Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 181 / Monday, September 20, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 57163 

A small business guide on complying 

with fruit, vegetable, and specialty crop 

marketing agreements and orders may 

be viewed at: http://www.ams.usda.gov/ 

AMSv1.0/ams.fetchTemplate

Data.do?template=TemplateN&page=

MarketingOrdersSmallBusinessGuide. 

Any questions about the compliance 

guide should be sent to Antoinette 

Carter at the previously mentioned 

address in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section. 

After consideration of all relevant 

material presented, including the 

information and recommendation 

submitted by the Board and other 

available information, it is hereby found 

that this rule, as hereinafter set forth, 

will tend to effectuate the declared 

policy of the Act. 

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553, it is also 

found and determined that good cause 

exists for not postponing the effective 

date of this rule until 30 days after 

publication in the Federal Register 

because the 2010–2011 fiscal period 

begins October 1, 2010, and the 

marketing order requires that the rate of 

assessment for each fiscal period apply 

to all assessable tart cherries handled 

during such fiscal period and the Board 

incurs expenses on a continuing basis. 

Further, handlers are aware of this 

action which was unanimously 

recommended by the Board at a public 

meeting. Also, a 60-day comment period 

was provided for the proposed rule. 

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 930 

Marketing agreements, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Tart 

cherries. 

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, 7 CFR part 930 is amended as 

follows: 

PART 930—TART CHERRIES GROWN 

IN THE STATES OF MICHIGAN, NEW 

YORK, PENNSYLVANIA, OREGON, 

UTAH, WASHINGTON, AND 

WISCONSIN 

■ 1. The authority citation for 7 CFR 

part 930 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601–674. 

■ 2. Section 930.200 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 930.200 Assessment rate. 

On and after October 1, 2010, the 

assessment rate imposed on handlers 

shall be $0.0075 per pound of tart 

cherries grown in the production area 

and utilized in the production of tart 

cherry products. Included in this rate is 

$0.005 per pound of cherries to cover 

the cost of the research and promotion 

program and $0.0025 per pound of 

cherries to cover administrative 

expenses. 

Dated: September 13, 2010. 

David R. Shipman, 

Acting Administrator, Agricultural Marketing 

Service. 

[FR Doc. 2010–23336 Filed 9–17–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 

Internal Revenue Service 

26 CFR Parts 1 and 602 

[Docket No. TD–9497] 

RIN 1545–BI97 

Guidance Regarding Deferred 

Discharge of Indebtedness Income of 

Corporations and Deferred Original 

Issue Discount Deductions 

Correction 

In rule document 2010–20060 

beginning on page 49394 in the issue of 

Friday, August 13, 2010 make the 

following corrections: 

1. On page 49397, in the third 

column, the heading should read ‘‘2. 

Exception for Distributions and 

Charitable Contributions Consistent 

with Historical Practice —In General’’. 

2. On page 49400, in the third 

column, in the second full paragraph, in 

line six ‘‘occurring prior to August 11, 

2010 by taking a return position 

consistent with these provisions’’ should 

read ‘‘occurring prior to August 11, 

2010, by taking a return position 

consistent with these provisions’’. 

§1.108(i)–0T [Corrected] 

3. On page 49402, in the second 

column, (b)(2)(i), on the fifth line, ‘‘2010 

However, an electing corporation ’’ 

should read ‘‘2010. However, an electing 

corporation’’. 

§1.108(i)–1T [Corrected] 

4. On page 49403, in the first column, 

(b)(2)(B)(iv), in line six ‘‘deemed 

dividend all the earnings and’’ should 

read ‘‘deemed dividend the all earnings 

and’’. 

[FR Doc. C1–2010–20060 Filed 9–17–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 1505–01–D 

OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF 

NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE 

32 CFR Part 1701 

Privacy Act Systems of Records 

AGENCY: Office of the Director of 

National Intelligence. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Office of the Director of 

National Intelligence (ODNI) is issuing a 

final rule exempting fourteen (14) new 

systems of records from subsections 

(c)(3); (d)(1), (2), (3), (4); (e)(1) and 

(e)(4)(G), (H), (I); and (f) of the Privacy 

Act, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k). The 

ODNI published a notice and a 

proposed rule implementing these 

exemptions on April 2, 2010. The 

enumerated exemptions will be invoked 

on a case-by-case basis, as necessary to 

preclude interference with 

investigatory, intelligence and 

counterterrorism functions and 

responsibilities of the ODNI. This 

document addresses comments received 

regarding the proposed rule as applied 

to the fourteen new systems of records. 

DATES: This final rule is effective 

September 20, 2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

John F. Hackett, Director, Information 

Management, 703–275–2215. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On April 2, 2010, the Office of the 

Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) 

published notice of fourteen new 

Privacy Act systems of records: 

Manuscript, Presentation and Resume 

Review Records (ODNI–01), Executive 

Secretary Action Management System 

Records (ODNI–02), Public Affairs 

Office Records (ODNI–03), Office of 

Legislative Affairs Records (ODNI–04), 

ODNI Guest Speaker Records (ODNI– 

05), Office of General Counsel Records 

(ODNI–06), Analytic Resources Catalog 

(ODNI–07), Intelligence Community 

Customer Registry Records, (ODNI–09), 

EEO and Diversity Office Records 

(ODNI–10), Office of Protocol Records 

(ODNI–11), IC Security Clearance and 

Access Approval Repository (ODNI–12), 

Security Clearance Reform Research 

Records (ODNI–13), Civil Liberties and 

Privacy Office Complaint Records 

(ODNI–14), National Intelligence 

Council Consultation Records (ODNI– 

15). These systems of records contain 

records that range from Unclassified to 

Top Secret. Accordingly, in conjunction 

with publication of these systems 

notices, the ODNI initiated a rulemaking 

to exempt the systems, in relevant part, 

from various provisions of the Privacy 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES
57164 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 181 / Monday, September 20, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

1See § 1701.20 of ODNI’s Privacy Act Regulation 

(32 CFR). 

Additionally, in its Notice to Establish Systems 

of Records (75 FR 16853, April 2, 2010), ODNI 

indicated in the Supplementary Information section 

of the Notice that it would apply the exemption 

only as specifically necessary, and not as a blanket 

exclusion: ‘‘To protect classified and sensitive 

personnel or law enforcement information 

contained in these systems, the Director of National 

Intelligence is proposing to exempt these systems 

of records from certain portions of the Privacy Act 

where necessary, as permitted by law.’’ 

2Non-classified data points that, taken together, 

create a mosaic disclosing a matter properly 

classifiable under an Executive Order would be 

withheld from access. 

Act (enumerated above), pursuant to 

exemption authority afforded the head 

of the agency by subsection (j) of the 

Privacy Act. The systems notices and 

proposed exemption rule are published 

at 75 FR 16853 and 16698. 

Public Comments 

The ODNI received comments on its 

proposed rule and notice of fourteen 

systems of records from the Electronic 

Privacy Information Center (EPIC). 

EPIC’s concerns and ODNI’s responses 

are set forth below. The full text of 

EPIC’s comments are posted at that 

organization’s Web site, http:// 

www.EPIC.org. In general, EPIC 

questions the appropriateness of the 

ODNI’s proposal on national security 

grounds to exempt these systems of 

records from various provisions of the 

Privacy Act that embody fundamental 

tenets of information privacy. 

In light of EPIC’s comments, the ODNI 

re-examined the systems notices, the 

nature of the records maintained, and 

the exemptions proposed. ODNI is 

sensitive to EPIC’s view that the 

fourteen new system notices on their 

face do not obviously implicate 

intelligence equities, including the 

counterterrorism mission of one of 

ODNI’s major components, the National 

Counterterrorism Center (NCTC). 

However we conclude that EPIC has not 

considered the possible inclusion of 

classified records in these systems, 

which the exemptions invoked are 

intended to protect. 

ODNI has determined that the 

comments received do not warrant 

changing the proposed exemptions or 

systems notices prior to 

implementation. Read in conjunction 

with the ODNI’s Exemption Policies, as 

set forth in section 1701.20 of the 

ODNI’s Privacy Act Regulations, 

published at 32 CFR part 1701, the 

fourteen new systems notices reflect 

that ODNI seeks to serve, whenever 

feasible, the dual imperatives of 

maximizing individual record subjects’ 

participation in maintenance of the 

records and of protecting important 

intelligence equities. 

Detailed Response 

EPIC’s comments reflect concern 

about ODNI’s action to exempt the new 

systems of records from the accounting, 

access, amendment, redress and 

accuracy provisions of the Privacy Act, 

as well as from the requirements to 

establish and make public the 

procedures by which individuals may 

seek access to records about themselves. 

EPIC observes that the referenced 

provisions of the Privacy Act fulfill the 

important objective of promoting 

accountability, responsibility, oversight 

and openness with respect to the federal 

government’s maintenance of personal 

information. The ODNI also supports 

fair information principles and, as a 

matter of published policy, honors these 

principles to the full extent 

circumstances permit. 

ODNI maintains that its proposed rule 

is consistent with privacy principles for 

the following reasons: 

1. ODNI policy is to apply exemptions 

narrowly. 

EPIC’s main concern is that ODNI will 

rely on the stated exemptions to exempt 

apparently non-sensitive records on a 

blanket basis, thus denying record 

subjects important provisions of the 

Privacy Act. 

On initial review, and as confirmed 

on re-examination, we have determined 

that these systems of records may 

contain sensitive records. Therefore, in 

practice, claiming the exemption is a 

prophylactic measure enabling the 

ODNI to protect intelligence equities 

(e.g., sources, methods, subjects of 

intelligence interest) when national 

security considerations dictate. 

However, record subjects will still be 

able to obtain access to non-sensitive 

records. Each published system notice 

expansively describes notification 

procedures, record access procedures, 

contesting record procedures and record 

source categories. In addition, each 

systems notice references the ODNI 

Privacy Act Regulation, which also fully 

describes these procedures. 32 CFR Part 

1701. 

Published ODNI policy on exercising 

exemptions provides that an asserted 

exemption applies only to records that 

meet the exemption criteria, and that, 

even then, discretion is retained to 

supersede the exemption where 

complying with a request for access 

would not interfere with or adversely 

affect a counterterrorism or law 

enforcement interest, or otherwise 

violate applicable law.1

The ODNI Office of Information 

Management (IM) conducts access/ 

disclosure reviews under the Privacy 

Act and the Freedom of Information 

Act, as well as pre-publication review 

pursuant to IC elements’ secrecy 

agreements. IM personnel are trained 

classification specialists who conduct 

detailed reviews to ensure record 

subject/requester access to information 

in accordance with this policy and fair 

information principles, to include an 

accounting of disclosures under 

subsection (c)(3). 

The systems notices, read in 

conjunction with the Privacy Act 

regulation, show that ODNI intends to 

provide record subjects access to 

records about them to the extent feasible 

on a case-by-case basis, and not to rely 

on a blanket assertion of an exemption 

to preclude access. 

2. Material may be classified for 

national security reasons pursuant to 

Executive Order. 

As noted, the fourteen new system 

notices potentially include records 

specifically authorized under criteria 

established by an Executive order to be 

kept secret in the interest of national 

defense or foreign policy or that are in 

fact properly classified pursuant to such 

Executive order. Such records are 

exempt from the operation of Section 

552 of Title 5 of the United States Code, 

see 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(1), and subsection 

(k)(1) of the Privacy Act specifically 

contemplates exemption under this 

circumstance. 

EPIC cites the Public Affairs Office 

Records, the Executive Secretary Action 

Management System Records and the 

Civil Liberties and Privacy Office 

Complaint Records as examples of 

ODNI’s excessive use of exemption 

authority. Our review has determined 

that each of these systems of records, as 

well as the other eleven, could contain 

classified records retrieved by a record 

subject’s name or unique identifier. 

The exemption permits ODNI to 

protect access to the classified material 

and thereby prevent compromise of 

sensitive national security-related 

information. ODNI policy would be to 

provide the record subject access to the 

entirety of non-classified records 

(subject to the ‘‘mosaic’’ analysis),2 as 

well as to portions of classified records 

that, upon line-by-line review, have 

been determined not to implicate 

national security interests. 

3. No per se exclusion from redress. 

EPIC comments that ODNI 

inappropriately seeks to bar record 

subjects from challenging denial of an 

access request. The Privacy Act, 

subsection (g)(1)(B), does not permit 

agencies to exempt themselves from 

access challenges; ODNI agrees that 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 181 / Monday, September 20, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 57165 

3Subsection (k) states that the head of any agency 

may promulgate rules to exempt any system of 

records with the agency from subsection (c)(3). (d). 

(e)(1), (e)(4)(G)(H), and (I) and (f) of that section. 

4Office of Management and Budget, Privacy Act 

Implementation, Guidelines and Responsibilities, 

Standards of Accuracy, Subsection (e)(5), 40 FR 

28948, 28964 (July 9, 1975). 

precluding individuals from challenging 

the basis of a denial to a request for 

access to information would violate 

information fairness principles. 

Subsection (g)(3)(A) of the Privacy Act 

provides for de novo review of such 

denial, including in camera examination 

of records to ensure consistency with 

the claimed basis for exemption from 

access, i.e., that the records reflect a 

national security interest subject to 

classification under Executive order, or 

that access would disclose to the subject 

the identity of a confidential source of 

information in the record (judgments 

contemplated by subsections (k)(1), (2) 

and (5) of the Act). ODNI does not seek 

to deny record subjects the basic right 

to challenge access determinations. 

However, EPIC’s position that ODNI 

should afford redress for all amendment 

denials demands the impractical result 

of requiring the agency to permit 

‘‘correction’’ of records to which it 

properly has denied the subject access 

based on expert judgments regarding 

national security or witness/source 

identification. This practice would 

afford individuals ‘‘back-door’’ access to 

records via amendment challenges. 

Accordingly, ODNI will narrowly 

construe the proposed exemption from 

redress to apply only to denials to 

amend exempt records (i.e., records that 

are classified, or determined to be not 

disclosable under other provisions of 

subsection (k)). 

4. ODNI does not use these systems of 

records for decision-making about 

record subjects. 

EPIC articulates a concern that 

subjects’ inability to access and amend 

exempt records undermines the 

fundamental principle (under 

subsection (e)(5) of the Privacy Act) that 

records used in making agency 

determinations about record subjects 

must be sufficiently accurate, relevant, 

timely and complete to ensure fairness 

to the individual. 

ODNI does not in fact propose to 

exempt its fourteen new SORNs from 

the (e)(5) requirement. Indeed, 

subsection (k) of the Privacy Act does 

not permit exemption from subsection 

(e)(5).3 Additionally, records 

maintained in these systems are not 

used in personalized agency 

determinations of the kind for which 

access and amendment rights are 

intended to ensure data accuracy and 

relevance. With the possible exception 

of the Civil Liberties and Privacy Office 

Complaint Records, the Equal 

Employment Opportunity and Diversity 

Office Records and the Office of General 

Counsel records, the recently published 

notices reflect agency internal 

administrative functions, but not 

activities ‘‘affecting the rights, benefits, 

entitlements or opportunities (including 

employment) of the individual).’’ 4 By 

and large, the systems at issue permit 

the agency to track communications and 

external relations using the record 

subjects’ name as an easy ‘‘handle.’’ 

They are record-keeping files, not 

decision-making files. Where claims are 

involved (civil liberties/privacy, 

disability accommodations, or actions 

against the agency), it is the record 

subject who determines what facts to 

report in the first instance, obviating 

his/her need for a check on accuracy. 

Nonetheless, the claimant/litigant 

would receive all official administrative 

or court filings, and obtain access to 

other non-exempt records in the 

pertinent system. 

5. ‘‘Necessary and relevant’’ is a fluid 

standard, properly subject to exemption. 

The provision from which ODNI does 

seek exemption is (e)(1): ‘‘Maintain [in 

agency] records only such information 

about an individual as is relevant and 

necessary to accomplish a purpose of 

the agency required to be accomplished 

by statute or by executive order of the 

President.’’ The purposes which these 

systems serve are authorized by the 

National Security Act of 1947 as 

amended by the Intelligence Reform and 

Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, and 

generally reflect routine agency 

functions. Because of the transactional 

nature of most of these systems, 

relevance is a function of happenstance, 

i.e., whatever communication is 

received or transmitted, and can not be 

determined once and for all time. The 

information collected will not likely be 

the same for every individual who is the 

subject of a record in the system. With 

respect to claims requiring investigation 

(e.g., Civil Liberties/Privacy complaints) 

relevance often can not be determined 

until all materials have been collected 

and analyzed. Moreover, because these 

systems of records generally are housekeeping-type files, and not likely to be 

disclosed outside the agency or serve for 

decision-making purposes, the 

importance of ‘‘relevance’’ as a data 

quality criterion is diminished. 

6. Exemptions do not curtail subjects’ 

access to complaint status or 

disposition. 

EPIC is especially troubled by ODNI’s 

proposal to exempt the Civil Liberties 

and Privacy Office Complaint Records 

(alleging violations of civil liberties or 

privacy arising from an ODNI or IC 

program or activity), and argues that: 

[A]n individual who submitted a 

complaint would not be able to view any 

records pertaining to his complaint, such as 

records of review, investigation, or 

acknowledgement or disposition of 

allegations received. A complainant would 

be left without any means to inquire about 

the status of his complaint or to help 

facilitate the resolution of his complaint. 

EPIC posits that, by virtue merely of 

their being maintained in the exempt 

system, all records would be shielded 

from the subject’s access, including the 

agency’s acknowledgment of receipt of 

the complaint and any disposition of the 

complaint. However, complainants 

routinely receive acknowledgement of 

receipt of their complaints, a copy of 

which is maintained as part of the 

complainants’ official records in the 

noticed Privacy Act system of records. 

Similarly, complainants receive notice 

of resolution or disposition of their 

cases, with as much specificity as is 

feasible under the circumstances. The 

Civil Liberties and Privacy Office 

articulates in writing why the allegation 

is, or is not, sustained by the facts as 

presented by the complainant and as 

investigated by the agency, and what the 

ODNI’s follow-on action may be (for 

example, remedying a flaw or gap in 

agency process that the complaint has 

brought to light). The written 

disposition is also maintained as part of 

the official record in the noticed Privacy 

Act system of records. ODNI would 

provide access to these 

acknowledgement and disposition 

records at the complainant’s request. 

The complainant would obtain access to 

other portions of the complaint file as 

well, to the extent they do not implicate 

national security interests, and do not 

reveal the identity of individuals 

providing statements or information to 

the investigation pursuant to assurances 

of confidentiality. 

ODNI believes that current policies 

address EPIC’s concern that ‘‘the 

complainant is left without any means 

to inquire about the status of his 

complaint.’’ Complainants may at any 

time amend their statements, provide 

additional facts or seek explanation 

about the operative law, regulation or 

policy allegedly violated. Indeed, the 

exemption framework does not preclude 

a complainant from inquiring about, or 

learning of, the status of his complaint. 

Nor does it preclude the ODNI from 

seeking additional input from claimants. 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES
57166 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 181 / Monday, September 20, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

Final Rule: Implementation of 

Exemption Rule and Systems Notices 

After consideration of the public 

comments, the ODNI has determined to 

issue the proposed exemption rule in 

final form and to implement the 

fourteen new systems of records without 

change. The exemptions proposed for 

the fourteen noticed systems of records 

are necessary and appropriate to protect 

intelligence equities undergirding 

ODNI’s mission and functions and 

narrowly applied, they do so consistent 

with privacy principles. By restrictively 

construing the exemptions to apply only 

to records that satisfy thresholds 

articulated in subsection (k), ODNI 

achieves the goal of balancing 

intelligence-related equities with fair 

information principles and values. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

This rule affects only the manner in 

which ODNI collects and maintains 

information about individuals. ODNI 

certifies that this rulemaking does not 

impact small entities and that analysis 

under the Regulatory flexibility Act, 5 

U.S.C. 601–612, is not required. 

Small Entity Inquiries 

The Small Business Regulatory 

enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 

1996 requires the ODNI to comply with 

small entity requests for information 

and advice about compliance with 

statutes and regulations within the 

ODNI jurisdiction. Any small entity that 

has a question regarding this document 

may address it to the information 

contact listed above. Further 

information regarding SBREFA is 

available on the Small Business 

Administration’s web page at http:// 

www.sba.gov/advo/laws/law-lib.html. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

944 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires that the 

ODNI consider the impact of paperwork 

and other burdens imposed on the 

public associated with the collection of 

information. There are no information 

collection requirements associated with 

this rule and therefore no analysis of 

burden is required. 

Executive Order 12866, Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

This rule is not a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action,’’ within the meaning 

of Executive Order 12866. This rule will 

not adversely affect the economy or a 

sector of the economy in a material way; 

will not create inconsistency with or 

interfere with other agency action; will 

not materially alter the budgetary 

impact of entitlements, grants, fees or 

loans or the right and obligations of 

recipients thereof; or raise legal or 

policy issues arising out of legal 

mandates, the President’s priorities or 

the principles set forth in the Executive 

Order. Accordingly, further regulatory 

evaluation is not required. 

Unfunded Mandates 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public 

Law 104–4, 109 Stat. 48 (Mar. 22, 1995), 

requires Federal agencies to assess the 

effects of certain regulatory actions on 

State, local and tribal governments, and 

the private sector. This rule imposes no 

Federal mandate on any State, local or 

tribal government or on the private 

sector. Accordingly, no UMRA analysis 

of economic and regulatory alternatives 

is required. 

Executive Order 13132, Federalism 

Executive Order 13132 requires 

agencies to examine the implications for 

the distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government resulting from 

their rules. ODNI concludes that this 

rule does not affect the rights, roles and 

responsibilities of the States, involves 

no preemption of State law and does not 

limit state policymaking discretion. This 

rule has no federalism implications as 

defined by the Executive Order. 

Environmental Impact 

This rulemaking will not have a 

significant effect on the human 

environment under the provisions of the 

National Environmental Policy Act of 

1969 (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321–4347. 

Energy Impact 

This rulemaking is not a major 

regulatory action under the provisions 

of the Energy Policy and Conservation 

Act (EPCA), Public Law 94–163) as 

amended, 42 U.S.C. 6362. 

List of Subjects in 32 CFR Part 1701 

Records and Privacy Act. 

■ For the reasons set forth above, ODNI 

amends 32 CFR part 1701 as follows: 

PART 1701—ADMINISTRATION OF 

RECORDS UNDER THE PRIVACY ACT 

OF 1974 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 1701 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 50 U.S.C. 401–442; 5 U.S.C. 

552a. 

Subpart B—[AMENDED] 

■ 2. Add § 1701.24 to subpart B to read 

as follows: 

§ 1701.24 Exemption of Office of the 

Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) 

systems of records. 

(a) The ODNI exempts the following 

systems of records from the 

requirements of subsections (c)(3); 

(d)(1),(2),(3) and (4); (e)(1); 

(e)(4)(G),(H),(I); and (f) of the Privacy 

Act to the extent that information in the 

system is subject to exemption pursuant 

subsections (k)(1), (k)(2) or (k)(5) of the 

Act as noted in the individual systems 

notices: 

(1) Manuscript, Presentation and 

Resume Review Records (ODNI–01). 

(2) Executive Secretary Action 

Management System Records (ODNI– 

02). 

(3) Public Affairs Office Records 

(ODNI–03). 

(4) Office of Legislative Affairs 

Records (ODNI–04). 

(5) ODNI Guest Speaker Records 

(ODNI–05). 

(6) Office of General Counsel Records 

(ODNI–06). 

(7) Analytic Resources Catalog 

(ODNI–07). 

(8) Intelligence Community Customer 

Registry (ODNI–09). 

(9) EEO and Diversity Office Records 

(ODNI–10). 

(10) Office of Protocol Records 

(ODNI–11). 

(11) IC Security Clearance and Access 

Approval Repository (ODNI–12). 

(12) Security Clearance Reform 

Research Records (ODNI–13). 

(13) Civil Liberties and Privacy Office 

Complaint Records (ODNI–14). 

(14) National Intelligence Council 

Records (ODNI–15). 

(b) Exemption of records in theses 

systems from any or all of the 

enumerated requirements may be 

necessary for the following reasons: 

(1) From subsection (c)(3) (accounting 

of disclosures) because an accounting of 

disclosures from records concerning the 

record subject would specifically reveal 

an intelligence or investigative interest 

on the part of the ODNI or recipient 

agency and could result in release of 

properly classified national security or 

foreign policy information. 

(2) From subsections (d)(1), (2), (3) 

and (4) (record subject’s right to access 

and amend records) because affording 

access and amendment rights could 

alert the record subject to the 

investigative interest of intelligence or 

law enforcement agencies or 

compromise sensitive information 

classified in the interest of national 

security. In the absence of a national 

security basis for exemption, records in 

this system may be exempted from 

access and amendment to the extent 

necessary to honor promises of 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 181 / Monday, September 20, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 57167 

confidentiality to persons providing 

information concerning a candidate for 

position. Inability to maintain such 

confidentiality would restrict the free 

flow of information vital to a 

determination of a candidate’s 

qualifications and suitability. 

(3) From subsection (e)(1) (maintain 

only relevant and necessary records) 

because it is not always possible to 

establish relevance and necessity before 

all information is considered and 

evaluated in relation to an intelligence 

concern. In the absence of a national 

security basis for exemption under 

subsection (k)(1), records in this system 

may be exempted from the relevance 

requirement pursuant to subsection 

(k)(5) because it is not possible to 

determine in advance what exact 

information may assist in determining 

the qualifications and suitability of a 

candidate for position. Seemingly 

irrelevant details, when combined with 

other data, can provide a useful 

composite for determining whether a 

candidate should be appointed. 

(4) From subsections (e)(4)(G) and (H) 

(publication of procedures for notifying 

subjects of the existence of records 

about them and how they may access 

records and contest contents) because 

the system is exempted from subsection 

(d) provisions regarding access and 

amendment, and from the subsection (f) 

requirement to promulgate agency rules. 

Nevertheless, the ODNI has published 

notice concerning notification, access, 

and contest procedures because it may 

in certain circumstances determine it 

appropriate to provide subjects access to 

all or a portion of the records about 

them in a system of records. 

(5) From subsection (e)(4)(I) 

(identifying sources of records in the 

system of records) because identifying 

sources could result in disclosure of 

properly classified national defense or 

foreign policy information, intelligence 

sources and methods, and investigatory 

techniques and procedures. 

Notwithstanding its proposed 

exemption from this requirement, ODNI 

identifies record sources in broad 

categories sufficient to provide general 

notice of the origins of the information 

it maintains in its systems of records. 

(6) From subsection (f) (agency rules 

for notifying subjects to the existence of 

records about them, for accessing and 

amending records, and for assessing 

fees) because the system is exempt from 

subsection (d) provisions regarding 

access and amendment of records by 

record subjects. Nevertheless, the ODNI 

has published agency rules concerning 

notification of a subject in response to 

his request if any system of records 

named by the subject contains a record 

pertaining to him and procedures by 

which the subject may access or amend 

the records. Notwithstanding 

exemption, the ODNI may determine it 

appropriate to satisfy a record subject’s 

access request. 

Dated: September 10, 2010. 

John F. Kimmons, 

Lieutenant General, USA, Director of the 

Intelligence Staff. 

[FR Doc. 2010–23320 Filed 9–17–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 165 

[Docket No. USCG–2010–0842] 

RIN 1625–AA00 

Safety Zone; CLS Fall Championship 

Hydroplane Race, Lake Sammamish, 

WA 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Temporary final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is 

establishing a temporary safety zone on 

the waters of Lake Sammamish, WA for 

the Composite Laminate Specialties 

(CLS) Fall Championship Hydroplane 

Race. This action is necessary to ensure 

public safety from the intrinsic dangers 

associated with high-speed races while 

ensuring unencumbered access for 

rescue personnel in the event of an 

emergency. During the enforcement 

period, no person or vessel will be 

allowed to enter the safety zone without 

the permission of the Captain of the Port 

or Designated Representative. 

DATES: This rule is effective from 9 a.m. 

on October 1, 2010, through 7 p.m. on 

October 3, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this 

preamble as being available in the 

docket are part of docket USCG–2010– 

0842 and are available online by going 

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

USCG–2010–0842 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 temporary 

rule, call or e-mail LTJG Ashley M. 

Wanzer, Sector Puget Sound Waterways 

Management Division, Coast Guard; 

telephone 206–217–6175, e-mail 

SectorSeattleWWM@uscg.mil. If you 

have questions on viewing the docket, 

call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, 

Docket Operations, telephone 202–366– 

9826. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Regulatory Information 

The Coast Guard is issuing this 

temporary final rule without prior 

notice and opportunity to comment 

pursuant to authority under section 4(a) 

of the Administrative Procedure Act 

(APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision 

authorizes an agency to issue a rule 

without prior notice and opportunity to 

comment when the agency for good 

cause finds that those procedures are 

‘‘impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary 

to the public interest.’’ Under 5 U.S.C. 

553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that 

good cause exists for not publishing a 

notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) 

with respect to this rule because to do 

so would be impracticable since the 

Hydroplane Races would be over by the 

time the notice could be published and 

comments taken. 

Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast 

Guard finds that good cause exists for 

making this rule effective less than 30 

days after publication in the Federal 

Register. In addition to the reasons 

stated above, this rule is intended to 

ensure the safety of the event 

participants, spectators and other 

waterway users; thus any delay in the 

rule’s effective date would cause a 

safety hazard to the public. 

Basis and Purpose 

This temporary safety zone is 

necessary to ensure the safety of 

participants, vessels and spectators from 

hazards associated with high-speed 

hydroplane races. Hydroplane races 

have the potential to result in serious 

injuries or fatalities. This rule is 

intended to restrict vessels, vessel 

operators, and swimmers from entering 

the designated hydroplane race area 

during times of enforcement of this 

zone. 

Discussion of Rule 

Hydroplane races pose significant 

risks to participants, spectators and the 

boating public because of the large 

number of spectators, and vessel 

congestion occurring in the vicinity of 

the hydroplane race course. This rule 

establishes a safety zone on Lake 

Sammamish, WA encompassed by all 

waters south to land from a line starting 

at 47° 33.810′ N. 122° 04.810′ W. then 

east to 47° 33.810′ N. 122° 03.674′ W. 

This temporary safety zone is necessary 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES