[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 131 (Thursday, July 9, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 39381-39382]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-16575]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary

32 CFR Part 323

[Docket ID: DoD-2015-OS-0063]


Privacy Act; Implementation

AGENCY: Defense Logistics Agency, DoD.

ACTION: Direct final rule with request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) is exempting records maintained 
in the system of records notice S240.28 DoD, Case Adjudication Tracking 
System (CATS) from pertinent provisions of the Privacy Act of 1974. In 
this rulemaking, the DLA is exempting portions of this system of 
records from one or more provisions of the Privacy Act because of 
criminal, civil and administrative enforcement requirements.

DATES: The rule will be effective on September 17, 2015 unless adverse 
comments are received by September 8, 2015. If adverse comment is 
received, the Department of Defense 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: Department of Defense, Office of the Deputy Chief 
Management Officer, Directorate of Oversight and Compliance, Regulatory 
and Audit Matters Office, 9010 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-
9010.
    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: Mr. LaDonne L. White (703) 767-5045.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This direct final rule makes non-substantive 
changes to the DLA 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 DLA 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.

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. This rule does 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 this Privacy Act rule does not have 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities 
because it is concerned only with the administration of Privacy Act 
systems of records within the Department of Defense. A Regulatory 
Flexibility Analysis is not required.

Public Law 96-511, ``Paperwork Reduction Act'' (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35)

    It has been determined that this Privacy Act rule does not impose 
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 this Privacy Act rule 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 this rulemaking will not significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments.

Executive Order 13132, ``Federalism''

    It has been determined that this Privacy Act rule does not have 
federalism implications. This rule does 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. Therefore, no 
Federalism assessment is required.

List of Subjects in 32 CFR Part 323

    Privacy.

    Accordingly, 32 CFR part 323 is amended as follows:

PART 323--DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY PRIVACY PROGRAM

0
1. The authority citation for 32 CFR part 323 continues to read as 
follows:

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


0
2. In Sec.  323.6, add paragraph (j) to read as follows:

[[Page 39382]]

Sec.  323.6  Exemption rules.

* * * * *
    (j) System identifier: S240.28 DoD (Specific exemption).
    (1) System name: Case Adjudication Tracking System (CATS)
    (2) Exemption: (i) Investigatory material compiled solely for the 
purpose of determining suitability, eligibility, or qualifications for 
federal civilian employment, federal contracts, or access to classified 
information may be exempt pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(5), but only to 
the extent that such material would reveal the identity of a 
confidential source.
    (ii) Therefore, portions of this system may be exempt pursuant to 5 
U.S.C. 552a(k)(5) from the following subsections of 5 U.S.C. 
552a(c)(3), (d)(1)(2)(3)(4), and (e)(1).
    (3) Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(5).
    (4) Reasons: (i) From 5 U.S.C. 552a(c)(3) and (d)(1)(2)(3)(4), when 
access to accounting disclosures and access to or amendment of records 
would cause the identity of a confidential source to be revealed. 
Disclosure of the confidential source's identity not only will result 
in the Department breaching the express promise of confidentiality made 
to the source but it would impair the Department's future ability to 
compile investigatory material for the purpose of determining 
suitability, eligibility, or qualifications for Federal civilian 
employment, Federal contracts, or access to classified information. 
Unless sources may be assured that a promise of confidentiality will be 
honored, they will be less likely to provide information considered 
essential to the Department in making the required determinations.
    (ii) From 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(1), as in the collection of information 
for investigatory purposes, it is not always possible to determine the 
relevance and necessity of particular information in the early stages 
of the investigation. In some cases, it is only after the information 
is evaluated in light of other information that its relevance and 
necessity becomes clear. Such information permits more informed 
decision-making by the Department when making required suitability, 
eligibility, and qualification determinations.

    Dated: June 22, 2015.
Aaron Siegel,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 2015-16575 Filed 7-8-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 5001-06-P