Privacy Act; Implementation, 49659-49660 [2011-20245]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 155 / Thursday, August 11, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
wreier-aviles on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with RULES
expect to receive any adverse
comments, and so a proposed rule is
unnecessary.
DATES: The rule will be effective on
October 20, 2011 unless comments are
received that would result in a contrary
determination. Comments will be
accepted on or before October 11, 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, 1160 Defense Pentagon,
Room 3C843, 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: Ms.
Theresa Lowery at (202) 231–1193.
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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:30 Aug 10, 2011
Jkt 223001
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 319
Privacy.
Accordingly, 32 CFR 319 is amended
as follows:
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
49659
PART 319—DEFENSE INTELLIGENCE
AGENCY PRIVACY PROGRAM
1. The authority citation for 32 CFR
part 319 continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: Pub. L. 93–579, 5 U.S.C. 552a(f)
and (k).
2. In § 319.13 remove and reserve
paragraph (d) to read as follows:
■
§ 319.13
Specific exemptions.
*
*
*
*
(d) [Reserved].
*
*
*
*
*
*
Dated: July 8, 2011.
Patricia L. Toppings,
OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer,
Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 2011–20238 Filed 8–10–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001–06–P
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Office of the Secretary
32 CFR Part 319
[Docket ID DOD–2011–OS–0087]
Privacy Act; Implementation
AGENCY:
Defense Intelligence Agency,
DoD.
Direct final rule with request for
comments.
ACTION:
The Defense Intelligence
Agency (DIA) is adding a new
exemption rule for LDIA 0900, entitled
‘‘Accounts Receivable, Indebtedness
and Claims’’ 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, DIA 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 Defense Intelligence
Agency 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.
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\11AUR1.SGM
11AUR1
49660
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 155 / Thursday, August 11, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
The rule will be effective on
October 20, 2011 unless comments are
received that would result in a contrary
determination. Comments will be
accepted on or before October 11, 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, 1160 Defense Pentagon,
Room 3C843, 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.
DATES:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Ms.
Theresa Lowery at (202) 231–1193.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
wreier-aviles on DSKDVH8Z91PROD 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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:30 Aug 10, 2011
Jkt 223001
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 319
Specific exemptions, Privacy.
Accordingly, 32 CFR part 319 is
amended to read as follows:
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 9990
PART 319—DEFENSE INTELLIGENCE
AGENCY PRIVACY PROGRAM
1. The authority citation for 32 CFR
part 319 continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: Pub. L. 93–579, 5 U.S.C. 552a(f)
and (k).
2. In § 319.13, add paragraph (i) to
read as follows:
■
§ 319.13
Specific exemptions.
*
*
*
*
*
(i) System identifier and name: LDIA
0900, Accounts Receivable,
Indebtedness and Claims.
(1) Exemption: During the course of
accounts receivable, indebtedness or
claims actions, 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 DIA 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.
(2) Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(2)
through (k)(7).
(3) 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: July 8, 2011.
Patricia L. Toppings,
OSD Federal Register, Liaison Officer,
Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 2011–20245 Filed 8–10–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001–06–P
E:\FR\FM\11AUR1.SGM
11AUR1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 155 (Thursday, August 11, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 49659-49660]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-20245]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Office of the Secretary
32 CFR Part 319
[Docket ID DOD-2011-OS-0087]
Privacy Act; Implementation
AGENCY: Defense Intelligence Agency, DoD.
ACTION: Direct final rule with request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) is adding a new
exemption rule for LDIA 0900, entitled ``Accounts Receivable,
Indebtedness and Claims'' 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, DIA 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 Defense Intelligence Agency
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.
[[Page 49660]]
DATES: The rule will be effective on October 20, 2011 unless comments
are received that would result in a contrary determination. Comments
will be accepted on or before October 11, 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, 1160
Defense Pentagon, Room 3C843, 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: Ms. Theresa Lowery at (202) 231-1193.
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 319
Specific exemptions, Privacy.
Accordingly, 32 CFR part 319 is amended to read as follows:
PART 319--DEFENSE INTELLIGENCE AGENCY PRIVACY PROGRAM
0
1. The authority citation for 32 CFR part 319 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: Pub. L. 93-579, 5 U.S.C. 552a(f) and (k).
0
2. In Sec. 319.13, add paragraph (i) to read as follows:
Sec. 319.13 Specific exemptions.
* * * * *
(i) System identifier and name: LDIA 0900, Accounts Receivable,
Indebtedness and Claims.
(1) Exemption: During the course of accounts receivable,
indebtedness or claims actions, 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 DIA 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.
(2) Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(2) through (k)(7).
(3) 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: July 8, 2011.
Patricia L. Toppings,
OSD Federal Register, Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 2011-20245 Filed 8-10-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-P