Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 180 / Monday, September 17, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 57017 

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 Privacy Act 

rules for the Department of Defense do 

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 Privacy 

Act rules for the Department of Defense 

do not have federalism implications. 

The rules do 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). 

■ 2. Section 319.13 is amended by 

adding paragraph (k) to read as follows: 

§ 319.13 Specific exemptions. 

* * * * * 

(k) System identifier and name: LDIA 

12–0002, Privacy and Civil Liberties 

Case Management System. 

(1) Exemptions: Any portion of this 

record system which falls within the 

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

(k)(5) may be exempt from the following 

subsections of 5 U.S.C. 552a:(c)(3), (d), 

(e)(1), (e)(4)(G), (e)(4)(H), (e)(4)(I). 

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

(k)(5). 

(3) The reasons for asserting these 

exemptions is to ensure the integrity of 

the privacy and civil liberties process. 

The execution requires that information 

be provided in a free and open manner 

without fear of retribution or 

harassment in order to facilitate a just, 

thorough, and timely resolution of the 

complaint or inquiry. Disclosures from 

this system can enable individuals to 

conceal their wrongdoing or mislead the 

course of the investigation by 

concealing, destroying, or fabricating 

evidence or documents. In addition, 

disclosures can subject sources and 

witnesses to harassment or intimidation 

which may cause individuals not to 

seek redress for wrongs through privacy 

and civil liberties channels for fear of 

retribution or harassment. 

Dated: September 10, 2012. 

Aaron Siegel, 

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison 

Officer, Department of Defense. 

[FR Doc. 2012–22764 Filed 9–14–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 5001–06–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Office of the Secretary 

[Docket ID DoD–2012–OS–0101] 

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 the 

(k)(2) exemption to accurately describe 

the basis for exempting the records in 

the system of records notice LDIA 10– 

0001, Equal Opportunity, Diversity and 

Alternate Dispute Resolution Records. 

This direct final rule makes 

nonsubstantive changes to the Defense 

Intelligence Agency Program rules. This 

will improve the efficiency and 

effectiveness of DoD’s program by 

ensuring the integrity of the equal 

opportunity program, alternate dispute 

records and reasonable accommodation 

cases conducted by the Defense 

Intelligence Agency and the Department 

of Defense. 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 26, 2012 unless comments 

are received that would result in a 

contrary determination. Comments will 

be accepted on or before November 16, 

2012. If adverse comment is received, 

DoD 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, 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. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
57018 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 180 / Monday, September 17, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

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 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 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 Privacy 

Act rules for the Department of Defense 

do 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 Privacy 

Act rules for the Department of Defense 

do not have federalism implications. 

The rules do 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 continues to read as follows: 

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

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

■ 2. Section 319.13 is amended by 

adding paragraph (g) to read as follows: 

§ 319.13 Specific exemptions. 

* * * * * 

(g) System identifier and name: LDIA 

10–0001, Equal Opportunity, Diversity 

and Alternate Dispute Resolution 

Records. 

(1) Exemption: Investigatory material 

compiled for law enforcement purposes, 

other than material within the scope of 

subsection 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2), 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 the information, the individual will 

be provided access to the information 

exempt to the extent that disclosure 

would reveal the identity of a 

confidential source. Note: When 

claimed, this exemption allows limited 

protection of investigative reports 

maintained in a system of records used 

in personnel or administrative actions. 

The specific sections of 5 U.S.C. 552a 

from which the system is to be 

exempted are 5 U.S.C. 552a (c)(3) and 

(c)(4), (d), (e)(1), (e)(2), (e)(3), (e)(4)(G), 

(H), and (I), (e)(5), (f), and (g). 

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

(3) Reasons: (i) From subsection (c)(3) 

because to grant access to an accounting 

of disclosures as required by the Privacy 

Act, including the date, nature, and 

purpose of each disclosure and the 

identity of the recipient, could alert the 

subject to the existence of the 

investigation or prospective interest by 

DIA or other agencies. This could 

seriously compromise case preparation 

by prematurely revealing its existence 

and nature; compromise or interfere 

with witnesses or make witnesses 

reluctant to cooperate; and lead to 

suppression, alteration, or destruction of 

evidence. 

(ii) From subsections (c)(4), (d), and 

(f) because providing access to this 

information could result in the 

concealment, destruction or fabrication 

of evidence and jeopardize the safety 

and well being of informants, witnesses 

and their families, and law enforcement 

personnel and their families. Disclosure 

of this information could also reveal and 

render ineffectual investigative 

techniques, sources, and methods used 

by this component and could result in 

the invasion of privacy of individuals 

only incidentally related to an 

investigation. Investigatory material is 

exempt to the extent that the disclosure 

of such material would reveal the 

identity of a source who furnished the 

information to the Government under an 

express promise that the identity of the 

source would be held in confidence, or 

prior to September 27, 1975 under an 

implied promise that the identity of the 

source would be held in confidence. 

This exemption will protect the 

identities of certain sources that would 

be otherwise unwilling to provide 

information to the Government. The 

exemption of the individual’s right of 

access to his/her records and the 

reasons therefore necessitate the 

exemptions of this system of records 

from the requirements of the other cited 

provisions. 

(iii) From subsection (e)(1) because it 

is not always possible to detect the 

relevance or necessity of each piece of 

information in the early stages of an 

investigation. In some cases, it is only 

after the information is evaluated in 

light of other evidence that its relevance 

and necessity will be clear. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 180 / Monday, September 17, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 57019 

(iv) From subsection (e)(2) because 

collecting information to the fullest 

extent possible directly from the subject 

individual may or may not be practical 

in a criminal investigation. 

(v) From subsection (e)(3) because 

supplying an individual with a form 

containing a Privacy Act Statement 

would tend to inhibit cooperation by 

many individuals involved in a criminal 

investigation. The effect would be 

somewhat adverse to established 

investigative methods and techniques. 

(vi) From subsections (e)(4)(G), (H), 

and (I) because it will provide 

protection against notification of 

investigatory material 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 (or prior to the 

effective date of the Act, under an 

implied promise). In addition, this 

system of records is exempt from the 

access provisions of subsection (d). 

(vii) From subsection (e)(5) because 

the requirement that records be 

maintained with attention to accuracy, 

relevance, timeliness, and completeness 

would unfairly hamper the investigative 

process. It is the nature of 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 

significance as further investigation 

brings new details to light. 

(viii) From subsection (f) because the 

agency’s rules are inapplicable to those 

portions of the system that are exempt 

and would place the burden on the 

agency of either confirming or denying 

the existence of a record pertaining to a 

requesting individual might in itself 

provide an answer to that individual 

relating to an on-going investigation. 

The conduct of a successful 

investigation leading to the indictment 

of a criminal offender precludes the 

applicability of established agency rules 

relating to verification of record, 

disclosure of the record to the 

individual and record amendment 

procedures for this record system. 

(ix) From subsection (g) because this 

system of records should be exempt to 

the extent that the civil remedies relate 

to provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552a from 

which this rule exempts the system. 

* * * * * 

Dated: September 11, 2012. 

Aaron Siegel, 

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison 

Officer, Department of Defense. 

[FR Doc. 2012–22656 Filed 9–14–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 5001–06–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 117 

[Docket No. USCG–2012–0857] 

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; 

Lake Washington Ship Canal, Seattle, 

WA 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Notice of temporary deviation 

from regulations. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard has issued a 

temporary deviation from the operating 

schedule that governs the Burlington 

Northern Santa Fe Railway Bridge 

across the Lake Washington Ship Canal, 

mile 0.1, at Seattle, WA. This deviation 

is necessary to facilitate heavy 

maintenance on the bridge including 

replacing operating strut guides on the 

bascule span. This deviation allows the 

bridge to remain in the down or closed 

position during the maintenance period. 

DATES: This deviation is effective from 

7 a.m. November 7, 2012 through 5 p.m. 

November 18, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Documents mentioned in 

this preamble as being available in the 

docket are part of docket USCG–2012– 

0857 and are available online by going 

to http://www.regulations.gov, inserting 

USCG–2012–0857 in the ‘‘Keyword’’ 

box and then clicking ‘‘Search’’. They 

are also available for inspection or 

copying at the Docket Management 

Facility (M–30), U.S. Department of 

Transportation, West Building Ground 

Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, 

between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, except Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you have questions on this rule, call or 

email the Bridge Administrator, Coast 

Guard Thirteenth District; telephone 

206–220–7282; email 

randall.d.overton@uscg.mil. If you have 

questions on viewing the docket, call 

Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, 

Docket Operations, telephone 202–366– 

9826. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: BNSF 

Railway has requested that the draw of 

the BNSF Railway Bridge across the 

Lake Washington Ship Canal, mile 0.1 

(Ballard-Salmon Bay), be locked in the 

closed position and not be required to 

open for the passage of vessels for a 12 

day period to facilitate heavy 

maintenance on the bridge. The bridge 

provides 43 feet of vertical clearance 

above mean high water while in the 

closed position. Under normal 

operations this bridge opens on signal as 

required by 33 CFR 117.5 and 33 CFR 

117.1051(c). The deviation period is 

from 7 a.m. November 7, 2012 through 

5 p.m. November 18, 2012. This 

deviation allows the draw span of the 

BNSF Railway Bridge across the Lake 

Washington Ship Canal, mile 0.1, to 

remain in the closed position and to not 

open for maritime traffic from 7 a.m. 

November 7, 2012 through 5 p.m. 

November 18, 2012. This time frame 

was selected because it corresponds 

with the closure of the Army Corps of 

Engineering Hiram M. Chittenden lock 

immediately upstream or inland of the 

bridge on the Lake Washington Ship 

Canal. This stretch of the Lake 

Washington Ship Canal experiences 

heavy waterway usage and is utilized by 

vessels ranging from commercial tug 

and barge to pleasure craft. Mariners 

have been notified and will be kept 

informed of the bridge’s operational 

status via the Coast Guard Notice to 

Mariners publication and Broadcast 

Notice to Mariners as appropriate. 

Vessels which do not require a bridge 

opening may continue to transit beneath 

the bridge during this closure period. 

Due to the nature of work being 

performed the draw span will be unable 

to open for maritime traffic during this 

maintenance period. 

In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), 

the drawbridges must return to their 

regular operating schedule immediately 

at the end of the designated time period. 

This deviation from the operating 

regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 

117.35. 

Dated: August 5, 2012. 

Randall D. Overton, 

Bridge Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2012–22796 Filed 9–14–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES