Privacy Act of 1974; Exemptions, 36801-36803 [2016-13599]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 110 / Wednesday, June 8, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
This notice of enforcement is issued
under authority of 33 CFR part 165 and
5 U.S.C. 552(a). In addition to this
notice of enforcement in the Federal
Register, the Coast Guard will provide
the maritime community with advanced
notification of this enforcement period
via Local Notice to Mariners (LNM) and
Broadcast Notice to Mariners (BNM). If
the COTP Ohio Valley determines that
the regulated area need not be enforced
for the full duration, a BNM to grant
general permission to enter the safety
zone may be used.
Dated: March 24, 2016.
R.V. Timme,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the
Port Ohio Valley.
[FR Doc. 2016–13584 Filed 6–7–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110–04–P
NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS
ADMINISTRATION
36 CFR Part 1202
[FDMS No. NARA–16–0005; NARA–2016–
021]
RIN 3095–AB91
Privacy Act of 1974; Exemptions
National Archives and Records
Administration (NARA).
ACTION: Direct final rule.
AGENCY:
The National Archives and
Records Administration (NARA) is
revising its Privacy Act regulations to
add a new insider threat system of
records to the records exempt from
release under the law enforcement
exemption of the Privacy Act. This
action is necessary to protect
investigatory information from release
that could compromise or damage the
investigation, result in evidence
tampering or destruction, undue
influence of witnesses, danger to
individuals, and similar harmful effects.
DATES: This rule is effective July 18,
2016, without further action, unless
NARA receives adverse comments
warranting action by July 8, 2016. If
NARA receives an adverse comment
warranting further action, it will publish
a timely withdrawal of the rule in the
Federal Register.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments,
identified by RIN 3095–AB91, by any of
the following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
• Email: Regulation_comments@
nara.gov. Include RIN 3095–AB91 in the
subject line of the message.
ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:36 Jun 07, 2016
Jkt 238001
• Fax: 301–837–0319. Include RIN
3095–AB91 in the subject line of the fax
cover sheet.
• Mail (for paper, disk, or CD–ROM
submissions. Include RIN 3095–AB91 on
the submission): Regulations Comment
Desk (External Policy Program, Strategy
& Performance Division (SP)); Suite
4100; National Archives and Records
Administration; 8601 Adelphi Road;
College Park, MD 20740–6001.
• Hand delivery or courier: Deliver
comments to front desk at the address
above.
Instructions: All submissions must
include NARA’s name and the
regulatory information number for this
rulemaking (RIN 3095–AB91). We may
publish any comments we receive
without changes, including any
personal information you include.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Kimberly Keravuori, by email at
regulation_comments@nara.gov, or by
telephone at 301–837–3151.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
National Archives and Records
Administration (NARA) is adding a
system of records to its existing
inventory of systems subject to the
Privacy Act of 1974, as amended (5
U.S.C. 552(a)) (‘‘Privacy Act’’). The new
system is NARA 45, Insider Threat
Program records (we are publishing the
NARA 45 SORN concurrently with this
regulation), and it comprises records
gathered for purposes of investigating
threats to NARA facilities, personnel, or
systems, or national security. The
system contains investigatory material
of actual, potential, or alleged criminal,
civil, or administrative violations and
law enforcement actions.
The Privacy Act generally grants
individuals the right to access agency
records maintained about themselves,
and the right to request that the agency
amend those records if they are not
accurate, relevant, timely, or complete.
However, the Privacy Act also exempts,
by means of ten specific exemptions, an
agency from granting a person access to
information about themselves that the
agency compiles for certain types of law
enforcement or investigatory actions.
Specifically for the purposes of this
rulemaking, the Privacy Act exempts an
agency from granting access to
‘‘investigatory material compiled for law
enforcement purposes, other than
material within the scope of subsection
(j)(2) of this section: Provided, however,
that if any individual is denied any
right, privilege, or benefit that he would
otherwise be entitled by Federal law, or
for which he would otherwise be
eligible, as a result of the maintenance
of such material, such material shall be
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
36801
provided to such individual, except to
the extent that the disclosure of such
material would reveal the identity of a
source who furnished information to the
Government under an express promise
that the identity of the source would be
held in confidence, or, prior to the
effective date of this section [September
27, 1975], under an implied promise
that the identity of the source would be
held in confidence.’’ 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(2).
NARA currently exempts Office of
Inspector General investigative files
under the (k)(2) exemption. See 36 CFR
1202.92. For similar reasons, we are
now adding the insider threat program
files to the same regulation section
because the Insider Threat Program
Records system of records contains
investigatory material of actual,
potential, or alleged violations,
compiled for law enforcement purposes.
Under Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) Guidelines on the
Privacy Act, to qualify for this
exemption the agency must compile the
material for some investigative ‘‘law
enforcement’’ purpose, such as a civil or
criminal investigation. Multiple court
decisions have upheld the exemption
for investigative records covering a
range of purposes from discrimination
complaints (see, e.g., Menchu v. HHS,
965 F. Supp. 2d 1238, 1248 (D. Or.
2013)), fraud, waste, and abuse
complaints (see, e.g., Gowan v. Air
Force, 148 F.3d 1182, 1188–89 (10th Cir.
1998)), and taxpayer audits (see, e.g.,
Welsh v. IRS, No. 85–1024, slip op. at
2–3 (D.N.M. Oct. 21, 1986)), to civil
trust fund recovery penalty
investigations (see, e.g., Berger v. IRS,
487 F. Supp. 2d 482, 497–98 (D.N.J.
2007), aff’d 288 F. App’x 829 (3d Cir.
2008), cert. denied, 129 S. Ct. 2789
(2009)) and deportation investigations
(see, e.g., Shewchun v. INS, No. 95–
1920, slip op. at 3, 8–9 (D.D.C. Dec. 10,
1996), summary affirmance granted, No.
97–5044 (D.C. Cir. June 5, 1997)). In
addition, courts have also determined
that this exemption covers
investigations into potential threats to
national security (see, e.g., Strang v.
U.S. Arms Control & Disarmament
Agency, 864 F.2d 859, 862–63 n.2 (D.C.
Cir. 1989) (‘‘this case involves not a job
applicant undergoing a routine check of
his background and his ability to
perform the job, but an existing agency
employee investigated for violating
national security regulations.’’)
Routine background investigation
files are generally not exempt under the
(k)(2) exemption of the Privacy Act, but
in some limited cases portions of them
may be exempt under (k)(2) because
they also include information that
would be the subject of a law
E:\FR\FM\08JNR1.SGM
08JNR1
36802
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 110 / Wednesday, June 8, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
enforcement investigation under the
scope of the exemption (see, e.g., Cohen
v. FBI, No. 93–1701, slip op. at 4–6
(D.D.C. Oct. 3, 1995) (finding that
particular information within a
background investigation file qualified
as ‘‘law enforcement’’ information
‘‘withheld out of a legitimate concern
for national security,’’ and that ‘‘ ‘[s]o
long as the investigation was
‘‘realistically based on a legitimate
concern that federal laws have been or
may be violated or that national security
may be breached’’ the records may be
considered law enforcement records’ ’’
(quoting Vymetalik v. FBI, 785 F.2d
1090, 1098 (D.C. Cir. 1986), in turn
quoting Pratt v. Webster, 673 F.2d 408,
421 (D.C. Cir. 1982))).
NARA maintains a centralized hub for
insider threat analysis to (1) manually
and electronically gather, integrate,
review, assess, and respond to
information derived from internal and
external sources, and (2) identify
potential insider threat concerns and
conduct an appropriate inquiry to
resolve the concern. Section 811 of the
Intelligence Authorization Act for FY
1995; executive orders 13587, 13526,
12333, and 10450; Presidential
Memorandum, National Insider Threat
Policy and Minimum Standards for
Executive Branch Insider Threat
Programs, November 21, 2012;
Presidential Memorandum, Early
Detection of Espionage and Other
Intelligence Activities through
Identification and Referral of
Anomalies, August 23, 1996; and
Presidential Decision Directive/NSC–12,
Security Awareness and Reporting of
Foreign Contacts, August 5, 1993,
authorize these insider threat
assessment and investigation activities.
As a result, the records in this system
of records qualify as investigative
records compiled for law enforcement
purposes under the meaning of the
Privacy Act’s (k)(2) exemption. NARA is
revising its regulations to exempt this
information from disclosure under the
Privacy Act so that it can prevent these
investigations from being impeded or
damaged by releasing the information.
ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Regulatory Analysis
Review Under Executive Orders 12866
and 13563
Executive Order 12866, Regulatory
Planning and Review, 58 FR 51735
(September 30, 1993), and Executive
Order 13563, Improving Regulation and
Regulation Review, 76 FR 23821
(January 18, 2011), direct agencies to
assess all costs and benefits of available
regulatory alternatives and, if regulation
is necessary, to select regulatory
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:36 Jun 07, 2016
Jkt 238001
approaches that maximize net benefits
(including potential economic,
environmental, public health and safety
effects, distributive impacts, and
equity). This rule is not ‘‘significant’’
under section 3(f) of Executive Order
12866 because will not create an
economic or budgetary impact, create an
inconsistency or interfere with other
agencies, and does not raise novel
issues; it exempts certain records from
certain provisions of the Privacy Act in
accord with established criteria. The
Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) has reviewed this regulation.
Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility
Act (5 U.S.C. 601, et seq.)
This review requires an agency to
prepare an initial regulatory flexibility
analysis and publish it when the agency
publishes the proposed rule. This
requirement does not apply if the
agency certifies that the rule will not, if
promulgated, have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities (5 U.S.C. 603).
NARA certifies, after review and
analysis, that this rule will not have a
significant adverse economic impact on
small entities because it does not create
an economic impact and does not affect
small entities; it exempts certain records
from certain provisions of the Privacy
Act.
Review Under the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)
This rule does not contain any
information collection requirements
subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act.
Review Under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, 64 FR 43255 (August 4,
1999)
Review under Executive Order 13132
requires that agencies review
regulations for federalism effects on the
institutional interest of states and local
governments, and, if the effects are
sufficiently substantial, prepare a
Federal assessment to assist senior
policy makers. This rule will not have
any direct effects on State and local
governments within the meaning of the
Executive Order. Therefore, the
regulation requires no federalism
assessment.
List of Subjects in 36 CFR Part 1202
Privacy.
For the reasons stated in the
preamble, NARA proposes to amend 36
CFR part 1202 as follows:
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
PART 1202—REGULATIONS
IMPLEMENTING THE PRIVACY ACT OF
1974
1. The authority citation for part 1202
remains as follows:
■
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552(a); 44 U.S.C.
2104(a).
§ 1202.92
■
[Amended]
2. Revise § 1202.92 to read as follows:
§ 1202.92 What NARA systems of records
are exempt from release under the Law
Enforcement Exemption of the Privacy Act?
(a) The Investigative Files of the
Inspector General (NARA–23) and the
Insider Threat Program Records
(NARA–45) systems of records are
eligible for exemption under 5 U.S.C.
552a(k)(2) because these record systems
contain investigatory material of actual,
potential, or alleged criminal, civil, or
administrative violations, compiled for
law enforcement purposes other than
within the scope of subsection (j)(2) of
5 U.S.C. 552a. If you are denied any
right, privilege, or benefit to which you
would otherwise be entitled by Federal
law, or for which you would otherwise
be eligible, as a result of the record,
NARA will make the record available to
you, except for any information in the
record that would disclose the identity
of a confidential source as described in
5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(2).
(b) The systems described in
paragraph (a) of this section are exempt
from 5 U.S.C. 552a(c)(3), (d), (e)(1) and
(e)(4), (G) and (H), and (f). Exemptions
from the particular subsections are
justified for the following reasons:
(1) From subsection (c)(3) of 5 U.S.C.
552a because releasing disclosure
accounting could alert the subject of an
investigation about the alleged
violations, about the existence of the
investigation, and about the fact that
they are being investigated by the Office
of Inspector General (OIG), the Insider
Threat Office, or another agency.
Releasing these records could provide
significant information concerning the
nature of the investigation and result in
tampering with or destroying evidence,
influencing witnesses, endangering
individuals involved, and other
activities that could impede or
compromise the investigation.
(2) From the access and amendment
provisions of subsection (d) of 5 U.S.C.
552a because access to the information
contained in these systems of records
could inform the subject of an
investigation about an actual or
potential criminal, civil, or
administrative violation; about the
existence of that investigation; about the
nature and scope of the information and
E:\FR\FM\08JNR1.SGM
08JNR1
ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 110 / Wednesday, June 8, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
evidence obtained on the person’s
activities; about the identity of
confidential sources, witnesses, and law
enforcement personnel; and about
information that may enable the person
to avoid being detected or apprehended.
These factors present a serious
impediment to effective law
enforcement when they prevent
investigators from successfully
completing the investigation, endanger
the physical safety of confidential
sources, witnesses, and law enforcement
personnel, or lead to improperly
influencing witnesses, destroying
evidence, or fabricating testimony. In
addition, granting access to such records
could disclose security-sensitive or
confidential business information or
information that would constitute an
unwarranted invasion of the personal
privacy of third parties. Amending these
records could allow the subject to avoid
being detected or apprehended and
interfere with ongoing investigations
and law enforcement activities.
(3) From subsection (e)(1) of 5 U.S.C.
552a because applying this provision
could impair investigations and
interfere with the law enforcement
responsibilities of the OIG, the Insider
Threat Office, or another agency for the
following reasons:
(i) It is not possible to detect
relevance or need for specific
information in the early stages of an
investigation, case, or matter. After the
investigators evaluate the information,
they may establish its relevance and
need.
(ii) During an investigation, the
investigating office may obtain
information about other actual or
potential criminal, civil, or
administrative violations, including
those outside the scope of its
jurisdiction. The office should retain
this information, as it may help
establish patterns of inappropriate
activity, and can provide valuable leads
for Federal and other law enforcement
agencies.
(iii) When interviewing individuals or
obtaining other forms of evidence
during an investigation, the investigator
may receive information that relates to
matters incidental to the primary
purpose of the investigation but which
may also relate to matters under the
investigative jurisdiction of another
office or agency. The investigator cannot
readily segregate such information.
(4) From subsection (e)(4)(G) and (H)
of 5 U.S.C. 552a because these systems
are exempt from the access and
amendment provisions of subsection
(d), pursuant to subsection (k)(2) of the
Privacy Act.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:36 Jun 07, 2016
Jkt 238001
(5) From subsection (f) of 5 U.S.C.
552a because these systems are exempt
from the access and amendment
provisions of subsection (d) of 5 U.S.C.
552a, pursuant to subsection (k)(2) of
the Privacy Act.
Dated: May 29, 2016.
David S. Ferriero,
Archivist of the United States.
[FR Doc. 2016–13599 Filed 6–7–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7515–01–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R09–OAR–2016–0300; FRL–9947–35–
Region 9]
Completeness Findings for 110(a)(2)(C)
State Implementation Plan Pertaining
to the Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5)
NAAQS; California; El Dorado County
Air Quality Management District and
Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management
District
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is making a finding that
the State of California has made a
complete New Source Review (NSR)
State Implementation Plan (SIP)
submission for the El Dorado County
Air Quality Management District
(EDCAQMD) to address the permitting
of emissions of particulate matter 2.5
micrometers (mm) in diameter and
smaller (PM2.5) from major sources in
areas designated nonattainment for the
2006 PM2.5 National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS), as required
by the Clean Air Act (CAA). In addition,
the EPA is making a finding that the
State of California has not made the
necessary NSR SIP submission for the
Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management
District (YSAQMD) to address the
permitting of PM2.5 emissions from
major sources in areas designated
nonattainment for the 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS, as required by the EPA no later
than December 31, 2014. The EPA is
making these findings in accordance
with section 110 and part D of Title I of
the CAA.
DATES: The effective date of this rule is
July 8, 2016.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Laura Yannayon, Air Division (Air–3),
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 9, 75 Hawthorne St., San
Francisco, CA 94105; telephone (415)
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
36803
972–3534; email yannayon.laura@
epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section
553 of the Administrative Procedures
Act, 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), provides that,
when an agency for good cause finds
that notice and public procedure are
impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary
to the public interest, the agency may
issue a rule without providing notice
and an opportunity for public comment.
The EPA has determined that there is
good cause for making this rule final
without prior proposal and opportunity
for comment because no significant EPA
judgment is involved in making a
finding of failure to submit SIPs, or
elements of SIPs, required by the CAA,
where states have made no submissions
to meet the requirement by the statutory
date. No additional fact gathering is
necessary. Thus, notice and public
procedure are unnecessary. The EPA
finds this constitutes good cause under
5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B).
Throughout this document wherever
‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean
the EPA.
Table of Contents
I. Background and Overview
A. Relevant PM2.5 NAAQS
B. Revisions to the NSR Program To
Implement the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS
II. This Action
A. Completeness Determination
B. Finding of Failure To Submit
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background and Overview
A. Relevant PM2.5 NAAQS
On October 17, 2006, the EPA
promulgated revisions to the NAAQS
for PM2.5 with an effective date of
December 18, 2006 (71 FR 61144). With
these revisions, the EPA lowered the 24hour NAAQS for PM2.5 from 65 mg/m3
to 35 mg/m3, and retained the existing
annual PM2.5 NAAQS of 15 mg/m3. The
EPA promulgated designations for the
2006 PM2.5 NAAQS that became
effective on December 14, 2009, which
designated certain areas within the
jurisdiction of EDCAQMD and
YSAQMD as nonattainment for the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS (74 FR 58688, Nov. 13,
2009).
B. Revisions to the NSR Program To
Implement the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS
To implement the PM2.5 NAAQS for
NSR purposes, the EPA issued a final
rule that established the NSR permitting
requirements for PM2.5, entitled
Implementation of the New Source
Review (NSR) Program for Particulate
Matter Less than 2.5 Micrometers
(PM2.5), on May 16, 2008 (73 FR 28321).
Among other things, the final rule
E:\FR\FM\08JNR1.SGM
08JNR1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 110 (Wednesday, June 8, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 36801-36803]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-13599]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS ADMINISTRATION
36 CFR Part 1202
[FDMS No. NARA-16-0005; NARA-2016-021]
RIN 3095-AB91
Privacy Act of 1974; Exemptions
AGENCY: National Archives and Records Administration (NARA).
ACTION: Direct final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) is
revising its Privacy Act regulations to add a new insider threat system
of records to the records exempt from release under the law enforcement
exemption of the Privacy Act. This action is necessary to protect
investigatory information from release that could compromise or damage
the investigation, result in evidence tampering or destruction, undue
influence of witnesses, danger to individuals, and similar harmful
effects.
DATES: This rule is effective July 18, 2016, without further action,
unless NARA receives adverse comments warranting action by July 8,
2016. If NARA receives an adverse comment warranting further action, it
will publish a timely withdrawal of the rule in the Federal Register.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by RIN 3095-AB91, by any
of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
Email: Regulation_comments@nara.gov. Include RIN 3095-AB91
in the subject line of the message.
Fax: 301-837-0319. Include RIN 3095-AB91 in the subject
line of the fax cover sheet.
Mail (for paper, disk, or CD-ROM submissions. Include RIN
3095-AB91 on the submission): Regulations Comment Desk (External Policy
Program, Strategy & Performance Division (SP)); Suite 4100; National
Archives and Records Administration; 8601 Adelphi Road; College Park,
MD 20740-6001.
Hand delivery or courier: Deliver comments to front desk
at the address above.
Instructions: All submissions must include NARA's name and the
regulatory information number for this rulemaking (RIN 3095-AB91). We
may publish any comments we receive without changes, including any
personal information you include.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kimberly Keravuori, by email at
regulation_comments@nara.gov, or by telephone at 301-837-3151.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The National Archives and Records
Administration (NARA) is adding a system of records to its existing
inventory of systems subject to the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended (5
U.S.C. 552(a)) (``Privacy Act''). The new system is NARA 45, Insider
Threat Program records (we are publishing the NARA 45 SORN concurrently
with this regulation), and it comprises records gathered for purposes
of investigating threats to NARA facilities, personnel, or systems, or
national security. The system contains investigatory material of
actual, potential, or alleged criminal, civil, or administrative
violations and law enforcement actions.
The Privacy Act generally grants individuals the right to access
agency records maintained about themselves, and the right to request
that the agency amend those records if they are not accurate, relevant,
timely, or complete. However, the Privacy Act also exempts, by means of
ten specific exemptions, an agency from granting a person access to
information about themselves that the agency compiles for certain types
of law enforcement or investigatory actions. Specifically for the
purposes of this rulemaking, the Privacy Act exempts an agency from
granting access to ``investigatory material compiled for law
enforcement purposes, other than material within the scope of
subsection (j)(2) of this section: Provided, however, that if any
individual is denied any right, privilege, or benefit that he would
otherwise be entitled by Federal law, or for which he would otherwise
be eligible, as a result of the maintenance of such material, such
material shall be provided to such individual, except to the extent
that the disclosure of such material would reveal the identity of a
source who furnished information to the Government under an express
promise that the identity of the source would be held in confidence,
or, prior to the effective date of this section [September 27, 1975],
under an implied promise that the identity of the source would be held
in confidence.'' 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(2).
NARA currently exempts Office of Inspector General investigative
files under the (k)(2) exemption. See 36 CFR 1202.92. For similar
reasons, we are now adding the insider threat program files to the same
regulation section because the Insider Threat Program Records system of
records contains investigatory material of actual, potential, or
alleged violations, compiled for law enforcement purposes. Under Office
of Management and Budget (OMB) Guidelines on the Privacy Act, to
qualify for this exemption the agency must compile the material for
some investigative ``law enforcement'' purpose, such as a civil or
criminal investigation. Multiple court decisions have upheld the
exemption for investigative records covering a range of purposes from
discrimination complaints (see, e.g., Menchu v. HHS, 965 F. Supp. 2d
1238, 1248 (D. Or. 2013)), fraud, waste, and abuse complaints (see,
e.g., Gowan v. Air Force, 148 F.3d 1182, 1188-89 (10th Cir. 1998)), and
taxpayer audits (see, e.g., Welsh v. IRS, No. 85-1024, slip op. at 2-3
(D.N.M. Oct. 21, 1986)), to civil trust fund recovery penalty
investigations (see, e.g., Berger v. IRS, 487 F. Supp. 2d 482, 497-98
(D.N.J. 2007), aff'd 288 F. App'x 829 (3d Cir. 2008), cert. denied, 129
S. Ct. 2789 (2009)) and deportation investigations (see, e.g., Shewchun
v. INS, No. 95-1920, slip op. at 3, 8-9 (D.D.C. Dec. 10, 1996), summary
affirmance granted, No. 97-5044 (D.C. Cir. June 5, 1997)). In addition,
courts have also determined that this exemption covers investigations
into potential threats to national security (see, e.g., Strang v. U.S.
Arms Control & Disarmament Agency, 864 F.2d 859, 862-63 n.2 (D.C. Cir.
1989) (``this case involves not a job applicant undergoing a routine
check of his background and his ability to perform the job, but an
existing agency employee investigated for violating national security
regulations.'')
Routine background investigation files are generally not exempt
under the (k)(2) exemption of the Privacy Act, but in some limited
cases portions of them may be exempt under (k)(2) because they also
include information that would be the subject of a law
[[Page 36802]]
enforcement investigation under the scope of the exemption (see, e.g.,
Cohen v. FBI, No. 93-1701, slip op. at 4-6 (D.D.C. Oct. 3, 1995)
(finding that particular information within a background investigation
file qualified as ``law enforcement'' information ``withheld out of a
legitimate concern for national security,'' and that `` `[s]o long as
the investigation was ``realistically based on a legitimate concern
that federal laws have been or may be violated or that national
security may be breached'' the records may be considered law
enforcement records' '' (quoting Vymetalik v. FBI, 785 F.2d 1090, 1098
(D.C. Cir. 1986), in turn quoting Pratt v. Webster, 673 F.2d 408, 421
(D.C. Cir. 1982))).
NARA maintains a centralized hub for insider threat analysis to (1)
manually and electronically gather, integrate, review, assess, and
respond to information derived from internal and external sources, and
(2) identify potential insider threat concerns and conduct an
appropriate inquiry to resolve the concern. Section 811 of the
Intelligence Authorization Act for FY 1995; executive orders 13587,
13526, 12333, and 10450; Presidential Memorandum, National Insider
Threat Policy and Minimum Standards for Executive Branch Insider Threat
Programs, November 21, 2012; Presidential Memorandum, Early Detection
of Espionage and Other Intelligence Activities through Identification
and Referral of Anomalies, August 23, 1996; and Presidential Decision
Directive/NSC-12, Security Awareness and Reporting of Foreign Contacts,
August 5, 1993, authorize these insider threat assessment and
investigation activities. As a result, the records in this system of
records qualify as investigative records compiled for law enforcement
purposes under the meaning of the Privacy Act's (k)(2) exemption. NARA
is revising its regulations to exempt this information from disclosure
under the Privacy Act so that it can prevent these investigations from
being impeded or damaged by releasing the information.
Regulatory Analysis
Review Under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR 51735
(September 30, 1993), and Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation
and Regulation Review, 76 FR 23821 (January 18, 2011), direct agencies
to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives
and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that
maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental,
public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity).
This rule is not ``significant'' under section 3(f) of Executive Order
12866 because will not create an economic or budgetary impact, create
an inconsistency or interfere with other agencies, and does not raise
novel issues; it exempts certain records from certain provisions of the
Privacy Act in accord with established criteria. The Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) has reviewed this regulation.
Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601, et seq.)
This review requires an agency to prepare an initial regulatory
flexibility analysis and publish it when the agency publishes the
proposed rule. This requirement does not apply if the agency certifies
that the rule will not, if promulgated, have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities (5 U.S.C. 603). NARA
certifies, after review and analysis, that this rule will not have a
significant adverse economic impact on small entities because it does
not create an economic impact and does not affect small entities; it
exempts certain records from certain provisions of the Privacy Act.
Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et
seq.)
This rule does not contain any information collection requirements
subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act.
Review Under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, 64 FR 43255 (August 4,
1999)
Review under Executive Order 13132 requires that agencies review
regulations for federalism effects on the institutional interest of
states and local governments, and, if the effects are sufficiently
substantial, prepare a Federal assessment to assist senior policy
makers. This rule will not have any direct effects on State and local
governments within the meaning of the Executive Order. Therefore, the
regulation requires no federalism assessment.
List of Subjects in 36 CFR Part 1202
Privacy.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, NARA proposes to amend 36
CFR part 1202 as follows:
PART 1202--REGULATIONS IMPLEMENTING THE PRIVACY ACT OF 1974
0
1. The authority citation for part 1202 remains as follows:
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552(a); 44 U.S.C. 2104(a).
Sec. 1202.92 [Amended]
0
2. Revise Sec. 1202.92 to read as follows:
Sec. 1202.92 What NARA systems of records are exempt from release
under the Law Enforcement Exemption of the Privacy Act?
(a) The Investigative Files of the Inspector General (NARA-23) and
the Insider Threat Program Records (NARA-45) systems of records are
eligible for exemption under 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(2) because these record
systems contain investigatory material of actual, potential, or alleged
criminal, civil, or administrative violations, compiled for law
enforcement purposes other than within the scope of subsection (j)(2)
of 5 U.S.C. 552a. If you are denied any right, privilege, or benefit to
which you would otherwise be entitled by Federal law, or for which you
would otherwise be eligible, as a result of the record, NARA will make
the record available to you, except for any information in the record
that would disclose the identity of a confidential source as described
in 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(2).
(b) The systems described in paragraph (a) of this section are
exempt from 5 U.S.C. 552a(c)(3), (d), (e)(1) and (e)(4), (G) and (H),
and (f). Exemptions from the particular subsections are justified for
the following reasons:
(1) From subsection (c)(3) of 5 U.S.C. 552a because releasing
disclosure accounting could alert the subject of an investigation about
the alleged violations, about the existence of the investigation, and
about the fact that they are being investigated by the Office of
Inspector General (OIG), the Insider Threat Office, or another agency.
Releasing these records could provide significant information
concerning the nature of the investigation and result in tampering with
or destroying evidence, influencing witnesses, endangering individuals
involved, and other activities that could impede or compromise the
investigation.
(2) From the access and amendment provisions of subsection (d) of 5
U.S.C. 552a because access to the information contained in these
systems of records could inform the subject of an investigation about
an actual or potential criminal, civil, or administrative violation;
about the existence of that investigation; about the nature and scope
of the information and
[[Page 36803]]
evidence obtained on the person's activities; about the identity of
confidential sources, witnesses, and law enforcement personnel; and
about information that may enable the person to avoid being detected or
apprehended. These factors present a serious impediment to effective
law enforcement when they prevent investigators from successfully
completing the investigation, endanger the physical safety of
confidential sources, witnesses, and law enforcement personnel, or lead
to improperly influencing witnesses, destroying evidence, or
fabricating testimony. In addition, granting access to such records
could disclose security-sensitive or confidential business information
or information that would constitute an unwarranted invasion of the
personal privacy of third parties. Amending these records could allow
the subject to avoid being detected or apprehended and interfere with
ongoing investigations and law enforcement activities.
(3) From subsection (e)(1) of 5 U.S.C. 552a because applying this
provision could impair investigations and interfere with the law
enforcement responsibilities of the OIG, the Insider Threat Office, or
another agency for the following reasons:
(i) It is not possible to detect relevance or need for specific
information in the early stages of an investigation, case, or matter.
After the investigators evaluate the information, they may establish
its relevance and need.
(ii) During an investigation, the investigating office may obtain
information about other actual or potential criminal, civil, or
administrative violations, including those outside the scope of its
jurisdiction. The office should retain this information, as it may help
establish patterns of inappropriate activity, and can provide valuable
leads for Federal and other law enforcement agencies.
(iii) When interviewing individuals or obtaining other forms of
evidence during an investigation, the investigator may receive
information that relates to matters incidental to the primary purpose
of the investigation but which may also relate to matters under the
investigative jurisdiction of another office or agency. The
investigator cannot readily segregate such information.
(4) From subsection (e)(4)(G) and (H) of 5 U.S.C. 552a because
these systems are exempt from the access and amendment provisions of
subsection (d), pursuant to subsection (k)(2) of the Privacy Act.
(5) From subsection (f) of 5 U.S.C. 552a because these systems are
exempt from the access and amendment provisions of subsection (d) of 5
U.S.C. 552a, pursuant to subsection (k)(2) of the Privacy Act.
Dated: May 29, 2016.
David S. Ferriero,
Archivist of the United States.
[FR Doc. 2016-13599 Filed 6-7-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7515-01-P