40972 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 144 / Friday, July 30, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

V–233 [Amended] 

From Spinner, IL; INT Spinner 061° and 

Roberts, IL, 233° radials; Roberts; Knox, IN; 

to Goshen, IN. From Mount Pleasant, MI; INT 

Mount Pleasant 351° and Gaylord, MI, 207° 

radials; Gaylord; to Pellston, MI. 

* * * * * 

Issued in Washington, DC, on July 26, 

2021. 

George Gonzalez, 

Acting Manager, Rules and Regulations 

Group. 

[FR Doc. 2021–16140 Filed 7–29–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

28 CFR Part 16 

[CPCLO Order No. 008–2021] 

Privacy Act of 1974; Implementation 

AGENCY: Justice Management Division 

(JMD), United States Department of 

Justice. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Justice 

(Department or DOJ), Justice 

Management Division (JMD), in the 

Notices section of this issue of the 

Federal Register, is publishing a new 

system of records, ‘‘Security Monitoring 

and Analytics Service Records,’’ 

JUSTICE/JMD–026. In this notice of 

proposed rulemaking, DOJ proposes to 

exempt this system of records from 

certain provisions of the Privacy Act to 

avoid interference with efforts to 

prevent the unauthorized access, use, 

disclosure, disruption, modification, or 

destruction of information, information 

systems, and networks of DOJ and 

external federal agency subscribers. For 

the reasons provided below, the 

Department proposes to amend its 

Privacy Act regulations by establishing 

an exemption from certain provisions of 

the Privacy Act for this system of 

records. Public comment is invited. 

DATES: Comments must be received by 

August 30, 2021. 

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by 

any of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. When submitting 

comments electronically, you must 

include the CPCLO Order No. in the 

subject box. Please note that the 

Department is requesting that electronic 

comments be submitted before midnight 

Eastern Standard Time on the day the 

comment period closes because http://

www.regulations.gov terminates the 

public’s ability to submit comments at 

that time. Commenters in time zones 

other than Eastern Standard Time may 

want to consider this so that their 

electronic comments are received. 

• Mail: United States Department of 

Justice, Office of Privacy and Civil 

Liberties, ATTN: Privacy Analyst, Office 

of Privacy and Civil Liberties, 145 N St. 

NE, Suite 8W.300, Washington, DC 

20530. All comments sent via regular or 

express mail will be considered timely 

if postmarked on the day the comment 

period closes. To ensure proper 

handling, please reference the CPCLO 

Order No. in your correspondence. 

Posting of Public Comments: 

Interested persons are invited to 

participate in this rulemaking by 

submitting written data, views, or 

arguments on all aspects of this rule by 

one of the methods and by the deadline 

stated above. All comments must be 

submitted in English, or accompanied 

by an English translation. The 

Department also invites comments that 

relate to the economic, environmental, 

or federalism effects that might result 

from this rule. Comments that will 

provide the most assistance to the 

Department in developing these 

procedures will reference a specific 

portion of the rule, explain the reason 

for any recommended change, and 

include data, information, or authority 

that support such recommended change. 

Please note that all comments 

received are considered part of the 

public record and made available for 

public inspection at 

www.regulations.gov. Such information 

includes personally identifying 

information (PII) (such as your name, 

address, etc.). Interested persons are not 

required to submit their PII in order to 

comment on this rule. However, any PII 

that is submitted is subject to being 

posted to the publicly-accessible 

www.regulations.gov site without 

redaction. 

Confidential business information 

clearly identified in the first paragraph 

of the comment as such will not be 

placed in the public docket file. 

The Department may withhold from 

public viewing information provided in 

comments that they determine may 

impact the privacy of an individual or 

is offensive. For additional information, 

please read the Privacy Act notice that 

is available via the link in the footer of 

http://www.regulations.gov. To inspect 

the agency’s public docket file in 

person, you must make an appointment 

with the agency. Please see the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

paragraph, below, for agency contact 

information. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Nickolous Ward, DOJ Chief Information 

Security Officer, (202) 514–3101, 145 N 

Street NE, Washington, DC 20530. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In 

accordance with the Federal 

Information Security Modernization Act 

of 2014, among other authorities, 

agencies are is responsible for 

complying with information security 

policies and procedures requiring 

information security protections 

commensurate with the risk and 

magnitude of harm resulting from the 

unauthorized access, use, disclosure, 

disruption, modification, or destruction 

of DOJ information and information 

systems. See, e.g., 44 U.S.C. 3554 (2018). 

Executive Order No. 13800, 

Strengthening the Cybersecurity of 

Federal Networks and Critical 

Infrastructure (May 2017), directs 

agency heads to show preference in 

their procurement for shared IT 

services, to the extent permitted by law, 

including email, cloud, and 

cybersecurity services. Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) 

Memorandum M–19–16, Centralized 

Mission Support Capabilities for the 

Federal Government (April 26, 2019), 

establishes the framework for 

implementing the ‘‘Sharing Quality 

Services’’ across agencies. The Economy 

Act of 1932, as amended, 31 U.S.C. 

1535, authorizes agencies to enter into 

agreements to obtain supplies or 

services from another agency. 

Consistent with these authorities, the 

JMD, Office of the Chief Information 

Officer (OCIO), Cybersecurity Services 

Staff (CSS), developed the Security 

Monitoring and Analytics Service 

(SMAS) system to provide DOJ-managed 

information technology service offerings 

to other federal agencies wishing to 

leverage DOJ’s cybersecurity services, 

referred to as ‘‘external federal agency 

subscribers.’’ This system provides 

external federal agency subscribers with 

the technical capability to protect their 

data from malicious or accidental 

threats using a DOJ-managed system. 

Elsewhere in the Federal Register, JMD 

published a notice of a new system of 

records titled, ‘‘Security Monitoring and 

Analytics Service Records,’’ JUSTICE/ 

JMD–026, to provide the public notice 

of the records maintained by DOJ while 

implementing SMAS. 

In this rulemaking, the Department 

proposes to exempt JUSTICE/JMD–026 

from certain provisions of the Privacy 

Act in order to avoid interference with 

the responsibilities of the Department to 

prevent the unauthorized access, use, 

disclosure, disruption, modification, or 

destruction of external federal agency 

subscribers’ information and 

information systems. Additionally, the 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 144 / Friday, July 30, 2021 / Proposed Rules 40973 

Department proposes to exempt 

JUSTICE/JMD–026 from certain 

provisions to assist DOJ and external 

federal agency subscribers with 

protecting such data and ensuring the 

secure operation of information systems. 

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563— 

Regulatory Review 

In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552a(j) 

and 552a(k), this proposed action is 

subject to formal rulemaking procedures 

by giving interested persons an 

opportunity to participate in the 

rulemaking process ‘‘through 

submission of written data, views, or 

arguments,’’ pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553. 

This proposed rule will promulgate 

certain Privacy Act exemptions for a 

DOJ system of records titled, ‘‘Security 

Monitoring and Analytics Service 

Records,’’ JUSTICE/JMD–026. This 

proposed rule does not raise novel legal 

or policy issues, nor does it adversely 

affect the economy, the budgetary 

impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, 

loan programs, or the rights and 

obligations of recipients thereof in a 

material way. The Department of Justice 

has determined that this rule is not a 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under 

Executive Order 12866, section 3(f), and 

accordingly this rule has not been 

reviewed by the Office of Information 

and Regulatory Affairs within the Office 

of Management and Budget pursuant to 

Executive Order 12866. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

This proposed rule will only impact 

Privacy Act-protected records, which 

are personal and generally do not apply 

to an individual’s entrepreneurial 

capacity, subject to limited exceptions. 

Accordingly, the Chief Privacy and Civil 

Liberties Officer, in accordance with the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 

605(b)), has reviewed this regulation 

and by approving it certifies that this 

regulation will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. 

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996 (Subtitle ECongressional Review Act) 

The Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 

1996, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., requires the 

Department to comply with small entity 

requests for information and advice 

about compliance with statutes and 

regulations within the Department’s 

jurisdiction. Any small entity that has a 

question regarding this document may 

contact the person listed in FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT paragraph, above. 

Persons can obtain further information 

regarding SBREFA on the Small 

Business Administration’s web page at 

https://www.sba.gov/advocacy. This 

proposed rule is not a major rule as 

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804 of the 

Congressional Review Act. 

Executive Order 13132—Federalism 

This proposed rule will not have 

substantial direct effects on the States, 

on the relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. Therefore, in 

accordance with Executive Order 13132, 

it is determined that this rule does not 

have sufficient federalism implications 

to warrant the preparation of a 

Federalism Assessment. 

Executive Order 12988—Civil Justice 

Reform 

This proposed regulation meets the 

applicable standards set forth in 

sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive 

Order 12988 to eliminate drafting errors 

and ambiguity, minimize litigation, 

provide a clear legal standard for 

affected conduct, and promote 

simplification and burden reduction. 

Executive Order 13175—Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

This proposed rule will have no 

implications for Indian Tribal 

governments. More specifically, it does 

not have substantial direct effects on 

one or more Indian tribes, on the 

relationship between the Federal 

government and Indian tribes, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities between the Federal 

government and Indian tribes. 

Therefore, the consultation 

requirements of Executive Order 13175 

do not apply. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 

1995 

This proposed rule will not result in 

the expenditure by State, local and 

tribal governments, in the aggregate, or 

by the private sector, of $100,000,000, as 

adjusted for inflation, or more in any 

one year, and it will not significantly or 

uniquely affect small governments. 

Therefore, no actions were deemed 

necessary under the provisions of the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 

1995. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 

1995, 44 U.S.C. 3507(d), requires the 

Department to consider the impact of 

paperwork and other information 

collection burdens imposed on the 

public. There are no current or new 

information collection requirements 

associated with this proposed rule. 

List of Subjects in 28 CFR Part 16 

Administrative Practices and 

Procedures, Courts, Freedom of 

Information, and the Privacy Act. 

Pursuant to the authority vested in the 

Attorney General by 5 U.S.C. 552a and 

delegated to me by Attorney General 

Order 2940–2008, the Department of 

Justice proposes to amend 28 CFR part 

16 as follows: 

PART 16—PRODUCTION OR 

DISCLOSURE OF MATERIAL OR 

INFORMATION 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 16 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301, 552, 552a, 553; 28 

U.S.C. 509, 510, 534; 31 U.S.C. 3717. 

Subpart E—Exemption of Records 

Systems Under the Privacy Act 

■ 2. Amend § 16.76 by adding 

paragraphs (e) and (f) to read as follows: 

§ 16.76 Exemption of Justice Management 

Division. 

* * * * * 

(e) The following system of records is 

exempted from 5 U.S.C. 552a(c)(3); (d); 

(e)(1), (e)(4)(G), (H), and (I); and (f): 

Department of Justice Security 

Monitoring and Analytics System 

(JUSTICE/JMD–025). These exemptions 

apply only to the extent that 

information in this system is subject to 

exemption pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 

552a(k)(2). Where DOJ determines 

compliance would not appear to 

interfere with or adversely affect the 

purpose of this system to ensure that the 

Department can track information 

system access and implement 

information security protections 

commensurate with the risk and 

magnitude of harm that could result 

from the unauthorized access, use, 

disclosure, disruption, modification, or 

destruction of DOJ information and 

information systems, the applicable 

exemption may be waived by the DOJ in 

its sole discretion. 

(f) Exemptions from the particular 

subsections are justified for the 

following reasons: 

(1) From subsection (c)(3), the 

requirement that an accounting be made 

available to the named subject of a 

record, because this system is exempt 

from the access provisions of subsection 

(d). Also, because making available to a 

record subject the accounting of 

disclosures of records concerning the 

subject would specifically reveal 

investigative interests in the records by 

the DOJ, external federal agency 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
40974 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 144 / Friday, July 30, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

subscribers, or other entities that are 

recipients of the disclosures. Revealing 

this information could compromise 

sensitive information or interfere with 

the overall law enforcement process by 

revealing a pending sensitive 

cybersecurity investigation. Revealing 

this information could also permit the 

record subject to obtain valuable insight 

concerning the information obtained 

during any investigation and to take 

measures to impede the investigation, 

e.g., destroy evidence or alter 

techniques to evade discovery. 

(2) From subsection (d)(1), (2), (3) and 

(4), (e)(4)(G) and (H), and (f) because 

these provisions concern individual 

access to and amendment of certain law 

enforcement and sensitive records, 

compliance of which could alert the 

subject of an authorized law 

enforcement activity about that 

particular activity and the interest of the 

DOJ, external federal agency 

subscribers, and/or other entities that 

are recipients of the disclosure. 

Providing access could compromise 

sensitive information, or reveal sensitive 

cybersecurity investigative techniques; 

provide information that would allow a 

subject to avoid detection; or constitute 

a potential danger to the health or safety 

of law enforcement personnel or 

confidential sources. 

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

is not always possible to know in 

advance what information is relevant 

and necessary for law enforcement 

purposes. The relevance and utility of 

certain information that may have a 

nexus to cybersecurity threats may not 

always be fully evident until and unless 

it is vetted and matched with other 

information necessarily and lawfully 

maintained by the DOJ, external federal 

agency subscribers, or other entities. 

(4) From subsection (e)(4)(I), to the 

extent that this subsection is interpreted 

to require more detail regarding the 

record sources in this system than has 

been published in the Federal Register. 

Should the subsection be so interpreted, 

exemption from this provision is 

necessary to protect the sources of law 

enforcement information. 

Dated: July 20, 2021. 

Peter A. Winn, 

Acting Chief Privacy and Civil Liberties 

Officer, United States Department of Justice. 

[FR Doc. 2021–15884 Filed 7–29–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–NW–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 100 

[Docket No. USCG–2021–0305] 

RIN 1625–AA08 

Special Local Regulations; Patuxent 

River, Solomons, MD 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking; 

withdrawal. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is 

withdrawing its proposed rule to 

establish temporary special local 

regulations for certain waters of the 

Patuxent River. The rulemaking was 

initiated to establish a special local 

regulation during the ‘‘Chesapeake 

Challenge/Solomons Offshore Grand 

Prix,’’ a marine event to be held on 

certain waters of the Patuxent River, 

between the Governor Thomas Johnson 

(MD Route 4) Bridge and the West 

Patuxent Basin at U.S. Naval Air Station 

Patuxent River, MD. The proposed rule 

is being withdrawn because it is no 

longer necessary. The event sponsor has 

cancelled the power boat racing event. 

DATES: The Coast Guard is withdrawing 

the proposed rule for the event 

scheduled on August 29, 2021, from 9 

a.m. to 5 p.m. published on June 7, 2021 

(86 FR 30224) as of July 30, 2021. 

ADDRESSES: To view the docket for this 

withdrawn rulemaking, go to https://

www.regulations.gov, type USCG–2021– 

0305 in the ‘‘SEARCH’’ box and click 

‘‘SEARCH.’’ Click on Open Docket 

Folder on the line associated with this 

rule. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you have questions about this notice, 

call or email Mr. Ron Houck, Waterways 

Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard 

Sector Maryland-National Capital 

Region; telephone 410–576– 2674, email 

Ronald.L.Houck@uscg.mil. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background Information and 

Regulatory History 

On June 7, 2021, we published an 

NPRM entitled ‘‘Special Local 

Regulations; Patuxent River, Solomons, 

MD’’ in the Federal Register (86 FR 

30224). The proposed rulemaking 

concerned the Coast Guard’s 

establishment of a temporary special 

local regulation for certain navigable 

waters of the Patuxent River, effective 

from 8 a.m. through 6 p.m. on August 

29, 2021. This action was necessary to 

provide for the safety of life on these 

waters during a power boat racing event. 

This rulemaking would have prohibited 

persons and vessels from entering the 

regulated area unless authorized by the 

Captain of the Port Maryland-National 

Capital Region or the Coast Guard Event 

Patrol Commander. 

Withdrawal 

The proposed rule is being withdrawn 

due to the regulated area no longer 

being necessary following a cancellation 

of the power boat racing event by the 

event sponsor. 

Authority 

We issue this notice of withdrawal 

under the authority of 46 U.S.C. 70041. 

Dated: July 26, 2021. 

David E. O’Connell, 

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the 

Port Maryland-National Capital Region. 

[FR Doc. 2021–16259 Filed 7–29–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION 

39 CFR Part 3050 

[Docket No. RM2021–7; Order No. 5945] 

Periodic Reporting 

AGENCY: Postal Regulatory Commission. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Commission is 

acknowledging a recent filing requesting 

the Commission initiate a rulemaking 

proceeding to consider changes to 

analytical principles relating to periodic 

reports (Proposal Four). This document 

informs the public of the filing, invites 

public comment, and takes other 

administrative steps. 

DATES: Comments are due: August 23, 

2021. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments 

electronically via the Commission’s 

Filing Online system at http://

www.prc.gov. Those who cannot submit 

comments electronically should contact 

the person identified in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section by 

telephone for advice on filing 

alternatives. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 

202–789–6820. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Introduction 

II. Proposal Four 

III. Notice and Comment 

IV. Ordering Paragraphs 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1