Privacy Act of 1974: Implementation, 43661-43663 [05-14850]
Download as PDF
43661
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 144 / Thursday, July 28, 2005 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 1.—AFFECTED HPC STAGE 3 DISC ASSEMBLIES
Rework band for
cyclic life accumulated on disc
assemblies P/Ns
LK46210 and
LK58278
(Pre RR service
bulletin (SB) No.
RB.211–72–5420)
Engine model
Rework band for
cyclic life accumulated on disc
assembly P/N
LK67634
(Pre RR SB
No. RB.211–72–
5420)
Rework band for
cyclic life accumulated on P/Ns
LK76036, UL11706,
UL15358,
UL22577,
UL22578, and
UL24738 disc assemblies (Pre RR
SB No. RB.211–
72–9434)
4,000–6,200
N/A
4,000–6,000
4,000–6,000
4,000–6,000
4,000–6,000
4,000–6,000
4,000–6,000
7,000–10,000
N/A
7,000–9,000
7,000–9,000
7,000–9,000
7,000–9,000
7,000–9,000
7,000–9,000
11,500–14,000
9,000–15,000
11,500–14,000
11,500–14,000
8,500–11,000
11,500–14,000
8,500–11,000
8,500–11,000
–22B series ..........................................................................................................
–535E4 series ......................................................................................................
–524B–02, B–B–02, B3–02, and B4 series, Pre and SB No. 72–7730 .............
–524B2 and C2 series, Pre SB No. 72–7730 .....................................................
–524B2–B–19 and C2–B–19, SB No. 72–7730 ..................................................
–524D4 series, Pre SB No. 72–7730 ..................................................................
–524D4–B series, SB No. 72–7730 ....................................................................
–524G2, G3, H, and H2 series ............................................................................
(1) For discs that entered into service
before 1990, remove disc and rework as
specified in paragraph (g)(2) of this AD, on
or before January 4, 2007, but not to exceed
the upper cyclic limit in Table 1 of this AD
before rework. Discs reworked may not
exceed the manufacturer’s published cyclic
limit in the time limits section of the manual.
(2) For discs that entered into service in
1990 or later, remove disc within the cyclic
life rework bands in Table 1 of this AD, or
within 17 years after the date of the disc
assembly entering into service, whichever is
sooner, but not to exceed the upper cyclic
limit of Table 1 of this AD before rework.
Discs reworked may not exceed the
manufacturer’s published cyclic limit in the
time limits section of the manual.
(3) For disc assemblies that when new,
were modified with an application of
anticorrosion protection and re-marked to P/
N LK76036 (not previously machined) as
specified by Part 1 of the original issue of RR
service bulletin (SB) No. RB.211–72–5420,
dated April 20, 1979, remove RB211–22B
disc assemblies before accumulating 10,000
cycles-in-service (CIS), and remove RB211–
524 disc assemblies before accumulating
9,000 CIS.
(4) If the disc assembly date of entry into
service cannot be determined, the date of
disc manufacture may be obtained from RR
and used instead.
(5) Discs in RB211–535C operation are
unaffected by the interim rework cyclic band
limits in Table 1 of this AD, but must meet
the calendar life requirements of either
paragraph (f)(1) or (f)(2) of this AD, as
applicable.
Optional Rework of HPC Stage 3 Discs
(g) Rework HPC stage 3 disc assemblies
that were removed in paragraph (f) of this AD
as follows:
(1) For disc assemblies that when new,
were modified with an application of
anticorrosion protection and re-marked to P/
N LK76036 (not previously machined) as
specified by Part 1 of the original issue of RR
SB RB.211–72–5420, dated April 20, 1979,
rework disc assemblies and re-mark to either
LK76034 or LK78814 using paragraph 2.B. of
the Accomplishment Instructions of RR SB
VerDate jul<14>2003
14:21 Jul 27, 2005
Jkt 205001
No. RB.211–72–5420, Revision 4, dated
February 29, 1980. This rework constitutes
terminating action to the removal
requirements in paragraph (f) of this AD.
(2) For all other disc assemblies, rework
using Paragraph 3.B. of the Accomplishment
Instructions of RR SB No. RB.211–72–9434,
Revision 4, dated January 12, 2000. This
rework constitutes terminating action to the
removal requirements in paragraph (f) of this
AD.
Note 1: If rework is done on disc
assemblies that are removed before the disc
assembly reaches the lower life of the cyclic
life rework band in Table 1 of this AD,
artificial aging of the disc to the lower life of
the rework band, at time of rework, is
required.
Alternative Methods of Compliance
(h) The Manager, Engine Certification
Office, has the authority to approve
alternative methods of compliance for this
AD if requested using the procedures found
in 14 CFR 39.19.
Related Information
(i) Civil Aviation Authority airworthiness
directive 004–01–94, dated January 4, 2002,
and RR Mandatory Service Bulletin No.
RB.211–72–9661, Revision 4, dated January
4, 2002, pertain to the subject of this AD.
Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on
July 21, 2005.
Francis A. Favara,
Acting Manager, Engine and Propeller
Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 05–14803 Filed 7–27–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Federal Bureau of Investigation
28 CFR Part 16
[AAG/A Order No. 006–2005]
Privacy Act of 1974: Implementation
Federal Bureau of
Investigation, DOJ.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The Department of Justice
(DOJ), Federal Bureau of Investigation
(FBI), proposes to exempt a new system
of records entitled the Terrorist
Screening Records System (TSRS)
(JUSTICE/FBI—019) from subsections
(c)(3) and (4); (d)(1), (2), (3), and (4);
(e)(1), (2), (3), (5), and (8); and (g) of the
Privacy Act pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)
and (k). As explained in the proposed
rule, the exemption is necessary to
avoid interference with the law
enforcement, intelligence, and
counterterrorism functions and
responsibilities of the FBI and its
Terrorist Screening Center (TSC). Public
comment is invited.
DATES: Comments must be received by
September 6, 2005.
ADDRESSES: Address all comments to
Mary E. Cahill, Management Analyst,
Management and Planning Staff, Justice
Management Division, Department of
Justice, Washington, DC 20530 (Room
1400, National Place Building),
Facsimile Number (202) 307–1853. To
ensure proper handling, please
reference the AAG/A Order No. on your
correspondence. You may review an
electronic version of this proposed rule
at https://www.regulations.gov. You may
also comment via the Internet to the
DOJ/Justice Management Division at the
following e-mail address: DOJ
E:\FR\FM\28JYP1.SGM
28JYP1
43662
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 144 / Thursday, July 28, 2005 / Proposed Rules
PrivacyACTProposedRegulations
@usdoj.gov; or by using the https://
www.regulations.gov comment form for
this regulation. When submitting
comments electronically, you must
include the AAG/A Order No. in the
subject box.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mary E. Cahill, (202) 307–1823.
In the
notice section of today’s Federal
Register, the FBI provides a description
of the ‘‘Terrorist Screening Records
System, JUSTICE/FBI–019’’ in
compliance with the Privacy Act, 5
U.S.C. 552a(e)(4). The Terrorist
Screening Records System is a system of
records established pursuant to
Homeland Security Presidential
Directive 6 to support the mission of the
FBI’s TSC to consolidate the
government’s approach to terrorist
screening. The TSC maintains the
government’s consolidated watchlist of
known and suspected terrorists and
supports agencies that engage in
terrorist screening of individuals.
Additional information about the TSC
and its operations is provided in the
Federal Register notice referenced
above.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Regulatory Flexibility Act
This proposed rule relates to
individuals, as opposed to small
business entities. Nevertheless,
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 (SBREFA) of
1996 requires the FBI to comply with
small entity requests for information
and advice about compliance with
statutes and regulations within FBI
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 page at https://
www.sba.gov/advo/laws/law_lib.html.
Paperwork Reduction Act
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires that the FBI
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.
VerDate jul<14>2003
14:21 Jul 27, 2005
Jkt 205001
Analysis of Regulatory Impacts
This proposed rule is not a
‘‘significant regulatory action’’ within
the meaning of Executive Order 12886.
Because the economic impact should be
minimal, further regulatory evaluation
is not necessary. Moreover, the Attorney
General certifies that this rule would not
have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities,
because the reporting requirements
themselves are not changed and because
it applies only to information on
individuals.
Unfunded Mandates
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), (Pub. L.
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.
Executive Order 13132, Federalism
The FBI has analyzed this rule under
the principles and criteria of Executive
Order 13132, Federalism. This action
will not have a substantial direct effect
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, and
therefore will not have federalism
implications.
Environmental Analysis
The FBI has reviewed this action for
purposes of the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C.
4321–4347) and has determined that
this action will not have a significant
effect on the human environment.
Energy Impact
The energy impact of this action has
been assessed in accordance with the
Energy Policy and Conservation Act
(EPCA) Public Law 94–163, as amended
(42 U.S.C. 6362). This rulemaking is not
a major regulatory action under the
provisions of the EPCA.
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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 793–78, it is proposed 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
2. Section 16.96 is amended to add
new paragraphs (r) and (s) to read as
follows:
§ 16.96 Exemption of Federal Bureau of
Investigation Systems—limited access.
*
*
*
*
*
(r) The following system of records is
exempt from 5 U.S.C. 552a(c)(3) and (4);
(d)(1), (2), (3), and (4); (e)(1), (2), (3), (5),
and (8); and (g):
(1) Terrorist Screening Records
System (TSRS) (JUSTICE/FBI–019).
(2) These exemptions apply only to
the extent that information in this
system is subject to exemption pursuant
to 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2), (k)(1), and (k)(2).
Where compliance would not appear to
interfere with or adversely affect the
counterterrorism purposes of this
system, and the overall law enforcement
process, the applicable exemption may
be waived by the FBI in its sole
discretion.
(s) Exemptions from the particular
subsections are justified for the
following reasons:
(1) From subsection (c)(3) because
making available to a record subject the
accounting of disclosures from records
concerning him/her would specifically
reveal any investigative interest in the
individual. Revealing this information
could reasonably be expected to
compromise ongoing efforts to
investigate a known or suspected
terrorist by notifying the record subject
that he/she is under investigation. This
information could also permit the
record subject to take measures to
impede the investigation, e.g., destroy
evidence, intimidate potential
witnesses, or flee the area to avoid or
impede the investigation.
(2) From subsection (c)(4) because this
system is exempt from the access and
amendment provisions of subsection
(d).
E:\FR\FM\28JYP1.SGM
28JYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 144 / Thursday, July 28, 2005 / Proposed Rules
(3) From subsections (d)(1), (2), (3),
and (4) because these provisions
concern individual access to and
amendment of records contained in this
system, which consists of
counterterrorism, investigatory and
intelligence records. Compliance with
these provisions could alert the subject
of an investigation pertaining to
terrorism of the fact and nature of the
investigation, and/or the investigative
interest of the FBI and/or other
intelligence or law enforcement
agencies; compromise sensitive
information classified in the interest of
national security; interfere with the
overall law enforcement process by
leading to the destruction of evidence,
improper influencing of witnesses,
fabrication of testimony, and/or flight of
the subject; could identify a confidential
source or disclose information which
would constitute an unwarranted
invasion of another’s personal privacy;
reveal a sensitive investigative or
intelligence technique; or constitute a
potential danger to the health or safety
of law enforcement personnel,
confidential informants, and witnesses.
Amendment of these records would
interfere with ongoing counterterrorism
investigations and analysis activities
and impose an impossible
administrative burden by requiring
investigations, analyses, and reports to
be continuously reinvestigated and
revised.
(4) From subsection (e)(1) because it
is not always possible for TSC to know
in advance what information is relevant
and necessary for it to complete an
identity comparison between the
individual being screened and a known
or suspected terrorist. Also, because
TSC and the FBI may not always know
what information about an encounter
with a known or suspected terrorist will
be relevant to law enforcement for the
purpose of conducting an operational
response.
(5) From subsection (e)(2) because
application of this provision could
present a serious impediment to
counterterrorism efforts in that it would
put the subject of an investigation, study
or analysis on notice of that fact, thereby
permitting the subject to engage in
conduct designed to frustrate or impede
that activity. The nature of
counterterrorism investigations is such
that vital information about an
individual frequently can be obtained
only from other persons who are
familiar with such individual and his/
her activities. In such investigations it is
not feasible to rely upon information
furnished by the individual concerning
his own activities.
VerDate jul<14>2003
14:21 Jul 27, 2005
Jkt 205001
(6) From subsection (e)(3), to the
extent that this subsection is interpreted
to require TSC to provide notice to an
individual if TSC receives information
about that individual from a third party.
Should the subsection be so interpreted,
exemption from this provision is
necessary to avoid impeding
counterterrorism efforts by putting the
subject of an investigation, study or
analysis on notice of that fact, thereby
permitting the subject to engage in
conduct intended to frustrate or impede
that activity.
(7) From subsection (e)(5) because
many of the records in this system are
derived from other domestic and foreign
agency record systems and therefore it
is not possible for the FBI and the TSC
to vouch for their compliance with this
provision, however, the TSC has
implemented internal quality assurance
procedures to ensure that TSC terrorist
screening data is as thorough, accurate,
and current as possible. In addition,
TSC supports but does not conduct
investigations; therefore, it must be able
to collect information related to terrorist
identities and encounters for
distribution to law enforcement and
intelligence agencies that do conduct
terrorism investigations. In the
collection of information for law
enforcement, counterterrorism, and
intelligence purposes, it is impossible to
determine in advance what information
is accurate, relevant, timely, and
complete. With the passage of time,
seemingly irrelevant or untimely
information may acquire new
significance as further investigation
brings new details to light. The
restrictions imposed by (e)(5) would
limit the ability of those agencies’
trained investigators and intelligence
analysts to exercise their judgment in
conducting investigations and impede
the development of intelligence
necessary for effective law enforcement
and counterterrorism efforts. The TSC
has, however, implemented internal
quality assurance procedures to ensure
that TSC terrorist screening data is as
thorough, accurate, and current as
possible.
(8) From subsection (e)(8) because to
require individual notice of disclosure
of information due to compulsory legal
process would pose an impossible
administrative burden on the FBI and
the TSC and could alert the subjects of
counterterrorism, law enforcement, or
intelligence investigations to the fact of
those investigations when not
previously known.
(9) From subsection (g) to the extent
that the system is exempt from other
specific subsections of the Privacy Act.
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
43663
Dated: July 22, 2005.
Paul R. Corts,
Assistant Attorney General for
Administration.
[FR Doc. 05–14850 Filed 7–27–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410–02–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[CA–314–0483; FRL–7945–4]
Approval and Promulgation of State
Implementation Plans for Air Quality
Planning Purposes; California—South
Coast and Coachella
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve
state implementation plan (SIP)
revisions submitted by the State of
California to provide for attainment of
the particulate matter (PM–10) national
ambient air quality standards (NAAQS)
in the Los Angeles-South Coast Air
Basin and the Coachella Valley Area,
and to establish emissions budgets for
these areas for purposes of
transportation conformity. EPA is also
proposing to approve revisions to
fugitive dust regulations and ordinances
for the areas. EPA is proposing to
approve these SIP revisions under
provisions of the Clean Air Act (CAA)
regarding EPA action on SIP submittals,
SIPs for national primary and secondary
ambient air quality standards, and plan
requirements for nonattainment areas.
DATES: Written comments on this
proposal must be received by August 29,
2005.
ADDRESSES: Please mail comments to:
Dave Jesson (AIR–2), EPA Region IX, 75
Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA
94105–3901, or e-mail to
jesson.david@epa.gov. The rulemaking
docket for this proposal is available for
public inspection during normal
business hours at EPA’s Region IX
office. A reasonable fee may be charged
for copying parts of the docket.
Copies of the SIP materials are also
available for inspection at the following
locations:
California Air Resources Board, 1001 I
Street, Sacramento, California 95812.
South Coast Air Quality Management
District, 21865 E. Copley Drive,
Diamond Bar, California 91765.
The 2003 Air Quality Management
Plan, which includes the South Coast
PM10 plan, is electronically available at:
E:\FR\FM\28JYP1.SGM
28JYP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 144 (Thursday, July 28, 2005)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 43661-43663]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-14850]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Federal Bureau of Investigation
28 CFR Part 16
[AAG/A Order No. 006-2005]
Privacy Act of 1974: Implementation
AGENCY: Federal Bureau of Investigation, DOJ.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Department of Justice (DOJ), Federal Bureau of
Investigation (FBI), proposes to exempt a new system of records
entitled the Terrorist Screening Records System (TSRS) (JUSTICE/FBI--
019) from subsections (c)(3) and (4); (d)(1), (2), (3), and (4);
(e)(1), (2), (3), (5), and (8); and (g) of the Privacy Act pursuant to
5 U.S.C. 552a(j) and (k). As explained in the proposed rule, the
exemption is necessary to avoid interference with the law enforcement,
intelligence, and counterterrorism functions and responsibilities of
the FBI and its Terrorist Screening Center (TSC). Public comment is
invited.
DATES: Comments must be received by September 6, 2005.
ADDRESSES: Address all comments to Mary E. Cahill, Management Analyst,
Management and Planning Staff, Justice Management Division, Department
of Justice, Washington, DC 20530 (Room 1400, National Place Building),
Facsimile Number (202) 307-1853. To ensure proper handling, please
reference the AAG/A Order No. on your correspondence. You may review an
electronic version of this proposed rule at https://www.regulations.gov.
You may also comment via the Internet to the DOJ/Justice Management
Division at the following e-mail address: DOJ
[[Page 43662]]
PrivacyACT ProposedRegulations @usdoj.gov; or by using the https://
www.regulations.gov comment form for this regulation. When submitting
comments electronically, you must include the AAG/A Order No. in the
subject box.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mary E. Cahill, (202) 307-1823.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the notice section of today's Federal
Register, the FBI provides a description of the ``Terrorist Screening
Records System, JUSTICE/FBI-019'' in compliance with the Privacy Act, 5
U.S.C. 552a(e)(4). The Terrorist Screening Records System is a system
of records established pursuant to Homeland Security Presidential
Directive 6 to support the mission of the FBI's TSC to consolidate the
government's approach to terrorist screening. The TSC maintains the
government's consolidated watchlist of known and suspected terrorists
and supports agencies that engage in terrorist screening of
individuals. Additional information about the TSC and its operations is
provided in the Federal Register notice referenced above.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
This proposed rule relates to individuals, as opposed to small
business entities. Nevertheless, 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 (SBREFA) of
1996 requires the FBI to comply with small entity requests for
information and advice about compliance with statutes and regulations
within FBI 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 page at https://www.sba.gov/advo/
laws/law_lib.html.
Paperwork Reduction Act
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires
that the FBI 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.
Analysis of Regulatory Impacts
This proposed rule is not a ``significant regulatory action''
within the meaning of Executive Order 12886. Because the economic
impact should be minimal, further regulatory evaluation is not
necessary. Moreover, the Attorney General certifies that this rule
would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities, because the reporting requirements themselves are not
changed and because it applies only to information on individuals.
Unfunded Mandates
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), (Pub.
L. 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.
Executive Order 13132, Federalism
The FBI has analyzed this rule under the principles and criteria of
Executive Order 13132, Federalism. This action will not have a
substantial direct effect 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, and
therefore will not have federalism implications.
Environmental Analysis
The FBI has reviewed this action for purposes of the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4347) and has
determined that this action will not have a significant effect on the
human environment.
Energy Impact
The energy impact of this action has been assessed in accordance
with the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) Public Law 94-163,
as amended (42 U.S.C. 6362). This rulemaking is not a major regulatory
action under the provisions of the EPCA.
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 793-78, it is
proposed 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
2. Section 16.96 is amended to add new paragraphs (r) and (s) to
read as follows:
Sec. 16.96 Exemption of Federal Bureau of Investigation Systems--
limited access.
* * * * *
(r) The following system of records is exempt from 5 U.S.C.
552a(c)(3) and (4); (d)(1), (2), (3), and (4); (e)(1), (2), (3), (5),
and (8); and (g):
(1) Terrorist Screening Records System (TSRS) (JUSTICE/FBI-019).
(2) These exemptions apply only to the extent that information in
this system is subject to exemption pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2),
(k)(1), and (k)(2). Where compliance would not appear to interfere with
or adversely affect the counterterrorism purposes of this system, and
the overall law enforcement process, the applicable exemption may be
waived by the FBI in its sole discretion.
(s) Exemptions from the particular subsections are justified for
the following reasons:
(1) From subsection (c)(3) because making available to a record
subject the accounting of disclosures from records concerning him/her
would specifically reveal any investigative interest in the individual.
Revealing this information could reasonably be expected to compromise
ongoing efforts to investigate a known or suspected terrorist by
notifying the record subject that he/she is under investigation. This
information could also permit the record subject to take measures to
impede the investigation, e.g., destroy evidence, intimidate potential
witnesses, or flee the area to avoid or impede the investigation.
(2) From subsection (c)(4) because this system is exempt from the
access and amendment provisions of subsection (d).
[[Page 43663]]
(3) From subsections (d)(1), (2), (3), and (4) because these
provisions concern individual access to and amendment of records
contained in this system, which consists of counterterrorism,
investigatory and intelligence records. Compliance with these
provisions could alert the subject of an investigation pertaining to
terrorism of the fact and nature of the investigation, and/or the
investigative interest of the FBI and/or other intelligence or law
enforcement agencies; compromise sensitive information classified in
the interest of national security; interfere with the overall law
enforcement process by leading to the destruction of evidence, improper
influencing of witnesses, fabrication of testimony, and/or flight of
the subject; could identify a confidential source or disclose
information which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of another's
personal privacy; reveal a sensitive investigative or intelligence
technique; or constitute a potential danger to the health or safety of
law enforcement personnel, confidential informants, and witnesses.
Amendment of these records would interfere with ongoing
counterterrorism investigations and analysis activities and impose an
impossible administrative burden by requiring investigations, analyses,
and reports to be continuously reinvestigated and revised.
(4) From subsection (e)(1) because it is not always possible for
TSC to know in advance what information is relevant and necessary for
it to complete an identity comparison between the individual being
screened and a known or suspected terrorist. Also, because TSC and the
FBI may not always know what information about an encounter with a
known or suspected terrorist will be relevant to law enforcement for
the purpose of conducting an operational response.
(5) From subsection (e)(2) because application of this provision
could present a serious impediment to counterterrorism efforts in that
it would put the subject of an investigation, study or analysis on
notice of that fact, thereby permitting the subject to engage in
conduct designed to frustrate or impede that activity. The nature of
counterterrorism investigations is such that vital information about an
individual frequently can be obtained only from other persons who are
familiar with such individual and his/her activities. In such
investigations it is not feasible to rely upon information furnished by
the individual concerning his own activities.
(6) From subsection (e)(3), to the extent that this subsection is
interpreted to require TSC to provide notice to an individual if TSC
receives information about that individual from a third party. Should
the subsection be so interpreted, exemption from this provision is
necessary to avoid impeding counterterrorism efforts by putting the
subject of an investigation, study or analysis on notice of that fact,
thereby permitting the subject to engage in conduct intended to
frustrate or impede that activity.
(7) From subsection (e)(5) because many of the records in this
system are derived from other domestic and foreign agency record
systems and therefore it is not possible for the FBI and the TSC to
vouch for their compliance with this provision, however, the TSC has
implemented internal quality assurance procedures to ensure that TSC
terrorist screening data is as thorough, accurate, and current as
possible. In addition, TSC supports but does not conduct
investigations; therefore, it must be able to collect information
related to terrorist identities and encounters for distribution to law
enforcement and intelligence agencies that do conduct terrorism
investigations. In the collection of information for law enforcement,
counterterrorism, and intelligence purposes, it is impossible to
determine in advance what information is accurate, relevant, timely,
and complete. With the passage of time, seemingly irrelevant or
untimely information may acquire new significance as further
investigation brings new details to light. The restrictions imposed by
(e)(5) would limit the ability of those agencies' trained investigators
and intelligence analysts to exercise their judgment in conducting
investigations and impede the development of intelligence necessary for
effective law enforcement and counterterrorism efforts. The TSC has,
however, implemented internal quality assurance procedures to ensure
that TSC terrorist screening data is as thorough, accurate, and current
as possible.
(8) From subsection (e)(8) because to require individual notice of
disclosure of information due to compulsory legal process would pose an
impossible administrative burden on the FBI and the TSC and could alert
the subjects of counterterrorism, law enforcement, or intelligence
investigations to the fact of those investigations when not previously
known.
(9) From subsection (g) to the extent that the system is exempt
from other specific subsections of the Privacy Act.
Dated: July 22, 2005.
Paul R. Corts,
Assistant Attorney General for Administration.
[FR Doc. 05-14850 Filed 7-27-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-02-P