Maintenance of and Access to Records Pertaining to Individuals; Proposed Exemption, 55334-55335 [2011-22729]
Download as PDF
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
55334
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 173 / Wednesday, September 7, 2011 / Proposed Rules
techniques to discourage copying of the
FBI APW Seal, except that such
techniques need not be used if no other
content or advertising programmed into
the same work on the same media
utilizes such copyright anticircumvention or copy protection
techniques.
(f) Prohibitions regarding use of the
APW Seal.
(1) The APW Seal may not be used in
a manner indicating FBI approval,
authorization, or endorsement of any
communication other than the
authorized warning language. No other
text or image that appears on the same
screen, page, package, etc., as the APW
Seal or authorized warning language
shall reference, contradict, or be
displayed in a manner that appears to be
associated with, the APW Seal or
authorized warning language, except as
authorized in writing by the Director of
the FBI or his or her designee and
posted on the FBI’s official public
Internet Web site (https://www.fbi.gov).
(2) The APW Seal may not be used on
any work whose production, sale,
distribution by United States mail or in
interstate commerce, or public
presentation would violate the laws of
the United States including, but not
limited to, those protecting intellectual
property and those prohibiting child
pornography and obscenity.
(3) The APW Seal may not be
forwarded or copied except as necessary
to display it on an eligible work.
(4) The APW Seal shall not be used
in any manner:
(A) Indicating that the FBI has
approved, authorized, or endorsed any
work, product, production, or private
entity, including the work on which it
appears;
(B) Indicating that the FBI has
determined that a particular work or
portion thereof is entitled to protection
of the law; or,
(C) Indicating that any item or
communication, except as provided
herein, originated from, on behalf of, or
in coordination with the FBI, whether
for enforcement purposes, education, or
otherwise.
Dated: August 29, 2011.
Lee J. Lofthus,
Assistant Attorney General for
Administration.
[FR Doc. 2011–22877 Filed 9–6–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410–02–P
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:43 Sep 06, 2011
Jkt 223001
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Office of the Secretary
49 CFR Part 10
[Docket No. OST–1996–1437]
RIN 2105–AD11
Maintenance of and Access to Records
Pertaining to Individuals; Proposed
Exemption
Department of Transportation
(DOT), Office of the Secretary.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
AGENCY:
DOT proposes to add a system
of records relating to suspicious activity
reporting to the list of DOT Privacy Act
Systems of Records that are exempt
from one or more provisions of the
Privacy Act. Public comment is invited.
DATES: Comments are due October 7,
2011. If no comments are received by
the due date, the proposal will take
effect as proposed and comments
addressed accordingly. If comments are
received by the due date, the proposal
will still take effect as proposed and the
comments addressed accordingly.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
[identified by DOT DMS Docket Number
[OST–1996–1437] by any of the
following methods:
Web site: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting
comments on the DOT electronic docket
site.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
and reply comments using any one of
the following methods:
Initial comments will be made
available promptly electronically,
online on https://www.regulations.gov, or
for public inspection in room W12–140,
DOT Building, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between
9 a.m. and 5 p.m., e.t., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays. In
order to allow sufficient opportunity for
interested parties to prepare and submit
any reply comments, late-filed initial
comments will not be considered. Reply
comments must address only matters
raised in initial comments and must not
be used to present new arguments,
contentions, or factual material that is
not responsive to the initial comments.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
and reply comments identified by
docket number OST–1996–1437 using
any one of the following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov.
• Fax: 202–493–2251.
• Mail: Docket Management Facility
(M–30), U.S. Department of
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00057
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Transportation, West Building Ground
Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590–
0001.
• Hand delivery: Same as mail
address above, between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., ET Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The telephone
number is 202–366–9329.
To avoid duplication, please use only
one of these four methods. See the
‘‘Public Participation and Request for
Comments’’ portion of the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section
below for instructions on submitting
comments.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Claire Barrett, Departmental Chief
Privacy Officer, Office of the Chief
Information Officer, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590 at
(202) 366–1835.
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION: It is DOT
practice to identify a Privacy Act system
of records that is exempt from one or
more provisions of the Privacy Act
(pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(j) or (k)) both
in the system notice published in the
Federal Register for public comment
and in an Appendix to DOT’s
regulations implementing the Privacy
Act (49 CFR part 10, Appendix A). This
amendment proposes exemption from
certain portions of the Privacy Act of a
proposed record system—the
Suspicious Activity Reporting (SAR)
database—to be used to track observed
behavior reasonably indicative of preoperational planning related to
terrorism or other criminal activity. To
aid in the law enforcement aspects of
SAR, DOT proposes to treat it as it treats
other law enforcement systems, by
exempting it from the following
provisions of the Privacy Act: (c)(3)
(Accounting of Certain Disclosures), (d)
(Access to Records), (e)(4)(G), (H), and
(I) (Agency Requirements), and (f)
(Agency Rules), to the extent that SAR
contains investigatory material
compiled for law enforcement purposes,
in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(2).1
1 (c)(3)—An agency making disclosures of
information that is covered by the Privacy Act must
keep an accounting of those disclosures and, under
(c)(3), make that accounting available to the subject
upon the subject’s request. The exemption from
(c)(3) means that, although we still have to maintain
the accounting, we do not have to provide it to the
subject.
(d)—One of the essential elements of the Privacy
Act is the subject’s right of access to information in
any file covered by the Privacy Act that is retrieved
by the subject’s name or other personal identifier,
such as social security number. In this way, the
subject can test the validity of the information. The
exemption from (d) means that we do not have to
grant the subject access to the information.
(e)(1)—Another essential element of the Privacy
Act is to limit the collection and maintenance of
E:\FR\FM\07SEP1.SGM
07SEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 173 / Wednesday, September 7, 2011 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Analysis of Regulatory Impacts. This
proposal is not a ‘‘significant regulatory
action’’ within the meaning of Executive
Order 12886. It is also not significant
within the definition in DOT’s
Regulatory Policies and Procedures, 49
FR 11034 (1979), in part because it does
not involve any change in important
Departmental policies. Because the
economic impact should be minimal,
further regulatory evaluation is not
necessary. Moreover, I certify that this
proposal 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 that is
maintained by the Federal Government.
This proposal would not significantly
affect the environment, and therefore an
environmental impact statement is not
required under the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969. It has
also been reviewed under Executive
Order 12612, Federalism, and it has
been determined that it does not have
sufficient implications for Federalism to
warrant preparation of a Federalism
Assessment.
Collection of Information. This
proposal contains no collection of
information requirements under the
Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq.)
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
information subject to the Act to information that
is relevant and necessary to carry out a lawful
activity of the agency that collects or maintains the
information. The exemption from (e)(1) means that
we are not limited to information that is relevant
and necessary. In practical terms, the subject may
contest the relevancy and necessity of any
information in the file; however, given the
exemption from (d), above, the subject has no way
to verify what is in the file, so is unable to contest
its relevancy or necessity. Hence, a formal
exemption from (e)(1) is not needed.
(e)(4)(G), (H), and (I)—To equip a subject to verify
information in a file, we are required by the Privacy
Act to publish in the public notice of the existence
of the information procedures informing subjects
how to learn from us whether we have records on
them, procedures on how subjects can gain access
to their files, and procedures to identify for subjects
the categories of record sources in the file. The
exemption from (e)(4)(G), (H), and (I) means that we
need not publish these procedures for this file.
Again, if we do not have to grant access, these
provisions have no meaning.
(f)—We are also required to publish regulations
governing how subjects can learn if they are
included in any of our Privacy Act files, how they
must prove their identities before we can grant
them access, and governing access to their files,
their rights to have information in the files
amended and their rights to appeal our refusal to
grant access and make amendments. Since there is
no right to access, these derivative rights, as with
the others, are moot.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:43 Sep 06, 2011
Jkt 223001
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 aggregated, $100 million or
more in any one year (adjusted for
inflation) the UMRA analysis is
required. This proposal would not
impose Federal mandates on any State,
local, or tribal governments or the
private sector.
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 10
Authority delegations (government
agencies); Organization and functions
(government agencies); Penalties;
Privacy; Transportation Department.
In consideration of the foregoing, DOT
proposes to amend Part 10 of Title 49,
Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:
1. The authority citation for Part 10
would continue to read as follows:
Authority: Pub. L. 93–579; 49 U.S.C. 322.
2. The Appendix would be amended
by inserting in of Part II.A. a new
paragraph 8, immediately following
paragraph 7, to read as follows:
Appendix A—Exemptions.
Part II. Specific exemptions. A. The
following systems of records are exempt from
subsection (c)(3) (Accounting of Certain
Disclosures), (d) (Access to Records),
(e)(4)(G), (H), and (I) (Agency Requirements),
and (f) (Agency Rules) of 5 U.S.C. 552a, to
the extent that they contain investigatory
material compiled for law enforcement
purposes, in accordance 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(2):
*
*
*
*
*
8. Suspicious Activity Reporting (SAR)
database, maintained by the Office of
Intelligence, Security, and Emergency
Response, Office of the Secretary.
Issued in Washington, DC, on: August 31,
2011.
Claire W. Barrett,
Departmental Chief Privacy Officer.
[FR Doc. 2011–22729 Filed 9–6–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–62–P
PO 00000
Frm 00058
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
55335
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Railroad Administration
49 CFR Part 269
[Docket No. FRA–2009–0108; Notice No. 1]
RIN 2130–AC19
Alternate Passenger Rail Service Pilot
Program
Federal Railroad
Administration (FRA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM).
AGENCY:
This NPRM is in response to
a statutory mandate that FRA complete
a rulemaking proceeding to develop a
pilot program that permits a rail carrier
or rail carriers that own infrastructure
over which Amtrak operates certain
passenger rail service routes to petition
FRA to be considered as a passenger rail
service provider over such a route in
lieu of Amtrak for a period not to exceed
five years after the date of enactment of
the Passenger Rail Investment and
Improvement Act of 2008. The proposed
rule would develop this pilot program
in conformance with the statutory
directive.
SUMMARY:
Written Comments: Written
comments on the proposed rule must be
received by November 7, 2011.
Comments received after that date will
be considered to the extent possible
without incurring additional expense or
delay. FRA anticipates being able to
determine these matters without a
public hearing. However, if prior to
October 7, 2011, FRA receives a specific
request for a public hearing
accompanied by a showing that the
party is unable to adequately present his
or her position by written statement, a
hearing will be scheduled and FRA will
publish a supplemental notice in the
Federal Register to inform interested
parties of the date, time, and location of
any such hearing.
ADDRESSES: Comments: Comments
related to Docket Number FRA–2009–
0108, may be submitted by any of the
following methods:
• Fax: 1–202–493–2251.
• Mail: Docket Management Facility,
U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200
New Jersey Ave., SE., W12–140,
Washington, DC 20590.
• Hand Delivery: Room W12–140 on
the Ground level of the West Building,
1200 New Jersey Ave., SE., Washington,
DC between
9 a.m. and 5 p.m. Monday through
Friday, except Federal Holidays.
DATES:
E:\FR\FM\07SEP1.SGM
07SEP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 173 (Wednesday, September 7, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 55334-55335]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-22729]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Office of the Secretary
49 CFR Part 10
[Docket No. OST-1996-1437]
RIN 2105-AD11
Maintenance of and Access to Records Pertaining to Individuals;
Proposed Exemption
AGENCY: Department of Transportation (DOT), Office of the Secretary.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: DOT proposes to add a system of records relating to suspicious
activity reporting to the list of DOT Privacy Act Systems of Records
that are exempt from one or more provisions of the Privacy Act. Public
comment is invited.
DATES: Comments are due October 7, 2011. If no comments are received by
the due date, the proposal will take effect as proposed and comments
addressed accordingly. If comments are received by the due date, the
proposal will still take effect as proposed and the comments addressed
accordingly.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments [identified by DOT DMS Docket Number
[OST-1996-1437] by any of the following methods:
Web site: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for
submitting comments on the DOT electronic docket site.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments and reply comments using any one of
the following methods:
Initial comments will be made available promptly electronically,
online on https://www.regulations.gov, or for public inspection in room
W12-140, DOT Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC,
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. In order to allow sufficient opportunity for interested
parties to prepare and submit any reply comments, late-filed initial
comments will not be considered. Reply comments must address only
matters raised in initial comments and must not be used to present new
arguments, contentions, or factual material that is not responsive to
the initial comments.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments and reply comments identified by
docket number OST-1996-1437 using any one of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Fax: 202-493-2251.
Mail: Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department
of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
Hand delivery: Same as mail address above, between 9 a.m.
and 5 p.m., ET Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The
telephone number is 202-366-9329.
To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four methods.
See the ``Public Participation and Request for Comments'' portion of
the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below for instructions on
submitting comments.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Claire Barrett, Departmental Chief
Privacy Officer, Office of the Chief Information Officer, U.S.
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington,
DC 20590 at (202) 366-1835.
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION: It is DOT practice to identify a Privacy Act
system of records that is exempt from one or more provisions of the
Privacy Act (pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(j) or (k)) both in the system
notice published in the Federal Register for public comment and in an
Appendix to DOT's regulations implementing the Privacy Act (49 CFR part
10, Appendix A). This amendment proposes exemption from certain
portions of the Privacy Act of a proposed record system--the Suspicious
Activity Reporting (SAR) database--to be used to track observed
behavior reasonably indicative of pre-operational planning related to
terrorism or other criminal activity. To aid in the law enforcement
aspects of SAR, DOT proposes to treat it as it treats other law
enforcement systems, by exempting it from the following provisions of
the Privacy Act: (c)(3) (Accounting of Certain Disclosures), (d)
(Access to Records), (e)(4)(G), (H), and (I) (Agency Requirements), and
(f) (Agency Rules), to the extent that SAR contains investigatory
material compiled for law enforcement purposes, in accordance with 5
U.S.C. 552a(k)(2).\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ (c)(3)--An agency making disclosures of information that is
covered by the Privacy Act must keep an accounting of those
disclosures and, under (c)(3), make that accounting available to the
subject upon the subject's request. The exemption from (c)(3) means
that, although we still have to maintain the accounting, we do not
have to provide it to the subject.
(d)--One of the essential elements of the Privacy Act is the
subject's right of access to information in any file covered by the
Privacy Act that is retrieved by the subject's name or other
personal identifier, such as social security number. In this way,
the subject can test the validity of the information. The exemption
from (d) means that we do not have to grant the subject access to
the information.
(e)(1)--Another essential element of the Privacy Act is to limit
the collection and maintenance of information subject to the Act to
information that is relevant and necessary to carry out a lawful
activity of the agency that collects or maintains the information.
The exemption from (e)(1) means that we are not limited to
information that is relevant and necessary. In practical terms, the
subject may contest the relevancy and necessity of any information
in the file; however, given the exemption from (d), above, the
subject has no way to verify what is in the file, so is unable to
contest its relevancy or necessity. Hence, a formal exemption from
(e)(1) is not needed.
(e)(4)(G), (H), and (I)--To equip a subject to verify
information in a file, we are required by the Privacy Act to publish
in the public notice of the existence of the information procedures
informing subjects how to learn from us whether we have records on
them, procedures on how subjects can gain access to their files, and
procedures to identify for subjects the categories of record sources
in the file. The exemption from (e)(4)(G), (H), and (I) means that
we need not publish these procedures for this file. Again, if we do
not have to grant access, these provisions have no meaning.
(f)--We are also required to publish regulations governing how
subjects can learn if they are included in any of our Privacy Act
files, how they must prove their identities before we can grant them
access, and governing access to their files, their rights to have
information in the files amended and their rights to appeal our
refusal to grant access and make amendments. Since there is no right
to access, these derivative rights, as with the others, are moot.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 55335]]
Analysis of Regulatory Impacts. This proposal is not a
``significant regulatory action'' within the meaning of Executive Order
12886. It is also not significant within the definition in DOT's
Regulatory Policies and Procedures, 49 FR 11034 (1979), in part because
it does not involve any change in important Departmental policies.
Because the economic impact should be minimal, further regulatory
evaluation is not necessary. Moreover, I certify that this proposal
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 that
is maintained by the Federal Government.
This proposal would not significantly affect the environment, and
therefore an environmental impact statement is not required under the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. It has also been reviewed
under Executive Order 12612, Federalism, and it has been determined
that it does not have sufficient implications for Federalism to warrant
preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
Collection of Information. This proposal contains no collection of
information requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq.)
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 aggregated, $100 million or more in any one
year (adjusted for inflation) the UMRA analysis is required. This
proposal would not impose Federal mandates on any State, local, or
tribal governments or the private sector.
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 10
Authority delegations (government agencies); Organization and
functions (government agencies); Penalties; Privacy; Transportation
Department.
In consideration of the foregoing, DOT proposes to amend Part 10 of
Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:
1. The authority citation for Part 10 would continue to read as
follows:
Authority: Pub. L. 93-579; 49 U.S.C. 322.
2. The Appendix would be amended by inserting in of Part II.A. a
new paragraph 8, immediately following paragraph 7, to read as follows:
Appendix A--Exemptions.
Part II. Specific exemptions. A. The following systems of
records are exempt from subsection (c)(3) (Accounting of Certain
Disclosures), (d) (Access to Records), (e)(4)(G), (H), and (I)
(Agency Requirements), and (f) (Agency Rules) of 5 U.S.C. 552a, to
the extent that they contain investigatory material compiled for law
enforcement purposes, in accordance 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(2):
* * * * *
8. Suspicious Activity Reporting (SAR) database, maintained by
the Office of Intelligence, Security, and Emergency Response, Office
of the Secretary.
Issued in Washington, DC, on: August 31, 2011.
Claire W. Barrett,
Departmental Chief Privacy Officer.
[FR Doc. 2011-22729 Filed 9-6-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-62-P