Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 223 / Tuesday, November 19, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 69291 

records pertaining to themselves in the 

system would undermine investigative 

efforts and reveal the identities of 

witnesses, and potential witnesses, and 

confidential informants. 

(vii) From subsection (e)(5) 

(Collection of Information) because with 

the collection of information for law 

enforcement purposes, it is impossible 

to determine in advance what 

information is accurate, relevant, timely, 

and complete. Compliance with 

subsection (e)(5) would preclude NGA 

personnel from using their investigative 

training and exercise of good judgment 

to both conduct and report on 

investigations. 

(viii) From subsection (e)(8) (Notice 

on Individuals) because compliance 

would interfere with NGA’s ability to 

cooperate with law enforcement who 

would obtain, serve, and issue 

subpoenas, warrants, and other law 

enforcement mechanisms that may be 

filed under seal and could result in 

disclosure of investigative techniques, 

procedures, and evidence. 

(ix) From subsection (g)(1) (Civil 

Remedies) to the extent that the system 

is exempt from other specific 

subsections of the Privacy Act. 

Dated: November 6, 2013. 

Aaron Siegel, 

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison 

Officer, Department of Defense. 

[FR Doc. 2013–27462 Filed 11–18–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 5001–06–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Office of the Secretary 

32 CFR Part 320 

[Docket ID: DoD–2013–OS–0214] 

Privacy Act; Implementation 

AGENCY: National GeospatialIntelligence Agency, DoD. 

ACTION: Direct final rule with request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: National GeospatialIntelligence Agency (NGA) is updating 

the NGA Privacy Act Program by adding 

the (k)(2) exemption to accurately 

describe the basis for exempting the 

records in the system of records notice 

NGA–003, National GeospatialIntelligence Agency Enterprise 

Workforce System. In this rulemaking, 

the NGA proposes to exempt portions of 

this system of records from one or more 

provisions of the Privacy Act because of 

criminal, civil and administrative 

enforcement requirements. This direct 

final rule makes non-substantive 

changes to the NGA Program rules. 

These changes will allow the 

Department to add exemption rules to 

the NGA 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 ensuring the integrity of the 

security and counterintelligence records 

by the NGA and the Department of 

Defense. 

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 

January 28, 2014 unless adverse 

comment is received by January 21, 

2014. 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: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

Follow the instructions for submitting 

comments. 

* Mail: Federal Docket Management 

System Office, 4800 Mark Center Drive; 

East Tower, 2nd Floor, 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 http://

www.regulations.gov as they are 

received without change, including any 

personal identifiers or contact 

information. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency 

(NGA), Human Development 

Directorate, 7500 GEOINT Drive, 

Springfield, VA 22150. 

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 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 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) 

This rule will 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 96–511, ‘‘Paperwork 

Reduction Act’’ (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) 

This rule does not contain any 

information collection requirements 

subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act 

of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). 

Section 202, Public Law 104–4, 

‘‘Unfunded Mandates Reform Act’’ 

These amendments do 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’’ 

These amendments do not have 

substantial direct effects on the States, 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
69292 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 223 / Tuesday, November 19, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

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 320 

Privacy. 

Accordingly, 32 CFR part 320 is 

amended as follows: 

PART 320—NATIONAL GEOSPATIALINTELLIGENCE AGENCY (NGA) 

PRIVACY 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 320 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: Pub. L. 93–579, 88 Stat. 1986 (5 

U.S.C. 552a). 

■ 2. Section 320.12 is amended by 

adding paragraph (d) to read as follows: 

§ 320.12 Exemptions. 

* * * * * 

(d) System identifier and name: NGA– 

003, National Geospatial-Intelligence 

Agency Enterprise Workforce System. 

(1) Exemptions: Investigatory material 

compiled for law enforcement purposes, 

other than material within the scope of 

subsection 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2), may be 

exempt pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(2). 

However, if an individual is denied any 

right, privilege, or benefit for which he 

would otherwise be entitled by Federal 

law or for which he would otherwise be 

eligible, as a result of the maintenance 

of the information, the individual will 

be provided access to the information 

exempt to the extent that disclosure 

would reveal the identity of a 

confidential source. 

Note to paragraph (d)(1): When claimed, 

this exemption allows limited protection of 

investigative reports maintained in a system 

of records used in personnel or 

administrative actions. 

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

(3) Reasons: Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a 

(k)(2), the Director of NGA has 

exempted this system from the 

following provisions of the Privacy Act, 

subject to the limitation set forth in 5 

U.S.C. 552a(c)(3); (d); (e)(1), (e)(4)(G), 

(e)(4)(H), (e)(4)(I); and (f). Exemptions 

from these particular subsections are 

justified, on a case-by-case basis to be 

determined at the time a request is 

made, for the following reasons: 

(i) From subsection (c)(3) and (c)(4) 

(Accounting for Disclosures) because 

release of the accounting of disclosures 

could alert the subject of an 

investigation of an actual or potential 

criminal, civil, or regulatory violation to 

the existence of that investigation and 

reveal investigative interest on the part 

of NGA as well as the recipient agency. 

Disclosure of the accounting would 

therefore present a serious impediment 

to law enforcement efforts and/or efforts 

to preserve national security. Disclosure 

of the accounting would also permit the 

individual who is the subject of a record 

to impede the investigation, to tamper 

with witnesses or evidence, and to 

avoid detection or apprehension, which 

would undermine the entire 

investigative process. 

(ii) From subsection (d) (Access to 

Records) because access to the records 

contained in this system of records 

could inform the subject of an 

investigation of an actual or potential 

criminal, civil, or regulatory violation to 

the existence of that investigation and 

reveal investigative interest on the part 

of NGA or another agency. Access to the 

records could permit the individual 

who is the subject of a record to impede 

the investigation, to tamper with 

witnesses or evidence, and to avoid 

detection or apprehension. Amendment 

of the records could interfere with 

ongoing investigations and law 

enforcement activities and would 

impose an unreasonable administrative 

burden by requiring investigations to be 

continually reinvestigated. In addition, 

permitting access and amendment to 

such information could disclose 

security-sensitive information that 

could be detrimental to homeland 

security. 

(iii) From subsection (e)(1) (Relevancy 

and Necessity of Information) because 

in the course of investigations into 

potential violations of Federal law, the 

accuracy of information obtained or 

introduced occasionally may be unclear, 

or the information may not be strictly 

relevant or necessary to a specific 

investigation. In the interests of effective 

law enforcement, it is appropriate to 

retain all information that may aid in 

establishing patterns of unlawful 

activity. 

(iv) From subsection (e)(2) (Collection 

of Information from Individuals) 

because requiring that information be 

collected from the subject of an 

investigation would alert the subject to 

the nature or existence of the 

investigation, thereby interfering with 

that investigation and related law 

enforcement activities. 

(v) From subsection (e)(3) (Notice to 

Subjects) because providing such 

detailed information could impede law 

enforcement by compromising the 

existence of a confidential investigation 

or reveal the identity of witnesses or 

confidential informants. 

(vi) From subsections (e)(4)(G), 

(e)(4)(H), and (e)(4)(I) (Agency 

Requirements) and (f) (Agency Rules), 

because portions of this system are 

exempt from the individual access 

provisions of subsection (d) for the 

reasons noted above, and therefore NGA 

is not required to establish 

requirements, rules, or procedures with 

respect to such access. Providing notice 

to individuals with respect to existence 

of records pertaining to them in the 

system of records or otherwise setting 

up procedures pursuant to which 

individuals may access and view 

records pertaining to themselves in the 

system would undermine investigative 

efforts and reveal the identities of 

witnesses, and potential witnesses, and 

confidential informants. 

(vii) From subsection (e)(5) 

(Collection of Information) because with 

the collection of information for law 

enforcement purposes, it is impossible 

to determine in advance what 

information is accurate, relevant, timely, 

and complete. Compliance with 

subsection (e)(5) would preclude NGA 

personnel from using their investigative 

training and exercise of good judgment 

to both conduct and report on 

investigations. 

(viii) From subsection (e)(8) (Notice 

on Individuals) because compliance 

would interfere with NGA’s ability to 

cooperate with law enforcement who 

would obtain, serve, and issue 

subpoenas, warrants, and other law 

enforcement mechanisms that may be 

filed under seal and could result in 

disclosure of investigative techniques, 

procedures, and evidence. 

(ix) From subsection (g)(1) (Civil 

Remedies) to the extent that the system 

is exempt from other specific 

subsections of the Privacy Act. 

Dated: November 6, 2013. 

Aaron Siegel, 

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison 

Officer, Department of Defense. 

[FR Doc. 2013–27464 Filed 11–18–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 5001–06–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 141 

[Docket No. USCG–2013–0916] 

RIN 1625–AC09 

TWIC Not Evidence of Resident Alien 

Status 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard issues this 

final rule to remove from its regulations 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES