30416 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 97 / Thursday, May 19, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

Regulatory Flexibility Act and 

Executive Order 12866 

Because no notice of proposed 

rulemaking is required, the provisions 

of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.) do not apply. This 

amendment does not meet the criteria 

for a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ as 

specified in Executive Order 12866. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

There is no new collection of 

information required in this document; 

therefore, the provisions of the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

U.S.C. 3507) are inapplicable. 

Signing Authority 

This document is limited to a 

technical correction of CBP regulations. 

Accordingly, it is being signed under 

the authority of 19 CFR 0.1(b). CBP 

Commissioner Chris Magnus, having 

reviewed and approved this document, 

is delegating the authority to 

electronically sign this document to 

Robert F. Altneu, who is the Director of 

the Regulations and Disclosure Law 

Division for CBP, for purposes of 

publication in the Federal Register. 

List of Subjects in 19 CFR Part 122 

Air carriers, Aircraft, Airports, 

Customs duties and inspection, Freight. 

Amendments to Regulations 

Part 122, of title 19 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations (19 CFR part 122) is 

amended as set forth below: 

PART 122—AIR COMMERCE 

REGULATIONS 

■ 1. The general authority citation for 

part 122 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; 19 U.S.C. 58b, 66, 

1431, 1433, 1436, 1448, 1459, 1590, 1594, 

1623, 1624, 1644, 1644a, 2071 note. 

* * * * * 

§ 122.15 [Amended] 

■ 2. In § 122.15, amend the table in 

paragraph (b) by removing the entry for 

‘‘Hillsboro, Oregon’’. 

Dated: May 13, 2022. 

Robert F. Altneu, 

Director, Regulations & Disclosure Law 

Division, Regulations & Rulings, Office of 

Trade, U.S. Customs and Border Protection. 

[FR Doc. 2022–10668 Filed 5–18–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9111–14–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Office of the Secretary 

32 CFR Part 310 

[Docket ID: DoD–2020–OS–0084] 

RIN 0790–AK99 

Privacy Act of 1974; Implementation 

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary of 

Defense (OSD), Department of Defense 

(DoD). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The DoD is issuing a final rule 

to amend its regulations to exempt 

portions of the DoD–0003, 

‘‘Mobilization Deployment Management 

Information System (MDMIS),’’ system 

of records from certain provisions of the 

Privacy Act of 1974. 

DATES: This rule is effective on June 21, 

2022. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Rahwa Keleta, Privacy and Civil 

Liberties Division, Directorate for 

Privacy, Civil Liberties and Freedom of 

Information, Office of the Assistant to 

the Secretary of Defense for Privacy, 

Civil Liberties, and Transparency, 

Department of Defense, 4800 Mark 

Center Drive, Mailbox #24, Suite 08D09, 

Alexandria, VA 22350–1700; 

OSD.PCLFD@mail.mil; (703) 571–0070. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Discussion of Comments and Changes 

In the notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM), the proposed rule was to be 

published at 32 CFR 310.13(e)(3). DoD 

is now publishing this rule at 32 CFR 

310.13(e)(9). The proposed rule 

published in the Federal Register on 

December 16, 2020 (85 FR 81438– 

81439). Comments were accepted for 60 

days until February 16, 2021. One 

comment was received. Please see the 

summarized comment and the 

Department’s response as follows: 

DoD received one substantive 

comment on the NPRM. The commenter 

voiced concern regarding the 

classification process within the DoD. 

Although this comment does not 

directly pertain to the Privacy Act and 

the exemption claimed for this SORN, to 

promote public understanding in this 

area, a description of the DoD 

classification process is provided in this 

preamble. 

Executive Order 13526 prescribes the 

framework for the Federal government 

(to include DoD) to classify national 

security information. Only DoD 

personnel who are delegated original 

classification authority in writing are 

authorized to review the DoD’s 

information and make the initial 

decision that an item of information 

could reasonably be expected to cause 

identifiable or describable damage to the 

national security if it were disclosed to 

the public. Several oversight and 

compliance safeguarding mechanisms 

exist to ensure the process to classify 

information is appropriate. 

These existing safeguarding 

mechanisms include the following: 

Personnel authorized to make original 

classification determinations are 

required to receive training in proper 

classification, including the avoidance 

of over-classification, and 

declassification at least once a calendar 

year. Additionally, information may 

only be classified if it pertains to 

specific categories or subjects, including 

military plans, weapons systems, or 

operations and intelligence activities. 

Furthermore, agency heads must (on a 

periodic basis) complete a 

comprehensive review of the agency’s 

classification guidance, to include 

reviewing information that is classified 

within the agency; provide the results of 

such review to appropriate officials 

outside the agency at the National 

Archives and Records Administration 

(NARA); and release an unclassified 

version of the review to the public. 

Authorized holders of classified 

information are also encouraged and 

expected to ‘‘challenge’’ classification 

determinations if they believe the 

classification status is improper, and 

any individual or entity can request any 

Federal agency to review classified 

information for declassification, 

regardless of its age or origin, in 

accordance with the Mandatory 

Declassification Review (MDR) process. 

Additional information about the MDR 

process can be found on the NARA’s 

MDR program page at https://

www.archives.gov/isoo/training/mdr. In 

the interest of protecting information 

critical to the Nation’s defense, it is 

appropriate for the DoD to properly 

classify and exempt such information 

from public release under the Privacy 

Act so as to protect U.S. national 

security. 

Having considered the public 

comment, the DoD will implement the 

rulemaking without any changes 

resulting from the comment. However, 

DoD will make one corrective edit to 32 

CFR 310.13(e)(9)(iii)(A). In the prior 

NPRM, records in that paragraph were 

referenced as ‘‘common enterprise 

records,’’ a term that does not appear in 

the DoD–0003 system of records notice 

nor necessarily apply to records in the 

MDMIS. The final rule removes this 

description and simply references 

‘‘records in this system.’’ 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 97 / Thursday, May 19, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 30417 

Background 

In finalizing this rule, DoD exempts 

portions of the updated and reissued 

DoD–0003 MDMIS system of records 

from certain provisions of the Privacy 

Act. DoD uses this system of records to 

automate financial and business 

transactions, perform cost-management 

analysis, produce oversight and audit 

reports, and provide critical data linking 

to improve performance of mission 

objectives. This system of records 

supports DoD in creating predictive 

analytic models based upon specific 

data streams to equip decision makers 

with critical data necessary for 

execution of fiscal and operational 

requirements. Some of the records that 

are part of the DoD–0003 MDMIS 

system of records may contain classified 

national security information and 

disclosure of those records to an 

individual may cause damage to 

national security. The Privacy Act, 

pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(1), 

authorizes agencies to claim an 

exemption for systems of records that 

contain information properly classified 

pursuant to executive order. For this 

reason, DoD has exempted portions of 

the DoD–0003 MDMIS system of records 

from the access and amendment 

requirements of the Privacy Act, 

pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(1), to 

prevent disclosure of any information 

properly classified pursuant to 

executive order, including Executive 

Order 13526, as implemented by DoD 

Instruction 5200.01 and DoD Manual 

5200.01, Volumes 1 and 3. This rule 

will deny an individual access under 

the Privacy Act to only those portions 

of records for which the claimed 

exemption applies. In addition, records 

in the DoD–0003 MDMIS system of 

records are only exempt from the 

Privacy Act to the extent the purposes 

underlying the exemption pertain to the 

record. 

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, of reducing costs, of 

harmonizing rules, and of promoting 

flexibility. It has been determined that 

this rule is not a significant regulatory 

action. 

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 Assistant to the Secretary of 

Defense for Privacy, Civil Liberties, and 

Transparency certified that this Privacy 

Act rule does not have significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities because they 

are concerned only with the 

administration of Privacy Act systems of 

records within the DoD. 

Public Law 96–511, ‘‘Paperwork 

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

It has been determined that this rule 

does not impose additional information 

collection requirements on the public 

under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 

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

Section 202, Public Law 104–4, 

‘‘Unfunded Mandates Reform Act’’ 

It has been determined that this rule 

does not involve a Federal mandate that 

may result in the expenditure by State, 

local and tribal governments, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector, of 

$100 million or more and that it will not 

significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments. 

Executive Order 13132, ‘‘Federalism’’ 

It has been determined that this rule 

does not have federalism implications. 

This rule does not 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. 

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 effects 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 310 

Privacy. 

Accordingly, 32 CFR part 310 is 

amended as follows: 

PART 310—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for 32 CFR 

part 310 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552a. 

■ 2. Section 310.13 is amended by 

adding reserved paragraphs (e)(7) and 

(8) and adding paragraph (e)(9) to read 

as follows: 

§ 310.13 Exemptions for DoD-wide 

systems. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

(7)–(8) [Reserved] 

(9) System identifier and name. DoD– 

0003, ‘‘Mobilization Deployment 

Management Information System 

(MDMIS).’’ 

(i) Exemptions. This system of records 

is exempt from subsections 5 U.S.C. 

552a(c)(3), (d)(1), (d)(2), (d)(3), and 

(d)(4) of the Privacy Act. 

(ii) Authority. 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(1). 

(iii) Exemption from the particular 

subsections. Exemption from the 

particular subsections is justified for the 

following reasons: 

(A) Subsection (c)(3) (accounting of 

disclosures). Because records in this 

system may contain information 

properly classified pursuant to 

executive order, the disclosure 

accountings of such records may also 

contain information properly classified 

pursuant to executive order, the 

disclosure of which may cause damage 

to national security. 

(B) Subsections (d)(1), (2), (3), and (4) 

(record subject’s right to access and 

amend records). Access to and 

amendment of records by the record 

subject could disclose information 

properly classified pursuant to 

executive order. Disclosure of classified 

records to an individual may cause 

damage to national security. 

(iv) Exempt records from other 

systems. In addition, in the course of 

carrying out the overall purpose for this 

system, exempt records from other 

system of records may in turn become 

part of the records maintained in this 

system. To the extent that copies of 

exempt records from those other 

systems of records are maintained in 

this system, the DoD claims the same 

exemptions for the records from those 

other systems that are entered into this 

system, as claimed for the prior 

system(s) of which they are a part, 

provided the reason for the exemption 

remains valid and necessary. 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
30418 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 97 / Thursday, May 19, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

Dated: May 11, 2022. 

Aaron T. Siegel, 

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison 

Officer, Department of Defense. 

[FR Doc. 2022–10656 Filed 5–18–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 5001–06–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 117 

[Docket No. USCG–2022–0237] 

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; 

Keweenaw Waterway, Between 

Houghton and Hancock, MI 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Notice of temporary deviation 

from regulations; request for comments. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard has issued a 

temporary deviation from the operating 

schedule that governs the US41 Bridge, 

mile 16.0, over the Keweenaw 

Waterway between the towns of 

Houghton and Hancock, Michigan. The 

Michigan Department of Transportation 

(MDOT), who owns and operates the 

bridge, has requested a deviation that 

will test a change to the drawbridge 

operation schedule to determine 

whether a permanent change to the 

schedule is needed. The Coast Guard is 

seeking comments from the public 

regarding these proposed changes. 

DATES: This deviation is effective from 

7 a.m. on May 26, 2022 through 7 p.m. 

on September 6, 2022. Comments and 

related material must reach the Coast 

Guard on or before November 1, 2022. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

identified by docket number USCG– 

2022–0237 using Federal Decision 

Making Portal at https://

www.regulations.gov. 

See the ‘‘Public Participation and 

Request for Comments’’ portion of the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section 

below for instructions on submitting 

comments. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you have questions on this proposed 

rule, call or email Mr. Lee D. Soule, 

Bridge Management Specialist, Ninth 

Coast Guard District; telephone 216– 

902–6085, email Lee.D.Soule@uscg.mil. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background, Purpose and Legal Basis 

The US41 Bridge, mile 16.0, over the 

Keweenaw Waterway (the bridge) 

between the towns of Houghton and 

Hancock, Michigan, is owned and 

operated by MDOT and is the only 

crossing over the waterway. The bridge 

is a combination highway and railroad 

double deck lift bridge that provides a 

horizontal clearance of 7-feet in the 

down position, 103-feet in the open 

positon, and 35-feet in the intermediate 

position above low water datum (LWD) 

based on International Great Lakes 

Datum of 1985 (IGLD85). 

The Keweenaw Waterway divides the 

Keweenaw Peninsula and is located in 

the middle of the south shore of Lake 

Superior, a Great Lake known for 

hazardous weather conditions. The 

federal government improved the 

Keweenaw Waterway in 1861 to 

accommodate interstate commerce; the 

Keweenaw Waterway acts as a harbor of 

safe refuge for vessels caught in bad 

weather and is the halfway between 

Duluth, Minnesota and Sault Ste. Marie, 

Michigan. Commercial vessels, 

including some over 700-feet in length, 

and powered and non-powered 

recreational vessels utilize the 

waterway. The passenger vessel 

RANGER III operates from the east side 

of the US41 Bridge to Isle Royal and is 

operated by the National Park Service 

with a capacity of 128-passengers. A 

U.S. Coast Guard Station is located at 

the far west end of the waterway. 

MDOT has requested a new operating 

schedule to relieve commuter and 

commercial vehicle traffic congestion at 

the bridge on weekdays; the new 

schedule will not apply to federal 

holidays that fall on weekdays. Traffic 

data impacted by COVID–19 restrictions 

would not provide the public with an 

accurate assessment of the traffic 

conditions at the bridge and have 

intentionally have not been considered. 

The following data from the 2017 

through 2019 drawtender logs and 

traffic data from July 9 through July 15, 

2019 was provided by MDOT. We have 

received a request to consider restricting 

the bridge openings at this location at 

least twice a year since 2016. The 

comments and data received during this 

test deviation will prove or disprove the 

need for restricted openings. 

MDOT provided vehicle-crossing data 

for a five-day workweek and we 

discovered from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. the 

traffic at the bridge steadily increases 

then decreases without definitive spikes 

at morning, noon, and evening, as 

shown in the below graph. 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1ER19MY22.015</GPH>