Privacy Act; Implementation, 22615-22616 [2011-9742]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 78 / Friday, April 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
Public Law 95–511, ‘‘Paperwork
Reduction Act’’ (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35)
It has been determined that Privacy
Act rules for the Department of Defense
impose no additional information
collection requirements on the public
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995.
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 322
Privacy.
Accordingly, 32 CFR part 322 is
amended as follows:
PART 322—[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for 32 CFR
part 322 continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: Pub. L. 93–579, 88 Stat. 1896
(5 U.S.C. 552a).
2. Section 322.7 is amended by
redesignating paragraphs (r) and (s) as
paragraphs (s) and (t) and adding a new
paragraph (r) to read as follows:
■
§ 322.7
Exempt systems of records.
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
*
*
*
*
*
(r) GNSA 23.
(1) System name: NSA/CSS
Operations Security Support and
Program Files.
(2) Exemption. All portions of this
system of records which fall within the
scope of 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(4) may be
exempt from the provisions of 5 U.S.C.
552a(c)(3), (d), (e)(1), (e)(4)(G), (e)(4)(H),
(e)(4)(I) and (f).
(3) Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(4).
(4) Reasons: (i) From subsection (c)(3)
because the release of the disclosure
accounting would place the subject of
an investigation on notice that they are
under investigation and provide them
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:51 Apr 21, 2011
Jkt 223001
with significant information concerning
the nature of the investigation, thus
resulting in a serious impediment to law
enforcement investigations.
(ii) From subsections (d) and (f)
because providing access to records of a
civil or administrative investigation and
the right to contest the contents of those
records and force changes to be made to
the information contained therein
would seriously interfere with and
thwart the orderly and unbiased
conduct of the investigation and impede
case preparation. Providing access rights
normally afforded under the Privacy Act
would provide the subject with valuable
information that would allow
interference with or compromise of
witnesses or render witnesses reluctant
to cooperate; lead to suppression,
alteration, or destruction of evidence;
enable individuals to conceal their
wrongdoing or mislead the course of the
investigation; and result in the secreting
of or other disposition of assets that
would make them difficult or
impossible to reach in order to satisfy
any Government claim growing out of
the investigation or proceeding.
(iii) From subsection (e)(1) because it
is not always possible to detect the
relevance or necessity of each piece of
information in the early stages of an
investigation. In some cases, it is only
after the information is evaluated in
light of other evidence that its relevance
and necessity will be clear.
(iv) From subsections (e)(4)(G) and (H)
because this system of records is
compiled for investigative purposes and
is exempt from the access provisions of
subsections (d) and (f).
(v) From subsection (e)(4)(I) because
to the extent that this provision is
construed to require more detailed
disclosure than the broad, generic
information currently published in the
system notice, an exemption from this
provision is necessary to protect the
confidentiality of sources of information
and to protect privacy and physical
safety of witnesses and informants.
Dated: April 8, 2011.
Patricia L. Toppings,
OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer,
Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 2011–9740 Filed 4–21–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001–06–P
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
22615
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Office of the Secretary
[Docket ID: DoD–2011–OS–0003]
32 CFR Part 322
Privacy Act; Implementation
National Security Agency/
Central Security Service, DoD.
ACTION: Direct final rule with request for
comments.
AGENCY:
The National Security
Agency/Central Security Service is
deleting an exemption rule and adding
a new exemption rule. The exemption
rule for GNSA 13, entitled ‘‘Archive
Records’’ is being deleted in its entirety;
a new exemption rule for GNSA 28,
entitled ‘‘Freedom of Information Act,
Privacy Act and Mandatory
Declassification Review Records’’ is
being added to exempt those records
that have been previously claimed for
the records in another Privacy Act
system of records. To the extent that
copies of exempt records from those
other systems of records are entered into
these case records, NSA/CSS hereby
claims the same exemptions for the
records as claimed in the original
primary system of records of which they
are a part.
This direct final rule makes
nonsubstantive changes to the National
Security Agency/Central Security
Service Privacy Program rules. These
changes will allow the Department to
exempt records from certain portions of
the Privacy Act. This will improve the
efficiency and effectiveness of DoD’s
program by preserving the exempt status
of the records when the purposes
underlying the exemption for the
original records are still valid and
necessary to protect the contents of the
records.
This rule is being published as a
direct final rule as the Department of
Defense does not expect to receive any
adverse comments, and so a proposed
rule is unnecessary.
DATES: The rule will be effective on July
1, 2011 unless comments are received
that would result in a contrary
determination. Comments will be
accepted on or before June 21, 2011.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments,
identified by docket number and title,
by any of the following methods.
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
• Mail: Federal Docket management
System Office, Room 3C843, 1160
Defense Pentagon, Room 3C843,
Washington, DC 20301–1160.
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\22APR1.SGM
22APR1
22616
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 78 / Friday, April 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
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.
Anne Hill at (301) 688–6527.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
Direct Final Rule and Significant
Adverse Comments
DoD has determined this rulemaking
meets the criteria for a direct final rule
because it involves nonsubstantive
changes dealing with DoD’s
management of its Privacy Progams.
DoD expects no opposition to the
changes and no significant adverse
comments. However, if DoD receives a
significant adverse comment, the
Department will withdraw this direct
final rule by publishing a notice in the
Federal Register. A significant adverse
comment is one that explains: (1) Why
the direct final rule is inappropriate,
including challenges to the rule’s
underlying premise or approach; or (2)
why the direct final rule will be
ineffective or unacceptable without a
change. In determining whether a
comment necessitates withdrawal of
this direct final rule, DoD will consider
whether it warrants a substantive
response in a notice and comment
process.
Executive Order 12866, ‘‘Regulatory
Planning and Review’’ and Executive
Order 13563, ‘‘Improving Regulation
and Regulatory 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 these Executive orders.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:51 Apr 21, 2011
Jkt 223001
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 additional information
collection requirements on the public
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995.
Section 202, Public Law 104–4,
‘‘Unfunded Mandates Reform Act’’
It has been determined that the
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 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.
(2) Exemption: During the processing
of letters and other correspondence to
the National Security Agency/Central
Security Service, 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 National Security Agency/
Central Security Service hereby 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.
(3) Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(2)
through (k)(7).
(4) Reasons: During the course of a
FOIA/Privacy Act and/or MDR action,
exempt materials from other system of
records may become part of the case
records in this system of records. To the
extent that copies of exempt records
from those other systems of records are
entered into these case records, NSA/
CSS hereby claims the same exemptions
for the records as claimed in the original
primary system of records of which they
are a part. 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.
Dated: April 8, 2011.
Patricia L. Toppings,
OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer,
Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 2011–9742 Filed 4–21–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001–06–P
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
List of Subjects in 32 CFR Part 322
Privacy.
Accordingly, 32 CFR part 322 is
amended as follows:
Department of the Navy
PART 322—NATIONAL SECURITY
AGENCY/CENTRAL SECURITY
SERVICE PROGRAM
Privacy Act of 1974; Implementation
1. The authority citation for 32 CFR
part 322.7 continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: Privacy Act of 1974, Pub. L.
93–579, Stat. 1896 (5 U.S.C. 552a).
2. In § 322.7, remove and reserve
paragraph (l) and add paragraph (u) to
read as follows:
■
§ 322.7
Exempt systems of records.
*
*
*
*
*
(u) ID: GNSA 28 (General Exemption)
(1) System name: Freedom of
Information Act, Privacy Act and
Mandatory Declassification Review
Records.
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
32 CFR Part 701
[Docket ID: USN–2010–0036]
Department of the Navy, DoD.
Direct final rule with request for
comments.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
The Department of the Navy
is reinstating an exemption rule that
was inadvertently deleted for system of
records notice N03834–1, entitled
‘‘Special Intelligence Personnel Access
File (April 28, 1999, 64 FR 22840)’’.
This direct final rule makes
nonsubstantive changes to the
Department of the Navy Privacy
Program rules. These changes will allow
the Department to exempt records from
certain portions of the Privacy Act. This
will improve the efficiency and
effectiveness of DoD’s program by
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\22APR1.SGM
22APR1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 78 (Friday, April 22, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 22615-22616]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-9742]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Office of the Secretary
[Docket ID: DoD-2011-OS-0003]
32 CFR Part 322
Privacy Act; Implementation
AGENCY: National Security Agency/Central Security Service, DoD.
ACTION: Direct final rule with request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The National Security Agency/Central Security Service is
deleting an exemption rule and adding a new exemption rule. The
exemption rule for GNSA 13, entitled ``Archive Records'' is being
deleted in its entirety; a new exemption rule for GNSA 28, entitled
``Freedom of Information Act, Privacy Act and Mandatory
Declassification Review Records'' is being added to exempt those
records that have been previously claimed for the records in another
Privacy Act system of records. To the extent that copies of exempt
records from those other systems of records are entered into these case
records, NSA/CSS hereby claims the same exemptions for the records as
claimed in the original primary system of records of which they are a
part.
This direct final rule makes nonsubstantive changes to the National
Security Agency/Central Security Service Privacy Program rules. These
changes will allow the Department to exempt records from certain
portions of the Privacy Act. This will improve the efficiency and
effectiveness of DoD's program by preserving the exempt status of the
records when the purposes underlying the exemption for the original
records are still valid and necessary to protect the contents of the
records.
This rule is being published as a direct final rule as the
Department of Defense does not expect to receive any adverse comments,
and so a proposed rule is unnecessary.
DATES: The rule will be effective on July 1, 2011 unless comments are
received that would result in a contrary determination. Comments will
be accepted on or before June 21, 2011.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by docket number and
title, by any of the following methods.
Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
Mail: Federal Docket management System Office, Room 3C843,
1160 Defense Pentagon, Room 3C843, Washington, DC 20301-1160.
[[Page 22616]]
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. Anne Hill at (301) 688-6527.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Direct Final Rule and Significant Adverse Comments
DoD has determined this rulemaking meets the criteria for a direct
final rule because it involves nonsubstantive changes dealing with
DoD's management of its Privacy Progams. DoD expects no opposition to
the changes and no significant adverse comments. However, if DoD
receives a significant adverse comment, the Department will withdraw
this direct final rule by publishing a notice in the Federal Register.
A significant adverse comment is one that explains: (1) Why the direct
final rule is inappropriate, including challenges to the rule's
underlying premise or approach; or (2) why the direct final rule will
be ineffective or unacceptable without a change. In determining whether
a comment necessitates withdrawal of this direct final rule, DoD will
consider whether it warrants a substantive response in a notice and
comment process.
Executive Order 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review'' and Executive
Order 13563, ``Improving Regulation and Regulatory 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 these Executive orders.
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 additional information collection requirements on the
public under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Section 202, Public Law 104-4, ``Unfunded Mandates Reform Act''
It has been determined that the 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 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 322
Privacy.
Accordingly, 32 CFR part 322 is amended as follows:
PART 322--NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY/CENTRAL SECURITY SERVICE PROGRAM
0
1. The authority citation for 32 CFR part 322.7 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: Privacy Act of 1974, Pub. L. 93-579, Stat. 1896 (5
U.S.C. 552a).
0
2. In Sec. 322.7, remove and reserve paragraph (l) and add paragraph
(u) to read as follows:
Sec. 322.7 Exempt systems of records.
* * * * *
(u) ID: GNSA 28 (General Exemption)
(1) System name: Freedom of Information Act, Privacy Act and
Mandatory Declassification Review Records.
(2) Exemption: During the processing of letters and other
correspondence to the National Security Agency/Central Security
Service, 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 National Security Agency/Central Security
Service hereby 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.
(3) Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(2) through (k)(7).
(4) Reasons: During the course of a FOIA/Privacy Act and/or MDR
action, exempt materials from other system of records may become part
of the case records in this system of records. To the extent that
copies of exempt records from those other systems of records are
entered into these case records, NSA/CSS hereby claims the same
exemptions for the records as claimed in the original primary system of
records of which they are a part. 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.
Dated: April 8, 2011.
Patricia L. Toppings,
OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 2011-9742 Filed 4-21-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
