Protection for Whistleblowers in the Coast Guard, 79956-79960 [2010-32017]
Download as PDF
79956
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 244 / Tuesday, December 21, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
Dated: December 9, 2010.
Steven D. Vaughn,
Director, Office of New Animal Drug
Evaluation, Center for Veterinary Medicine.
[FR Doc. 2010–31952 Filed 12–20–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 53
[USCG–2009–0239]
RIN 1625–AB33
Protection for Whistleblowers in the
Coast Guard
Coast Guard, DHS.
Direct final rule; request for
comments.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
By this direct final rule, the
Coast Guard is amending its ‘‘Coast
Guard Whistleblower Protection’’
regulations to conform to statutory
protections for all members of the
Armed Forces. The revised regulations
broaden the protection already afforded
uniformed members of the Coast Guard
by: Providing that uniformed Coast
Guard members may make protected
communications to other persons and
organizations in additiPn to Members of
Congress or an Inspector General, and
expanding the subject matter of
protected communications to include
information that the member reasonably
believes constitutes evidence of sexual
harassment and discrimination, among
other subjects. Additionally, changes to
the regulations update the
responsibilities of the Inspector General
of the Department of Homeland Security
to conform to relevant statutory
provisions.
DATES: This rule is effective April 20,
2011, unless an adverse comment or
notice of intent to submit an adverse
comment is either submitted to our
online docket via https://
www.regulations.gov on or before
February 22, 2011, or reaches the Docket
Management Facility by that date. If an
adverse comment or notice of intent to
submit an adverse comment is received
by February 22, 2011, we will withdraw
this direct final rule and publish a
timely notice of withdrawal in the
Federal Register.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
identified by docket number USCG–
2009–0239 using any one of the
following methods:
(1) Federal eRulemaking Portal:
https://www.regulations.gov.
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
22:26 Dec 20, 2010
Jkt 223001
(2) Fax: 202–493–2251.
(3) Mail: Docket Management Facility
(M–30), U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building Ground
Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590–
0001.
(4) Hand delivery: Same as mail
address above, between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays. The telephone number
is 202–366–9329.
To avoid duplication, please use only
one of these four methods. 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 rule, e-mail
or call Commander Michael Cavallaro,
U.S. Coast Guard Office of General Law,
telephone 202–372–3777, e-mail
Michael.S.Cavallaro@uscg.mil. If you
have questions on viewing or submitting
material to the docket, call Renee V.
Wright, Program Manager, Docket
Operations, telephone 202–366–9826.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Public Participation and Request for
Comments
A. Submitting Comments
B. Viewing Comments and Documents
C. Privacy Act
D. Public Meeting
II. Abbreviations
III. Regulatory Information
IV. Background
V. Discussion of the Rule
VI. Regulatory Analysis
A. Regulatory Planning and Review
B. Small Entities
C. Collection of Information
D. Federalism
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
F. Taking of Private Property
G. Civil Justice Reform
H. Protection of Children
I. Indian Tribal Governments
J. Energy Effects
K. Technical Standards
L. Environment
I. Public Participation and Request for
Comments
We encourage you to participate in
this rulemaking by submitting
comments and related materials. All
comments received will be posted,
without change, to https://
www.regulations.gov and will include
any personal information you have
provided.
A. Submitting Comments
If you submit comments, please
include the docket number for this
rulemaking (USCG–2009–0239),
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
indicate the specific section of this
document to which each comment
applies, and provide a reason for each
suggestion or recommendation. You
may submit your comments and
material online, or by fax, mail or hand
delivery, but please use only one of
these means. We recommend that you
include your name and a mailing
address, an e-mail address, or a phone
number in the body of your document
so that we can contact you if we have
questions regarding your submission.
To submit your comment online, go to
https://www.regulations.gov, and type
‘‘USCG–2009–0239’’ in the ‘‘Keyword’’
box. If you submit your comments by
mail or hand delivery, submit them in
an unbound format, no larger than 81⁄2
by 11 inches, suitable for copying and
electronic filing. If you submit them by
mail and would like to know that they
reached the Facility, please enclose a
stamped, self-addressed postcard or
envelope. We will consider all
comments and material received during
the comment period.
B. Viewing Comments and Documents
To view comments, as well as
documents mentioned in this preamble
as being available in the docket, go to
https://www.regulations.gov, click on the
‘‘read comments’’ box, which will then
become highlighted in blue. In the
‘‘Keyword’’ box type ‘‘USCG–2009–0239’’
and click ‘‘Search.’’ Click the ‘‘Open
Docket Folder’’ in the ‘‘Actions’’ column.
If you do not have access to the internet,
you may also view the docket online by
visiting the Docket Management Facility
in Room W12–140 on the ground floor
of the Department of Transportation
West Building, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590,
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
We have an agreement with the
Department of Transportation to use the
Docket Management Facility.
C. Privacy Act
Anyone can search the electronic
form of comments received into any of
our dockets by the name of the
individual submitting the comment (or
signing the comment, if submitted on
behalf of an association, business, labor
union, etc.). You may review a Privacy
Act notice regarding our public dockets
in the January 17, 2008 issue of the
Federal Register (73 FR 3316).
D. Public Meeting
We do not now plan to hold a public
meeting for this rulemaking. But you
may submit a request for one to the
docket using one of the methods
specified under ADDRESSES. In your
E:\FR\FM\21DER1.SGM
21DER1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 244 / Tuesday, December 21, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
request, explain why you believe a
public meeting would be beneficial. If
we determine that one would aid this
rulemaking, we will hold one at a time
and place announced by a later notice
in the Federal Register.
II. Abbreviations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act
of 1969
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
NTTAA National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act
III. Regulatory Information
We are publishing this direct final
rule under 33 CFR 1.05–55 because we
consider this rule to be noncontroversial
and we do not expect adverse comments
regarding this rulemaking. If no adverse
comment or notice of intent to submit
an adverse comment is received by
February 22, 2011, this rule will become
effective as stated in the DATES section.
In that case, approximately 30 days
before the effective date, we will
publish a document in the Federal
Register stating that no adverse
comment was received and confirming
that this rule will become effective as
scheduled. However, if we receive an
adverse comment or notice of intent to
submit an adverse comment, we will
publish a notice in the Federal Register
announcing the withdrawal of all or part
of this direct final rule. If an adverse
comment applies only to part of this
rule (e.g., to an amendment, a
paragraph, or a section) and it is
possible to remove that part without
defeating the purpose of this rule, we
may adopt, as final, those parts of this
rule on which no adverse comment was
received. We will withdraw the part of
this rule that was the subject of an
adverse comment. If we decide to
proceed with a rulemaking following
receipt of an adverse comment, we will
publish a separate notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) and provide a new
opportunity for comment.
A comment is considered ‘‘adverse’’ if
the comment explains why this rule or
a part of this rule would be
inappropriate, including a challenge to
its underlying premise or approach, or
would be ineffective or unacceptable
without a change.
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES
IV. Background
Section 1034 of Title 10 of the United
States Code protects communications
made by members of the Armed Forces
to Members of Congress, Inspectors
General, and certain other persons and
organizations. It prohibits any person
from taking, withholding, or threatening
any personnel action against a member
VerDate Mar<15>2010
22:26 Dec 20, 2010
Jkt 223001
of the Armed Forces as reprisal for
making or preparing any protected
communications. Uniformed members
of the Coast Guard are members of the
Armed Forces and are covered by
section 1034. See 10 U.S.C. 101(a)(4)
(defining ‘‘Armed Forces’’ to mean ‘‘the
Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps,
and Coast Guard’’). Section 1034 covers
allegations and disclosures of sexual
harassment and unlawful
discrimination, and gives specific
procedural rights to a complainant
alleging reprisal for making a protected
communication. Amending 33 CFR part
53 is necessary to conform Coast Guard
regulations to 10 U.S.C. 1034.
V. Discussion of the Rule
The Coast Guard is amending
paragraph (a) of section 53.1, Purpose,
to expand the list of organizations and
persons to whom protected
communications may be made. The
existing language limits protection to
communications made to a Member of
Congress or an Inspector General. Under
amended paragraph (a), protected
communications may also be made to ‘‘a
member of a Department of Defense or
Department of Homeland Security audit,
inspection, investigation, or law
enforcement organization (e.g., the Coast
Guard Investigative Service); any person
or organization in the chain of
command; and any other person or
organization designated pursuant to
regulations or other established
administrative procedures for such
communications.’’ Through this
amendment to paragraph (a), the Coast
Guard is designating the Coast Guard
Investigative Service as an organization
to which a uniformed member of the
Coast Guard may make a protected
communication. The Coast Guard
Investigative Service is a Federal
investigative and protective program
established to carry out the Coast
Guard’s internal and external criminal
investigations; to assist in providing
personal security services; to protect the
welfare of Coast Guard personnel; to aid
in preserving the internal integrity of
the Coast Guard; and to support Coast
Guard missions worldwide.
The Coast Guard is amending section
53.5 to revise and add several
definitions, including adding a
definition of ‘‘Protected
Communication,’’ which defines the
communications covered by 33 CFR part
53. A ‘‘Protected Communication’’ is (1)
any lawful communication to a Member
of Congress or an Inspector General; or
(2) a communication in which a member
of the Coast Guard communicates
information that the member reasonably
believes evidences a violation of law or
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
79957
regulation (including sexual harassment
or unlawful discrimination), gross
mismanagement, a gross waste of funds,
an abuse of authority, or a substantial
and specific danger to public health or
safety, when such communication is
made to any of the following: A Member
of Congress, an Inspector General, or a
member of a Department of Defense or
Department of Homeland Security audit,
inspection, investigation, or law
enforcement organization (e.g., the Coast
Guard Investigative Service); any person
or organization in the chain of
command; and any other person or
organization designated pursuant to
regulations or other established
administrative procedures to receive
such communications. The Coast Guard
is also adding a definition for ‘‘Chain of
Command,’’ which tracks a similar
definition used by the Department of
Defense in implementing 10 U.S.C.
1034.1
The definition for ‘‘Inspector General’’
is revised to include any other Inspector
General appointed under the Inspector
General Act of 1978, in addition to the
Inspector General in the Office of the
Inspector General of the Department of
Homeland Security. The revised
definition of ‘‘Reprisal’’ now uses the
defined term ‘‘protected
communications.’’ The Coast Guard is
also removing the definition of ‘‘Law
Specialist’’ and replacing it with a
definition for ‘‘Judge Advocate,’’ which
reflects a nomenclature change within
the Coast Guard legal program. A
similar nomenclature change is made in
section 53.9(c)(2): the parenthetical
phrase ‘‘(who may also be serving as the
Judge Advocate General of the Coast
Guard)’’ is added after the term ‘‘Chief
Counsel.’’
The Coast Guard is amending 33 CFR
part 53 to utilize these new and revised
definitions and to make conforming
changes throughout part 53. Sections
53.7 and 53.11 are amended to
incorporate the new and revised
definitions, and section 53.11 is revised
to update the contact information for the
DHS Office of the Inspector General.
Sections 53.9 and 53.11 are amended to
ensure that part 53 consistently covers
allegations of personnel action that was
taken, withheld, or threatened in
reprisal by making consistent use of the
terms ‘‘taken, withheld, or threatened.’’
Section 53.9 is also amended to
consistently indicate that the
‘‘Secretary’’ referred to is the ‘‘Secretary
of the Department of Homeland
Security.’’ Finally, section 53.11(b) is
1 See Department of Defense Directive 7050.06,
‘‘Military Whistleblower Protection,’’ Enclosure 2,
section E2.3 (July 23, 2007).
E:\FR\FM\21DER1.SGM
21DER1
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES
79958
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 244 / Tuesday, December 21, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
amended by adding the words ‘‘name(s)
of the’’ before the words ‘‘individual(s)
believed to be responsible’’ to clarify
what information is required to be
included in the complaint to identify
the individual or individuals believed to
be responsible for the alleged reprisal.
In 33 CFR 53.9, the Coast Guard is
revising slightly the responsibilities of
the Inspector General to conform to
those responsibilities as set forth in 10
U.S.C. 1034. In paragraphs (a)(1) and (2),
the Inspector General now must
determine whether there is sufficient
evidence to warrant an investigation
before initiating an investigation of the
alleged reprisal. See 10 U.S.C.
1034(c)(3)(A). Such an investigation is
necessary only if there was no prior
investigation or if the prior investigation
was biased or inadequate. See 10 U.S.C.
1034(d). In paragraph (a)(2), the word
‘‘reasonably’’ is inserted to show that
information that a Coast Guard member
presents as evidence of a reprisal need
only be information that the member
‘‘reasonably believes’’ evidences
wrongdoing. See 10 U.S.C. 1034(c)(2).
Additionally, the last sentence of
paragraph (a)(2), which states ‘‘The
Inspector General is not required to
make such an investigation if the
information that the Coast Guard
member reasonably believes evidences
wrongdoing relates to actions that took
place during combat,’’ is removed
because similar language was removed
from section 1034. See Pub. L. 103–337,
531(c)(2) (replacing 10 U.S.C.
1043(c)(4)).
The time period in which the
Inspector General must complete the
investigation is revised from ‘‘90 days’’
to ‘‘180 days’’ in 33 CFR 53.9(a)(3) and
(a)(5) to align with the statute’s
requirements. See 10 U.S.C. 1034(e)(3).
The Coast Guard is also eliminating the
requirement of a final interview of the
member alleging reprisal by removing
paragraph (a)(7) because a similar
requirement was removed from 10
U.S.C. 1034.
Additionally, in section 53.9, the
following text is being added to
paragraph (a)(4) to clarify what
information will be made available to an
individual pursuant to a Freedom of
Information Act request: ‘‘However, the
copy need not contain summaries of
interviews conducted, nor any
document acquired, during the course of
the investigation. Such items shall be
transmitted to the member, if the
member requests the items, with the
copy of the report or after the
transmittal to the member of the copy of
the report, regardless of whether the
request for those items is made before or
after the copy of the report is
VerDate Mar<15>2010
22:26 Dec 20, 2010
Jkt 223001
transmitted to the member.’’ See 10
U.S.C. 1034(e)(2).
VI. Regulatory Analysis
We developed this rule after
considering numerous statutes and
executive orders related to rulemaking.
Below we summarize our analysis based
on 12 of these statutes or executive
orders.
A. Regulatory Planning and Review
This rule is a significant regulatory
action under section 3(f) of Executive
Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and
Review. The Office of Management and
Budget has reviewed it under that
Order. It requires an assessment of
potential costs and benefits under
section 6(a)(3) of that Order. However,
we believe that a full regulatory analysis
is unnecessary because this rule only
affects uniformed members of the Coast
Guard and DHS personnel and has no
economic impact on U.S. industry or the
general public.
This rule will benefit the Coast Guard.
Because the rule provides protection for
uniformed Coast Guard members from
retaliation by supervisors or any other
member of the Coast Guard, the Coast
Guard may now receive information
from Coast Guard members on potential
breaches of government policies and
regulations that they would not
otherwise have received. This will
ensure that uniformed Coast Guard
members receive the same protections
Congress affords other uniformed
members of the Armed Forces.
C. Collection of Information
This rule calls for no new collection
of information under the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501–
3520).
D. Federalism
A rule has implications for federalism
under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct
effect on State or local governments and
would either preempt State law or
impose a substantial direct cost of
compliance on them. We have analyzed
this rule under that Order and have
determined that it does not have
implications for federalism.
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. Although this rule
will not result in such an expenditure,
we do discuss the effects of this rule
elsewhere in this preamble.
F. Taking of Private Property
This rule will not effect a taking of
private property or otherwise have
taking implications under Executive
Order 12630, Governmental Actions and
Interference with Constitutionally
Protected Property Rights.
B. Small Entities
G. Civil Justice Reform
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
(5 U.S.C. 601–612), we have considered
whether this rule would have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
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.
This rule provides protection for
uniformed Coast Guard members from
retaliation and addresses
responsibilities of the DHS Inspector
General. Because this rule only affects
uniformed Coast Guard members and
DHS personnel, it is unlikely to have
any effect on small businesses.
Therefore, the Coast Guard certifies
under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will
not have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small
entities.
This rule meets applicable standards
in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive
Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to
minimize litigation, eliminate
ambiguity, and reduce burden.
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
H. Protection of Children
We have analyzed this rule under
Executive Order 13045, Protection of
Children from Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not
an economically significant rule and
will not create an environmental risk to
health or risk to safety that might
disproportionately affect children.
I. Indian Tribal Governments
This 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
E:\FR\FM\21DER1.SGM
21DER1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 244 / Tuesday, December 21, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
responsibilities between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes.
J. Energy Effects
We have analyzed this rule under
Executive Order 13211, Actions
Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use. We have
determined that it is not a ‘‘significant
energy action’’ under that order.
Although it is a ‘‘significant regulatory
action’’ under Executive Order 12866, it
is not likely to have a significant
adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy. The
Administrator of the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs has
not designated it as a significant energy
action. Therefore, it does not require a
Statement of Energy Effects under
Executive Order 13211.
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES
K. Technical Standards
The National Technology Transfer
and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15
U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use
voluntary consensus standards in their
regulatory activities unless the agency
provides Congress, through the Office of
Management and Budget, with an
explanation of why using these
standards would be inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impractical.
Voluntary consensus standards are
technical standards (e.g., specifications
of materials, performance, design, or
operation; test methods; sampling
procedures; and related management
systems practices) that are developed or
adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies.
This rule does not use technical
standards. Therefore, we did not
consider the use of voluntary consensus
standards.
L. Environment
We have analyzed this rule under
Department of Homeland Security
Directive 023–01 and Commandant
Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the
Coast Guard in complying with the
National Environmental Policy Act of
1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f),
and have concluded that this action is
one of a category of actions which do
not individually or cumulatively have a
significant effect on the human
environment. This rule is categorically
excluded under section 2.B.2, Figure 2–
1, paragraph 34(b), of the Instruction.
Paragraph 34(b) covers promulgation of
regulations concerning internal agency
function or organization or personnel
administration. This rule only affects
uniformed Coast Guard members and
DHS personnel and provides protection
from retaliation, and as such concerns
VerDate Mar<15>2010
22:26 Dec 20, 2010
Jkt 223001
internal agency operations. An
environmental analysis checklist and a
categorical exclusion determination are
available in the docket where indicated
under the ‘‘Public Participation and
Request for Comments’’ section of this
preamble.
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 53
Administrative practice and
procedure, Investigations, Military
personnel, Whistleblowing.
■ For the reasons discussed in the
preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33
CFR part 53 as follows:
PART 53—COAST GUARD
WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION
1. The authority citation for part 53
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 10 U.S.C. 1034, Pub. L. 100–
456, 102 Stat. 1918; Pub. L. 101–225, 103
Stat. 1908; Pub. L. 107–296, 116 Stat. 2135.
2. In § 53.1, revise paragraph (a) to
read as follows:
■
§ 53.1
Purpose.
*
*
*
*
*
(a) Establishes policy and implements
section 1034 of title 10 of the United
States Code to provide protection
against reprisal to members of the Coast
Guard for making a protected
communication to a Member of
Congress; an Inspector General; a
member of a Department of Defense or
Department of Homeland Security audit,
inspection, investigation, or law
enforcement organization (e.g., the Coast
Guard Investigative Service); any person
or organization in the chain of
command; and any other person or
organization designated pursuant to
regulations or other established
administrative procedures for such
communications.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 3. Amend § 53.5 as follows:
■ a. Remove the definition for ‘‘Law
Specialist’’; and
■ b. Revise the definitions for ‘‘Inspector
General’’ and ‘‘Reprisal’’ and add the
definitions for ‘‘Chain of Command’’,
‘‘Judge Advocate’’, and ‘‘Protected
Communications’’ in alphabetical order
to read as follows:
§ 53.5
Definitions.
*
*
*
*
*
Chain of Command. The succession
of commanding officers from a superior
to a subordinate through which
command is exercised; and the
succession of officers, enlisted
members, or civilian personnel through
whom administrative control is
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
79959
exercised, including supervision and
rating of performance.
*
*
*
*
*
Inspector General. The Inspector
General in the Office of Inspector
General of the Department of Homeland
Security, or any other Inspector General,
as appointed under the Inspector
General Act of 1978.
Judge Advocate. A commissioned
officer of the Coast Guard designated for
the special duty of law.
*
*
*
*
*
Protected Communication. Any
lawful communication to a Member of
Congress or an Inspector General; or a
communication in which a member of
the Coast Guard communicates
information that the member reasonably
believes evidences a violation of law or
regulation (including sexual harassment
or discrimination), gross
mismanagement, a gross waste of funds
or other resources, an abuse of
authority, or a substantial and specific
danger to public health or safety, when
such communication is made to any of
the following: A Member of Congress;
an Inspector General; a member of a
Department of Defense or Department of
Homeland Security audit, inspection,
investigation, or law enforcement
organization (e.g., the Coast Guard
Investigative Service); any person or
organization in the chain of command;
and any other person or organization
designated pursuant to regulations or
other established administrative
procedures to receive such
communications.
Reprisal. Taking or threatening to take
an unfavorable personnel action, or
withholding or threatening to withhold
a favorable personnel action, against a
member of the Coast Guard for making
or preparing to make a protected
communication.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 4. In § 53.7, revise paragraphs (b) and
(c) to read as follows:
§ 53.7
Requirements.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) A member of the Coast Guard shall
be free from reprisal for making or
preparing to make a protected
communication.
(c) Any employee or member of the
Coast Guard who has the authority to
take, direct others to take, or
recommend or approve any personnel
action shall not, under such authority,
take, withhold, threaten to take, or
threaten to withhold a personnel action
regarding any member of the Coast
Guard in reprisal for making or
preparing to make a protected
communication.
E:\FR\FM\21DER1.SGM
21DER1
79960
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 244 / Tuesday, December 21, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
5. Amend § 53.9 as follows:
a. Remove paragraph (a)(7); and
b. Revise paragraphs (a)(1) through
(a)(5), (b)(1), (c) introductory text, (c)(1)
and (2), (e), and (f) to read as follows:
■
■
■
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES
§ 53.9
Responsibilities.
(a) * * *
(1) Expeditiously determine whether
there is sufficient evidence to warrant
an investigation of an allegation that a
personnel action has been taken,
withheld, or threatened in reprisal for
making or preparing to make a protected
communication. No investigation is
required when such allegation is
submitted more than 60 days after the
Coast Guard member became aware of
the personnel action that is the subject
of the allegation.
(2) If such investigation is warranted,
initiate a separate investigation of the
information the Coast Guard member
reasonably believes evidences
wrongdoing if a prior investigation has
not already been initiated, or if the prior
investigation was biased or inadequate.
(3) Complete the investigation of the
allegation of reprisal and issue a report
not later than 180 days after receipt of
the allegation, which shall include a
thorough review of the facts and
circumstances relevant to the allegation,
the relevant documents acquired during
the investigation, and summaries of
interviews conducted. The Inspector
General may forward a recommendation
as to the disposition of the complaint.
(4) Submit a copy of the investigation
report to the Secretary of the
Department of Homeland Security and
to the Coast Guard member making the
allegation not later than 30 days after
the completion of the investigation. In
the copy of the report transmitted to the
member, the Inspector General shall
ensure the maximum disclosure of
information possible, with the exception
of information that is not required to be
disclosed under 5 U.S.C. 552. However,
the copy transmitted to the member
need not contain summaries of
interviews conducted, nor any
document acquired, during the course of
the investigation. Such items shall be
transmitted to the member, if the
member requests the items, with the
copy of the report or after the
transmittal to the member of the copy of
the report, regardless of whether the
request for those items is made before or
after the copy of the report is
transmitted to the member.
(5) If a determination is made that the
report cannot be issued within 180 days
VerDate Mar<15>2010
22:26 Dec 20, 2010
Jkt 223001
of receipt of the allegation, notify the
Secretary and the Coast Guard member
making the allegation of the reasons
why the report will not be submitted
within that time, and state when the
report will be submitted.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(1) Consider under 10 U.S.C. 1552 and
33 CFR part 52 an application for the
correction of records made by a Coast
Guard member who has filed a timely
complaint with the Inspector General
alleging that a personnel action was
taken in reprisal for making or preparing
to make a protected communication.
This may include oral argument,
examining and cross-examining
witnesses, taking depositions, and
conducting an evidentiary hearing at the
Board’s discretion.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) If the Board elects to hold an
administrative hearing, the Coast Guard
member may be represented by a Judge
Advocate if:
(1) The Inspector General, in the
report of the investigation, finds there is
probable cause to believe that a
personnel action was taken, withheld,
or threatened in reprisal for the Coast
Guard member making or preparing to
make a protected communication;
(2) The Chief Counsel of the Coast
Guard (who may also be serving as the
Judge Advocate General of the Coast
Guard) determines that the case is
unusually complex or otherwise
requires the assistance of a Judge
Advocate to ensure proper presentation
of the legal issues in the case; and
*
*
*
*
*
(e) If the Board determines that a
personnel action was taken, withheld,
or threatened as a reprisal for a Coast
Guard member making or preparing to
make a protected communication, the
Board may forward its recommendation
to the Secretary of the Department of
Homeland Security for appropriate
administrative or disciplinary action
against the individual or individuals
found to have taken, withheld, or
threatened a personnel action as a
reprisal, and direct any appropriate
correction of the member’s records.
(f) The Board shall notify the
Inspector General of the Board’s
decision concerning an application for
the correction of military records of a
Coast Guard member who alleged
reprisal for making or preparing to make
a protected communication, and of any
recommendation to the Secretary of the
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Department of Homeland Security for
appropriate administrative or
disciplinary action against the
individual or individuals found to have
taken, withheld, or threatened a
personnel action as a reprisal.
*
*
*
*
*
6. In § 53.11, revise paragraphs (a), (b),
and (c) to read as follows:
■
§ 53.11
Procedures.
(a) Any member of the Coast Guard
who reasonably believes a personnel
action was taken, withheld, or
threatened in reprisal for making or
preparing to make a protected
communication may file a complaint
with the Department of Homeland
Security Inspector General Hotline at
1–800–323–8603. Such a complaint may
be filed: By letter addressed to the
Department of Homeland Security,
Office of Inspector General, Hotline,
Washington, DC 20528; By faxing the
complaint to 202–254–4292; or by
e-mailing DHSOIGHOTLINE@dhs.gov.
(b) The complaint should include the
name, address, and telephone number of
the complainant; the name and location
of the activity where the alleged
violation occurred; the personnel action
taken, withheld, or threatened that is
alleged to be motivated by reprisal; the
name(s) of the individual(s) believed to
be responsible for the personnel action;
the date when the alleged reprisal
occurred; and any information that
suggests or evidences a connection
between the protected communication
and reprisal. The complaint should also
include a description of the protected
communication, including a copy of any
written communication and a brief
summary of any oral communication
showing the date of communication, the
subject matter, and the name of the
person or official to whom the
communication was made.
(c) A member of the Coast Guard who
alleges reprisal for making or preparing
to make a protected communication
may submit an application for the
correction of military records to the
Board, in accordance with regulations
governing the Board. See 33 CFR part
52.
*
*
*
*
*
Dated: December 15, 2010.
Robert J. Papp, Jr.,
Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard Commandant.
[FR Doc. 2010–32017 Filed 12–20–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110–04–P
E:\FR\FM\21DER1.SGM
21DER1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 244 (Tuesday, December 21, 2010)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 79956-79960]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-32017]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 53
[USCG-2009-0239]
RIN 1625-AB33
Protection for Whistleblowers in the Coast Guard
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.
ACTION: Direct final rule; request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: By this direct final rule, the Coast Guard is amending its
``Coast Guard Whistleblower Protection'' regulations to conform to
statutory protections for all members of the Armed Forces. The revised
regulations broaden the protection already afforded uniformed members
of the Coast Guard by: Providing that uniformed Coast Guard members may
make protected communications to other persons and organizations in
additiPn to Members of Congress or an Inspector General, and expanding
the subject matter of protected communications to include information
that the member reasonably believes constitutes evidence of sexual
harassment and discrimination, among other subjects. Additionally,
changes to the regulations update the responsibilities of the Inspector
General of the Department of Homeland Security to conform to relevant
statutory provisions.
DATES: This rule is effective April 20, 2011, unless an adverse comment
or notice of intent to submit an adverse comment is either submitted to
our online docket via https://www.regulations.gov on or before February
22, 2011, or reaches the Docket Management Facility by that date. If an
adverse comment or notice of intent to submit an adverse comment is
received by February 22, 2011, we will withdraw this direct final rule
and publish a timely notice of withdrawal in the Federal Register.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2009-0239 using any one of the following methods:
(1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
(2) Fax: 202-493-2251.
(3) Mail: Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
(4) Hand delivery: Same as mail address above, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone
number is 202-366-9329.
To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four methods.
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 rule, e-
mail or call Commander Michael Cavallaro, U.S. Coast Guard Office of
General Law, telephone 202-372-3777, e-mail
Michael.S.Cavallaro@uscg.mil. If you have questions on viewing or
submitting material to the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program
Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 202-366-9826.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Public Participation and Request for Comments
A. Submitting Comments
B. Viewing Comments and Documents
C. Privacy Act
D. Public Meeting
II. Abbreviations
III. Regulatory Information
IV. Background
V. Discussion of the Rule
VI. Regulatory Analysis
A. Regulatory Planning and Review
B. Small Entities
C. Collection of Information
D. Federalism
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
F. Taking of Private Property
G. Civil Justice Reform
H. Protection of Children
I. Indian Tribal Governments
J. Energy Effects
K. Technical Standards
L. Environment
I. Public Participation and Request for Comments
We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting
comments and related materials. All comments received will be posted,
without change, to https://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided.
A. Submitting Comments
If you submit comments, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking (USCG-2009-0239), indicate the specific section of this
document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each
suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material
online, or by fax, mail or hand delivery, but please use only one of
these means. We recommend that you include your name and a mailing
address, an e-mail address, or a phone number in the body of your
document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your
submission.
To submit your comment online, go to https://www.regulations.gov,
and type ``USCG-2009-0239'' in the ``Keyword'' box. If you submit your
comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no
larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic
filing. If you submit them by mail and would like to know that they
reached the Facility, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard
or envelope. We will consider all comments and material received during
the comment period.
B. Viewing Comments and Documents
To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble
as being available in the docket, go to https://www.regulations.gov,
click on the ``read comments'' box, which will then become highlighted
in blue. In the ``Keyword'' box type ``USCG-2009-0239'' and click
``Search.'' Click the ``Open Docket Folder'' in the ``Actions'' column.
If you do not have access to the internet, you may also view the docket
online by visiting the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on
the ground floor of the Department of Transportation West Building,
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. We have an
agreement with the Department of Transportation to use the Docket
Management Facility.
C. Privacy Act
Anyone can search the electronic form of comments received into any
of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or
signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). You may review a Privacy Act notice
regarding our public dockets in the January 17, 2008 issue of the
Federal Register (73 FR 3316).
D. Public Meeting
We do not now plan to hold a public meeting for this rulemaking.
But you may submit a request for one to the docket using one of the
methods specified under ADDRESSES. In your
[[Page 79957]]
request, explain why you believe a public meeting would be beneficial.
If we determine that one would aid this rulemaking, we will hold one at
a time and place announced by a later notice in the Federal Register.
II. Abbreviations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
III. Regulatory Information
We are publishing this direct final rule under 33 CFR 1.05-55
because we consider this rule to be noncontroversial and we do not
expect adverse comments regarding this rulemaking. If no adverse
comment or notice of intent to submit an adverse comment is received by
February 22, 2011, this rule will become effective as stated in the
DATES section. In that case, approximately 30 days before the effective
date, we will publish a document in the Federal Register stating that
no adverse comment was received and confirming that this rule will
become effective as scheduled. However, if we receive an adverse
comment or notice of intent to submit an adverse comment, we will
publish a notice in the Federal Register announcing the withdrawal of
all or part of this direct final rule. If an adverse comment applies
only to part of this rule (e.g., to an amendment, a paragraph, or a
section) and it is possible to remove that part without defeating the
purpose of this rule, we may adopt, as final, those parts of this rule
on which no adverse comment was received. We will withdraw the part of
this rule that was the subject of an adverse comment. If we decide to
proceed with a rulemaking following receipt of an adverse comment, we
will publish a separate notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) and
provide a new opportunity for comment.
A comment is considered ``adverse'' if the comment explains why
this rule or a part of this rule would be inappropriate, including a
challenge to its underlying premise or approach, or would be
ineffective or unacceptable without a change.
IV. Background
Section 1034 of Title 10 of the United States Code protects
communications made by members of the Armed Forces to Members of
Congress, Inspectors General, and certain other persons and
organizations. It prohibits any person from taking, withholding, or
threatening any personnel action against a member of the Armed Forces
as reprisal for making or preparing any protected communications.
Uniformed members of the Coast Guard are members of the Armed Forces
and are covered by section 1034. See 10 U.S.C. 101(a)(4) (defining
``Armed Forces'' to mean ``the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, and
Coast Guard''). Section 1034 covers allegations and disclosures of
sexual harassment and unlawful discrimination, and gives specific
procedural rights to a complainant alleging reprisal for making a
protected communication. Amending 33 CFR part 53 is necessary to
conform Coast Guard regulations to 10 U.S.C. 1034.
V. Discussion of the Rule
The Coast Guard is amending paragraph (a) of section 53.1, Purpose,
to expand the list of organizations and persons to whom protected
communications may be made. The existing language limits protection to
communications made to a Member of Congress or an Inspector General.
Under amended paragraph (a), protected communications may also be made
to ``a member of a Department of Defense or Department of Homeland
Security audit, inspection, investigation, or law enforcement
organization (e.g., the Coast Guard Investigative Service); any person
or organization in the chain of command; and any other person or
organization designated pursuant to regulations or other established
administrative procedures for such communications.'' Through this
amendment to paragraph (a), the Coast Guard is designating the Coast
Guard Investigative Service as an organization to which a uniformed
member of the Coast Guard may make a protected communication. The Coast
Guard Investigative Service is a Federal investigative and protective
program established to carry out the Coast Guard's internal and
external criminal investigations; to assist in providing personal
security services; to protect the welfare of Coast Guard personnel; to
aid in preserving the internal integrity of the Coast Guard; and to
support Coast Guard missions worldwide.
The Coast Guard is amending section 53.5 to revise and add several
definitions, including adding a definition of ``Protected
Communication,'' which defines the communications covered by 33 CFR
part 53. A ``Protected Communication'' is (1) any lawful communication
to a Member of Congress or an Inspector General; or (2) a communication
in which a member of the Coast Guard communicates information that the
member reasonably believes evidences a violation of law or regulation
(including sexual harassment or unlawful discrimination), gross
mismanagement, a gross waste of funds, an abuse of authority, or a
substantial and specific danger to public health or safety, when such
communication is made to any of the following: A Member of Congress, an
Inspector General, or a member of a Department of Defense or Department
of Homeland Security audit, inspection, investigation, or law
enforcement organization (e.g., the Coast Guard Investigative Service);
any person or organization in the chain of command; and any other
person or organization designated pursuant to regulations or other
established administrative procedures to receive such communications.
The Coast Guard is also adding a definition for ``Chain of Command,''
which tracks a similar definition used by the Department of Defense in
implementing 10 U.S.C. 1034.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Department of Defense Directive 7050.06, ``Military
Whistleblower Protection,'' Enclosure 2, section E2.3 (July 23,
2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The definition for ``Inspector General'' is revised to include any
other Inspector General appointed under the Inspector General Act of
1978, in addition to the Inspector General in the Office of the
Inspector General of the Department of Homeland Security. The revised
definition of ``Reprisal'' now uses the defined term ``protected
communications.'' The Coast Guard is also removing the definition of
``Law Specialist'' and replacing it with a definition for ``Judge
Advocate,'' which reflects a nomenclature change within the Coast Guard
legal program. A similar nomenclature change is made in section
53.9(c)(2): the parenthetical phrase ``(who may also be serving as the
Judge Advocate General of the Coast Guard)'' is added after the term
``Chief Counsel.''
The Coast Guard is amending 33 CFR part 53 to utilize these new and
revised definitions and to make conforming changes throughout part 53.
Sections 53.7 and 53.11 are amended to incorporate the new and revised
definitions, and section 53.11 is revised to update the contact
information for the DHS Office of the Inspector General. Sections 53.9
and 53.11 are amended to ensure that part 53 consistently covers
allegations of personnel action that was taken, withheld, or threatened
in reprisal by making consistent use of the terms ``taken, withheld, or
threatened.'' Section 53.9 is also amended to consistently indicate
that the ``Secretary'' referred to is the ``Secretary of the Department
of Homeland Security.'' Finally, section 53.11(b) is
[[Page 79958]]
amended by adding the words ``name(s) of the'' before the words
``individual(s) believed to be responsible'' to clarify what
information is required to be included in the complaint to identify the
individual or individuals believed to be responsible for the alleged
reprisal.
In 33 CFR 53.9, the Coast Guard is revising slightly the
responsibilities of the Inspector General to conform to those
responsibilities as set forth in 10 U.S.C. 1034. In paragraphs (a)(1)
and (2), the Inspector General now must determine whether there is
sufficient evidence to warrant an investigation before initiating an
investigation of the alleged reprisal. See 10 U.S.C. 1034(c)(3)(A).
Such an investigation is necessary only if there was no prior
investigation or if the prior investigation was biased or inadequate.
See 10 U.S.C. 1034(d). In paragraph (a)(2), the word ``reasonably'' is
inserted to show that information that a Coast Guard member presents as
evidence of a reprisal need only be information that the member
``reasonably believes'' evidences wrongdoing. See 10 U.S.C. 1034(c)(2).
Additionally, the last sentence of paragraph (a)(2), which states ``The
Inspector General is not required to make such an investigation if the
information that the Coast Guard member reasonably believes evidences
wrongdoing relates to actions that took place during combat,'' is
removed because similar language was removed from section 1034. See
Pub. L. 103-337, 531(c)(2) (replacing 10 U.S.C. 1043(c)(4)).
The time period in which the Inspector General must complete the
investigation is revised from ``90 days'' to ``180 days'' in 33 CFR
53.9(a)(3) and (a)(5) to align with the statute's requirements. See 10
U.S.C. 1034(e)(3). The Coast Guard is also eliminating the requirement
of a final interview of the member alleging reprisal by removing
paragraph (a)(7) because a similar requirement was removed from 10
U.S.C. 1034.
Additionally, in section 53.9, the following text is being added to
paragraph (a)(4) to clarify what information will be made available to
an individual pursuant to a Freedom of Information Act request:
``However, the copy need not contain summaries of interviews conducted,
nor any document acquired, during the course of the investigation. Such
items shall be transmitted to the member, if the member requests the
items, with the copy of the report or after the transmittal to the
member of the copy of the report, regardless of whether the request for
those items is made before or after the copy of the report is
transmitted to the member.'' See 10 U.S.C. 1034(e)(2).
VI. Regulatory Analysis
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analysis
based on 12 of these statutes or executive orders.
A. Regulatory Planning and Review
This rule is a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of
Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review. The Office of
Management and Budget has reviewed it under that Order. It requires an
assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of
that Order. However, we believe that a full regulatory analysis is
unnecessary because this rule only affects uniformed members of the
Coast Guard and DHS personnel and has no economic impact on U.S.
industry or the general public.
This rule will benefit the Coast Guard. Because the rule provides
protection for uniformed Coast Guard members from retaliation by
supervisors or any other member of the Coast Guard, the Coast Guard may
now receive information from Coast Guard members on potential breaches
of government policies and regulations that they would not otherwise
have received. This will ensure that uniformed Coast Guard members
receive the same protections Congress affords other uniformed members
of the Armed Forces.
B. Small Entities
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities. 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.
This rule provides protection for uniformed Coast Guard members
from retaliation and addresses responsibilities of the DHS Inspector
General. Because this rule only affects uniformed Coast Guard members
and DHS personnel, it is unlikely to have any effect on small
businesses.
Therefore, the Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that
this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
C. Collection of Information
This rule calls for no new collection of information under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
D. Federalism
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local
governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial
direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under
that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for
federalism.
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. Although this rule will not result
in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule
elsewhere in this preamble.
F. Taking of Private Property
This rule will not effect a taking of private property or otherwise
have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights.
G. Civil Justice Reform
This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2)
of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation,
eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
H. Protection of Children
We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule
is not an economically significant rule and will not create an
environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might
disproportionately affect children.
I. Indian Tribal Governments
This 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
[[Page 79959]]
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
J. Energy Effects
We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a ``significant
energy action'' under that order. Although it is a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866, it is not likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy
action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects
under Executive Order 13211.
K. Technical Standards
The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15
U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards
in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress,
through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why
using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or
operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management
systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies.
This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not
consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.
L. Environment
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the
Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of
1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded that this action
is one of a category of actions which do not individually or
cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This
rule is categorically excluded under section 2.B.2, Figure 2-1,
paragraph 34(b), of the Instruction. Paragraph 34(b) covers
promulgation of regulations concerning internal agency function or
organization or personnel administration. This rule only affects
uniformed Coast Guard members and DHS personnel and provides protection
from retaliation, and as such concerns internal agency operations. An
environmental analysis checklist and a categorical exclusion
determination are available in the docket where indicated under the
``Public Participation and Request for Comments'' section of this
preamble.
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 53
Administrative practice and procedure, Investigations, Military
personnel, Whistleblowing.
0
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33
CFR part 53 as follows:
PART 53--COAST GUARD WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION
0
1. The authority citation for part 53 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 10 U.S.C. 1034, Pub. L. 100-456, 102 Stat. 1918; Pub.
L. 101-225, 103 Stat. 1908; Pub. L. 107-296, 116 Stat. 2135.
0
2. In Sec. 53.1, revise paragraph (a) to read as follows:
Sec. 53.1 Purpose.
* * * * *
(a) Establishes policy and implements section 1034 of title 10 of
the United States Code to provide protection against reprisal to
members of the Coast Guard for making a protected communication to a
Member of Congress; an Inspector General; a member of a Department of
Defense or Department of Homeland Security audit, inspection,
investigation, or law enforcement organization (e.g., the Coast Guard
Investigative Service); any person or organization in the chain of
command; and any other person or organization designated pursuant to
regulations or other established administrative procedures for such
communications.
* * * * *
0
3. Amend Sec. 53.5 as follows:
0
a. Remove the definition for ``Law Specialist''; and
0
b. Revise the definitions for ``Inspector General'' and ``Reprisal''
and add the definitions for ``Chain of Command'', ``Judge Advocate'',
and ``Protected Communications'' in alphabetical order to read as
follows:
Sec. 53.5 Definitions.
* * * * *
Chain of Command. The succession of commanding officers from a
superior to a subordinate through which command is exercised; and the
succession of officers, enlisted members, or civilian personnel through
whom administrative control is exercised, including supervision and
rating of performance.
* * * * *
Inspector General. The Inspector General in the Office of Inspector
General of the Department of Homeland Security, or any other Inspector
General, as appointed under the Inspector General Act of 1978.
Judge Advocate. A commissioned officer of the Coast Guard
designated for the special duty of law.
* * * * *
Protected Communication. Any lawful communication to a Member of
Congress or an Inspector General; or a communication in which a member
of the Coast Guard communicates information that the member reasonably
believes evidences a violation of law or regulation (including sexual
harassment or discrimination), gross mismanagement, a gross waste of
funds or other resources, an abuse of authority, or a substantial and
specific danger to public health or safety, when such communication is
made to any of the following: A Member of Congress; an Inspector
General; a member of a Department of Defense or Department of Homeland
Security audit, inspection, investigation, or law enforcement
organization (e.g., the Coast Guard Investigative Service); any person
or organization in the chain of command; and any other person or
organization designated pursuant to regulations or other established
administrative procedures to receive such communications.
Reprisal. Taking or threatening to take an unfavorable personnel
action, or withholding or threatening to withhold a favorable personnel
action, against a member of the Coast Guard for making or preparing to
make a protected communication.
* * * * *
0
4. In Sec. 53.7, revise paragraphs (b) and (c) to read as follows:
Sec. 53.7 Requirements.
* * * * *
(b) A member of the Coast Guard shall be free from reprisal for
making or preparing to make a protected communication.
(c) Any employee or member of the Coast Guard who has the authority
to take, direct others to take, or recommend or approve any personnel
action shall not, under such authority, take, withhold, threaten to
take, or threaten to withhold a personnel action regarding any member
of the Coast Guard in reprisal for making or preparing to make a
protected communication.
[[Page 79960]]
0
5. Amend Sec. 53.9 as follows:
0
a. Remove paragraph (a)(7); and
0
b. Revise paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(5), (b)(1), (c) introductory
text, (c)(1) and (2), (e), and (f) to read as follows:
Sec. 53.9 Responsibilities.
(a) * * *
(1) Expeditiously determine whether there is sufficient evidence to
warrant an investigation of an allegation that a personnel action has
been taken, withheld, or threatened in reprisal for making or preparing
to make a protected communication. No investigation is required when
such allegation is submitted more than 60 days after the Coast Guard
member became aware of the personnel action that is the subject of the
allegation.
(2) If such investigation is warranted, initiate a separate
investigation of the information the Coast Guard member reasonably
believes evidences wrongdoing if a prior investigation has not already
been initiated, or if the prior investigation was biased or inadequate.
(3) Complete the investigation of the allegation of reprisal and
issue a report not later than 180 days after receipt of the allegation,
which shall include a thorough review of the facts and circumstances
relevant to the allegation, the relevant documents acquired during the
investigation, and summaries of interviews conducted. The Inspector
General may forward a recommendation as to the disposition of the
complaint.
(4) Submit a copy of the investigation report to the Secretary of
the Department of Homeland Security and to the Coast Guard member
making the allegation not later than 30 days after the completion of
the investigation. In the copy of the report transmitted to the member,
the Inspector General shall ensure the maximum disclosure of
information possible, with the exception of information that is not
required to be disclosed under 5 U.S.C. 552. However, the copy
transmitted to the member need not contain summaries of interviews
conducted, nor any document acquired, during the course of the
investigation. Such items shall be transmitted to the member, if the
member requests the items, with the copy of the report or after the
transmittal to the member of the copy of the report, regardless of
whether the request for those items is made before or after the copy of
the report is transmitted to the member.
(5) If a determination is made that the report cannot be issued
within 180 days of receipt of the allegation, notify the Secretary and
the Coast Guard member making the allegation of the reasons why the
report will not be submitted within that time, and state when the
report will be submitted.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) Consider under 10 U.S.C. 1552 and 33 CFR part 52 an application
for the correction of records made by a Coast Guard member who has
filed a timely complaint with the Inspector General alleging that a
personnel action was taken in reprisal for making or preparing to make
a protected communication. This may include oral argument, examining
and cross-examining witnesses, taking depositions, and conducting an
evidentiary hearing at the Board's discretion.
* * * * *
(c) If the Board elects to hold an administrative hearing, the
Coast Guard member may be represented by a Judge Advocate if:
(1) The Inspector General, in the report of the investigation,
finds there is probable cause to believe that a personnel action was
taken, withheld, or threatened in reprisal for the Coast Guard member
making or preparing to make a protected communication;
(2) The Chief Counsel of the Coast Guard (who may also be serving
as the Judge Advocate General of the Coast Guard) determines that the
case is unusually complex or otherwise requires the assistance of a
Judge Advocate to ensure proper presentation of the legal issues in the
case; and
* * * * *
(e) If the Board determines that a personnel action was taken,
withheld, or threatened as a reprisal for a Coast Guard member making
or preparing to make a protected communication, the Board may forward
its recommendation to the Secretary of the Department of Homeland
Security for appropriate administrative or disciplinary action against
the individual or individuals found to have taken, withheld, or
threatened a personnel action as a reprisal, and direct any appropriate
correction of the member's records.
(f) The Board shall notify the Inspector General of the Board's
decision concerning an application for the correction of military
records of a Coast Guard member who alleged reprisal for making or
preparing to make a protected communication, and of any recommendation
to the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security for appropriate
administrative or disciplinary action against the individual or
individuals found to have taken, withheld, or threatened a personnel
action as a reprisal.
* * * * *
0
6. In Sec. 53.11, revise paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) to read as
follows:
Sec. 53.11 Procedures.
(a) Any member of the Coast Guard who reasonably believes a
personnel action was taken, withheld, or threatened in reprisal for
making or preparing to make a protected communication may file a
complaint with the Department of Homeland Security Inspector General
Hotline at 1-800-323-8603. Such a complaint may be filed: By letter
addressed to the Department of Homeland Security, Office of Inspector
General, Hotline, Washington, DC 20528; By faxing the complaint to 202-
254-4292; or by e-mailing DHSOIGHOTLINE@dhs.gov.
(b) The complaint should include the name, address, and telephone
number of the complainant; the name and location of the activity where
the alleged violation occurred; the personnel action taken, withheld,
or threatened that is alleged to be motivated by reprisal; the name(s)
of the individual(s) believed to be responsible for the personnel
action; the date when the alleged reprisal occurred; and any
information that suggests or evidences a connection between the
protected communication and reprisal. The complaint should also include
a description of the protected communication, including a copy of any
written communication and a brief summary of any oral communication
showing the date of communication, the subject matter, and the name of
the person or official to whom the communication was made.
(c) A member of the Coast Guard who alleges reprisal for making or
preparing to make a protected communication may submit an application
for the correction of military records to the Board, in accordance with
regulations governing the Board. See 33 CFR part 52.
* * * * *
Dated: December 15, 2010.
Robert J. Papp, Jr.,
Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard Commandant.
[FR Doc. 2010-32017 Filed 12-20-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P