51926 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 169 / Tuesday, September 2, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

8Please note that our review and proposed 

approval of Arizona’s PM2.5 emissions inventories 

for the Nogales nonattainment area, their data 

sources, and methodologies are specific to this 

submittal and may not be applicable to all PM2.5

nonattainment areas and the related PM2.5 and 

precursor emissions inventories. 

inventories for PM2.5 and the precursor 

pollutants. ADEQ’s population 

estimates are Arizona Department of 

Administration estimates that have been 

reconciled with U.S. Census figures. We 

have verified the land area allocation 

ratio using geographical information 

system applications. Please see our 

Technical Support Document (TSD) for 

our detailed review and discussion of 

Arizona’s emissions inventories 

methodology and results. 

In our review, we compared the 

ADEQ estimates for PM2.5 and the 

precursor pollutants with the 

subsequent and final release of the 2008 

NEI version 3.0. The 2011 NEI version 

1.0 was released on September 30, 2013 

and was not available for use by ADEQ. 

We expected to find nominal differences 

between the NEI versions (1.5 and 2.0) 

used by ADEQ and the final version 

(3.0) of the NEI based on corrections and 

re-estimates from one version to the 

next. EPA released the 2008 NEI version 

3.0 in March 2013 prior to Arizona’s 

submittal of the Nogales emissions 

inventories in September 2013. While 

we did not require ADEQ to use the 

2008 NEI version 3.0 given their 

emissions inventories were already 

drafted, we reviewed the submittal 

against 2008 NEI version 3.0 to ensure 

that any subsequent version 3.0 

corrections or updates are nominal 

changes to the submitted emissions 

inventories. 

We found that the submitted PM2.5, 

NH3, NOX, and SO2 emissions 

inventories, four of five emissions 

inventories, show little or no variance 

from the 2008 NEI version 3.0 emissions 

inventory, our comparison data base. 

The submitted VOC emissions inventory 

shows a small under-reporting of 3–10 

percent when compared either across 

the Santa Cruz County 2008 NEI version 

3.0 baseline emissions estimates, or to 

the submitted Nogales area emissions 

estimates. This small overall 

underestimate of VOC emissions is not 

significant, and becomes less significant 

when considered against an adjusted 

increase provided by the submitted VOC 

on-road mobile emissions inventory 

compared to the reference 2008 NEI onroad mobile VOC emissions estimates. 

In this way, we consider the adjusted 

difference in the submitted overall VOC 

emission inventory and our reference 

2008 NEI version 3.0 VOC emissions 

inventory to be closer to 3 percent rather 

than 10 percent, a small variance in the 

context of the overall PM2.5 emissions 

inventories. For our detailed review, 

please see our TSD within the docket of 

this rulemaking. 

In conclusion, EPA has reviewed the 

results, procedures, and methodologies 

Arizona used to produce the 2008 and 

2010 Nogales area PM2.5 and PM2.5

precursor emissions inventories and 

finds that these emissions inventories 

meet the requirements of the CAA and 

EPA guidance. Consequently, we 

propose to approve the submitted PM2.5, 

NH3, NOX, SO2, and VOC emissions 

inventories as meeting the CAA’s 

section 172(c)(3) requirement to provide 

a comprehensive, accurate, and current 

inventory of actual emissions for the 

Nogales nonattainment area.8

IV. Proposed Action 

EPA is proposing to approve the 2008 

and 2010 Nogales nonattainment area 

PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursor emissions 

inventories submitted by Arizona on 

September 6, 2013. In doing so, EPA has 

determined that Arizona’s submittal is 

consistent with sections 110 and 

172(c)(3) of the CAA. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the Clean Air Act, the 

Administrator is required to approve a 

SIP submission that complies with the 

provisions of the Act and applicable 

Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 

40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP 

submissions, EPA’s role is to approve 

State choices, provided that they meet 

the criteria of the Clean Air Act. 

Accordingly, this action merely 

approves State law as meeting Federal 

requirements and does not impose 

additional requirements beyond those 

imposed by State law. For that reason, 

this action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; 

and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address 

disproportionate human health or 

environmental effects with practical, 

appropriate, and legally permissible 

methods under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this action does not have 

tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the State, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate matter, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Ammonia, 

Volatile organic compounds. 

Dated: August 20, 2014. 

Jared Blumenfeld, 

Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

[FR Doc. 2014–20787 Filed 8–29–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

[XXXD4523WT DWT000000.000000 

DS65101000] 

43 CFR Part 2 

RIN 1090–AB07 

Privacy Act Regulations; Exemption 

for the Insider Threat Program 

AGENCY: Department of the Interior. 

ACTION: Proposed rule 

SUMMARY: The Department of the 

Interior proposes to amend its 

regulations to exempt certain records in 

the Insider Threat Program from one or 

more provisions of the Privacy Act 

because of criminal, civil, and 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 169 / Tuesday, September 2, 2014 / Proposed Rules 51927 

administrative law enforcement 

requirements. 

DATES: Submit written comments on or 

before November 3, 2014 

ADDRESSES: Send written comments, 

identified by the number 1090–AB07, 

by one of the following methods: 

• Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Mail: Teri Barnett, Department of 

the Interior Privacy Act Officer, 1849 C 

Street NW., Mail Stop 5547 MIB, 

Washington, DC 20240. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Teri 

Barnett, Department of the Interior 

Privacy Act Officer, 1849 C Street NW., 

Mail Stop 5547 MIB, Washington, DC 

20240. Email at Privacy@ios.doi.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, 

5 U.S.C. 552a, governs the means by 

which the U.S. Government collects, 

maintains, uses and disseminates 

personally identifiable information. The 

Privacy Act applies to records about 

individuals that are maintained in a 

‘‘system of records.’’ A system of 

records is a group of any records under 

the control of an agency from which 

information about an individual is 

retrieved by the name of the individual 

or by some identifying number, symbol, 

or other identifying particular assigned 

to the individual. See 5 U.S.C. 

552a(a)(4) and (5). 

An individual may request access to 

records containing information about 

him or herself, 5 U.S.C. 552a(b), (c) and 

(d). However, the Privacy Act authorizes 

Federal agencies to exempt systems of 

records from access by individuals 

under certain circumstances, such as 

where the access or disclosure of such 

information would impede national 

security or law enforcement efforts. 

Exemptions from Privacy Act provisions 

must be established by regulation, 5 

U.S.C. 552a(j) and (k). 

The Department of the Interior (DOI) 

Office of Law Enforcement and Security 

created the Insider Threat Program 

system of records to implement 

Presidential Executive Order 13587, 

issued October 7, 2011, which required 

Federal agencies to establish an insider 

threat detection and prevention program 

to ensure the security of classified 

networks and the responsible sharing 

and safeguarding of classified 

information consistent with appropriate 

protections for privacy and civil 

liberties. The Insider Threat Program 

system of records will be used to 

facilitate management of insider threat 

investigations and activities associated 

with counterintelligence complaints, 

inquiries and investigations; identify 

potential threats to Department of the 

Interior resources and information 

assets; track referrals of potential insider 

threats to internal and external partners; 

and provide statistical reports and meet 

other insider threat reporting 

requirements. Insider threats include 

attempted or actual espionage, 

subversion, sabotage, terrorism or 

extremist activities directed against the 

Department of the Interior and its 

personnel, facilities, resources, and 

activities; unauthorized use of or 

intrusion into automated information 

systems; unauthorized disclosure of 

classified, controlled unclassified, 

sensitive, or proprietary-information or 

technology; indicators of potential 

insider threats or other incidents that 

may indicate activities of an insider 

threat. 

The Insider Threat Program system 

contains classified and unclassified 

intelligence and law enforcement 

investigatory records related to 

counterintelligence and insider threat 

activities that are exempt from certain 

provisions of the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. 

552a(j)(2) and (k)(2). In this notice of 

proposed rulemaking, the Department of 

the Interior is proposing to exempt the 

Insider Threat Program system from 

certain provisions of the Privacy Act 

pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2) and 

(k)(2). 

Under 5 U.S.C. 552a (j)(2), the head of 

a Federal agency may promulgate rules 

to exempt a system of records from 

certain provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552a if the 

system of records is ‘‘maintained by an 

agency or component thereof which 

performs as its principal function any 

activity pertaining to the enforcement of 

criminal laws, including police efforts 

to prevent, control or reduce crime or to 

apprehend criminals.’’ Under 5 U.S.C. 

552a (k)(2), the head of a Federal agency 

may promulgate rules to exempt a 

system of records from certain 

provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552a if the system 

of records is ‘‘investigatory material 

complied for law enforcement purposes, 

other than material within the scope of 

subsection (j)(2),’’ or ‘‘investigatory 

material compiled solely for the purpose 

of determining suitability, eligibility, or 

qualifications for Federal civilian 

employment, military service, Federal 

contracts, or access to classified 

information.’’ 

Because this system of records 

contains investigative and law 

enforcement material within the 

provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2) and 

(k)(2), the Department of the Interior 

proposes to exempt the Insider Threat 

Program system of records from one or 

more of the following provisions: 5 

U.S.C. 552a(c)(3), (c)(4), (d), (e)(1) 

through (e)(3), (e)(4)(G) through (e)(4)(I), 

(e)(5), (e)(8), (e)(12), (f), and (g). Where 

a release would not interfere with or 

adversely affect investigations or law 

enforcement activities, including but 

not limited to revealing sensitive 

information or compromising 

confidential sources, the exemption may 

be waived on a case-by-case basis. 

Exemptions from these particular 

subsections are justified for the 

following reasons: 

1. 5 U.S.C. 552a(c)(3). This section 

requires an agency to make the 

accounting of each disclosure of records 

available to the individual named in the 

record upon request. Release of 

accounting of disclosures would alert 

the subjects of an investigation to the 

existence of the investigation and the 

fact that they are subjects of the 

investigation. The release of such 

information to the subjects of an 

investigation would provide them with 

significant information concerning the 

nature of the investigation, and could 

seriously impede or compromise the 

investigation, endanger the physical 

safety of confidential sources, witnesses 

and their families, and lead to the 

improper influencing of witnesses, the 

destruction of evidence, or the 

fabrication of testimony. 

2. 5 U.S.C. 552a(c)(4); (d); (e)(4)(G) 

and (e)(4)(H); (f); and (g). These sections 

require an agency to provide notice and 

disclosure to individuals that a system 

contains records pertaining to the 

individual, as well as providing rights of 

access and amendment. Granting access 

to records in the Insider Threat Program 

system could inform the subject of an 

investigation of an actual or potential 

criminal violation of the existence of 

that investigation, of the nature and 

scope of the information and evidence 

obtained, of the identity of confidential 

sources, witnesses, and law enforcement 

personnel, and could provide 

information to enable the subject to 

avoid detection or apprehension. 

Granting access to such information 

could seriously impede or compromise 

an investigation; endanger the physical 

safety of confidential sources, witnesses, 

and law enforcement personnel, as well 

as their families; lead to the improper 

influencing of witnesses, the destruction 

of evidence, or the fabrication of 

testimony; and disclose investigative 

techniques and procedures. In addition, 

granting access to such information 

could disclose classified, securitysensitive, or confidential information 

and could constitute an unwarranted 

invasion of the personal privacy of 

others. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

51928 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 169 / Tuesday, September 2, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

3. 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(1). This section 

requires the agency to maintain 

information about an individual only to 

the extent that such information is 

relevant or necessary. The application of 

this provision could impair 

investigations and law enforcement, 

because it is not always possible to 

determine the relevance or necessity of 

specific information in the early stages 

of an investigation. Relevance and 

necessity are often questions of 

judgment and timing, and it is only after 

the information is evaluated that the 

relevance and necessity of such 

information can be established. In 

addition, during the course of the 

investigation, the investigator may 

obtain information that is incidental to 

the main purpose of the investigation 

but which may relate to matters under 

the investigative jurisdiction of another 

agency. Such information cannot readily 

be segregated. Furthermore, during the 

course of the investigation, an 

investigator may obtain information 

concerning the violation of laws outside 

the scope of the investigator’s 

jurisdiction. In the interest of effective 

law enforcement, DOI investigators 

should retain this information, since it 

can aid in establishing patterns of 

criminal activity and can provide 

valuable leads for other law 

enforcement agencies. 

4. 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(2). This section 

requires the agency to collect 

information directly from the individual 

to the greatest extent practical when the 

information may result in an adverse 

determination. The application of this 

provision could impair investigations 

and law enforcement activities by 

alerting the subject of an investigation of 

the existence of the investigation, 

enabling the subject to avoid detection 

or apprehension, to influence witnesses 

improperly, to destroy evidence, or to 

fabricate testimony. In addition, in 

certain circumstances, the subject of an 

investigation cannot be required to 

provide information to investigators, 

and information must be collected from 

other sources. Furthermore, it is often 

necessary to collect information from 

sources other than the subject of the 

investigation to verify the accuracy of 

the evidence collected. 

5. 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(3). This section 

requires an agency to inform each 

person whom it asks to supply 

information, on a form that can be 

retained by the person, of the authority 

which the information is sought and 

whether disclosure is mandatory or 

voluntary; of the principal purposes for 

which the information is intended to be 

used; of the routine uses that may be 

made of the information; and the effects 

on the person, if any, of not providing 

all or any part of the requested 

information. The application of this 

provision could provide the subject of 

an investigation with substantial 

information about the nature of that 

investigation, which could interfere 

with the investigation. Moreover, 

providing such information to the 

subject of an investigation could 

seriously impede or compromise an 

undercover investigation by revealing 

its existence and could endanger the 

physical safety of confidential sources, 

witnesses, and investigators by 

revealing their identities. 

6. 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(4)(I). This section 

requires an agency to provide public 

notice of the categories of sources of 

records in the system. The application 

of this section could disclose 

investigative techniques and procedures 

and cause sources to refrain from giving 

such information because of fear of 

reprisal, or fear of breach of promise(s) 

of anonymity and confidentiality. This 

could compromise DOI’s ability to 

conduct investigations and to identify, 

detect and apprehend violators. 

7. 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(5). This section 

requires an agency to maintain its 

records with such accuracy, relevance, 

timeliness, and completeness as is 

reasonably necessary to assure fairness 

to the individual in making any 

determination about the individual. In 

collecting information during 

investigations and for criminal law 

enforcement purposes, it is not possible 

to determine in advance what 

information is accurate, relevant, timely, 

and complete. Material that may seem 

unrelated, irrelevant, or incomplete 

when collected may take on added 

meaning or significance as the 

investigation progresses. The 

restrictions of this provision could 

interfere with the preparation of a 

complete investigative report and 

impede effective law enforcement. 

8. 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(8). This section 

requires an agency to make reasonable 

efforts to serve notice on an individual 

when any record on the individual is 

made available to any person under 

compulsory legal process when that 

process becomes a matter of public 

record. Complying with this provision 

could prematurely reveal an ongoing 

investigation to the subject of the 

investigation. 

9. 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(12). This section 

requires an agency to publish in the 

Federal Register notice of the 

establishment or revision of a matching 

program at least 30 days prior to 

conducting the matching program. 

Complying with this provision could 

prematurely reveal an ongoing 

investigation to the subject of the 

investigation, impede DOI’s ability to 

conduct law enforcement investigative 

matches, and compromise investigations 

and efforts to identify and detect 

potential insider threats. 

Procedural Requirements 

1. Regulatory Planning and Review (E.O. 

12866) 

Executive Order 12866 provides that 

the Office of Information and Regulatory 

Affairs in the Office of Management and 

Budget will review all significant rules. 

The Office of Information and 

Regulatory Affairs has determined that 

this rule is not significant. 

Executive Order 13563 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. The 

executive order 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 emphasizes 

further 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 rule in a manner consistent with 

these requirements. 

2. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Department of the Interior 

certifies that this document will not 

have a significant economic effect on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601, et seq.). This rule does not 

impose a requirement for small 

businesses to report or keep records on 

any of the requirements contained in 

this rule. The exemptions to the Privacy 

Act apply to individuals, and 

individuals are not covered entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act. 

3. Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) 

This rule is not a major rule under 5 

U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business 

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. 

This rule: 

(a) Does not have an annual effect on 

the economy of $100 million or more. 

(b) Will not cause a major increase in 

costs or prices for consumers, 

individual industries, Federal, State, or 

local government agencies, or 

geographic regions. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 169 / Tuesday, September 2, 2014 / Proposed Rules 51929 

(c) Does not have significant adverse 

effects on competition, employment, 

investment, productivity, innovation, or 

the ability of United States-based 

enterprises to compete with foreignbased enterprises. 

4. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

This rule does not impose an 

unfunded mandate on State, local, or 

tribal governments in the aggregate, or 

on the private sector, of more than $100 

million per year. The rule does not have 

a significant or unique effect on State, 

local, or tribal governments or the 

private sector. This rule makes only 

minor changes to 43 CFR part 2. A 

statement containing the information 

required by the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) is not 

required. 

5. Takings (E.O. 12630) 

In accordance with Executive Order 

12630, the rule does not have significant 

takings implications. This rule makes 

only minor changes to 43 CFR part 2. A 

takings implication assessment is not 

required. 

6. Federalism (E.O. 13132) 

In accordance with Executive Order 

13132, this rule does not have any 

federalism implications to warrant the 

preparation of a Federalism Assessment. 

The rule is not associated with, nor will 

it have substantial direct effects on the 

States, on the relationship between the 

national government and the States, or 

on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. A Federalism 

Assessment is not required. 

7. Civil Justice Reform (E.O. 12988) 

This rule complies with the 

requirements of Executive Order 12988. 

Specifically, this rule: 

(a) Does not unduly burden the 

judicial system. 

(b) 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 

(c) Meets the criteria of section 3(b)(2) 

requiring that all regulations be written 

in clear language and contain clear legal 

standards. 

8. Consultation with Indian Tribes (E.O. 

13175) 

In accordance with Executive Order 

13175, the Department of the Interior 

has evaluated this rule and determined 

that it would have no substantial effects 

on federally recognized Indian Tribes. 

9. Paperwork Reduction Act 

This rule does not require an 

information collection from 10 or more 

parties and a submission under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act is not 

required. 

10. National Environmental Policy Act 

This rule does not constitute a major 

Federal action and would not have a 

significant effect on the quality of the 

human environment. Therefore, this 

rule does not require the preparation of 

an environmental assessment or 

environmental impact statement under 

the requirements of the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969. 

11. Effects on Energy Supply (E.O. 

13211) 

This rule is not a significant energy 

action under the definition in Executive 

Order 13211. A Statement of Energy 

Effects is not required. 

12. Clarity of this Regulation 

We are required by Executive Order 

12866 and 12988, the Plain Writing Act 

of 2010 (H.R. 946), and the Presidential 

Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write 

all rules in plain language. This means 

each rule we publish must: 

—Be logically organized; 

—Use the active voice to address 

readers directly; 

—Use clear language rather than jargon; 

—Be divided into short sections and 

sentences; and 

—Use lists and table wherever possible. 

List of Subjects in 43 CFR Part 2 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Confidential information, 

Courts, Freedom of Information Act, 

Privacy Act. 

Dated: August 21, 2014. 

Rhea Suh, 

Assistant Secretary for Policy, Management 

and Budget. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, the Department of the Interior 

proposes to amend 43 CFR part 2 as 

follows: 

PART 2—FREEDOM OF INFORMATION 

ACT; RECORDS AND TESTIMONY 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 2 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301, 552, 552a, 553; 31 

U.S.C. 3717; 43 U.S.C. 1460, 1461. 

■ 2. Amend § 2.254 by: 

■ a. Revising the introductory text in 

paragraph (a); 

■ b. Reserving paragraph (a)(5) and 

adding paragraph (a)(6); 

■ c. Revising the introductory text in 

paragraph (b); and 

■ d. Reserving paragraphs (b)(14) and 

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

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: 

§ 2.254—Exemptions.

(a) Criminal law enforcement records 

exempt under 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2). 

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2) the 

following systems of records are 

exempted from all of the provisions of 

5 U.S.C. 552a and the regulations in this 

subpart except paragraphs (b), (c) (1) 

and (2), (e)(4) (A) through (F), (e) (6), (7), 

(9), (10), (11) and (12), and (i) of 5 U.S.C. 

552a and the portions of the regulations 

in this subpart implementing these 

paragraphs: 

* * * * * 

(5) [Reserved] 

(6) Insider Threat Program, DOI–50. 

(b) Law enforcement records exempt 

under 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(2). Pursuant to 5 

U.S.C. 552a(k)(2), the following systems 

of records are exempted from 

paragraphs (c)(3), (d), (e)(1), (e)(4) (G), 

(H), and (I), and (f) of 5 U.S.C. 552a and 

the provisions of the regulations in this 

subpart implementing these paragraphs: 

* * * * * 

(14) [Reserved] 

(15) [Reserved] 

(16) Insider Threat Program, DOI–50. 

[FR Doc. 2014–20743 Filed 8–29–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–RK–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 223 

[Docket No. 1206013326–4677–02] 

RIN 0648–XA984 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants: Notice of 12-Month Finding 

on a Petition To List the Nassau 

Grouper as Threatened or Endangered 

Under the Endangered Species Act 

(ESA) 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: We, NMFS, announce a 12- 

month finding and listing determination 

on a petition to list the Nassau grouper 

(Epinephelus striatus) as threatened or 

endangered under the Endangered 

Species Act (ESA). We have completed 

a status review of the Nassau grouper in 

response to a petition submitted by 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS