Privacy Act; Implementation, 15585-15587 [2012-6169]
Download as PDF
15585
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 52 / Friday, March 16, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
AIRAC date
State
City
Airport
FDC
FDC date
5–Apr–12 ......
ME
Bangor ...............................
Bangor Intl .........................
2/7098
2/23/12
5–Apr–12 ......
IL
Chicago/Lake In The Hills
Lake In The Hills ................
2/7102
2/23/12
5–Apr–12 ......
AL
Huntsville ...........................
2/7139
2/23/12
5–Apr–12 ......
TX
Dallas-Fort Worth ...............
Huntsville Intl—Carl T
Jones Field.
Dallas-Fort Worth Intl .........
2/7608
2/22/12
5–Apr–12 ......
TN
Knoxville .............................
McGhee Tyson ..................
2/7680
2/23/12
5–Apr–12 ......
TX
Waco ..................................
Waco Rgnl .........................
2/7711
2/22/12
5–Apr–12 ......
TX
Port Aransas ......................
Mustang Beach ..................
2/7820
2/23/12
5–Apr–12 ......
TX
Port Aransas ......................
Mustang Beach ..................
2/7821
2/23/12
5–Apr–12 ......
TX
Houston ..............................
Ellington Field ....................
2/8123
2/23/12
5–Apr–12 ......
NC
Greensboro ........................
Piedmont Triad Intl ............
2/8139
2/27/12
5–Apr–12 ......
NC
Greensboro ........................
Piedmont Triad Intl ............
2/8140
2/27/12
5–Apr–12 ......
NC
Greensboro ........................
Piedmont Triad Intl ............
2/8141
2/27/12
5–Apr–12 ......
NC
Greensboro ........................
Piedmont Triad Intl ............
2/8142
2/27/12
5–Apr–12 ......
NC
Greensboro ........................
Piedmont Triad Intl ............
2/8143
2/27/12
5–Apr–12 ......
NC
Greensboro ........................
Piedmont Triad Intl ............
2/8144
2/27/12
5–Apr–12 ......
NC
Greensboro ........................
Piedmont Triad Intl ............
2/8146
2/27/12
5–Apr–12 ......
NC
Greensboro ........................
Piedmont Triad Intl ............
2/8148
2/27/12
5–Apr–12 ......
AZ
Phoenix ..............................
Phoenix Sky Harbor Intl .....
2/8151
2/27/12
5–Apr–12 ......
AZ
Phoenix ..............................
Phoenix Sky Harbor Intl .....
2/8152
2/27/12
5–Apr–12 ......
UT
Vernal .................................
Vernal Rgnl ........................
2/8182
2/23/12
5–Apr–12 ......
SC
Aiken ..................................
Aiken Muni .........................
2/8273
2/23/12
5–Apr–12 ......
SC
Aiken ..................................
Aiken Muni .........................
2/8274
2/23/12
5–Apr–12 ......
5–Apr–12 ......
IN
IN
Jeffersonville ......................
Jeffersonville ......................
Clark Rgnl ..........................
Clark Rgnl ..........................
2/8287
2/8288
2/22/12
2/22/12
5–Apr–12 ......
5–Apr–12 ......
IN
ND
Auburn ...............................
Bismarck ............................
De Kalb County .................
Bismarck Muni ...................
2/8896
2/8897
2/22/12
2/23/12
5–Apr–12 ......
MN
Bemidji ...............................
Bemidji Rgnl .......................
2/9058
2/22/12
5–Apr–12 ......
NH
Portsmouth .........................
Portsmouth Intl at Peasea
2/9382
2/23/12
5–Apr–12 ......
AK
Kodiak ................................
Kodiak ................................
2/9393
2/22/12
5–Apr–12 ......
ME
Brunswick ...........................
Brunswick Executive ..........
2/9657
2/23/12
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
ACTION:
SUMMARY:
[Docket ID DoD–2010–OS–0183]
32 CFR Part 311
Privacy Act; Implementation
AGENCY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:16 Mar 15, 2012
Jkt 226001
PO 00000
Office of the Secretary, DoD.
Frm 00031
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
ILS OR LOC RWY 15, ILS
RWY 15 (CAT II), ILS
RWY 15 (CAT III), Amdt
6A.
Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Orig.
VOR A, Amdt 12A.
ILS RWY 13R (SA CAT II),
Amdt 8.
RNAV (GPS) RWY 5L,
Amdt 1A.
RNAV (GPS) RWY 32,
Orig.
RNAV (GPS) RWY 12,
Orig-A.
RNAV (GPS) RWY 30,
Orig-A.
RNAV (GPS) RWY 35L,
Orig-B.
ILS RWY 5R (CAT II),
Amdt 7A.
ILS RWY 5L (CAT III),
Orig-A.
ILS OR LOC RWY 23R,
Orig-A.
RNAV (GPS) RWY 5L,
Orig-A.
ILS OR LOC RWY 5L,
Orig-A.
ILS RWY 5L (CAT II), OrigA.
ILS OR LOC RWY 5R,
Amdt 7A.
RNAV (GPS) RWY 23R,
Orig-A.
ILS OR LOC RWY 25L,
Amdt 1E.
ILS OR LOC RWY 7R,
Amdt 2.
RNAV (GPS) RWY 34,
Amdt 1.
RNAV (GPS) RWY 7, Amdt
1.
ILS OR LOC/DME RWY 7,
Orig.
NDB RWY 18, Amdt 1.
ILS OR LOC RWY 18,
Amdt 2.
VOR RWY 9, Amdt 7B.
ILS OR LOC RWY 31,
Amdt 33.
RNAV (GPS) RWY 25,
Orig.
Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Orig.
ILS OR LOC/DME Y RWY
25, Amdt 2.
ILS OR LOC/DME RWY
1R, Orig.
Final rule.
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Office of the Secretary
[FR Doc. 2012–6006 Filed 3–15–12; 8:45 am]
Subject
The Office of the Secretary of
Defense is exempting those records
contained in DMDC 15 DoD, entitled
‘‘Armed Services Military Accession
Testing’’ when the record includes the
specific answers submitted and the
answer key. Releasing this information
to the individual will compromise the
E:\FR\FM\16MRR1.SGM
16MRR1
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES
15586
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 52 / Friday, March 16, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
objectivity or fairness of the test if the
correct or incorrect answers are
released.
DATES: This rule is effective March 16,
2012.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mrs.
Cindy Allard at (703) 588–6830.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
Proposed Rule was published on
January 3, 2011, in the Federal Register
(76 FR 56–57). During the comment
period, two public comments were
received.
The first commenter asserted that the
proposed Privacy Act exemption rule
‘‘could possibly be viewed as a violation
of [the] constitutional rights * * * [of]
U.S. citizen[s],’’ making reference to the
Third, Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth
Amendments of the Constitution. Also
the first commenter commented that the
provision ‘‘of the answers and/or
answer keys should be at the discretion
of the test taker, i.e., U.S. citizens.’’
The Privacy Act exemption rule
addresses an individual’s answers to the
Armed Services Vocational Aptitude
Battery (ASVAB) and the appropriate
answer key, allowing the Department of
Defense to exempt an individual’s
ASVAB answers and the answer key
from the access provisions of the
Privacy Act of 1974.
The exemption rule is intended to
ensure that individuals will not
compromise the purpose of the
ASVAB—to ascertain the skills and
abilities of individuals joining the
military or seeking to join the military.
If individuals were allowed to have the
specific responses to the questions as
well as the correct answers, the
Department of Defense would be unable
to ensure that individuals were placed
in jobs for which they had an aptitude,
or more importantly, placed in jobs for
which they had no aptitude. If
individuals were allowed to have their
individual responses as well as the
correct answers, the integrity and
scoring of the battery would be
compromised rendering the testing
worthless.
Individuals taking the test are
provided a copy of their scores along
with an explanation of what the given
scores indicate.
The exemption rule is consistent with
the Privacy Act, its underlying
purposes, and the U.S. Constitution.
Further, the rules published at 32 CFR
part 311, The OSD Privacy Program,
provide individuals an opportunity to
appeal the denial of access to their
records, which could include the
consideration of alleged constitutional
rights violations arising out of the denial
of access to requested records.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:16 Mar 15, 2012
Jkt 226001
The second commenter did not
address the proposed exemption rule
but addressed the first commenter’s
comments.
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 this
Privacy Act rule for the Department of
Defense imposes no information
requirements beyond the Department of
Defense and that the information
collected within the Department of
Defense is necessary and consistent
with 5 U.S.C. 552a, known as the
Privacy Act of 1974.
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
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 to read 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)(16) to read as follows:
■
§ 311.8
Procedures for exemptions.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) * * *
(16) System identifier and name:
DMDC 15 DoD, Armed Services Military
Accession Testing.
(i) Exemption: Testing or examination
material used solely to determine
individual qualifications for
appointment or promotion in the
Federal service or military service may
be exempt pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
552a(k)(6), if the disclosure would
compromise the objectivity or fairness
of the test or examination process.
Therefore, portions of the system of
records may be exempt pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 552a(d).
(ii) Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(6).
(iii) Reasons: (A) An exemption is
required for those portions of the Skill
Qualification Test system pertaining to
individual item responses and scoring
keys to preclude compromise of the test
and to ensure fairness and objectivity of
the evaluation system.
(B) From subsection (d)(1) when
access to those portions of the Skill
Qualification Test records would reveal
the individual item responses and
scoring keys. Disclosure of the
individual item responses and scoring
keys will compromise the objectivity
and fairness of the test as well as the
validity of future tests resulting in the
Department being unable to use the
testing battery as an individual
assessment tool.
*
*
*
*
*
E:\FR\FM\16MRR1.SGM
16MRR1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 52 / Friday, March 16, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
Dated: February 28, 2012.
Patricia L. Toppings,
OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer,
Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 2012–6169 Filed 3–15–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001–06–P
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Office of the Secretary
[Docket ID DoD–2012–OS–0027]
32 CFR Part 311
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 11, 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 is effective on May 25,
2012 unless comments are received that
would result in a contrary
determination. Comments will be
accepted on or before May 15, 2012. If
DoD receives a significant adverse
comment, the Department will publish
a withdrawal of this direct final rule in
the Federal Register.
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:29 Mar 15, 2012
Jkt 226001
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, 4800 Mark Center Drive,
East Tower, Suite 02G09, Alexandria,
VA 22350–3100.
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.
ADDRESSES:
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 Programs.
DoD expects no opposition to the
changes and no significant adverse
comments. However, if DoD receives a
significant adverse comment, the
Department will publish a withdrawal
of this direct final rule 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
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
15587
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
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).
E:\FR\FM\16MRR1.SGM
16MRR1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 52 (Friday, March 16, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 15585-15587]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-6169]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Office of the Secretary
[Docket ID DoD-2010-OS-0183]
32 CFR Part 311
Privacy Act; Implementation
AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, DoD.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Office of the Secretary of Defense is exempting those
records contained in DMDC 15 DoD, entitled ``Armed Services Military
Accession Testing'' when the record includes the specific answers
submitted and the answer key. Releasing this information to the
individual will compromise the
[[Page 15586]]
objectivity or fairness of the test if the correct or incorrect answers
are released.
DATES: This rule is effective March 16, 2012.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mrs. Cindy Allard at (703) 588-6830.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Proposed Rule was published on January
3, 2011, in the Federal Register (76 FR 56-57). During the comment
period, two public comments were received.
The first commenter asserted that the proposed Privacy Act
exemption rule ``could possibly be viewed as a violation of [the]
constitutional rights * * * [of] U.S. citizen[s],'' making reference to
the Third, Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution.
Also the first commenter commented that the provision ``of the answers
and/or answer keys should be at the discretion of the test taker, i.e.,
U.S. citizens.''
The Privacy Act exemption rule addresses an individual's answers to
the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery (ASVAB) and the
appropriate answer key, allowing the Department of Defense to exempt an
individual's ASVAB answers and the answer key from the access
provisions of the Privacy Act of 1974.
The exemption rule is intended to ensure that individuals will not
compromise the purpose of the ASVAB--to ascertain the skills and
abilities of individuals joining the military or seeking to join the
military. If individuals were allowed to have the specific responses to
the questions as well as the correct answers, the Department of Defense
would be unable to ensure that individuals were placed in jobs for
which they had an aptitude, or more importantly, placed in jobs for
which they had no aptitude. If individuals were allowed to have their
individual responses as well as the correct answers, the integrity and
scoring of the battery would be compromised rendering the testing
worthless.
Individuals taking the test are provided a copy of their scores
along with an explanation of what the given scores indicate.
The exemption rule is consistent with the Privacy Act, its
underlying purposes, and the U.S. Constitution. Further, the rules
published at 32 CFR part 311, The OSD Privacy Program, provide
individuals an opportunity to appeal the denial of access to their
records, which could include the consideration of alleged
constitutional rights violations arising out of the denial of access to
requested records.
The second commenter did not address the proposed exemption rule
but addressed the first commenter's comments.
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 this Privacy Act rule for the
Department of Defense imposes no information requirements beyond the
Department of Defense and that the information collected within the
Department of Defense is necessary and consistent with 5 U.S.C. 552a,
known as the Privacy Act of 1974.
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 to read 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)(16) to read as
follows:
Sec. 311.8 Procedures for exemptions.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(16) System identifier and name: DMDC 15 DoD, Armed Services
Military Accession Testing.
(i) Exemption: Testing or examination material used solely to
determine individual qualifications for appointment or promotion in the
Federal service or military service may be exempt pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
552a(k)(6), if the disclosure would compromise the objectivity or
fairness of the test or examination process. Therefore, portions of the
system of records may be exempt pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(d).
(ii) Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(6).
(iii) Reasons: (A) An exemption is required for those portions of
the Skill Qualification Test system pertaining to individual item
responses and scoring keys to preclude compromise of the test and to
ensure fairness and objectivity of the evaluation system.
(B) From subsection (d)(1) when access to those portions of the
Skill Qualification Test records would reveal the individual item
responses and scoring keys. Disclosure of the individual item responses
and scoring keys will compromise the objectivity and fairness of the
test as well as the validity of future tests resulting in the
Department being unable to use the testing battery as an individual
assessment tool.
* * * * *
[[Page 15587]]
Dated: February 28, 2012.
Patricia L. Toppings,
OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 2012-6169 Filed 3-15-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-P