### 22613 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 78 / Friday, April 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

Dated: April 8, 2011. Patricia L. Toppings, OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.

[FR Doc. 2011–9745 Filed 4–21–11; 8:45 am]

**BILLING CODE 5001–06–P**

**DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE**

**Office of the Secretary**

**32 CFR Part 311**

**[Docket ID: DoD–2011–OS–0010]**

**Privacy Act; Implementation**

**AGENCY :**  Office of the Secretary, DoD.

**ACTION :**  Direct final rule with request for

comments.

**SUMMARY :**  The Office of the Secretary of Defense is proposing to exempt one (1) new system of records, DA&M 01, entitled, ‘‘ Civil Liberties Program Case Management System ’’ from subsections (c)(3); (d)(1), (2), (3), (4); (e)(1) and (e)(4)(G), (H), (I); and (f) of the Privacy Act, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k).

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 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 July 1, 2011 unless comments are received that would result in a contrary determination. Comments will be accepted on or before June 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, Room 3C843, 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 :**  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 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 of

1995 ’’

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—[AMENDED]**

■ 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)(19) as follows:

**§ 311.8 Procedures for exemptions.**

* * * * *

(c) * * * (19) System identifier and name: DA&M 01, Civil Liberties Program Case Management System.

(i) Exemptions: Records contained in this System of Records may be


### 22614 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 78 / Friday, April 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

exempted from the requirements of subsections (c)(3); (d)(1), (2), (3), and (4); (e)(1) and (e)(4)(G), (H), and (I); and (f) of the Privacy Act pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(1). Records may be exempted from these subsections or, additionally, from the requirements of subsections (c)(4); (e)(2), (3), and (8) of the Privacy Act of 1974 consistent with any exemptions claimed under 5 U.S.C. 552a (j)(2) or (k)(1), (k)(2), or (k)(5) by the originator of the record, provided the reason for the exemption remains valid and necessary. An exemption rule for this system has been promulgated in accordance with the requirements of 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(1), (2), and (3), (c) and (e) and is published at 32 CFR part 311.

(ii) Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552a (j)(2), (k)(1), (k)(2), or (k)(5).

(iii) Reasons: (A) From subsections (c)(3) (accounting of disclosures) because an accounting of disclosures from records concerning the record subject would specifically reveal an intelligence or investigative interest on the part of the Department of Defense and could result in release of properly classified national security or foreign policy information.

(B) From subsections (d)(1), (2), (3) and (4) (record subject’s right to access and amend records) because affording access and amendment rights could alert the record subject to the investigative interest of law enforcement agencies or compromise sensitive information classified in the interest of national security. In the absence of a national security basis for exemption, records in this system may be exempted from access and amendment to the extent necessary to honor promises of confidentiality to persons providing information concerning a candidate for position. Inability to maintain such confidentiality would restrict the free flow of information vital to a determination of a candidate’s qualifications and suitability.

(C) From subsection (e)(1) (maintain only relevant and necessary records) because in the collection of information for investigatory purposes, it is not always possible to determine the relevance and necessity of particular information in the early stages of the investigation. It is only after the information is evaluated in light of other information that its relevance and necessity becomes clear. In the absence of a national security basis for exemption under subjection (k)(1), records in this system may be exempted from the relevance requirement pursuant to subjection (k)(5) because it is not possible to determine in advance what exact information may assist in determining the qualifications and suitability of a candidate for position. Seemingly irrelevant details, when combined with other data, can provide a useful composite for determining whether a candidate should be appointed.

(D) From subsections (e)(4)(G) and (H) (publication of procedures for notifying subject of the existence of records about them and how they may access records and contest contents) because the system is exempted from subsection (d) provisions regarding access and amendment, and from the subsection (f) requirement to promulgate agency rules. Nevertheless, the Office of the Secretary of Defense has published notice concerning notification, access, and contest procedures because it may, in certain circumstances, determine it appropriate to provide subjects access to all or a portion of the records about them in this system of records.

(E) From subsection (e)(4)(I) (identifying sources of records in the system of records) because identifying sources could result in disclosure of properly classified national defense or foreign policy information, intelligence sources and methods, and investigatory techniques and procedures. Notwithstanding its proposed exemption from this requirement the Office of the Secretary of Defense identifies record sources in broad categories sufficient to provide general notice of the origins of the information it maintains in this system of records.

(F) From subsection (f) (agency rules for notifying subjects to the existence of records about them, for accessing and amending records, and for assessing fees) because the system is exempt from subsection (d) provisions regarding access and amendment of records by record subjects. Nevertheless, the Office of the Secretary of Defense has published agency rules concerning notification of a subject in response to his request if any system of records named by the subject contains a record pertaining to him and procedures by which the subject may access or amend the records. Notwithstanding exemption, the Office of the Secretary of Defense may determine it appropriate to satisfy a record subject’s access request.

Dated: April 8, 2011. Patricia L. Toppings, OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.

[FR Doc. 2011–9746 Filed 4–21–11; 8:45 am]

**BILLING CODE 5001–06–P DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE** 

**Office of the Secretary**

**[Docket ID: DoD–2008–OS–0053]**

**32 CFR Part 322**

**Privacy Act; Implementation**

**AGENCY :**  National Security Agency/ Central Security Services, DoD.

**ACTION :**  Final rule.

**SUMMARY :**  The National Security Agency/Central Security Services (NSA/ CSS) is adding an exemption rule for the system of records GNSA 23, ‘‘ NSA/CSS Operations Security Support Program and Training Files ’’ when an exemption has been previously claimed for the records in another Privacy Act system of records. The exemption is intended to preserve the exempt status of the record when the purposes underlying the exemption for the original records are still valid and necessary to protect the contents of the records.

**DATES :**  Effective Date: April 22, 2011.

**FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT :**  Ms. Anne Hill at (301) 688–6527.

**SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION :**  The proposed rule was published on May 19, 2008 (73 FR 28767–29768). No comments were received.

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.