Privacy Act; Implementation, 57013-57015 [2012-22655]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 180 / Monday, September 17, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
plans to open a new facility in
Monterrey in 2014. The Department also
recently opened application service
centers in Mexicali, Piedras Negras, and
Reynosa to accommodate additional
applicants along the U.S.-Mexico
border.
Of the three remaining comments, one
noted its support for the reduced K visa
fee and one applauded the Department
for decreasing consular fees on certain
nonimmigrant, immigrant, and special
visa services, while also expressing
concern for the increases to the other
visa categories. One comment expressed
a desire for a discount on all minor
NIVs, not just minor BCCs. We note that
the Department is required by law to set
the fee for the minor BCC below cost at
$15. The same requirement does not
apply to other minor NIVs, which the
Department sets on the basis of cost as
described more fully above.
Conclusion
The Department has adjusted the fees
to ensure that sufficient resources are
available to meet the costs of providing
consular services in light of the CoSM’s
findings. Pursuant to OMB guidance
and federal law, the Department
endeavors to recover the cost of
providing services that benefit specific
individuals rather than the public at
large. See OMB Circular A–25, sections
6(a)(1), (a)(2)(a); 31 U.S.C. 9701(b). For
this reason, the Department has adjusted
the Schedule.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Regulatory Findings
16:41 Sep 14, 2012
[FR Doc. 2012–22862 Filed 9–14–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710–06–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Internal Revenue Service
26 CFR Part 1
[TD 9598]
RIN 1545–BK98
Integrated Hedging Transactions of
Qualifying Debt
Correction
In rule document 2012–21986
appearing on pages 54808–54811 in the
issue of Thursday, September 6, 2012
make the following correction:
On page 54811, in the first column, on
the eleventh line from the bottom of the
page, ‘‘(i) Expiration date. This section
expires on September 4, 2012’’, should
read ‘‘(i) Expiration date. This section
expires on September 4, 2015.’’
[FR Doc. C1–2012–21986 Filed 9–14–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1505–01–D
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Office of the Secretary
[Docket ID DoD–2012–OS–0102]
Jkt 226001
Defense Intelligence Agency,
DoD.
Direct final rule with request for
comments.
ACTION:
The Defense Intelligence
Agency is updating the Defense
Intelligence Agency Privacy Act
Program, by adding the (k)(2) exemption
to accurately describe the basis for
exempting the records in the system of
records notice LDIA 10–0002, Foreign
Intelligence and Counterintelligence
Operation Records. This direct final rule
makes non-substantive changes to the
Defense Intelligence Agency Privacy
Program rules. These changes will allow
the Department to exempt records from
certain portions of the Privacy Act. This
will improve the efficiency and
effectiveness of DoD’s program by
ensuring the integrity of ongoing
Foreign Intelligence and
Counterintelligence Operations Records
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Ms.
Theresa Lowery at (202) 231–1193.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Privacy Act; Implementation
AGENCY:
related to the protection of national
security, DoD personnel, facilities and
equipment of the Defense Intelligence
Agency and the Department of Defense.
This rule is being published as a
direct final rule as the Department of
Defense does not expect to receive any
adverse comments, and so a proposed
rule is unnecessary.
DATES: The rule will be effective on
November 26, 2012 unless comments
are received that would result in a
contrary determination. Comments will
be accepted on or before November 16,
2012. If adverse comment is received,
DoD will publish a timely withdrawal of
the rule in the Federal Register.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments,
identified by docket number and title,
by any of the following methods:
* Federal Rulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
* Mail: Federal Docket Management
System Office, 4800 Mark Center Drive,
East Tower, Suite 02G09, Alexandria,
VA 22350–3100.
Instructions: All submissions received
must include the agency name and
docket number for this Federal Register
document. The general policy for
comments and other submissions from
members of the public is to make these
submissions available for public
viewing on the Internet at https://
www.regulations.gov as they are
received without change, including any
personal identifiers or contact
information.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
32 CFR Part 319
For a summary of the regulatory
findings and analyses regarding this
rulemaking, please refer to the findings
and analyses published with the interim
final rule, which can be found at 77 FR
18907, which are adopted herein. The
rule became effective April 13, 2012. As
noted above, the Department has
considered the comments submitted in
response to the interim final rule, and
does not adopt them. Thus, the rule
remains in effect without modification.
In addition, as noted in the interim
final rule, this rule was submitted to
and reviewed by OMB pursuant to E.O.
12866. The Department of State has also
considered this rule in light of
Executive Order 13563, dated January
18, 2011, and affirms that this regulation
is consistent with the guidance therein.
Accordingly, the Interim Final Rule
amending 22 CFR parts 22 and 42 which
was published at 77 FR 18907 on March
29, 2012, is adopted as final without
change.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
Dated: September 4, 2012.
Patrick F. Kennedy,
Under Secretary of State for Management,
U.S. Department of State.
57013
Direct Final Rule and Significant
Adverse Comments
DoD has determined this rulemaking
meets the criteria for a direct final rule
because it involves non-substantive
changes dealing with DoD’s
management of its Privacy Programs.
DoD expects no opposition to the
changes and no significant adverse
comments. However, if DoD receives a
significant adverse comment, the
Department will withdraw this direct
final rule by publishing a notice in the
Federal Register. A significant adverse
comment is one that explains: (1) Why
the direct final rule is inappropriate,
including challenges to the rule’s
underlying premise or approach; or (2)
why the direct final rule will be
ineffective or unacceptable without a
change. In determining whether a
comment necessitates withdrawal of
this direct final rule, DoD will consider
whether it warrants a substantive
E:\FR\FM\17SER1.SGM
17SER1
57014
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 180 / Monday, September 17, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
response in a notice and comment
process.
power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government.
Executive Order 12866, ‘‘Regulatory
Planning and Review’’ and Executive
Order 13563, ‘‘Improving Regulation
and Regulatory Review’’
It has been determined that Privacy
Act rules for the Department of Defense
are not significant rules. The rules do
not (1) Have an annual effect on the
economy of $100 million or more or
adversely affect in a material way the
economy; a sector of the economy;
productivity; competition; jobs; the
environment; public health or safety; or
State, local, or tribal governments or
communities; (2) Create a serious
inconsistency or otherwise interfere
with an action taken or planned by
another Agency; (3) Materially alter the
budgetary impact of entitlements,
grants, user fees, or loan programs, or
the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or (4) Raise novel legal or policy
issues arising out of legal mandates, the
President’s priorities, or the principles
set forth in these Executive orders.
List of Subjects in 32 CFR Part 319
Privacy.
Accordingly, 32 CFR part 319 is
amended as follows:
Public Law 96–354, ‘‘Regulatory
Flexibility Act’’ (5 U.S.C. Chapter 6)
It has been determined that Privacy
Act rules for the Department of Defense
do not have significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities
because they are concerned only with
the administration of Privacy Act
systems of records within the
Department of Defense.
Public Law 96–511, ‘‘Paperwork
Reduction Act’’ (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35)
It has been determined that Privacy
Act rules for the Department of Defense
impose no additional information
collection requirements on the public
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Section 202, Public Law 104–4,
‘‘Unfunded Mandates Reform Act’’
It has been determined that Privacy
Act rules for the Department of Defense
do not involve a Federal mandate that
may result in the expenditure by State,
local and tribal governments, in the
aggregate, or by the private sector, of
$100 million or more and that such
rulemaking will not significantly or
uniquely affect small governments.
Executive Order 13132, ‘‘Federalism’’
It has been determined that Privacy
Act rules for the Department of Defense
do not have federalism implications.
The rules do not have substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship
between the National Government and
the States, or on the distribution of
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:41 Sep 14, 2012
Jkt 226001
PART 319—DEFENSE INTELLIGENCE
AGENCY PRIVACY PROGRAM
1. The authority citation for 32 CFR
Part 319 continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: Pub. L. 93–579, 88 Stat. 1896 (5
U.S.C. 552a).
2. Section 319.13 is amended by
adding paragraph (h) to read as follows:
■
§ 319.13
Specific exemptions.
*
*
*
*
*
(h) System identifier and name: LDIA
10–0002, Foreign Intelligence and
Counterintelligence Operation Records.
(1) Exemption: (i) Investigatory
material compiled for law enforcement
purposes, other than material within the
scope of subsection 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2),
may be exempt pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
552a(k)(2). However, if an individual is
denied any right, privilege, or benefit for
which he would otherwise be entitled
by Federal law or for which he would
otherwise be eligible, as a result of the
maintenance of the information, the
individual will be provided access to
the information exempt to the extent
that disclosure would reveal the identity
of a confidential source. NOTE: When
claimed, this exemption allows limited
protection of investigative reports
maintained in a system of records used
in personnel or administrative actions.
(ii) The specific sections of 5 U.S.C.
552a from which the system is to be
exempted are 5 U.S.C. 552a (c)(3) and
(c)(4), (d), (e)(1), (e)(2), (e)(3), (e)(4)(G),
(H), and (I), (e)(5), (f), and (g).
(2) Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(2).
(3) Reasons: (i) From subsection (c)(3)
because to grant access to an accounting
of disclosures as required by the Privacy
Act, including the date, nature, and
purpose of each disclosure and the
identity of the recipient, could alert the
subject to the existence of the
investigation or prospective interest by
DIA or other agencies. This could
seriously compromise case preparation
by prematurely revealing its existence
and nature; compromise or interfere
with witnesses or make witnesses
reluctant to cooperate; and lead to
suppression, alteration, or destruction of
evidence.
(ii) From subsections (c)(4), (d), and
(f) because providing access to this
information could result in the
concealment, destruction or fabrication
of evidence and jeopardize the safety
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
and well being of informants, witnesses
and their families, and law enforcement
personnel and their families. Disclosure
of this information could also reveal and
render ineffectual investigative
techniques, sources, and methods used
by this component and could result in
the invasion of privacy of individuals
only incidentally related to an
investigation. Investigatory material is
exempt to the extent that the disclosure
of such material would reveal the
identity of a source who furnished the
information to the Government under an
express promise that the identity of the
source would be held in confidence, or
prior to September 27, 1975 under an
implied promise that the identity of the
source would be held in confidence.
This exemption will protect the
identities of certain sources that would
be otherwise unwilling to provide
information to the Government. The
exemption of the individual’s right of
access to his/her records and the
reasons therefore necessitate the
exemptions of this system of records
from the requirements of the other cited
provisions.
(iii) From subsection (e)(1) because it
is not always possible to detect the
relevance or necessity of each piece of
information in the early stages of an
investigation. In some cases, it is only
after the information is evaluated in
light of other evidence that its relevance
and necessity will be clear.
(iv) From subsection (e)(2) because
collecting information to the fullest
extent possible directly from the subject
individual may or may not be practical
in a criminal investigation.
(v) From subsection (e)(3) because
supplying an individual with a form
containing a Privacy Act Statement
would tend to inhibit cooperation by
many individuals involved in a criminal
investigation. The effect would be
somewhat adverse to established
investigative methods and techniques.
(vi) From subsections (e)(4)(G), (H),
and (I) because it will provide
protection against notification of
investigatory material which might alert
a subject to the fact that an investigation
of that individual is taking place, and
the disclosure of which would weaken
the on-going investigation, reveal
investigatory techniques, and place
confidential informants in jeopardy who
furnished information under an express
promise that the sources’ identity would
be held in confidence (or prior to the
effective date of the Act, under an
implied promise). In addition, this
system of records is exempt from the
access provisions of subsection (d).
(vii) From subsection (e)(5) because
the requirement that records be
E:\FR\FM\17SER1.SGM
17SER1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 180 / Monday, September 17, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
maintained with attention to accuracy,
relevance, timeliness, and completeness
would unfairly hamper the investigative
process. It is the nature of law
enforcement for investigations to
uncover the commission of illegal acts
at diverse stages. It is frequently
impossible to determine initially what
information is accurate, relevant, timely,
and least of all complete. With the
passage of time, seemingly irrelevant or
untimely information may acquire new
significance as further investigation
brings new details to light.
(viii) From subsection (f) because the
agency’s rules are inapplicable to those
portions of the system that are exempt
and would place the burden on the
agency of either confirming or denying
the existence of a record pertaining to a
requesting individual might in itself
provide an answer to that individual
relating to an on-going investigation.
The conduct of a successful
investigation leading to the indictment
of a criminal offender precludes the
applicability of established agency rules
relating to verification of record,
disclosure of the record to the
individual and record amendment
procedures for this record system.
(ix) From subsection (g) because this
system of records should be exempt to
the extent that the civil remedies relate
to provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552a from
which this rule exempts the system.
*
*
*
*
*
Dated: September 11, 2012.
Aaron Siegel,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison
Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 2012–22655 Filed 9–14–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001–06–P
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Office of the Secretary
[Docket ID DoD–2012–OS–0104]
32 CFR Part 319
Privacy Act; Implementation
AGENCY:
Defense Intelligence Agency,
DoD.
Direct final rule with request for
comments.
ACTION:
The Defense Intelligence
Agency (DIA) is adding a new
exemption rule for LDIA 0209, entitled
‘‘Litigation Case Files’’ to exempt those
records that have been previously
claimed for the records in another
Privacy Act system of records. DIA is
updating the DIA Privacy Act Program
by adding the (k)(2) and (k)(5)
exemptions to accurately describe the
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:41 Sep 14, 2012
Jkt 226001
basis for exempting the records in the
system of records notice LDIA 0209,
Litigation Case Files. In addition,
exempt materials from other systems of
records may in turn become part of the
case records in this system. To the
extent that copies of exempt records
from those ‘other’ systems of records are
entered into this case record, the
Defense Intelligence Agency hereby
claims the same exemptions for the
records from those ‘other’ systems that
are entered into this system, as claimed
for the original primary systems of
records, which they are a part.
This direct final rule makes nonsubstantive changes to the Defense
Intelligence Agency Program rules. This
will improve the efficiency and
effectiveness of DoD’s program by
ensuring the integrity of the security
and counterintelligence records by the
Defense Intelligence Agency and the
Department of Defense. This rule is
being published as a direct final rule as
the Department of Defense does not
expect to receive any adverse
comments, and so a proposed rule is
unnecessary.
DATES: The rule will be effective on
November 26, 2012 unless comments
are received that would result in a
contrary determination. Comments will
be accepted on or before November 16,
2012. If adverse comment is received,
DoD will publish a timely withdrawal of
the rule in the Federal Register.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments,
identified by docket number and title,
by any of the following methods:
* Federal Rulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
* Mail: Federal Docket Management
System Office, 4800 Mark Center Drive;
East Tower, Suite 02G09, Alexandria,
VA 22350–3100.
Instructions: All submissions received
must include the agency name and
docket number for this Federal Register
document. The general policy for
comments and other submissions from
members of the public is to make these
submissions available for public
viewing on the Internet at https://
www.regulations.gov as they are
received without change, including any
personal identifiers or contact
information.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.
Theresa Lowery at (202) 231–1193.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Direct Final Rule and Significant
Adverse Comments
DoD has determined this rulemaking
meets the criteria for a direct final rule
because it involves nonsubstantive
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
57015
changes dealing with DoD’s
management of its Privacy Programs.
DoD expects no opposition to the
changes and no significant adverse
comments. However, if DoD receives a
significant adverse comment, the
Department will withdraw this direct
final rule by publishing a notice in the
Federal Register. A significant adverse
comment is one that explains: (1) Why
the direct final rule is inappropriate,
including challenges to the rule’s
underlying premise or approach; or (2)
why the direct final rule will be
ineffective or unacceptable without a
change. In determining whether a
comment necessitates withdrawal of
this direct final rule, DoD will consider
whether it warrants a substantive
response in a notice and comment
process.
Executive Order 12866, ‘‘Regulatory
Planning and Review’’ and Executive
Order 13563, ‘‘Improving Regulation
and Regulatory Review’’
It has been determined that Privacy
Act rules for the Department of Defense
are not significant rules. The rules do
not (1) Have an annual effect on the
economy of $100 million or more or
adversely affect in a material way the
economy; a sector of the economy;
productivity; competition; jobs; the
environment; public health or safety; or
State, local, or tribal governments or
communities; (2) Create a serious
inconsistency or otherwise interfere
with an action taken or planned by
another Agency; (3) Materially alter the
budgetary impact of entitlements,
grants, user fees, or loan programs, or
the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or (4) Raise novel legal or policy
issues arising out of legal mandates, the
President’s priorities, or the principles
set forth in these Executive Orders.
Public Law 96–354, ‘‘Regulatory
Flexibility Act’’ (5 U.S.C. Chapter 6)
It has been determined that Privacy
Act rules for the Department of Defense
do not have significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities
because they are concerned only with
the administration of Privacy Act
systems of records within the
Department of Defense.
Public Law 96–511, ‘‘Paperwork
Reduction Act’’ (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35)
It has been determined that Privacy
Act rules for the Department of Defense
impose no additional information
collection requirements on the public
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995.
E:\FR\FM\17SER1.SGM
17SER1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 180 (Monday, September 17, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 57013-57015]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-22655]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Office of the Secretary
[Docket ID DoD-2012-OS-0102]
32 CFR Part 319
Privacy Act; Implementation
AGENCY: Defense Intelligence Agency, DoD.
ACTION: Direct final rule with request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Defense Intelligence Agency is updating the Defense
Intelligence Agency Privacy Act Program, by adding the (k)(2) exemption
to accurately describe the basis for exempting the records in the
system of records notice LDIA 10-0002, Foreign Intelligence and
Counterintelligence Operation Records. This direct final rule makes
non-substantive changes to the Defense Intelligence Agency Privacy
Program rules. These changes will allow the Department to exempt
records from certain portions of the Privacy Act. This will improve the
efficiency and effectiveness of DoD's program by ensuring the integrity
of ongoing Foreign Intelligence and Counterintelligence Operations
Records related to the protection of national security, DoD personnel,
facilities and equipment of the Defense Intelligence Agency and the
Department of Defense.
This rule is being published as a direct final rule as the
Department of Defense does not expect to receive any adverse comments,
and so a proposed rule is unnecessary.
DATES: The rule will be effective on November 26, 2012 unless comments
are received that would result in a contrary determination. Comments
will be accepted on or before November 16, 2012. If adverse comment is
received, DoD will publish a timely withdrawal of the rule in the
Federal Register.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by docket number and
title, by any of the following methods:
* Federal Rulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
* Mail: Federal Docket Management System Office, 4800 Mark Center
Drive, East Tower, Suite 02G09, Alexandria, VA 22350-3100.
Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name
and docket number for this Federal Register document. The general
policy for comments and other submissions from members of the public is
to make these submissions available for public viewing on the Internet
at https://www.regulations.gov as they are received without change,
including any personal identifiers or contact information.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Theresa Lowery at (202) 231-1193.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Direct Final Rule and Significant Adverse Comments
DoD has determined this rulemaking meets the criteria for a direct
final rule because it involves non-substantive changes dealing with
DoD's management of its Privacy Programs. DoD expects no opposition to
the changes and no significant adverse comments. However, if DoD
receives a significant adverse comment, the Department will withdraw
this direct final rule by publishing a notice in the Federal Register.
A significant adverse comment is one that explains: (1) Why the direct
final rule is inappropriate, including challenges to the rule's
underlying premise or approach; or (2) why the direct final rule will
be ineffective or unacceptable without a change. In determining whether
a comment necessitates withdrawal of this direct final rule, DoD will
consider whether it warrants a substantive
[[Page 57014]]
response in a notice and comment process.
Executive Order 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review'' and Executive
Order 13563, ``Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review''
It has been determined that Privacy Act rules for the Department of
Defense are not significant rules. The rules do not (1) Have an annual
effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a
material way the economy; a sector of the economy; productivity;
competition; jobs; the environment; public health or safety; or State,
local, or tribal governments or communities; (2) Create a serious
inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by
another Agency; (3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of
entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs, or the rights and
obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) Raise novel legal or policy
issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or
the principles set forth in these Executive orders.
Public Law 96-354, ``Regulatory Flexibility Act'' (5 U.S.C. Chapter 6)
It has been determined that Privacy Act rules for the Department of
Defense do not have significant economic impact on a substantial number
of small entities because they are concerned only with the
administration of Privacy Act systems of records within the Department
of Defense.
Public Law 96-511, ``Paperwork Reduction Act'' (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35)
It has been determined that Privacy Act rules for the Department of
Defense impose no additional information collection requirements on the
public under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Section 202, Public Law 104-4, ``Unfunded Mandates Reform Act''
It has been determined that Privacy Act rules for the Department of
Defense do not involve a Federal mandate that may result in the
expenditure by State, local and tribal governments, in the aggregate,
or by the private sector, of $100 million or more and that such
rulemaking will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments.
Executive Order 13132, ``Federalism''
It has been determined that Privacy Act rules for the Department of
Defense do not have federalism implications. The rules do not have
substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between
the National Government and the States, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
List of Subjects in 32 CFR Part 319
Privacy.
Accordingly, 32 CFR part 319 is amended as follows:
PART 319--DEFENSE INTELLIGENCE AGENCY PRIVACY PROGRAM
0
1. The authority citation for 32 CFR Part 319 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: Pub. L. 93-579, 88 Stat. 1896 (5 U.S.C. 552a).
0
2. Section 319.13 is amended by adding paragraph (h) to read as
follows:
Sec. 319.13 Specific exemptions.
* * * * *
(h) System identifier and name: LDIA 10-0002, Foreign Intelligence
and Counterintelligence Operation Records.
(1) Exemption: (i) Investigatory material compiled for law
enforcement purposes, other than material within the scope of
subsection 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2), may be exempt pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
552a(k)(2). However, if an individual is denied any right, privilege,
or benefit for which he would otherwise be entitled by Federal law or
for which he would otherwise be eligible, as a result of the
maintenance of the information, the individual will be provided access
to the information exempt to the extent that disclosure would reveal
the identity of a confidential source. NOTE: When claimed, this
exemption allows limited protection of investigative reports maintained
in a system of records used in personnel or administrative actions.
(ii) The specific sections of 5 U.S.C. 552a from which the system
is to be exempted are 5 U.S.C. 552a (c)(3) and (c)(4), (d), (e)(1),
(e)(2), (e)(3), (e)(4)(G), (H), and (I), (e)(5), (f), and (g).
(2) Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(2).
(3) Reasons: (i) From subsection (c)(3) because to grant access to
an accounting of disclosures as required by the Privacy Act, including
the date, nature, and purpose of each disclosure and the identity of
the recipient, could alert the subject to the existence of the
investigation or prospective interest by DIA or other agencies. This
could seriously compromise case preparation by prematurely revealing
its existence and nature; compromise or interfere with witnesses or
make witnesses reluctant to cooperate; and lead to suppression,
alteration, or destruction of evidence.
(ii) From subsections (c)(4), (d), and (f) because providing access
to this information could result in the concealment, destruction or
fabrication of evidence and jeopardize the safety and well being of
informants, witnesses and their families, and law enforcement personnel
and their families. Disclosure of this information could also reveal
and render ineffectual investigative techniques, sources, and methods
used by this component and could result in the invasion of privacy of
individuals only incidentally related to an investigation.
Investigatory material is exempt to the extent that the disclosure of
such material would reveal the identity of a source who furnished the
information to the Government under an express promise that the
identity of the source would be held in confidence, or prior to
September 27, 1975 under an implied promise that the identity of the
source would be held in confidence. This exemption will protect the
identities of certain sources that would be otherwise unwilling to
provide information to the Government. The exemption of the
individual's right of access to his/her records and the reasons
therefore necessitate the exemptions of this system of records from the
requirements of the other cited provisions.
(iii) From subsection (e)(1) because it is not always possible to
detect the relevance or necessity of each piece of information in the
early stages of an investigation. In some cases, it is only after the
information is evaluated in light of other evidence that its relevance
and necessity will be clear.
(iv) From subsection (e)(2) because collecting information to the
fullest extent possible directly from the subject individual may or may
not be practical in a criminal investigation.
(v) From subsection (e)(3) because supplying an individual with a
form containing a Privacy Act Statement would tend to inhibit
cooperation by many individuals involved in a criminal investigation.
The effect would be somewhat adverse to established investigative
methods and techniques.
(vi) From subsections (e)(4)(G), (H), and (I) because it will
provide protection against notification of investigatory material which
might alert a subject to the fact that an investigation of that
individual is taking place, and the disclosure of which would weaken
the on-going investigation, reveal investigatory techniques, and place
confidential informants in jeopardy who furnished information under an
express promise that the sources' identity would be held in confidence
(or prior to the effective date of the Act, under an implied promise).
In addition, this system of records is exempt from the access
provisions of subsection (d).
(vii) From subsection (e)(5) because the requirement that records
be
[[Page 57015]]
maintained with attention to accuracy, relevance, timeliness, and
completeness would unfairly hamper the investigative process. It is the
nature of law enforcement for investigations to uncover the commission
of illegal acts at diverse stages. It is frequently impossible to
determine initially what information is accurate, relevant, timely, and
least of all complete. With the passage of time, seemingly irrelevant
or untimely information may acquire new significance as further
investigation brings new details to light.
(viii) From subsection (f) because the agency's rules are
inapplicable to those portions of the system that are exempt and would
place the burden on the agency of either confirming or denying the
existence of a record pertaining to a requesting individual might in
itself provide an answer to that individual relating to an on-going
investigation. The conduct of a successful investigation leading to the
indictment of a criminal offender precludes the applicability of
established agency rules relating to verification of record, disclosure
of the record to the individual and record amendment procedures for
this record system.
(ix) From subsection (g) because this system of records should be
exempt to the extent that the civil remedies relate to provisions of 5
U.S.C. 552a from which this rule exempts the system.
* * * * *
Dated: September 11, 2012.
Aaron Siegel,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 2012-22655 Filed 9-14-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
