Privacy Act of 1974; Implementation, 42234-42235 [2018-17954]
Download as PDF
42234
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 162 / Tuesday, August 21, 2018 / Proposed Rules
10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Fort Worth, TX
76177; telephone (817) 222–5110; email 9ASW-FTW-AMOC-Requests@faa.gov.
(2) For operations conducted under a 14
CFR part 119 operating certificate or under
14 CFR part 91, subpart K, we suggest that
you notify your principal inspector, or
lacking a principal inspector, the manager of
the local flight standards district office or
certificate holding district office before
operating any aircraft complying with this
AD through an AMOC.
(h) Additional Information
The subject of this AD is addressed in
Transport Canada AD No. CF–2016–13, dated
May 16, 2016. You may view the Transport
Canada AD on the internet at https://
www.regulations.gov in the AD Docket.
(i) Subject
Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC)
Code: 6300, Main Rotor Drive System.
Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on August 10,
2018.
Lance T. Gant,
Director, Compliance & Airworthiness
Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2018–17902 Filed 8–20–18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Office of the Secretary
32 CFR Part 311
[Docket ID: DOD–2018–OS–0055]
Privacy Act of 1974; Implementation
Office of the Secretary of
Defense, DoD.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
AGENCY:
The Office of the Secretary of
Defense proposes to exempt some
records maintained in DMDC 18 DoD,
‘‘Synchronized Predeployment and
Operational Tracker Enterprise Suite
(SPOT–ES) Records,’’ from subsection
(d) of the Privacy Act. A system of
records notice for this system has been
published elsewhere in this issue of the
Federal Register.
DATES: In accordance with 5 U.S.C.
553(b)(1), (2) and (3), the public is given
a 30-day period in which to comment.
Therefore, please submit any comments
by September 20, 2018.
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: Department of Defense, Office
of the Chief Management Officer,
Directorate for Oversight and
Compliance, 4800 Mark Center Drive,
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:34 Aug 20, 2018
Jkt 244001
Mailbox #24, Suite 08D09, Alexandria,
VA 22350–1700.
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.
Luz D. Ortiz, Chief, Records, Privacy
and Declassification Division (RPDD),
1155 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC
20311–1155, or by phone at (571) 372–
0478.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This
proposed modification to 32 CFR part
311 adds a new Privacy Act exemption
rule for the Synchronized
Redeployment and Operational Tracker
Enterprise Suite (SPOT–ES), which is
used at installations to manage, track,
account for, monitor, and report on
contracts, companies, and contractor
employees supporting contingency
operations, humanitarian assistance
operations, peace operations, disaster
relief operations, military exercises,
events, and other activities that require
contractor support. Contract scope,
installations, and/or activities requiring
contractor support as documented in
SPOT–ES may be classified under
Executive Order (E.O.) 13526,
‘‘Classified National Security
Information.’’ Information classified
under E.O. 13526, as implemented by
DoD Manual (DoDM) 5200.01 Volume 1,
and DoD Instruction (DoDI) 5200.01,
may be exempt pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
552a(k)(1). Granting unfettered access to
information that is properly classified
pursuant to those authorities may cause
damage to the national security.
Regulatory Procedures
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 also emphasizes
the importance of quantifying both costs
and benefits, of reducing costs, of
harmonizing rules, and of promoting
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
flexibility. This rule is not a significant
regulatory action under E.O. 12866.
Executive Order 13771, ‘‘Reducing
Regulation and Controlling Regulatory
Costs’’
This proposed rule is not a
deregulatory action but a modification
to an existing rule.
2 U.S.C. Ch. 25, ‘‘Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act’’
This proposed rule is not subject to
the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
(UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1532) because it does
not contain a federal mandate that may
result in the expenditure by state, local,
and tribal governments, in the aggregate,
or by the private sector, of $100M or
more in any one year.
Public Law 96–354, ‘‘Regulatory
Flexibility Act’’ (5 U.S.C. Chapter 6)
It has been certified that this 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 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 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.).
Executive Order 13132, ‘‘Federalism’’
Executive Order 13132 establishes
certain requirements that an agency
must meet when it promulgates a
proposed rule (and subsequent final
rule) that imposes substantial direct
requirement costs on State and local
governments, preempts State law, or
otherwise has Federalism implications.
This proposed rule will not have a
substantial effect on State and local
governments.
List of Subjects in 32 CFR Part 311
Privacy.
Accordingly, 32 CFR part 311 is
proposed to be amended as follows:
PART 311—[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for 32 CFR
part 311 continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552a.
2. Section 311.8 is amended by adding
paragraph (c)(28) to read as follows:
■
§ 311.8
*
Procedures for exemptions.
*
*
(c) * * *
E:\FR\FM\21AUP1.SGM
21AUP1
*
*
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 162 / Tuesday, August 21, 2018 / Proposed Rules
(28) System identifier and name:
DMDC 18 DoD, Synchronized
Predeployment and Operational Tracker
Enterprise Suite (SPOT–ES) Records.
(i) Exemption: Information classified
under E.O. 13526, as implemented by
DoD 5200.1–R, may be exempt pursuant
to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(1).
(ii) Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(1).
(iii) Reasons: From subsection 5
U.S.C. 552a(d) because granting access
to information that is properly classified
pursuant to E.O. 13526, as implemented
by DoD Manual 5200.01 Volume 1, and
DoD Instruction 5200.01, may cause
damage to the national security.
Dated: August 15, 2018.
Aaron T. Siegel,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison
Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 2018–17954 Filed 8–20–18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001–06–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R05–OAR–2015–0699; EPA–R05–
OAR–2017–0165; FRL–9982–31-Region 5]
Air Plan Approval; Ohio; Attainment
Plan for the Lake County SO2
Nonattainment Area
EPA–R05–OAR–2017–0165 (SO2 rule
revisions) at https://www.regulations.gov,
or via email to Blakley.pamela@epa.gov.
For comments submitted at
Regulations.gov, follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
Once submitted, comments cannot be
edited or removed from Regulations.gov.
For either manner of submission, EPA
may publish any comment received to
its public docket. Do not submit
electronically any information you
consider to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video,
etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment is
considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points
you wish to make. EPA will generally
not consider comments or comment
contents located outside of the primary
submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or
other file sharing system). For
additional submission methods, please
contact the person identified in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
For the full EPA public comment policy,
information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on
making effective comments, please visit
https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/
commenting-epa-dockets.
AGENCY:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a
State Implementation Plan (SIP)
revision which Ohio submitted to EPA
on April 3, 2015, and supplemented in
October 2015 and March 2017, as its
plan for attaining the 1-hour sulfur
dioxide (SO2) primary national ambient
air quality standard (NAAQS) for the
Lake County SO2 nonattainment area.
This plan (herein called a
‘‘nonattainment plan’’) includes Ohio’s
attainment demonstration, enforceable
emission limitations and control
measures, and other elements required
under the Clean Air Act (CAA). EPA
proposes to conclude that Ohio has
appropriately demonstrated that the
nonattainment plan provides for
attainment of the 2010 1-hour primary
SO2 NAAQS in Lake County by the
applicable attainment date and that the
plan meets the other applicable
requirements under the CAA.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before September 20, 2018.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05–
OAR–2015–0699 (nonattainment SIP) or
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document, whenever
‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ’’our’’ is used, we mean
EPA. The docket number EPA–R05–
OAR–2015–0699 refers to Ohio’s
nonattainment SIP submittal of April 3,
2015, supplemented on October 13,
2015. This state submittal addressed
Ohio’s Lake County, Muskingum River,
and Steubenville OH–WV SO2
nonattainment areas. The docket
number EPA–R05–OAR–2017–0165
refers to Ohio’s OAC 3745–18 SO2 rules
SIP submittal of March 13, 2017. EPA is
proposing action on only the Lake
County portion of Ohio’s nonattainment
SIP submittal and the portions of OAC
3745–18 that are specifically pertinent
to Ohio’s Lake County nonattainment
SIP at this time. The Muskingum River
and Steubenville portions of the
nonattainment SIP and the remainder of
the OAC 3745–18 rule revisions will be
addressed in subsequent rulemaking
actions.
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:34 Aug 20, 2018
Jkt 244001
Mary Portanova, Environmental
Engineer, Control Strategies Section, Air
Programs Branch (AR–18J),
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 353–5954,
portanova.mary@epa.gov.
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
42235
The following outline is provided to
aid in locating information regarding
EPA’s proposed action on Ohio’s Lake
County SO2 nonattainment plan.
Table of Contents
I. Why was Ohio required to submit an SO2
plan for the Lake County area?
II. Requirements for SO2 Nonattainment Area
Plans
III. Attainment Demonstration and LongerTerm Averaging
IV. Review of Modeled Attainment Plan
A. Model Selection and General Model
Inputs
B. Meteorological Data
C. Modeled Emissions Data
D. Emission Limits
1. Enforceability
2. Longer-Term Average Limits
E. Background Concentrations
F. Summary of Results
V. Review of Other Plan Requirements
A. Emissions Inventory
B. Reasonably Available Control Measures
and Technology
C. New Source Review
D. Reasonable Further Progress
E. Contingency Measures
VI. Ohio’s SIP Rules
VII. EPA’s Proposed Action
VIII. Incorporation by Reference
XI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Why was Ohio required to submit an
SO2 plan for the Lake County area?
On June 22, 2010, EPA promulgated a
new 1-hour primary SO2 NAAQS of 75
parts per billion (ppb), which is met at
an ambient air quality monitoring site
when the 3-year average of the annual
99th percentile of the daily maximum 1hour average concentrations does not
exceed 75 ppb, as determined in
accordance with appendix T of 40 CFR
part 50. See 75 FR 35520, codified at 40
CFR 50.17(a)–(b). The 3-year average of
the annual 99th percentile of daily
maximum 1-hour average
concentrations is called the air quality
monitor’s SO2 ‘‘design value.’’ For the 3year period 2009–2011, the design value
at the SO2 monitor in Painesville, Lake
County (39–085–0007) was 157 ppb,
which is a violation of the SO2 NAAQS.
Lake County’s SO2 designation was
based upon the monitored design value
at this location for this three-year
period. (Lake County’s other SO2
monitor, located in Eastlake, Ohio (39–
085–0003), had a 2009–2011 design
value of 33 ppb, which is not a
violation.) On August 5, 2013, EPA
designated a first set of 29 areas of the
country as nonattainment for the 2010
SO2 NAAQS, including the Lake County
nonattainment area. See 78 FR 47191,
codified at 40 CFR part 81, subpart C.
These area designations were effective
on October 4, 2013. Section 191(a) of the
CAA directs states to submit SIPs for
E:\FR\FM\21AUP1.SGM
21AUP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 162 (Tuesday, August 21, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 42234-42235]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-17954]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Office of the Secretary
32 CFR Part 311
[Docket ID: DOD-2018-OS-0055]
Privacy Act of 1974; Implementation
AGENCY: Office of the Secretary of Defense, DoD.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Office of the Secretary of Defense proposes to exempt some
records maintained in DMDC 18 DoD, ``Synchronized Predeployment and
Operational Tracker Enterprise Suite (SPOT-ES) Records,'' from
subsection (d) of the Privacy Act. A system of records notice for this
system has been published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal
Register.
DATES: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(1), (2) and (3), the public
is given a 30-day period in which to comment. Therefore, please submit
any comments by September 20, 2018.
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: Department of Defense, Office of the Chief
Management Officer, Directorate for Oversight and Compliance, 4800 Mark
Center Drive, Mailbox #24, Suite 08D09, Alexandria, VA 22350-1700.
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. Luz D. Ortiz, Chief, Records,
Privacy and Declassification Division (RPDD), 1155 Defense Pentagon,
Washington, DC 20311-1155, or by phone at (571) 372-0478.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This proposed modification to 32 CFR part
311 adds a new Privacy Act exemption rule for the Synchronized
Redeployment and Operational Tracker Enterprise Suite (SPOT-ES), which
is used at installations to manage, track, account for, monitor, and
report on contracts, companies, and contractor employees supporting
contingency operations, humanitarian assistance operations, peace
operations, disaster relief operations, military exercises, events, and
other activities that require contractor support. Contract scope,
installations, and/or activities requiring contractor support as
documented in SPOT-ES may be classified under Executive Order (E.O.)
13526, ``Classified National Security Information.'' Information
classified under E.O. 13526, as implemented by DoD Manual (DoDM)
5200.01 Volume 1, and DoD Instruction (DoDI) 5200.01, may be exempt
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(1). Granting unfettered access to
information that is properly classified pursuant to those authorities
may cause damage to the national security.
Regulatory Procedures
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 also emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs
and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting
flexibility. This rule is not a significant regulatory action under
E.O. 12866.
Executive Order 13771, ``Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory
Costs''
This proposed rule is not a deregulatory action but a modification
to an existing rule.
2 U.S.C. Ch. 25, ``Unfunded Mandates Reform Act''
This proposed rule is not subject to the Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1532) because it does not contain a federal
mandate that may result in the expenditure by state, local, and tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100M or
more in any one year.
Public Law 96-354, ``Regulatory Flexibility Act'' (5 U.S.C. Chapter 6)
It has been certified that this 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 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 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.).
Executive Order 13132, ``Federalism''
Executive Order 13132 establishes certain requirements that an
agency must meet when it promulgates a proposed rule (and subsequent
final rule) that imposes substantial direct requirement costs on State
and local governments, preempts State law, or otherwise has Federalism
implications. This proposed rule will not have a substantial effect on
State and local governments.
List of Subjects in 32 CFR Part 311
Privacy.
Accordingly, 32 CFR part 311 is proposed to be amended as follows:
PART 311--[AMENDED]
0
1. The authority citation for 32 CFR part 311 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552a.
0
2. Section 311.8 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(28) to read as
follows:
Sec. 311.8 Procedures for exemptions.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
[[Page 42235]]
(28) System identifier and name: DMDC 18 DoD, Synchronized
Predeployment and Operational Tracker Enterprise Suite (SPOT-ES)
Records.
(i) Exemption: Information classified under E.O. 13526, as
implemented by DoD 5200.1-R, may be exempt pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
552a(k)(1).
(ii) Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(1).
(iii) Reasons: From subsection 5 U.S.C. 552a(d) because granting
access to information that is properly classified pursuant to E.O.
13526, as implemented by DoD Manual 5200.01 Volume 1, and DoD
Instruction 5200.01, may cause damage to the national security.
Dated: August 15, 2018.
Aaron T. Siegel,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 2018-17954 Filed 8-20-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-P