Privacy Act of 1974; Implementation, 31561-31563 [2016-11702]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 97 / Thursday, May 19, 2016 / Proposed Rules significant conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C. 6317(a)(1)) DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 10 CFR Parts 429 and 431 II. Discussion [Docket No. EERE–2010–BT–TP–0044] RIN 1904–AC37 Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedures for High-Intensity Discharge Lamps; Withdrawal Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking; withdrawal. AGENCY: The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) withdraws its proposal for establishing test procedures for highintensity discharge (HID) lamps in light of the fact that DOE published a final determination on December 9, 2015 concluding that energy conservation standards for HID lamps are not justified, thereby negating the need for an HID test procedure. DATES: The proposed rule published on December 15, 2011 (76 FR 77914) and updated on May 22, 2014 (79 FR 29632) is withdrawn as of May 19, 2016. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Lucy deButts, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Office, EE–2J, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585–0121. Telephone: (202) 287–1604. Email: high_intensity_dischage_lamps@ ee.doe.gov. Ms. Francine Pinto, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, GC–33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585–0121. Telephone: (703) 887–7971. Email: Francine.Pinto@hq.doe.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS SUMMARY: I. Authority Title III of EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6291, et seq.), Public Law 94–163, sets forth a variety of provisions designed to improve energy efficiency. Part C of title III, which for editorial reasons was redesignated as Part A–1 upon incorporation into the U.S. Code (42 U.S.C. 6311–6317), establishes the ‘‘Energy Conservation Program for Certain Industrial Equipment,’’ a program covering certain industrial equipment, which include the HID lamps that are the subject of this notice. Pursuant to EPCA, DOE must prescribe test procedures and energy conservation standards for HID lamps for which DOE has determined that standards would be technologically feasible, economically justified, and would result in a VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:52 May 18, 2016 Jkt 238001 On December 15, 2011, DOE published a Notice of Proposed rulemaking to establish test procedures for HID lamps under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA). 76 FR 77914. Subsequently, on May 22, 2014, DOE published a Supplemental Notice of Proposed rulemaking, updating the earlier NOPR test procedure. 79 FR 29632. Today, DOE is withdrawing its test procedure proposal because on December 9, 2015 it published a final determination that energy conservation standards for HID lamps are not justified, consequently negating the need for an HID test procedure. 80 FR 76355. III. Approval of the Office of the Secretary The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of this withdrawal. List of Subjects 10 CFR Part 429 Administrative practice and procedure, Buildings and facilities, Business and industry, Energy conservation, Grants programs—energy, Housing, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Technical assistance. 10 CFR Part 431 Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business information, Energy conservation, Household appliances, Imports, Incorporation by reference, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Small business. Issued in Washington, DC, on May 13, 2016. Kathleen B. Hogan, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. [FR Doc. 2016–11912 Filed 5–18–16; 8:45 a.m.] BILLING CODE 6450–01–P DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary 32 CFR Part 310 [Docket ID: DoD–2016–OS–0059] Privacy Act of 1974; Implementation Office of the Secretary of Defense, DoD. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. AGENCY: PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 31561 The Office of the Secretary of Defense proposes to exempt records maintained in DUSDI 01–DoD ‘‘Department of Defense (DoD) Insider Threat Management and Analysis Center (DITMAC) and DoD Component Insider Threat Records System,’’ from subsections (c)(3) and (4); (d)(1), (2), (3), and (4); (e)(1), (2), (3), (4)(G), (H), and (I), (5), and (8); (f); and (g) of the Privacy Act. A system of records notice for this system has been published today in the Federal Register. In addition, in the course of carrying out collections and analysis of information in connection with the operations of the DITMAC and DoD Component insider threat programs, exempt records received from other systems of records may become part of this system. To the extent that copies of exempt records from those other systems of records are maintained in this system, the Department also claims the same exemptions for the records from those other systems that are maintained in this system, as claimed for the original primary system of which they are a part. DATES: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(4) and (11), the public is given a 30-day period in which to comment. Therefore, please submit any comments by June 20, 2016. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods: • Federal Rulemaking Portal: http:// www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • Mail: Department of Defense, Deputy Chief Management Officer, Directorate for Oversight and Compliance, 4800 Mark Center Drive, ATTN: Box 24, Alexandria, VA 22350– 1700. 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 http:// www.regulations.gov as they are received without change, including any personal identifiers or contact information. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cindy Allard, Director of the Defense Privacy, Civil Liberties, and Transparency Division, 703–571–0070. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The DITMAC was established by the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence in order to consolidate and analyze insider threat information reported by the DoD Component insider threat programs SUMMARY: E:\FR\FM\19MYP1.SGM 19MYP1 31562 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 97 / Thursday, May 19, 2016 / Proposed Rules asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS mandated by Presidential Executive Order 13587, issued October 7, 2011, which required Federal agencies to establish an insider threat detection and prevention program to ensure the security of classified networks and the responsible sharing and safeguarding of classified information consistent with appropriate protections for privacy and civil liberties. For purposes of this system of records, the term ‘‘insider threat’’ is defined in the Minimum Standards for Executive Branch Insider Threat Task Force based on direction provided in Section 6.3(b) of Executive Order 13587. The DITMAC helps prevent, deter, detect, and/or mitigate the potential threat that personnel, including DoD military personnel, civilian employees, and contractor personnel, who have or had been granted eligibility for access to classified information or eligibility to hold a sensitive position may harm the security of the United States. This threat can include damage to the United States through espionage, terrorism, unauthorized disclosure of national security information, or through the loss or degradation of departmental resources or capabilities. The system of records will be used to analyze, monitor, and audit insider threat information for insider threat detection and mitigation within DoD on threats that persons who have or had been granted eligibility for access to classified information or eligibility to hold a sensitive positions may pose to DoD and U.S. Government installations, facilities, personnel, missions, or resources. The system of records will support the DITMAC and DoD Component insider threat programs, enable the identification of systemic insider threat issues and challenges, and provide a basis for the development and recommendation of solutions to deter, detect, and/or mitigate potential insider threats. It will assist in identifying best practices among other Federal Government insider threat programs, through the use of existing DoD resources and functions and by leveraging existing authorities, policies, programs, systems, and architectures. 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 VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:52 May 18, 2016 Jkt 238001 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 certified that this rule does not have a 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 DoD. 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 this rule does not impose 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 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 that it will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Executive Order 13132, ‘‘Federalism’’ It has been determined that this rule does not have federalism implications. This rule does 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 310 Privacy. Accordingly, 32 CFR part 310 is proposed to be amended as follows: PART 310 [Amended] 1. The authority citation for 32 CFR part 310 continues to read as follows: ■ Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552a. §§ 310.30 through 310.53 [Redesignated as §§ 310.31 through 310.54] 2. Redesignate § 310.30 through § 310.53 as § 310.31 through § 310.54. ■ 3. In Subpart F, add a new § 310.30 to read as follows: ■ PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 § 310.30 DoD-wide exemptions. (a) Use of DoD-wide exemptions. DoDwide exemptions for DOD-wide systems of records are established pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(j) and (k) of the Privacy Act. (b) Promises of confidentiality. (1) Only the identity of sources that have been given an express promise of confidentiality may be protected from disclosure under paragraphs (d)(3)(i), (ii), and (iii) and (d)(4) of this section. However, the identity of sources who were given implied promises of confidentiality in inquiries conducted before September 27, 1975, also may be protected from disclosure. (2) Ensure promises of confidentiality are not automatically given but are used sparingly. Establish appropriate procedures and identify fully categories of individuals who may make such promises. Promises of confidentiality shall be made only when they are essential to obtain the information sought (see 5 CFR part 736). (c) Access to records for which DODwide exemptions are claimed. Deny the individual access only to those portions of the records for which the claimed exemption applies. (d) DoD-wide exemptions. The following exemptions are applicable to all components of the Department of Defense for the following system(s) of records: (1) System identifier and name: DUSDI 01–DoD ‘‘Department of Defense (DoD) Insider Threat Management and Analysis Center (DITMAC) and DoD Component Insider Threat Records System.’’ Exemption: This system of records is exempted from subsections (c)(3) and (4); (d)(1), (2), (3) and (4); (e)(1), (2), (3), (4)(G)(H) and (I), (5) and (8); and (g) of the Privacy Act pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(j) (2) and (k)(1), (2), (4), (5), (6), and (7). (2) Records are only exempt from pertinent provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552a to the extent that such provisions have been identified and an exemption claimed for the record and the purposes underlying the exemption for the record pertain to the record. (3) Exemption from the particular subsections is justified for the following reasons: (i) Subsection (c)(3). To provide the subject with an accounting of disclosures of records in this system could inform that individual of the existence, nature, or scope of an actual or potential law enforcement or counterintelligence investigation, and thereby seriously impede law enforcement or counterintelligence efforts by permitting the record subject and other persons to whom he might disclose the records to avoid criminal E:\FR\FM\19MYP1.SGM 19MYP1 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 97 / Thursday, May 19, 2016 / Proposed Rules penalties, civil remedies, or counterintelligence measures. Access to the accounting of disclosures could also interfere with a civil or administrative action or investigation which may impede in those actions or investigations. Access also could reveal the identity of confidential sources incident to Federal employment, military service, contract, and security clearance determinations. (ii) Subsection (c)(4). This subsection is inapplicable to the extent that an exemption is being claimed for subsection (d). (iii) Subsection (d)(1). Disclosure of records in the system could reveal the identity of confidential sources and result in an unwarranted invasion of the privacy of others. Disclosure may also reveal information relating to actual or potential criminal investigations. Disclosure of classified national security information would cause damage to the national security of the United States. Disclosure could also interfere with a civil or administrative action or investigation; reveal the identity of confidential sources incident to Federal employment, military service, contract, and security clearance determinations; and reveal the confidentiality and integrity of Federal testing materials and evaluation materials used for military promotions when furnished by a confidential source. (iv) Subsection (d)(2). Amendment of the records could interfere with ongoing criminal or civil law enforcement proceedings and impose an impossible administrative burden by requiring investigations to be continuously reinvestigated. (v) Subsections (d)(3) and (4). These subsections are inapplicable to the extent exemption is claimed from (d)(1) and (2). (vi) Subsection (e)(1). It is often impossible to determine in advance if investigatory records contained in this system are accurate, relevant, timely and complete, but, in the interests of effective law enforcement and counterintelligence, it is necessary to retain this information to aid in establishing patterns of activity and provide investigative leads. (vii) Subsection (e)(2). To collect information from the subject individual could serve notice that he or she is the subject of a criminal investigation and thereby present a serious impediment to such investigations. (viii) Subsection (e)(3). To inform individuals as required by this subsection could reveal the existence of a criminal investigation and compromise investigative efforts. VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:52 May 18, 2016 Jkt 238001 (ix) Subsection (e)(4)(G), (H), and (I). These subsections are inapplicable to the extent exemption is claimed from (d)(1) and (2). (x) Subsection (e)(5). It is often impossible to determine in advance if investigatory records contained in this system are accurate, relevant, timely and complete, but, in the interests of effective law enforcement, it is necessary to retain this information to aid in establishing patterns of activity and provide investigative leads. (xi) Subsection (e)(8). To serve notice could give persons sufficient warning to evade investigative efforts. (xii) Subsection (g). This subsection is inapplicable to the extent that the system is exempt from other specific subsections of the Privacy Act. (4) In addition, in the course of carrying out analysis for insider threats, exempt records from other systems of records may in turn become part of the case records maintained in this system. To the extent that copies of exempt records from those other systems of records are maintained into this system, the DoD claims the same exemptions for the records from those other systems that are entered into this system, as claimed for the original primary system of which they are a part. Dated: May 13, 2016. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense. 31563 representative. We invite your comments on this proposed rulemaking. DATES: Comments and related material must be received by the Coast Guard on or before June 20, 2016. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG– 2016–0287 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http:// www.regulations.gov. See the ‘‘Public Participation and Request for Comments’’ portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for further instructions on submitting comments. If you have questions about this proposed rulemaking, call or email MST1 Jennifer Haggins, Marine Safety Unit Pittsburgh, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 412–221– 0807, email Jennifer.L.Haggins@ uscg.mil. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Table of Abbreviations CFR Code of Federal Regulations DHS Department of Homeland Security FR Federal Register NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking § Section U.S.C. United States Code II. Background, Purpose, and Legal Basis [Docket Number USCG–2016–0286] On March 24, 2016, the Three Rivers Outboard Racing Association notified the Coast Guard that it will be conducting boat races from 9:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. daily beginning on August 19, 2016 and through August 21, 2016. The boat races are scheduled to take place on the Allegheny River from mile 44.1 to 45.1. The purpose of this rulemaking is to ensure the safety of vessels, participants, race spectators, and those working in the boat racing event. The Coast Guard proposes this rulemaking under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231. RIN 1625–AA00 III. Discussion of Proposed Rule [FR Doc. 2016–11702 Filed 5–18–16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001–06–P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 Safety Zone; Allegheny River Mile 44.1 to 45.1, Kittanning, Pennsylvania Coast Guard, DHS. Notice of proposed rulemaking. AGENCY: ACTION: The Coast Guard proposes to establish a temporary safety zone for all navigable waters of the Allegheny River mile 44.1 to mile 45.1. This action is needed to protect personnel, spectators, participants, and vessels from potential hazards associated with boat races. Access to this safety zone would be limited to those participating in or working with the race sponsors unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Pittsburgh or a designated SUMMARY: PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 The COTP proposes to establish a safety zone from 9:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. daily beginning on August 19, 2016 and through August 21, 2016. The safety zone would cover all navigable waters of the Allegheny River from mile 44.1 to mile 45.1. The duration of the zone is intended to ensure the safety of vessels, participants, race spectators, and those working the boat racing event on navigable waters. Access to this safety zone would be limited to those participating in or working with the race sponsors. No other vessel or person would be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative. The regulatory text we E:\FR\FM\19MYP1.SGM 19MYP1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 97 (Thursday, May 19, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 31561-31563]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-11702]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary

32 CFR Part 310

[Docket ID: DoD-2016-OS-0059]


Privacy Act of 1974; Implementation

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary of Defense, DoD.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Office of the Secretary of Defense proposes to exempt 
records maintained in DUSDI 01-DoD ``Department of Defense (DoD) 
Insider Threat Management and Analysis Center (DITMAC) and DoD 
Component Insider Threat Records System,'' from subsections (c)(3) and 
(4); (d)(1), (2), (3), and (4); (e)(1), (2), (3), (4)(G), (H), and (I), 
(5), and (8); (f); and (g) of the Privacy Act. A system of records 
notice for this system has been published today in the Federal 
Register.
    In addition, in the course of carrying out collections and analysis 
of information in connection with the operations of the DITMAC and DoD 
Component insider threat programs, exempt records received from other 
systems of records may become part of this system. To the extent that 
copies of exempt records from those other systems of records are 
maintained in this system, the Department also claims the same 
exemptions for the records from those other systems that are maintained 
in this system, as claimed for the original primary system of which 
they are a part.

DATES: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(4) and (11), the public is 
given a 30-day period in which to comment. Therefore, please submit any 
comments by June 20, 2016.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by docket number and 
title, by any of the following methods:
     Federal Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Department of Defense, Deputy Chief Management 
Officer, Directorate for Oversight and Compliance, 4800 Mark Center 
Drive, ATTN: Box 24, Alexandria, VA 22350-1700.
    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 http://www.regulations.gov as they are received without change, 
including any personal identifiers or contact information.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cindy Allard, Director of the Defense 
Privacy, Civil Liberties, and Transparency Division, 703-571-0070.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The DITMAC was established by the Under 
Secretary of Defense for Intelligence in order to consolidate and 
analyze insider threat information reported by the DoD Component 
insider threat programs

[[Page 31562]]

mandated by Presidential Executive Order 13587, issued October 7, 2011, 
which required Federal agencies to establish an insider threat 
detection and prevention program to ensure the security of classified 
networks and the responsible sharing and safeguarding of classified 
information consistent with appropriate protections for privacy and 
civil liberties. For purposes of this system of records, the term 
``insider threat'' is defined in the Minimum Standards for Executive 
Branch Insider Threat Task Force based on direction provided in Section 
6.3(b) of Executive Order 13587. The DITMAC helps prevent, deter, 
detect, and/or mitigate the potential threat that personnel, including 
DoD military personnel, civilian employees, and contractor personnel, 
who have or had been granted eligibility for access to classified 
information or eligibility to hold a sensitive position may harm the 
security of the United States. This threat can include damage to the 
United States through espionage, terrorism, unauthorized disclosure of 
national security information, or through the loss or degradation of 
departmental resources or capabilities.
    The system of records will be used to analyze, monitor, and audit 
insider threat information for insider threat detection and mitigation 
within DoD on threats that persons who have or had been granted 
eligibility for access to classified information or eligibility to hold 
a sensitive positions may pose to DoD and U.S. Government 
installations, facilities, personnel, missions, or resources. The 
system of records will support the DITMAC and DoD Component insider 
threat programs, enable the identification of systemic insider threat 
issues and challenges, and provide a basis for the development and 
recommendation of solutions to deter, detect, and/or mitigate potential 
insider threats. It will assist in identifying best practices among 
other Federal Government insider threat programs, through the use of 
existing DoD resources and functions and by leveraging existing 
authorities, policies, programs, systems, and architectures.

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 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 certified that this rule does not have a 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 DoD. 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 this rule does not impose 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 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 that it will not significantly or uniquely affect 
small governments.

Executive Order 13132, ``Federalism''

    It has been determined that this rule does not have federalism 
implications. This rule does 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 310

    Privacy.

    Accordingly, 32 CFR part 310 is proposed to be amended as follows:

PART 310 [Amended]

0
1. The authority citation for 32 CFR part 310 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552a.


Sec. Sec.  310.30  through 310.53 [Redesignated as Sec. Sec.  310.31 
through 310.54]

0
2. Redesignate Sec.  310.30 through Sec.  310.53 as Sec.  310.31 
through Sec.  310.54.
0
3. In Subpart F, add a new Sec.  310.30 to read as follows:


Sec.  310.30  DoD-wide exemptions.

    (a) Use of DoD-wide exemptions. DoD-wide exemptions for DOD-wide 
systems of records are established pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(j) and (k) 
of the Privacy Act.
    (b) Promises of confidentiality. (1) Only the identity of sources 
that have been given an express promise of confidentiality may be 
protected from disclosure under paragraphs (d)(3)(i), (ii), and (iii) 
and (d)(4) of this section. However, the identity of sources who were 
given implied promises of confidentiality in inquiries conducted before 
September 27, 1975, also may be protected from disclosure.
    (2) Ensure promises of confidentiality are not automatically given 
but are used sparingly. Establish appropriate procedures and identify 
fully categories of individuals who may make such promises. Promises of 
confidentiality shall be made only when they are essential to obtain 
the information sought (see 5 CFR part 736).
    (c) Access to records for which DOD-wide exemptions are claimed. 
Deny the individual access only to those portions of the records for 
which the claimed exemption applies.
    (d) DoD-wide exemptions. The following exemptions are applicable to 
all components of the Department of Defense for the following system(s) 
of records:
    (1) System identifier and name: DUSDI 01-DoD ``Department of 
Defense (DoD) Insider Threat Management and Analysis Center (DITMAC) 
and DoD Component Insider Threat Records System.'' Exemption: This 
system of records is exempted from subsections (c)(3) and (4); (d)(1), 
(2), (3) and (4); (e)(1), (2), (3), (4)(G)(H) and (I), (5) and (8); and 
(g) of the Privacy Act pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(j) (2) and (k)(1), 
(2), (4), (5), (6), and (7).
    (2) Records are only exempt from pertinent provisions of 5 U.S.C. 
552a to the extent that such provisions have been identified and an 
exemption claimed for the record and the purposes underlying the 
exemption for the record pertain to the record.
    (3) Exemption from the particular subsections is justified for the 
following reasons:
    (i) Subsection (c)(3). To provide the subject with an accounting of 
disclosures of records in this system could inform that individual of 
the existence, nature, or scope of an actual or potential law 
enforcement or counterintelligence investigation, and thereby seriously 
impede law enforcement or counterintelligence efforts by permitting the 
record subject and other persons to whom he might disclose the records 
to avoid criminal

[[Page 31563]]

penalties, civil remedies, or counterintelligence measures. Access to 
the accounting of disclosures could also interfere with a civil or 
administrative action or investigation which may impede in those 
actions or investigations. Access also could reveal the identity of 
confidential sources incident to Federal employment, military service, 
contract, and security clearance determinations.
    (ii) Subsection (c)(4). This subsection is inapplicable to the 
extent that an exemption is being claimed for subsection (d).
    (iii) Subsection (d)(1). Disclosure of records in the system could 
reveal the identity of confidential sources and result in an 
unwarranted invasion of the privacy of others. Disclosure may also 
reveal information relating to actual or potential criminal 
investigations. Disclosure of classified national security information 
would cause damage to the national security of the United States. 
Disclosure could also interfere with a civil or administrative action 
or investigation; reveal the identity of confidential sources incident 
to Federal employment, military service, contract, and security 
clearance determinations; and reveal the confidentiality and integrity 
of Federal testing materials and evaluation materials used for military 
promotions when furnished by a confidential source.
    (iv) Subsection (d)(2). Amendment of the records could interfere 
with ongoing criminal or civil law enforcement proceedings and impose 
an impossible administrative burden by requiring investigations to be 
continuously reinvestigated.
    (v) Subsections (d)(3) and (4). These subsections are inapplicable 
to the extent exemption is claimed from (d)(1) and (2).
    (vi) Subsection (e)(1). It is often impossible to determine in 
advance if investigatory records contained in this system are accurate, 
relevant, timely and complete, but, in the interests of effective law 
enforcement and counterintelligence, it is necessary to retain this 
information to aid in establishing patterns of activity and provide 
investigative leads.
    (vii) Subsection (e)(2). To collect information from the subject 
individual could serve notice that he or she is the subject of a 
criminal investigation and thereby present a serious impediment to such 
investigations.
    (viii) Subsection (e)(3). To inform individuals as required by this 
subsection could reveal the existence of a criminal investigation and 
compromise investigative efforts.
    (ix) Subsection (e)(4)(G), (H), and (I). These subsections are 
inapplicable to the extent exemption is claimed from (d)(1) and (2).
    (x) Subsection (e)(5). It is often impossible to determine in 
advance if investigatory records contained in this system are accurate, 
relevant, timely and complete, but, in the interests of effective law 
enforcement, it is necessary to retain this information to aid in 
establishing patterns of activity and provide investigative leads.
    (xi) Subsection (e)(8). To serve notice could give persons 
sufficient warning to evade investigative efforts.
    (xii) Subsection (g). This subsection is inapplicable to the extent 
that the system is exempt from other specific subsections of the 
Privacy Act.
    (4) In addition, in the course of carrying out analysis for insider 
threats, exempt records from other systems of records may in turn 
become part of the case records maintained in this system. To the 
extent that copies of exempt records from those other systems of 
records are maintained into this system, the DoD claims the same 
exemptions for the records from those other systems that are entered 
into this system, as claimed for the original primary system of which 
they are a part.

    Dated: May 13, 2016.
Aaron Siegel,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 2016-11702 Filed 5-18-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-P