Privacy Act; Implementation, 26120-26122 [2014-10432]
Download as PDF
26120
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 88 / Wednesday, May 7, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
must be furnished by mail or in person
if—
(A) An electronic notice of the Web
site posting of an original statement or
the corrected statement was returned as
undeliverable; and
(B) The recipient has not provided a
new email address.
(6) Access period. Statements
furnished on a Web site must be
retained on the Web site through
October 15 of the year following the
calendar year to which the statements
relate (or the first business day after
October 15, if October 15 falls on a
Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday). The
furnisher must maintain access to
corrected statements that are posted on
the Web site through October 15 of the
year following the calendar year to
which the statements relate (or the first
business day after October 15, if October
15 falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or legal
holiday) or the date 90 days after the
corrected forms are posted, whichever is
later.
(7) Paper statements after withdrawal
of consent. An Exchange must furnish a
paper statement if a recipient withdraws
consent to receive a statement
electronically and the withdrawal takes
effect before the statement is furnished.
A paper statement furnished under this
paragraph (g)(7) after the statement due
date is timely if furnished within 30
days after the date the Exchange
receives the withdrawal of consent.
John Dalrymple,
Deputy Commissioner for Services and
Enforcement.
Approved: May 1, 2014.
Mark J. Mazur,
Assistant Secretary of the Treasury (Tax
Policy).
[FR Doc. 2014–10419 Filed 5–2–14; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 4830–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Office of the Secretary
32 CFR Part 320
[Docket ID: DoD–2014–OS–0026]
Privacy Act; Implementation
National GeospatialIntelligence Agency (NGA), DoD.
ACTION: Direct final rule with request for
comments.
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
AGENCY:
National GeospatialIntelligence Agency (NGA) is updating
the NGA Privacy Act Program regarding
NGA Threat Mitigation Records.
Additionally, NGA initiated a
rulemaking to exempt this system of
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:31 May 06, 2014
Jkt 232001
records from a number of provisions of
the Privacy Act, because this system
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.
For these records or information only,
NGA will also claim the original
exemptions for these records or
information from the Privacy Act of
1974, as amended, as necessary and
appropriate to protect such information.
Such exempt records or information
may be law enforcement or national
security investigation records, law
enforcement activity and encounter
records.
DATES: The rule is effective on July 16,
2014 unless adverse comments are
received by July 7, 2014. If adverse
comment is received, the Department of
Defense 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, 2nd Floor, 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:
National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency
(NGA), ATTN: Security Specialist,
Mission Support, MSRS P–12, 7500
GEOINT Drive, Springfield, VA 22150.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This
direct final rule makes non-substantive
changes to the NGA rules. This will
improve the efficiency and effectiveness
of DoD’s program by ensuring the
integrity of the security and
counterintelligence records by the NGA
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.
National Geospatial-Intelligence
Agency (NGA) is updating the NGA
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Privacy Act Program by adding the
(k)(1) and (k)(5) exemptions to NGA–
004, NGA Threat Mitigation Records.
Additionally, NGA initiated a
rulemaking to exempt this system of
records from a number of provisions of
the Privacy Act, because this system
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.
For these records or information only, in
accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2),
(k)(2), (k)(1), and (k)(5), NGA 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.
Such exempt records or information
may be law enforcement or national
security investigation records, law
enforcement activity and encounter
records.
Direct Final Rule and Significant
Adverse Comments
DoD has determined this rulemaking
meets the criteria for a direct final rule
because it involves nonsubstantive
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. This rule does
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
E:\FR\FM\07MYR1.SGM
07MYR1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 88 / Wednesday, May 7, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
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. A Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis is not required.
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 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
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. Therefore,
no Federalism assessment is required.
List of Subjects in 32 CFR Part 320
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Privacy.
Accordingly, 32 CFR part 320 is
amended as follows:
PART 320—NATIONAL GEOSPATIALINTELLIGENCE AGENCY (NGA)
1. The authority citation for 32 CFR
part 320 continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: Pub. L. 93–579, 88 Stat. 1896
(5 U.S.C. 552a).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:20 May 06, 2014
Jkt 232001
2. In § 320.12, revise paragraph (c) to
read as follows:
■
§ 320.12
Exemptions.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) System identifier and name: NGA–
004, NGA Threat Mitigation Records.
(1) Exemptions: Exempt materials
from JUSTICE/FBI—019 Terrorist
Screening Records System may become
part of the case records in this system
of records. To the extent that copies of
exempt records from JUSTICE/FBI—
019, Terrorist Screening Records System
are entered into these Threat Mitigation
case records, NGA hereby claims the
same exemptions (j)(2) and (k)(2), for the
records as claimed in JUSTICE/FBI—
019, Terrorist Screening Records system
of records of which they are a part.
(2) Information specifically
authorized to be classified under E.O.
12958, as implemented by DoD 5200.1–
R, may be exempt pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
552a(k)(1).
(3) Investigative material compiled
solely for the purpose of determining
suitability, eligibility, or qualifications
for federal civilian employment,
military service, federal contracts, or
access to classified information may be
exempt pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(5),
but only to the extent that such material
would reveal the identity of a
confidential source.
(4) Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2),
(k)(1), (k)(2) and (k)(5).
(5) Reasons: (i) Pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
552a(j)(2), (k)(2), and (k)(5) NGA is
claiming the following exemptions for
certain records within the Threat
Mitigation Records system: 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). Additionally,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(1) and
(k)(2), NGA has exempted this system
from the following provisions of the
Privacy Act, subject to the limitation set
forth in 5 U.S.C. 552a(c)(3); (d); (e)(1),
(e)(4)(G), (e)(4)(H), (e)(4)(I); and (f).
Exemptions from these particular
subsections are justified, on a case-bycase basis to be determined at the time
a request is made.
(ii) In addition to records under the
control of NGA, the Threat Mitigation
system of records may include records
originating from systems of records of
other law enforcement and intelligence
agencies which may be exempt from
certain provisions of the Privacy Act.
However, NGA does not assert
exemption to any provisions of the
Privacy Act with respect to information
submitted by or on behalf of
individuals.
(iii) To the extent the Threat
Mitigation system contains records
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
26121
originating from other systems of
records, NGA will rely on the
exemptions claimed for those records in
the originating system of records.
Exemptions for certain records within
the Threat Mitigation system from
particular subsections of the Privacy Act
are justified for the following reasons:
(A) From subsection (c)(3)
(Accounting for Disclosures) because
giving a record subject access to the
accounting of disclosures from records
concerning him or her could reveal
investigative interest on the part of the
recipient agency that obtained the
record pursuant to a routine use.
Disclosure of the accounting could
therefore present a serious impediment
to law enforcement efforts on the part of
the recipient agency because the
individual who is the subject of the
record would learn of third agency
investigative interests and could take
steps to evade detection or
apprehension. Disclosure of the
accounting also could reveal the details
of watch list matching measures under
the Threat Mitigation system, as well as
capabilities and vulnerabilities of the
watch list matching process, the release
of which could permit an individual to
evade future detection and thereby
impede efforts to ensure security.
(B) From subsection (c)(4) because
portions of this system are exempt from
the access and amendment provisions of
subsection (d).
(C) From subsection (d) (Access to
Records) because access to the records
contained in this system of records
could inform the subject of an
investigation of an actual or potential
criminal, civil, or regulatory violation to
the existence of that investigation and
reveal investigative interest on the part
of Department of Homeland Security or
another agency. Access to the records
could permit the individual who is the
subject of a record to impede the
investigation, to tamper with witnesses
or evidence, and to avoid detection or
apprehension. Amendment of the
records could interfere with ongoing
investigations and law enforcement
activities and would impose an
unreasonable administrative burden by
requiring investigations to be
continually reinvestigated. In addition,
permitting access and amendment to
such information could disclose
security-sensitive information that
could be detrimental to national
security.
(D) From subsection (e)(1) because it
is not always possible for NGA or other
agencies to know in advance what
information is both relevant and
necessary for it to complete an identity
comparison between individuals and a
E:\FR\FM\07MYR1.SGM
07MYR1
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
26122
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 88 / Wednesday, May 7, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
known or suspected terrorist. In
addition, because NGA 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) 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), to the
extent that this subsection is interpreted
to require NGA to provide notice to an
individual if NGA 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) and (H)
and (I) (Agency Requirements) and (f)
(Agency Rules), because this system is
exempt from the access provisions of 5
U.S.C. 552a(d).
(H) From subsection (e)(5) because
many of the records in this system
coming from other system of records are
derived from other agency record
systems and therefore it is not possible
for NGA to ensure their compliance
with this provision, however, NGA has
implemented internal quality assurance
procedures to ensure that data used in
the matching 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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:20 May 06, 2014
Jkt 232001
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. However, NGA has implemented
internal quality assurance procedures to
ensure that the data used in the
matching process is as thorough,
accurate, and current as possible.
(I) From subsection (e)(8) because to
require individual notice of disclosure
of information due to compulsory legal
process would pose an impossible
administrative burden on NGA 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) to the extent
that the system is exempt from other
specific subsections of the Privacy Act.
*
*
*
*
*
Dated: May 2, 2014.
Aaron Siegel,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison
Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 2014–10432 Filed 5–6–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001–06–P
Unauthorized persons or vessels are
prohibited from entering into, transiting
through, or remaining in the safety zone
without permission of the Captain of the
Port or their designated representative.
DATES: This rule is effective from 11
a.m. to 9:45 p.m. on May 30, 2014. This
rule will be enforced from 11 a.m. to
9:45 p.m. on May 30, 2014.
ADDRESSES: Documents mentioned in
this preamble are part of docket USCG–
2014–0175. To view documents
mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to https://
www.regulations.gov, type the docket
number in the ‘‘SEARCH’’ box and click
‘‘SEARCH.’’ Click on Open Docket
Folder on the line associated with this
rulemaking. You may also visit the
Docket Management Facility in Room
W12–140 on the ground floor of the
Department of Transportation West
Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m.
and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If
you have questions on this rule, call or
email Lieutenant Junior Grade William
J. Hawn, U.S. Coast Guard Sector San
Francisco; telephone (415) 399–7442 or
email at D11-PFMarineEvents@uscg.mil. If you have
questions on viewing or submitting
material to the docket, call Barbara
Hairston, Program Manager, Docket
Operations, telephone (202) 366–9826.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Acronyms
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
Coast Guard
A. Regulatory History and Information
33 CFR Part 165
[Docket No. USCG–2014–0175]
RIN 1625–AA00
Safety Zone: Tiburon’s 50th
Anniversary Fireworks, San Francisco
Bay, Tiburon, CA
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
The Coast Guard is
establishing a temporary safety zone in
the navigable waters of the San
Francisco Bay near Point Tiburon in
support of the Town of Tiburon’s 50th
Anniversary Fireworks celebration on
May 30, 2014. This safety zone is
established to ensure the safety of
participants and spectators from the
dangers associated with pyrotechnics.
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
The Coast Guard is issuing this
temporary final rule without prior
notice and opportunity to comment
pursuant to authority under section 4(a)
of the Administrative Procedure Act
(APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision
authorizes an agency to issue a rule
without prior notice and opportunity to
comment when the agency for good
cause finds that those procedures are
‘‘impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary
to the public interest.’’
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast
Guard finds that good cause exists for
making this rule effective less than 30
days after publication in the Federal
Register. The Coast Guard received the
information about the fireworks display
on March 7, 2014, and the fireworks
display would occur before the
rulemaking process would be
completed. Because of the dangers
E:\FR\FM\07MYR1.SGM
07MYR1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 88 (Wednesday, May 7, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 26120-26122]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-10432]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Office of the Secretary
32 CFR Part 320
[Docket ID: DoD-2014-OS-0026]
Privacy Act; Implementation
AGENCY: National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA), DoD.
ACTION: Direct final rule with request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA) is updating the
NGA Privacy Act Program regarding NGA Threat Mitigation Records.
Additionally, NGA initiated a rulemaking to exempt this system of
records from a number of provisions of the Privacy Act, because this
system 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. For these records or
information only, NGA will also claim the original exemptions for these
records or information from the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, as
necessary and appropriate to protect such information. Such exempt
records or information may be law enforcement or national security
investigation records, law enforcement activity and encounter records.
DATES: The rule is effective on July 16, 2014 unless adverse comments
are received by July 7, 2014. If adverse comment is received, the
Department of Defense 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, 2nd Floor, 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: National Geospatial-Intelligence
Agency (NGA), ATTN: Security Specialist, Mission Support, MSRS P-12,
7500 GEOINT Drive, Springfield, VA 22150.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This direct final rule makes non-substantive
changes to the NGA rules. This will improve the efficiency and
effectiveness of DoD's program by ensuring the integrity of the
security and counterintelligence records by the NGA 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.
National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA) is updating the NGA
Privacy Act Program by adding the (k)(1) and (k)(5) exemptions to NGA-
004, NGA Threat Mitigation Records. Additionally, NGA initiated a
rulemaking to exempt this system of records from a number of provisions
of the Privacy Act, because this system 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. For these records or information only, in accordance
with 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2), (k)(2), (k)(1), and (k)(5), NGA 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. Such exempt records or information may be law enforcement
or national security investigation records, law enforcement activity
and encounter records.
Direct Final Rule and Significant Adverse Comments
DoD has determined this rulemaking meets the criteria for a direct
final rule because it involves nonsubstantive 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. This rule does 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
[[Page 26121]]
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. A Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is not required.
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 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et
seq.).
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. Therefore,
no Federalism assessment is required.
List of Subjects in 32 CFR Part 320
Privacy.
Accordingly, 32 CFR part 320 is amended as follows:
PART 320--NATIONAL GEOSPATIAL-INTELLIGENCE AGENCY (NGA)
0
1. The authority citation for 32 CFR part 320 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: Pub. L. 93-579, 88 Stat. 1896 (5 U.S.C. 552a).
0
2. In Sec. 320.12, revise paragraph (c) to read as follows:
Sec. 320.12 Exemptions.
* * * * *
(c) System identifier and name: NGA-004, NGA Threat Mitigation
Records.
(1) Exemptions: Exempt materials from JUSTICE/FBI--019 Terrorist
Screening Records System may become part of the case records in this
system of records. To the extent that copies of exempt records from
JUSTICE/FBI--019, Terrorist Screening Records System are entered into
these Threat Mitigation case records, NGA hereby claims the same
exemptions (j)(2) and (k)(2), for the records as claimed in JUSTICE/
FBI--019, Terrorist Screening Records system of records of which they
are a part.
(2) Information specifically authorized to be classified under E.O.
12958, as implemented by DoD 5200.1-R, may be exempt pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 552a(k)(1).
(3) Investigative material compiled solely for the purpose of
determining suitability, eligibility, or qualifications for federal
civilian employment, military service, federal contracts, or access to
classified information may be exempt pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(5),
but only to the extent that such material would reveal the identity of
a confidential source.
(4) Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2), (k)(1), (k)(2) and (k)(5).
(5) Reasons: (i) Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2), (k)(2), and
(k)(5) NGA is claiming the following exemptions for certain records
within the Threat Mitigation Records system: 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). Additionally, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
552a(k)(1) and (k)(2), NGA has exempted this system from the following
provisions of the Privacy Act, subject to the limitation set forth in 5
U.S.C. 552a(c)(3); (d); (e)(1), (e)(4)(G), (e)(4)(H), (e)(4)(I); and
(f). Exemptions from these particular subsections are justified, on a
case-by-case basis to be determined at the time a request is made.
(ii) In addition to records under the control of NGA, the Threat
Mitigation system of records may include records originating from
systems of records of other law enforcement and intelligence agencies
which may be exempt from certain provisions of the Privacy Act.
However, NGA does not assert exemption to any provisions of the Privacy
Act with respect to information submitted by or on behalf of
individuals.
(iii) To the extent the Threat Mitigation system contains records
originating from other systems of records, NGA will rely on the
exemptions claimed for those records in the originating system of
records. Exemptions for certain records within the Threat Mitigation
system from particular subsections of the Privacy Act are justified for
the following reasons:
(A) From subsection (c)(3) (Accounting for Disclosures) because
giving a record subject access to the accounting of disclosures from
records concerning him or her could reveal investigative interest on
the part of the recipient agency that obtained the record pursuant to a
routine use. Disclosure of the accounting could therefore present a
serious impediment to law enforcement efforts on the part of the
recipient agency because the individual who is the subject of the
record would learn of third agency investigative interests and could
take steps to evade detection or apprehension. Disclosure of the
accounting also could reveal the details of watch list matching
measures under the Threat Mitigation system, as well as capabilities
and vulnerabilities of the watch list matching process, the release of
which could permit an individual to evade future detection and thereby
impede efforts to ensure security.
(B) From subsection (c)(4) because portions of this system are
exempt from the access and amendment provisions of subsection (d).
(C) From subsection (d) (Access to Records) because access to the
records contained in this system of records could inform the subject of
an investigation of an actual or potential criminal, civil, or
regulatory violation to the existence of that investigation and reveal
investigative interest on the part of Department of Homeland Security
or another agency. Access to the records could permit the individual
who is the subject of a record to impede the investigation, to tamper
with witnesses or evidence, and to avoid detection or apprehension.
Amendment of the records could interfere with ongoing investigations
and law enforcement activities and would impose an unreasonable
administrative burden by requiring investigations to be continually
reinvestigated. In addition, permitting access and amendment to such
information could disclose security-sensitive information that could be
detrimental to national security.
(D) From subsection (e)(1) because it is not always possible for
NGA or other agencies to know in advance what information is both
relevant and necessary for it to complete an identity comparison
between individuals and a
[[Page 26122]]
known or suspected terrorist. In addition, because NGA 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) 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), to the extent that this subsection is
interpreted to require NGA to provide notice to an individual if NGA 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) and (H) and (I) (Agency
Requirements) and (f) (Agency Rules), because this system is exempt
from the access provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552a(d).
(H) From subsection (e)(5) because many of the records in this
system coming from other system of records are derived from other
agency record systems and therefore it is not possible for NGA to
ensure their compliance with this provision, however, NGA has
implemented internal quality assurance procedures to ensure that data
used in the matching 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.
However, NGA has implemented internal quality assurance procedures to
ensure that the data used in the matching process is as thorough,
accurate, and current as possible.
(I) From subsection (e)(8) because to require individual notice of
disclosure of information due to compulsory legal process would pose an
impossible administrative burden on NGA 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) to the extent that the system is exempt
from other specific subsections of the Privacy Act.
* * * * *
Dated: May 2, 2014.
Aaron Siegel,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 2014-10432 Filed 5-6-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-P