Privacy Act of 1974; Implementation, 15951-15953 [2015-06938]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 58 / Thursday, March 26, 2015 / Proposed Rules
attention of the person identified in
paragraph (m)(1) of this AD. Information may
be emailed to: 9-ANM-LAACO-AMOCRequests@faa.gov.
(2) Before using any approved AMOC,
notify your appropriate principal inspector,
or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/
certificate holding district office.
(3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable
level of safety may be used for any repair
required by this AD if it is approved by the
Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization
Designation Authorization (ODA) that has
been authorized by the Manager, Los Angeles
ACO, to make those findings. For a repair
method to be approved, the repair must meet
the certification basis of the airplane, and the
approval must specifically refer to this AD.
(4) AMOCs approved for AD 2012–18–05,
Amendment 39–17181 (77 FR 54793,
September 6, 2012), are approved as AMOCs
for the corresponding provisions of this AD.
(m) Related Information
(1) For more information about this AD,
´
contact Serj Harutunian, Aerospace Engineer,
Propulsion Branch, ANM–140L, FAA, Los
Angeles Aircraft Certification Office (ACO),
3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA
90712–4137; phone: 562–627–5254; fax: 562–
627–5210; email: serj.harutunian@faa.gov.
(2) For service information identified in
this AD, contact Boeing Commercial
Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services
Management, 3855 Lakewood Boulevard, MC
D800–0019, Long Beach, CA 90846–0001;
telephone 206–544–5000, extension 2; fax
206–766–5683; Internet https://
www.myboeingfleet.com. You may view this
referenced service information at the FAA,
Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind
Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information
on the availability of this material at the
FAA, call 425–227–1221.
Issued in Renton, Washington, on February
11, 2015.
Jeffrey E. Duven,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate,
Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2015–06745 Filed 3–25–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
28 CFR Part 16
[CPCLO Order No. 004–2014]
Privacy Act of 1974; Implementation
Department of Justice.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
AGENCY:
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
ACTION:
As described in the notice
section of this issue of the Federal
Register, the Department of Justice
(Department or DOJ) has published a
notice of a new Department-wide
Privacy Act system of records,
‘‘Department of Justice, Giglio
Information Files,’’ JUSTICE/DOJ–017.
This system has been established to
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:13 Mar 25, 2015
Jkt 235001
enable DOJ investigative agencies to
collect and maintain records of potential
impeachment information and to
disclose such information to DOJ
prosecuting offices in order to ensure
that prosecutors receive sufficient
information to meet their obligations
under Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S.
150 (1972), as well as to enable DOJ
prosecuting offices to maintain records
of potential impeachment information
obtained from DOJ investigative
agencies, other federal agencies, and
state and local agencies and to disclose
such information in accordance with the
Giglio decision. For the reasons
provided below, the Department
proposes to amend its Privacy Act
regulations by establishing an
exemption for records in this system
from certain provisions of the Privacy
Act pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(j) and (k).
DATES: Comments must be received by
April 27, 2015.
ADDRESSES: Address all comments to
the Privacy Analyst, Office of Privacy
and Civil Liberties, National Place
Building, 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue
NW., Suite 1000, Washington, DC
20530, or by facsimile to (202) 307–
0693. To ensure proper handling, please
reference the CPCLO Order Number on
your correspondence. You may review
an electronic version of the proposed
rule at https://www.regulations.gov, and
you may also comment by using that
Web site’s comment form for this
regulation. Please include the CPCLO
Order Number in the subject box.
Please note that the Department is
requesting that electronic comments be
submitted before midnight Eastern Time
on the day the comment period closes
because this is when https://
www.regulations.gov terminates the
public’s ability to submit comments.
Commenters in time zones other than
Eastern Time may want to consider this
so that their electronic comments are
received. All comments sent via regular
or express mail will be considered
timely if postmarked on or before the
day the comment period closes.
Posting of Public Comments: Please
note that all comments received are
considered part of the public record and
made available for public inspection
online at https://www.regulations.gov
and in the Department’s public docket.
Such information includes personally
identifying information (such as your
name, address, etc.) voluntarily
submitted by the commenter.
If you want to submit personally
identifying information (such as your
name, address, etc.) as part of your
comment, but do not want it to be
posted online or made available in the
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
15951
public docket, you must include the
phrase ‘‘PERSONALLY IDENTIFYING
INFORMATION’’ in the first paragraph
of your comment. You must also place
all the personally identifying
information you do not want posted
online or made available in the public
docket in the first paragraph of your
comment and identify what information
you want redacted.
If you want to submit confidential
business information as part of your
comment, but do not want it to be
posted online or made available in the
public docket, you must include the
phrase ‘‘CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS
INFORMATION’’ in the first paragraph
of your comment. You must also
prominently identify confidential
business information to be redacted
within the comment. If a comment has
so much confidential business
information that it cannot be effectively
redacted, all or part of that comment
may not be posted online or made
available in the public docket.
Personally identifying information
and confidential business information
identified and located as set forth above
will be redacted and the comment, in
redacted form, will be posted online and
placed in the Department’s public
docket file. Please note that the Freedom
of Information Act applies to all
comments received. If you wish to
inspect the agency’s public docket file
in person by appointment, please see
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
paragraph.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Tricia Francis, Executive Office for
United States Attorneys, FOIA/Privacy
Act Staff, 600 E Street NW., Suite 7300,
Washington, DC 20530, or by facsimile
at (202) 252–6047.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the
notices section of this issue of the
Federal Register, the Department of
Justice has published a system of
records notice for the system entitled,
‘‘Department of Justice Giglio
Information Files,’’ JUSTICE/DOJ–017.
This Department-wide system notice
replaces the notice for the system
entitled, ‘‘United States Attorney’s
Office, Giglio Information Files,’’
JUSTICE/USA–018, 65 FR 75308 (Dec.
1, 2000). That system of records was
exempt from certain provisions of the
Privacy Act pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)
and (k). Those exemptions are codified
in the Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR) section for Exemption of United
States Attorneys Systems (28 CFR
16.81(g) and (h)). The Department is
now proposing to establish a new CFR
section for exemptions of the JUSTICE/
DOJ–017 system (28 CFR 16.136) and to
E:\FR\FM\26MRP1.SGM
26MRP1
15952
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 58 / Thursday, March 26, 2015 / Proposed Rules
amend 28 CFR 16.81 by removing
paragraphs (g) and (h). The Department
intends that the exemptions previously
established in 28 CFR 16.81(g) and (h)
will continue to apply to the JUSTICE/
USA–018 system and all its records
until the effective date of 28 CFR
16.136.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
This proposed rule relates to
individuals as opposed to small
business entities. Pursuant to the
requirements of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601–612, the
proposed rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
Small Entity Inquiries
The Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996
(SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., requires
the Department to comply with small
entity requests for information and
advice about compliance with statutes
and regulations within the Department’s
jurisdiction. Any small entity that has a
question regarding this document may
contact the person listed in FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT. Persons can
obtain further information regarding
SBREFA on the Small Business
Administration’s Web site at https://
www.sba.gov/advocacy/825.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Paperwork Reduction Act
The Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995, 44 U.S.C. 3507(d), requires that
the Department consider the impact of
paperwork and other informationcollection burdens imposed on the
public. There are no current or new
information-collection requirements
associated with this proposed rule. The
records that are contributed to this
system would be created in any event by
law enforcement entities, and their
sharing of this information
electronically will not increase the
paperwork burden on these entities.
Analysis of Regulatory Impacts
This proposed rule is not a
‘‘significant regulatory action’’ within
the meaning of Executive Order 12866
and therefore further regulatory
evaluation is not necessary. This
proposed rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities because it
applies only to information about
individuals.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of
1995
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public
Law 104–4, 109 Stat. 48, requires
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:13 Mar 25, 2015
Jkt 235001
Federal agencies to assess the effects of
certain regulatory actions on State,
local, and tribal governments and the
private sector. UMRA requires a written
statement of economic and regulatory
alternatives for proposed and final rules
that contain Federal mandates. A
‘‘Federal mandate’’ is a new or
additional enforceable duty imposed on
any State, local, or tribal government or
the private sector. If any Federal
mandate causes those entities to spend,
in aggregate, $100 million or more in
any one year, the UMRA analysis is
required. This proposed rule would not
impose Federal mandates on any State,
local, or tribal government or the private
sector.
List of Subjects in 28 CFR Part 16
Administrative Practices and
Procedures, Courts, Freedom of
Information Act, Government in the
Sunshine Act, Privacy Act.
Pursuant to the authority vested in the
Attorney General by 5 U.S.C. 552a and
delegated to me by Attorney General
Order No. 2940–2008 the DOJ proposes
to amend 28 CFR part 16 as follows:
PART 16 —[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 16
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301, 552, 552a,
552b(g), 553; 18 U.S.C. 4203(a)(1); 28 U.S.C.
509, 510, 534; 31 U.S.C. 3717, 9701.
Subpart E—Exemption of Records
Systems Under the Privacy Act
§ 16.81—[AMENDED]
2. Amend § 16.81 by removing
paragraphs (g) and (h).
■
§ 16.136—[ADDED]
3. Add § 16.136 to subpart E to read
as follows:
■
§ 16.136 Exemption of the Department of
Justice, Giglio Information Files, JUSTICE/
DOJ–017.
(a) The Department of Justice, Giglio
Information Files (JUSTICE/DOJ–017)
system of records is exempted from
subsections (c)(3) and (4); (d)(1) through
(4); (e)(1), (2), (3), (4)(G), (H), and (I), (5),
and (8); (f); and (g) of the Privacy Act.
These exemptions apply only to the
extent that information in this system is
subject to exemption pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 552a(j) and/or (k).
(b) Exemptions from the particular
subsections are justified for the
following reasons:
(1) From subsection (c)(3) of the
Privacy Act because this subsection is
inapplicable to the extent that an
exemption is being claimed for
subsection (d) of the Privacy Act.
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
(2) From subsection (c)(4) of the
Privacy Act because this subsection is
inapplicable to the extent that an
exemption is being claimed for
subsection (d) of the Privacy Act.
(3) From subsection (d) of the Privacy
Act because access to the records
contained in this system may interfere
with or impede an ongoing investigation
as it may be related to allegations
against an agent or witness who is
currently being investigated. Further,
other records that are derivative of the
subject’s employing agency files may be
accessed through the employing
agency’s files.
(4) From subsection (e)(1) of the
Privacy Act because it may not be
possible to determine in advance if
potential impeachment records
collected and maintained in order to
sufficiently meet the Department’s
Giglio requirements and obligations are
all relevant and necessary. In order to
ensure that the Department’s
prosecutors and investigative agencies
receive sufficient information to meet
their obligations under Giglio, it is
appropriate to maintain potential
impeachment information in accordance
with Department policy as such records
could later be relevant and necessary in
a different case in which the same
witness or affiant subsequently testifies.
(5) From subsection (e)(2) of the
Privacy Act because collecting
information directly from the subject
individual could serve notice that the
individual is the subject of investigation
and because of the nature of the records
in this system, which are used to
impeach or demonstrate bias of a
witness, requires that the information be
collected from others.
(6) From subsection (e)(3) of the
Privacy Act because federal law
enforcement officers receive notice from
their supervisors and prosecuting
attorneys that impeachment information
may be used at trial. Law enforcement
officers are also given notice by the
Giglio decision itself.
(7) From subsections (e)(4)(G), (H),
and (I) of the Privacy Act because this
system of records is exempt from the
access and amendment provisions of
subsection (d) of the Privacy Act.
(8) From subsection (e)(5) of the
Privacy Act because it may not be
possible to determine in advance if all
potential impeachment records
collected and maintained in order to
sufficiently meet the Department’s
Giglio requirements and obligations are
all accurate, relevant, timely, and
complete at the time of collection.
Although the Department has policies in
place to verify the records, the records
may be originated from another agency,
E:\FR\FM\26MRP1.SGM
26MRP1
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 58 / Thursday, March 26, 2015 / Proposed Rules
third party, or open source media and
it may be impossible to ensure the
accuracy, relevance, timeliness, and
completeness of potential impeachment
information maintained prior to and
during the process of being verified.
(9) From subsection (e)(8) of the
Privacy Act because the nature of the
Giglio discovery process renders notice
of compliance with the compulsory
discovery process impractical.
(10) From subsections (f) and (g) of
the Privacy Act because these
subsections are inapplicable to the
extent that the system is exempt from
other specific subsections of the Privacy
Act.
Dated: March 4, 2015.
Erika Brown Lee,
Chief Privacy and Civil Liberties Officer,
United States Department of Justice.
[FR Doc. 2015–06938 Filed 3–25–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410–FB–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation
and Enforcement
30 CFR Part 917
[SATS No. KY–256–FOR; Docket ID: OSM–
2012–0014; S1D1SSS08011000SX066A0006
7F154S180110; S2D2SSS08011000SX066
A00033F15XS501520]
Kentucky Regulatory Program
Office of Surface Mining
Reclamation and Enforcement, Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule; reopening of the
public comment period and opportunity
for public hearing.
AGENCY:
We, the Office of Surface
Mining Reclamation and Enforcement
(OSMRE), are reopening the public
comment period on the proposed
amendment to the Kentucky regulatory
program (the Kentucky program) under
the Surface Mining Control and
Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA or the
Act) that was originally published on
February 20, 2013. The public comment
period and opportunity for public
hearing is being reopened to incorporate
subsequent information (emergency
regulations, permanent regulations,
legislation, and revised statutes) that we
received from Kentucky to address a
deficiency in the Kentucky program
regarding reclamation bonds and to
revise its program to be administered in
a manner consistent with SMCRA and
the Federal regulations.
This document gives the times and
locations that this proposed amendment
to the Kentucky program is available for
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:13 Mar 25, 2015
Jkt 235001
your inspection, the comment period
during which you may submit written
comments on the amendment, and the
procedures that we will follow for the
public hearing, if one is requested.
DATES: We will accept written
comments on the proposed rules until
4:00 p.m., Eastern Standard Time (EST)
April 27, 2015. If requested, we will
hold a public hearing on April 20, 2015.
We will accept requests to speak until
4:00 p.m., EST on April 10, 2015.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments,
identified by SATS No. KY–256–FOR
and OSM Docket No. OSM–2012–0004,
by any of the following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal:
www.regulations.gov. The proposed rule
has been assigned Docket ID: OSM–
2012–0014. Please follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
• Email: Mr. Robert Evans,
bevans@osmre.gov.
• Fax: (859) 260–8410.
• Mail/Hand Delivery: Mr. Robert
Evans, Field Office Director, Lexington
Field Office, Office of Surface Mining
Reclamation and Enforcement, 2675
Regency Road, Lexington, Kentucky
40503. Please include the rule
identifiers (SATS No. KY–256–FOR and
Docket ID OSM–2012–0014) with your
comments.
Instructions: All submissions received
must include the agency name and
docket number for this rulemaking. For
detailed instructions on submitting
comments and additional information
on the rulemaking process, see the
‘‘Public Comment Procedures’’ heading
of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
section of this document.
Docket: For access to the docket to
review copies of the Kentucky program,
this amendment, a listing of any
scheduled public hearings, and all
written comments received in response
to this document, you must go to the
address listed below during normal
business hours, Monday through Friday,
excluding holidays. You may receive
one free copy of the amendment by
contacting the person listed under FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT or the
full text of the program amendment is
available for you to read at
www.regulations.gov. Mr. Robert Evans,
Field Office Director, Lexington Field
Office, Office of Surface Mining
Reclamation and Enforcement, 2675
Regency Road, Lexington, Kentucky
40503. Telephone: (859) 260–3900.
Email: bevans@osmre.gov.
In addition, you may review a copy of
the amendment during regular business
hours at the following location: Mr.
Steve Hohmann, Commissioner,
Kentucky Department for Natural
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
15953
Resources, 2 Hudson Hollow, Frankfort,
Kentucky 40601. Telephone: (502) 564–
6940. Email: Steve.Hohmann@ky.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.
Robert Evans, Office of Surface Mining
Reclamation and Enforcement,
Telephone: (859) 260–3900. Email:
bevans@osmre.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background on the Kentucky Program
II. Description of the Proposed Amendment
III. Public Comment Procedures
IV. Procedural Determinations
I. Background on the Kentucky
Program
Section 503(a) of the Act permits a
State to assume primacy for the
regulation of surface coal mining and
reclamation operations on non-Federal
and non-Indian lands within its borders
by demonstrating that its program
includes, among other things, ‘‘* * *
State law which provides for the
regulation of surface coal mining and
reclamation operations in accordance
with the requirements of this Act * * *;
and rules and regulations consistent
with regulations issued by the Secretary
pursuant to this Act.’’ See 30 U.S.C.
1253(a)(1) and (7). On the basis of these
criteria, the Secretary of the Interior
conditionally approved the Kentucky
program on May 18, 1982. You can find
background information on the
Kentucky program, including the
Secretary’s findings, the disposition of
comments, and conditions of approval,
in the May 18, 1982, Federal Register
(47 FR 21434). You can also find later
actions concerning the Kentucky
program and program amendments at 30
CFR 917.11–917.17.
II. Description of the Proposed
Amendment
Kentucky submitted information on
three occasions in response to a Notice
under 30 CFR part 733 that we sent to
Kentucky on May 1, 2012 (Docket ID
OSM–2012–0014) regarding deficiencies
in its bonding program. These
submissions are intended to address the
noted deficiencies and were submitted
as follows: September 28, 2012
(emergency and permanent
administrative regulations), July 5, 2013
(House Bill (HB) 66 and emergency and
permanent regulations), and December
3, 2013 (revised statutes and permanent
regulations). Below is a summary of
those submissions.
A. Kentucky Response (First
Submission, September 28, 2012): We
announced receipt of the submission on
September 28, 2012, (first amendment
request) in the February 20, 2013
Federal Register (78 FR 11796). We are
E:\FR\FM\26MRP1.SGM
26MRP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 58 (Thursday, March 26, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 15951-15953]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-06938]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
28 CFR Part 16
[CPCLO Order No. 004-2014]
Privacy Act of 1974; Implementation
AGENCY: Department of Justice.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: As described in the notice section of this issue of the
Federal Register, the Department of Justice (Department or DOJ) has
published a notice of a new Department-wide Privacy Act system of
records, ``Department of Justice, Giglio Information Files,'' JUSTICE/
DOJ-017. This system has been established to enable DOJ investigative
agencies to collect and maintain records of potential impeachment
information and to disclose such information to DOJ prosecuting offices
in order to ensure that prosecutors receive sufficient information to
meet their obligations under Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150
(1972), as well as to enable DOJ prosecuting offices to maintain
records of potential impeachment information obtained from DOJ
investigative agencies, other federal agencies, and state and local
agencies and to disclose such information in accordance with the Giglio
decision. For the reasons provided below, the Department proposes to
amend its Privacy Act regulations by establishing an exemption for
records in this system from certain provisions of the Privacy Act
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(j) and (k).
DATES: Comments must be received by April 27, 2015.
ADDRESSES: Address all comments to the Privacy Analyst, Office of
Privacy and Civil Liberties, National Place Building, 1331 Pennsylvania
Avenue NW., Suite 1000, Washington, DC 20530, or by facsimile to (202)
307-0693. To ensure proper handling, please reference the CPCLO Order
Number on your correspondence. You may review an electronic version of
the proposed rule at https://www.regulations.gov, and you may also
comment by using that Web site's comment form for this regulation.
Please include the CPCLO Order Number in the subject box.
Please note that the Department is requesting that electronic
comments be submitted before midnight Eastern Time on the day the
comment period closes because this is when https://www.regulations.gov
terminates the public's ability to submit comments. Commenters in time
zones other than Eastern Time may want to consider this so that their
electronic comments are received. All comments sent via regular or
express mail will be considered timely if postmarked on or before the
day the comment period closes.
Posting of Public Comments: Please note that all comments received
are considered part of the public record and made available for public
inspection online at https://www.regulations.gov and in the Department's
public docket. Such information includes personally identifying
information (such as your name, address, etc.) voluntarily submitted by
the commenter.
If you want to submit personally identifying information (such as
your name, address, etc.) as part of your comment, but do not want it
to be posted online or made available in the public docket, you must
include the phrase ``PERSONALLY IDENTIFYING INFORMATION'' in the first
paragraph of your comment. You must also place all the personally
identifying information you do not want posted online or made available
in the public docket in the first paragraph of your comment and
identify what information you want redacted.
If you want to submit confidential business information as part of
your comment, but do not want it to be posted online or made available
in the public docket, you must include the phrase ``CONFIDENTIAL
BUSINESS INFORMATION'' in the first paragraph of your comment. You must
also prominently identify confidential business information to be
redacted within the comment. If a comment has so much confidential
business information that it cannot be effectively redacted, all or
part of that comment may not be posted online or made available in the
public docket.
Personally identifying information and confidential business
information identified and located as set forth above will be redacted
and the comment, in redacted form, will be posted online and placed in
the Department's public docket file. Please note that the Freedom of
Information Act applies to all comments received. If you wish to
inspect the agency's public docket file in person by appointment,
please see the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT paragraph.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tricia Francis, Executive Office for
United States Attorneys, FOIA/Privacy Act Staff, 600 E Street NW.,
Suite 7300, Washington, DC 20530, or by facsimile at (202) 252-6047.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the notices section of this issue of the
Federal Register, the Department of Justice has published a system of
records notice for the system entitled, ``Department of Justice Giglio
Information Files,'' JUSTICE/DOJ-017. This Department-wide system
notice replaces the notice for the system entitled, ``United States
Attorney's Office, Giglio Information Files,'' JUSTICE/USA-018, 65 FR
75308 (Dec. 1, 2000). That system of records was exempt from certain
provisions of the Privacy Act pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(j) and (k).
Those exemptions are codified in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)
section for Exemption of United States Attorneys Systems (28 CFR
16.81(g) and (h)). The Department is now proposing to establish a new
CFR section for exemptions of the JUSTICE/DOJ-017 system (28 CFR
16.136) and to
[[Page 15952]]
amend 28 CFR 16.81 by removing paragraphs (g) and (h). The Department
intends that the exemptions previously established in 28 CFR 16.81(g)
and (h) will continue to apply to the JUSTICE/USA-018 system and all
its records until the effective date of 28 CFR 16.136.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
This proposed rule relates to individuals as opposed to small
business entities. Pursuant to the requirements of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, the proposed rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Small Entity Inquiries
The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996
(SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., requires the Department to comply with
small entity requests for information and advice about compliance with
statutes and regulations within the Department's jurisdiction. Any
small entity that has a question regarding this document may contact
the person listed in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. Persons can
obtain further information regarding SBREFA on the Small Business
Administration's Web site at https://www.sba.gov/advocacy/825.
Paperwork Reduction Act
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3507(d), requires
that the Department consider the impact of paperwork and other
information-collection burdens imposed on the public. There are no
current or new information-collection requirements associated with this
proposed rule. The records that are contributed to this system would be
created in any event by law enforcement entities, and their sharing of
this information electronically will not increase the paperwork burden
on these entities.
Analysis of Regulatory Impacts
This proposed rule is not a ``significant regulatory action''
within the meaning of Executive Order 12866 and therefore further
regulatory evaluation is not necessary. This proposed rule will not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities because it applies only to information about individuals.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public
Law 104-4, 109 Stat. 48, requires Federal agencies to assess the
effects of certain regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal
governments and the private sector. UMRA requires a written statement
of economic and regulatory alternatives for proposed and final rules
that contain Federal mandates. A ``Federal mandate'' is a new or
additional enforceable duty imposed on any State, local, or tribal
government or the private sector. If any Federal mandate causes those
entities to spend, in aggregate, $100 million or more in any one year,
the UMRA analysis is required. This proposed rule would not impose
Federal mandates on any State, local, or tribal government or the
private sector.
List of Subjects in 28 CFR Part 16
Administrative Practices and Procedures, Courts, Freedom of
Information Act, Government in the Sunshine Act, Privacy Act.
Pursuant to the authority vested in the Attorney General by 5
U.S.C. 552a and delegated to me by Attorney General Order No. 2940-2008
the DOJ proposes to amend 28 CFR part 16 as follows:
PART 16 --[AMENDED]
0
1. The authority citation for part 16 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301, 552, 552a, 552b(g), 553; 18 U.S.C.
4203(a)(1); 28 U.S.C. 509, 510, 534; 31 U.S.C. 3717, 9701.
Subpart E--Exemption of Records Systems Under the Privacy Act
Sec. 16.81--[AMENDED]
0
2. Amend Sec. 16.81 by removing paragraphs (g) and (h).
Sec. 16.136--[ADDED]
0
3. Add Sec. 16.136 to subpart E to read as follows:
Sec. 16.136 Exemption of the Department of Justice, Giglio
Information Files, JUSTICE/DOJ-017.
(a) The Department of Justice, Giglio Information Files (JUSTICE/
DOJ-017) system of records is exempted from subsections (c)(3) and (4);
(d)(1) through (4); (e)(1), (2), (3), (4)(G), (H), and (I), (5), and
(8); (f); and (g) of the Privacy Act. These exemptions apply only to
the extent that information in this system is subject to exemption
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(j) and/or (k).
(b) Exemptions from the particular subsections are justified for
the following reasons:
(1) From subsection (c)(3) of the Privacy Act because this
subsection is inapplicable to the extent that an exemption is being
claimed for subsection (d) of the Privacy Act.
(2) From subsection (c)(4) of the Privacy Act because this
subsection is inapplicable to the extent that an exemption is being
claimed for subsection (d) of the Privacy Act.
(3) From subsection (d) of the Privacy Act because access to the
records contained in this system may interfere with or impede an
ongoing investigation as it may be related to allegations against an
agent or witness who is currently being investigated. Further, other
records that are derivative of the subject's employing agency files may
be accessed through the employing agency's files.
(4) From subsection (e)(1) of the Privacy Act because it may not be
possible to determine in advance if potential impeachment records
collected and maintained in order to sufficiently meet the Department's
Giglio requirements and obligations are all relevant and necessary. In
order to ensure that the Department's prosecutors and investigative
agencies receive sufficient information to meet their obligations under
Giglio, it is appropriate to maintain potential impeachment information
in accordance with Department policy as such records could later be
relevant and necessary in a different case in which the same witness or
affiant subsequently testifies.
(5) From subsection (e)(2) of the Privacy Act because collecting
information directly from the subject individual could serve notice
that the individual is the subject of investigation and because of the
nature of the records in this system, which are used to impeach or
demonstrate bias of a witness, requires that the information be
collected from others.
(6) From subsection (e)(3) of the Privacy Act because federal law
enforcement officers receive notice from their supervisors and
prosecuting attorneys that impeachment information may be used at
trial. Law enforcement officers are also given notice by the Giglio
decision itself.
(7) From subsections (e)(4)(G), (H), and (I) of the Privacy Act
because this system of records is exempt from the access and amendment
provisions of subsection (d) of the Privacy Act.
(8) From subsection (e)(5) of the Privacy Act because it may not be
possible to determine in advance if all potential impeachment records
collected and maintained in order to sufficiently meet the Department's
Giglio requirements and obligations are all accurate, relevant, timely,
and complete at the time of collection. Although the Department has
policies in place to verify the records, the records may be originated
from another agency,
[[Page 15953]]
third party, or open source media and it may be impossible to ensure
the accuracy, relevance, timeliness, and completeness of potential
impeachment information maintained prior to and during the process of
being verified.
(9) From subsection (e)(8) of the Privacy Act because the nature of
the Giglio discovery process renders notice of compliance with the
compulsory discovery process impractical.
(10) From subsections (f) and (g) of the Privacy Act because these
subsections are inapplicable to the extent that the system is exempt
from other specific subsections of the Privacy Act.
Dated: March 4, 2015.
Erika Brown Lee,
Chief Privacy and Civil Liberties Officer, United States Department of
Justice.
[FR Doc. 2015-06938 Filed 3-25-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-FB-P
