Privacy Act; Implementation, 9261-9262 [05-3663]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 37 / Friday, February 25, 2005 / Proposed Rules 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. § 311.8 Procedures for exemptions. * * * * * (c) * * * (15) System identifier and name: DCIFA 01, CIFA Operational and Analytical Records. (1) Exemptions: This system of records is a compilation of information from other Department of Defense and U.S. Government systems of records. To the extent that copies of exempt records from those ‘‘other’’ systems of records are entered into this system, OSD 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. (ii) Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2), (k)(1), (k)(2), (k)(3), (k)(4), (k)(5), (k)(6), and (k)(7). (iii) Records are only exempt from pertinent provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552a to the extent such provisions have been identified and an exemption claimed for the original record and the purposes underlying the exemption for the original record still pertain to the record which is now contained in this system of records. In general, the exemptions are claimed in order to protect properly classified information relating to national defense and foreign policy, to avoid interference during the conduct of criminal, civil, or administrative actions or investigations, to ensure protective services provided the President and others are not compromised, to protect the identity of confidential sources incident to Federal employment, military service, contract, and security clearance determinations, and to preserve the confidentiality and integrity of Federal evaluation materials. 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. 522a. BILLING CODE 5001–06–M DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE List of Subjects in 32 CFR Part 311 Department of the Army Privacy. Accordingly, 32 CFR part 311 is proposed to be amended to read as follows: 32 CFR Part 505 [Army Regulation 195–2] Privacy Act; Implementation PART 311—[Amended] 1. The authority citation for 32 CFR part 311 continues to read as follows: 16:21 Feb 24, 2005 2. Section 311.8 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(15) as follows: [FR Doc. 05–3666 Filed 2–24–05; 8:45 am] Dated: February 18, 2005. Jeannette Owings-Ballard, OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense. VerDate jul<14>2003 Authority: Pub. L. 93–579, 88 Stat. 1986 (5 U.S.C. 522a). Jkt 205001 Department of the Army, DoD. Proposed rule. AGENCY: ACTION: PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 9261 SUMMARY: The Department of the Army is proposing to add an exemption rule for the system of records A0195–2c USACIDC, entitled ‘DoD Criminal Investigation Task Force Files’. The exemption ((j)(2)) will increase the value of the system of records for criminal law enforcement purposes. DATES: This proposed action will be effective without further notice on April 26, 2005, unless comments are received which result in a contrary determination. ADDRESSES: Department of the Army, Freedom of Information/Privacy Division, U.S. Army Records Management and Declassification Agency, ATTN: AHRC–PDD–FPZ, 7701 Telegraph Road, Casey Building, Suite 144, Alexandria, VA 22325–3905. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Janice Thornton at (703) 428–6497. 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 certified 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 certified 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. E:\FR\FM\25FEP1.SGM 25FEP1 9262 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 37 / Friday, February 25, 2005 / Proposed Rules Section 202, Public Law 104–4, ‘‘Unfunded Mandates Reform Act’’ It has been certified 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 certified 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 505 Privacy. Accordingly, 32 CFR part 505 is proposed to be amended to read as follows: PART 505—ARMY PRIVACY ACT PROGRAM 1. The authority citation for 32 CFR part 505 continues to read as follows: Authority: Pub. L. 93–579, 88 Stat. 1896 (5 U.S.C. 552a). 2. Paragraph (e)(20) of § 505.5 is amended by adding the following text to read as follows: § 505.5 Exemptions. * * * * * (e) Exempt Army records. * * * (20) System identifier and name: A0195–2c USACIDC, DoD Criminal Investigation Task Force Files. (i) Exemption: Parts of this system may be exempt pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2) if the information is compiled and maintained by a component of the agency, which performs as its principle function any activity pertaining to the enforcement of criminal laws. Any portion of this system of records which falls within the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2) may be exempt from the following subsections of 5 U.S.C. 552a(c)(3), (c)(4), (d), (e)(1), (e)(2), (e)(3), (e)(4)(G), (H), and (I), (e)(5), (e)(8), (f), and (g). (ii) Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2). (iii) Reasons: (A) From subsection (c)(3) because the release of accounting of disclosure would inform a subject that he or she is under investigation. This information would provide considerable advantage to the subject in VerDate jul<14>2003 16:21 Feb 24, 2005 Jkt 205001 providing him or her with knowledge concerning the nature of the investigation and the coordinated investigative efforts and techniques employed by the cooperating agencies. This would greatly impede criminal law enforcement. (B) From subsection (c)(4) and (d), because notification would alert a subject to the fact that an open investigation on that individual is taking place, and might weaken the ongoing investigation, reveal investigative techniques, and place confidential informants in jeopardy. (C) From subsection (e)(1) because the nature of the criminal and/or civil investigative function creates unique problems in prescribing a specific parameter in a particular case with respect to what information is relevant or necessary. Also, information may be received which may relate to a case under the investigative jurisdiction of another agency. The maintenance of this information may be necessary to provide leads for appropriate law enforcement purposes and to establish patterns of activity that may relate to the jurisdiction of other cooperating agencies. (D) From subsection (e)(2) because collecting information to the fullest extent possible directly from the subject individual may or may not be practical in a criminal and/or civil investigation. (E) From subsection (e)(3) because supplying an individual with a form containing a Privacy Act Statement would tend to inhibit cooperation by many individuals involved in a criminal and/or civil investigation. The effect would be somewhat adverse to established investigative methods and techniques. (F) From subsections (e)(4)(G), (H), and (I) because this system of records is exempt from the access provisions of subsection (d). (G) From subsection (e)(5) because the requirement that records be maintained with attention to accuracy, relevance, timeliness, and completeness would unfairly hamper the investigative process. It is the nature of law enforcement for investigations to uncover the commission of illegal acts at diverse stages. It is frequently impossible to determine initially what information is accurate, relevant, timely, and least of all complete. With the passage of time, seemingly irrelevant or untimely information may acquire new significance as further investigation brings new details to light. (H) From subsection (e)(8) because the notice requirements of this provision could present a serious impediment to law enforcement by revealing PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 investigative techniques, procedures, and existence of confidential investigations. (I) From subsection (f) because the agency’s rules are inapplicable to those portions of the system that are exempt and would place the burden on the agency of either confirming or denying the existence of a record pertaining to a requesting individual might in itself provide an answer to that individual relating to an on-going investigation. The conduct of a successful investigation leading to the indictment of a criminal offender precludes the applicability of established agency rules relating to verification of record, disclosure of the record to the individual and record amendment procedures for this record system. (J) From subsection (g) because this system of records should be exempt to the extent that the civil remedies relate to provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552a from which this rule exempts the system. * * * * * Dated: February 18, 2005. Jeannette Owings-Ballard, OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense. [FR Doc. 05–3663 Filed 2–24–05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001–06–P DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Navy 32 CFR Part 701 [Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5211.5] Privacy Act; Implementation Department of the Navy. Proposed rule. AGENCY: ACTION: SUMMARY: The Department of the Navy is proposing to exempt the records contained in the Privacy Act system of records notice N12410–2, entitled ‘NCIS Training Academy Records. The exemption (5 U.S.C. 552a (k)(6)) is intended to preserve the objectively and/or fairness of the NCIS test or examination process. DATES: Comments must be received on or before April 26, 2005, to be considered by this agency. ADDRESSES: Send comments to the Department of the Navy, PA/FOIA Policy Branch, Chief of Naval Operations (DNS–36), 2000 Navy Pentagon, Washington, DC 20350–2000. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mrs. Doris Lama at (202) 685–6545 or DSN 325–6545. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: E:\FR\FM\25FEP1.SGM 25FEP1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 37 (Friday, February 25, 2005)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 9261-9262]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-3663]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Army

32 CFR Part 505

[Army Regulation 195-2]


Privacy Act; Implementation

AGENCY: Department of the Army, DoD.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of the Army is proposing to add an exemption 
rule for the system of records A0195-2c USACIDC, entitled `DoD Criminal 
Investigation Task Force Files'. The exemption ((j)(2)) will increase 
the value of the system of records for criminal law enforcement 
purposes.

DATES: This proposed action will be effective without further notice on 
April 26, 2005, unless comments are received which result in a contrary 
determination.

ADDRESSES: Department of the Army, Freedom of Information/Privacy 
Division, U.S. Army Records Management and Declassification Agency, 
ATTN: AHRC-PDD-FPZ, 7701 Telegraph Road, Casey Building, Suite 144, 
Alexandria, VA 22325-3905.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Janice Thornton at (703) 428-6497.

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 certified 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 certified 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.

[[Page 9262]]

Section 202, Public Law 104-4, ``Unfunded Mandates Reform Act''

    It has been certified 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 certified 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 505

    Privacy.

    Accordingly, 32 CFR part 505 is proposed to be amended to read as 
follows:

PART 505--ARMY PRIVACY ACT PROGRAM

    1. The authority citation for 32 CFR part 505 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: Pub. L. 93-579, 88 Stat. 1896 (5 U.S.C. 552a).

    2. Paragraph (e)(20) of Sec.  505.5 is amended by adding the 
following text to read as follows:


Sec.  505.5  Exemptions.

* * * * *
    (e) Exempt Army records. * * *
    (20) System identifier and name: A0195-2c USACIDC, DoD Criminal 
Investigation Task Force Files.
    (i) Exemption: Parts of this system may be exempt pursuant to 5 
U.S.C. 552a(j)(2) if the information is compiled and maintained by a 
component of the agency, which performs as its principle function any 
activity pertaining to the enforcement of criminal laws. Any portion of 
this system of records which falls within the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 
552a(j)(2) may be exempt from the following subsections of 5 U.S.C. 
552a(c)(3), (c)(4), (d), (e)(1), (e)(2), (e)(3), (e)(4)(G), (H), and 
(I), (e)(5), (e)(8), (f), and (g).
    (ii) Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2).
    (iii) Reasons: (A) From subsection (c)(3) because the release of 
accounting of disclosure would inform a subject that he or she is under 
investigation. This information would provide considerable advantage to 
the subject in providing him or her with knowledge concerning the 
nature of the investigation and the coordinated investigative efforts 
and techniques employed by the cooperating agencies. This would greatly 
impede criminal law enforcement.
    (B) From subsection (c)(4) and (d), because notification would 
alert a subject to the fact that an open investigation on that 
individual is taking place, and might weaken the on-going 
investigation, reveal investigative techniques, and place confidential 
informants in jeopardy.
    (C) From subsection (e)(1) because the nature of the criminal and/
or civil investigative function creates unique problems in prescribing 
a specific parameter in a particular case with respect to what 
information is relevant or necessary. Also, information may be received 
which may relate to a case under the investigative jurisdiction of 
another agency. The maintenance of this information may be necessary to 
provide leads for appropriate law enforcement purposes and to establish 
patterns of activity that may relate to the jurisdiction of other 
cooperating agencies.
    (D) From subsection (e)(2) because collecting information to the 
fullest extent possible directly from the subject individual may or may 
not be practical in a criminal and/or civil investigation.
    (E) From subsection (e)(3) because supplying an individual with a 
form containing a Privacy Act Statement would tend to inhibit 
cooperation by many individuals involved in a criminal and/or civil 
investigation. The effect would be somewhat adverse to established 
investigative methods and techniques.
    (F) From subsections (e)(4)(G), (H), and (I) because this system of 
records is exempt from the access provisions of subsection (d).
    (G) From subsection (e)(5) because the requirement that records be 
maintained with attention to accuracy, relevance, timeliness, and 
completeness would unfairly hamper the investigative process. It is the 
nature of law enforcement for investigations to uncover the commission 
of illegal acts at diverse stages. It is frequently impossible to 
determine initially what information is accurate, relevant, timely, and 
least of all complete. With the passage of time, seemingly irrelevant 
or untimely information may acquire new significance as further 
investigation brings new details to light.
    (H) From subsection (e)(8) because the notice requirements of this 
provision could present a serious impediment to law enforcement by 
revealing investigative techniques, procedures, and existence of 
confidential investigations.
    (I) From subsection (f) because the agency's rules are inapplicable 
to those portions of the system that are exempt and would place the 
burden on the agency of either confirming or denying the existence of a 
record pertaining to a requesting individual might in itself provide an 
answer to that individual relating to an on-going investigation. The 
conduct of a successful investigation leading to the indictment of a 
criminal offender precludes the applicability of established agency 
rules relating to verification of record, disclosure of the record to 
the individual and record amendment procedures for this record system.
    (J) From subsection (g) because this system of records should be 
exempt to the extent that the civil remedies relate to provisions of 5 
U.S.C. 552a from which this rule exempts the system.
* * * * *

    Dated: February 18, 2005.
Jeannette Owings-Ballard,
OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 05-3663 Filed 2-24-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-P