Privacy Act of 1974; Implementation, 66290-66291 [2014-26407]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
66290
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 216 / Friday, November 7, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
provided orally, it will be followed by
written notice within two working days
signed by the Deputy Assistant
Secretary for Export Administration or
the Deputy Assistant Secretary’s
designee. The absence of BIS
notification does not excuse the
exporter from compliance with the
license requirements of paragraph (a) of
this section.
(c) License exception. Despite the
prohibitions described in paragraphs (a)
and (b) of this section, you may export,
reexport, or transfer (in-country) items
subject to the EAR under the provisions
of License Exception GOV set forth in
§ 740.11(b)(2)(i) and (ii) of the EAR.
(d) License application procedure.
When submitting a license application
pursuant to this section, you must state
in the ‘‘additional information’’ block of
the application that ‘‘this application is
submitted because of the license
requirement in § 744.21 of the EAR
(Restrictions on Certain Military End
Uses in the People’s Republic of China
or for a ‘Military End Use’ or ‘Military
End User’ in Russia or Venezuela).’’ In
addition, either in the additional
information block of the application or
in an attachment to the application, you
must include for the PRC all known
information concerning the military end
use of the item(s) and for Russia or
Venezuela, all known information
concerning the ‘military end use’ and
‘military end users’ of the item(s). If you
submit an attachment with your license
application, you must reference the
attachment in the ‘‘additional
information’’ block of the application.
(e) License review standards. (1)
Applications to export, reexport, or
transfer items described in paragraph (a)
of this section will be reviewed on a
case-by-case basis to determine whether
the export, reexport, or transfer would
make a material contribution to the
military capabilities of the PRC, Russia,
or Venezuela, and would result in
advancing the country’s military
activities contrary to the national
security interests of the United States.
When it is determined that an export,
reexport, or transfer would make such a
contribution, the license will be denied.
(2) Applications may be reviewed
under chemical and biological weapons,
nuclear nonproliferation, or missile
technology review policies, as set forth
in §§ 742.2(b)(4), 742.3(b)(4) and
742.5(b)(4) of the EAR, if the end use
may involve certain proliferation
activities.
(3) Applications for items requiring a
license for other reasons that are
destined to the PRC for a ‘military end
use’ or that are destined to Russia or
Venezuela for a ‘military end use’ or
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:20 Nov 06, 2014
Jkt 235001
‘military end user’ also will be subject
to the review policy stated in paragraph
(e)(1) of this section.
(f) Military end use. In this section,
‘military end use’ means: incorporation
into a military item described on the
U.S. Munitions List (USML) (22 CFR
part 121, International Traffic in Arms
Regulations); incorporation into a
military item described on the
Wassenaar Arrangement Munitions List
(as set out on the Wassenaar
Arrangement Web site at https://
www.wassenaar.org); incorporation into
items classified under ECCNs ending in
‘‘A018’’ or under ‘‘600 series’’ ECCNs; or
for the ‘‘use,’’ ‘‘development,’’ or
‘‘production’’ of military items
described on the USML or the
Wassenaar Arrangement Munitions List,
or items classified under ECCNs ending
in ‘‘A018’’ or under ‘‘600 series’’ ECCNs.
Note to paragraph (f) of this section: (1) As
defined in Part 772 of the EAR, ‘‘use’’ means
operation, installation (including on-site
installation), maintenance (checking), repair,
overhaul and refurbishing; ‘‘development’’ is
related to all stages prior to serial production,
such as: design, design research, design
analyses, design concepts, assembly and
testing of prototypes, pilot production
schemes, design data, process of transforming
design data into a product, configuration
design, integration design, layouts; and
‘‘production’’ means all production stages,
such as: product engineering, manufacturing,
integration, assembly (mounting), inspection,
testing, quality assurance.
(2) For purposes of this section,
‘‘operation’’ means to cause to function as
intended; ‘‘installation’’ means to make ready
for use, and includes connecting, integrating,
incorporating, loading software, and testing;
‘‘maintenance’’ means performing work to
bring an item to its original or designed
capacity and efficiency for its intended
purpose, and includes testing, measuring,
adjusting, inspecting, replacing parts,
restoring, calibrating, overhauling; and
‘‘deployment’’ means placing in battle
formation or appropriate strategic position.
(g) Military end user. In this section,
the term ‘military end user’ means the
national armed services (army, navy,
marine, air force, or coast guard), as well
as the national guard and national
police, government intelligence or
reconnaissance organizations, or any
person or entity whose actions or
functions are intended to support
‘military end uses’ as defined in
paragraph (f) of this section.
(h) Effects on contracts. Venezuela:
Transactions involving the export,
reexport or transfer (in country) of items
to or within Venezuela are not subject
to the provisions of § 744.21 if the
contracts for such transactions were
signed prior to November 7, 2014.
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Dated: November 3, 2014.
Kevin J. Wolf,
Assistant Secretary for Export
Administration.
[FR Doc. 2014–26465 Filed 11–6–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–33–P
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Office of the Secretary
32 CFR Part 311
[Docket ID: DoD–2014–OS–0145]
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 (OSD) is exempting records
maintained in DMDC 17 DoD, entitled
‘‘Continuous Evaluation Records for
Personnel Security,’’ from pertinent
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552a. In the
course of carrying out records checks for
continuous evaluation, exempt records
received from other systems of records
may become part of this system. To the
extent that copies of exempt records
from those ‘other’ systems of records are
maintained in this system, OSD claims
the same exemptions for the records
from those ‘other’ systems that are
maintained in this system, as claimed
for the original primary system of which
they are a part.
DATES: The rule is effective on January
16, 2015 unless adverse comments are
received by January 6, 2015. If adverse
comment is received, the Department of
Defense will publish a timely
withdrawal of the rule in the Federal
Register.
SUMMARY:
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,
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:
E:\FR\FM\07NOR1.SGM
07NOR1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 216 / Friday, November 7, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Ms.
Cindy Allard at (571) 372–0461.
This
direct final rule makes nonsubstantive
changes to the OSD Privacy Program
rules. These changes will allow the
Department to add an exemption rule to
the OSD Privacy Program rules that will
exempt applicable Department records
and/or material from certain portions of
the Privacy Act. This 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.
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 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.
rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Executive Order 12866, ‘‘Regulatory
Planning and Review’’ and Executive
Order 13563, ‘‘Improving Regulation
and Regulatory Review’’
14:20 Nov 06, 2014
Jkt 235001
It has been certified that this rule does
not have a 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 DoD. A Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis is not required.
Public Law 96–511, ‘‘Paperwork
Reduction Act’’ (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35)
It has been determined that this rule
does not impose additional information
collection requirements on the public
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
Section 202, Public Law 104–4,
‘‘Unfunded Mandates Reform Act’’
It has been determined that this rule
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 it will not
significantly or uniquely affect small
governments.
Executive Order 13132, ‘‘Federalism’’
It has been determined that this rule
does not have federalism implications.
This 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:
‘other’ systems of records are
maintained into this system, OSD
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.
(ii) Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2),
(k)(1), (k)(2), (k)(3), (k)(5), (k)(6), and
(k)(7).
(iii) Reasons: Records are only exempt
from pertinent provisions of 5 U.S.C.
552a to the extent that 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 maintained 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: October 29, 2014.
Aaron Siegel,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison
Officer, Department of Defense.
PART 311—OFFICE OF THE
SECRETARY OF DEFENSE AND JOINT
STAFF PRIVACY PROGRAM
It has been determined that this rule
is not a significant rule. This rule does
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.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Public Law 96–354, ‘‘Regulatory
Flexibility Act’’ (5 U.S.C Chapter 6)
66291
[FR Doc. 2014–26407 Filed 11–6–14; 8:45 am]
1. The authority citation for part 311
continues to read as follows:
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
■
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 522a.
40 CFR Part 52
2. Section 311.8 is amended by adding
paragraph (c)(23) to read as follows:
■
§ 311.8
Procedures for exemptions.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) * * *
(23) System identifier and name:
DMDC 17 DoD, Continuous Evaluation
Records for Personnel Security.
(i) Exemption: In the course of
carrying out records checks for
continuous evaluation, exempt records
from other systems of records may in
turn become part of the case records
maintained in this system. To the extent
that copies of exempt records from those
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
BILLING CODE 5001–06–P
[EPA–R10–OAR–2014–0343; FRL–9918–84–
Region 10]
Approval and Promulgation of
Implementation Plans; Washington:
Nonattainment New Source Review
Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is approving revisions to
the Washington State Implementation
Plan (SIP) that were submitted by the
Department of Ecology (Ecology) on
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\07NOR1.SGM
07NOR1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 216 (Friday, November 7, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 66290-66291]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-26407]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Office of the Secretary
32 CFR Part 311
[Docket ID: DoD-2014-OS-0145]
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 (OSD) is exempting
records maintained in DMDC 17 DoD, entitled ``Continuous Evaluation
Records for Personnel Security,'' from pertinent provisions of 5 U.S.C.
552a. In the course of carrying out records checks for continuous
evaluation, exempt records received from other systems of records may
become part of this system. To the extent that copies of exempt records
from those `other' systems of records are maintained in this system,
OSD claims the same exemptions for the records from those `other'
systems that are maintained in this system, as claimed for the original
primary system of which they are a part.
DATES: The rule is effective on January 16, 2015 unless adverse
comments are received by January 6, 2015. If adverse comment is
received, the Department of Defense will publish a timely withdrawal of
the rule in the Federal Register.
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, 4800 Mark
Center Drive, 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.
[[Page 66291]]
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Cindy Allard at (571) 372-0461.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This direct final rule makes nonsubstantive
changes to the OSD Privacy Program rules. These changes will allow the
Department to add an exemption rule to the OSD Privacy Program rules
that will exempt applicable Department records and/or material from
certain portions of the Privacy Act. This 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.
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 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 this rule is not a significant rule.
This rule does 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 certified that this rule does not have a 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 DoD. A Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is not required.
Public Law 96-511, ``Paperwork Reduction Act'' (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35)
It has been determined that this rule does not impose additional
information collection requirements on the public under the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
Section 202, Public Law 104-4, ``Unfunded Mandates Reform Act''
It has been determined that this rule 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 it will not significantly or uniquely affect
small governments.
Executive Order 13132, ``Federalism''
It has been determined that this rule does not have federalism
implications. This 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 part 311 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 522a.
0
2. Section 311.8 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(23) to read as
follows:
Sec. 311.8 Procedures for exemptions.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(23) System identifier and name: DMDC 17 DoD, Continuous Evaluation
Records for Personnel Security.
(i) Exemption: In the course of carrying out records checks for
continuous evaluation, exempt records from other systems of records may
in turn become part of the case records maintained in this system. To
the extent that copies of exempt records from those `other' systems of
records are maintained into this system, OSD 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.
(ii) Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2), (k)(1), (k)(2), (k)(3),
(k)(5), (k)(6), and (k)(7).
(iii) Reasons: Records are only exempt from pertinent provisions of
5 U.S.C. 552a to the extent that 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 maintained 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: October 29, 2014.
Aaron Siegel,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 2014-26407 Filed 11-6-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
