Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 155 / Thursday, August 11, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 49659 

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. 

Theresa Lowery at (202) 231–1193. 

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 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). 

■ 2. In § 319.13 remove and reserve 

paragraph (d) to read as follows: 

§ 319.13 Specific exemptions. 

* * * * * 

(d) [Reserved]. 

* * * * * 

Dated: July 8, 2011. 

Patricia L. Toppings, 

OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, 

Department of Defense. 

[FR Doc. 2011–20238 Filed 8–10–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 5001–06–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Office of the Secretary 

32 CFR Part 319 

[Docket ID DOD–2011–OS–0087] 

Privacy Act; Implementation 

AGENCY: Defense Intelligence Agency, 

DoD. 

ACTION: Direct final rule with request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: The Defense Intelligence 

Agency (DIA) is adding a new 

exemption rule for LDIA 0900, entitled 

‘‘Accounts Receivable, Indebtedness 

and Claims’’ to exempt those records 

that have been previously claimed for 

the records in another Privacy Act 

system of records. To the extent that 

copies of exempt records from those 

other systems of records are entered into 

these case records, DIA hereby claims 

the same exemptions for the records as 

claimed in the original primary system 

of records of which they are a part. This 

direct final rule makes nonsubstantive 

changes to the Defense Intelligence 

Agency 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 for the 

original records are still 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. 


wreier-aviles on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with RULES
49660 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 155 / Thursday, August 11, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

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. 

Theresa Lowery at (202) 231–1193. 

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 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 

Specific exemptions, Privacy. 

Accordingly, 32 CFR part 319 is 

amended to read 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). 

■ 2. In § 319.13, add paragraph (i) to 

read as follows: 

§ 319.13 Specific exemptions. 

* * * * * 

(i) System identifier and name: LDIA 

0900, Accounts Receivable, 

Indebtedness and Claims. 

(1) Exemption: During the course of 

accounts receivable, indebtedness or 

claims actions, exempt materials from 

other systems of records may in turn 

become part of the case record in this 

system. To the extent that copies of 

exempt records from those ‘‘other’’ 

systems of records are entered into this 

system, the DIA hereby claims the same 

exemptions for the records from those 

‘‘other’’ systems that are entered into 

this system, as claimed for the original 

primary system of which they are a part. 

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

through (k)(7). 

(3) Reasons: Records are only exempt 

from pertinent provisions of 5 U.S.C. 

552a to the extent such provisions have 

been identified and an exemption 

claimed for the original record and the 

purposes underlying the exemption for 

the original record still pertain to the 

record which is now contained in this 

system of records. In general, the 

exemptions were claimed in order to 

protect properly classified information 

relating to national defense and foreign 

policy, to avoid interference during the 

conduct of criminal, civil, or 

administrative actions or investigations, 

to ensure protective services provided 

the President and others are not 

compromised, to protect the identity of 

confidential sources incident to Federal 

employment, military service, contract, 

and security clearance determinations, 

to preserve the confidentiality and 

integrity of Federal testing materials, 

and to safeguard evaluation materials 

used for military promotions when 

furnished by a confidential source. The 

exemption rule for the original records 

will identify the specific reasons why 

the records are exempt from specific 

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

Dated: July 8, 2011. 

Patricia L. Toppings, 

OSD Federal Register, Liaison Officer, 

Department of Defense. 

[FR Doc. 2011–20245 Filed 8–10–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 5001–06–P 


wreier-aviles on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with RULES