-related activities. 

Only the aggregate data is reported. The 

full enterprise industrial security total 

baseline cost in the December 21, 2020, 

rule was estimated to not exceed $1.486 

billion for fiscal year 2017. Based on the 

data collected from the survey, we can 

be 95% confident the true 2017 total 

NISP security cost for contractor 

facilities with approved classified 

storage is less than $1.486 billion. 

Public Cost Analysis of the Changes to 

the Baseline From This Rule 

1. Cost Analysis. Throughout, labor 

rates are adjusted upward by 100% to 

account for overhead and benefits. The 

following areas, 1.a and 1.b, were reevaluated for cost based on the public 

comment. 

a. Train all cleared employees on 

requirements to submit foreign travel 

reports. We determined that the 

estimate of cleared contractor personnel 

who would be required to be trained 

should also include TOP SECRET 

cleared employees rather than just 

SECRET cleared employees as indicated 

in the original rule. The FSO at each 

entity (small or large) must ensure that 

its cleared employees are trained on the 

requirements. Such training by the FSO 

is estimated to take one hour in 2021 

and a half an hour in each of the 

following years up to the 20th year. 

Using the published Office of Personnel 

Management GS salary schedule for 

FY20, the estimated labor rate for an 

FSO of a small business entity firm is 

the equivalent of a GS11 step 5 and for 

an FSO of a large business entity is the 

equivalent of a GS13, step 5. These 

assumptions imply total costs of $0.99 

million in 2021 as year one; and, $0.49 

million each year from year two through 

the 20th year. These estimates have not 

changed from the original baseline. 

b. We determined that the estimate of 

cleared contractor personnel who would 

be required to submit foreign travel 

reports should also include TOP 

SECRET cleared employees rather than 

just SECRET cleared employees as 

indicated in the original rule. As a 

result, the estimated cost has increased 

from $16.81 to $19.25 million. The 

following provides details on the 

estimated increase. All cleared 

employees, rather than only SECRET 

cleared employees, must submit foreign 

travel reports, and receive any pre-travel 

threat briefings or post travel briefings 

from the FSO based on the threat 

according to this rule, SEAD 3, and 

CSA-provided guidance for unique 

mission requirements. It is estimated 

that the number of foreign travel reports 

submitted annually will increase from 

483,681 as estimated in the original rule 

to 813,054 to comply with the 

amendment. That estimate is based on 

analysis of calendar year 2019 unofficial 

foreign travel reported by DoD civilians 

and military in the DoD Aircraft and 

Personnel Automated Clearance System 

(APACS), a web-based tool for the 

creation, submission, and approval of 

aircraft diplomatic clearances and 

personnel travel clearances (i.e., 

Country, Theater, and Special Area, as 

applicable with individual DoD Foreign 

Clearance Guide (FCG), https://

www.fcg.pentagon.mil country pages) 

designed to aid USG travelers on official 

government and unofficial (e.g., leave) 

travel. For calendar year 2019, there 

were 126,131 travelers and 113,214 

travel requests submitted into APACS. 

APACS requirements are published on 

the DoD FCG, https://

www.fcg.pentagon.mil. Thus, an annual 

estimate of .89 expected foreign travel 

trips by traveler (113,214 divided by 

126,131). In the small business analysis, 

there was a total of 18,242 cleared 

employees in the 658 small entities 

sampled and 63,598 cleared employees 

in the remaining 356 non-small 

businesses. Of the total cleared 

employees in the small business 

analysis (as reported in the National 

Industrial Security System), 

approximately 22.3% were at small 

entities, and 77.7% were at non-small 

businesses. Known number of new 

travelers expected to be affected by this 

proposed rule will increase from the 

initial estimate of 543,462 to 905,818 

cleared contractor personnel, an 

increase of 362,356 to include TOP 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
86292 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 238 / Wednesday, December 13, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

SECRET cleared contractor personnel 

under DoD security cognizance and the 

estimated trips at .89 per traveler is 

(905,818 × .89 = 813,054 estimated 

trips). Assuming the ratio for those 

employees reporting foreign travel into 

APACS is the same as cleared 

employees would report, of the 

estimated 813,054 foreign trips by 

cleared employees, it can be estimated 

that approximately 181,262 (22.3% of 

813,054) will be taken by contractors at 

small entities, and 631,792 (77.7% of 

813,054) by contractors at non-small 

businesses. It is estimated that it will 

take a half an hour for a cleared 

employee to report foreign travel in 

2021 and in each of the following years 

up to year 20 to report foreign travel and 

receive any pre-travel or post-travel 

briefings. The estimated average labor 

rate for a cleared employee to report 

foreign travel is the equivalent of a GS11 

step 5. These assumptions imply costs 

increasing from $16.81 to $19.25 million 

in each year one through 20. 

2. Projected Public Costs. Based on 

the re-evaluation of the cost of training 

cleared employees on foreign travel 

reporting and submissions, the 

estimated public costs are present value 

costs of $267.4 million, which includes 

the additional foreign travel reporting 

cost. 

3. Updated Baseline Cost. With this 

increase for the foreign travel reporting, 

DoD’s updated enterprise industrial 

security baseline cost is estimated not to 

exceed $1.753 billion ($1.486 billion 

plus $267.4 million). 

Regulatory Analysis 

Executive Order 12866, ‘‘Regulatory 

Planning and Review’’ and Executive 

Order 13563, ‘‘Improving Regulation 

and Regulatory Review’’ 

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, distribute impacts, and equity). 

Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the 

importance of quantifying both costs 

and benefits, reducing costs, 

harmonizing rules, and promoting 

flexibility. It has been determined that 

this rule is a significant regulatory 

action. Accordingly, the rule has been 

reviewed by the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) under the 

requirements of these Executive Orders. 

Congressional Review Act 

This rule is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as 

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

Public Law 96–354, ‘‘Regulatory 

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

The Under Secretary of Defense for 

Intelligence and Security, pursuant to a 

delegation of authority from the 

Secretary of Defense, certifies that this 

rule will not, if promulgated, have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small business 

entities in accordance with the 

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

requirements since a contractor cleared 

legal entity may, in entering into 

contracts requiring access to classified 

information, negotiate for security costs 

determined to be properly chargeable by 

a Government Contracting Activity. 

Public Law 96–511, ‘‘Paperwork 

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

Notwithstanding any other provision 

of law, no person is required to respond 

to, nor is subject to a penalty for failure 

to comply with, a collection of 

information, subject to the requirements 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) (PRA), unless 

that collection of information displays a 

currently valid Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) Control Number. 

This proposed rule involves collections 

previously approved by OMB under the 

following control numbers. 

• OMB Control Number: 0704–0194, DD 

Form 441, Department of Defense 

Security Agreement 

• OMB Control Number: 0704–0571, 

National Industrial Security System 

• OMB Control Number: 0704–0567, 

DoD Contract Security Classification 

Specification 

• OMB Control Number: 0704–0573, 

Defense Information System for 

Security (DISS) 

• OMB Control Number: 0704–0579, 

Certificate Pertaining to Foreign 

Interests, SF 328 

• OMB Control Number: 3150–0047, 10 

CFR part 95, Facility Security 

Clearance and Safeguarding of 

National Security Information and 

Restricted Data 

• OMB Control Number: 1910–1800, 

Security 

DoD believes the total burden hours 

associated with these collections are not 

expected to change based on the 

amendments proposed in this rule. 

Information on the current version of 

these collections, including all 

supporting materials, can be obtained at 

https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/ 

PRAMain and typing in the OMB 

control number. 

Section 202, Public Law 104–4, 

‘‘Unfunded Mandates Reform Act’’ 

Section 202 of the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) 

(2 U.S.C. 1532) requires agencies to 

assess anticipated costs and benefits 

before issuing any rule whose mandates 

require spending in any one year of 

$100 million in 1995 dollars, updated 

annually for inflation. This rule will not 

mandate any requirements for State, 

local, or tribal governments, nor will it 

affect private sector costs. 

Executive Order 13132, ‘‘Federalism’’ 

E.O. 13132 establishes certain 

requirements that an agency must meet 

when it promulgates a proposed rule 

(and subsequent final rule) that imposes 

substantial direct requirement costs on 

State and local governments, preempts 

State law, or otherwise has Federalism 

implications. This rule will not have a 

substantial effect on State and local 

governments. 

Executive Order 13175, ‘‘Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments’’ 

Executive Order 13175 establishes 

certain requirements that an agency 

must meet when it promulgates a 

proposed rule (and subsequent final 

rule) that imposes substantial direct 

compliance costs on one or more Indian 

tribes, preempts tribal law, or affects the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities between the federal 

government and Indian tribes. This rule 

will not have a substantial effect on 

Indian tribal governments. 

List of Subjects in 32 CFR Part 117 

Classified information; Government 

contracts; USG contracts, National 

Industrial Security Program (NISP); 

Prime contractor, Subcontractor. 

Accordingly, the Department of 

Defense proposes to amend 32 CFR part 

117 as follows: 

PART 117—NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL 

SECURITY PROGRAM OPERATING 

MANUAL (NISPOM) 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 117 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 32 CFR part 2004; E.O. 10865; 

E.O. 12333; E.O. 12829; E.O. 12866; E.O. 

12968; E.O. 13526; E.O. 13563; E.O. 13587; 

E.O. 13691; Public Law 108–458; Title 42 

U.S.C. 2011 et seq.; Title 50 U.S.C. Chapter 

44; Title 50 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. 

■ 2. Amend § 117.3 in paragraph (b) by 

adding in alphabetical order the 

definitions of ‘‘Authorization to 

operate’’ and ‘‘Pedestrian door locks’’ to 

read as follows: 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 238 / Wednesday, December 13, 2023 / Proposed Rules 86293 

§ 117.3 Acronyms and definitions. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

Authorization to operate means an 

approval granted by an authorizing 

official for a system to process classified 

information. 

* * * * * 

Pedestrian door locks means a series 

of GSA-approved (FF–L–2890C) 

preassembled locks designed, tested, 

and approved for security, fire safety, 

life safety, and accessibility when 

installed on doors located in the 

occupants anticipated path of travel to 

a means of egress to evacuate the facility 

in a fire emergency. 

* * * * * 

■ 3. Amend § 117.5 by revising 

paragraph (d) to read as follows: 

§ 117.5 Information collections. 

* * * * * 

(d) DoD collection. ‘‘DoD Security 

Agreement,’’ is assigned OMB Control 

Number: 0704–0194. ‘‘National 

Industrial Security System,’’ a CSA 

information collection, is assigned OMB 

Control Number: 0704–0571, and is a 

DoD information collection used to 

conduct its monitoring and oversight of 

contractors. Department of Defense 

‘‘Contract Security Classification 

Specification,’’ (available at: https://

www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/ 

Documents/DD/forms/dd/dd0254.pdf 

and https://www.dcsa.mil/is/nccs/), is 

assigned OMB Control Number: 0704– 

0567 and used by both DoD and 

agencies which have an industrial 

security agreement with DoD. ‘‘Defense 

Information System for Security,’’ is 

assigned OMB Control Number: 0704– 

0573. Defense Information System for 

Security is a DoD automated system for 

personnel security, providing a 

common, comprehensive medium to 

record, document, and identify 

personnel security actions within DoD 

including submitting adverse 

information, verification of security 

clearance status, requesting 

investigations, and supporting 

continuous evaluation activities. It 

requires personal data collection to 

facilitate the initiation, investigation 

and adjudication of information relevant 

to DoD security clearances and 

employment suitability determinations 

for active duty military, civilian 

employees and contractors seeking such 

credentials. 

* * * * * 

■ 4. Amend § 117.7 by: 

■ a. Revising paragraph (b) introductory 

text; 

■ b. In paragraph (f) introductory text, 

removing the words ‘‘official reviews’’ 

and adding in their place the words 

‘‘security reviews’’; 

■ c. In paragraph (f)(2), adding the 

words ‘‘for review’’ after the word 

‘‘Providing’’; and 

■ d. Revising paragraphs (h)(1)(i) and 

(h)(1)(ii)(A). 

The revisions read as follows: 

§ 117.7 Procedures. 

* * * * * 

(b) Contractor Security Officials. 

Contractors will appoint security 

officials who are U.S. citizens, unless 

the provisions of § 117.11(e)(1)(iii) 

apply for the SMO and ITPSO. 

* * * * * 

(h) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(i) Review cycle. The CSA will 

determine the scope and frequency of 

security reviews, which may be 

increased or decreased consistent with 

risk management principles. Security 

reviews may be conducted not more 

often than once every 12 months unless 

special circumstances exist, to include 

addressing security vulnerabilities 

found during a previous security 

review. 

(ii) * * * 

(A) The CSA will generally provide 

notice to the contractor of a forthcoming 

review, but may also conduct 

unannounced reviews at its discretion, 

e.g., if there is possible imminent loss or 

compromise of classified information. 

The CSA security review may subject 

contractor employees and all areas and 

receptacles under the control of the 

contractor to examination. 

* * * * * 

■ 5. Amend § 117.8 by revising 

paragraphs (a)(2)(ii), (c)(7)(iii)(B), and 

(c)(14) to read as follows: 

§ 117.8 Reporting requirements. 

(a) * * * 

(2) * * * 

(ii) Provide requested information to 

enable the CSA to ascertain whether 

classified information is adequately 

protected in accordance with this rule. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(7) * * * 

(iii) * * * 

(B) Whether they have been excluded 

from access to classified information in 

accordance with § 117.7(c)(2). 

* * * * * 

(14) Reporting by subcontractor. 

Subcontractors will also notify their 

prime contractors if they make any 

reports to their CSA that affect the status 

of the entity eligibility determination 

(e.g., FCL), may indicate an employee 

poses as an insider threat, affect the 

proper safeguarding of classified 

information, or indicate classified 

information has been lost or 

compromised. 

* * * * * 

■ 6. Amend § 117.9 by: 

■ a. Revising paragraph (f); and 

■ b. Redesignating paragraphs (h)(i) and 

(h)(ii) as paragraphs (h)(1) and (h)(2). 

The revision reads as follows: 

§ 117.9 Entity eligibility determination for 

access to classified information. 

* * * * * 

(f) Exclusion procedures. If a CSA 

determines that certain KMP can be 

excluded from access to classified 

information, the contractor will follow 

the procedures in accordance with 

§ 117.7(c)(2). 

* * * * * 

■ 7. Amend § 117.11 by: 

■ a. In paragraph (d)(2)(iii)(B)(4), 

removing the words ‘‘SCI, RD, or 

COMSEC’’ and adding in their place the 

words ‘‘proscribed information’’; and 

■ b. Revising paragraph (h)(4). 

The revision reads as follows: 

§ 117.11 Foreign Ownership, Control, or 

Influence (FOCI). 

* * * * * 

(h) * * * 

(4) Facilities location plan. When a 

contractor is potentially collocated with 

or in close proximity to its foreign 

parent or an affiliate, the contractor will 

provide a facilities location plan that 

identifies the physical locations of the 

contractor and its foreign parent(s) or 

affiliate(s) respectively. The facilities 

location plan will assist the CSA in 

determining if the contractor is 

collocated or if the close proximity can 

be allowed under the FOCI mitigation 

plan. A U.S. entity generally cannot be 

collocated with the foreign parent or 

affiliate, i.e., at the same address or in 

the same location. 

* * * * * 

§ 117.12 [Amended] 

■ 8. Amend § 117.12 in paragraph (k) by 

removing the words ‘‘every 12 months’’ 

and adding in their place the words ‘‘at 

least annually’’. 

■ 9. Amend § 117.15 by: 

■ a. Revising paragraph (a) introductory 

text; 

■ b. Redesignating paragraphs (a)(2) and 

(a)(3) as paragraphs (a)(3) and (a)(4); 

■ c. Adding new paragraph (a)(2); 

■ d. In the newly redesignated 

paragraph (a)(3), revising the heading; 

■ e. In the newly redesignated 

paragraph (a)(4), redesignating 

paragraphs (ii), (iii), and (iv) as 

paragraphs (iii), (iv), and (v); 

■ f. In the newly redesignated paragraph 

(a)(4), adding a new paragraph (ii); 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
86294 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 238 / Wednesday, December 13, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

■ g. In the newly redesignated 

paragraph (a)(4)(iv)(B), adding the word 

‘‘effects’’ after the word ‘‘personal’’; 

■ h. Revising paragraph (c) introductory 

text; 

■ i. Revising paragraph (d)(3)(i)(A); 

■ j. Revising paragraph (e)(1)(ii) and 

paragraph (e)(2) introductory text; 

■ k. Adding a new paragraph (e)(2)(viii); 

and 

■ l. Revising paragraph (e)(6). 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: 

§ 117.15 Safeguarding classified 

information. 

(a) General safeguarding. Contractors 

will be responsible for safeguarding 

classified information in their custody 

or under their control, with approval for 

such storage of classified information by 

the applicable CSA. Individuals are 

responsible for safeguarding classified 

information entrusted to them. 

Contractors will provide the extent of 

protection to classified information in 

accordance with the provisions of this 

rule. 

* * * * * 

(2) Restricted areas. When it is 

necessary to control access to classified 

material and an open storage area is not 

available, a restricted area may be 

established. A restricted area will 

normally become necessary when it is 

impractical or impossible to protect 

classified material because of its size, 

quantity, or other unusual 

characteristic. The restricted area shall 

have a clearly defined perimeter, but 

physical barriers are not required. 

Personnel within the area shall be 

responsible for challenging all persons 

who may lack appropriate need-to-know 

for the information within the restricted 

area. All classified material will be 

secured during non-working hours in 

approved repositories, in accordance 

with the provisions of this rule, or 

secured using other methods approved 

by the CSA. 

(3) Security checks. * * * 

(4) * * * 

(ii) During working hours when an 

open storage area is unattended, 

admittance to the area must be 

controlled by locked entrances and exits 

secured by GSA-approved pedestrian 

door locking hardware (FF–L–2890C), 

‘‘Federal Specification Lock Extension,’’ 

or CSA approved deadbolts or 

emergency exit hardware on any 

secondary doors. 

* * * * * 

(c) Storage. Contractors will store 

classified information and material in 

General Services Administration (GSA)- 

approved security containers, vaults 

built to Federal Standard 832, or an 

open storage area constructed in 

accordance with 32 CFR 2001.53. The 

CSA may grant self-approval to the FSO 

for open storage area approvals, 

provided the FSO meets specified 

qualification criteria as determined by 

the CSA. In the instance that an open 

storage area has a false ceiling or raised 

floor, contractors shall develop and 

implement procedures to ensure their 

structural integrity in accordance with 

CSA provided guidance. Nothing in 32 

CFR part 2001, should be construed to 

contradict or inhibit compliance with 

local laws or building codes, but the 

contractor will notify the applicable 

CSA if there are any conflicting issues 

that would inhibit compliance. 

Contractors will store classified material 

in accordance with the specific sections 

of 32 CFR 2001.43: 

* * * * * 

(d) * * * 

(3) * * * 

(i) * * * 

(A) If after a thorough inspection of 

the facility perimeter with no damage to 

the facility visible, the alarm system 

resets and remains in the secure 

condition, then entrance into the area is 

not required and an initial response 

team may consist of uncleared 

personnel. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(ii) An information management 

system to protect and control the 

classified information in their 

possession regardless of media, to 

include information processed and 

stored on information systems with an 

authorization to operate by an 

applicable CSA, otherwise referred to as 

an authorized information system. 

(2) Top secret information. Unless 

otherwise directed by the applicable 

CSA, the contractor will establish the 

following additional controls: 

* * * * * 

(viii) When TOP SECRET information 

and material is generated or stored on 

authorized information systems, 

contractors will establish controls for 

TOP SECRET information and material 

to validate procedures are in place to 

address accountability, need to know, 

and retention, e.g., demonstrating that 

TOP SECRET material stored in an 

electronic format on an authorized 

information system does not need to be 

individually numbered in series. These 

controls are in addition to the 

information management system and 

must be applied, unless otherwise 

directed by the applicable CSA, 

regardless of the media of the TOP 

SECRET information, to include 

information processed and stored on 

authorized information systems. 

* * * * * 

(6) Reproduction of classified 

information. Contractors will reproduce 

paper copies, electronic files, and other 

material containing classified 

information only when necessary for 

accomplishing operational needs or for 

complying with contractual 

requirements. Use of technology that 

prevents, discourages, or detects 

unauthorized reproduction of classified 

information is encouraged. 

(i) Unless restricted by the GCA on 

behalf of the originating agency, TOP 

SECRET, SECRET, and CONFIDENTIAL 

information may be reproduced, 

including by emailing, scanning, and 

copying, to the extent operational needs 

require on authorized systems and 

equipment approved at the level of the 

classified material and in support of a 

contractual requirement. 

(ii) Contractors shall establish 

procedures that facilitate oversight and 

control of the reproduction of classified 

information and the use of equipment 

for such reproduction, including 

controls that ensure: 

(A) Reproduction is kept to a 

minimum consistent with contractual 

requirements. 

(B) Contractor personnel reproducing 

classified information are 

knowledgeable of the procedures for 

classified reproduction and aware of the 

risks involved with the specific 

reproduction equipment being used and 

the appropriate countermeasures they 

are required to take. 

(C) Reproduction limitations the GCA 

places on documents and special 

controls applicable to special categories 

of information are fully and carefully 

observed. 

(D) Reproduced material is placed 

under the same accountability and 

control requirements as applied to the 

original material. Extracts of documents 

will be marked according to content and 

may be treated as working papers if 

appropriate. 

(E) Reproduced material is 

conspicuously identified as classified at 

the applicable level and copies of 

classified material are reviewed after the 

reproduction process to ensure that the 

required markings exist. 

(F) Waste products generated during 

reproduction are protected and 

destroyed as required. 

* * * * * 

■ 9. Amend § 117.17 by: 

■ a. Revising paragraphs (a)(3) 

introductory text; 

■ b. Removing paragraphs (a)(3)(i) 

through (iii); and 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 238 / Wednesday, December 13, 2023 / Proposed Rules 86295 

■ c. Redesignating paragraphs (a)(3)(iv) 

introductory text and (a)(3)(iv)(A) and 

(B) as paragraphs (a)(4) introductory text 

and (a)(4)(i) and (ii). 

The revisions read as follows: 

§ 117.17 Subcontracting. 

(a) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(2) * * * 

(3) Lead time for entity eligibility 

determination when awarding to an 

uncleared subcontractor. Requesting 

contractors will allow sufficient lead 

time in connection with the award of a 

classified subcontract to enable an 

uncleared bidder to be processed for the 

necessary entity eligibility 

determination. 

* * * * * 

§ 117.19 [Amended] 

■ 10. Amend § 117.19 in paragraph 

(b)(5)(iv) by adding the words ‘‘(e.g., a 

security aspects letter)’’ at the end of the 

paragraph. 

Dated: December 6, 2023. 

Patricia L. Toppings, 

OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, 

Department of Defense. 

[FR Doc. 2023–27171 Filed 12–12–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 5001–06–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 100 

[Docket Number USCG–2023–0903] 

RIN 1625–AA08 

Special Local Regulations; Sector Ohio 

Valley Annual and Recurring Special 

Local Regulations 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, Department of 

Homeland Security (DHS). 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes 

amending and updating its special local 

regulations for recurring marine 

parades, regattas, and other events that 

take place in the Coast Guard Sector 

Ohio Valley area of responsibility 

(AOR). This proposed rulemaking 

would update the current list of 

recurring special local regulations with 

revisions, additions, and removals of 

events that no longer take place in the 

Sector Ohio Valley AOR. We invite your 

comments on this proposed rulemaking. 

DATES: Comments and related material 

must be received by the Coast Guard on 

or before January 12, 2024. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

identified by docket number USCG– 

2023–0903 using the Federal DecisionMaking Portal at https://

www.regulations.gov. See the ‘‘Public 

Participation and Request for 

Comments’’ portion of the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. This 

notice of proposed rulemaking with its 

plain-language, 100-word-or-less 

proposed rule summary will be 

available in this same docket. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you have questions about this proposed 

rulemaking, call or email Petty Officer 

Bryan Crane, Sector Ohio Valley, U.S. 

Coast Guard; telephone (502) 779–5334, 

email SECOHV-WWM@uscg.mil. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Table of Abbreviations 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

DHS Department of Homeland Security 

FR Federal Register 

NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking 

§ Section 

U.S.C. United States Code 

II. Background, Purpose, and Legal 

Basis 

The Captain of the Port Sector Ohio 

Valley (COTP) proposes to update the 

current list of recurring special local 

regulations for events occurring within 

the Sector Ohio Valley area of 

responsibility within the Coast Guard’s 

Eighth District. The list of events we 

seek to update is in Title 33 of the Code 

of Federal Regulations (CFR) section 

100.801, Table 1 to § 100.801. 

The Coast Guard will consider 

comments submitted on this proposed 

rule in determining if any additional 

revisions are needed to this regulatory 

section. Additionally, the public would 

be informed of these recurring events 

through local means and planned by the 

local communities. 

The current list of annual and 

recurring special local regulations 

occurring in Sector Ohio Valley’s AOR 

is published in 33 CFR 100.801, Table 

1 titled ‘‘Ohio Valley Annual and 

Reoccurring Marine Events.’’ The most 

recent list was published on April 4, 

2023 (87 FR 6026). 

The Coast Guard’s authority for 

establishing a special local regulation is 

contained in 46 U.S.C. 70041(a). The 

Coast Guard proposes to amend and 

update the special local regulations in 

33 CFR 100.801, Table 1, to include the 

most up to date list of recurring special 

local regulations for events held on or 

around the navigable waters within 

Sector Ohio Valley’s AOR. These events 

would include marine parades, boat 

races, swim events, and other marine 

related events. The current list under 33 

CFR 100.801, Table 1, requires 

amendment to provide new information 

on existing special local regulations, 

add new special local regulations 

expected to recur annually or 

biannually, and to remove special local 

regulations that no longer occur. Issuing 

individual regulations for each new 

special local regulation, amendment, or 

removal of an existing special local 

regulation creates unnecessary 

administrative costs and burdens. This 

single proposed rulemaking will 

considerably reduce administrative 

overhead. It also provide the public 

with notice through publication in the 

Federal Register of all recurring special 

local regulations in the AOR. 

III. Discussion of Proposed Rule 

Part 100 of 33 CFR contains 

regulations describing regattas and 

marine parades conducted on U.S. 

navigable waters in order to ensure the 

safety of life in the regulated areas. 

Section 100.801 provides the 

regulations applicable to events taking 

place in the Eighth Coast Guard District 

and also provides a table listing each 

event and special local regulations. This 

section requires amendment from time 

to time to properly reflect the recurring 

special local regulations. This proposed 

rule would update section 100.801, 

Table 1 titled ‘‘Ohio Valley Annual and 

Reoccurring Marine Events.’’ 

This proposed rule would add 4 new 

recurring special local regulations to 

Table 1 of section 100.801 for Sector 

Ohio Valley, as follows: 

Date Event/sponsor 

Sector Ohio Valley 

location 

(city, state) 

Regulated area 

2 Days—Saturday and Sunday before Memorial Day.Powerboat Nationals—Point Marion Point Marion, PA ............. Monongahela River, Miles 89–91 

(Pennsylvania). 

1 Day—One Weekend in June .......... Race on the Oyo ............................... Racine, OH to Point 

Pleasant, WV.

Ohio River (Mile 242–265) Ohio. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS