Privacy Act of 1974; Implementation, 57644-57645 [2011-23756]
Download as PDF
57644
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 180 / Friday, September 16, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
beginning on the date of the member’s
death:
(i) Three years.
(ii) The period ending on the date on
which such dependent attains 21 years
of age.
(iii) In the case of such dependent
who, at 21 years of age, is enrolled in
a full-time course of study in a
secondary school or in a full-time
course of study in an institution of
higher education approved by the
administering Secretary and was, at the
time of the member’s death, in fact
dependent on the member for over onehalf of such dependent’s support, the
period ending on the earlier of the
following dates: The date on which such
dependent ceases to pursue such a
course of study, as determined by the
administering Secretary; or the date on
which such dependent attains 23 years
of age.
*
*
*
*
*
Dated: August 24, 2011.
Patricia Toppings,
OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer,
Department of Defense.
BILLING CODE 5001–06–P
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Office of the Secretary
32 CFR Part 256
[DoD Instruction 4165.57]
Air Installations Compatible Use Zones
Department of Defense.
Final rule.
AGENCY:
This final rule removes the
DoD’s rule concerning air installations
compatible use zones. The underlying
DoD Instruction has been revised and it
has been determined that there is no
need to publish the revised DoD
Instruction as a rule in the Code of
Federal Regulations since the
Instruction is for the internal
management of the DoD.
DATES: Effective Date: September 16,
2011.
SUMMARY:
Ms.
Patricia L. Toppings at 703–696–5284.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A copy of
the current DoD Instruction may be
obtained from https://www.dtic.mil/whs/
directives/corres/pdf/416557p.pdf.
erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
List of Subjects in 32 CFR Part 256
Armed forces; airports; environmental
protection; Federal buildings and
facilities; navigation (air); noise control.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
13:06 Sep 15, 2011
Jkt 223001
Accordingly, by the authority of 5
U.S.C. 301, 32 CFR part 256 is removed.
■
Dated: August 24, 2011.
Patricia L. Toppings,
OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer,
Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 2011–23759 Filed 9–15–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001–06–P
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Office of the Secretary
32 CFR Part 311
[Docket ID: DoD–2011–OS–0004]
Privacy Act of 1974; Implementation
Office of the Secretary, DoD.
Direct final rule with request for
comments.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
The Office of the Secretary of
Defense is exempting those records
contained in DMDC 13, entitled
‘‘Investigative Records Repository’’,
when investigatory material is compiled
solely for the purpose of determining
suitability, eligibility, or qualifications
for Federal civilian employment,
military service, Federal contracts, or
access to classified information, but
only to the extent that such material
would reveal the identity of a
confidential source.
This direct final rule makes
nonsubstantive changes to the Office of
the Secretary Privacy Program rules.
These changes will allow the
Department to add an exemption rule to
the Office of the Secretary of Defense
Privacy Program rules that will exempt
applicable Department records and/or
material from certain portions of the
Privacy Act. This change will allow the
Department to move part of the
Department’s personnel security
program records from the Defense
Security Service Privacy Program to the
Office of the Secretary of Defense
Privacy Program. This will improve the
efficiency and effectiveness of DoD’s
program by preserving the exempt status
of the applicable records and/or
material when the purposes underlying
the exemption(s) are valid and
necessary. 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
November 25, 2011 unless comments
are received that would result in a
contrary determination. Comments will
SUMMARY:
[FR Doc. 2011–23761 Filed 9–15–11; 8:45 am]
ACTION:
PART 256—[REMOVED]
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
be accepted on or before November 15,
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, 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:
Ms.
Cindy Allard at (703) 588–6830.
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
E:\FR\FM\16SER1.SGM
16SER1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 180 / Friday, September 16, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
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 this
Privacy Act rule for the Department of
Defense does not have significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities because it is
concerned only with the administration
of Privacy Act systems of records within
the Department of Defense.
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.
erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
List of Subjects in 32 CFR Part 311.
Privacy.
Accordingly, 32 CFR part 311 is
amended as follows:
PART 311—OFFICE OF THE
SECRETARY OF DEFENSE AND JOINT
STAFF PRIVACY PROGRAM
1. The authority citation for 32 CFR
part 311 continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: Pub. L. 93–579, 88 Stat. 1986
(5 U.S.C. 522a).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
13:06 Sep 15, 2011
Jkt 223001
2. Section 311.8 is amended by adding
paragraph (c)(17) to read as follows:
■
§ 311.8
Procedures for exemptions.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) * * *
(17) System identifier and name:
DMDC 13, Investigative Records
Repository.
(i) Exemptions: (A) Investigatory
material compiled for law enforcement
purposes may be exempt pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 552a(k)(2). However, if an
individual is denied any right, privilege,
or benefit for which he would otherwise
be entitled by Federal law or for which
he would otherwise be eligible, as a
result of the maintenance of such
information, the individual will be
provided access to such information
except to the extent that disclosure
would reveal the identity of a
confidential source.
(B) Records maintained in connection
with providing protective services to the
President and other individuals under
18 U.S.C. 3506, may be exempt pursuant
to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(3).
(C) 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.
(D) Any portion of this system that
falls under the provisions of 5 U.S.C.
552a(k)(2), (k)(3), or (k)(5) may be
exempt from the following subsections
of 5 U.S.C. 552(c)(3), (d), (e)(1), (e)(4)(G),
(H), and (I), and (f).
(ii) Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(2),
(k)(3), or (k)(5).
(iii) Reasons: (A) From subsection
(c)(3) because it will enable the
Department to conduct certain
investigations and relay law
enforcement information without
compromise of the information,
protection of investigative techniques
and efforts employed, and identities of
confidential sources who might not
otherwise come forward and who
furnished information under an express
promise that the sources’ identity would
be held in confidence (or prior to the
effective date of the Act, under an
implied promise).
(B) From subsections (e)(1), (e)(4(G),
(H), and (I) because it will provide
protection against notification of
investigatory material including certain
reciprocal investigations and
counterintelligence information, which
might alert a subject to the fact that an
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
57645
investigation of that individual is taking
place, and the disclosure of which
would weaken the on-going
investigation, reveal investigatory
techniques, and place confidential
informants in jeopardy who furnished
information under an express promise
that the source’s identity would be held
in confidence (or prior to the effective
date of the Act, under an implied
promise).
(C) From subsections (d) and (f)
because requiring OSD to grant access to
records and agency rules for access and
amendment of records would unfairly
impede the agency’s investigation of
allegations of unlawful activities. To
require OSD to confirm or deny the
existence of a record pertaining to a
requesting individual may in itself
provide an answer to that individual
relating to an on-going investigation.
The investigation of possible unlawful
activities would be jeopardized by
agency rules requiring verification of
record, disclosure of the record to the
subject, and record amendment
procedures.
*
*
*
*
*
Dated: August 24, 2011.
Patricia L. Toppings,
OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer,
Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 2011–23756 Filed 9–15–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001–06–P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 100
[Docket No. USCG–2011–0629]
RIN 1625–AA08
Special Local Regulations for Marine
Events; Temporary Change of Dates
for Recurring Marine Events in the
Fifth Coast Guard District, Wrightsville
Channel; Wrightsville Beach, NC;
Correction
ACTION:
Correcting amendment.
In the Federal Register
published on September 8, 2011, the
Coast Guard published a Temporary
Final Rule changing the date of the
special local regulation for this year’s
Wilmington YMCA Triathlon. In that
Temporary Final Rule, the line number
for the temporary line in the Table to
§ 100.501 was wrong. This Correction
fixes that error. The date and all other
details in the Final Rule were correct.
DATES: This correction is effective
September 16, 2011.
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\16SER1.SGM
16SER1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 180 (Friday, September 16, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 57644-57645]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-23756]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Office of the Secretary
32 CFR Part 311
[Docket ID: DoD-2011-OS-0004]
Privacy Act of 1974; Implementation
AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, DoD.
ACTION: Direct final rule with request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Office of the Secretary of Defense is exempting those
records contained in DMDC 13, entitled ``Investigative Records
Repository'', when investigatory material is compiled solely for the
purpose of determining suitability, eligibility, or qualifications for
Federal civilian employment, military service, Federal contracts, or
access to classified information, but only to the extent that such
material would reveal the identity of a confidential source.
This direct final rule makes nonsubstantive changes to the Office
of the Secretary Privacy Program rules. These changes will allow the
Department to add an exemption rule to the Office of the Secretary of
Defense Privacy Program rules that will exempt applicable Department
records and/or material from certain portions of the Privacy Act. This
change will allow the Department to move part of the Department's
personnel security program records from the Defense Security Service
Privacy Program to the Office of the Secretary of Defense Privacy
Program. This will improve the efficiency and effectiveness of DoD's
program by preserving the exempt status of the applicable records and/
or material when the purposes underlying the exemption(s) are valid and
necessary. 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 November 25, 2011 unless comments
are received that would result in a contrary determination. Comments
will be accepted on or before November 15, 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, 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: Ms. Cindy Allard at (703) 588-6830.
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
[[Page 57645]]
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 this Privacy Act rule for the
Department of Defense does not have significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities because it is concerned only with
the administration of Privacy Act systems of records within the
Department of Defense.
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 311.
Privacy.
Accordingly, 32 CFR part 311 is amended as follows:
PART 311--OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE AND JOINT STAFF
PRIVACY PROGRAM
0
1. The authority citation for 32 CFR part 311 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: Pub. L. 93-579, 88 Stat. 1986 (5 U.S.C. 522a).
0
2. Section 311.8 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(17) to read as
follows:
Sec. 311.8 Procedures for exemptions.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(17) System identifier and name: DMDC 13, Investigative Records
Repository.
(i) Exemptions: (A) Investigatory material compiled for law
enforcement purposes may be exempt pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(2).
However, if an individual is denied any right, privilege, or benefit
for which he would otherwise be entitled by Federal law or for which he
would otherwise be eligible, as a result of the maintenance of such
information, the individual will be provided access to such information
except to the extent that disclosure would reveal the identity of a
confidential source.
(B) Records maintained in connection with providing protective
services to the President and other individuals under 18 U.S.C. 3506,
may be exempt pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(3).
(C) 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.
(D) Any portion of this system that falls under the provisions of 5
U.S.C. 552a(k)(2), (k)(3), or (k)(5) may be exempt from the following
subsections of 5 U.S.C. 552(c)(3), (d), (e)(1), (e)(4)(G), (H), and
(I), and (f).
(ii) Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(2), (k)(3), or (k)(5).
(iii) Reasons: (A) From subsection (c)(3) because it will enable
the Department to conduct certain investigations and relay law
enforcement information without compromise of the information,
protection of investigative techniques and efforts employed, and
identities of confidential sources who might not otherwise come forward
and who furnished information under an express promise that the
sources' identity would be held in confidence (or prior to the
effective date of the Act, under an implied promise).
(B) From subsections (e)(1), (e)(4(G), (H), and (I) because it will
provide protection against notification of investigatory material
including certain reciprocal investigations and counterintelligence
information, which might alert a subject to the fact that an
investigation of that individual is taking place, and the disclosure of
which would weaken the on-going investigation, reveal investigatory
techniques, and place confidential informants in jeopardy who furnished
information under an express promise that the source's identity would
be held in confidence (or prior to the effective date of the Act, under
an implied promise).
(C) From subsections (d) and (f) because requiring OSD to grant
access to records and agency rules for access and amendment of records
would unfairly impede the agency's investigation of allegations of
unlawful activities. To require OSD to confirm or deny the existence of
a record pertaining to a requesting individual may in itself provide an
answer to that individual relating to an on-going investigation. The
investigation of possible unlawful activities would be jeopardized by
agency rules requiring verification of record, disclosure of the record
to the subject, and record amendment procedures.
* * * * *
Dated: August 24, 2011.
Patricia L. Toppings,
OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 2011-23756 Filed 9-15-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-P