Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 210 / Thursday, October 30, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 64509 

testimony, and/or flight of the subject; 

could identify a confidential source or 

disclose information which would 

constitute an unwarranted invasion of 

another’s personal privacy; reveal a 

sensitive investigative or constitute a 

potential danger to the health or safety 

of law enforcement personnel, 

confidential informants, and witnesses. 

Amendment of these records would 

interfere with ongoing law enforcement 

investigations and analysis activities 

and impose an excessive administrative 

burden by requiring investigations, 

analyses, and reports to be continuously 

reinvestigated and revised. 

(C) From subsections (e)(1) through 

(e)(3) because it is not always possible 

to determine what information is 

relevant and necessary at an early stage 

in a given investigation. Also, because 

DoD and other agencies may not always 

know what information about a known 

or suspected offender may be relevant to 

law enforcement for the purpose of 

conducting an operational response. 

(D) From subsections (e)(4)(G) through 

(I) (Agency Requirements) because 

portions of this system are exempt from 

the access and amendment provisions of 

subsection (d). 

(E) From subsection (e)(5) because the 

requirement that records be maintained 

with attention to accuracy, relevance, 

timeliness, and completeness would 

unfairly hamper the criminal 

investigative process. It is the nature of 

criminal law enforcement for 

investigations to uncover the 

commission of illegal acts at diverse 

stages. It is frequently impossible to 

determine initially what information is 

accurate, relevant, timely, and least of 

all complete. With the passage of time, 

seemingly irrelevant or untimely 

information may acquire new significant 

as further investigation brings new 

details to light. 

(F) From subsection (e)(8) because the 

requirement to serve notice on an 

individual when a record is disclosed 

under compulsory legal process could 

unfairly hamper law enforcement 

processes. It is the nature of law 

enforcement that there are instances 

where compliance with these provisions 

could alert the subject of an 

investigation of the fact and nature of 

the investigation, and/or the 

investigative interest of intelligence or 

law enforcement agencies; compromise 

sensitive information related to national 

security; interfere with the overall law 

enforcement process by leading to the 

destruction of evidence, improper 

influencing of witnesses, fabrication of 

testimony, and/or flight of the subject; 

reveal a sensitive investigative or 

intelligence technique; or constitute a 

potential danger to the health or safety 

of law enforcement personnel, 

confidential informants, and witnesses. 

(G) From subsection (f) because 

requiring the Agency to grant access to 

records and establishing agency rules 

for amendment of records would 

compromise the existence of any 

criminal, civil, or administrative 

enforcement activity. To require the 

confirmation or denial of the existence 

of a record pertaining to a requesting 

individual may in itself provide an 

answer to that individual relating to the 

existence of an on-going investigation. 

The investigation of possible unlawful 

activities would be jeopardized by 

agency rules requiring verification of the 

record, disclosure of the record to the 

subject, and record amendment 

procedures. 

(H) From subsection (g) for 

compatibility with the exemption 

claimed from subsection (f), the civil 

remedies provisions of subsection (g) 

must be suspended for this record 

system. Because of the nature of 

criminal investigations, standards of 

accuracy, relevance, timeliness and 

completeness cannot apply to this 

record system. Information gathered in 

criminal investigations if often 

fragmentary and leads relating to an 

individual in the context of one 

investigation may instead pertain to a 

second investigation. 

Dated: October 27, 2014. 

Aaron Siegel, 

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison 

Officer, Department of Defense. 

[FR Doc. 2014–25833 Filed 10–29–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 5001–06–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Office of the Secretary 

32 CFR Part 316 

[Docket ID: DoD–2014–OS–0128] 

Privacy Act of 1974; Implementation 

AGENCY: Defense Information Systems 

Agency, DoD. 

ACTION: Direct final rule with request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: The Defense Information 

Systems Agency is proposing to exempt 

a new system of records, K890.23, 

entitled ‘‘DISA Inspector General 

Investigative Tracker (DIGit)’’ from 5 

U.S.C. 552a(j)(2), (k)(2), and (k)(5), 

subsections (c)(3), (d), (e)(1), (e)(4)(G), 

(e)(4)(H), (e)(4)(I) of the Privacy Act of 

1974, as amended. 

DATES: This rule will be effective on 

January 8, 2015 unless adverse 

comments are received by December 29, 

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: Ms. 

Jeanette Weathers-Jenkins, DISA Privacy 

Officer, Chief Information Office, 6916 

Cooper Avenue, Fort Meade, MD 

20755–7901, or by phone at (301) 225– 

8158. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 

direct final rule makes no substantive 

changes to the Defense Information 

Systems Agency Privacy Program rules. 

These changes will allow the Office to 

add an exemption rule to the Defense 

Information Systems Agency Privacy 

Program rules that will exempt 

applicable 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. 

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 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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
64510 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 210 / Thursday, October 30, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

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) 

It has been certified that 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) 

It has been determined that 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’’ 

It has been determined that this rule 

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 it will not 

significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments. 

Executive Order 13132, ‘‘Federalism’’ 

It has been determined that this 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. Therefore, 

no Federalism assessment is required. 

List of Subjects in 32 CFR Part 316 

Privacy. 

Accordingly, 32 CFR part 316 is 

amended as follows: 

PART 316—DEFENSE INFORMATION 

SYSTEMS AGENCY PRIVACY 

PROGRAM 

■ 1. The authority citation for 32 CFR 

part 316 continues to read as follows: 

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

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

■ 2. In § 316.8, add paragraph (a), and 

add and reserve paragraph (b), to read 

as follows: 

§ 316.8 Exemptions. 

* * * * * 

(a) System identifier and name: 

K890.23, DISA Inspector General 

Investigative Tracker (DIGit). 

(1) Exemptions: Any portion of this 

record system which falls within the 

provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2), 

(k)(2)and (k)(5) may be exempt from the 

following subsections of 5 U.S.C. 552a: 

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

(e)(4)(I). 

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

(k)(2), and (k)(5). 

(3) Reasons: To ensure the integrity of 

the privacy and civil liberties process. 

The execution requires that information 

be provided in a free and open manner 

without fear of retribution or 

harassment in order to facilitate a just, 

thorough, and timely resolution of the 

complaint or inquiry. Disclosures from 

this system can enable individuals to 

conceal their wrongdoing or mislead the 

course of the investigation by 

concealing, destroying, or fabricating 

evidence or documents. In addition, 

disclosures can subject sources and 

witnesses to harassment or intimidation 

which may cause individuals not to 

seek redress for wrongs through privacy 

and civil liberties channels for fear of 

retribution or harassment. 

(b) [Reserved] 

Dated: October 27, 2014. 

Aaron Siegel, 

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison 

Officer, Department of Defense. 

[FR Doc. 2014–25805 Filed 10–29–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 5001–06–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 100 

[Docket No. USCG–2014–0885] 

Special Local Regulation; Southern 

California Annual Marine Events for 

the San Diego Captain of the Port Zone 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Notice of enforcement of 

regulation. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard will enforce 

the San Diego Bay Parade of Lights 

special local regulations on Sunday, 

December 14, 2014 and Sunday, 

December 21, 2014. This event occurs in 

north San Diego Bay in San Diego, CA. 

These special local regulations are 

necessary to provide for the safety of the 

participants, crew, spectators, sponsor 

safety vessels, and general users of the 

waterway. During the enforcement 

period, persons and vessels are 

prohibited from entering into, transiting 

through, or anchoring within this 

regulated area unless authorized by the 

Captain of the Port, or his designated 

representative. 

DATES: The regulations for the marine 

event listed in 33 CFR 100.1101, Table 

1, Item 5, will be enforced from 5:30 

p.m. to 8:30 p.m. on Sunday, December 

14, 2014 and Sunday, December 21, 

2014. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you have questions on this notice, call 

or email Petty Officer Giacomo Terrizzi, 

Waterways Management, U.S. Coast 

Guard Sector San Diego, CA; telephone 

(619) 278–7656, email D11-PFMarineEventsSanDiego@uscg.mil. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Coast 

Guard will enforce the special local 

regulations in 33 CFR 100.1101 in 

support of the San Diego Bay Parade of 

Lights (Item 5 on Table 1 of 33 CFR 

100.1101). The Coast Guard will enforce 

the special local regulations in the San 

Diego Bay in San Diego, CA from 5:30 

p.m. to 8:30 p.m. on Sunday, December 

14, 2014 and Sunday, December 21, 

2014. 

Under the provisions of 33 CFR 

100.1101, persons and vessels are 

prohibited from entering into, transiting 

through, or anchoring within this 

regulated area unless authorized by the 

Captain of the Port, or his designated 

representative. The Coast Guard may be 

assisted by other Federal, State, or local 

law enforcement agencies in patrol and 

notification of this regulation. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES