Privacy Act; Implementation, 64633-64634 [E6-18593]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 213 / Friday, November 3, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
Executive Order 13132, ‘‘Federalism’’
It has been determined that Privacy
Act rules for the Department of Defense
do not have federalism implications.
The rules do 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 318
Dated: October 30, 2006.
C.R. Choate,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison
Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. E6–18592 Filed 11–2–06; 8:45 am]
Privacy.
I Accordingly, 32 CFR part 318 is
amended as follows:
PART 318—DEFENSE THREAT
REDUCTION AGENCY PRIVACY
PROGRAM
BILLING CODE 5001–06–P
1. The authority citation for 32 CFR
part 318 continues to read as follows:
Defense Logistics Agency
Authority: Pub. L. 93–579, 88 Stat. 1896 (5
U.S.C. 552a).
mstockstill on PROD1PC61 with RULES
32 CFR Part 323
Exemption rules.
*
*
*
*
*
(d) System identifier and name:
HDTRA 021, Freedom of Information
Act and Privacy Act Request Case Files.
(1) Exemption: During the processing
of a Freedom of Information Act or
Privacy Act request exempt materials
from other systems of records may in
turn become part of the case record in
this system. To the extent that copies of
exempt records from those ‘other’
systems of records are entered into this
system, the Defense Threat Reduction
Agency claims the same exemptions for
the records from those ‘other’ systems
that are entered into this system, as
claimed for the original primary system
of which they are a part.
(2) Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2),
(k)(1), (k)(2), (k)(3), (k)(4), (k)(5), (k)(6)
and (k)(7).
(3) Reasons: Records are only exempt
from pertinent provisions of 5 U.S.C.
552a to the extent such provisions have
been identified and an exemption
claimed for the original record and the
purposes underlying the exemption for
the original record still pertain to the
record which is now contained in this
system of records. In general, the
exemptions were claimed in order to
protect properly classified information
relating to national defense and foreign
policy, to avoid interference during the
conduct of criminal, civil, or
administrative actions or investigations,
to ensure protective services provided
the President and others are not
compromised, to protect the identity of
confidential sources incident to Federal
VerDate Aug<31>2005
12:41 Nov 02, 2006
Jkt 211001
[Docket: DoD–2006–OS–0022]
RIN 0790–AI00
2. Section 318.16 is amended by
adding paragraph (d) as follows:
I
Defense Logistics Agency, DoD.
Final rule.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The Defense Logistics Agency
(DLA) is modifying its exemption rule
for a system of records (S500.10,
‘‘Personnel Security Files,’’ (August 11,
2006, 71 FR 46201)) in its inventory of
systems of records pursuant to the
Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as
amended.
EFFECTIVE DATE: December 4, 2006.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.
Jody Sinkler at (703) 767–5045.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
proposed rule was published on August
11, 2006, at 71 FR 46180. No comments
were received. The rule is therefore
adopted as published below.
Executive Order 12866, ‘‘Regulatory
Planning and Review’’
It has been determined that Privacy
Act rules for the Department of Defense
are not significant rules. The rules do
not (1) Have an annual effect on the
economy of $100 million or more or
adversely affect in a material way the
economy; a sector of the economy;
productivity; competition; jobs; the
environment; public health or safety; or
State, local, or tribal governments or
communities; (2) Create a serious
inconsistency or otherwise interfere
with an action taken or planned by
another Agency; (3) Materially alter the
budgetary impact of entitlements,
grants, user fees, or loan programs, or
the rights and obligations of recipients
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Public Law 96–354, ‘‘Regulatory
Flexibility Act’’ (5 U.S.C. Chapter 6)
It has been determined that Privacy
Act rules for the Department of Defense
do not have significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities
because they are concerned only with
the administration of Privacy Act
systems of records within the
Department of Defense.
Public Law 96–511, ‘‘Paperwork
Reduction Act’’ (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35)
Section 202, Public Law 104–4,
‘‘Unfunded Mandates Reform Act’’
Privacy Act; Implementation
ACTION:
thereof; or (4) Raise novel legal or policy
issues arising out of legal mandates, the
President’s priorities, or the principles
set forth in this Executive order.
It has been determined that Privacy
Act rules for the Department of Defense
impose no information requirements
beyond the Department of Defense and
that the information collected within
the Department of Defense is necessary
and consistent with 5 U.S.C. 552a,
known as the Privacy Act of 1974.
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
I
§ 318.16
employment, military service, contract,
and security clearance determinations,
to preserve the confidentiality and
integrity of Federal testing materials,
and to safeguard evaluation materials
used for military promotions when
furnished by a confidential source. The
exemption rule for the original records
will identify the specific reasons why
the records are exempt from specific
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552a.
64633
It has been determined that Privacy
Act rulemaking for the Department of
Defense 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 such rulemaking will not
significantly or uniquely affect small
governments.
Executive Order 13132, ‘‘Federalism’’
It has been determined that Privacy
Act rules for the Department of Defense
do not have federalism implications.
The rules do 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 323
Privacy.
Accordingly, 32 CFR part 323 is
amended as follows:
I
PART 323—DLA PRIVACY ACT
PROGRAM
1. The authority citation for 32 CFR
part 323 continues to read as follows:
I
Authority: Pub. L. 93–579, 88 Stat. 1896 (5
U.S.C. 552a).
2. Appendix H to part 323 is amended
by revising paragraphs a.1. through a.4.
to read as follows:
I
E:\FR\FM\03NOR1.SGM
03NOR1
64634
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 213 / Friday, November 3, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
Appendix H to Part 323—DLA
Exemption Rules
ACTION:
a. ID: S500.10 (Specific exemption).
1. System name: Personnel Security Files.
2. Exemption: Investigatory material
compiled solely for the purpose of
determining suitability, eligibility, or
qualifications for Federal civilian
employment, Federal contracts, or access to
classified information may be exempt
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(5), but only to
the extent that such material would reveal
the identity of a confidential source.
Therefore, portions of this system may be
exempt pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(5) from
the following subsections of 5 U.S.C.
552a(c)(3), (d), and (e)(1).
3. Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(5).
4. Reasons: (i) From subsection (c)(3) and
(d) when access to accounting disclosures
and access to or amendment of records
would cause the identity of a confidential
source to be revealed. Disclosure of the
source’s identity not only will result in the
Department breaching the promise of
confidentiality made to the source but it will
impair the Department’s future ability to
compile investigatory material for the
purpose of determining suitability, eligibility,
or qualifications for Federal civilian
employment, Federal contracts, or access to
classified information. Unless sources can be
assured that a promise of confidentiality will
be honored, they will be less likely to
provide information considered essential to
the Department in making the required
determinations.
(ii) From (e)(1) because in the collection of
information for investigatory purposes, it is
not always possible to determine the
relevance and necessity of particular
information in the early stages of the
investigation. In some cases, it is only after
the information is evaluated in light of other
information that its relevance and necessity
becomes clear. Such information permits
more informed decision-making by the
Department when making required
suitability, eligibility, and qualification
determinations.
*
*
*
*
*
Dated: October 30, 2006.
C.R. Choate,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison
Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. E6–18593 Filed 11–2–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001–06–P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 165
mstockstill on PROD1PC61 with RULES
[CGD05–06–092]
RIN 1625–AA00
Safety Zone: Fireworks Display, Trent
River, New Bern, NC
AGENCY:
Coast Guard, DHS.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
12:41 Nov 02, 2006
Jkt 211001
Temporary final rule.
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes the
establishment of a 1000 foot safety zone
around a fireworks display for the North
Carolina Parks and Recreation
Conference occurring on November 12,
2006, on the Trent River, New Bern, NC.
This action is intended to restrict vessel
traffic on the Trent River. This safety
zone is necessary to protect mariners
from the hazards associated with
fireworks displays.
DATES: This rule is effective from 6 p.m.
to 8 p.m. on November 12, 2006.
ADDRESSES: Comments and material
received from the public, as well as
documents indicated in this preamble as
being available in the docket, are part of
docket (CGD05–06–092) and are
available for inspection or copying at
Commander, Sector North Carolina,
2301 East Fort Macon Road, Atlantic
Beach, NC 28512. Sector North Carolina
maintains the public docket for this
rulemaking. Comments and material
received from the public, as well as
documents indicated in this preamble as
being available in the docket, will
become part of this docket and will be
available for inspection or copying at
the Federal Building Fifth Coast Guard
District between 9 a.m. and 2 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal
Holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
CWO Christopher Humphrey,
Prevention Department, Coast Guard
Sector North Carolina, at (252) 247–
4525.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Regulatory Information
On September 12, 2006, we published
a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM) entitled Safety Zone: Fireworks
Display, Trent River, New Bern, NC in
the Federal Register (71 FR 53627). We
received no letters commenting on the
proposed rule. No public meeting was
requested, and none was held.
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast
Guard finds that good cause exists for
making this rule effective less than 30
days after publication in the Federal
Register. Delaying the effective date
would be contrary to the public interest
since immediate action is needed to
minimize danger to the public during
the event. The potential danger posed
by the pyrotechnic display, make
special local regulations necessary to
provide for the safety of the event
participants, spectator craft and other
vessels transiting the event area.
However advance notifications will be
made to users of Trent River via marine
information broadcasts, local notice to
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
mariners, commercial radio stations and
area newspapers.
Background and Purpose
On November 12, 2006, the North
Carolina Parks & Recreation Conference
fireworks display will be held on the
Trent River in New Bern, NC. Spectators
will be observing from both the shore
and from vessels. Due to the need of
protection of mariners and spectators
from the hazards associated with the
fireworks display, vessel traffic will be
temporarily restricted.
Discussion of Comments and Changes
The Coast Guard did not receive
comments in response to the notice of
proposed rulemaking (NPRM) published
in the Federal Register. Accordingly,
the Coast Guard is establishing
temporary special local regulations on
specified waters of Trent River, New
Bern, North Carolina.
Regulatory Evaluation
This rule is not a ‘‘significant
regulatory action’’ under section 3(f) of
Executive Order 12866, Regulatory
Planning and Review, and does not
require an assessment of potential costs
and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that
Order. The Office of Management and
Budget has not reviewed it under that
Order. It is not ‘‘significant’’ under the
regulatory policies and procedures of
the Department of Homeland Security
(DHS).
We expect the economic impact of
this rule to be so minimal that a full
Regulatory Evaluation under the
regulatory policies and procedures of
DHS is unnecessary. Although this
regulation restricts access to the
regulated area, the effect of this rule will
not be significant because: (i) The COTP
may authorize access to the safety zone;
(ii) the safety zone will be in effect for
a limited duration; and (iii) the Coast
Guard will make notifications via
maritime advisories so mariners can
adjust their plans accordingly.
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.
The Coast Guard certifies under 5
U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule would not
E:\FR\FM\03NOR1.SGM
03NOR1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 213 (Friday, November 3, 2006)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 64633-64634]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-18593]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Defense Logistics Agency
[Docket: DoD-2006-OS-0022]
RIN 0790-AI00
32 CFR Part 323
Privacy Act; Implementation
AGENCY: Defense Logistics Agency, DoD.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) is modifying its exemption
rule for a system of records (S500.10, ``Personnel Security Files,''
(August 11, 2006, 71 FR 46201)) in its inventory of systems of records
pursuant to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended.
EFFECTIVE DATE: December 4, 2006.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Jody Sinkler at (703) 767-5045.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The proposed rule was published on August
11, 2006, at 71 FR 46180. No comments were received. The rule is
therefore adopted as published below.
Executive Order 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review''
It has been determined that Privacy Act rules for the Department of
Defense are not significant rules. The rules do not (1) Have an annual
effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a
material way the economy; a sector of the economy; productivity;
competition; jobs; the environment; public health or safety; or State,
local, or tribal governments or communities; (2) Create a serious
inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by
another Agency; (3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of
entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs, or the rights and
obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) Raise novel legal or policy
issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or
the principles set forth in this Executive order.
Public Law 96-354, ``Regulatory Flexibility Act'' (5 U.S.C. Chapter 6)
It has been determined that Privacy Act rules for the Department of
Defense do not have significant economic impact on a substantial number
of small entities because they are concerned only with the
administration of Privacy Act systems of records within the Department
of Defense.
Public Law 96-511, ``Paperwork Reduction Act'' (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35)
It has been determined that Privacy Act rules for the Department of
Defense impose no information requirements beyond the Department of
Defense and that the information collected within the Department of
Defense is necessary and consistent with 5 U.S.C. 552a, known as the
Privacy Act of 1974.
Section 202, Public Law 104-4, ``Unfunded Mandates Reform Act''
It has been determined that Privacy Act rulemaking for the
Department of Defense 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 such rulemaking will not significantly or uniquely affect small
governments.
Executive Order 13132, ``Federalism''
It has been determined that Privacy Act rules for the Department of
Defense do not have federalism implications. The rules do 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 323
Privacy.
0
Accordingly, 32 CFR part 323 is amended as follows:
PART 323--DLA PRIVACY ACT PROGRAM
0
1. The authority citation for 32 CFR part 323 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: Pub. L. 93-579, 88 Stat. 1896 (5 U.S.C. 552a).
0
2. Appendix H to part 323 is amended by revising paragraphs a.1.
through a.4. to read as follows:
[[Page 64634]]
Appendix H to Part 323--DLA Exemption Rules
a. ID: S500.10 (Specific exemption).
1. System name: Personnel Security Files.
2. Exemption: Investigatory material compiled solely for the
purpose of determining suitability, eligibility, or qualifications
for Federal civilian employment, Federal contracts, or access to
classified information may be exempt pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
552a(k)(5), but only to the extent that such material would reveal
the identity of a confidential source. Therefore, portions of this
system may be exempt pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(5) from the
following subsections of 5 U.S.C. 552a(c)(3), (d), and (e)(1).
3. Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(5).
4. Reasons: (i) From subsection (c)(3) and (d) when access to
accounting disclosures and access to or amendment of records would
cause the identity of a confidential source to be revealed.
Disclosure of the source's identity not only will result in the
Department breaching the promise of confidentiality made to the
source but it will impair the Department's future ability to compile
investigatory material for the purpose of determining suitability,
eligibility, or qualifications for Federal civilian employment,
Federal contracts, or access to classified information. Unless
sources can be assured that a promise of confidentiality will be
honored, they will be less likely to provide information considered
essential to the Department in making the required determinations.
(ii) From (e)(1) because in the collection of information for
investigatory purposes, it is not always possible to determine the
relevance and necessity of particular information in the early
stages of the investigation. In some cases, it is only after the
information is evaluated in light of other information that its
relevance and necessity becomes clear. Such information permits more
informed decision-making by the Department when making required
suitability, eligibility, and qualification determinations.
* * * * *
Dated: October 30, 2006.
C.R. Choate,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. E6-18593 Filed 11-2-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-P