Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 210 / Thursday, October 30, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 64507 

not expect to receive any adverse 

comments, and so a proposed rule is 

unnecessary. 

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 this rule 

is not a significant rule. This rule does 

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 certified that this rule does 

not have a 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. A Regulatory Flexibility 

Analysis is not required. 

Public Law 96–511, ‘‘Paperwork 

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

It has been determined that this rule 

does not impose additional information 

collection requirements on the public 

under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 

1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). 

Section 202, Public Law 104–4, 

‘‘Unfunded Mandates Reform Act’’ 

It has been determined that this rule 

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 it will not 

significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments. 

Executive Order 13132, ‘‘Federalism’’ 

It has been determined that this rule 

does not have federalism implications. 

This 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. Therefore, no 

Federalism assessment is required. 

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: 5 U.S.C. 522a. 

■ 2. Section 311.8 is amended by adding 

paragraph (c)(21) to read as follows: 

§ 311.8 Procedures for exemptions. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(21) System identifier and name: 

DWHS E05, Mandatory Declassification 

Review Files. 

(i) Exemption: Information classified 

under E.O. 13526, as implemented by 

DoD 5200.1–R, may be exempt pursuant 

to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(1). 

(ii) Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(1). 

(iii) Reasons: From subsection 5 

U.S.C. 552a(d) because granting access 

to information that is properly classified 

pursuant to E.O. 13526, as implemented 

by DoD 5200.1–R, may cause damage to 

the national security. 

Dated: October 27, 2014. 

Aaron Siegel, 

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison 

Officer, Department of Defense. 

[FR Doc. 2014–25819 Filed 10–29–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 5001–06–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Office of the Secretary 

32 CFR Part 311 

[Docket ID: DoD–2014–OS–0126] 

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 DPFPA 05, entitled 

‘‘Computer Aided Dispatch and Records 

Management System (CAD/RMS),’’ 

pertaining to investigatory material 

compiled for law enforcement purposes 

(under (j)(2) of the Act) to enable OSD 

to conduct certain investigations and 

relay law enforcement information 

without compromise of the information, 

and protect investigative techniques and 

efforts employed, as well as 

investigatory material compiled for law 

enforcement purposes (under (k)(2) of 

the Act), other than material within the 

scope of subsection (k)(2) of the Privacy 

Act to enable the protection of 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 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, 

requiring OSD to grant access to records 

and amend these 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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
64508 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 210 / Thursday, October 30, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

record, disclosure of the record to the 

subject, and record amendment 

procedures. 

DATES: This rule will be effective on 

January 8, 2015 unless adverse 

comments are received by December 29, 

2014. If adverse comment is received, 

the Department of Defense will publish 

a timely withdrawal of the rule in the 

Federal Register. 

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, 4800 Mark Center Drive, 

Suite 02G09, Alexandria, VA 22350– 

3100. 

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 (571) 372–0461. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 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 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. 

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 Programs. 

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 this rule 

is not a significant rule. This rule does 

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 certified that this rule will 

not have a 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. A Regulatory Flexibility 

Analysis is not required. 

Public Law 95–511, ‘‘Paperwork 

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

This rule does not contain any 

information collection requirements 

subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act 

of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). 

Section 202, Public Law 104–4, 

‘‘Unfunded Mandates Reform Act’’ 

It has been determined that this rule 

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 it will not 

significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments. 

Executive Order 13132, ‘‘Federalism’’ 

It has been determined that this 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. Therefore, 

no Federalism assessment is required. 

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: 5 U.S.C. 522a. 

■ 2. Section 311.8 is amended by adding 

paragraph (c)(22) to read as follows: 

§ 311.8 Procedures for exemptions. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(22) System identifier and name: 

DPFPA 05, Computer Aided Dispatch 

and Records Management System (CAD/ 

RMS). 

(i) Exemptions: Portions of this 

system that fall within 5 U.S.C. 

552a(j)(2) and/or (k)(2) are exempt from 

the following provisions of 5 U.S.C. 

552a, section (c)(3) and (4); (d); (e)(1) 

through (e)(3); (e)(4)(G) through (I); 

(e)(5); (e)(8); (f) and (g) of the Act, as 

applicable. 

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

(k)(2). 

(iii) Reasons: (A) From subsections 

(c)(3) and (4) because making available 

to a record subject the accounting of 

disclosure from records concerning him 

or her would specifically reveal any 

investigative interest in the individual. 

Revealing this information could 

reasonably be expected to compromise 

ongoing efforts to investigate a known or 

suspected offender by notifying the 

record subject that he or she is under 

investigation. This information could 

also permit the record subject to take 

measures to impede the investigation, 

e.g., destroy evidence, intimidate 

potential witnesses, or flee the area to 

avoid or impede the investigation. 

(B) From subsection (d) because these 

provisions concern individual access to 

and amendment of certain records 

contained in this system, including law 

enforcement and investigatory records. 

Compliance with these provisions could 

alert the subject of an investigation of 

the fact and nature of the investigation, 

and/or the investigative interest of law 

enforcement agencies; compromise 

sensitive information related to national 

security; interfere with the overall law 

enforcement process by leading to the 

destruction of evidence, improper 

influencing of witnesses, fabrication of 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 210 / Thursday, October 30, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 64509 

testimony, and/or flight of the subject; 

could identify a confidential source or 

disclose information which would 

constitute an unwarranted invasion of 

another’s personal privacy; reveal a 

sensitive investigative or constitute a 

potential danger to the health or safety 

of law enforcement personnel, 

confidential informants, and witnesses. 

Amendment of these records would 

interfere with ongoing law enforcement 

investigations and analysis activities 

and impose an excessive administrative 

burden by requiring investigations, 

analyses, and reports to be continuously 

reinvestigated and revised. 

(C) From subsections (e)(1) through 

(e)(3) because it is not always possible 

to determine what information is 

relevant and necessary at an early stage 

in a given investigation. Also, because 

DoD and other agencies may not always 

know what information about a known 

or suspected offender may be relevant to 

law enforcement for the purpose of 

conducting an operational response. 

(D) From subsections (e)(4)(G) through 

(I) (Agency Requirements) because 

portions of this system are exempt from 

the access and amendment provisions of 

subsection (d). 

(E) From subsection (e)(5) because the 

requirement that records be maintained 

with attention to accuracy, relevance, 

timeliness, and completeness would 

unfairly hamper the criminal 

investigative process. It is the nature of 

criminal 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 significant 

as further investigation brings new 

details to light. 

(F) From subsection (e)(8) because the 

requirement to serve notice on an 

individual when a record is disclosed 

under compulsory legal process could 

unfairly hamper law enforcement 

processes. It is the nature of law 

enforcement that there are instances 

where compliance with these provisions 

could alert the subject of an 

investigation of the fact and nature of 

the investigation, and/or the 

investigative interest of intelligence or 

law enforcement agencies; compromise 

sensitive information related to national 

security; interfere with the overall law 

enforcement process by leading to the 

destruction of evidence, improper 

influencing of witnesses, fabrication of 

testimony, and/or flight of the subject; 

reveal a sensitive investigative or 

intelligence technique; or constitute a 

potential danger to the health or safety 

of law enforcement personnel, 

confidential informants, and witnesses. 

(G) From subsection (f) because 

requiring the Agency to grant access to 

records and establishing agency rules 

for amendment of records would 

compromise the existence of any 

criminal, civil, or administrative 

enforcement activity. To require the 

confirmation or denial of the existence 

of a record pertaining to a requesting 

individual may in itself provide an 

answer to that individual relating to the 

existence of an on-going investigation. 

The investigation of possible unlawful 

activities would be jeopardized by 

agency rules requiring verification of the 

record, disclosure of the record to the 

subject, and record amendment 

procedures. 

(H) From subsection (g) for 

compatibility with the exemption 

claimed from subsection (f), the civil 

remedies provisions of subsection (g) 

must be suspended for this record 

system. Because of the nature of 

criminal investigations, standards of 

accuracy, relevance, timeliness and 

completeness cannot apply to this 

record system. Information gathered in 

criminal investigations if often 

fragmentary and leads relating to an 

individual in the context of one 

investigation may instead pertain to a 

second investigation. 

Dated: October 27, 2014. 

Aaron Siegel, 

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison 

Officer, Department of Defense. 

[FR Doc. 2014–25833 Filed 10–29–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 5001–06–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Office of the Secretary 

32 CFR Part 316 

[Docket ID: DoD–2014–OS–0128] 

Privacy Act of 1974; Implementation 

AGENCY: Defense Information Systems 

Agency, DoD. 

ACTION: Direct final rule with request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: The Defense Information 

Systems Agency is proposing to exempt 

a new system of records, K890.23, 

entitled ‘‘DISA Inspector General 

Investigative Tracker (DIGit)’’ from 5 

U.S.C. 552a(j)(2), (k)(2), and (k)(5), 

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

(e)(4)(H), (e)(4)(I) of the Privacy Act of 

1974, as amended. 

DATES: This rule will be effective on 

January 8, 2015 unless adverse 

comments are received by December 29, 

2014. If adverse comment is received, 

the Department of Defense will publish 

a timely withdrawal of the rule in the 

Federal Register. 

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, 4800 Mark Center Drive, 

East Tower, 2nd Floor, Suite 02G09, 

Alexandria, VA 22350–3100. 

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. 

Jeanette Weathers-Jenkins, DISA Privacy 

Officer, Chief Information Office, 6916 

Cooper Avenue, Fort Meade, MD 

20755–7901, or by phone at (301) 225– 

8158. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 

direct final rule makes no substantive 

changes to the Defense Information 

Systems Agency Privacy Program rules. 

These changes will allow the Office to 

add an exemption rule to the Defense 

Information Systems Agency Privacy 

Program rules that will exempt 

applicable 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. 

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 Programs. 

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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES