Privacy Act of 1974; Implementation, 22808-22809 [2011-9748]
Download as PDF
22808
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 79 / Monday, April 25, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
jdjones on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES
Security Service Privacy Program rules.
These changes will allow the
Department to transfer this system to
another organization within the
Department. 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 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
5, 2011 unless comments are received
that would result in a contrary
determination. Comments will be
accepted on or before June 24, 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 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: Mr.
Leslie Blake at (703) 325–9450.
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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:12 Apr 22, 2011
Jkt 223001
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.
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 321
Privacy.
Accordingly, 32 CFR 321 is amended
as follows:
PART 321—DEFENSE SECURITY
SERVICE PRIVACY PROGRAM
1. The authority citation for 32 CFR
part 321 continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: Pub. L. 93–579, 88 Stat. 1896
(5 U.S.C. 552a).
2. In § 321.13, remove and reserve
paragraph (h) to read as follows:
■
§ 321.13
*
Exemptions.
*
*
*
(h) [Reserved].
*
Dated: April 8, 2011.
Patricia Topping,
OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer,
Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 2011–9747 Filed 4–22–11; 8:45 am]
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.
BILLING CODE 5001–06–P
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.
AGENCY:
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Office of the Secretary
[Docket ID: DoD–2011–OS–0009]
32 CFR Part 323
Privacy Act of 1974; Implementation
Defense Logistics Agency, DoD.
Direct final rule with request for
comments.
ACTION:
The Department of Defense is
updating the Defense Logistics Agency
Privacy Act Program Rules, by adding
the exemption rules (j)(2), (k)(2), (k)(3),
(k)(4), (k)(5), (k)(6), and (k)(7) for
S510.30, Freedom of Information Act/
Privacy Act Requests and
Administrative Appeal Records to
accurately describe the basis for
exempting the records. The S510.30
system of records notice was printed on
January 22, 2009 in the Federal
Register.
This direct final rule makes
nonsubstantive changes to the Defense
Logistics Agency 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
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\25APR1.SGM
25APR1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 79 / Monday, April 25, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
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
5, 2011 unless comments are received
that would result in a contrary
determination. Comments will be
accepted on or before June 24, 2011.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Ms. Jody Sinkler at (703) 767–5045.
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.
jdjones on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES
Executive Order 12866, ‘‘Regulatory
Planning and Review’’ and Executive
Order 13563, ‘‘Improving Regulation
and Regulatory Review’’
15:12 Apr 22, 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 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.
2. Exemption: During the processing of a
Freedom of Information 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
Logistics 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.
3. Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2), (k)(2),
(k)(3), (k)(4), (k)(5), (k)(6), and (k)(7).
4. 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
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.
Dated: April 8, 2011.
Patricia L. Toppings,
OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer,
Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 2011–9748 Filed 4–22–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001–06–P
List of Subjects in 32 CFR Part 323
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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
President’s priorities, or the principles
set forth in these Executive orders.
22809
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Privacy.
Accordingly, 32 CFR part 323 is
amended as follows:
Coast Guard
PART 323—DEFENSE LOGISTICS
AGENCY PRIVACY PROGRAM
[Docket No. USCG–2011–0196]
33 CFR Part 165
RIN 1625–AA00
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).
Safety Zone; Bay Ferry II Maritime
Security Exercise; San Francisco Bay,
San Francisco, CA
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
■
2. In Appendix H to part 323, add
paragraph (g) to read as follows:
AGENCY:
Appendix H to Part 323—DLA
Exemption Rules
SUMMARY:
*
*
*
*
*
g. ID: S510.30
1. System name: Freedom of Information
Act/Privacy Act Requests and Administrative
Appeal Records.
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
ACTION:
The Coast Guard is
establishing a temporary safety zone on
the navigable waters of the San
Francisco Bay in support of the Bay
Ferry II Maritime Security Exercise, a
multi-agency exercise that tests the
proficiency of teams called upon in real
E:\FR\FM\25APR1.SGM
25APR1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 79 (Monday, April 25, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 22808-22809]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-9748]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Office of the Secretary
[Docket ID: DoD-2011-OS-0009]
32 CFR Part 323
Privacy Act of 1974; Implementation
AGENCY: Defense Logistics Agency, DoD.
ACTION: Direct final rule with request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Department of Defense is updating the Defense Logistics
Agency Privacy Act Program Rules, by adding the exemption rules (j)(2),
(k)(2), (k)(3), (k)(4), (k)(5), (k)(6), and (k)(7) for S510.30, Freedom
of Information Act/Privacy Act Requests and Administrative Appeal
Records to accurately describe the basis for exempting the records. The
S510.30 system of records notice was printed on January 22, 2009 in the
Federal Register.
This direct final rule makes nonsubstantive changes to the Defense
Logistics Agency 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
[[Page 22809]]
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 5, 2011 unless comments are
received that would result in a contrary determination. Comments will
be accepted on or before June 24, 2011.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Jody Sinkler at (703) 767-5045.
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 323
Privacy.
Accordingly, 32 CFR part 323 is amended as follows:
PART 323--DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY PRIVACY 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. In Appendix H to part 323, add paragraph (g) to read as follows:
Appendix H to Part 323--DLA Exemption Rules
* * * * *
g. ID: S510.30
1. System name: Freedom of Information Act/Privacy Act Requests
and Administrative Appeal Records.
2. Exemption: During the processing of a Freedom of Information
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 Logistics 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.
3. Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2), (k)(2), (k)(3), (k)(4),
(k)(5), (k)(6), and (k)(7).
4. 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
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.
Dated: April 8, 2011.
Patricia L. Toppings,
OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 2011-9748 Filed 4-22-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-P