Privacy Act; Implementation, 9262-9263 [05-3670]
Download as PDF
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
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 37 / Friday, February 25, 2005 / Proposed Rules
Executive Order 13132, ‘‘Federalism’’
Executive Order 12866, ‘‘Regulatory
Planning and Review’’
The Director of Administration and
Management, Office of the Secretary of
Defense, hereby determines 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 on 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 obligation 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)
The Director of Administration and
Management, Office of the Secretary of
Defense, hereby certifies 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)
The Director of Administration and
Management, Office of the Secretary of
Defense, hereby certifies 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’’
The Director of Administration and
Management, Office of the Secretary of
Defense, hereby certifies 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.
VerDate jul<14>2003
16:21 Feb 24, 2005
Jkt 205001
The Director of Administration and
Management, Office of the Secretary of
Defense, hereby certifies 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 701
Privacy.
Accordingly, 32 CFR part 701 is
proposed to be amended to read as
follows:
PART 701—[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for 32 CFR
part 701, Subpart G continues to read as
follows:
Authority: Pub. L. 93–579, 88 Stat. 1896 (5
U.S.C. 552a).
2. Section 701.118 is amended by
revising paragraph (h) to read as
follows:
§ 701.118 Exemptions for specific Navy
record systems.
*
*
*
*
*
(h) System identifier and name:
N12410–2, NCIS Training Academy
Records.
(1) Exemption: (i) Testing or
examination material used solely to
determine individual qualifications for
appointment or promotion in the federal
or military service, if the disclosure
would compromise the objectivity or
fairness of the test or examination
process may be exempt pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 552a(k)(6), if the disclosure
would compromise the objectivity or
fairness of the test or examination
process. Therefore, information within
this system of records may be exempt
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a, subsection
(d).
(ii) Portions of this system of records
are exempt from the following
subsection of the Privacy Act: (d).
(2) Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(6).
(3) Reason: From subsection (d)
because this system relates to testing or
examination materials used solely to
determine individual qualifications for
appointment or promotion in the
Federal service. Access to or
amendment of this information by the
data subject would compromise the
objectivity and fairness of the NCIS test
and evaluation system.
*
*
*
*
*
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
9263
Dated: February 18, 2005.
Jeannette Owings-Ballard,
OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer,
Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 05–3670 Filed 2–25–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001–06–M
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 165
[COTP Corpus Christi–04–006]
RIN 1625–AA87
Security Zones; Port of Port LavacaPoint Comfort, Point Comfort, TX and
Port of Corpus Christi Inner Harbor,
Corpus Christi, TX
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to
remove an established security zone in
the port of Port Lavaca-Point Comfort.
Under the Maritime Transportation
Security Act of 2002, owners or
operators of local facilities are required
to take specific action to improve
facility security. As such, a security
zone around local facilities will no
longer be necessary under normal
conditions. This proposed rule would
remove an established security zone.
DATES: Comments and related material
must reach the Coast Guard on or before
March 28, 2005.
ADDRESSES: You may mail comments
and related material to Marine Safety
Office Corpus Christi, 555 N.
Carancahua, Suite 500, Corpus Christi,
TX 78478. Marine Safety Office Corpus
Christi maintains the public docket for
this rulemaking. Comments and
material received from the public, as
well as documents indicated in this
preamble as being available in the
docket, will become part of this docket
and will be available for inspection or
copying at Marine Safety Office Corpus
Christi, 555 N. Carancahua, Suite 500,
Corpus Christi, TX 78478, between 7:30
a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Lieutenant Junior Grade (LTJG) Jay
Michalczak, Marine Safety Office
Corpus Christi, at (361) 888–3162, ext.
313.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Request for Comments
We encourage you to participate in
this rulemaking by submitting
E:\FR\FM\25FEP1.SGM
25FEP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 37 (Friday, February 25, 2005)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 9262-9263]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-3670]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Department of the Navy
32 CFR Part 701
[Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5211.5]
Privacy Act; Implementation
AGENCY: Department of the Navy.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
[[Page 9263]]
Executive Order 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review''
The Director of Administration and Management, Office of the
Secretary of Defense, hereby determines 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 on 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
obligation 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)
The Director of Administration and Management, Office of the
Secretary of Defense, hereby certifies 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)
The Director of Administration and Management, Office of the
Secretary of Defense, hereby certifies 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''
The Director of Administration and Management, Office of the
Secretary of Defense, hereby certifies 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''
The Director of Administration and Management, Office of the
Secretary of Defense, hereby certifies 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 701
Privacy.
Accordingly, 32 CFR part 701 is proposed to be amended to read as
follows:
PART 701--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for 32 CFR part 701, Subpart G continues
to read as follows:
Authority: Pub. L. 93-579, 88 Stat. 1896 (5 U.S.C. 552a).
2. Section 701.118 is amended by revising paragraph (h) to read as
follows:
Sec. 701.118 Exemptions for specific Navy record systems.
* * * * *
(h) System identifier and name: N12410-2, NCIS Training Academy
Records.
(1) Exemption: (i) Testing or examination material used solely to
determine individual qualifications for appointment or promotion in the
federal or military service, if the disclosure would compromise the
objectivity or fairness of the test or examination process may be
exempt pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(6), if the disclosure would
compromise the objectivity or fairness of the test or examination
process. Therefore, information within this system of records may be
exempt pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a, subsection (d).
(ii) Portions of this system of records are exempt from the
following subsection of the Privacy Act: (d).
(2) Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(6).
(3) Reason: From subsection (d) because this system relates to
testing or examination materials used solely to determine individual
qualifications for appointment or promotion in the Federal service.
Access to or amendment of this information by the data subject would
compromise the objectivity and fairness of the NCIS test and evaluation
system.
* * * * *
Dated: February 18, 2005.
Jeannette Owings-Ballard,
OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 05-3670 Filed 2-25-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-M