Privacy Act of 1974; Implementation, 22616-22617 [2011-9749]
Download as PDF
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
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 78 / Friday, April 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
preserving the exempt status of the
records when the purposes underlying
the exemption are 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.
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.
DATES:
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: 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 for this Federal Register
document. The general policy for
comments and other submissions from
members of the public is of 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.
ADDRESSES:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Ms.
Robin Patterson at (202) 685–6545.
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.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:51 Apr 21, 2011
Jkt 223001
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 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.
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 9990
22617
List of Subjects in 32 CFR Part 701
Privacy.
Accordingly, 32 CFR part 701 is
amended as follows:
Subpart G—Privacy Act Exemptions
1. The authority citation for 32 CFR
part 701 continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: Pub. L. 93–579, 88 Stat. 1896
(5 U.S.C. 552a).
2. In § 701.128, add paragraph (f) to
read as follows:
■
§ 701.128 Exemptions for specific Navy
record systems.
*
*
*
*
*
(f) System identifier and name:
(1) N03834–1, Special Intelligence
Personnel Access File.
(2) Exemption: (i) Information
specifically authorized to be classified
under E.O. 12,958, as implemented by
DOD 5200.1–R, may be exempt pursuant
to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(1).
(ii) Investigatory material compiled
solely for the purpose of determining
suitability, eligibility, or qualifications
for Federal civilian employment,
military service, 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.
(iii) Portions of this system of records
are exempt from the following
subsections of the Privacy Act: (c)(3),
(d), (e)(1), (e)(4) (G) through (I), and (f).
(3) Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(1) and
(k)(5).
(4) Reasons: (i) Exempted portions of
this system contain information that has
been properly classified under E.O.
12356, and that is required to be kept
secret in the interest of national defense
or foreign policy.
(ii) Exempted portions of this system
also contain information considered
relevant and necessary to make a
determination as to qualifications,
eligibility, or suitability for access to
classified information and was obtained
by providing an express or implied
assurance to the source that his or her
identity would not be revealed to the
subject of the record.
*
*
*
*
*
Dated: April 8, 2011.
Patricia L. Toppings,
OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer,
Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 2011–9749 Filed 4–21–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001–06–P
E:\FR\FM\22APR1.SGM
22APR1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 78 (Friday, April 22, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 22616-22617]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-9749]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Department of the Navy
32 CFR Part 701
[Docket ID: USN-2010-0036]
Privacy Act of 1974; Implementation
AGENCY: Department of the Navy, DoD.
ACTION: Direct final rule with request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: 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
[[Page 22617]]
preserving the exempt status of the records when the purposes
underlying the exemption are 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 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 for this Federal Register document. The general
policy for comments and other submissions from members of the public is
of 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. Robin Patterson at (202) 685-6545.
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 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 701
Privacy.
Accordingly, 32 CFR part 701 is amended as follows:
Subpart G--Privacy Act Exemptions
0
1. The authority citation for 32 CFR part 701 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: Pub. L. 93-579, 88 Stat. 1896 (5 U.S.C. 552a).
0
2. In Sec. 701.128, add paragraph (f) to read as follows:
Sec. 701.128 Exemptions for specific Navy record systems.
* * * * *
(f) System identifier and name:
(1) N03834-1, Special Intelligence Personnel Access File.
(2) Exemption: (i) Information specifically authorized to be
classified under E.O. 12,958, as implemented by DOD 5200.1-R, may be
exempt pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(1).
(ii) Investigatory material compiled solely for the purpose of
determining suitability, eligibility, or qualifications for Federal
civilian employment, military service, 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.
(iii) Portions of this system of records are exempt from the
following subsections of the Privacy Act: (c)(3), (d), (e)(1), (e)(4)
(G) through (I), and (f).
(3) Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(1) and (k)(5).
(4) Reasons: (i) Exempted portions of this system contain
information that has been properly classified under E.O. 12356, and
that is required to be kept secret in the interest of national defense
or foreign policy.
(ii) Exempted portions of this system also contain information
considered relevant and necessary to make a determination as to
qualifications, eligibility, or suitability for access to classified
information and was obtained by providing an express or implied
assurance to the source that his or her identity would not be revealed
to the subject of the record.
* * * * *
Dated: April 8, 2011.
Patricia L. Toppings,
OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 2011-9749 Filed 4-21-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-P