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