15590 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 52 / Friday, March 16, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

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: February 28, 2012. 

Patricia L. Toppings, 

OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, 

Department of Defense. 

[FR Doc. 2012–6168 Filed 3–15–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 5001–06–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Office of the Secretary 

[Docket ID DoD–2012–OS–0035] 

32 CFR Part 319 

Privacy Act; Implementation 

AGENCY: Defense Intelligence Agency, 

DoD. 

ACTION: Direct final rule with request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: Defense Intelligence Agency 

(DIA) is proposing to update the DIA 

Privacy Act Program by adding an 

exemption to accurately describe the 

basis for exempting the records in the 

system of records notice LDIA 0660, 

Security and Counterintelligence 

Records. This direct final rule makes 

nonsubstantive changes to the Defense 

Intelligence Agency (DIA) Privacy 

Program rules. These changes will allow 

the Department to add an exemption 

rule to the DIA 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 is effective on May 25, 

2012 unless comments are received that 

would result in a contrary 

determination. Comments will be 

accepted on or before May 15, 2012. If 

DoD receives a significant adverse 

comment, the Department will publish 

a withdrawal of this direct final 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, 

2nd Floor, East Tower, 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. 

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 publish a withdrawal 

of this direct final rule 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 319 

Privacy. 

Accordingly, 32 CFR part 319 is 

amended as follows: 

PART 319—DEFENSE INTELLIGENCE 

AGENCY PRIVACY PROGRAM 

■ 1. The authority citation for 32 CFR 

Part 319.13 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: Pub. L. 93–579, 88 Stat. 1896 

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


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 52 / Friday, March 16, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 15591 

■ 2. Section 319.13 is amended by 

revising paragraph (e) to read as follows: 

§ 319.13 Specific exemptions. 

* * * * * 

(e) System identifier and name: LDIA 

0660, Security and Counterintelligence 

Files. 

(1) Exemption: Any portion of this 

record system which falls within the 

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

and (k)(6) may be exempt from the 

following subsections of 5 U.S.C. 552a: 

(c)(3), (d), (e)(1), (e)(4)(G), (e)(4)(H), and 

(e)(4)(I). 

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

(k)(5) and (k)(6). 

(3) Reasons: The reasons for asserting 

these exemptions are to ensure the 

integrity of the adjudication process 

used by the Agency to determine the 

suitability, eligibility or qualification for 

Federal service with the Agency and to 

make determinations concerning the 

questions of access to classified 

materials and activities. The proper 

execution of this function requires that 

the Agency have the ability to obtain 

candid and necessary information in 

order to fully develop or resolve 

pertinent information developed in the 

process. Potential sources, out of fear or 

retaliation, exposure or other action, 

may be unwilling to provide needed 

information or may not be sufficiently 

frank to be a value in personnel 

screening, thereby seriously interfering 

with the proper conduct and 

adjudication of such matters; and 

protects information used for medical, 

psychological evaluations, security 

questionnaires and polygraph testing. 

* * * * * 

Dated: February 28, 2012. 

Patricia L. Toppings, 

OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, 

Department of Defense. 

[FR Doc. 2012–6176 Filed 3–15–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 5001–06–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Office of the Secretary 

[Docket ID DOD–2012–OS–0034] 

32 CFR Part 319 

Privacy Act; Implementation 

AGENCY: Defense Intelligence Agency, 

DoD. 

ACTION: Direct final rule with request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: The Defense Intelligence 

Agency is deleting an exemption rule 

for LDIA 0275, ‘‘DoD Hotline Referrals’’ 

in its entirety. This direct final rule 

makes nonsubstantive changes to the 

Defense Intelligence Agency Privacy 

Program rules. These changes will allow 

the Department to transfer these records 

to another system of records, LDIA 

0271.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 is effective on May 25, 

2012 unless comments are received that 

would result in a contrary 

determination. Comments will be 

accepted on or before May 15, 2012. If 

DoD receives a significant adverse 

comment, the Department will publish 

a withdrawal of this direct final rule in 

the Federal Register. 

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, 4800 Mark Center Drive, 

2nd Floor, East Tower, Suite 02G09, 

Alexandria, VA 22350–3100. 

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 Programs. 

DoD expects no opposition to the 

changes and no significant adverse 

comments. However, if DoD receives a 

significant adverse comment, the 

Department will publish a withdrawal 

of this direct final rule 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. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES