Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 180 / Monday, September 17, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 57013 

plans to open a new facility in 

Monterrey in 2014. The Department also 

recently opened application service 

centers in Mexicali, Piedras Negras, and 

Reynosa to accommodate additional 

applicants along the U.S.-Mexico 

border. 

Of the three remaining comments, one 

noted its support for the reduced K visa 

fee and one applauded the Department 

for decreasing consular fees on certain 

nonimmigrant, immigrant, and special 

visa services, while also expressing 

concern for the increases to the other 

visa categories. One comment expressed 

a desire for a discount on all minor 

NIVs, not just minor BCCs. We note that 

the Department is required by law to set 

the fee for the minor BCC below cost at 

$15. The same requirement does not 

apply to other minor NIVs, which the 

Department sets on the basis of cost as 

described more fully above. 

Conclusion 

The Department has adjusted the fees 

to ensure that sufficient resources are 

available to meet the costs of providing 

consular services in light of the CoSM’s 

findings. Pursuant to OMB guidance 

and federal law, the Department 

endeavors to recover the cost of 

providing services that benefit specific 

individuals rather than the public at 

large. See OMB Circular A–25, sections 

6(a)(1), (a)(2)(a); 31 U.S.C. 9701(b). For 

this reason, the Department has adjusted 

the Schedule. 

Regulatory Findings 

For a summary of the regulatory 

findings and analyses regarding this 

rulemaking, please refer to the findings 

and analyses published with the interim 

final rule, which can be found at 77 FR 

18907, which are adopted herein. The 

rule became effective April 13, 2012. As 

noted above, the Department has 

considered the comments submitted in 

response to the interim final rule, and 

does not adopt them. Thus, the rule 

remains in effect without modification. 

In addition, as noted in the interim 

final rule, this rule was submitted to 

and reviewed by OMB pursuant to E.O. 

12866. The Department of State has also 

considered this rule in light of 

Executive Order 13563, dated January 

18, 2011, and affirms that this regulation 

is consistent with the guidance therein. 

Accordingly, the Interim Final Rule 

amending 22 CFR parts 22 and 42 which 

was published at 77 FR 18907 on March 

29, 2012, is adopted as final without 

change. 

Dated: September 4, 2012. 

Patrick F. Kennedy, 

Under Secretary of State for Management, 

U.S. Department of State. 

[FR Doc. 2012–22862 Filed 9–14–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4710–06–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 

Internal Revenue Service 

26 CFR Part 1 

[TD 9598] 

RIN 1545–BK98 

Integrated Hedging Transactions of 

Qualifying Debt 

Correction 

In rule document 2012–21986 

appearing on pages 54808–54811 in the 

issue of Thursday, September 6, 2012 

make the following correction: 

On page 54811, in the first column, on 

the eleventh line from the bottom of the 

page, ‘‘(i) Expiration date. This section 

expires on September 4, 2012’’, should 

read ‘‘(i) Expiration date. This section 

expires on September 4, 2015.’’ 

[FR Doc. C1–2012–21986 Filed 9–14–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 1505–01–D 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Office of the Secretary 

[Docket ID DoD–2012–OS–0102] 

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 updating the Defense 

Intelligence Agency 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 10–0002, Foreign 

Intelligence and Counterintelligence 

Operation Records. This direct final rule 

makes non-substantive changes to the 

Defense Intelligence Agency Privacy 

Program rules. These changes will allow 

the Department to exempt records from 

certain portions of the Privacy Act. This 

will improve the efficiency and 

effectiveness of DoD’s program by 

ensuring the integrity of ongoing 

Foreign Intelligence and 

Counterintelligence Operations Records 

related to the protection of national 

security, DoD personnel, facilities and 

equipment of 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. 

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 non-substantive 

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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
57014 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 180 / Monday, September 17, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

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 (h) to read as follows: 

§ 319.13 Specific exemptions. 

* * * * * 

(h) System identifier and name: LDIA 

10–0002, Foreign Intelligence and 

Counterintelligence Operation Records. 

(1) Exemption: (i) 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. 

(ii) 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. 

(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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 180 / Monday, September 17, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 57015 

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. 2012–22655 Filed 9–14–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 5001–06–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Office of the Secretary 

[Docket ID DoD–2012–OS–0104] 

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 (DIA) is adding a new 

exemption rule for LDIA 0209, entitled 

‘‘Litigation Case Files’’ to exempt those 

records that have been previously 

claimed for the records in another 

Privacy Act system of records. DIA is 

updating the DIA Privacy Act Program 

by adding the (k)(2) and (k)(5) 

exemptions to accurately describe the 

basis for exempting the records in the 

system of records notice LDIA 0209, 

Litigation Case Files. In addition, 

exempt materials from other systems of 

records may in turn become part of the 

case records in this system. To the 

extent that copies of exempt records 

from those ‘other’ systems of records are 

entered into this case record, the 

Defense Intelligence Agency hereby 

claims the same exemptions for the 

records from those ‘other’ systems that 

are entered into this system, as claimed 

for the original primary systems of 

records, which they are a part. 

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 security 

and counterintelligence records 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. 

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. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES