61618 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 193 / Wednesday, October 6, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

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. 

Jody Sinkler at (703) 767–5045. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Executive Order 12866, ‘‘Regulatory 

Planning and 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 this Executive order. 

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 information requirements 

beyond the Department of Defense and 

that the information collected within 

the Department of Defense is necessary 

and consistent with 5 U.S.C. 552a, 

known as the Privacy Act of 1974. 

Section 202, Public Law 104–4, 

‘‘Unfunded Mandates Reform Act’’ 

It has been determined that 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 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 323 

Privacy. 

■ Accordingly, 32 CFR part 323 is 

amended as follows: 

PART 323—DEFENSE OGISTICS 

AGENCY PRIVACY PROGRAM 

■ 1. The authority citation for 32 CFR 

part 323 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: Pub. L. 93–579, 88 Stat. 1896 (5 

U.S.C. 552a). 

■ 2. In Appendix H to part 323: 

■ a. Paragraph ‘‘d.’’ is removed and 

reserved. 

■ b. Paragraph ‘‘f.’’ introductory text is 

revised to read as follows: 

Appendix H to Part 323—DLA 

Exemption Rules 

f. ID S500.30 (Specific exemption) 

Dated: October 1, 2010. 

Mitchell S. Bryman, 

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison 

Officer, Department of Defense. 

[FR Doc. 2010–25139 Filed 10–5–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 5001–06–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Department of the Navy 

32 CFR Part 701 

[Docket ID USN–2010–0036] 

Privacy Act of 1974; Implementation 

AGENCY: Department of the Navy, DoD. 

ACTION: Final rule; request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: The Department of the Navy 

is revising an exemption rule. More 

specifically, the exemption rule for 

N03834–1 entitled ‘‘Special Intelligence 

Personnel Access File’’ is being deleted 

in its entirety. 

DATES: The rule will be effective on 

December 6, 2010, unless comments are 

received that would result in a contrary 

determination. 

Comments will be accepted on or 

before December 6, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by docket number and title, 

by any of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Mail: Federal Docket Management 

System Office, 1160 Defense Pentagon, 

Room 3C843, Washington, DC 20301– 

1160. 

Instructions: All submissions received 

must include the agency name, docket 

number and title 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: Mrs. 

Miriam Brown-Lam at (202) 685–6545. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Executive Order 12866, ‘‘Regulatory 

Planning and 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 this Executive order. 

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 information requirements 

beyond the Department of Defense and 

that the information collected within 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 193 / Wednesday, October 6, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 61619 

the Department of Defense is necessary 

and consistent with 5 U.S.C. 552a, 

known as the Privacy Act of 1974. 

Section 202, Public Law 104–4, 

‘‘Unfunded Mandates Reform Act’’ 

It has been determined that 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 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 701 

Privacy. 

■ Accordingly, 32 CFR part 701 is 

amended as follows: 

PART 701—AVAILABILITY OF 

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY 

RECORDS AND PUBLICATION OF 

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY 

DOCUMENTS AFFECTING THE 

PUBLIC 

■ 1. The authority citation for 32 CFR 

part 701 continues to read as follows: 

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

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

§ 701.128 [Amended] 

■ 2. In § 701.128, paragraph (f) is 

removed and reserved. 

Dated: October 1, 2010. 

Mitchell S. Bryman, 

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison 

Officer, Department of Defense. 

[FR Doc. 2010–25140 Filed 10–5–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 5001–06–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 165 

[Docket No. USCG–2010–0509] 

RIN 1625–AA00 

Safety Zone; IJSBA World Finals, 

Lower Colorado River, Lake Havasu, 

AZ 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Temporary final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is 

establishing a temporary safety zone on 

the navigable waters of Lake Havasu on 

the lower Colorado River in Arizona in 

support of the International Jet Sports 

Boating Association (IJSBA) World 

Finals. This temporary safety zone is 

necessary to provide for the safety of the 

participants, crew, spectators, 

participating vessels, and other vessels 

and users of the waterway. Persons and 

vessels will be prohibited from entering 

into, transiting through, or anchoring 

within this temporary safety zone unless 

authorized by the Captain of the Port 

San Diego or his designated 

representative. 

DATES: This rule is effective in the CFR 

on October 6, 2010 through October 10, 

2010. This rule is effective with actual 

notice for purposes of enforcement on 

October 3, 2010. This rule will remain 

in effect until October 10, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: Comments and material 

received from the public, as well as 

documents mentioned in this preamble 

as being available in the docket, are part 

of docket USCG–2010–0509 and are 

available online by going to http:// 

www.regulations.gov, inserting USCG– 

2010–0509 in the ‘‘Keyword’’ box, and 

then clicking ‘‘Search.’’ This material is 

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 Petty Officer Shane 

Jackson, Waterways Management, U.S. 

Coast Guard Sector San Diego Coast 

Guard; telephone 619–278–7267, e-mail 

Shane.E.Jackson@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 

On July 6, 2010, we published a 

notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) 

entitled Safety Zone; IJSBA World 

Finals in the Federal Register (75 FR 

38754). We received no comments on 

the proposed rule. No public meeting 

was requested, and none was held. 

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. The boat races will begin on 

October 3, 2010, and a safety zone is 

necessary to protect the participants and 

spectators. Therefore it would be 

impracticable to delay the effective date 

of the final rule. 

Basis and Purpose 

The International Jet Sports Boating 

Association (IJSBA) is sponsoring the 

IJSBA World Finals. The event will 

consist of 300 to 750 personal 

watercrafts racing in a circular course. 

The race will be broken down into heats 

of one to 20. The sponsor will provide 

five course marshals and rescue vessels, 

as well as four perimeter safety boats for 

the duration of this event. This safety 

zone is necessary to provide for the 

safety of the participants, crew, 

spectators, participating vessels, and 

other vessels and users of the waterway. 

Discussion of Comments and Changes 

The Coast Guard published an NPRM 

on July 6, 2010, proposing to establish 

a temporary safety zone on Lake Havasu 

from October 3 through October 10, 

2010. We received no comments, and 

therefore we are establishing the safety 

zone as proposed in the NPRM. 

Regulatory Analyses 

We developed this rule after 

considering numerous statutes and 

executive orders related to rulemaking. 

Below we summarize our analyses 

based on 13 of these statutes or 

executive orders. 

Regulatory Planning and Review 

This rule is not a significant 

regulatory action under section 3(f) of 

Executive Order 12866, Regulatory 

Planning and Review, and does not 

require an assessment of potential costs 

and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that 

Order. The Office of Management and 

Budget has not reviewed it under that 

Order. 

We expect the economic impact of 

this proposed rule to be so minimal that 

a full Regulatory Evaluation is 

unnecessary. This determination is 

based on the size and location of the 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES