Privacy Act; Implementation, 56-57 [2010-33030]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
56
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 1 / Monday, January 3, 2011 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 6—SERVICE INFORMATION—Continued
Service bulletin
Revision
Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A310–57–2064 .......................................................
02 .................................................
Issued in Renton, Washington on
December 17, 2010.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate,
Aircraft Certification Service.
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Office of the Secretary
[Docket ID: DOD–2010–OS–0183]
32 CFR Part 311
Privacy Act; Implementation
Office of the Secretary, DoD.
Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
SUMMARY: The Office of the Secretary of
Defense is exempting those records
contained in DMDC 15 DoD, entitled
‘‘Armed Services Military Accession
Testing’’ when the record includes the
specific answers submitted and the
answer key. Releasing this information
to the individual will compromise the
objectivity or fairness of the test if the
correct or incorrect answers are
released.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before March 4, 2011 to be
considered by this agency.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments,
identified by docket number and/or RIN
number and title, by any of the
following methods:
• Federal Rulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
• Mail: Federal Docket Management
System Office, Room 3C843, 1160
Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC
20301–1160.
Instructions: All submissions received
must include the agency name and
docket number or Regulatory
Information Number (RIN) 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:
Mrs.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:10 Dec 30, 2010
Jkt 223001
Executive Order 13132, ‘‘Federalism’’
Executive Order 12866, ‘‘Regulatory
Planning and Review’’
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
Cindy Allard at (703) 588–6830.
December 21, 2007.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
[FR Doc. 2010–32992 Filed 12–30–10; 8:45 am]
ACTION:
Date
It has been determined that the
Privacy Act rules for the Department of
Defense do not have federalism
implications. The rule does not have
substantial direct effects on the States,
on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government.
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 this
Privacy Act rule for the Department of
Defense does not have significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities because it is
concerned only with the administration
of Privacy Act systems of records within
the Department of Defense.
Public Law 95–511, ‘‘Paperwork
Reduction Act’’ (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35)
It has been determined that this
Privacy Act rule for the Department of
Defense imposes 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 this
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
List of Subjects in 32 CFR Part 311
Privacy.
Accordingly, 32 CFR part 311 is
proposed to be amended to read as
follows:
PART 311—OFFICE OF THE
SECRETARY OF DEFENSE AND JOINT
STAFF PRIVACY PROGRAM
1. The authority citation for 32 CFR
part 311 continues to read as follows:
Authority: Pub. L. 93–579, 88 Stat. 1986 (5
U.S.C. 522a).
2. Section 311.8 is amended by
adding paragraph (c)(16) to read as
follows:
§ 311.8
Procedures for exemptions.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) * * *
(16) System identifier and name:
DMDC 15 DoD, Armed Services Military
Accession Testing.
(i) Exemption: Testing or examination
material used solely to determine
individual qualifications for
appointment or promotion in the
Federal service or military service may
be exempt pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a
(k)(6), if the disclosure would
compromise the objectivity or fairness
of the test or examination process.
Therefore, portions of the system of
records may be exempt pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 552a(d).
(ii)
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(6).
(iii) Reasons: (A) An exemption is
required for those portions of the Skill
Qualification Test system pertaining to
individual item responses and scoring
keys to preclude compromise of the test
and to ensure fairness and objectivity of
the evaluation system.
(B) From subsection (d)(1) when
access to those portions of the Skill
Qualification Test records would reveal
the individual item responses and
E:\FR\FM\03JAP1.SGM
03JAP1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 1 / Monday, January 3, 2011 / Proposed Rules
scoring keys. Disclosure of the
individual item responses and scoring
keys will compromise the objectivity
and fairness of the test as well as the
validity of future tests resulting in the
Department being unable to use the
testing battery as an individual
assessment tool.
Dated: December 21, 2010.
Morgan F. Park,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison
Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 2010–33030 Filed 12–30–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001–06–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
National Park Service
36 CFR Part 7
RIN 1024–AD89
Special Regulation: Areas of the
National Park System, National Capital
Region
National Park Service, Interior.
Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
The National Park Service
(NPS) proposes to amend the
regulations on demonstrations and
special events for the National Capital
Region. This proposed rule would revise
the definition of ‘‘demonstration’’ as
well as specify the conditions under
which solicitation of gifts, money,
goods, or services could occur.
DATES: Comments must be received by
March 4, 2011.
ADDRESSES: You may submit your
comments, identified by Regulatory
Information Number 1024–AD89, by
any of the following methods:
—Federal rulemaking portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
—Mail or hand delivery: National Park
Service, Regional Director, Division of
Park Programs, 1100 Ohio Drive, SW.,
Room 128, Washington, DC 20242.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Robbin Owen, Chief, Division of Park
Programs, National Park Service,
National Capital Region, 1100 Ohio
Drive, SW., Room 128, Washington, DC
20242. Telephone: (202) 619–7225. Fax:
(202) 401–2430.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
SUMMARY:
Background
Revise the Definition of ‘‘Demonstration’’
This proposed rule would revise the
definition of demonstration at 36 CFR
7.96 (g)(1)(i) by eliminating the term
‘‘intent or propensity’’ where it appears
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:10 Dec 30, 2010
Jkt 223001
in the definition and replace it with the
term ‘‘reasonably likely.’’ In Boardley v.
Department of the Interior, 605 F. Supp.
2d 8 (D.D.C. 2009) the United States
District Court for the District of
Columbia commented on the
demonstration definition for the
National Capital Region under 36 CFR
7.96 (g)(1)(i). The Court commented the
definition could raise problems, because
it allowed NPS officials to restrict
speech based on their determination
that a person intended to draw a crowd
with their conduct. Such a
determination could easily rest on
impermissible grounds, such as an
official’s perception that certain
expression is controversial or
inappropriate, which would be a
content-based decision, impermissible
under the First Amendment. While the
NPS has not applied the regulation in
such an impermissible manner, and has
since issued a clarifying memorandum
to preclude such a determination, this
proposed rule would revise the
definition of demonstration to minimize
any possibility of a decision based on
impermissible grounds.
Amendment of the Solicitation
Regulation
This proposed rule also would amend
the provision regarding soliciting, in
order to be consistent with the United
States Court of Appeals for the District
of Columbia decision in ISKCON of
Potomac v. Kennedy, 61 F.3d 949 (DC
Cir. 1995).
In ISKCON of Potomac, the Court of
Appeals held that the NPS’s regulatory
ban of soliciting, which the NPS
traditionally construed as applying only
to the in-person solicitation of
immediate donations, was not ‘‘narrowly
tailored.’’ The Court recognized that:
* * *[t]he conduct of a special event
within a small, well-defined permit area will
have some effect on the ambiance of the Mall.
But we cannot see how allowing in-person
solicitations within the permit area will add
to whatever adverse impact will result from
the special event itself. The effects of
solicitation will be confined to the permit
area, and those who wish to escape them may
simply steer clear of the authorized
demonstration or special event. 61 F.3d at
956.
The Court also said:
Our holding allows only those individuals
or groups participating in an authorized
demonstration or special event to solicit
donations within the confines of a restricted
permit area such as that assigned to ISKCON.
It does not require the NPS to let rampant
panhandling go unchecked. 61 F.3d at 956.
Following the ISKCON of Potomac
decision, as an interim measure, the
NPS posted a notice at its Washington,
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
57
DC, National Capital Region Division of
Park Programs permit office as well as
in the Superintendent’s Compendium of
regulations for the National Mall and
Memorial Parks, stating that soliciting
would be allowed if it occurred within
the confines of a permit area as part of
a permitted ongoing activity. The
soliciting regulation itself, however, also
must be amended.
Consistent with ISKCON of Potomac,
this proposed amendment would allow
individuals or groups who are
participating in a permitted
demonstration or special event to solicit
donations within the confines of a
restricted permit area. Such soliciting is
authorized only when provided for in a
permit. Groups seeking to solicit
donations as part of a demonstration or
special event will need to describe the
activities in their permit application.
This proposed rule also formalizes the
long-standing view that soliciting is
limited to the in-person soliciting of
immediate donations.
This proposed rule deals with
soliciting and not sales. Any attempt to
offer or sell items, whether directly or
by the use of deceit, is governed by the
NPS sales regulation, at 36 CFR 7.96 (k),
which limits items to be sold on park
lands to books, newspapers, leaflets,
pamphlets, buttons, and bumper
stickers. As the NPS explained it its
prefatory statement to its sales
regulation, at 60 FR 17648 (1995),
* * * restricted merchandise cannot be
‘‘given away’’ and a ‘‘donation accepted’’ or
one item ‘‘given away’’ in return for the
purchase of another item; such transactions
amount to sales.
Finally, it has been the NPS’s longstanding application of its regulations
that demonstrations and special events,
whether under permit or not, are not
allowed in the restricted areas at 36 CFR
7.96 (g)(3)(ii). To better ensure that
everyone fully understands that
demonstrations and special events, with
or without a permit, are not allowed in
these restricted areas, NPS proposes to
amend its introductory sentence to
clearly indicate that no demonstrations
or special events are allowed in the
designated restricted areas.
Compliance with Other Laws, Executive
Orders, and Department Policy
Regulatory Planning and Review
(Executive Order 12866)
This document is not a significant
rule and the Office of Management and
Budget, (OMB), has not reviewed this
rule under Executive Order 12866.
(1) This rule will not have an effect of
$100 million or more on the economy.
It will not adversely affect in a material
E:\FR\FM\03JAP1.SGM
03JAP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 1 (Monday, January 3, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 56-57]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-33030]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Office of the Secretary
[Docket ID: DOD-2010-OS-0183]
32 CFR Part 311
Privacy Act; Implementation
AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, DoD.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Office of the Secretary of Defense is exempting those
records contained in DMDC 15 DoD, entitled ``Armed Services Military
Accession Testing'' when the record includes the specific answers
submitted and the answer key. Releasing this information to the
individual will compromise the objectivity or fairness of the test if
the correct or incorrect answers are released.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 4, 2011 to be
considered by this agency.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by docket number and/or
RIN number and title, by any of the following methods:
Federal Rulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
Mail: Federal Docket Management System Office, Room 3C843,
1160 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-1160.
Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name
and docket number or Regulatory Information Number (RIN) 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: Mrs. Cindy Allard at (703) 588-6830.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
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 this Privacy Act rule for the
Department of Defense does not have significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities because it is concerned only with
the administration of Privacy Act systems of records within the
Department of Defense.
Public Law 95-511, ``Paperwork Reduction Act'' (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35)
It has been determined that this Privacy Act rule for the
Department of Defense imposes 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 this 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 the Privacy Act rules for the
Department of Defense do not have federalism implications. The rule
does not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government.
List of Subjects in 32 CFR Part 311
Privacy.
Accordingly, 32 CFR part 311 is proposed to be amended to read as
follows:
PART 311--OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE AND JOINT STAFF
PRIVACY PROGRAM
1. The authority citation for 32 CFR part 311 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: Pub. L. 93-579, 88 Stat. 1986 (5 U.S.C. 522a).
2. Section 311.8 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(16) to read as
follows:
Sec. 311.8 Procedures for exemptions.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(16) System identifier and name: DMDC 15 DoD, Armed Services
Military Accession Testing.
(i) Exemption: Testing or examination material used solely to
determine individual qualifications for appointment or promotion in the
Federal service or military service may be exempt pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
552a (k)(6), if the disclosure would compromise the objectivity or
fairness of the test or examination process. Therefore, portions of the
system of records may be exempt pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(d).
(ii)
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(6).
(iii) Reasons: (A) An exemption is required for those portions of
the Skill Qualification Test system pertaining to individual item
responses and scoring keys to preclude compromise of the test and to
ensure fairness and objectivity of the evaluation system.
(B) From subsection (d)(1) when access to those portions of the
Skill Qualification Test records would reveal the individual item
responses and
[[Page 57]]
scoring keys. Disclosure of the individual item responses and scoring
keys will compromise the objectivity and fairness of the test as well
as the validity of future tests resulting in the Department being
unable to use the testing battery as an individual assessment tool.
Dated: December 21, 2010.
Morgan F. Park,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 2010-33030 Filed 12-30-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
