Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 78 / Friday, April 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 22613 

Dated: April 8, 2011. 

Patricia L. Toppings, 

OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, 

Department of Defense. 

[FR Doc. 2011–9745 Filed 4–21–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 5001–06–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Office of the Secretary 

32 CFR Part 311 

[Docket ID: DoD–2011–OS–0010] 

Privacy Act; Implementation 

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, DoD. 

ACTION: Direct final rule with request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: The Office of the Secretary of 

Defense is proposing to exempt one (1) 

new system of records, DA&M 01, 

entitled, ‘‘Civil Liberties Program Case 

Management System’’ from subsections 

(c)(3); (d)(1), (2), (3), (4); (e)(1) and 

(e)(4)(G), (H), (I); and (f) of the Privacy 

Act, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k). 

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 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 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 Rulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Mail: Federal Docket Management 

System Office, Room 3C843, 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 http:// 

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: 

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 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 of 

1995’’ 

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—[AMENDED] 

■ 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)(19) as follows: 

§ 311.8 Procedures for exemptions. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(19) System identifier and name: 

DA&M 01, Civil Liberties Program Case 

Management System. 

(i) Exemptions: Records contained in 

this System of Records may be 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
22614 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 78 / Friday, April 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

exempted from the requirements of 

subsections (c)(3); (d)(1), (2), (3), and (4); 

(e)(1) and (e)(4)(G), (H), and (I); and (f) 

of the Privacy Act pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 

552a(k)(1). Records may be exempted 

from these subsections or, additionally, 

from the requirements of subsections 

(c)(4); (e)(2), (3), and (8) of the Privacy 

Act of 1974 consistent with any 

exemptions claimed under 5 U.S.C. 

552a (j)(2) or (k)(1), (k)(2), or (k)(5) by 

the originator of the record, provided 

the reason for the exemption remains 

valid and necessary. An exemption rule 

for this system has been promulgated in 

accordance with the requirements of 5 

U.S.C. 553(b)(1), (2), and (3), (c) and (e) 

and is published at 32 CFR part 311. 

(ii) Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552a (j)(2), 

(k)(1), (k)(2), or (k)(5). 

(iii) Reasons: (A) From subsections 

(c)(3) (accounting of disclosures) 

because an accounting of disclosures 

from records concerning the record 

subject would specifically reveal an 

intelligence or investigative interest on 

the part of the Department of Defense 

and could result in release of properly 

classified national security or foreign 

policy information. 

(B) From subsections (d)(1), (2), (3) 

and (4) (record subject’s right to access 

and amend records) because affording 

access and amendment rights could 

alert the record subject to the 

investigative interest of law enforcement 

agencies or compromise sensitive 

information classified in the interest of 

national security. In the absence of a 

national security basis for exemption, 

records in this system may be exempted 

from access and amendment to the 

extent necessary to honor promises of 

confidentiality to persons providing 

information concerning a candidate for 

position. Inability to maintain such 

confidentiality would restrict the free 

flow of information vital to a 

determination of a candidate’s 

qualifications and suitability. 

(C) From subsection (e)(1) (maintain 

only relevant and necessary records) 

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. In the absence 

of a national security basis for 

exemption under subjection (k)(1), 

records in this system may be exempted 

from the relevance requirement 

pursuant to subjection (k)(5) because it 

is not possible to determine in advance 

what exact information may assist in 

determining the qualifications and 

suitability of a candidate for position. 

Seemingly irrelevant details, when 

combined with other data, can provide 

a useful composite for determining 

whether a candidate should be 

appointed. 

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

(publication of procedures for notifying 

subject of the existence of records about 

them and how they may access records 

and contest contents) because the 

system is exempted from subsection (d) 

provisions regarding access and 

amendment, and from the subsection (f) 

requirement to promulgate agency rules. 

Nevertheless, the Office of the Secretary 

of Defense has published notice 

concerning notification, access, and 

contest procedures because it may, in 

certain circumstances, determine it 

appropriate to provide subjects access to 

all or a portion of the records about 

them in this system of records. 

(E) From subsection (e)(4)(I) 

(identifying sources of records in the 

system of records) because identifying 

sources could result in disclosure of 

properly classified national defense or 

foreign policy information, intelligence 

sources and methods, and investigatory 

techniques and procedures. 

Notwithstanding its proposed 

exemption from this requirement the 

Office of the Secretary of Defense 

identifies record sources in broad 

categories sufficient to provide general 

notice of the origins of the information 

it maintains in this system of records. 

(F) From subsection (f) (agency rules 

for notifying subjects to the existence of 

records about them, for accessing and 

amending records, and for assessing 

fees) because the system is exempt from 

subsection (d) provisions regarding 

access and amendment of records by 

record subjects. Nevertheless, the Office 

of the Secretary of Defense has 

published agency rules concerning 

notification of a subject in response to 

his request if any system of records 

named by the subject contains a record 

pertaining to him and procedures by 

which the subject may access or amend 

the records. Notwithstanding 

exemption, the Office of the Secretary of 

Defense may determine it appropriate to 

satisfy a record subject’s access request. 

Dated: April 8, 2011. 

Patricia L. Toppings, 

OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, 

Department of Defense. 

[FR Doc. 2011–9746 Filed 4–21–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 5001–06–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Office of the Secretary 

[Docket ID: DoD–2008–OS–0053] 

32 CFR Part 322 

Privacy Act; Implementation 

AGENCY: National Security Agency/ 

Central Security Services, DoD. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The National Security 

Agency/Central Security Services (NSA/ 

CSS) is adding an exemption rule for the 

system of records GNSA 23, ‘‘NSA/CSS 

Operations Security Support Program 

and Training Files’’ when an exemption 

has been previously claimed for the 

records in another Privacy Act system of 

records. The exemption is intended to 

preserve the exempt status of the record 

when the purposes underlying the 

exemption for the original records are 

still valid and necessary to protect the 

contents of the records. 

DATES: Effective Date: April 22, 2011. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Anne Hill at (301) 688–6527. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

proposed rule was published on May 

19, 2008 (73 FR 28767–29768). No 

comments were received. 

Executive Order 12866, ‘‘Regulatory 

Planning and 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 this Executive order. 

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. 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES