Privacy Act of 1974; Implementation, 38950-38951 [2016-14183]
Download as PDF
38950
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 115 / Wednesday, June 15, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
Issued in Washington, DC, on this 9th day
of June 2016.
Judith Starr,
General Counsel, Pension Benefit Guaranty
Corporation.
[FR Doc. 2016–14076 Filed 6–14–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7709–02–P
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Office of the Secretary
[Docket ID: DOD–2016–OS–0063]
32 CFR Part 311
Privacy Act of 1974; Implementation
Office of the Secretary, DoD.
Direct final rule.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
The Office of the Secretary of
Defense is exempting those records
contained in DMDC 24 DoD, entitled
‘‘Defense Information System for
Security (DISS),’’ 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 establishes a
new exemption to the Office of the
Secretary Privacy Program. The Defense
Information System for Security is the
new DoD enterprise-wide information
system for personnel security; it
provides a common, comprehensive
medium to request, record, document,
and identify personnel security actions
within the Department including:
Determinations of eligibility and access
to classified information, national
security, suitability and/or fitness for
employment, and HSPD–12
determination for Personal Identity
Verification (PIV) to access government
facilities and systems, submitting
adverse information, verification of
investigation and or adjudicative status,
support of continuous evaluation and
insider threat detection, prevention, and
mitigation activities. DISS consists of
two applications, the Case Adjudication
Tracking system (CATS) and the Joint
Verification System (JVS). CATS is used
by the DoD Adjudicative Community for
the purpose of recording eligibility
determinations. JVS is used by DoD
Security Managers and Industry Facility
Security Officers for the purpose of
verifying eligibility, recording access
determinations, submitting incidents for
subsequent adjudication, and visit
requests from the field (worldwide). The
records may also be used as a
ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:36 Jun 14, 2016
Jkt 238001
management tool for statistical analyses,
tracking, reporting, evaluating program
effectiveness, and conducting research.
This direct final rule is consistent with
the rule currently published regarding
DMDC 11, Investigative Records
Repository.
DATES: The rule is effective on
September 13, 2016 unless adverse
comments are received by August 15,
2016. 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: Department of Defense, Office
of the Deputy Chief Management
Officer, Directorate for Oversight and
Compliance, 4800 Mark Center Drive,
Mailbox #24, Alexandria, VA 22350–
1700.
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: Mrs.
Luz D. Ortiz, 571–372–0478.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 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.
Direct Final Rule and Significant
Adverse Comments
DoD has determined this rulemaking
meets the criteria for a direct final rule
because it involves non-substantive
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
PO 00000
Frm 00070
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
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. A
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is not
required.
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 additional
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 1074.
Section 202, Public Law 104–4,
‘‘Unfunded Mandates Reform Act’’
It has been determined that this
Privacy Act rule 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 this rulemaking will not
significantly or uniquely affect small
governments.
E:\FR\FM\15JNR1.SGM
15JNR1
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 115 / Wednesday, June 15, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
Executive Order 13132, ‘‘Federalism’’
It has been determined that this
Privacy Act rule for the Department of
Defense 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. Therefore, no
Federalism assessment is required.
investigatory purposes, it is not always
possible to determine the relevance and
necessity of particular information in
the early stages of the investigation. It is
only after the information is evaluated
in light of other information that its
relevance and necessity becomes clear.
Such information permits more
informed decision-making by the
Department when making required
suitability, eligibility, and qualification
determinations.
Dated: May 24, 2016.
Aaron Siegel,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison
Officer, Department of Defense.
List of Subjects in 32 CFR Part 311
Privacy.
Accordingly, 32 CFR part 311 is
amended as follows:
[FR Doc. 2016–14183 Filed 6–14–16; 8:45 am]
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:
■
BILLING CODE 5001–06–P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Coast Guard
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552a.
2. Section 311.8 is amended by adding
paragraph (c)(27) to read as follows:
33 CFR Part 100
§ 311.8
Special Local Regulation; Annual
Kennewick, Washington, Columbia
Unlimited Hydroplane Races
■
Procedures for exemptions.
ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
*
*
*
*
*
(c) * * *
(27) System identifier and name:
DMDC 24 DoD, Defense Information
System for Security (DISS).
(i) Exemption: 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.
(ii) Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(5).
(iii) Reasons: (A) from subsections
(c)(3) and (d) when access to accounting
disclosure and access to or amendment
of records would cause the identity of
a confidential source to be revealed.
Disclosure of the source’s identity not
only will result in the Department
breaching the promise of confidentiality
made to the source but it will impair the
Department’s future ability to compile
investigatory material for the purpose of
determining suitability, eligibility, or
qualifications for Federal civilian
employment, Federal contracts, or
access to classified information. Unless
sources can be assured that a promise of
confidentiality will be honored, they
will be less likely to provide
information considered essential to the
Department in making the required
determinations.
(B) From subsection (e)(1) because in
the collection of information for
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:36 Jun 14, 2016
Jkt 238001
[Docket No. USCG–2016–0358]
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of enforcement of
regulation.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
The Coast Guard will enforce
the special local regulation for the
Annual Kennewick, Washington,
Columbia Unlimited Hydroplane Races
from 7 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. each day, from
July 29, 2016, through July 31, 2016.
This enforcement action is necessary to
assist in minimizing the inherent
dangers associated with hydroplane
races. Our regulation for Recurring
Marine Events in Captain of the Port
Sector Columbia River Zone identifies
the regulated area for this regatta.
During the enforcement period, no
vessel may transit this regulated area
without approval from the Captain of
the Port or a designated representative.
DATES: The regulation in 33 CFR
100.1303 will be enforced from 7 a.m.
until 5:30 p.m. on July 29, 2016 through
July 31, 2016.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If
you have questions about this notice of
enforcement, call or email Mr. Ken
Lawrenson, Waterways Management
Division, MSU Portland, Oregon, Coast
Guard; telephone 503–240–9319, email
msupdxwwm@uscg.mil.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Coast
Guard will enforce special local
regulations in 33 CFR 100.1303 from 7
a.m. until 5:30 p.m. on July 29, 2016,
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00071
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
38951
through July 31, 2016, for the Annual
Kennewick, Washington, Columbia
Unlimited Hydroplane Races. This
enforcement action is being taken to
provide for the safety of life on
navigable waterways during the regatta.
Our regulation for Annual Kennewick,
Washington, Columbia Unlimited
Hydroplane, § 100.1303, specifies the
location of the regulated area for all
waters of the Columbia river bounded
by two lines drawn from between
position latitude 46°14′07″ N., longitude
119°10′42″ W. and position latitude
46°13′42″ N., longitude 119°10′51″ W.;
and the second line running between
position latitude 46°13′35″ N., longitude
119°07′34″ W. and position latitude
46°13′10″ N., longitude 119°07′47″ W.
As specified in § 100.1303, during the
enforcement period, no vessel may
transit this regulated area without
approval from the Captain of the Port
Sector Columbia River (COTP) or a
COTP designated representative.
This notice of enforcement is issued
under authority of 33 CFR 100.1303 and
5 U.S.C. 552(a). In addition to this
notice of enforcement in the Federal
Register, the Coast Guard plans to
provide notification of this enforcement
period via the Local Notice to Mariners
and marine information broadcasts.
Dated: June 7, 2016.
D.F. Berliner,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Alternate Captain
of the Port, Sector Columbia River.
[FR Doc. 2016–14067 Filed 6–14–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110–04–P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 117
[Docket No. USCG–2016–0497]
Drawbridge Operation Regulation;
Mullica River, Green Bank, NJ
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of deviation from
drawbridge regulation.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
The Coast Guard has issued a
temporary deviation from the operating
schedule that governs the Green Bank
Bridge (Green Bank Road/CR563) across
the Mullica River, mile 18.0, at Green
Bank, NJ. The deviation is necessary to
perform bridge repairs. This deviation
allows the bridge to remain in the
closed-to-navigation position.
DATES: This deviation is effective from
7:30 a.m. on June 20, 2016, through 3:30
p.m. on June 23, 2016.
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\15JNR1.SGM
15JNR1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 115 (Wednesday, June 15, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 38950-38951]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-14183]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Office of the Secretary
[Docket ID: DOD-2016-OS-0063]
32 CFR Part 311
Privacy Act of 1974; Implementation
AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, DoD.
ACTION: Direct final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Office of the Secretary of Defense is exempting those
records contained in DMDC 24 DoD, entitled ``Defense Information System
for Security (DISS),'' 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 establishes a new exemption to the Office of
the Secretary Privacy Program. The Defense Information System for
Security is the new DoD enterprise-wide information system for
personnel security; it provides a common, comprehensive medium to
request, record, document, and identify personnel security actions
within the Department including: Determinations of eligibility and
access to classified information, national security, suitability and/or
fitness for employment, and HSPD-12 determination for Personal Identity
Verification (PIV) to access government facilities and systems,
submitting adverse information, verification of investigation and or
adjudicative status, support of continuous evaluation and insider
threat detection, prevention, and mitigation activities. DISS consists
of two applications, the Case Adjudication Tracking system (CATS) and
the Joint Verification System (JVS). CATS is used by the DoD
Adjudicative Community for the purpose of recording eligibility
determinations. JVS is used by DoD Security Managers and Industry
Facility Security Officers for the purpose of verifying eligibility,
recording access determinations, submitting incidents for subsequent
adjudication, and visit requests from the field (worldwide). The
records may also be used as a management tool for statistical analyses,
tracking, reporting, evaluating program effectiveness, and conducting
research. This direct final rule is consistent with the rule currently
published regarding DMDC 11, Investigative Records Repository.
DATES: The rule is effective on September 13, 2016 unless adverse
comments are received by August 15, 2016. 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: Department of Defense, Office of the Deputy Chief
Management Officer, Directorate for Oversight and Compliance, 4800 Mark
Center Drive, Mailbox #24, Alexandria, VA 22350-1700.
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: Mrs. Luz D. Ortiz, 571-372-0478.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 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.
Direct Final Rule and Significant Adverse Comments
DoD has determined this rulemaking meets the criteria for a direct
final rule because it involves non-substantive 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 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. A Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is not
required.
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 additional 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 1074.
Section 202, Public Law 104-4, ``Unfunded Mandates Reform Act''
It has been determined that this Privacy Act rule 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 this rulemaking will not significantly or uniquely affect small
governments.
[[Page 38951]]
Executive Order 13132, ``Federalism''
It has been determined that this Privacy Act rule for the
Department of Defense 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. Therefore, no Federalism assessment is required.
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: 5 U.S.C. 552a.
0
2. Section 311.8 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(27) to read as
follows:
Sec. 311.8 Procedures for exemptions.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(27) System identifier and name: DMDC 24 DoD, Defense Information
System for Security (DISS).
(i) Exemption: 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.
(ii) Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(5).
(iii) Reasons: (A) from subsections (c)(3) and (d) when access to
accounting disclosure and access to or amendment of records would cause
the identity of a confidential source to be revealed. Disclosure of the
source's identity not only will result in the Department breaching the
promise of confidentiality made to the source but it will impair the
Department's future ability to compile investigatory material for the
purpose of determining suitability, eligibility, or qualifications for
Federal civilian employment, Federal contracts, or access to classified
information. Unless sources can be assured that a promise of
confidentiality will be honored, they will be less likely to provide
information considered essential to the Department in making the
required determinations.
(B) From subsection (e)(1) because in the collection of information
for investigatory purposes, it is not always possible to determine the
relevance and necessity of particular information in the early stages
of the investigation. It is only after the information is evaluated in
light of other information that its relevance and necessity becomes
clear. Such information permits more informed decision-making by the
Department when making required suitability, eligibility, and
qualification determinations.
Dated: May 24, 2016.
Aaron Siegel,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 2016-14183 Filed 6-14-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-P