22808 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 79 / Monday, April 25, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

Security Service Privacy Program rules. 

These changes will allow the 

Department to transfer this system to 

another organization within the 

Department. 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 are 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 

5, 2011 unless comments are received 

that would result in a contrary 

determination. Comments will be 

accepted on or before June 24, 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: Mr. 

Leslie Blake at (703) 325–9450. 

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 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 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 321 

Privacy. 

Accordingly, 32 CFR 321 is amended 

as follows: 

PART 321—DEFENSE SECURITY 

SERVICE PRIVACY PROGRAM 

■ 1. The authority citation for 32 CFR 

part 321 continues to read as follows: 

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

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

■ 2. In § 321.13, remove and reserve 

paragraph (h) to read as follows: 

§ 321.13 Exemptions. 

* * * * * 

(h) [Reserved]. 

Dated: April 8, 2011. 

Patricia Topping, 

OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, 

Department of Defense. 

[FR Doc. 2011–9747 Filed 4–22–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 5001–06–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Office of the Secretary 

[Docket ID: DoD–2011–OS–0009] 

32 CFR Part 323 

Privacy Act of 1974; Implementation 

AGENCY: Defense Logistics Agency, DoD. 

ACTION: Direct final rule with request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Defense is 

updating the Defense Logistics Agency 

Privacy Act Program Rules, by adding 

the exemption rules (j)(2), (k)(2), (k)(3), 

(k)(4), (k)(5), (k)(6), and (k)(7) for 

S510.30, Freedom of Information Act/ 

Privacy Act Requests and 

Administrative Appeal Records to 

accurately describe the basis for 

exempting the records. The S510.30 

system of records notice was printed on 

January 22, 2009 in the Federal 

Register. 

This direct final rule makes 

nonsubstantive changes to the Defense 

Logistics Agency 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 


jdjones on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 79 / Monday, April 25, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 22809 

records when the purposes underlying 

the exemption are 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 

5, 2011 unless comments are received 

that would result in a contrary 

determination. Comments will be 

accepted on or before June 24, 2011. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Ms. Jody Sinkler at (703) 767–5045. 

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 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 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 323 

Privacy. 

Accordingly, 32 CFR part 323 is 

amended as follows: 

PART 323—DEFENSE LOGISTICS 

AGENCY PRIVACY PROGRAM 

■ 1. The authority citation for 32 CFR 

part 323 continues to read as follows: 

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

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

■ 2. In Appendix H to part 323, add 

paragraph (g) to read as follows: 

Appendix H to Part 323—DLA 

Exemption Rules 

* * * * * 

g. ID: S510.30 

1. System name: Freedom of Information 

Act/Privacy Act Requests and Administrative 

Appeal Records. 

2. Exemption: During the processing of a 

Freedom of Information Act request, 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 Defense 

Logistics Agency 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(j)(2), (k)(2), 

(k)(3), (k)(4), (k)(5), (k)(6), and (k)(7). 

4. Reasons: Records are only exempt from 

pertinent provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552a to the 

extent 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 contained 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: April 8, 2011. 

Patricia L. Toppings, 

OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, 

Department of Defense. 

[FR Doc. 2011–9748 Filed 4–22–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 5001–06–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 165 

[Docket No. USCG–2011–0196] 

RIN 1625–AA00 

Safety Zone; Bay Ferry II Maritime 

Security Exercise; San Francisco Bay, 

San Francisco, CA 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Temporary final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is 

establishing a temporary safety zone on 

the navigable waters of the San 

Francisco Bay in support of the Bay 

Ferry II Maritime Security Exercise, a 

multi-agency exercise that tests the 

proficiency of teams called upon in real 


jdjones on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES