Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 52 / Friday, March 16, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 15595 

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 publish a withdrawal 

of this direct final rule 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 319 

Privacy. 

Accordingly, 32 CFR 319 is amended 

as follows: 

PART 319—DEFENSE INTELLIGENCE 

AGENCY PRIVACY PROGRAM 

■ 1. The authority citation for 32 CFR 

part 319 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: Pub. L. 93–579, 5 U.S.C. 552a(f) 

and (k). 

§ 319.13 [Amended] 

■ 2. In § 319.13 remove and reserve 

paragraph (f). 

Dated: February 28, 2012. 

Patricia L. Toppings, 

OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, 

Department of Defense. 

[FR Doc. 2012–6175 Filed 3–15–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 5001–06–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Office of the Secretary 

[Docket ID DoD–2012–OS–0031] 

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 (NSA/ 

CSS) is adding a new exemption rule for 

GNSA 29 to exempt those records that 

are presently exempt from certain 

requirements of the Privacy Act. 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 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 is effective on May 25, 

2012 unless comments are received that 

would result in a contrary 

determination. Comments will be 

accepted on or before May 15, 2012. If 

DoD receives a significant adverse 

comment, the Department will publish 

a withdrawal of this direct final 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, 

2nd Floor, East Tower, Suite 02G09, 

Alexandria, VA 22350–3100. 

Instructions: All submissions received 

must include the agency name and 

docket number or Regulatory 

Information Number (RIN) 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 publish a withdrawal 

of this direct final rule in the Federal 

Register. A significant adverse comment 

is one that explains: (1) Why the direct 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES
15596 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 52 / Friday, March 16, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

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 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: Privacy Act of 1974, Pub. L. 93– 

579, Stat. 1896 (5 U.S.C. 552a). 

■ 2. Section 322.7 is amended by adding 

paragraph (l) to read as follows: 

§ 322.7 Exempt systems of records. 

* * * * * 

(l) ID: GNSA 29 (General Exemption) 

(2) System name: NSA/CSS Office of 

Inspector General Investigations and 

Complaints. 

(3) Exemption: 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 any 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 except to the extent that 

disclosure would reveal the identity of 

a confidential source. Note: When 

claimed, this exemption allows limited 

protection of investigative reports 

maintained in a system of records used 

in personnel or administrative actions. 

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. 

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

through (k)(5). 

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

and (d) when access to accounting 

disclosures 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. 

(ii) From (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. In 

some cases, 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: February 28, 2012. 

Patricia L. Toppings, 

OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, 

Department of Defense. 

[FR Doc. 2012–6170 Filed 3–15–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 5001–06–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Office of the Secretary 

[Docket ID DoD–2012–OS–0032] 

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 

removing an exemption rule for GNSA 

23, NSA/CSS Operations Security 

Support Program and Training Files. 

This direct final rule makes 

nonsubstantive changes to the National 

Security Agency/Central Security 

Service Program rules. These changes 

will remove the exemption rule for the 

system of records GNSA 23, NSA/CSS 

Operations Security Support Program 

and Training Files, which has been 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES