### 57644 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 180 / Friday, September 16, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

beginning on the date of the member’s death:

( i) Three years. ( ii) The period ending on the date on which such dependent attains 21 years of age.

( iii) In the case of such dependent who, at 21 years of age, is enrolled in a full-time course of study in a secondary school or in a full-time course of study in an institution of higher education approved by the administering Secretary and was, at the time of the member’s death, in factdependent on the member for over onehalf of such dependent’s support, the period ending on the earlier of the following dates: The date on which such dependent ceases to pursue such a course of study, as determined by the administering Secretary; or the date on which such dependent attains 23 years of age.

* * * * *

Dated: August 24, 2011. Patricia Toppings, OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 2011–23761 Filed 9–15–11; 8:45 am]

**BILLING CODE 5001–06–P**

**DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE**

**Office of the Secretary**

**32 CFR Part 256**

**[DoD Instruction 4165.57]**

**Air Installations Compatible Use Zones**

**AGENCY :**  Department of Defense.

**ACTION :**  Final rule.

**SUMMARY :**  This final rule removes the DoD’s rule concerning air installations compatible use zones. The underlying DoD Instruction has been revised and it has been determined that there is no need to publish the revised DoD Instruction as a rule in the Code of Federal Regulations since the Instruction is for the internal management of the DoD.

**DATES :**  Effective Date: September 16,
2011.

**FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT :**  Ms. Patricia L. Toppings at 703–696–5284.

**SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION :**  A copy of the current DoD Instruction may be obtained from http://www.dtic.mil/whs/ directives/corres/pdf/416557p.pdf

. List of Subjects in 32 CFR Part 256

Armed forces; airports; environmental protection; Federal buildings and facilities; navigation (air); noise control. **PART 256—[REMOVED]**

■ Accordingly, by the authority of 5 U.S.C. 301, 32 CFR part 256 is removed.

Dated: August 24, 2011. Patricia L. Toppings, OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 2011–23759 Filed 9–15–11; 8:45 am]

**BILLING CODE 5001–06–P**

**DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE**

**Office of the Secretary**

**32 CFR Part 311**

**[Docket ID: DoD–2011–OS–0004]**

**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 13, 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 will be effective on November 25, 2011 unless comments are received that would result in a contrary determination. Comments will be accepted on or before November 15,
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 :**  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


### 57645 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 180 / Friday, September 16, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

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)(17) to read as follows:

**§ 311.8 Procedures for exemptions.**
* * * * *

(c) * * * (17) System identifier and name: DMDC 13, Investigative Records Repository.

(i) Exemptions: (A) 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 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.

(B) Records maintained in connection with providing protective services to the President and other individuals under 18 U.S.C. 3506, may be exempt pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(3).

(C) Investigatory material compiled solely for the purpose of determining suitability, eligibility, or qualifications for Federal civilian employment, military service, Federal contracts, or access to classified information may be exempt pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(5), but only to the extent that such material would reveal the identity of a confidential source.

(D) Any portion of this system that falls under the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(2), (k)(3), or (k)(5) may be exempt from the following subsections of 5 U.S.C. 552(c)(3), (d), (e)(1), (e)(4)(G), (H), and (I), and (f).

(ii) Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(2), (k)(3), or (k)(5).

(iii) Reasons: (A) From subsection (c)(3) because it will enable the Department 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 source’s 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 agency’s 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. 2011–23756 Filed 9–15–11; 8:45 am]

**BILLING CODE 5001–06–P**

**DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY** 

**Coast Guard**

**33 CFR Part 100**

**[Docket No. USCG–2011–0629]**

**RIN 1625–AA08**

**Special Local Regulations for Marine Events; Temporary Change of Dates**  **for Recurring Marine Events in the Fifth Coast Guard District, Wrightsville**  **Channel; Wrightsville Beach, NC; Correction** 

**ACTION :**  Correcting amendment.

**SUMMARY :**  In the Federal Register published on September 8, 2011, the Coast Guard published a Temporary Final Rule changing the date of the special local regulation for this year’s Wilmington YMCA Triathlon. In that Temporary Final Rule, the line number for the temporary line in the Table to § 100.501 was wrong. This Correction fixes that error. The date and all other details in the Final Rule were correct.

**DATES :**  This correction is effective September 16, 2011.