56 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 1 / Monday, January 3, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 6—SERVICE INFORMATION—Continued 

Service bulletin Revision Date 

Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A310–57–2064 ....................................................... 02 ................................................. December 21, 2007. 

Issued in Renton, Washington on 

December 17, 2010. 

Ali Bahrami, 

Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, 

Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2010–32992 Filed 12–30–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Office of the Secretary 

[Docket ID: DOD–2010–OS–0183] 

32 CFR Part 311 

Privacy Act; Implementation 

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, DoD. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Office of the Secretary of 

Defense is exempting those records 

contained in DMDC 15 DoD, entitled 

‘‘Armed Services Military Accession 

Testing’’ when the record includes the 

specific answers submitted and the 

answer key. Releasing this information 

to the individual will compromise the 

objectivity or fairness of the test if the 

correct or incorrect answers are 

released. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before March 4, 2011 to be 

considered by this agency. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by docket number and/or RIN 

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 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: Mrs. 

Cindy Allard at (703) 588–6830. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

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. 

Public Law 95–511, ‘‘Paperwork 

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

It has been determined that this 

Privacy Act rule for the Department of 

Defense imposes no information 

requirements beyond the Department of 

Defense and that the information 

collected within the Department of 

Defense is necessary and consistent 

with 5 U.S.C. 552a, known as the 

Privacy Act of 1974. 

Section 202, Public Law 104–4, 

‘‘Unfunded Mandates Reform Act’’ 

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 

proposed to be amended to read as 

follows: 

PART 311—OFFICE OF THE 

SECRETARY OF DEFENSE AND JOINT 

STAFF PRIVACY PROGRAM 

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)(16) to read as 

follows: 

§ 311.8 Procedures for exemptions. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(16) System identifier and name: 

DMDC 15 DoD, Armed Services Military 

Accession Testing. 

(i) Exemption: Testing or examination 

material used solely to determine 

individual qualifications for 

appointment or promotion in the 

Federal service or military service may 

be exempt pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a 

(k)(6), if the disclosure would 

compromise the objectivity or fairness 

of the test or examination process. 

Therefore, portions of the system of 

records may be exempt pursuant to 5 

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

(ii) 

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(6). 

(iii) Reasons: (A) An exemption is 

required for those portions of the Skill 

Qualification Test system pertaining to 

individual item responses and scoring 

keys to preclude compromise of the test 

and to ensure fairness and objectivity of 

the evaluation system. 

(B) From subsection (d)(1) when 

access to those portions of the Skill 

Qualification Test records would reveal 

the individual item responses and 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 1 / Monday, January 3, 2011 / Proposed Rules 57 

scoring keys. Disclosure of the 

individual item responses and scoring 

keys will compromise the objectivity 

and fairness of the test as well as the 

validity of future tests resulting in the 

Department being unable to use the 

testing battery as an individual 

assessment tool. 

Dated: December 21, 2010. 

Morgan F. Park, 

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison 

Officer, Department of Defense. 

[FR Doc. 2010–33030 Filed 12–30–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 5001–06–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

National Park Service 

36 CFR Part 7 

RIN 1024–AD89 

Special Regulation: Areas of the 

National Park System, National Capital 

Region 

AGENCY: National Park Service, Interior. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The National Park Service 

(NPS) proposes to amend the 

regulations on demonstrations and 

special events for the National Capital 

Region. This proposed rule would revise 

the definition of ‘‘demonstration’’ as 

well as specify the conditions under 

which solicitation of gifts, money, 

goods, or services could occur. 

DATES: Comments must be received by 

March 4, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit your 

comments, identified by Regulatory 

Information Number 1024–AD89, by 

any of the following methods: 

—Federal rulemaking portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

—Mail or hand delivery: National Park 

Service, Regional Director, Division of 

Park Programs, 1100 Ohio Drive, SW., 

Room 128, Washington, DC 20242. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Robbin Owen, Chief, Division of Park 

Programs, National Park Service, 

National Capital Region, 1100 Ohio 

Drive, SW., Room 128, Washington, DC 

20242. Telephone: (202) 619–7225. Fax: 

(202) 401–2430. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

Revise the Definition of ‘‘Demonstration’’ 

This proposed rule would revise the 

definition of demonstration at 36 CFR 

7.96 (g)(1)(i) by eliminating the term 

‘‘intent or propensity’’ where it appears 

in the definition and replace it with the 

term ‘‘reasonably likely.’’ In Boardley v. 

Department of the Interior, 605 F. Supp. 

2d 8 (D.D.C. 2009) the United States 

District Court for the District of 

Columbia commented on the 

demonstration definition for the 

National Capital Region under 36 CFR 

7.96 (g)(1)(i). The Court commented the 

definition could raise problems, because 

it allowed NPS officials to restrict 

speech based on their determination 

that a person intended to draw a crowd 

with their conduct. Such a 

determination could easily rest on 

impermissible grounds, such as an 

official’s perception that certain 

expression is controversial or 

inappropriate, which would be a 

content-based decision, impermissible 

under the First Amendment. While the 

NPS has not applied the regulation in 

such an impermissible manner, and has 

since issued a clarifying memorandum 

to preclude such a determination, this 

proposed rule would revise the 

definition of demonstration to minimize 

any possibility of a decision based on 

impermissible grounds. 

Amendment of the Solicitation 

Regulation 

This proposed rule also would amend 

the provision regarding soliciting, in 

order to be consistent with the United 

States Court of Appeals for the District 

of Columbia decision in ISKCON of 

Potomac v. Kennedy, 61 F.3d 949 (DC 

Cir. 1995). 

In ISKCON of Potomac, the Court of 

Appeals held that the NPS’s regulatory 

ban of soliciting, which the NPS 

traditionally construed as applying only 

to the in-person solicitation of 

immediate donations, was not ‘‘narrowly 

tailored.’’ The Court recognized that: 

* * *[t]he conduct of a special event 

within a small, well-defined permit area will 

have some effect on the ambiance of the Mall. 

But we cannot see how allowing in-person 

solicitations within the permit area will add 

to whatever adverse impact will result from 

the special event itself. The effects of 

solicitation will be confined to the permit 

area, and those who wish to escape them may 

simply steer clear of the authorized 

demonstration or special event. 61 F.3d at 

956. 

The Court also said: 

Our holding allows only those individuals 

or groups participating in an authorized 

demonstration or special event to solicit 

donations within the confines of a restricted 

permit area such as that assigned to ISKCON. 

It does not require the NPS to let rampant 

panhandling go unchecked. 61 F.3d at 956. 

Following the ISKCON of Potomac 

decision, as an interim measure, the 

NPS posted a notice at its Washington, 

DC, National Capital Region Division of 

Park Programs permit office as well as 

in the Superintendent’s Compendium of 

regulations for the National Mall and 

Memorial Parks, stating that soliciting 

would be allowed if it occurred within 

the confines of a permit area as part of 

a permitted ongoing activity. The 

soliciting regulation itself, however, also 

must be amended. 

Consistent with ISKCON of Potomac, 

this proposed amendment would allow 

individuals or groups who are 

participating in a permitted 

demonstration or special event to solicit 

donations within the confines of a 

restricted permit area. Such soliciting is 

authorized only when provided for in a 

permit. Groups seeking to solicit 

donations as part of a demonstration or 

special event will need to describe the 

activities in their permit application. 

This proposed rule also formalizes the 

long-standing view that soliciting is 

limited to the in-person soliciting of 

immediate donations. 

This proposed rule deals with 

soliciting and not sales. Any attempt to 

offer or sell items, whether directly or 

by the use of deceit, is governed by the 

NPS sales regulation, at 36 CFR 7.96 (k), 

which limits items to be sold on park 

lands to books, newspapers, leaflets, 

pamphlets, buttons, and bumper 

stickers. As the NPS explained it its 

prefatory statement to its sales 

regulation, at 60 FR 17648 (1995), 

* * * restricted merchandise cannot be 

‘‘given away’’ and a ‘‘donation accepted’’ or 

one item ‘‘given away’’ in return for the 

purchase of another item; such transactions 

amount to sales. 

Finally, it has been the NPS’s longstanding application of its regulations 

that demonstrations and special events, 

whether under permit or not, are not 

allowed in the restricted areas at 36 CFR 

7.96 (g)(3)(ii). To better ensure that 

everyone fully understands that 

demonstrations and special events, with 

or without a permit, are not allowed in 

these restricted areas, NPS proposes to 

amend its introductory sentence to 

clearly indicate that no demonstrations 

or special events are allowed in the 

designated restricted areas. 

Compliance with Other Laws, Executive 

Orders, and Department Policy 

Regulatory Planning and Review 

(Executive Order 12866) 

This document is not a significant 

rule and the Office of Management and 

Budget, (OMB), has not reviewed this 

rule under Executive Order 12866. 

(1) This rule will not have an effect of 

$100 million or more on the economy. 

It will not adversely affect in a material 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS