        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 648
        [I.D. 022001A]
        New England Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting

          AGENCY:
          National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

          ACTION:
          Public meeting.

          SUMMARY:
          The New England Fishery Management Council (Council) will hold a 2-day Council meeting, on March 14 and 15, 2001, to consider actions affecting New England fisheries in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ).

          DATES:
          The meeting will be held on Wednesday and Thursday, March 14 and 15, at 9 a.m. and 8:30 a.m., respectively.

          ADDRESSES:
          The meetings will be held at the Radisson Hotel New London, 35 Governor Winthrop Boulevard, New London, CT, 06320; telephone (860) 443-7000.  Requests for special accommodations should be addressed to the New England Fishery Management Council, 50 Water Street, Mill 2, Newburyport, MA 01950; telephone (978) 465-0492.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Paul J. Howard, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council (978) 465-0492.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Wednesday, March 14, 2001
        After introductions, the meeting will begin with a report from the Council’s Groundfish Committee on alternatives for draft Amendment 13 to the Northeast Multispecies Fishery Management Plan (FMP).  Prior to that discussion, the Council will receive two reports.  The first will summarize fishing industry comments on the social impacts of groundfish management measures since 1994. The second will present information on changes in groundfish vessel gross revenues since 1994.  A discussion of the biological objectives for the amendment is also scheduled.  The alternatives discussion will be based on the broad concepts of refinements to the status quo measures, area-based management and sector allocation by gear type.

        Thursday, March 15, 2001
        The second day of the Council meeting will begin with reports on recent activities from the Council Chairman, Executive Director, the NMFS Regional Administrator, Northeast Fisheries Science Center and Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council liaisons, NOAA General Counsel and representatives of the Coast Guard, NMFS Enforcement and the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission.  These reports will be followed by a brief period for public comments on any topic relevant to Council business.  The Council will revisit its priorities for 2001 in view of the need to develop a Red Crab FMP.  Based on Council approval of a change in priorities, the Red Crab Committee will be prepared to recommend goals and objectives for the Red Crab FMP.  The Scallop Committee will seek approval of goals and objectives for Amendment 10 to the Scallop FMP as well as a draft outline of management alternatives.  The Council meeting will adjourn after addressing any other outstanding business.
        Although other non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this Council for discussion, those issues may not be the subjects of formal action during this meeting.  Council action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency.

        The Council will consider public comments at a minimum of two Council meetings before making recommendations to the NMFS Regional Administrator on any framework adjustment to a fishery management plan.  If she concurs with the adjustment proposed by the Council, the Regional Administrator has the discretion to publish the action either as proposed or final regulations in the Federal Register.  Documents pertaining to framework adjustments are available for public review 7 days prior to a final vote by the Council.
        Special Accommodations

        This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities.  Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Paul J. Howard (see ADDRESSES) at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

          Dated: February 22, 2001.
          Richard W. Surdi,
          Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 01-4893 Filed 2-27-01; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-S


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 660
        [Docket No. 001012284-0284-01; I.D. 092100B]
        RIN 0648-AO50
        Fisheries off West Coast States and in the Western Pacific; Western Pacific Pelagic Fisheries; American Samoa; Control Date

          AGENCY:
          National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

          ACTION:
          Advance notice of proposed rulemaking; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS announces that persons who enter the pelagic longline fishery in the exclusive economic zone around American Samoa after July 15, 2000 (“control date”) are not guaranteed future participation in the fishery if the Western Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) prepares and NMFS approves a program limiting entry or effort.  This action does not commit the Council or NMFS to limit effort or to prevent any other date from being selected for eligibility to participate in the American Samoa pelagic fishery.  The Council or NMFS also may use other criteria to limit fishing effort or participation in a limited entry program if one is developed in the future.

          DATES:
          Comments must be submitted in writing by November 20, 2000.

          ADDRESSES:
          Comments may be mailed to Dr. Charles Karnella, Administrator, NMFS, Pacific Islands Area Office (PIAO), 1601 Kapiolani Blvd., Suite 1110, Honolulu, HI 96814-4700; or faxed to 808-973-2941.  Comments will not be accepted if submitted via e-mail or Internet.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Alvin Katekaru, Fishery Management Specialist, PIAO, 808-973-2937.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        Since 1996, the pelagic fishery around American Samoa has undergone a change from essentially a troll fishery to a commercial, small-scale longline fishery.  Currently, the pelagic longline fishery consists mostly of “alias” (small catamarans), about 30 ft (9.1 m) long and powered by gasoline outboard engines, that use monofilament longline gear to target albacore tuna.  In 1996, 13 alias landed 232,721 lbs (105.56 mt) of albacore.  At present about 25 alias are actively engaged in the fishery; however, 63 alias are registered with longline general permits.  As for large fishing vessels, in 1997 the fishery consisted of four longliners ranging in length from 65 to 109 ft (19.8 to 33.2 m); today there are 15 large longline vessels in the American Samoa pelagic fishery.
        In response to the influx of large longliners into American Samoa’s pelagic fishery and the potential for conflict between the large vessels and small alias, the Council established November 13, 1997, as a control date to further restrict the participation of large fishing vessels in the fishery, if the Council decided to limit entry or effort, by establishing area closures to large fishing vessels (63 FR 3532, January 23, 1998).  At its meeting in June 2000, the Council voted to: (1) establish 50-nm fishing area closures around the islands of American Samoa to commercial fishing vessels larger than 50 ft (15.2 m) in length targeting pelagic management unit species, (2) allow vessels registered for use with a Federal general longline permit and a documented landing of pelagic management unit species, prior to the control date of November 13, 1997, to use longline gear within a 50-nm area closure around American Samoa, and (3) establish a new control date of July 15, 2000, for permit eligibility, which supersedes the control date of November 13, 1997, if the Council decides to develop a limited entry program for the American Samoa longline fishery.
        The Council believes that there is a risk of speculative entry into the longline fishery while the Council further evaluates the potential benefits and costs of limited entry alternatives.  The control date is designed to discourage speculative entry during this period of analysis.  The control date does not commit the Council or NMFS to any particular management regime or criteria for entry into the American Samoa longline fishery.  Fishermen are not guaranteed future participation in this fishery, regardless of their level of participation before or after the control date.  The Council may choose a different control date or it may choose a management regime that does not involve a control date.  Other criteria, such as documentation of commercial landings and sales, may be used to determine eligibility for participation in the fishery.  The Council also may choose to take no further action to control entry or access to the fishery, in which case the control date may be rescinded.

          Authority:
          16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

          Dated: October 13, 2000.
          Penelope D. Dalton,
          Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 00-26936 Filed 10-18-00; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-S


        DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
        Coast Guard
        33 CFR Part 100
        [Docket Number USCG-2020-0074]
        RIN 1625-AA08
        Special Local Regulation; Choptank River, Between Trappe and Cambridge, MD

          AGENCY:
          Coast Guard, DHS.

          ACTION:
          Notice of proposed rulemaking.

          SUMMARY:
          The Coast Guard is proposing to establish temporary special local regulations for certain waters of the Choptank River. This action is necessary to provide for the safety of life on these navigable waters located between Trappe, Talbot County, MD, and Cambridge, Dorchester County, MD, during a swim event on May 30, 2020. This proposed rulemaking would prohibit persons and vessels from entering the regulated area unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Maryland-National Capital Region or the Coast Guard Patrol Commander. We invite your comments on this proposed rulemaking.

          DATES:
          Comments and related material must be received by the Coast Guard on or before March 2, 2020.

          ADDRESSES:

          You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-2020-0074 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. See the “Public Participation and Request for Comments” portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for further instructions on submitting comments.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          If you have questions about this proposed rulemaking, call or email Mr. Ron Houck, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Maryland-National Capital Region; telephone 410-576-2674, email Ronald.L.Houck@uscg.mil.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        I. Table of Abbreviations

          CFR Code of Federal Regulations
          COTP Captain of the Port
          DHS Department of Homeland Security
          FR Federal Register
          NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
          PATCOM Coast Guard Patrol Commander
          § Section
          U.S.C. United States Code

        II. Background, Purpose, and Legal Basis
        TCR Event Management of St. Michaels, MD, notified the Coast Guard that it will be conducting the Maryland Freedom Swim from 10 a.m. to noon on May 30, 2020. The open water swim consists of approximately 300 participants competing on a designated 1.75-mile linear course. The course starts at the beach of Bill Burton Fishing Pier State Park at Trappe, MD, proceeds across the Choptank River along and between the fishing piers and the Senator Frederick C. Malkus, Jr. Memorial (US-50) Bridge, and finishes at the beach of the Dorchester County Visitors Center at Cambridge, MD. Hazards from the swim competition include participants swimming within and adjacent to the designated navigation channel and interfering with vessels intending to operate within that channel, as well as swimming within approaches to local public and private marinas and public boat facilities. The Captain of the Port (COTP) Maryland-National Capital Region has determined that potential hazards associated with the swim would be a safety concern for anyone intending to participate in this event and for vessels that operate within specified waters of the Choptank River.

        The purpose of this rulemaking is to protect event participants, non-participants, and transiting vessels on before, during, and after the scheduled event. The Coast Guard is proposing this rulemaking under authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034 (previously 33 U.S.C. 1231).
        III. Discussion of Proposed Rule
        The COTP Maryland-National Capital Region is proposing to establish special local regulations from 9 a.m. through 1 p.m. on May 30, 2020. There is no alternate date planned for this event. The regulated area would cover all navigable waters of the Choptank River, from shoreline to shoreline, within an area bounded on the east by a line drawn from latitude 38°35′14.2″ N, longitude 076°02′33.0″ W, thence south to latitude 38°34′08.3″ N, longitude 076°03′36.2″ W, and bounded on the west by a line drawn from latitude 38°35′32.7″ N, longitude 076°02′58.3″ W, thence south to latitude 38°34′24.7″ N, longitude 076°04′01.3″ W, located at Cambridge, MD. The regulated area is approximately 2,800 yards in length and 900 yards in width. The proposed duration of the rule and size of the regulated area are intended to ensure the safety of life on these navigable waters before, during, and after the open water swim, scheduled to take place from 10 a.m. to noon on May 30, 2020. The COTP and the Coast Guard Patrol Commander (PATCOM) would have authority to forbid and control the movement of all vessels and persons, including event participants, in the regulated area.
        Except for Maryland Freedom Swim participants and vessels already at berth, a vessel or person would be required to get permission from the COTP or PATCOM before entering the regulated area. Vessel operators would be able to request permission to enter and transit through the regulated area by contacting the PATCOM on VHF-FM channel 16. Vessel traffic would be able to safely transit the regulated area once the PATCOM deems it safe to do so. A person or vessel not registered with the event sponsor as a participant or assigned as official patrols would be considered a non-participant. Official Patrols are any vessel assigned or approved by the Commander, Coast Guard Sector Maryland-National Capital Region with a commissioned, warrant, or petty officer on board and displaying a Coast Guard ensign.
        If permission is granted by the COTP or PATCOM, a person or vessel would be allowed to enter the regulated area or pass directly through the regulated area as instructed. Vessels would be required to operate at a safe speed that minimizes wake while within the regulated area. Official patrol vessels would direct non-participants while within the regulated area.
        The regulatory text we are proposing appears at the end of this document.
        IV. Regulatory Analyses
        We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.
        A. Regulatory Planning and Review
        Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This NPRM has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the NPRM has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.
        This regulatory action determination is based on size, time of day and duration of the regulated area, which would impact a small designated area of the Choptank River for 4 hours. The Coast Guard would issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the status of the regulated area. Moreover, the rule would allow vessels to seek permission to enter the regulated area, and vessel traffic would be able to safely transit the regulated area once the PATCOM deems it safe to do so.
        B. Impact on Small Entities
        The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
        While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section IV.A above, this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.

        If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what degree this rule would economically affect it.

        Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this proposed rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
        C. Collection of Information
        This proposed rule would not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
        D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments
        A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect 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. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.

        Also, this proposed rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect 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. If you believe this proposed rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

        E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
        The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule would not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
        F. Environment
        We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This proposed rule involves implementation of regulations within 33 CFR part 100 applicable to organized marine events on the navigable waters of the United States that could negatively impact the safety of waterway users and shore side activities in the event area lasting for 4 hours. Normally such actions are categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L[61] of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 01. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this proposed rule.
        G. Protest Activities

        The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or security of people, places, or vessels.
        V. Public Participation and Request for Comments
        We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking, and will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation.

        We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be submitted using http://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate instructions.

        We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and submissions in response to this docket, see DHS's Correspondence System of Records notice (84 FR 48645, September 26, 2018).

        Documents mentioned in this NPRM as being available in the docket, and all public comments, will be in our online docket at http://www.regulations.gov and can be viewed by following that website's instructions. Additionally, if you go to the online docket and sign up for email alerts, you will be notified when comments are posted or a final rule is published.

          List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 100
          Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Waterways.

        For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard is proposing to amend 33 CFR part 100 as follows:

          PART 100—SAFETY OF LIFE ON NAVIGABLE WATERS

        1. The authority citation for part 100 continues to read as follows:

          Authority:
          46 U.S.C. 70041; 33 CFR 1.05-1.

        2. Add § 100.T05-0074 to read as follows:

          § 100.T05-0074
           Maryland Freedom Swim, Choptank River, Between Trappe and Cambridge, MD.
          (a) Regulated area. The regulations in this section apply to the following area: All navigable waters of the Choptank River, from shoreline to shoreline, within an area bounded on the east by a line drawn from latitude 38°35′14.2″ N, longitude 076°02′33.0″ W, thence south to latitude 38°34′08.3″ N, longitude 076°03′36.2″ W, and bounded on the west by a line drawn from latitude 38°35′32.7″ N, longitude 076°02′58.3″ W, thence south to latitude 38°34′24.7″ N, longitude 076°04′01.3″ W, located at Cambridge, MD. These coordinates are based on datum NAD 1983.
          (b) Definitions. As used in this section—

            Captain of the Port (COTP) Maryland-National Capital Region means the Commander, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Maryland-National Capital Region or any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or petty officer who has been authorized by the COTP to act on his behalf.

            Coast Guard Patrol Commander (PATCOM) means a commissioned, warrant, or petty officer of the U.S. Coast Guard who has been designated by the Commander, Coast Guard Sector Maryland-National Capital Region.

            Official Patrol means any vessel assigned or approved by Commander, Coast Guard Sector Maryland-National Capital Region with a commissioned, warrant, or petty officer on board and displaying a Coast Guard ensign.

            Participant means all persons and vessels registered with the event sponsor as participating in the Maryland Freedom Swim or otherwise designated by the event sponsor as having a function tied to the event.
          (c) Regulations. (1) Except for vessels already at berth, all non-participants are prohibited from entering, transiting through, anchoring in, or remaining within the regulated area described in paragraph (a) of this section unless authorized by the COTP Maryland-National Capital Region or PATCOM.
          (2) To seek permission to enter, contact the COTP Maryland-National Capital Region at telephone number 410-576-2693 or on Marine Band Radio, VHF-FM channel 16 (156.8 MHz) or the PATCOM on Marine Band Radio, VHF-FM channel 16 (156.8 MHz). Those in the regulated area must comply with all lawful orders or directions given to them by the COTP Maryland-National Capital Region or PATCOM.
          (3) The COTP Maryland-National Capital Region will provide notice of the regulated area through advanced notice via Fifth Coast Guard District Local Notice to Mariners, broadcast notice to mariners, and on-scene official patrols.
          (d) Enforcement officials. The Coast Guard may be assisted with marine event patrol and enforcement of the regulated area by other Federal, State, and local agencies.
          (e) Enforcement period. This section will be enforced from 9 a.m. to 1 p.m. on May 30, 2020.

          Dated: January 27, 2020.
          Joseph B. Loring,
          Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Maryland-National Capital Region.

      [FR Doc. 2020-01772 Filed 1-30-20; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


        DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
        Office of the Secretary
        32 CFR Part 310
        [Docket ID DoD-2020-OS-0095]
        RIN 0790-AK96
        Privacy Act of 1974; Implementation

          AGENCY:
          Department of Defense (DoD).

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:
          The DoD is giving concurrent notice of an updated system of records pursuant to the Privacy Act of 1974 for the DoD 0004 “Defense Repository for Common Enterprise Data (DRCED)” system of records and this proposed rulemaking. In this proposed rulemaking, the Department proposes to exempt portions of the DRCED system of records from certain provisions of the Privacy Act because of national security requirements.

          DATES:
          Send comments on or before March 8, 2021.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:
          • Federal Rulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
          • Mail: The DoD cannot receive written comments at this time due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Comments should be sent electronically to the docket listed above.

            Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name and docket number 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 on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov as they are received without change, including any personal identifiers or contact information.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Ms. Lyn Kirby, Chief, Defense Privacy, Civil Liberties, and Transparency Division, Directorate for Oversight and Compliance, Department of Defense, 4800 Mark Center Drive, Mailbox #24, Suite 08D09, Alexandria, VA 22350-1700; OSD.DPCLTD@mail.mil; (703) 571-0070.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        I. Background
        The DoD 0004 DRCED system of records is a DoD-wide system of records that supports multiple information systems that provide DoD-wide and component-level enterprise solutions for integrating and analyzing targeted data from existing DoD systems to develop timely, actionable, and insightful conclusions in support of national strategies. These systems are used 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. These systems are also capable of creating predictive analytic models based upon specific data streams to equip decision makers with critical data necessary for execution of fiscal and operational requirements.
        II. Privacy Act Exemption
        The Privacy Act allows federal agencies to exempt eligible records in a system of records from certain provisions of the Act, including the provisions providing individuals with a right to request access to and amendment of their own records. If an agency intends to exempt a particular system of records, it must typically first go through the rulemaking process to provide public notice and an opportunity to comment on the proposed exemption. This proposed rule explains why an exemption is being claimed for this system of records and invites public comment, which DoD will consider before the issuance of a final rule implementing the exemption.
        The DoD proposes to modify 32 CFR part 310 to add a new Privacy Act exemption rule for the DoD 0004 DRCED system of records. The DoD proposes an exemption for DoD 0004 DRCED because some of its 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. DoD is proposing to claim an exemption 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, as implemented by DoD Instruction (DoDI) 5200.01 and DoD Manual (DoDM) 5200.01, Volumes 1 and 3.
        If implemented, this proposed 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 0004 DRCED system of records are only exempt from the Privacy Act to the extent the purposes underlying the exemption pertain to the record.

        A notice of a modified system of records for DoD 0004 DRCED is also published in this issue of the Federal Register.
        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 proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action.
        Executive Order 13771, “Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs”
        This proposed rule has been deemed not significant under Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” therefore, the requirements of E.O. 13771, “Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs” do not apply.
        Congressional Review Act

        This proposed 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)
        It has been certified that this proposed rule does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because it is concerned only with the administration of Privacy Act Systems of Records within the DoD. A Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is not required.
        Public Law 96-511, “Paperwork Reduction Act” (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35)

        It has been determined that this proposed 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 proposed 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 proposed 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.

          List of Subjects in 32 CFR Part 310
          Privacy.

        Accordingly, 32 CFR part 310 is proposed to be amended as follows:

          PART 310—PROTECTION OF PRIVACY AND ACCESS TO AND AMENDMENT OF INDIVIDUAL RECORDS UNDER THE PRIVACY ACT OF 1974

        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 paragraph (e)(3) as follows:

          § 310.13
          Exemptions for DoD-wide systems.

          (e) * * *
          (3) System identifier and name: DoD 0004, “Defense Repository for Common Enterprise Data (DRCED).”
          (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 common enterprise records 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.

          Dated: December 22, 2020.
          Aaron T. Siegel,
          Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.

      [FR Doc. 2020-28791 Filed 1-5-21; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 5001-06-P