[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 78 (Friday, April 22, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 22615-22616]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-9742]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary

[Docket ID: DoD-2011-OS-0003]

32 CFR Part 322


Privacy Act; Implementation

AGENCY: National Security Agency/Central Security Service, DoD.

ACTION: Direct final rule with request for comments.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The National Security Agency/Central Security Service is 
deleting an exemption rule and adding a new exemption rule. The 
exemption rule for GNSA 13, entitled ``Archive Records'' is being 
deleted in its entirety; a new exemption rule for GNSA 28, entitled 
``Freedom of Information Act, Privacy Act and Mandatory 
Declassification Review Records'' is being added to exempt those 
records that have been previously claimed for the records in another 
Privacy Act system of records. To the extent that copies of exempt 
records from those other systems of records are entered into these case 
records, NSA/CSS hereby claims the same exemptions for the records as 
claimed in the original primary system of records of which they are a 
part.
    This direct final rule makes nonsubstantive changes to the National 
Security Agency/Central Security Service 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 preserving the exempt status of the 
records when the purposes underlying the exemption for the original 
records are still valid and necessary to protect the contents of the 
records.
    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 July 1, 2011 unless comments are 
received that would result in a contrary determination. Comments will 
be accepted on or before June 21, 2011.

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, Room 3C843, 
1160 Defense Pentagon, Room 3C843, Washington, DC 20301-1160.

[[Page 22616]]

    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. Anne Hill at (301) 688-6527.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Direct Final Rule and Significant Adverse Comments

    DoD has determined this rulemaking meets the criteria for a direct 
final rule because it involves nonsubstantive changes dealing with 
DoD's management of its Privacy Progams. DoD expects no opposition to 
the changes and no significant adverse comments. However, if DoD 
receives a significant adverse comment, the Department will withdraw 
this direct final rule by publishing a notice in the Federal Register. 
A significant adverse comment is one that explains: (1) Why the direct 
final rule is inappropriate, including challenges to the rule's 
underlying premise or approach; or (2) why the direct final rule will 
be ineffective or unacceptable without a change. In determining whether 
a comment necessitates withdrawal of this direct final rule, DoD will 
consider whether it warrants a substantive response in a notice and 
comment process.

Executive Order 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review'' and Executive 
Order 13563, ``Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review''

    It has been determined that Privacy Act rules for the Department of 
Defense are not significant rules. The rules do not (1) Have an annual 
effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a 
material way the economy; a sector of the economy; productivity; 
competition; jobs; the environment; public health or safety; or State, 
local, or Tribal governments or 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 the Privacy Act rulemaking for the 
Department of Defense does not involve a Federal mandate that may 
result in the expenditure by State, local and Tribal governments, in 
the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more and 
that such rulemaking will not significantly or uniquely affect small 
governments.

Executive Order 13132, ``Federalism''

    It has been determined that the Privacy Act rules for the 
Department of Defense do not have federalism implications. The 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 322

    Privacy.

    Accordingly, 32 CFR part 322 is amended as follows:

PART 322--NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY/CENTRAL SECURITY SERVICE PROGRAM

0
1. The authority citation for 32 CFR part 322.7 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority:  Privacy Act of 1974, Pub. L. 93-579, Stat. 1896 (5 
U.S.C. 552a).


0
2. In Sec.  322.7, remove and reserve paragraph (l) and add paragraph 
(u) to read as follows:


Sec.  322.7  Exempt systems of records.

* * * * *
    (u) ID: GNSA 28 (General Exemption)
    (1) System name: Freedom of Information Act, Privacy Act and 
Mandatory Declassification Review Records.
    (2) Exemption: During the processing of letters and other 
correspondence to the National Security Agency/Central Security 
Service, exempt materials from other systems of records may in turn 
become part of the case record in this system. To the extent that 
copies of exempt records from those ``other'' systems of records are 
entered into this system, the National Security Agency/Central Security 
Service hereby claims the same exemptions for the records from those 
``other'' systems that are entered into this system, as claimed for the 
original primary system of which they are a part.
    (3) Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(2) through (k)(7).
    (4) Reasons: During the course of a FOIA/Privacy Act and/or MDR 
action, exempt materials from other system of records may become part 
of the case records in this system of records. To the extent that 
copies of exempt records from those other systems of records are 
entered into these case records, NSA/CSS hereby claims the same 
exemptions for the records as claimed in the original primary system of 
records of which they are a part. The exemption rule for the original 
records will identify the specific reasons why the records are exempt 
from specific provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552a.

    Dated: April 8, 2011.
Patricia L. Toppings,
OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 2011-9742 Filed 4-21-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-P