Privacy Act; Implementation, 79258-79260 [2015-31868]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
79258
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 244 / Monday, December 21, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
National Archives and Records
Administration (NARA). For information on
the availability of this material at NARA, call
202–741–6030, or go to: https://
www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibrlocations.html.
Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on
December 11, 2015.
Pat Mullen,
Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate,
Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2015–31716 Filed 12–18–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Indian Affairs
25 CFR Part 169
[156A2100DD/AAKC001030/
A0A501010.999900 253G]
RIN 1076–AF20
Rights-of-Way on Indian Land
Bureau of Indian Affairs,
Interior.
ACTION: Final rule; extension of effective
date and compliance date.
AGENCY:
The Bureau of Indian Affairs
(BIA) is announcing the extension of the
effective date of the final rule published
November 19, 2015 governing rights-ofway on Indian land, which was
scheduled to take effect on December
21, 2015. Tribes and industry have
requested additional time to prepare for
implementation of the rule. The final
rule will now take effect on March 21,
2016. The BIA is also announcing an
extension of the compliance date by
which documentation of past
assignments must be submitted from the
originally stated date of April 18, 2016
to July 17, 2016. The final rule
comprehensively updates and
streamlines the process for obtaining
Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) grants of
rights-of-way on Indian land and BIA
land, while supporting tribal selfdetermination and self-governance.
DATES: The effective date of the final
rule published on November 19, 2015
(80 FR 72492) is extended until March
21, 2016. The compliance date for
submission of documentation of past
assignments is extended until July 17,
2016.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.
Elizabeth Appel, Director, Office of
Regulatory Affairs & Collaborative
Action, (202) 273–4680;
elizabeth.appel@bia.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On
November 19, 2015, BIA published a
final rule addressing rights-of-way on
Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:24 Dec 18, 2015
Jkt 238001
Indian land and BIA land. See 80 FR
72492. Since publication, BIA has
received comments from tribes and
industry requesting an extension of the
effective date of the rule in order to
provide additional time to prepare for
implementation to ensure compliance.
This document extends the effective
date of the final rule to March 21, 2016,
and likewise extends the deadline for
providing BIA with documentation of
past assignments to July 17, 2016. The
substance of the rule remains
unchanged.
The BIA has determined that the
extension of the effective date and
compliance date without prior public
notice and comment is in the public
interest because it would allow more
time for the public to comply with the
rule and for BIA to implement the rule.
This is a rule of agency procedure or
practice that is exempt from notice and
comment rulemaking under 5 U.S.C.
553(b)(A).
Correction
In FR Rule Doc. No. 2015–28548,
published November 19, 2015, at 80 FR
72492, make the following corrections:
1. On page 72357, in the center and
right columns, in revised § 169.7,
remove the date ‘‘December 21, 2015’’
wherever it appears and add in its place
‘‘March 21, 2016’’.
2. On page 72357, in the right column,
in paragraph (d) of revised § 169.7,
remove the date ‘‘April 18, 2016’’ and
add in its place ‘‘July 17, 2016’’.
Dated: December 14, 2015.
Kevin K. Washburn,
Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs.
[FR Doc. 2015–31892 Filed 12–18–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4337–15–P
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Office of the Secretary
[Docket ID: DoD–2014–OS–0024]
32 CFR Part 311
Privacy Act; Implementation
Office of the Secretary, DoD.
Final rule.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
The Office of the Secretary of
Defense (OSD) is amending its
regulations to exempt portions of a
system of records from certain
provisions of the Privacy Act.
Specifically, the Department proposes to
exempt portions of DMDC 16 DoD,
entitled ‘‘Identity Management Engine
for Security and Analysis (IMESA)’’
from one or more provisions of the
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Privacy Act because of criminal, civil,
and administrative enforcement
requirements. In 2008, the U.S. Congress
passed legislation that obligated the
Secretary of Defense to develop access
standards for visitors applicable to all
military installations in the U.S. The
Department of Defense (DoD) developed
a visitor system to manage multiple
databases that are capable of identifying
individuals seeking access to DoD
installations who may be criminal and/
or security threats. The purpose of the
vetting system is to screen individuals
wishing to enter a DoD facility, to
include those who have been previously
given authority to access DoD
installations, against the FBI National
Crime Information Center (NCIC)
Wanted Person File. The NCIC has a
properly documented exemption rule
and to the extent that portions of these
exempt records may become part of
IMESA, OSD hereby claims the same
exemptions for the records as claimed at
their source (JUSTICE/FBI–001,
National Crime Information Center
(NCIC)).
DATES: Effective Date: This rule is
effective January 20, 2016.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.
Cindy Allard, (571) 372–0461.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
proposed rule was published in the
Federal Register on February 27, 2014
(79 FR 11048–11050, Docket ID: DoD–
2014–OS–0024). One comment was
received. The writer raised a number of
personal concerns (issues with
neighbor, banking, and family). The
issues identified have no relevance to
the proposed exemption of the Identity
Management Engine for Security and
Analysis (IMESA) from portions of the
Privacy Act.
Additionally, the title of the system
has been changed from Interoperability
Layer Service (IoLS) to Identity
Management Engine for Security and
Analysis (IMESA). This title change is
reflected in the final rule.
Executive Order 12866, ‘‘Regulatory
Planning and Review’’ and Executive
Order 13563, ‘‘Improving Regulation
and Regulatory Review’’
It has been determined that this rule
is not a significant rule. 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
communities; (2) Create a serious
inconsistency or otherwise interfere
E:\FR\FM\21DER1.SGM
21DER1
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 244 / Monday, December 21, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
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 this rule
does not have significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities because it is 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 95–511, ‘‘Paperwork
Reduction Act’’ (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35)
This rule does not contain any
information collection requirements
subject to 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 this rule
does 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 will not
significantly or uniquely affect small
governments.
Executive Order 13132, ‘‘Federalism’’
Executive Order 13132 requires
regulations be reviewed for Federalism
effects on the institutional interest of
states and local governments, and if the
effects are sufficiently substantial,
preparation of the Federal assessment is
required to assist senior policy makers.
The amendments will not have any
substantial direct effects on state and
local governments within the meaning
of the EO. Therefore, no Federalism
assessment is required.
List of Subjects in 32 CFR Part 311
Privacy.
Accordingly, 32 CFR part 311 is
amended to read as follows:
PART 311—[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for 32 CFR
part 311 continues to read as follows:
Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
■
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552a.
2. Section 311.8 is amended by adding
paragraph (c)(26) as follows:
■
§ 311.8
*
Procedures for exemptions.
*
*
(c) * * *
VerDate Sep<11>2014
*
*
15:24 Dec 18, 2015
Jkt 238001
(26) System identifier and name:
DMDC 16 DoD, Identity Management
Engine for Security and Analysis
(IMESA).
(i) Exemption: To the extent that
copies of exempt records from JUSTICE/
FBI–001, National Crime Information
Center (NCIC) are entered into the
Interoperability Layer Service records,
the OSD hereby claims the same
exemptions, (j)(2) and (k)(3), for the
records as claimed in JUSTICE/FBI–001,
National Crime Information Center
(NCIC). Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a
portions of this system that fall within
(j)(2) and (k)(3) are exempt from the
following provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552a,
section (c)(3) and (4); (d); (e)(1) through
(3); (e)(4)(G) through (I); (e)(5) and (8);
(f); and (g) (as applicable) of the Act.
(ii) Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2) and
(k)(3).
(iii) Reasons: (A) from subsection
(c)(3) because making available to a
record subject the accounting of
disclosure from records concerning him
or her would specifically reveal any
investigative interest in the individual.
Revealing this information could
reasonably be expected to compromise
ongoing efforts to investigate a known or
suspected terrorist by notifying the
record subject that he or she is under
investigation. This information could
also permit the record subject to take
measures to impede the investigation,
e.g., destroy evidence, intimidate
potential witnesses, or flee the area to
avoid or impede the investigation.
(B) From subsection (c)(4) because
portions of this system are exempt from
the access and amendment provisions of
subsection (d).
(C) From subsection (d) because these
provisions concern individual access to
and amendment of certain records
contained in this system, including law
enforcement, counterterrorism,
investigatory, and intelligence records.
Compliance with these provisions could
alert the subject of an investigation of
the fact and nature of the investigation,
and/or the investigative interest of
intelligence or law enforcement
agencies; compromise sensitive
information related to national security;
interfere with the overall law
enforcement process by leading to the
destruction of evidence, improper
influencing of witnesses, fabrication of
testimony, and/or flight of the subject;
could identify a confidential source or
disclose information which would
constitute an unwarranted invasion of
another’s personal privacy; reveal a
sensitive investigative or intelligence
technique; or constitute a potential
danger to the health or safety of law
enforcement personnel, confidential
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
79259
informants, and witnesses. Amendment
of these records would interfere with
ongoing counterterrorism, law
enforcement, or intelligence
investigations and analysis activities
and impose an impossible
administrative burden by requiring
investigations, analyses, and reports to
be continuously reinvestigated and
revised.
(D) From subsection (e)(1) because it
is not always possible to determine
what information is relevant and
necessary to complete an identity
comparison between the individual
seeking access and a known or
suspected terrorist. Also, because DoD
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 DoD to provide notice to an
individual if DoD or another agency
receives or collects information about
that individual during an investigation
or from a third party. Should this
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 the activity.
(G) From subsection (e)(4)(G),
(e)(4)(H), and (e)(4)(I) (Agency
Requirements) because portions of this
system are exempt from the access and
amendment provisions of subsection
(d).
(H) From subsection (e)(5) because the
requirement that records be maintained
with attention to accuracy, relevance,
timeliness, and completeness could
E:\FR\FM\21DER1.SGM
21DER1
79260
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 244 / Monday, December 21, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
unfairly hamper law enforcement
processes. It is the nature of law
enforcement to uncover the commission
of illegal acts at diverse stages. It is often
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 details are
brought to light.
(I) From subsection (e)(8) because the
requirement to serve notice on an
individual when a record is disclosed
under compulsory legal process could
unfairly hamper law enforcement
processes. It is the nature of law
enforcement that there are instances
where compliance with these provisions
could alert the subject of an
investigation of the fact and nature of
the investigation, and/or the
investigative interest of intelligence or
law enforcement agencies; compromise
sensitive information related to national
security; interfere with the overall law
enforcement process by leading to the
destruction of evidence, improper
influencing of witnesses, fabrication of
testimony, and/or flight of the subject;
reveal a sensitive investigative or
intelligence technique; or constitute a
potential danger to the health or safety
of law enforcement personnel,
confidential informants, and witnesses.
(J) From subsection (f) because
requiring the Agency to grant access to
records and establishing agency rules
for amendment of records would
unfairly impede the agency’s law
enforcement mission. To require the
confirmation or denial of the existence
of a record pertaining to a requesting
individual may in itself provide an
answer to that individual relating to the
existence of an on-going investigation.
The investigation of possible unlawful
activities would be jeopardized by
agency rules requiring verification of the
record, disclosure of the record to the
subject, and record amendment
procedures.
(K) From subsection (g) to the extent
that the system is exempt from other
specific subsections of the Privacy Act.
Dated: December 2, 2015.
Aaron Siegel,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison
Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 2015–31868 Filed 12–18–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001–06–P
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:24 Dec 18, 2015
Jkt 238001
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 117
[Docket No. USCG–2015–1099]
Drawbridge Operation Regulation;
Upper Mississippi River, Sabula, Iowa
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of deviation from
drawbridge regulation.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
The Coast Guard has issued a
temporary deviation from the operating
schedule that governs the Sabula
Railroad Drawbridge across the Upper
Mississippi River, mile 535.0, at Sabula,
Iowa. The deviation is necessary to
allow the bridge owner time to perform
preventive maintenance that is essential
to the safe operation of the drawbridge,
and is scheduled in the winter when
there is less impact on navigation. This
deviation allows the bridge to open on
signal if at least 24-hours advance notice
is given.
DATES: This deviation is effective
without actual notice from December
21, 2015 through 7 a.m., March 4, 2016.
For the purposes of enforcement, actual
notice will be used from 7 a.m.,
December 16, 2015 until December 21,
2015.
ADDRESSES: The docket for this
deviation, [USCG–2015–1099] is
available at 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 deviation.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If
you have questions on this temporary
deviation, call or email Eric A.
Washburn, Bridge Administrator,
Western Rivers, Coast Guard; telephone
314–269–2378, email Eric.Washburn@
uscg.mil.
SUMMARY:
The
Canadian Pacific Railroad requested a
temporary deviation for the Sabula
Railroad Drawbridge, across the Upper
Mississippi River, mile 535.0, at Sabula,
Iowa to open on signal if at least 24hours advance notice is given for 78
days from 7 a.m., December 16, 2015
until 7 a.m., March 4, 2016 for
scheduled maintenance on the bridge.
The Sabula Railroad Drawbridge
currently operates in accordance with
33 CFR 117.5, which states the general
requirement that the drawbridge shall
open on signal.
There are no alternate routes for
vessels transiting this section of the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Upper Mississippi River. The bridge
cannot open in case of emergency.
Winter conditions on the Upper
Mississippi River coupled with the
closure of Army Corps of Engineer’s
Lock No. 13 (Mile 522.5 UMR) and Lock
No. 21 (Mile 324.9 UMR) from 7 a.m.
January 4, 2016 until 12 p.m., March 4,
2016 will preclude any significant
navigation demands for the drawspan
opening. In addition, Army Corps Lock
No. 14 (Mile 493.3 UMR) and Lock No.
17 (Mile 437.1 UMR) will be closed
from 7 a.m. December 14, 2015 until 12
p.m. March 2, 2016.
The Sabula Railroad Drawbridge
provides a vertical clearance of 18.1 feet
above normal pool in the closed-tonavigation position. Navigation on the
waterway consists primarily of
commercial tows and recreational
watercraft and will not be significantly
impacted. The drawbridge will open if
at least 24-hours advance notice is
given. This temporary deviation has
been coordinated with waterway users.
No objections were received.
In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e),
the drawbridge must return to its regular
operating schedule immediately at the
end of the effective period of this
temporary deviation. This deviation
from the operating regulations is
authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.
Dated: December 15, 2015.
Eric A. Washburn,
Bridge Administrator, Western Rivers.
[FR Doc. 2015–31917 Filed 12–18–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110–04–P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 117
[Docket No. USCG–2015–1064]
Drawbridge Operation Regulation;
Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway,
Wrightsville Beach, NC
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of deviation from
drawbridge regulation.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
The Coast Guard has issued a
temporary deviation from the operating
schedule that governs the SR 74 Bascule
Bridge, across the Atlantic Intracoastal
Waterway (AIWW), mile 283.1, at
Wrightsville Beach, NC. The deviation
is necessary to accommodate the 7th
annual Quintiles Wrightsville Beach
Marathon. This deviation allows the
bridge to remain in the closed position
during the race to facilitate the safe
travels of the runners and bystanders.
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\21DER1.SGM
21DER1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 244 (Monday, December 21, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 79258-79260]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-31868]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Office of the Secretary
[Docket ID: DoD-2014-OS-0024]
32 CFR Part 311
Privacy Act; Implementation
AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, DoD.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) is amending its
regulations to exempt portions of a system of records from certain
provisions of the Privacy Act. Specifically, the Department proposes to
exempt portions of DMDC 16 DoD, entitled ``Identity Management Engine
for Security and Analysis (IMESA)'' from one or more provisions of the
Privacy Act because of criminal, civil, and administrative enforcement
requirements. In 2008, the U.S. Congress passed legislation that
obligated the Secretary of Defense to develop access standards for
visitors applicable to all military installations in the U.S. The
Department of Defense (DoD) developed a visitor system to manage
multiple databases that are capable of identifying individuals seeking
access to DoD installations who may be criminal and/or security
threats. The purpose of the vetting system is to screen individuals
wishing to enter a DoD facility, to include those who have been
previously given authority to access DoD installations, against the FBI
National Crime Information Center (NCIC) Wanted Person File. The NCIC
has a properly documented exemption rule and to the extent that
portions of these exempt records may become part of IMESA, OSD hereby
claims the same exemptions for the records as claimed at their source
(JUSTICE/FBI-001, National Crime Information Center (NCIC)).
DATES: Effective Date: This rule is effective January 20, 2016.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Cindy Allard, (571) 372-0461.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The proposed rule was published in the
Federal Register on February 27, 2014 (79 FR 11048-11050, Docket ID:
DoD-2014-OS-0024). One comment was received. The writer raised a number
of personal concerns (issues with neighbor, banking, and family). The
issues identified have no relevance to the proposed exemption of the
Identity Management Engine for Security and Analysis (IMESA) from
portions of the Privacy Act.
Additionally, the title of the system has been changed from
Interoperability Layer Service (IoLS) to Identity Management Engine for
Security and Analysis (IMESA). This title change is reflected in the
final rule.
Executive Order 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review'' and Executive
Order 13563, ``Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review''
It has been determined that this rule is not a significant rule.
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
communities; (2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere
[[Page 79259]]
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 this rule does not have significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because it is
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 95-511, ``Paperwork Reduction Act'' (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35)
This rule does not contain any information collection requirements
subject to 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 this rule does 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 will not significantly or uniquely affect small
governments.
Executive Order 13132, ``Federalism''
Executive Order 13132 requires regulations be reviewed for
Federalism effects on the institutional interest of states and local
governments, and if the effects are sufficiently substantial,
preparation of the Federal assessment is required to assist senior
policy makers. The amendments will not have any substantial direct
effects on state and local governments within the meaning of the EO.
Therefore, no Federalism assessment is required.
List of Subjects in 32 CFR Part 311
Privacy.
Accordingly, 32 CFR part 311 is amended to read as follows:
PART 311--[AMENDED]
0
1. The authority citation for 32 CFR part 311 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552a.
0
2. Section 311.8 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(26) as follows:
Sec. 311.8 Procedures for exemptions.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(26) System identifier and name: DMDC 16 DoD, Identity Management
Engine for Security and Analysis (IMESA).
(i) Exemption: To the extent that copies of exempt records from
JUSTICE/FBI-001, National Crime Information Center (NCIC) are entered
into the Interoperability Layer Service records, the OSD hereby claims
the same exemptions, (j)(2) and (k)(3), for the records as claimed in
JUSTICE/FBI-001, National Crime Information Center (NCIC). Pursuant to
5 U.S.C. 552a portions of this system that fall within (j)(2) and
(k)(3) are exempt from the following provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552a,
section (c)(3) and (4); (d); (e)(1) through (3); (e)(4)(G) through (I);
(e)(5) and (8); (f); and (g) (as applicable) of the Act.
(ii) Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2) and (k)(3).
(iii) Reasons: (A) from subsection (c)(3) because making available
to a record subject the accounting of disclosure from records
concerning him or her would specifically reveal any investigative
interest in the individual. Revealing this information could reasonably
be expected to compromise ongoing efforts to investigate a known or
suspected terrorist by notifying the record subject that he or she is
under investigation. This information could also permit the record
subject to take measures to impede the investigation, e.g., destroy
evidence, intimidate potential witnesses, or flee the area to avoid or
impede the investigation.
(B) From subsection (c)(4) because portions of this system are
exempt from the access and amendment provisions of subsection (d).
(C) From subsection (d) because these provisions concern individual
access to and amendment of certain records contained in this system,
including law enforcement, counterterrorism, investigatory, and
intelligence records. Compliance with these provisions could alert the
subject of an investigation of the fact and nature of the
investigation, and/or the investigative interest of intelligence or law
enforcement agencies; compromise sensitive information related to
national security; interfere with the overall law enforcement process
by leading to the destruction of evidence, improper influencing of
witnesses, fabrication of testimony, and/or flight of the subject;
could identify a confidential source or disclose information which
would constitute an unwarranted invasion of another's personal privacy;
reveal a sensitive investigative or intelligence technique; or
constitute a potential danger to the health or safety of law
enforcement personnel, confidential informants, and witnesses.
Amendment of these records would interfere with ongoing
counterterrorism, law enforcement, or intelligence investigations and
analysis activities and impose an impossible administrative burden by
requiring investigations, analyses, and reports to be continuously
reinvestigated and revised.
(D) From subsection (e)(1) because it is not always possible to
determine what information is relevant and necessary to complete an
identity comparison between the individual seeking access and a known
or suspected terrorist. Also, because DoD 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 DoD to provide notice to an individual if DoD or
another agency receives or collects information about that individual
during an investigation or from a third party. Should this 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 the activity.
(G) From subsection (e)(4)(G), (e)(4)(H), and (e)(4)(I) (Agency
Requirements) because portions of this system are exempt from the
access and amendment provisions of subsection (d).
(H) From subsection (e)(5) because the requirement that records be
maintained with attention to accuracy, relevance, timeliness, and
completeness could
[[Page 79260]]
unfairly hamper law enforcement processes. It is the nature of law
enforcement to uncover the commission of illegal acts at diverse
stages. It is often 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 details are brought to light.
(I) From subsection (e)(8) because the requirement to serve notice
on an individual when a record is disclosed under compulsory legal
process could unfairly hamper law enforcement processes. It is the
nature of law enforcement that there are instances where compliance
with these provisions could alert the subject of an investigation of
the fact and nature of the investigation, and/or the investigative
interest of intelligence or law enforcement agencies; compromise
sensitive information related to national security; interfere with the
overall law enforcement process by leading to the destruction of
evidence, improper influencing of witnesses, fabrication of testimony,
and/or flight of the subject; reveal a sensitive investigative or
intelligence technique; or constitute a potential danger to the health
or safety of law enforcement personnel, confidential informants, and
witnesses.
(J) From subsection (f) because requiring the Agency to grant
access to records and establishing agency rules for amendment of
records would unfairly impede the agency's law enforcement mission. To
require the confirmation or denial of the existence of a record
pertaining to a requesting individual may in itself provide an answer
to that individual relating to the existence of an on-going
investigation. The investigation of possible unlawful activities would
be jeopardized by agency rules requiring verification of the record,
disclosure of the record to the subject, and record amendment
procedures.
(K) From subsection (g) to the extent that the system is exempt
from other specific subsections of the Privacy Act.
Dated: December 2, 2015.
Aaron Siegel,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 2015-31868 Filed 12-18-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
