Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 78 / Friday, April 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 22615 

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 322 

Privacy. 

Accordingly, 32 CFR part 322 is 

amended as follows: 

PART 322—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for 32 CFR 

part 322 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: Pub. L. 93–579, 88 Stat. 1896 

(5 U.S.C. 552a). 

■ 2. Section 322.7 is amended by 

redesignating paragraphs (r) and (s) as 

paragraphs (s) and (t) and adding a new 

paragraph (r) to read as follows: 

§ 322.7 Exempt systems of records. 

* * * * * 

(r) GNSA 23. 

(1) System name: NSA/CSS 

Operations Security Support and 

Program Files. 

(2) Exemption. All portions of this 

system of records which fall within the 

scope of 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(4) may be 

exempt from the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 

552a(c)(3), (d), (e)(1), (e)(4)(G), (e)(4)(H), 

(e)(4)(I) and (f). 

(3) Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(4). 

(4) Reasons: (i) From subsection (c)(3) 

because the release of the disclosure 

accounting would place the subject of 

an investigation on notice that they are 

under investigation and provide them 

with significant information concerning 

the nature of the investigation, thus 

resulting in a serious impediment to law 

enforcement investigations. 

(ii) From subsections (d) and (f) 

because providing access to records of a 

civil or administrative investigation and 

the right to contest the contents of those 

records and force changes to be made to 

the information contained therein 

would seriously interfere with and 

thwart the orderly and unbiased 

conduct of the investigation and impede 

case preparation. Providing access rights 

normally afforded under the Privacy Act 

would provide the subject with valuable 

information that would allow 

interference with or compromise of 

witnesses or render witnesses reluctant 

to cooperate; lead to suppression, 

alteration, or destruction of evidence; 

enable individuals to conceal their 

wrongdoing or mislead the course of the 

investigation; and result in the secreting 

of or other disposition of assets that 

would make them difficult or 

impossible to reach in order to satisfy 

any Government claim growing out of 

the investigation or proceeding. 

(iii) From subsection (e)(1) because it 

is not always possible to detect the 

relevance or necessity of each piece of 

information in the early stages of an 

investigation. In some cases, it is only 

after the information is evaluated in 

light of other evidence that its relevance 

and necessity will be clear. 

(iv) From subsections (e)(4)(G) and (H) 

because this system of records is 

compiled for investigative purposes and 

is exempt from the access provisions of 

subsections (d) and (f). 

(v) From subsection (e)(4)(I) because 

to the extent that this provision is 

construed to require more detailed 

disclosure than the broad, generic 

information currently published in the 

system notice, an exemption from this 

provision is necessary to protect the 

confidentiality of sources of information 

and to protect privacy and physical 

safety of witnesses and informants. 

Dated: April 8, 2011. 

Patricia L. Toppings, 

OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, 

Department of Defense. 

[FR Doc. 2011–9740 Filed 4–21–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 5001–06–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Office of the Secretary 

[Docket ID: DoD–2011–OS–0003] 

32 CFR Part 322 

Privacy Act; Implementation 

AGENCY: National Security Agency/ 

Central Security Service, DoD. 

ACTION: Direct final rule with request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: The National Security 

Agency/Central Security Service is 

deleting an exemption rule and adding 

a new exemption rule. The exemption 

rule for GNSA 13, entitled ‘‘Archive 

Records’’ is being deleted in its entirety; 

a new exemption rule for GNSA 28, 

entitled ‘‘Freedom of Information Act, 

Privacy Act and Mandatory 

Declassification Review Records’’ is 

being added to exempt those records 

that have been previously claimed for 

the records in another Privacy Act 

system of records. To the extent that 

copies of exempt records from those 

other systems of records are entered into 

these case records, NSA/CSS hereby 

claims the same exemptions for the 

records as claimed in the original 

primary system of records of which they 

are a part. 

This direct final rule makes 

nonsubstantive changes to the National 

Security Agency/Central Security 

Service Privacy Program rules. These 

changes will allow the Department to 

exempt records from certain portions of 

the Privacy Act. This will improve the 

efficiency and effectiveness of DoD’s 

program by preserving the exempt status 

of the records when the purposes 

underlying the exemption for the 

original records are still valid and 

necessary to protect the contents of the 

records. 

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 July 

1, 2011 unless comments are received 

that would result in a contrary 

determination. Comments will be 

accepted on or before June 21, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by docket number and title, 

by any of the following methods. 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Mail: Federal Docket management 

System Office, Room 3C843, 1160 

Defense Pentagon, Room 3C843, 

Washington, DC 20301–1160. 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
22616 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 78 / Friday, April 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

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 http:// 

www.regulations.gov as they are 

received without change, including any 

personal identifiers or contact 

information. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Anne Hill at (301) 688–6527. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Direct Final Rule and Significant 

Adverse Comments 

DoD has determined this rulemaking 

meets the criteria for a direct final rule 

because it involves nonsubstantive 

changes dealing with DoD’s 

management of its Privacy Progams. 

DoD expects no opposition to the 

changes and no significant adverse 

comments. However, if DoD receives a 

significant adverse comment, the 

Department will withdraw this direct 

final rule by publishing a notice in the 

Federal Register. A significant adverse 

comment is one that explains: (1) Why 

the direct final rule is inappropriate, 

including challenges to the rule’s 

underlying premise or approach; or (2) 

why the direct final rule will be 

ineffective or unacceptable without a 

change. In determining whether a 

comment necessitates withdrawal of 

this direct final rule, DoD will consider 

whether it warrants a substantive 

response in a notice and comment 

process. 

Executive Order 12866, ‘‘Regulatory 

Planning and Review’’ and Executive 

Order 13563, ‘‘Improving Regulation 

and Regulatory Review’’ 

It has been determined that Privacy 

Act rules for the Department of Defense 

are not significant rules. The rules do 

not (1) Have an annual effect on the 

economy of $100 million or more or 

adversely affect in a material way the 

economy; a sector of the economy; 

productivity; competition; jobs; the 

environment; public health or safety; or 

State, local, or Tribal governments or 

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 Privacy 

Act rules for the Department of Defense 

do not have significant economic impact 

on a substantial number of small entities 

because they are concerned only with 

the administration of Privacy Act 

systems of records within the 

Department of Defense. 

Public Law 96–511, ‘‘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 the 

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 rules do 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 322 

Privacy. 

Accordingly, 32 CFR part 322 is 

amended as follows: 

PART 322—NATIONAL SECURITY 

AGENCY/CENTRAL SECURITY 

SERVICE PROGRAM 

■ 1. The authority citation for 32 CFR 

part 322.7 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: Privacy Act of 1974, Pub. L. 

93–579, Stat. 1896 (5 U.S.C. 552a). 

■ 2. In § 322.7, remove and reserve 

paragraph (l) and add paragraph (u) to 

read as follows: 

§ 322.7 Exempt systems of records. 

* * * * * 

(u) ID: GNSA 28 (General Exemption) 

(1) System name: Freedom of 

Information Act, Privacy Act and 

Mandatory Declassification Review 

Records. 

(2) Exemption: During the processing 

of letters and other correspondence to 

the National Security Agency/Central 

Security Service, exempt materials from 

other systems of records may in turn 

become part of the case record in this 

system. To the extent that copies of 

exempt records from those ‘‘other’’ 

systems of records are entered into this 

system, the National Security Agency/ 

Central Security Service hereby 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. 

(3) Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(2) 

through (k)(7). 

(4) Reasons: During the course of a 

FOIA/Privacy Act and/or MDR action, 

exempt materials from other system of 

records may become part of the case 

records in this system of records. To the 

extent that copies of exempt records 

from those other systems of records are 

entered into these case records, NSA/ 

CSS hereby claims the same exemptions 

for the records as claimed in the original 

primary system of records of which they 

are a part. 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: April 8, 2011. 

Patricia L. Toppings, 

OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, 

Department of Defense. 

[FR Doc. 2011–9742 Filed 4–21–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 5001–06–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Department of the Navy 

32 CFR Part 701 

[Docket ID: USN–2010–0036] 

Privacy Act of 1974; Implementation 

AGENCY: Department of the Navy, DoD. 

ACTION: Direct final rule with request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: The Department of the Navy 

is reinstating an exemption rule that 

was inadvertently deleted for system of 

records notice N03834–1, entitled 

‘‘Special Intelligence Personnel Access 

File (April 28, 1999, 64 FR 22840)’’. 

This direct final rule makes 

nonsubstantive changes to the 

Department of the Navy Privacy 

Program rules. These changes will allow 

the Department to exempt records from 

certain portions of the Privacy Act. This 

will improve the efficiency and 

effectiveness of DoD’s program by 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES