Privacy Act of 1974; Implementation, 58103-58105 [2011-23758]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 182 / Tuesday, September 20, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
subject to review under section 3507(d)
of the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995.21
20. As stated above, the Commission
approved, in Order No. 693, Reliability
Standard TOP–001–1 that is the subject
of the current rulemaking. This Final
Rule approves the interpretation of the
previously approved Reliability
Standard, which was developed by
NERC as the ERO. The interpretation, as
clarified, relates to an existing
Reliability Standard, and the
Commission does not expect it to affect
entities’ current reporting burden.22
Accordingly, we will submit this Final
Rule to OMB for informational purposes
only.
21. Interested persons may obtain
information on the reporting
requirements by contacting the
following: Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426 [Attention: Ellen
Brown, Office of the Executive Director,
e-mail: DataClearance@ferc.gov, Phone:
(202) 502–8663, fax: (202) 273–0873].
V. Environmental Analysis
22. The Commission is required to
prepare an Environmental Assessment
or an Environmental Impact Statement
for any action that may have a
significant adverse effect on the human
environment.23 The Commission has
categorically excluded certain actions
from this requirement as not having a
significant effect on the human
environment. Included in the exclusion
are rules that are clarifying, corrective,
or procedural or that do not
substantially change the effect of the
regulations being amended.24 The
actions proposed herein fall within this
categorical exclusion in the
Commission’s regulations.
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
VI. Regulatory Flexibility Act
23. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of
1980 (RFA) 25 generally requires a
description and analysis of final rules
that will have significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities. The RFA mandates
consideration of regulatory alternatives
that accomplish the stated objectives of
a final rule and that minimize any
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
The Small Business Administration’s
21 44
U.S.C. 3507(d).
Order No. 693, FERC Stats. & Regs.
¶ 31,242 at P 1901–1907.
23 Regulations Implementing the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969, Order No. 486,
52 FR 47897 (Dec. 17, 1987), FERC Stats. & Regs.
Preambles 1986–1990 ¶ 30,783 (1987).
24 18 CFR 380.4(a)(2)(ii).
25 5 U.S.C. 601–612.
22 See
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:50 Sep 19, 2011
Jkt 223001
(SBA) Office of Size Standards develops
the numerical definition of a small
business.26 The SBA has established a
size standard for electric utilities,
stating that a firm is small if, including
its affiliates, it is primarily engaged in
the transmission, generation and/or
distribution of electric energy for sale
and its total electric output for the
preceding twelve months did not exceed
four million megawatt hours.27 The RFA
is not implicated by this Final Rule
because the interpretations discussed
herein will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
24. The Commission approved
Reliability Standard TOP–001–1 in 2007
in Order No. 693. The Final Rule in the
immediate docket addresses an
interpretation of Requirement R8 of
previously-approved TOP–001–1. The
interpretation clarifies current
compliance obligations of balancing
authorities and transmission operators
and therefore, does not create an
additional regulatory impact on small
entities.
58103
VIII. Effective Date and Congressional
Notification
28. These regulations are effective
November 21, 2011. The Commission
has determined, with the concurrence of
the Administrator of the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs of
OMB, that this rule is not a ‘‘major rule’’
as defined in section 351 of the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996.
List of Subjects in 18 CFR Part 40
Electric power, Electric utilities,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
By the Commission.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011–24088 Filed 9–19–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Office of the Secretary
[Docket ID: DoD–2011–OS–0004]
32 CFR Part 311
VII. Document Availability
25. In addition to publishing the full
text of this document in the Federal
Register, the Commission provides all
interested persons an opportunity to
view and/or print the contents of this
document via the Internet through
FERC’s Home Page (https://www.ferc.gov)
and in FERC’s Public Reference Room
during normal business hours (8:30 a.m.
to 5 p.m. eastern time) at 888 First
Street, NE., Room 2A, Washington, DC
20426.
26. From FERC’s Home Page on the
Internet, this information is available on
eLibrary. The full text of this document
is available on eLibrary in PDF and
Microsoft Word format for viewing,
printing, and/or downloading. To access
this document in eLibrary, type the
docket number excluding the last three
digits of this document in the docket
number field.
27. User assistance is available for
eLibrary and the FERC’s website during
normal business hours from FERC
Online Support at 202–502–6652 (toll
free at 1–866–208–3676) or e-mail at
ferconlinesupport@ferc.gov, or the
Public Reference Room at (202) 502–
8371, TTY (202) 502–8659. E-mail the
Public Reference Room at
public.referenceroom@ferc.gov.
26 13
27 13
PO 00000
CFR 121.101.
CFR 121.201, Section 22, Utilities, & n.1.
Frm 00015
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
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 14 DoD, entitled
‘‘Defense Clearance and Investigations
Index (DCII)’’, pertaining to
investigatory material compiled for law
enforcement purposes to enable OSD
components to conduct certain
investigations and relay law
enforcement information without
compromise of the information, protect
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. The exemption will allow
DoD to 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 sources’ identity would
be held in confidence. Further,
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\20SER1.SGM
20SER1
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
58104
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 182 / Tuesday, September 20, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
requiring OSD to grant access to records
and agency rules for access and
amendment of records would unfairly
impede the 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.
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 29, 2011 unless comments
are received that would result in a
contrary determination. Comments will
be accepted on or before November 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, 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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:50 Sep 19, 2011
Jkt 223001
personal identifiers or contact
information.
Ms.
Cindy Allard at (703) 588–6830.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This
direct final rule is consistent with the
rule currently published at 32 CFR part
321.13(h) and another rule is being
published to remove and reserve
321.13(h).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
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 this
Privacy Act rule for the Department of
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
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
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).
2. Section 311.8 is amended by adding
paragraph (c)(20) to read as follows:
■
§ 311.8
Procedures for exemptions.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) * * *
(20) System identifier and name:
DMDC 14 DoD, Defense Clearance and
Investigations Index.
(i) Exemptions: 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
E:\FR\FM\20SER1.SGM
20SER1
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 182 / Tuesday, September 20, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
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. Any portion of
this system that falls under the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(2) may be
exempt from the following subjections
of 5 U.S.C. 552a(c)(3); (d); (e)(1);
(e)(4)(G), (H), and (I) and (f).
(ii) Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(2).
(iii) Reasons: (A) From subsection
(c)(3) because it will enable OSD
components 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 sources’ 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 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.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:50 Sep 19, 2011
Jkt 223001
Dated: August 24, 2011.
Patricia L. Toppings,
OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer,
Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 2011–23758 Filed 9–19–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001–06–P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 165
[Docket No. USCG–2011–0857]
RIN 1625–AA11
Regulated Navigation Area; Saugus
River, Lynn, MA
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
The Coast Guard is
establishing a Regulated Navigation
Area (RNA) on the navigable waters of
the Saugus River in Lynn,
Massachusetts. This temporary rule
allows the Coast Guard to suspend all
vessel traffic within the regulated area
to allow for stabilization operations that
could pose a safety hazard to vessels
operating in the area. This temporary
rule is necessary to enhance vessel
safety, marine environmental
protection, and provide for the safety of
life on the navigable waters during the
removal of a damaged section of the
Energy Systems Pipeline Bridge at Mile
2.3 of the Saugus River.
DATES: This rule is effective in the CFR
on September 20, 2011 until 5 p.m. on
November 9, 2011. This rule is effective
with actual notice for purposes of
enforcement from 8 a.m. on September
12, 2011 until 5 p.m. on November 9,
2011.
SUMMARY:
Documents indicated in this
preamble as being available in the
docket are part of docket USCG–2011–
0857 and are available online by going
to https://www.regulations.gov, inserting
USCG–2011–0857 in the ‘‘Keyword’’
box, and then clicking ‘‘Search.’’ They
are also available for inspection or
copying at the Docket Management
Facility (M–30), U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building Ground
Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590,
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If
you have questions on this temporary
rule, call or e-mail Mr. Mark Cutter, U.S.
Coast Guard Sector Boston Waterways
Management Division, Coast Guard;
ADDRESSES:
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
58105
telephone 617–223–4000, e-mail
Mark.E.Cutter@uscg.mil, or Lieutenant
Junior Grade Isaac Slavitt, Coast Guard
First District Waterways Management
Branch, telephone 617–223–8385, email Isaac.M.Slavitt@uscg.mil. If you
have questions on viewing or submitting
material to the docket, call Renee V.
Wright, Program Manager, Docket
Operations, telephone 202–366–9826.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Regulatory Information
The Coast Guard is issuing this
temporary rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment pursuant to
authority under section 4(a) of the
Administrative Procedures Act (APA), 5
U.S.C. 553(b). This provision authorizes
an agency to issue a rule without prior
notice and opportunity to comment
when the agency for good cause finds
that those procedures are
‘‘impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary
to the public interest.’’ Under 5 U.S.C.
553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that
good cause exists for not publishing a
notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
with respect to this rule; notice and
comment is impracticable because
immediate action is necessary to ensure
the safety of the public in the vicinity
of construction operations being
conducted in the Saugus River.
Serious damage to this pipeline bridge
was caused during Tropical Storm Irene,
which passed through Boston on 28
August, 2011. Currently, the pipeline is
leaning over precariously and is in
danger of collapsing. Two phases of
work are needed for this pipeline:
stabilization (which may include
removal of the damaged segment), and
then full removal at a later date. This
rule addresses only emergency
stabilization efforts. A separate rule will
be promulgated with normal notice and
comment periods for the longer term
full repair project.
On September 1, 2011, General
Electric, the pipeline operators, advised
that the Energy Systems Pipeline bridge
demolition project would require
periodic closures of the Saugus River at
mile 2.3 to remove the damaged piping
support structure. The hazard that the
damaged portion of the Energy Systems
Pipeline bridge poses to the navigational
channel necessitates that all mariners
comply with this RNA. Immediate
action is needed to control vessels
operating in the restricted waterway in
order to facilitate repairs and to protect
the maritime public from the hazards
associated with the stabilization of this
damaged structure. Publishing a NPRM
and waiting 30 days for comment would
be contrary to the public interest since
immediate action is needed to restrict
E:\FR\FM\20SER1.SGM
20SER1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 182 (Tuesday, September 20, 2011)]
[Unknown Section]
[Pages 58103-58105]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-23758]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Office of the Secretary
[Docket ID: DoD-2011-OS-0004]
32 CFR Part 311
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 14 DoD, entitled ``Defense Clearance and
Investigations Index (DCII)'', pertaining to investigatory material
compiled for law enforcement purposes to enable OSD components to
conduct certain investigations and relay law enforcement information
without compromise of the information, protect 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.
The exemption will allow DoD to 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 sources'
identity would be held in confidence. Further,
[[Page 58104]]
requiring OSD to grant access to records and agency rules for access
and amendment of records would unfairly impede the 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.
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 29, 2011 unless comments
are received that would result in a contrary determination. Comments
will be accepted on or before November 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, 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: This direct final rule is consistent with
the rule currently published at 32 CFR part 321.13(h) and another rule
is being published to remove and reserve 321.13(h).
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 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)(20) to read as
follows:
Sec. 311.8 Procedures for exemptions.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(20) System identifier and name: DMDC 14 DoD, Defense Clearance and
Investigations Index.
(i) Exemptions: 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
[[Page 58105]]
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. Any portion of this
system that falls under the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(2) may be
exempt from the following subjections of 5 U.S.C. 552a(c)(3); (d);
(e)(1); (e)(4)(G), (H), and (I) and (f).
(ii) Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(2).
(iii) Reasons: (A) From subsection (c)(3) because it will enable
OSD components 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 sources' 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 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. 2011-23758 Filed 9-19-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-P