Privacy Act of 1974: Implementation of Exemptions; Customs and Border Protection Advanced Passenger Information System, 68291-68293 [E8-27206]
Download as PDF
68291
Rules and Regulations
Federal Register
Vol. 73, No. 223
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER
contains regulatory documents having general
applicability and legal effect, most of which
are keyed to and codified in the Code of
Federal Regulations, which is published under
50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.
The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by
the Superintendent of Documents. Prices of
new books are listed in the first FEDERAL
REGISTER issue of each week.
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
6 CFR Part 5
[Docket No. DHS–2008–0183]
Privacy Act of 1974: Implementation of
Exemptions; Customs and Border
Protection Advanced Passenger
Information System
Privacy Office, DHS.
Final rule.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
SUMMARY: The Department of Homeland
Security is issuing a final rule to amend
its regulations to exempt portions of the
system of records entitled the Advanced
Passenger Information System from
certain provisions of the Privacy Act.
Specifically, the Department proposes to
exempt portions of the Advanced
Passenger Information System from one
or more provisions of the Privacy Act
because of criminal, civil, and
administrative enforcement
requirements.
Effective Date: This final rule is
effective November 18, 2008.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Hugo Teufel III, Chief Privacy Officer,
Privacy Office, Department of Homeland
Security, Washington, DC 20528;
telephone 703–235–0780; facsimile:
866–466–5370.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
DATES:
dwashington3 on PRODPC61 with RULES
Background
The Department of Homeland
Security (DHS), elsewhere in this
edition of the Federal Register,
published a Privacy Act system of
records notice describing records in the
Advance Passenger Information System
(APIS). APIS performs screening of both
inbound and outbound passengers and
crew and, in the commercial air
environment, crew members overflying
the United States. As part of this
screening function and to facilitate
VerDate Aug<31>2005
13:43 Nov 17, 2008
Jkt 217001
DHS’s border enforcement mission,
APIS data is compared with information
in other CBP law enforcement systems,
as well as with information from the
TSDB, information on individuals with
outstanding wants or warrants, and
information from other government
agencies regarding high risk parties and
queries based on law enforcement data,
intelligence, and past case experience to
assess persons seeking to cross (or in the
case of crew, overfly) the U.S. border
using a means of transport covered by
CBP’s APIS regulations.
APIS contains records pertaining to
various categories of individuals,
including: Passengers and crew who
arrive, transit through or depart the
United States by air or sea (and includes
the U.S. domestic portions of
international travel for passengers and
crew flying into or out of the United
States) and crew members on aircraft
that overfly the United States.
No exemption shall be asserted with
respect to information maintained in the
system that is collected from a person
and submitted by that person’s air or
vessel carrier, if that person, or his or
her agent, seeks access or amendment of
such information.
This system, however, may contain
records or information recompiled from
or created from information contained
in other systems of records, which are
exempt from certain provisions of the
Privacy Act. This system may also
contain accountings of disclosures made
with respect to information maintained
in the system. For these records or
information only, in accordance with 5
U.S.C. 552a(j)(2), and (k)(2), DHS will
also claim the original exemptions for
these records or information from
subsections (c)(3) and (4); (d)(1), (2), (3),
and (4); (e)(1), (2), (3), (4)(G) through (I),
(5), and (8); (f), and (g) of the Privacy
Act of 1974, as amended, as necessary
and appropriate to protect such
information. Moreover, DHS will add
these exemptions to Appendix C to 6
CFR Part 5, DHS Systems of Records
Exempt from the Privacy Act. Such
exempt records or information may be
law enforcement or national security
investigation records, law enforcement
activity and encounter records, or
terrorist screening records.
DHS needs these exemptions in order
to protect information relating to law
enforcement investigations from
disclosure to subjects of investigations
PO 00000
Frm 00001
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
and others who could interfere with
investigatory and law enforcement
activities. Specifically, the exemptions
are required to: Preclude subjects of
investigations from frustrating the
investigative process; avoid disclosure
of investigative techniques; protect the
identities and physical safety of
confidential informants and of law
enforcement personnel; ensure DHS’s
and other federal agencies’ ability to
obtain information from third parties
and other sources; protect the privacy of
third parties; and safeguard sensitive
information. The exemptions proposed
here are standard law enforcement
exemptions exercised by a large number
of federal law enforcement agencies.
Nonetheless, DHS will examine each
request on a case-by-case basis, and,
after conferring with the appropriate
component or agency, may waive
applicable exemptions in appropriate
circumstances and where it would not
appear to interfere with or adversely
affect the law enforcement purposes of
the systems from which the information
is recompiled or in which it is
contained.
Again, DHS will not assert any
exemption with respect to information
maintained in the system that is
collected from a person and submitted
by that person’s air or vessel carrier, if
that person, or his or her agent, seeks
access or amendment of such
information.
Public Comments
We received two comments; neither
was specific to the Notice of Proposed
Rule Making Privacy Act Exemptions.
Regulatory Requirements
A. Regulatory Impact Analyses
Changes to Federal regulations must
undergo several analyses. In conducting
these analyses, DHS has determined:
1. Executive Order 12866 Assessment
This rule is not a significant
regulatory action under Executive Order
12866, ‘‘Regulatory Planning and
Review’’ (as amended). Accordingly,
this rule has not been reviewed by the
Office of Management and Budget
(OMB). Nevertheless, DHS has reviewed
this rulemaking, and concluded that
there will not be any significant
economic impact.
E:\FR\FM\18NOR1.SGM
18NOR1
68292
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 223 / Tuesday, November 18, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
2. Regulatory Flexibility Act Assessment
Pursuant to section 605 of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5
U.S.C. 605(b), as amended by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement and
Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), DHS
certifies that this rule will not have a
significant impact on a substantial
number of small entities. The rule
would impose no duties or obligations
on small entities. Further, the
exemptions to the Privacy Act apply to
individuals, and individuals are not
covered entities under the RFA.
3. International Trade Impact
Assessment
This rulemaking will not constitute a
barrier to international trade. The
exemptions relate to criminal
investigations and agency
documentation and, therefore, do not
create any new costs or barriers to trade.
4. Unfunded Mandates Assessment
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. This rulemaking will not impose
an unfunded mandate on State, local, or
tribal governments, or on the private
sector.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) requires
that DHS consider the impact of
paperwork and other information
collection burdens imposed on the
public and, under the provisions of PRA
section 3507(d), obtain approval from
the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for each collection of
information it conducts, sponsors, or
requires through regulations. DHS has
determined that there are no current or
new information collection
requirements associated with this rule.
dwashington3 on PRODPC61 with RULES
C. 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.
D. Environmental Analysis
DHS 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.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
13:43 Nov 17, 2008
Jkt 217001
E. 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 6 CFR Part 5
Freedom of information; Privacy.
For the reasons stated in the preamble,
DHS amends Chapter I of Title 6, Code
of Federal Regulations, as follows:
■
PART 5—DISCLOSURE OF RECORDS
AND INFORMATION
1. The authority citation for Part 5
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: Public Law 107–296, 116 Stat.
2135, 6 U.S.C. 101 et seq.; 5 U.S.C. 301.
Subpart A also issued under 5 U.S.C. 552.
2. At the end of Appendix C to Part
5, add the following new paragraph
‘‘12’’ to read as follows:
■
Appendix C to Part 5—DHS Systems of
Records Exempt From the Privacy Act
*
*
*
*
*
12. DHS/CBP–005, Advanced Passenger
Information System. A portion of 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), (4)(G) through (I), (5), and
(8); (f), and (g); however, these exemptions
apply only to the extent that information in
this system records is recompiled or is
created from information contained in other
systems of records subject to such
exemptions pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2),
and (k)(2). Further, no exemption shall be
asserted with respect to information
submitted by and collected from the
individual or the individual’s representative
in the course of any redress process
associated with this system of records. After
conferring with the appropriate component
or agency, DHS may waive applicable
exemptions in appropriate circumstances and
where it would not appear to interfere with
or adversely affect the law enforcement or
national security purposes of the systems
from which the information is recompiled or
in which it is contained. Exemptions from
the above particular subsections are justified,
on a case-by-case basis to be determined at
the time a request is made, when information
in this system records is recompiled or is
created from information contained in other
systems of records subject to exemptions for
the following reasons:
(a) From subsection (c)(3) (Accounting for
Disclosure) because making available to a
record subject the accounting of disclosures
from records concerning him or 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 or she is under investigation.
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
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.
(b) From subsection (c)(4) (Accounting for
Disclosure, notice of dispute) because
portions of this system are exempt from the
access and amendment provisions of
subsection (d).
(c) From subsections (d)(1), (2), (3), and (4)
(Access to Records) because these provisions
concern individual access to and amendment
of certain records contained in this system,
including law enforcement counterterrorism,
investigatory, and intelligence records.
Compliance with these provisions could alert
the subject of an investigation of the fact and
nature of the investigation, and/or the
investigative interest of intelligence or law
enforcement agencies; compromise sensitive
information related to 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, law
enforcement, or intelligence investigations
and analysis activities and impose an
impossible administrative burden by
requiring investigations, analyses, and
reports to be continuously reinvestigated and
revised.
(d) From subsection (e)(1) (Relevancy and
Necessity of Information) because it is not
always possible for DHS or other agencies to
know in advance what information is
relevant and necessary for it to complete an
identity comparison between the individual
seeking redress and a known or suspected
terrorist. Also, because DHS and other
agencies 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.
(e) From subsection (e)(2) (Collection of
Information from Individuals) because
application of this provision could present a
serious impediment to counterterrorism, law
enforcement, or intelligence 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, law
enforcement, or intelligence 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.
(f) From subsection (e)(3) (Notice to
Subjects), to the extent that this subsection is
interpreted to require DHS to provide notice
E:\FR\FM\18NOR1.SGM
18NOR1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 223 / Tuesday, November 18, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
dwashington3 on PRODPC61 with RULES
to an individual if DHS or another agency
receives or collects information about that
individual during an investigation or from a
third party. Should the subsection be so
interpreted, exemption from this provision is
necessary to avoid impeding
counterterrorism, law enforcement, or
intelligence 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.
(g) From subsections (e)(4)(G), (H) and (I)
(Agency Requirements) because portions of
this system are exempt from the access and
amendment provisions of subsection (d).
(h) From subsection (e)(5) (Collection of
Information) because many of the records in
this system coming from other system of
records are derived from other domestic and
foreign agency record systems and therefore
it is not possible for DHS to vouch for their
compliance with this provision; however, the
DHS has implemented internal quality
assurance procedures to ensure that data
used in the redress process is as thorough,
accurate, and current as possible. In addition,
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 DHS has,
however, implemented internal quality
assurance procedures to ensure that the data
used in the redress process is as thorough,
accurate, and current as possible.
(i) From subsection (e)(8) (Notice on
Individuals) because to require individual
notice of disclosure of information due to
compulsory legal process would pose an
impossible administrative burden on DHS
and other agencies and could alert the
subjects of counterterrorism, law
enforcement, or intelligence investigations to
the fact of those investigations when not
previously known.
(j) From subsection (f) (Agency Rules)
because portions of this system are exempt
from the access and amendment provisions
of subsection (d).
(k) From subsection (g) (Civil Remedies) to
the extent that the system is exempt from
other specific subsections of the Privacy Act.
Dated: November 10, 2008.
Hugo Teufel III,
Chief Privacy Officer, Department of
Homeland Security.
[FR Doc. E8–27206 Filed 11–17–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410–10–P
VerDate Aug<31>2005
13:43 Nov 17, 2008
Jkt 217001
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Rural Utilities Service
7 CFR Part 1776
RIN 0572–AC12
Amending the Household Water Well
System Grant Program Regulations
Rural Utilities Service, USDA.
Direct final rule.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
SUMMARY: The Rural Utilities Service
(RUS), an agency delivering the United
States Department of Agriculture’s
(USDA) Rural Development Utilities
Programs, hereinafter referred to as
Rural Development or the Agency, is
amending its regulations to administer
the Household Water Well System Grant
Program. This action implements
provisions of the 2008 Farm Bill for
limits on loans that nonprofit
organizations may make to homeowners
for private well systems. The 2008 Farm
Bill raises the loan limit to $11,000 from
$8,000. The intended effect is to make
part 1776 current with statutory
authority. The Agency will also amend
the regulation to enable existing grant
recipients to amend their grant
agreements for the new $11,000 loan
limit. No adverse comments are
expected.
This rule will become effective
January 2, 2009 unless the Agency
receives written adverse comments or a
written notice of intent to submit
adverse comments on or before
December 18, 2008. If we receive
adverse comments or notices, the
Agency will publish a timely document
in the Federal Register withdrawing the
rule. Comments received will be
considered under the proposed rule
published in this edition of the Federal
Register in the proposed rule section. A
second public comment period will not
be held. Written comments must be
received by the Agency or carry a
postmark or equivalent no later than
December 18, 2008.
ADDRESSES: Submit adverse comments
or notice of intent to submit adverse
comments by any of the following
methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to
https://www.regulations.gov. In the
‘‘Search Documents’’ box, enter RUS–
08–WATER–03, check the box under the
Search box labeled ‘‘Select to find
documents accepting comments or
submissions,’’ and click on the GO>>
key. To submit a comment, choose
‘‘Send a comment or submission,’’
under the Docket Title. In order to
submit your comment, the information
DATES:
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
68293
requested on the ‘‘Public Comment and
Submission Form,’’ must be completed.
(If you click on the hyperlink of the
docket when the search returns it, you
will see the docket details. Click on the
yellow balloon to receive the ‘‘Public
Comment and Submission Form.’’)
Information on using Regulations.gov,
including instructions for accessing
documents, submitting comments, and
viewing the docket after the close of the
comment period, is available through
the site’s ‘‘How to Use this Site’’ link.
• Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery:
Please send your comment addressed to
Michele Brooks, Director, Program
Development and Regulatory Analysis,
USDA Rural Development, STOP 1522,
Room 5159, 1400 Independence
Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250–
1522. Please state that your comment
refers to Docket No. RUS 08–WATER–
03.
Other Information: Additional
information about Rural Development
and its programs is available at https://
www.rurdev.usda.gov/.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Cheryl Francis, Loan Specialist, Water
and Environmental Programs, USDA
Rural Development, 1400 Independence
Avenue, STOP 1570, Room 2229 South
Building, Washington, DC 20250–1570.
Telephone: (202) 720–9589; Fax: (202)
690–0649; e-mail:
cheryl.francis@wdc.usda.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Executive Order 12866
This rule has been determined to be
not significant for purposes of Executive
Order 12866 and, therefore has not been
reviewed by the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB).
Executive Order 12372
The program is not subject to the
provisions of Executive Order 12372,
‘‘Intergovernmental Consultation,’’ as
implemented under USDA’s regulations
at 7 CFR part 3015.
Executive Order 12988
This rule has been reviewed under
Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice
Reform. The Agency has determined
that this rule meets the applicable
standards provided in section 3 of the
Executive Order. In addition, all state
and local laws and regulations that are
in conflict with this rule will be
preempted; no retroactive effect will be
given to the rule; and in accordance
with section 212(e) of the Department of
Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994,
[7 U.S.C. 6912(e)], administrative appeal
procedures, if any, must be exhausted
before litigation against the Department
or its agencies may be initiated.
E:\FR\FM\18NOR1.SGM
18NOR1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 223 (Tuesday, November 18, 2008)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 68291-68293]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-27206]
========================================================================
Rules and Regulations
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents
having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed
to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published
under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.
The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents.
Prices of new books are listed in the first FEDERAL REGISTER issue of each
week.
========================================================================
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 223 / Tuesday, November 18, 2008 /
Rules and Regulations
[[Page 68291]]
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
6 CFR Part 5
[Docket No. DHS-2008-0183]
Privacy Act of 1974: Implementation of Exemptions; Customs and
Border Protection Advanced Passenger Information System
AGENCY: Privacy Office, DHS.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Department of Homeland Security is issuing a final rule to
amend its regulations to exempt portions of the system of records
entitled the Advanced Passenger Information System from certain
provisions of the Privacy Act. Specifically, the Department proposes to
exempt portions of the Advanced Passenger Information System from one
or more provisions of the Privacy Act because of criminal, civil, and
administrative enforcement requirements.
DATES: Effective Date: This final rule is effective November 18, 2008.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Hugo Teufel III, Chief Privacy
Officer, Privacy Office, Department of Homeland Security, Washington,
DC 20528; telephone 703-235-0780; facsimile: 866-466-5370.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), elsewhere in this
edition of the Federal Register, published a Privacy Act system of
records notice describing records in the Advance Passenger Information
System (APIS). APIS performs screening of both inbound and outbound
passengers and crew and, in the commercial air environment, crew
members overflying the United States. As part of this screening
function and to facilitate DHS's border enforcement mission, APIS data
is compared with information in other CBP law enforcement systems, as
well as with information from the TSDB, information on individuals with
outstanding wants or warrants, and information from other government
agencies regarding high risk parties and queries based on law
enforcement data, intelligence, and past case experience to assess
persons seeking to cross (or in the case of crew, overfly) the U.S.
border using a means of transport covered by CBP's APIS regulations.
APIS contains records pertaining to various categories of
individuals, including: Passengers and crew who arrive, transit through
or depart the United States by air or sea (and includes the U.S.
domestic portions of international travel for passengers and crew
flying into or out of the United States) and crew members on aircraft
that overfly the United States.
No exemption shall be asserted with respect to information
maintained in the system that is collected from a person and submitted
by that person's air or vessel carrier, if that person, or his or her
agent, seeks access or amendment of such information.
This system, however, may contain records or information recompiled
from or created from information contained in other systems of records,
which are exempt from certain provisions of the Privacy Act. This
system may also contain accountings of disclosures made with respect to
information maintained in the system. For these records or information
only, in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2), and (k)(2), DHS will also
claim the original exemptions for these records or information from
subsections (c)(3) and (4); (d)(1), (2), (3), and (4); (e)(1), (2),
(3), (4)(G) through (I), (5), and (8); (f), and (g) of the Privacy Act
of 1974, as amended, as necessary and appropriate to protect such
information. Moreover, DHS will add these exemptions to Appendix C to 6
CFR Part 5, DHS Systems of Records Exempt from the Privacy Act. Such
exempt records or information may be law enforcement or national
security investigation records, law enforcement activity and encounter
records, or terrorist screening records.
DHS needs these exemptions in order to protect information relating
to law enforcement investigations from disclosure to subjects of
investigations and others who could interfere with investigatory and
law enforcement activities. Specifically, the exemptions are required
to: Preclude subjects of investigations from frustrating the
investigative process; avoid disclosure of investigative techniques;
protect the identities and physical safety of confidential informants
and of law enforcement personnel; ensure DHS's and other federal
agencies' ability to obtain information from third parties and other
sources; protect the privacy of third parties; and safeguard sensitive
information. The exemptions proposed here are standard law enforcement
exemptions exercised by a large number of federal law enforcement
agencies.
Nonetheless, DHS will examine each request on a case-by-case basis,
and, after conferring with the appropriate component or agency, may
waive applicable exemptions in appropriate circumstances and where it
would not appear to interfere with or adversely affect the law
enforcement purposes of the systems from which the information is
recompiled or in which it is contained.
Again, DHS will not assert any exemption with respect to
information maintained in the system that is collected from a person
and submitted by that person's air or vessel carrier, if that person,
or his or her agent, seeks access or amendment of such information.
Public Comments
We received two comments; neither was specific to the Notice of
Proposed Rule Making Privacy Act Exemptions.
Regulatory Requirements
A. Regulatory Impact Analyses
Changes to Federal regulations must undergo several analyses. In
conducting these analyses, DHS has determined:
1. Executive Order 12866 Assessment
This rule is not a significant regulatory action under Executive
Order 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review'' (as amended).
Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB). Nevertheless, DHS has reviewed this
rulemaking, and concluded that there will not be any significant
economic impact.
[[Page 68292]]
2. Regulatory Flexibility Act Assessment
Pursuant to section 605 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5
U.S.C. 605(b), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
and Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), DHS certifies that this rule will
not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small
entities. The rule would impose no duties or obligations on small
entities. Further, the exemptions to the Privacy Act apply to
individuals, and individuals are not covered entities under the RFA.
3. International Trade Impact Assessment
This rulemaking will not constitute a barrier to international
trade. The exemptions relate to criminal investigations and agency
documentation and, therefore, do not create any new costs or barriers
to trade.
4. Unfunded Mandates Assessment
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. This rulemaking will not impose an
unfunded mandate on State, local, or tribal governments, or on the
private sector.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)
requires that DHS consider the impact of paperwork and other
information collection burdens imposed on the public and, under the
provisions of PRA section 3507(d), obtain approval from the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information it
conducts, sponsors, or requires through regulations. DHS has determined
that there are no current or new information collection requirements
associated with this rule.
C. 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.
D. Environmental Analysis
DHS 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.
E. 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 6 CFR Part 5
Freedom of information; Privacy.
0
For the reasons stated in the preamble, DHS amends Chapter I of Title
6, Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:
PART 5--DISCLOSURE OF RECORDS AND INFORMATION
0
1. The authority citation for Part 5 continues to read as follows:
Authority: Public Law 107-296, 116 Stat. 2135, 6 U.S.C. 101 et
seq.; 5 U.S.C. 301. Subpart A also issued under 5 U.S.C. 552.
0
2. At the end of Appendix C to Part 5, add the following new paragraph
``12'' to read as follows:
Appendix C to Part 5--DHS Systems of Records Exempt From the Privacy
Act
* * * * *
12. DHS/CBP-005, Advanced Passenger Information System. A
portion of 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),
(4)(G) through (I), (5), and (8); (f), and (g); however, these
exemptions apply only to the extent that information in this system
records is recompiled or is created from information contained in
other systems of records subject to such exemptions pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 552a(j)(2), and (k)(2). Further, no exemption shall be
asserted with respect to information submitted by and collected from
the individual or the individual's representative in the course of
any redress process associated with this system of records. After
conferring with the appropriate component or agency, DHS may waive
applicable exemptions in appropriate circumstances and where it
would not appear to interfere with or adversely affect the law
enforcement or national security purposes of the systems from which
the information is recompiled or in which it is contained.
Exemptions from the above particular subsections are justified, on a
case-by-case basis to be determined at the time a request is made,
when information in this system records is recompiled or is created
from information contained in other systems of records subject to
exemptions for the following reasons:
(a) From subsection (c)(3) (Accounting for Disclosure) because
making available to a record subject the accounting of disclosures
from records concerning him or 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 or 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.
(b) From subsection (c)(4) (Accounting for Disclosure, notice of
dispute) because portions of this system are exempt from the access
and amendment provisions of subsection (d).
(c) From subsections (d)(1), (2), (3), and (4) (Access to
Records) because these provisions concern individual access to and
amendment of certain records contained in this system, including law
enforcement counterterrorism, investigatory, and intelligence
records. Compliance with these provisions could alert the subject of
an investigation of the fact and nature of the investigation, and/or
the investigative interest of intelligence or law enforcement
agencies; compromise sensitive information related to 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, law enforcement, or intelligence investigations
and analysis activities and impose an impossible administrative
burden by requiring investigations, analyses, and reports to be
continuously reinvestigated and revised.
(d) From subsection (e)(1) (Relevancy and Necessity of
Information) because it is not always possible for DHS or other
agencies to know in advance what information is relevant and
necessary for it to complete an identity comparison between the
individual seeking redress and a known or suspected terrorist. Also,
because DHS and other agencies 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.
(e) From subsection (e)(2) (Collection of Information from
Individuals) because application of this provision could present a
serious impediment to counterterrorism, law enforcement, or
intelligence 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, law
enforcement, or intelligence 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.
(f) From subsection (e)(3) (Notice to Subjects), to the extent
that this subsection is interpreted to require DHS to provide notice
[[Page 68293]]
to an individual if DHS or another agency receives or collects
information about that individual during an investigation or from a
third party. Should the subsection be so interpreted, exemption from
this provision is necessary to avoid impeding counterterrorism, law
enforcement, or intelligence 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.
(g) From subsections (e)(4)(G), (H) and (I) (Agency
Requirements) because portions of this system are exempt from the
access and amendment provisions of subsection (d).
(h) From subsection (e)(5) (Collection of Information) because
many of the records in this system coming from other system of
records are derived from other domestic and foreign agency record
systems and therefore it is not possible for DHS to vouch for their
compliance with this provision; however, the DHS has implemented
internal quality assurance procedures to ensure that data used in
the redress process is as thorough, accurate, and current as
possible. In addition, 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 DHS has, however, implemented internal
quality assurance procedures to ensure that the data used in the
redress process is as thorough, accurate, and current as possible.
(i) From subsection (e)(8) (Notice on Individuals) because to
require individual notice of disclosure of information due to
compulsory legal process would pose an impossible administrative
burden on DHS and other agencies and could alert the subjects of
counterterrorism, law enforcement, or intelligence investigations to
the fact of those investigations when not previously known.
(j) From subsection (f) (Agency Rules) because portions of this
system are exempt from the access and amendment provisions of
subsection (d).
(k) From subsection (g) (Civil Remedies) to the extent that the
system is exempt from other specific subsections of the Privacy Act.
Dated: November 10, 2008.
Hugo Teufel III,
Chief Privacy Officer, Department of Homeland Security.
[FR Doc. E8-27206 Filed 11-17-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-10-P