Privacy Act of 1974; Implementation, 14749-14751 [2018-07056]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 67 / Friday, April 6, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
The Regulatory Amendment
For the reasons discussed in the
preamble, TTB amends title 27, chapter
I, part 9, Code of Federal Regulations, as
follows:
PART 9—AMERICAN VITICULTURAL
AREAS
1. The authority citation for part 9
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 27 U.S.C. 205.
Subpart C—Approved American
Viticultural Areas
2. Subpart C is amended by adding
§ 9.262 to read as follows:
■
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES
§ 9.262
Cape May Peninsula.
(a) Name. The name of the viticultural
area described in this section is ‘‘Cape
May Peninsula’’. For purposes of part 4
of this chapter, ‘‘Cape May Peninsula’’
is a term of viticultural significance.
(b) Approved maps. The 11 United
States Geological Survey (USGS)
1:24,000 scale topographic maps used to
determine the boundary of the Cape
May Peninsula viticultural area are
titled:
(1) Ocean City, New Jersey, 1989;
(2) Marmora, New Jersey, 1989;
(3) Sea Isle City, New Jersey, 1952;
photorevised, 1972;
(4) Woodbine, New Jersey, 1958;
photorevised, 1972;
(5) Stone Harbor, New Jersey, 1955;
photorevised, 1972;
(6) Wildwood, New Jersey, 1955;
photorevised, 1972;
(7) Cape May, New Jersey, 1954;
photorevised, 1972;
(8) Rio Grande, New Jersey, 1956;
photorevised, 1972;
(9) Heislerville, New Jersey, 1957;
photorevised, 1972;
(10) Port Elizabeth, New Jersey, 1956;
photorevised, 1972; and
(11) Tuckahoe, New Jersey, 1956;
photorevised, 1972.
(c) Boundary. The Cape May
Peninsula viticultural area is located in
Cape May and Cumberland Counties,
New Jersey. The boundary of the Cape
May Peninsula viticultural area is as
described below:
(1) The beginning point is on the
Ocean City quadrangle at the
intersection of the 10-foot elevation
contour and the Garden State Parkway,
on the southern shore of Great Egg
Harbor, northwest of Golders Point.
Proceed southeast, then generally
southwest along the meandering 10-foot
elevation contour, crossing onto the
Marmora quadrangle, then onto the Sea
Isle City quadrangle, to the intersection
of the 10-foot elevation contour with an
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:57 Apr 05, 2018
Jkt 244001
unnamed road known locally as Sea Isle
Boulevard; then
(2) Proceed northwesterly along Sea
Isle Boulevard to the intersection of the
road with U.S. Highway 9; then
(3) Proceed southwesterly along U.S.
Highway 9 to the intersection of the
highway with the 10-foot elevation
contour south of Magnolia Lake; then
(4) Proceed generally southwesterly
along the meandering 10-foot elevation
contour, crossing onto the Woodbine
quadrangle, then briefly back onto the
Sea Isle City quadrangle, then back onto
the Woodbine quadrangle, to the
intersection of the 10-foot elevation
contour with the western span of the
Garden State Parkway east of Clermont;
then
(5) Proceed southwest along the
Garden State Parkway to the
intersection of the road with Uncle
Aarons Creek; then
(6) Proceed westerly (upstream) along
Uncle Aarons Creek to the intersection
of the creek with the 10-foot elevation
contour near the headwaters of the
creek; then
(7) Proceed easterly, then
southwesterly along the 10-foot
elevation contour, crossing onto the
Stone Harbor quadrangle, then onto the
northwesternmost corner of the
Wildwood quadrangle, then onto Cape
May quadrangle, to the intersection of
the 10-foot elevation contour with State
Route 109 and Benchmark (BM) 8, east
of Cold Spring; then
(8) Proceed southeast, then south,
along State Route 109 to the intersection
of the road with the north bank of the
Cape May Canal; then
(9) Proceed northwest along the north
bank of the Cape May Canal to the
intersection of the canal with the
railroad tracks (Pennsylvania Reading
Seashore Lines); then
(10) Proceed south along the railroad
tracks, crossing the canal, to the
intersection of the railroad tracks with
the south bank of the Cape May Canal;
then
(11) Proceed east along the canal bank
to the intersection of the canal with
Cape Island Creek; then
(12) Proceed south, then northwest
along the creek to the intersection of the
creek with a tributary running northsouth west of an unnamed road known
locally as 1st Avenue; then
(13) Proceed north along the tributary
to its intersection with Sunset
Boulevard; then
(14) Proceed northwest along Sunset
Boulevard to the intersection of the road
with Benchmark (BM) 6; then
(15) Proceed south in a straight line to
the shoreline; then
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
14749
(16) Proceed west, then northwest,
then northeast along the shoreline,
rounding Cape May Point, and
continuing northeasterly along the
shoreline, crossing onto the Rio Grande
quadrangle, then onto the Heislerville
quadrangle, to the intersection of the
shoreline with West Creek; then
(17) Proceed generally north along the
meandering West Creek, passing
through Pickle Factory Pond and Hands
Millpond, and continuing along West
Creek, crossing onto the Port Elizabeth
quadrangle, and continuing along West
Creek to the fork in the creek north of
Wrights Crossway Road; then
(18) Proceed along the eastern fork of
West Creek to the cranberry bog; then
(19) Proceed through the cranberry
bog and continue northeasterly along
the branch of West Creek that exits the
cranberry bog to the creek’s terminus
south of an unnamed road known
locally as Joe Mason Road; then
(20) Proceed northeast in a straight
line to Tarkiln Brook Tributary; then
(21) Proceed easterly along Tarkiln
Brook Tributary, passing through the
cranberry bog, crossing onto the
Tuckahoe quadrangle, and continuing
along Tarkiln Brook tributary to its
intersection with the Tuckahoe River
and the Atlantic-Cape May County line;
then
(22) Proceed easterly along the
Atlantic-Cape May County line, crossing
onto the Marmora and Cape May
quadrangles, to the intersection of the
Atlantic-Cape May County line with the
Garden State Parkway on the Cape May
quadrangle; then
(23) Proceed south along the Garden
State Parkway, returning to the
beginning point.
Signed: October 30, 2017.
John J. Manfreda,
Administrator.
Approved: March 30, 2018
Timothy E. Skud,
Deputy Assistant Secretary (Tax, Trade, and
Tariff Policy).
[FR Doc. 2018–07094 Filed 4–5–18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810–31–P
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
28 CFR Part 16
[CPCLO Order No. 001–2018]
Privacy Act of 1974; Implementation
Federal Bureau of
Investigation, United States Department
of Justice.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
The Federal Bureau of
Investigation (FBI), a component of the
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\06APR1.SGM
06APR1
14750
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 67 / Friday, April 6, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
United States Department of Justice
(DOJ or Department), is finalizing
without change its Privacy Act
exemption regulations for the system of
records titled, ‘‘FBI Online
Collaboration Systems,’’ JUSTICE/FBI–
004, which were published as Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) on
December 4, 2017. Specifically, the FBI
exempts the records maintained in
JUSTICE/FBI–004 from one or more
provisions of the Privacy Act. The
exemptions are necessary to avoid
interference with the FBI’s law
enforcement and national security
functions and responsibilities. The
Department received only one
substantive comment on the proposed
rule.
DATES: This final rule is effective May 7,
2018.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Katherine M. Bond, Assistant General
Counsel, Privacy and Civil Liberties
Unit, Office of the General Counsel, FBI,
Washington DC, telephone 202–324–
3000.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES
Background
On December 4, 2017, the FBI
published in the Federal Register a
System of Records Notice (SORN) for an
FBI system of records titled, ‘‘FBI
Online Collaboration Systems,’’
JUSTICE/FBI–004, 82 FR 57291. On the
same day, the FBI published a Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM)
proposing to exempt records maintained
in JUSTICE/FBI–004 from certain
provisions of the Privacy Act pursuant
to 5 U.S.C. 552a(j) and (k), and inviting
public comment on the proposed
exemptions. 82 FR 57181. The comment
period was open through January 3,
2018. DOJ received only one substantive
comment responsive to the proposed
exemptions. That comment supported
the proposed exemptions in order to
protect the safety of law enforcement
officers and better enable them to
conduct their investigations. After
consideration of this public comment,
exemptions necessary to protect the
ability of the FBI properly to engage in
its law enforcement and national
security functions have been codified in
this final rule as proposed in the NPRM.
Response to Public Comments
In its Online Collaboration Systems
NPRM and SORN, both published on
December 4, 2017, the Department
invited public comment. The comment
periods for both documents closed
January 3, 2018. The Department
received six total comments, only one of
which contained any substance related
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:57 Apr 05, 2018
Jkt 244001
to the SORN or NPRM. The one
responsive comment received stated
that the submitter agreed the
exemptions proposed in the NPRM are
needed for effective law enforcement.
The FBI has considered, and agrees
with, this comment. Because no other
responsive comments were submitted,
and because the FBI continues to assert
the rationales in support of the
exemptions as stated in the NPRM, the
FBI adopts in this final rule the
exemptions and rationales proposed in
the NPRM.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563—
Regulatory Review
This regulation has been drafted and
reviewed in accordance with Executive
Order 12866, ‘‘Regulatory Planning and
Review’’ section 1(b), Principles of
Regulation, and Executive Order 13563
‘‘Improving Regulation and Regulatory
Review’’ section 1(b), General Principles
of Regulation.
The Department of Justice has
determined that this rule is not a
‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under
Executive Order 12866, section 3(f), and
accordingly this rule has not been
reviewed by the Office of Information
and Regulatory Affairs within the Office
of Management and Budget pursuant to
Executive Order 12866.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
This rule will only impact Privacy
Act-protected records, which are
personal and generally do not apply to
an individual’s entrepreneurial
capacity, subject to limited exceptions.
Accordingly, the Chief Privacy and Civil
Liberties Officer, in accordance with the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C.
605(b)), has reviewed this regulation
and by approving it certifies that this
regulation will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
Executive Order 13132—Federalism
This regulation will not have
substantial direct effects on the States,
on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on
distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government. Therefore, in
accordance with Executive Order 13132,
it is determined that this rule does not
have sufficient federalism implications
to warrant the preparation of a
Federalism Assessment.
Executive Order 12988—Civil Justice
Reform
This regulation meets the applicable
standards set forth in sections 3(a) and
3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988 to
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity,
minimize litigation, provide a clear legal
standard for affected conduct, and
promote simplification and burden
reduction..
Executive Order 13175—Consultation
and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
This rule will have no implications
for Indian Tribal governments. More
specifically, it does not have substantial
direct effects on one or more Indian
tribes, on the relationship between the
Federal government and Indian tribes,
or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal
government and Indian tribes.
Therefore, the consultation
requirements of Executive Order 13175
do not apply.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of
1995
This rule will not result in the
expenditure by State, local and tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or by the
private sector, of $100,000,000, as
adjusted for inflation, or more in any
one year, and it will not significantly or
uniquely affect small governments.
Therefore, no actions were deemed
necessary under the provisions of the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of
1995.
Congressional Review Act
This rule is not a major rule as
defined by 5 U.S.C. 804 of the
Congressional Review Act.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This rule imposes no information
collection or recordkeeping
requirements.
List of Subjects in 28 CFR Part 16
Administrative practice and
procedure, Courts, Freedom of
information, Privacy Act.
Pursuant to the authority vested in the
Attorney General by 5 U.S.C. 552a and
delegated to me by Attorney General
Order 2940–2008, 28 CFR part 16 is
amended as follows:
PART 16—PRODUCTION OR
DISCLOSURE OF MATERIAL OR
INFORMATION
1. The authority citation for part 16
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301, 552, 552a, 553; 28
U.S.C. 509, 510, 534; 31 U.S.C. 3717.
Subpart E—Exemption of Records
Systems Under the Privacy Act
2. Amend § 16.96 by adding
paragraphs (x) and (y) to read as follows:
■
E:\FR\FM\06APR1.SGM
06APR1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 67 / Friday, April 6, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
§ 16.96 Exemption of Federal Bureau of
Investigation Systems-limited access.
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES
*
*
*
*
*
(x) The following system of records is
exempt from 5 U.S.C. 552a(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):
(1) The FBI Online Collaboration
Systems (JUSTICE/FBI–004).
(2) These exemptions apply only to
the extent that information in this
system is subject to exemption pursuant
to 5 U.S.C. 552a(j) or (k). Where the FBI
determines compliance with an
exempted provision would not appear
to interfere with or adversely affect
interests of the United States or other
system stakeholders, the FBI in its sole
discretion may waive an exemption in
whole or in part; exercise of this
discretionary waiver prerogative in a
particular matter shall not create any
entitlement to or expectation of waiver
in that matter or any other matter. As a
condition of discretionary waiver, the
FBI in its sole discretion may impose
any restrictions deemed advisable by
the FBI (including, but not limited to,
restrictions on the location, manner, or
scope of notice, access or amendment).
(y) Exemptions from the particular
subsections are justified for the
following reasons:
(1) From subsection (c)(3), the
requirement that an accounting be made
available to the named subject of a
record, because this system is exempt
from the access provisions of subsection
(d). Also, because making available to a
record subject the accounting of
disclosures from records concerning
him/her would specifically reveal any
law enforcement or national security
investigative interest in the individual
by the FBI or agencies that are recipients
of the disclosures. Revealing this
information could compromise ongoing,
authorized law enforcement and
intelligence efforts, particularly efforts
to identify and defuse any potential acts
of terrorism or other potential violations
of criminal law. Revealing this
information could also permit the
record subject to obtain valuable insight
concerning the information obtained
during any investigation and to take
measures to circumvent the
investigation (e.g. destroy evidence or
flee the area to avoid investigation).
(2) From subsection (c)(4) notification
requirements because this system is
exempt from the access and amendment
provisions of subsection (d) as well as
the accounting disclosures provision of
subsection (c)(3). The FBI takes
seriously its obligation to maintain
accurate records despite its assertion of
this exemption, and to the extent it, in
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:57 Apr 05, 2018
Jkt 244001
its sole discretion, agrees to permit
amendment or correction of FBI records,
it will share that information in
appropriate cases.
(3) From subsections (d)(1), (2), (3),
and (4); (e)(4)(G) and (H); (e)(8); (f); and
(g) because these provisions concern
individual access to and amendment of
law enforcement and intelligence
records and compliance with such
provisions could alert the subject of an
authorized law enforcement or
intelligence activity about that
particular activity and the investigative
interest of the FBI and/or other law
enforcement or intelligence agencies.
Providing access rights could
compromise sensitive law enforcement
information, disclose information that
could constitute an unwarranted
invasion of another’s personal privacy;
reveal a sensitive investigative or
intelligence technique; provide
information that would allow a subject
to avoid detection or apprehension; or
constitute a potential danger to the
health or safety of law enforcement
personnel, confidential sources, and
witnesses. The FBI takes seriously its
obligation to maintain accurate records
despite its assertion of this exemption,
and to the extent it, in its sole
discretion, agrees to permit amendment
or correction of FBI records, it will share
that information in appropriate cases
with subjects of the information.
(4) From subsection (e)(1) because it
is not always possible to know in
advance what information is relevant
and necessary for law enforcement and
intelligence purposes. Relevance and
necessity are questions of judgment and
timing. For example, what appears
relevant and necessary when collected
ultimately may be deemed unnecessary.
It is only after information has been
fully assessed that its relevancy and
necessity in a specific investigative
activity can be determined.
(5) From subsections (e)(2) and (3)
because application of these provisions
requiring collection directly from the
subject individuals and informing
individuals regarding information to be
collected about them could present a
serious impediment to efforts to solve
crimes and improve national security.
Application of these provisions could
put the subject of an investigation on
notice of the existence of the
investigation and allow the subject an
opportunity to engage in conduct
intended to obstruct or otherwise
impede that activity or take steps to
avoid apprehension.
(6) From subsection (e)(4)(I), to the
extent that this subsection is interpreted
to require more detail regarding the
record sources in this system than has
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
14751
already been published in the Federal
Register through the SORN
documentation. Should the subsection
be so interpreted, exemption from this
provision is necessary to protect the
sources of law enforcement and
intelligence information and to protect
the privacy and safety of witnesses and
informants and others who provide
information to the FBI.
(7) From subsection (e)(5) because in
the collection of information for
authorized law enforcement and
intelligence purposes it is often
impossible to determine in advance
what information is accurate, relevant,
timely, and complete. With time,
additional facts, or analysis, information
may acquire new significance. The
restrictions imposed by subsection (e)(5)
would thus limit the ability of trained
investigators and intelligence analysts to
exercise their judgment in reporting on
investigations and impede the
development of criminal intelligence
necessary for effective law enforcement.
Although the FBI has claimed this
exemption, it continuously works with
its federal, state, local, tribal, and
international partners to maintain the
accuracy of records to the greatest extent
practicable. The FBI does so with
established policies and practices. The
criminal justice and national security
communities have a strong operational
interest in using up-to-date and accurate
records and will apply their own
procedures and foster relationships with
their partners to further this interest.
Dated: April 2, 2018.
Peter A. Winn,
Acting Chief Privacy and Civil Liberties
Officer.
[FR Doc. 2018–07056 Filed 4–5–18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410–02–P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 100
[Docket No. USCG–2018–0156]
Special Local Regulation; California
Half Ironman Triathlon, Oceanside, CA
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of enforcement of
regulation.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
The Coast Guard will enforce
the special local regulations on the
waters offshore Oceanside and within
Oceanside Harbor, California during the
California Half Ironman Triathlon from
6:30 a.m. to 8:40 a.m. on April 7, 2018.
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\06APR1.SGM
06APR1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 67 (Friday, April 6, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 14749-14751]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-07056]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
28 CFR Part 16
[CPCLO Order No. 001-2018]
Privacy Act of 1974; Implementation
AGENCY: Federal Bureau of Investigation, United States Department of
Justice.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), a component of the
[[Page 14750]]
United States Department of Justice (DOJ or Department), is finalizing
without change its Privacy Act exemption regulations for the system of
records titled, ``FBI Online Collaboration Systems,'' JUSTICE/FBI-004,
which were published as Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) on
December 4, 2017. Specifically, the FBI exempts the records maintained
in JUSTICE/FBI-004 from one or more provisions of the Privacy Act. The
exemptions are necessary to avoid interference with the FBI's law
enforcement and national security functions and responsibilities. The
Department received only one substantive comment on the proposed rule.
DATES: This final rule is effective May 7, 2018.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Katherine M. Bond, Assistant General
Counsel, Privacy and Civil Liberties Unit, Office of the General
Counsel, FBI, Washington DC, telephone 202-324-3000.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On December 4, 2017, the FBI published in the Federal Register a
System of Records Notice (SORN) for an FBI system of records titled,
``FBI Online Collaboration Systems,'' JUSTICE/FBI-004, 82 FR 57291. On
the same day, the FBI published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM)
proposing to exempt records maintained in JUSTICE/FBI-004 from certain
provisions of the Privacy Act pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(j) and (k), and
inviting public comment on the proposed exemptions. 82 FR 57181. The
comment period was open through January 3, 2018. DOJ received only one
substantive comment responsive to the proposed exemptions. That comment
supported the proposed exemptions in order to protect the safety of law
enforcement officers and better enable them to conduct their
investigations. After consideration of this public comment, exemptions
necessary to protect the ability of the FBI properly to engage in its
law enforcement and national security functions have been codified in
this final rule as proposed in the NPRM.
Response to Public Comments
In its Online Collaboration Systems NPRM and SORN, both published
on December 4, 2017, the Department invited public comment. The comment
periods for both documents closed January 3, 2018. The Department
received six total comments, only one of which contained any substance
related to the SORN or NPRM. The one responsive comment received stated
that the submitter agreed the exemptions proposed in the NPRM are
needed for effective law enforcement. The FBI has considered, and
agrees with, this comment. Because no other responsive comments were
submitted, and because the FBI continues to assert the rationales in
support of the exemptions as stated in the NPRM, the FBI adopts in this
final rule the exemptions and rationales proposed in the NPRM.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563--Regulatory Review
This regulation has been drafted and reviewed in accordance with
Executive Order 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review'' section 1(b),
Principles of Regulation, and Executive Order 13563 ``Improving
Regulation and Regulatory Review'' section 1(b), General Principles of
Regulation.
The Department of Justice has determined that this rule is not a
``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866, section
3(f), and accordingly this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs within the Office of Management and
Budget pursuant to Executive Order 12866.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
This rule will only impact Privacy Act-protected records, which are
personal and generally do not apply to an individual's entrepreneurial
capacity, subject to limited exceptions. Accordingly, the Chief Privacy
and Civil Liberties Officer, in accordance with the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), has reviewed this regulation and by
approving it certifies that this regulation will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Executive Order 13132--Federalism
This regulation will not have substantial direct effects on the
States, on the relationship between the national government and the
States, or on distribution of power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government. Therefore, in accordance with Executive
Order 13132, it is determined that this rule does not have sufficient
federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism
Assessment.
Executive Order 12988--Civil Justice Reform
This regulation meets the applicable standards set forth in
sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988 to eliminate
drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize litigation, provide a clear
legal standard for affected conduct, and promote simplification and
burden reduction..
Executive Order 13175--Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
This rule will have no implications for Indian Tribal governments.
More specifically, it does not have substantial direct effects on one
or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal government and Indian tribes.
Therefore, the consultation requirements of Executive Order 13175 do
not apply.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
This rule will not result in the expenditure by State, local and
tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of
$100,000,000, as adjusted for inflation, or more in any one year, and
it will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments.
Therefore, no actions were deemed necessary under the provisions of the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.
Congressional Review Act
This rule is not a major rule as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804 of the
Congressional Review Act.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This rule imposes no information collection or recordkeeping
requirements.
List of Subjects in 28 CFR Part 16
Administrative practice and procedure, Courts, Freedom of
information, Privacy Act.
Pursuant to the authority vested in the Attorney General by 5
U.S.C. 552a and delegated to me by Attorney General Order 2940-2008, 28
CFR part 16 is amended as follows:
PART 16--PRODUCTION OR DISCLOSURE OF MATERIAL OR INFORMATION
0
1. The authority citation for part 16 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301, 552, 552a, 553; 28 U.S.C. 509, 510,
534; 31 U.S.C. 3717.
Subpart E--Exemption of Records Systems Under the Privacy Act
0
2. Amend Sec. 16.96 by adding paragraphs (x) and (y) to read as
follows:
[[Page 14751]]
Sec. 16.96 Exemption of Federal Bureau of Investigation Systems-
limited access.
* * * * *
(x) The following system of records is exempt from 5 U.S.C.
552a(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):
(1) The FBI Online Collaboration Systems (JUSTICE/FBI-004).
(2) These exemptions apply only to the extent that information in
this system is subject to exemption pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(j) or
(k). Where the FBI determines compliance with an exempted provision
would not appear to interfere with or adversely affect interests of the
United States or other system stakeholders, the FBI in its sole
discretion may waive an exemption in whole or in part; exercise of this
discretionary waiver prerogative in a particular matter shall not
create any entitlement to or expectation of waiver in that matter or
any other matter. As a condition of discretionary waiver, the FBI in
its sole discretion may impose any restrictions deemed advisable by the
FBI (including, but not limited to, restrictions on the location,
manner, or scope of notice, access or amendment).
(y) Exemptions from the particular subsections are justified for
the following reasons:
(1) From subsection (c)(3), the requirement that an accounting be
made available to the named subject of a record, because this system is
exempt from the access provisions of subsection (d). Also, because
making available to a record subject the accounting of disclosures from
records concerning him/her would specifically reveal any law
enforcement or national security investigative interest in the
individual by the FBI or agencies that are recipients of the
disclosures. Revealing this information could compromise ongoing,
authorized law enforcement and intelligence efforts, particularly
efforts to identify and defuse any potential acts of terrorism or other
potential violations of criminal law. Revealing this information could
also permit the record subject to obtain valuable insight concerning
the information obtained during any investigation and to take measures
to circumvent the investigation (e.g. destroy evidence or flee the area
to avoid investigation).
(2) From subsection (c)(4) notification requirements because this
system is exempt from the access and amendment provisions of subsection
(d) as well as the accounting disclosures provision of subsection
(c)(3). The FBI takes seriously its obligation to maintain accurate
records despite its assertion of this exemption, and to the extent it,
in its sole discretion, agrees to permit amendment or correction of FBI
records, it will share that information in appropriate cases.
(3) From subsections (d)(1), (2), (3), and (4); (e)(4)(G) and (H);
(e)(8); (f); and (g) because these provisions concern individual access
to and amendment of law enforcement and intelligence records and
compliance with such provisions could alert the subject of an
authorized law enforcement or intelligence activity about that
particular activity and the investigative interest of the FBI and/or
other law enforcement or intelligence agencies. Providing access rights
could compromise sensitive law enforcement information, disclose
information that could constitute an unwarranted invasion of another's
personal privacy; reveal a sensitive investigative or intelligence
technique; provide information that would allow a subject to avoid
detection or apprehension; or constitute a potential danger to the
health or safety of law enforcement personnel, confidential sources,
and witnesses. The FBI takes seriously its obligation to maintain
accurate records despite its assertion of this exemption, and to the
extent it, in its sole discretion, agrees to permit amendment or
correction of FBI records, it will share that information in
appropriate cases with subjects of the information.
(4) From subsection (e)(1) because it is not always possible to
know in advance what information is relevant and necessary for law
enforcement and intelligence purposes. Relevance and necessity are
questions of judgment and timing. For example, what appears relevant
and necessary when collected ultimately may be deemed unnecessary. It
is only after information has been fully assessed that its relevancy
and necessity in a specific investigative activity can be determined.
(5) From subsections (e)(2) and (3) because application of these
provisions requiring collection directly from the subject individuals
and informing individuals regarding information to be collected about
them could present a serious impediment to efforts to solve crimes and
improve national security. Application of these provisions could put
the subject of an investigation on notice of the existence of the
investigation and allow the subject an opportunity to engage in conduct
intended to obstruct or otherwise impede that activity or take steps to
avoid apprehension.
(6) From subsection (e)(4)(I), to the extent that this subsection
is interpreted to require more detail regarding the record sources in
this system than has already been published in the Federal Register
through the SORN documentation. Should the subsection be so
interpreted, exemption from this provision is necessary to protect the
sources of law enforcement and intelligence information and to protect
the privacy and safety of witnesses and informants and others who
provide information to the FBI.
(7) From subsection (e)(5) because in the collection of information
for authorized law enforcement and intelligence purposes it is often
impossible to determine in advance what information is accurate,
relevant, timely, and complete. With time, additional facts, or
analysis, information may acquire new significance. The restrictions
imposed by subsection (e)(5) would thus limit the ability of trained
investigators and intelligence analysts to exercise their judgment in
reporting on investigations and impede the development of criminal
intelligence necessary for effective law enforcement. Although the FBI
has claimed this exemption, it continuously works with its federal,
state, local, tribal, and international partners to maintain the
accuracy of records to the greatest extent practicable. The FBI does so
with established policies and practices. The criminal justice and
national security communities have a strong operational interest in
using up-to-date and accurate records and will apply their own
procedures and foster relationships with their partners to further this
interest.
Dated: April 2, 2018.
Peter A. Winn,
Acting Chief Privacy and Civil Liberties Officer.
[FR Doc. 2018-07056 Filed 4-5-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-02-P
