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
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.