Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 155 / Thursday, August 11, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 49661 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Office of the Secretary 

32 CFR Part 323 

[Docket ID DoD–2009–OS–0006] 

Privacy Act; Implementation 

AGENCY: Defense Logistics Agency, DoD. 

ACTION: Direct final rule with request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: The Defense Logistics Agency 

(DLA) is updating the DLA Privacy Act 

Program Rules by updating the language 

of the (k)(2) exemption. The update of 

the exemption will more accurately 

describe the basis for exempting the 

records. The Privacy Act system of 

records notice, S500.20, entitled 

‘‘Defense Logistics Agency Criminal 

Incident Reporting System Records’’, 

has already been published on June 8, 

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 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 

October 20, 2011 unless comments are 

received that would result in a contrary 

determination. Comments will be 

accepted on or before October 11, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by docket number and title, 

by any of the following methods. 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

Follow the instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Mail: Federal Docket management 

System Office, 1160 Defense Pentagon, 

Room 3C843, 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: 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 rules for the Department of Defense 

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’’ 

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—DLA PRIVACY ACT 

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. Paragraph (b) of Appendix H to 32 

CFR part 323 is revised to read as 

follows: 

Appendix H to Part 23—DLA 

Exemption Rules 

* * * * * 

b. ID: S500.20 (Specific exemption). 

1. SYSTEM NAME: 

Defense Logistics Agency Criminal 

Incident Reporting System Records. 

2. EXEMPTION: 

(i) Parts of this system may be exempt 

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

investigative material is compiled for 

law enforcement purposes. However, if 

an individual is denied any right, 

privilege, or benefit for which he would 

otherwise be entitled by Federal law or 


wreier-aviles on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with RULES
49662 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 155 / Thursday, August 11, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

for which he would otherwise be 

eligible, as a result of the maintenance 

of such information, the individual will 

be provided access to such information 

except to the extent that disclosure 

would reveal the identity of a 

confidential source if the information is 

compiled and maintained by a 

component of the agency, which 

performs as its principle function any 

activity pertaining to the enforcement of 

criminal laws. 

(ii) The specific sections of 5 U.S.C. 

552a from which the system is to be 

exempted are 5 U.S.C. 552a(c)(3) and 

(c)(4), (d), (e)(1), (e)(2), (e)(3), (e)(4)(G), 

(H), and (I), (e)(5), (f), and (g). 

3. AUTHORITY: 

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

4. REASONS: 

(i) From subsection (c)(3) because to 

grant access to an accounting of 

disclosures as required by the Privacy 

Act, including the date, nature, and 

purpose of each disclosure and the 

identity of the recipient, could alert the 

subject to the existence of the 

investigation or prosecutive interest by 

DLA or other agencies. This could 

seriously compromise case preparation 

by prematurely revealing its existence 

and nature; compromise or interfere 

with witnesses or make witnesses 

reluctant to cooperate; and lead to 

suppression, alteration, or destruction of 

evidence. 

(ii) From subsections (c)(4), (d), and 

(f) because providing access to this 

information could result in the 

concealment, destruction or fabrication 

of evidence and jeopardize the safety 

and well being of informants, witnesses 

and their families, and law enforcement 

personnel and their families. Disclosure 

of this information could also reveal and 

render ineffectual investigative 

techniques, sources, and methods used 

by this component and could result in 

the invasion of privacy of individuals 

only incidentally related to an 

investigation. Investigatory material is 

exempt to the extent that the disclosure 

of such material would reveal the 

identity of a source who furnished the 

information to the Government under an 

express promise that the identity of the 

source would be held in confidence, or 

prior to September 27, 1975 under an 

implied promise that the identity of the 

source would be held in confidence. 

This exemption will protect the 

identities of certain sources that would 

be otherwise unwilling to provide 

information to the Government. The 

exemption of the individual’s right of 

access to his/her records and the 

reasons therefore necessitate the 

exemptions of this system of records 

from the requirements of the other cited 

provisions. 

(iii) From subsection (e)(1) because it 

is not always possible to detect the 

relevance or necessity of each piece of 

information in the early stages of an 

investigation. In some cases, it is only 

after the information is evaluated in 

light of other evidence that its relevance 

and necessity will be clear. 

(iv) From subsection (e)(2) because 

collecting information to the fullest 

extent possible directly from the subject 

individual may or may not be practical 

in a criminal investigation. 

(v) From subsection (e)(3) because 

supplying an individual with a form 

containing a Privacy Act Statement 

would tend to inhibit cooperation by 

many individuals involved in a criminal 

investigation. The effect would be 

somewhat adverse to established 

investigative methods and techniques. 

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

and (I) because it will provide 

protection against notification of 

investigatory material which might alert 

a subject to the fact that an investigation 

of that individual is taking place, and 

the disclosure of which would weaken 

the on-going investigation, reveal 

investigatory techniques, and place 

confidential informants in jeopardy who 

furnished information under an express 

promise that the sources’ identity would 

be held in confidence (or prior to the 

effective date of the Act, under an 

implied promise). In addition, this 

system of records is exempt from the 

access provisions of subsection (d). 

(vii) From subsection (e)(5) because 

the requirement that records be 

maintained with attention to accuracy, 

relevance, timeliness, and completeness 

would unfairly hamper the investigative 

process. It is the nature of 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 

significance as further investigation 

brings new details to light. 

(viii) From subsection (f) because the 

agency’s rules are inapplicable to those 

portions of the system that are exempt 

and would place the burden on the 

agency of either confirming or denying 

the existence of a record pertaining to a 

requesting individual might in itself 

provide an answer to that individual 

relating to an on-going investigation. 

The conduct of a successful 

investigation leading to the indictment 

of a criminal offender precludes the 

applicability of established agency rules 

relating to verification of record, 

disclosure of the record to the 

individual and record amendment 

procedures for this record system. 

(ix) From subsection (g) because this 

system of records should be exempt to 

the extent that the civil remedies relate 

to provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552a from 

which this rule exempts the system. 

* * * * * 

Dated: July 8, 2011. 

Patricia L. Toppings, 

OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, 

Department of Defense. 

[FR Doc. 2011–20240 Filed 8–10–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 5001–06–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 117 

[Docket No. USCG–2011–0696] 

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; 

Grassy Sound Channel, Middle 

Township, NJ 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Notice of temporary deviation 

from regulations. 

SUMMARY: The Commander, Fifth Coast 

Guard District, has issued a temporary 

deviation from the regulation governing 

the operation of the Grassy Sound/ 

Ocean Drive Bascule Bridge across the 

Grassy Sound Channel, mile 1.0, at 

Middle Township, NJ. The deviation is 

necessary to accommodate racers in 

‘‘The Wild Half’’ half marathon. This 

deviation allows the bridge to remain in 

the closed position to ensure safe 

passage for the half marathon racers. 

DATES: This deviation is effective from 

7:45 a.m. through 11 a.m. on August 27, 

2011. 

ADDRESSES: Documents mentioned in 

this preamble as being available in the 

docket are part of docket USCG–2011– 

0696 and are available online by going 

to http://www.regulations.gov, inserting 

USCG–2011–0696 in the ‘‘Keyword’’ 

box and then clicking ‘‘Search’’. They 

are also available for inspection or 

copying at the Docket Management 

Facility (M–30), U.S. Department of 

Transportation, West Building Ground 

Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, 

between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, except Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you have questions on this rule, call or 


wreier-aviles on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with RULES