Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 52 / Friday, March 16, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 15585 

AIRAC date State City Airport FDC FDC date Subject 

5–Apr–12 ...... ME Bangor ............................... Bangor Intl ......................... 2/7098 2/23/12 ILS OR LOC RWY 15, ILS

RWY 15 (CAT II), ILS 

RWY 15 (CAT III), Amdt 

6A. 

5–Apr–12 ...... IL Chicago/Lake In The Hills Lake In The Hills ................ 2/7102 2/23/12 Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Orig. 

5–Apr–12 ...... AL Huntsville ........................... Huntsville Intl—Carl T 

Jones Field.

2/7139 2/23/12 VOR A, Amdt 12A. 

5–Apr–12 ...... TX Dallas-Fort Worth ............... Dallas-Fort Worth Intl ......... 2/7608 2/22/12 ILS RWY 13R (SA CAT II), 

Amdt 8. 

5–Apr–12 ...... TN Knoxville ............................. McGhee Tyson .................. 2/7680 2/23/12 RNAV (GPS) RWY 5L, 

Amdt 1A. 

5–Apr–12 ...... TX Waco .................................. Waco Rgnl ......................... 2/7711 2/22/12 RNAV (GPS) RWY 32, 

Orig. 

5–Apr–12 ...... TX Port Aransas ...................... Mustang Beach .................. 2/7820 2/23/12 RNAV (GPS) RWY 12, 

Orig-A. 

5–Apr–12 ...... TX Port Aransas ...................... Mustang Beach .................. 2/7821 2/23/12 RNAV (GPS) RWY 30, 

Orig-A. 

5–Apr–12 ...... TX Houston .............................. Ellington Field .................... 2/8123 2/23/12 RNAV (GPS) RWY 35L, 

Orig-B. 

5–Apr–12 ...... NC Greensboro ........................ Piedmont Triad Intl ............ 2/8139 2/27/12 ILS RWY 5R (CAT II), 

Amdt 7A. 

5–Apr–12 ...... NC Greensboro ........................ Piedmont Triad Intl ............ 2/8140 2/27/12 ILS RWY 5L (CAT III), 

Orig-A. 

5–Apr–12 ...... NC Greensboro ........................ Piedmont Triad Intl ............ 2/8141 2/27/12 ILS OR LOC RWY 23R, 

Orig-A. 

5–Apr–12 ...... NC Greensboro ........................ Piedmont Triad Intl ............ 2/8142 2/27/12 RNAV (GPS) RWY 5L, 

Orig-A. 

5–Apr–12 ...... NC Greensboro ........................ Piedmont Triad Intl ............ 2/8143 2/27/12 ILS OR LOC RWY 5L, 

Orig-A. 

5–Apr–12 ...... NC Greensboro ........................ Piedmont Triad Intl ............ 2/8144 2/27/12 ILS RWY 5L (CAT II), OrigA. 

5–Apr–12 ...... NC Greensboro ........................ Piedmont Triad Intl ............ 2/8146 2/27/12 ILS OR LOC RWY 5R, 

Amdt 7A. 

5–Apr–12 ...... NC Greensboro ........................ Piedmont Triad Intl ............ 2/8148 2/27/12 RNAV (GPS) RWY 23R, 

Orig-A. 

5–Apr–12 ...... AZ Phoenix .............................. Phoenix Sky Harbor Intl ..... 2/8151 2/27/12 ILS OR LOC RWY 25L, 

Amdt 1E. 

5–Apr–12 ...... AZ Phoenix .............................. Phoenix Sky Harbor Intl ..... 2/8152 2/27/12 ILS OR LOC RWY 7R, 

Amdt 2. 

5–Apr–12 ...... UT Vernal ................................. Vernal Rgnl ........................ 2/8182 2/23/12 RNAV (GPS) RWY 34, 

Amdt 1. 

5–Apr–12 ...... SC Aiken .................................. Aiken Muni ......................... 2/8273 2/23/12 RNAV (GPS) RWY 7, Amdt 

1. 

5–Apr–12 ...... SC Aiken .................................. Aiken Muni ......................... 2/8274 2/23/12 ILS OR LOC/DME RWY 7,

Orig. 

5–Apr–12 ...... IN Jeffersonville ...................... Clark Rgnl .......................... 2/8287 2/22/12 NDB RWY 18, Amdt 1. 

5–Apr–12 ...... IN Jeffersonville ...................... Clark Rgnl .......................... 2/8288 2/22/12 ILS OR LOC RWY 18, 

Amdt 2. 

5–Apr–12 ...... IN Auburn ............................... De Kalb County ................. 2/8896 2/22/12 VOR RWY 9, Amdt 7B. 

5–Apr–12 ...... ND Bismarck ............................ Bismarck Muni ................... 2/8897 2/23/12 ILS OR LOC RWY 31, 

Amdt 33. 

5–Apr–12 ...... MN Bemidji ............................... Bemidji Rgnl ....................... 2/9058 2/22/12 RNAV (GPS) RWY 25, 

Orig. 

5–Apr–12 ...... NH Portsmouth ......................... Portsmouth Intl at Peasea 2/9382 2/23/12 Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Orig. 

5–Apr–12 ...... AK Kodiak ................................ Kodiak ................................ 2/9393 2/22/12 ILS OR LOC/DME Y RWY 

25, Amdt 2. 

5–Apr–12 ...... ME Brunswick ........................... Brunswick Executive .......... 2/9657 2/23/12 ILS OR LOC/DME RWY 

1R, Orig. 

[FR Doc. 2012–6006 Filed 3–15–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Office of the Secretary 

[Docket ID DoD–2010–OS–0183] 

32 CFR Part 311 

Privacy Act; Implementation 

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, DoD. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Office of the Secretary of 

Defense is exempting those records 

contained in DMDC 15 DoD, entitled 

‘‘Armed Services Military Accession 

Testing’’ when the record includes the 

specific answers submitted and the 

answer key. Releasing this information 

to the individual will compromise the 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES
15586 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 52 / Friday, March 16, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

objectivity or fairness of the test if the 

correct or incorrect answers are 

released. 

DATES: This rule is effective March 16, 

2012. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mrs. 

Cindy Allard at (703) 588–6830. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Proposed Rule was published on 

January 3, 2011, in the Federal Register 

(76 FR 56–57). During the comment 

period, two public comments were 

received. 

The first commenter asserted that the 

proposed Privacy Act exemption rule 

‘‘could possibly be viewed as a violation 

of [the] constitutional rights * * * [of] 

U.S. citizen[s],’’ making reference to the 

Third, Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth 

Amendments of the Constitution. Also 

the first commenter commented that the 

provision ‘‘of the answers and/or 

answer keys should be at the discretion 

of the test taker, i.e., U.S. citizens.’’ 

The Privacy Act exemption rule 

addresses an individual’s answers to the 

Armed Services Vocational Aptitude 

Battery (ASVAB) and the appropriate 

answer key, allowing the Department of 

Defense to exempt an individual’s 

ASVAB answers and the answer key 

from the access provisions of the 

Privacy Act of 1974. 

The exemption rule is intended to 

ensure that individuals will not 

compromise the purpose of the 

ASVAB—to ascertain the skills and 

abilities of individuals joining the 

military or seeking to join the military. 

If individuals were allowed to have the 

specific responses to the questions as 

well as the correct answers, the 

Department of Defense would be unable 

to ensure that individuals were placed 

in jobs for which they had an aptitude, 

or more importantly, placed in jobs for 

which they had no aptitude. If 

individuals were allowed to have their 

individual responses as well as the 

correct answers, the integrity and 

scoring of the battery would be 

compromised rendering the testing 

worthless. 

Individuals taking the test are 

provided a copy of their scores along 

with an explanation of what the given 

scores indicate. 

The exemption rule is consistent with 

the Privacy Act, its underlying 

purposes, and the U.S. Constitution. 

Further, the rules published at 32 CFR 

part 311, The OSD Privacy Program, 

provide individuals an opportunity to 

appeal the denial of access to their 

records, which could include the 

consideration of alleged constitutional 

rights violations arising out of the denial 

of access to requested records. 

The second commenter did not 

address the proposed exemption rule 

but addressed the first commenter’s 

comments. 

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 this 

Privacy Act rule for the Department of 

Defense imposes no information 

requirements beyond the Department of 

Defense and that the information 

collected within the Department of 

Defense is necessary and consistent 

with 5 U.S.C. 552a, known as the 

Privacy Act of 1974. 

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 to read 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)(16) to read as follows: 

§ 311.8 Procedures for exemptions. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(16) System identifier and name: 

DMDC 15 DoD, Armed Services Military 

Accession Testing. 

(i) Exemption: Testing or examination 

material used solely to determine 

individual qualifications for 

appointment or promotion in the 

Federal service or military service may 

be exempt pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 

552a(k)(6), if the disclosure would 

compromise the objectivity or fairness 

of the test or examination process. 

Therefore, portions of the system of 

records may be exempt pursuant to 5 

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

(ii) Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(6). 

(iii) Reasons: (A) An exemption is 

required for those portions of the Skill 

Qualification Test system pertaining to 

individual item responses and scoring 

keys to preclude compromise of the test 

and to ensure fairness and objectivity of 

the evaluation system. 

(B) From subsection (d)(1) when 

access to those portions of the Skill 

Qualification Test records would reveal 

the individual item responses and 

scoring keys. Disclosure of the 

individual item responses and scoring 

keys will compromise the objectivity 

and fairness of the test as well as the 

validity of future tests resulting in the 

Department being unable to use the 

testing battery as an individual 

assessment tool. 

* * * * * 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 52 / Friday, March 16, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 15587 

Dated: February 28, 2012. 

Patricia L. Toppings, 

OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, 

Department of Defense. 

[FR Doc. 2012–6169 Filed 3–15–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 5001–06–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Office of the Secretary 

[Docket ID DoD–2012–OS–0027] 

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 11, entitled 

‘‘Investigative Records Repository’’, 

when investigatory material is compiled 

solely for the purpose of determining 

suitability, eligibility, or qualifications 

for Federal civilian employment, 

military service, Federal contracts, or 

access to classified information, but 

only to the extent that such material 

would reveal the identity of a 

confidential source. 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 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, 

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. 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 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 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). 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES