Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 182 / Tuesday, September 20, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 58103 

21 44 U.S.C. 3507(d). 

22See Order No. 693, FERC Stats. & Regs. 

¶ 31,242 at P 1901–1907. 

23Regulations Implementing the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969, Order No. 486, 

52 FR 47897 (Dec. 17, 1987), FERC Stats. & Regs. 

Preambles 1986–1990 ¶ 30,783 (1987). 

24 18 CFR 380.4(a)(2)(ii). 

25 5 U.S.C. 601–612. 

26 13 CFR 121.101. 

27 13 CFR 121.201, Section 22, Utilities, & n.1. 

subject to review under section 3507(d) 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 

1995.21

20. As stated above, the Commission 

approved, in Order No. 693, Reliability 

Standard TOP–001–1 that is the subject 

of the current rulemaking. This Final 

Rule approves the interpretation of the 

previously approved Reliability 

Standard, which was developed by 

NERC as the ERO. The interpretation, as 

clarified, relates to an existing 

Reliability Standard, and the 

Commission does not expect it to affect 

entities’ current reporting burden.22

Accordingly, we will submit this Final 

Rule to OMB for informational purposes 

only. 

21. Interested persons may obtain 

information on the reporting 

requirements by contacting the 

following: Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission, 888 First Street, NE., 

Washington, DC 20426 [Attention: Ellen 

Brown, Office of the Executive Director, 

e-mail: DataClearance@ferc.gov, Phone: 

(202) 502–8663, fax: (202) 273–0873]. 

V. Environmental Analysis 

22. The Commission is required to 

prepare an Environmental Assessment 

or an Environmental Impact Statement 

for any action that may have a 

significant adverse effect on the human 

environment.23 The Commission has 

categorically excluded certain actions 

from this requirement as not having a 

significant effect on the human 

environment. Included in the exclusion 

are rules that are clarifying, corrective, 

or procedural or that do not 

substantially change the effect of the 

regulations being amended.24 The 

actions proposed herein fall within this 

categorical exclusion in the 

Commission’s regulations. 

VI. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

23. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 

1980 (RFA) 25 generally requires a 

description and analysis of final rules 

that will have significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. The RFA mandates 

consideration of regulatory alternatives 

that accomplish the stated objectives of 

a final rule and that minimize any 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

The Small Business Administration’s 

(SBA) Office of Size Standards develops 

the numerical definition of a small 

business.26 The SBA has established a 

size standard for electric utilities, 

stating that a firm is small if, including 

its affiliates, it is primarily engaged in 

the transmission, generation and/or 

distribution of electric energy for sale 

and its total electric output for the 

preceding twelve months did not exceed 

four million megawatt hours.27 The RFA 

is not implicated by this Final Rule 

because the interpretations discussed 

herein will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. 

24. The Commission approved 

Reliability Standard TOP–001–1 in 2007 

in Order No. 693. The Final Rule in the 

immediate docket addresses an 

interpretation of Requirement R8 of 

previously-approved TOP–001–1. The 

interpretation clarifies current 

compliance obligations of balancing 

authorities and transmission operators 

and therefore, does not create an 

additional regulatory impact on small 

entities. 

VII. Document Availability 

25. In addition to publishing the full 

text of this document in the Federal 

Register, the Commission provides all 

interested persons an opportunity to 

view and/or print the contents of this 

document via the Internet through 

FERC’s Home Page (http://www.ferc.gov) 

and in FERC’s Public Reference Room 

during normal business hours (8:30 a.m. 

to 5 p.m. eastern time) at 888 First 

Street, NE., Room 2A, Washington, DC 

20426. 

26. From FERC’s Home Page on the 

Internet, this information is available on 

eLibrary. The full text of this document 

is available on eLibrary in PDF and 

Microsoft Word format for viewing, 

printing, and/or downloading. To access 

this document in eLibrary, type the 

docket number excluding the last three 

digits of this document in the docket 

number field. 

27. User assistance is available for 

eLibrary and the FERC’s website during 

normal business hours from FERC 

Online Support at 202–502–6652 (toll 

free at 1–866–208–3676) or e-mail at 

ferconlinesupport@ferc.gov, or the 

Public Reference Room at (202) 502– 

8371, TTY (202) 502–8659. E-mail the 

Public Reference Room at 

public.referenceroom@ferc.gov. 

VIII. Effective Date and Congressional 

Notification 

28. These regulations are effective 

November 21, 2011. The Commission 

has determined, with the concurrence of 

the Administrator of the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs of 

OMB, that this rule is not a ‘‘major rule’’ 

as defined in section 351 of the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996. 

List of Subjects in 18 CFR Part 40 

Electric power, Electric utilities, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

By the Commission. 

Kimberly D. Bose, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2011–24088 Filed 9–19–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6717–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Office of the Secretary 

[Docket ID: DoD–2011–OS–0004] 

32 CFR Part 311 

Privacy Act of 1974; Implementation 

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, DoD. 

ACTION: Direct final rule with request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: The Office of the Secretary of 

Defense is exempting those records 

contained in DMDC 14 DoD, entitled 

‘‘Defense Clearance and Investigations 

Index (DCII)’’, pertaining to 

investigatory material compiled for law 

enforcement purposes to enable OSD 

components to conduct certain 

investigations and relay law 

enforcement information without 

compromise of the information, protect 

investigative techniques and efforts 

employed, and identities of confidential 

sources who might not otherwise come 

forward and who furnished information 

under an express promise that the 

sources’ identity would be held in 

confidence. The exemption will allow 

DoD to provide protection against 

notification of investigatory material 

including certain reciprocal 

investigations and counterintelligence 

information, 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. Further, 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
58104 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 182 / Tuesday, September 20, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

requiring OSD to grant access to records 

and agency rules for access and 

amendment of records would unfairly 

impede the investigation of allegations 

of unlawful activities. To require OSD to 

confirm or deny the existence of a 

record pertaining to a requesting 

individual may in itself provide an 

answer to that individual relating to an 

on-going investigation. The 

investigation of possible unlawful 

activities would be jeopardized by 

agency rules requiring verification of 

record, disclosure of the record to the 

subject, and record amendment 

procedures. 

This direct final rule makes 

nonsubstantive changes to the Office of 

the Secretary Privacy Program rules. 

These changes will allow the 

Department to add an exemption rule to 

the Office of the Secretary of Defense 

Privacy Program rules that will exempt 

applicable Department records and/or 

material from certain portions of the 

Privacy Act. This change will allow the 

Department to move part of the 

Department’s personnel security 

program records from the Defense 

Security Service Privacy Program to the 

Office of the Secretary of Defense 

Privacy Program. 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. 

DATES: The rule will be effective on 

November 29, 2011 unless comments 

are received that would result in a 

contrary determination. Comments will 

be accepted on or before November 21, 

2011. 

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, 1160 Defense Pentagon, 

Washington, DC 20301–1160. 

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. 

Cindy Allard at (703) 588–6830. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 

direct final rule is consistent with the 

rule currently published at 32 CFR part 

321.13(h) and another rule is being 

published to remove and reserve 

321.13(h). 

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 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 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 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 

amended 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)(20) to read as follows: 

§ 311.8 Procedures for exemptions. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(20) System identifier and name: 

DMDC 14 DoD, Defense Clearance and 

Investigations Index. 

(i) Exemptions: Investigatory material 

compiled for law enforcement purposes 

may be exempt pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 

552a(k)(2). However, if an individual is 

denied any right, privilege, or benefit for 

which he would otherwise be entitled 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 182 / Tuesday, September 20, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 58105 

by Federal law or 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. Any portion of 

this system that falls under the 

provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(2) may be 

exempt from the following subjections 

of 5 U.S.C. 552a(c)(3); (d); (e)(1); 

(e)(4)(G), (H), and (I) and (f). 

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

(iii) Reasons: (A) From subsection 

(c)(3) because it will enable OSD 

components to conduct certain 

investigations and relay law 

enforcement information without 

compromise of the information, 

protection of investigative techniques 

and efforts employed, and identities of 

confidential sources who might not 

otherwise come forward and 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). 

(B) From subsections (e)(1), (e)(4)(G), 

(H), and (I) because it will provide 

protection against notification of 

investigatory material including certain 

reciprocal investigations and 

counterintelligence information, 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). 

(C) From subsections (d) and (f) 

because requiring OSD to grant access to 

records and agency rules for access and 

amendment of records would unfairly 

impede the investigation of allegations 

of unlawful activities. To require OSD to 

confirm or deny the existence of a 

record pertaining to a requesting 

individual may in itself provide an 

answer to that individual relating to an 

on-going investigation. The 

investigation of possible unlawful 

activities would be jeopardized by 

agency rules requiring verification of 

record, disclosure of the record to the 

subject, and record amendment 

procedures. 

Dated: August 24, 2011. 

Patricia L. Toppings, 

OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, 

Department of Defense. 

[FR Doc. 2011–23758 Filed 9–19–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 5001–06–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 165 

[Docket No. USCG–2011–0857] 

RIN 1625–AA11 

Regulated Navigation Area; Saugus 

River, Lynn, MA 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Temporary final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is 

establishing a Regulated Navigation 

Area (RNA) on the navigable waters of 

the Saugus River in Lynn, 

Massachusetts. This temporary rule 

allows the Coast Guard to suspend all 

vessel traffic within the regulated area 

to allow for stabilization operations that 

could pose a safety hazard to vessels 

operating in the area. This temporary 

rule is necessary to enhance vessel 

safety, marine environmental 

protection, and provide for the safety of 

life on the navigable waters during the 

removal of a damaged section of the 

Energy Systems Pipeline Bridge at Mile 

2.3 of the Saugus River. 

DATES: This rule is effective in the CFR 

on September 20, 2011 until 5 p.m. on 

November 9, 2011. This rule is effective 

with actual notice for purposes of 

enforcement from 8 a.m. on September 

12, 2011 until 5 p.m. on November 9, 

2011. 

ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this 

preamble as being available in the 

docket are part of docket USCG–2011– 

0857 and are available online by going 

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

USCG–2011–0857 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 temporary 

rule, call or e-mail Mr. Mark Cutter, U.S. 

Coast Guard Sector Boston Waterways 

Management Division, Coast Guard; 

telephone 617–223–4000, e-mail 

Mark.E.Cutter@uscg.mil, or Lieutenant 

Junior Grade Isaac Slavitt, Coast Guard 

First District Waterways Management 

Branch, telephone 617–223–8385, email Isaac.M.Slavitt@uscg.mil. If you 

have questions on viewing or submitting 

material to the docket, call Renee V. 

Wright, Program Manager, Docket 

Operations, telephone 202–366–9826. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Regulatory Information 

The Coast Guard is issuing this 

temporary rule without prior notice and 

opportunity to comment pursuant to 

authority under section 4(a) of the 

Administrative Procedures Act (APA), 5 

U.S.C. 553(b). This provision authorizes 

an agency to issue a rule without prior 

notice and opportunity to comment 

when the agency for good cause finds 

that those procedures are 

‘‘impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary 

to the public interest.’’ Under 5 U.S.C. 

553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that 

good cause exists for not publishing a 

notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) 

with respect to this rule; notice and 

comment is impracticable because 

immediate action is necessary to ensure 

the safety of the public in the vicinity 

of construction operations being 

conducted in the Saugus River. 

Serious damage to this pipeline bridge 

was caused during Tropical Storm Irene, 

which passed through Boston on 28 

August, 2011. Currently, the pipeline is 

leaning over precariously and is in 

danger of collapsing. Two phases of 

work are needed for this pipeline: 

stabilization (which may include 

removal of the damaged segment), and 

then full removal at a later date. This 

rule addresses only emergency 

stabilization efforts. A separate rule will 

be promulgated with normal notice and 

comment periods for the longer term 

full repair project. 

On September 1, 2011, General 

Electric, the pipeline operators, advised 

that the Energy Systems Pipeline bridge 

demolition project would require 

periodic closures of the Saugus River at 

mile 2.3 to remove the damaged piping 

support structure. The hazard that the 

damaged portion of the Energy Systems 

Pipeline bridge poses to the navigational 

channel necessitates that all mariners 

comply with this RNA. Immediate 

action is needed to control vessels 

operating in the restricted waterway in 

order to facilitate repairs and to protect 

the maritime public from the hazards 

associated with the stabilization of this 

damaged structure. Publishing a NPRM 

and waiting 30 days for comment would 

be contrary to the public interest since 

immediate action is needed to restrict 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES