Privacy Act of 1974; Implementation, 60714-60716 [2020-21379]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
60714
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 188 / Monday, September 28, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
(b) The ALJ may affirm, increase or
reduce the penalties, assessment
proposed or imposed by the DHA.
(c) The ALJ will issue the initial
decision to all parties within 120 days
after the time for submission of posthearing briefs and reply briefs, if
permitted, has expired. The decision
will be accompanied by a statement
describing the right of any party to file
a notice of appeal with the DAB and
instructions for how to file such appeal.
If the ALJ fails to meet the deadline
contained in this paragraph (c), he or
she will notify the parties of the reason
for the delay and will set a new
deadline.
(d) Except as provided in paragraph
(e) of this section, unless the initial
decision is appealed to the DAB, it will
be final and binding on the parties 30
days after the ALJ serves the parties
with a copy of the decision. If service is
by mail, the date of service will be
deemed to be 5 days from the date of
mailing.
(e) If an extension of time within
which to appeal the initial decision is
granted under § 200.2021(a), except as
provided in § 200.2022(a), the initial
decision will become final and binding
on the day following the end of the
extension period.
§ 200.2021
Appeal to DAB.
(a) Any party may appeal the initial
decision of the ALJ to the DAB by filing
a notice of appeal with the DAB within
30 days of the date of service of the
initial decision. The DAB may extend
the initial 30 day period for a period of
time not to exceed 30 days if a party
files with the DAB a request for an
extension within the initial 30 day
period and shows good cause.
(b) If a party files a timely notice of
appeal with the DAB, the ALJ will
forward the record of the proceeding to
the DAB.
(c) A notice of appeal will be
accompanied by a written brief
specifying exceptions to the initial
decision and reasons supporting the
exceptions. Any party may file a brief in
opposition to exceptions, which may
raise any relevant issue not addressed in
the exceptions, within 30 days of
receiving the notice of appeal and
accompanying brief. The DAB may
permit the parties to file reply briefs.
(d) There is no right to appear
personally before the DAB or to appeal
to the DAB any interlocutory ruling by
the ALJ, except on the timeliness of a
filing of the hearing request.
(e) The DAB will not consider any
issue not raised in the parties’ briefs,
nor any issue in the briefs that could
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:51 Sep 25, 2020
Jkt 250001
have been raised before the ALJ but was
not.
(f) If any party demonstrates to the
satisfaction of the DAB that additional
evidence not presented at such hearing
is relevant and material and that there
were reasonable grounds for the failure
to adduce such evidence at such
hearing, the DAB may remand the
matter to the ALJ for consideration of
such additional evidence.
(g) The DAB may decline to review
the case, or may affirm, increase,
reduce, reverse, or remand any penalty
or assessment determined by the ALJ.
(h) The standard of review on a
disputed issue of fact is whether the
initial decision is supported by
substantial evidence on the whole
record. The standard of review on a
disputed issue of law is whether the
initial decision is erroneous.
(i) Within 120 days after the time for
submission of briefs and reply briefs, if
permitted, has expired, the DAB will
issue to each party to the appeal a copy
of the DAB’s decision and a statement
describing the right of any petitioner or
respondent who is found liable to seek
judicial review.
(j) Except with respect to any penalty
or assessment remanded by the ALJ, the
DAB’s decision, including a decision to
decline review of the initial decision,
becomes final and binding 60 days after
the date on which the DAB serves the
parties with a copy of the decision. If
service is by mail, the date of service
will be deemed to be 5 days from the
date of mailing.
(k)(1) Any petition for judicial review
must be filed within 60 days after the
DAB serves the parties with a copy of
the decision. If service is by mail, the
date of service will be deemed to be 5
days from the date of mailing.
(2) In compliance with 28 U.S.C.
2112(a), a copy of any petition for
judicial review filed in any U.S. Court
of Appeals challenging a final action of
the DAB will be sent by certified mail,
return receipt requested, to the General
Counsel of the DHA. The petition copy
will be time-stamped by the clerk of the
court when the original is filed with the
court.
(3) If the General Counsel of the DHA
receives two or more petitions within 10
days after the DAB issues its decision,
the General Counsel of the DHA will
notify the U.S. Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation of any petitions
that were received within the 10-day
period.
§ 200.2022
Stay of initial decision.
(a) In a CMP case under section
1128A of the Act, the filing of a
respondent’s request for review by the
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
DAB will automatically stay the
effective date of the ALJ’s decision.
(b)(1) After the DAB renders a
decision in a CMP case, pending
judicial review, the respondent may file
a request for stay of the effective date of
any penalty or assessment with the ALJ.
The request must be accompanied by a
copy of the notice of appeal filed with
the Federal court. The filing of such a
request will automatically act to stay the
effective date of the penalty or
assessment until such time as the ALJ
rules upon the request.
(2) The ALJ may not grant a
respondent’s request for stay of any
penalty or assessment unless the
respondent posts a bond or provides
other adequate security.
(3) The ALJ will rule upon a
respondent’s request for stay within 10
days of receipt.
§ 200.2023
Harmless error.
No error in either the admission or the
exclusion of evidence, and no error or
defect in any ruling or order or in any
act done or omitted by the ALJ or by any
of the parties, including Federal
representatives or TRICARE contractors
is ground for vacating, modifying, or
otherwise disturbing an otherwise
appropriate ruling or order or act, unless
refusal to take such action appears to
the ALJ or the DAB inconsistent with
substantial justice. The ALJ and the
DAB at every stage of the proceeding
will disregard any error or defect in the
proceeding that does not affect the
substantial rights of the parties.
Dated: September 14, 2020.
Aaron T. Siegel,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison
Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 2020–20541 Filed 9–25–20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001–06–P
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Office of the Secretary
32 CFR Part 310
[Docket ID: DOD–2019–OS–0122]
RIN 0790–AK47
Privacy Act of 1974; Implementation
Office of the Secretary of
Defense, DoD.
ACTION: Direct final rule with request for
comments.
AGENCY:
The Office of the Secretary
proposes to exempt records maintained
in CIG–26, ‘‘Case Control System—
Investigative.’’ The System of Records
Notice was published in the Federal
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\28SER1.SGM
28SER1
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 188 / Monday, September 28, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
Register on August 9, 2011. This rule is
being published as a direct final rule as
the DoD does not expect to receive any
adverse comments. If such comments
are received, this direct final rule will
be cancelled and a proposed rule for
comments will be published.
DATES: The rule will be effective on
December 7, 2020 unless comments are
received that would result in a contrary
determination. Comments will be
accepted on or before November 27,
2020.
You may submit comments,
identified by docket number and title,
by any of the following methods.
* Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting
comments.
* Mail: DoD cannot receive written
comments at this time due to the
COVID–19 pandemic. Comments should
be sent electronically to the docket
listed above.
Instructions: All submissions received
must include the agency name and
docket number or Regulatory
Information Number (RIN) for this
Federal Register document. The general
policy for comments and other
submissions from members of the public
is to make these submissions available
for public viewing on the internet at
https://www.regulations.gov as they are
received without change, including any
personal identifiers or contact
information.
ADDRESSES:
Ms.
Anna Rivera, 703–699–5680.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Office
of the Secretary proposes to exempt
records maintained in CIG–26, ‘‘Case
Control System–Investigative,’’ from
subsections (c)(3) and (c)(4); (d); (e)(1),
(e)(2), (e)(3), (e)(4)(G), (e)(4)(H), (e)(4)(I),
(e)(5), and (e)(8); and (g) of the Privacy
Act pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a (j)(2),
(k)(1), and (k)(2).
This direct final rule adds to the
Office of the Inspector General (OIG)
exemptions found in 32 CFR 310.28.
This exemption rule will allow the DoD
OIG to efficiently and effectively
implement the DoD Inspector General
program by exempting certain records
from pertinent provisions of 5 U.S.C.
552a.
The DoD OIG maintains this system of
records in order to carry out its
responsibilities pursuant to the
Inspector General Act of 1978, as
amended. The DoD OIG is statutorily
directed to conduct and supervise
investigations relating to the programs
and operations of the DoD; to promote
economy, efficiency, and effectiveness
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:51 Sep 25, 2020
Jkt 250001
in the administration of such programs
and operations; and to prevent and
detect fraud, waste, and abuse in such
programs and operations. Accordingly,
the records in this system are used in
the course of investigating individuals
suspected of administrative or criminal
misconduct.
Executive Order 12866, ‘‘Regulatory
Planning and Review’’ and Executive
Order 13563, ‘‘Improving Regulation
and Regulatory Review’’
It has been previously determined
that all Privacy Act rules for the
Department of Defense are not
significant rules. The rules do 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.
Executive Order 13771, ‘‘Reducing
Regulation and Controlling Regulatory
Costs’’
This final rule is not subject to the
requirements of E.O. 13771 because it is
not significant under E.O. 12866.
Section 202, Public Law 104–4,
‘‘Unfunded Mandates Reform Act’’
It has been determined that the
Privacy Act rulemaking for the
Department of Defense 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 such rulemaking will not
significantly or uniquely affect small
governments.
Public Law 96–511, ‘‘Paperwork
Reduction Act’’ (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35)
It has been determined that Privacy
Act rules for the Department of Defense
impose no additional reporting or
recordkeeping requirements on the
public under the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995.
Public Law 96–354, ‘‘Regulatory
Flexibility Act’’ (5 U.S.C. Chapter 6)
It has been certified that Privacy Act
rules for the Department of Defense do
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
60715
not have significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities
because they are concerned only with
the administration of Privacy Act
systems of records within the
Department of Defense.
Congressional Review Act
The Congressional Review Act, 5
U.S.C. 801 et seq., generally provides
that before a rule may take effect, the
agency promulgating the rule must
submit a rule report, which includes a
copy of the rule, to each House of the
Congress and to the Comptroller General
of the United States. We will submit a
report containing this rule and other
required information to the U.S. Senate,
the U.S. House of Representatives, and
the Comptroller General of the United
States. A major rule cannot take effect
until 60 days after it is published in the
Federal Register. This direct final rule
is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5
U.S.C. 804(2).
Executive Order 13132, ‘‘Federalism’’
It has been determined that the
Privacy Act rules for the Department of
Defense do not have federalism
implications. The rules do not have
substantial direct effects on the States,
on the relationship between the
National Government and the States, or
on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government.
List of Subjects in 32 CFR Part 310
Privacy.
Accordingly, 32 CFR part 310 is
amended as follows:
PART 310—[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 310
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552a.
2. Amend § 310.28 by adding
paragraph (c)(9) to read as follows:
■
§ 310.28 Office of the Inspector General
(OIG) exemptions.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) * * *
(9) System identifier and name. CIG–
26, Case Control System–Investigative.
(i) Exemption. Any portion of this
system which falls within the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2) may be
exempt from the following subsections
of 5 U.S.C. 552a: (c)(3), (c)(4), (d), (e)(1),
(e)(2), (e)(3), (e)(4)(G) through (I), (e)(5),
(e)(8), and (g), as applicable. In addition,
any portion of this system which falls
within the provisions of 5 U.S.C.
552a(k)(1) or (k)(2) may be exempt from
the following subsections of 5 U.S.C.
552a: (c)(3), (d), (e)(1), (e)(4)(G) through
E:\FR\FM\28SER1.SGM
28SER1
60716
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 188 / Monday, September 28, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
(I), as applicable. Exempted records
from other systems of records may inturn become part of the case record in
this system. To the extent that copies of
exempt records from those ‘other’
systems of records are entered into this
system, the DoD OIG 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.
Records are only exempt from pertinent
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552a to the extent
such provisions have been identified
and an exemption claimed for the
original record and the purposes
underlying the exemption for the
original record still pertain to the record
which is now contained in this system
of records. The exemption rule for the
original records will identify the
specific reasons why the records are
exempt from specific provisions of 5
U.S.C. 552a.
(ii) Authority. 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2),
(k)(1), and (k)(2).
(iii) Reasons. (A) From subsections
(c)(3) and (c)(4) because making
available to a record subject the
accounting of disclosure of
investigations concerning him or her
would specifically reveal an
investigative interest in the individual.
Revealing this information would
reasonably be expected to compromise
open or closed administrative or
criminal investigation efforts to a known
or suspected offender by notifying the
record subject that he or she is under
investigation. This information could
also prompt the record subject to take
measures to impede the investigation,
e.g., destroy evidence, intimidate
potential witnesses, or flee the area to
avoid or impede the investigation.
(B) From subsection (d), because these
provisions concern individual access to
and amendment of certain records
contained in this system. Granting
access to information that is properly
classified pursuant to executive order
may cause damage to national security.
Additionally, compliance with these
provisions could alert the subject of an
investigation of the fact and nature of
the investigation and/or the
investigative interest of law enforcement
agencies. It can also compromise
sensitive information related to national
security; interfere with the overall law
enforcement process by leading to the
destruction of evidence, improper
influencing of witnesses, fabrication of
testimony, and/or flight of the subject;
could identify a confidential source or
disclose information which would
constitute an unwarranted invasion of
another’s personal privacy; reveal a
sensitive investigation or constitute a
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:51 Sep 25, 2020
Jkt 250001
potential danger to the health or safety
of law enforcement personnel,
confidential informants, and witnesses.
Amendment of open or active
investigations would interfere with
ongoing law enforcement investigations
and analysis activities, and impose an
excessive administrative burden by
requiring investigations, analyses, and
reports to be continuously
reinvestigated and revised.
(C) From subsection (e)(1) because it
is not always possible to determine
what information is relevant and
necessary at an early stage in a given
investigation, and because DoD OIG and
other agencies may not always know
what information about a known or
suspected offender may be relevant to
law enforcement for the purpose of
conducting an operational response.
The nature of the criminal and/or
administrative law enforcement
investigative functions creates unique
problems in prescribing a specific
parameter and a particular case with
respect to what information is relevant
or necessary. Also, due to the DoD OIG’s
close liaison and working relationships
with other Federal, State, local and
foreign country criminal and
administrative law enforcement
agencies, information may be received
which may relate to a case under the
investigative jurisdiction of another
agency. The maintenance of this
information may be necessary to
provide leads for appropriate criminal
and administrative law enforcement
purposes and to establish patterns of
activity which may relate to the
jurisdiction of other cooperating
agencies.
(D) From subsection (e)(2) because it
is not always in the best interest of law
enforcement to collect information to
the greatest extent practicable directly
from an investigative subject. Requiring
the collection of information to the
greatest extent practicable directly from
an investigative subject would present a
serious impediment to law enforcement
in that the subject of the investigation
would be placed on notice of the
existence of the investigation and would
therefore be able to avoid detection.
(E) From subsection (e)(3) because
supplying an individual with a form
containing a Privacy Act Statement
would tend to inhibit cooperation by
many individuals involved in a criminal
investigation. The effect would be
somewhat adverse to established
investigative methods and techniques.
(F) From subsections (e)(4)(G) through
(I) because this system of records is
exempt from the access provisions of
subsection (d).
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
(G) From subsection (e)(5) because the
requirement that records be maintained
with attention to accuracy, relevance,
timeliness, and completeness would
unfairly hamper the investigative
process. It is the nature of criminal law
enforcement for investigations to
uncover the commission of illegal acts
at diverse stages. It is frequently
impossible to determine initially what
information is accurate, relevant, timely,
and complete. With the passage of time,
seemingly irrelevant or untimely
information may acquire new
significance as further investigation
brings new details to light.
(H) From subsection (e)(8) because the
notice requirements of this provision
could present a serious impediment to
criminal law enforcement investigations
by revealing investigative techniques,
procedures, and existence of sensitive
information and/or confidential sources.
(I) To the extent that exemptions have
been established from other provisions
of the Privacy Act, the civil remedies
provisions of subsection (g) are
inapplicable. The nature of criminal law
enforcement investigations and the
utilization of authorized exemptions
should not increase the Department’s
exposure to civil litigation under the
Privacy Act.
Dated: September 23, 2020.
Aaron T. Siegel,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison
Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 2020–21379 Filed 9–25–20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001–06–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 180
[EPA–HQ–OPP–2017–0335; FRL–10013–27]
Pseudomonas fluorescens Strain
ACK55; Exemption From the
Requirement of a Tolerance
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
This regulation establishes an
exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance for residues of Pseudomonas
fluorescens strain ACK55 in or on all
food commodities when used in
accordance with label directions and
good agricultural practices. The IR–4
Project submitted a petition to EPA
under the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), requesting an
exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance. This regulation eliminates the
need to establish a maximum
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\28SER1.SGM
28SER1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 188 (Monday, September 28, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 60714-60716]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-21379]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Office of the Secretary
32 CFR Part 310
[Docket ID: DOD-2019-OS-0122]
RIN 0790-AK47
Privacy Act of 1974; Implementation
AGENCY: Office of the Secretary of Defense, DoD.
ACTION: Direct final rule with request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Office of the Secretary proposes to exempt records
maintained in CIG-26, ``Case Control System--Investigative.'' The
System of Records Notice was published in the Federal
[[Page 60715]]
Register on August 9, 2011. This rule is being published as a direct
final rule as the DoD does not expect to receive any adverse comments.
If such comments are received, this direct final rule will be cancelled
and a proposed rule for comments will be published.
DATES: The rule will be effective on December 7, 2020 unless comments
are received that would result in a contrary determination. Comments
will be accepted on or before November 27, 2020.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by docket number and
title, by any of the following methods.
* Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
* Mail: DoD cannot receive written comments at this time due to the
COVID-19 pandemic. Comments should be sent electronically to the docket
listed above.
Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name
and docket number or Regulatory Information Number (RIN) for this
Federal Register document. The general policy for comments and other
submissions from members of the public is to make these submissions
available for public viewing on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov as they are received without change, including any
personal identifiers or contact information.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Anna Rivera, 703-699-5680.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Office of the Secretary proposes to
exempt records maintained in CIG-26, ``Case Control System-
Investigative,'' from subsections (c)(3) and (c)(4); (d); (e)(1),
(e)(2), (e)(3), (e)(4)(G), (e)(4)(H), (e)(4)(I), (e)(5), and (e)(8);
and (g) of the Privacy Act pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a (j)(2), (k)(1),
and (k)(2).
This direct final rule adds to the Office of the Inspector General
(OIG) exemptions found in 32 CFR 310.28. This exemption rule will allow
the DoD OIG to efficiently and effectively implement the DoD Inspector
General program by exempting certain records from pertinent provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552a.
The DoD OIG maintains this system of records in order to carry out
its responsibilities pursuant to the Inspector General Act of 1978, as
amended. The DoD OIG is statutorily directed to conduct and supervise
investigations relating to the programs and operations of the DoD; to
promote economy, efficiency, and effectiveness in the administration of
such programs and operations; and to prevent and detect fraud, waste,
and abuse in such programs and operations. Accordingly, the records in
this system are used in the course of investigating individuals
suspected of administrative or criminal misconduct.
Executive Order 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review'' and Executive
Order 13563, ``Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review''
It has been previously determined that all Privacy Act rules for
the Department of Defense are not significant rules. The rules do 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.
Executive Order 13771, ``Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory
Costs''
This final rule is not subject to the requirements of E.O. 13771
because it is not significant under E.O. 12866.
Section 202, Public Law 104-4, ``Unfunded Mandates Reform Act''
It has been determined that the Privacy Act rulemaking for the
Department of Defense 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 such rulemaking will not significantly or uniquely affect small
governments.
Public Law 96-511, ``Paperwork Reduction Act'' (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35)
It has been determined that Privacy Act rules for the Department of
Defense impose no additional reporting or recordkeeping requirements on
the public under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Public Law 96-354, ``Regulatory Flexibility Act'' (5 U.S.C. Chapter 6)
It has been certified that Privacy Act rules for the Department of
Defense do not have significant economic impact on a substantial number
of small entities because they are concerned only with the
administration of Privacy Act systems of records within the Department
of Defense.
Congressional Review Act
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. We will submit a report containing this rule and other
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States. A
major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in
the Federal Register. This direct final rule is not a ``major rule'' as
defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
Executive Order 13132, ``Federalism''
It has been determined that the Privacy Act rules for the
Department of Defense do not have federalism implications. The rules do
not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship
between the National Government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
List of Subjects in 32 CFR Part 310
Privacy.
Accordingly, 32 CFR part 310 is amended as follows:
PART 310--[AMENDED]
0
1. The authority citation for part 310 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552a.
0
2. Amend Sec. 310.28 by adding paragraph (c)(9) to read as follows:
Sec. 310.28 Office of the Inspector General (OIG) exemptions.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(9) System identifier and name. CIG-26, Case Control System-
Investigative.
(i) Exemption. Any portion of this system which falls within the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2) may be exempt from the following
subsections of 5 U.S.C. 552a: (c)(3), (c)(4), (d), (e)(1), (e)(2),
(e)(3), (e)(4)(G) through (I), (e)(5), (e)(8), and (g), as applicable.
In addition, any portion of this system which falls within the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(1) or (k)(2) may be exempt from the
following subsections of 5 U.S.C. 552a: (c)(3), (d), (e)(1), (e)(4)(G)
through
[[Page 60716]]
(I), as applicable. Exempted records from other systems of records may
in-turn become part of the case record in this system. To the extent
that copies of exempt records from those `other' systems of records are
entered into this system, the DoD OIG 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. Records are only exempt from pertinent provisions of 5 U.S.C.
552a to the extent such provisions have been identified and an
exemption claimed for the original record and the purposes underlying
the exemption for the original record still pertain to the record which
is now contained in this system of records. The exemption rule for the
original records will identify the specific reasons why the records are
exempt from specific provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552a.
(ii) Authority. 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2), (k)(1), and (k)(2).
(iii) Reasons. (A) From subsections (c)(3) and (c)(4) because
making available to a record subject the accounting of disclosure of
investigations concerning him or her would specifically reveal an
investigative interest in the individual. Revealing this information
would reasonably be expected to compromise open or closed
administrative or criminal investigation efforts to a known or
suspected offender by notifying the record subject that he or she is
under investigation. This information could also prompt the record
subject to take measures to impede the investigation, e.g., destroy
evidence, intimidate potential witnesses, or flee the area to avoid or
impede the investigation.
(B) From subsection (d), because these provisions concern
individual access to and amendment of certain records contained in this
system. Granting access to information that is properly classified
pursuant to executive order may cause damage to national security.
Additionally, compliance with these provisions could alert the subject
of an investigation of the fact and nature of the investigation and/or
the investigative interest of law enforcement agencies. It can also
compromise sensitive information related to national security;
interfere with the overall law enforcement process by leading to the
destruction of evidence, improper influencing of witnesses, fabrication
of testimony, and/or flight of the subject; could identify a
confidential source or disclose information which would constitute an
unwarranted invasion of another's personal privacy; reveal a sensitive
investigation or constitute a potential danger to the health or safety
of law enforcement personnel, confidential informants, and witnesses.
Amendment of open or active investigations would interfere with ongoing
law enforcement investigations and analysis activities, and impose an
excessive administrative burden by requiring investigations, analyses,
and reports to be continuously reinvestigated and revised.
(C) From subsection (e)(1) because it is not always possible to
determine what information is relevant and necessary at an early stage
in a given investigation, and because DoD OIG and other agencies may
not always know what information about a known or suspected offender
may be relevant to law enforcement for the purpose of conducting an
operational response. The nature of the criminal and/or administrative
law enforcement investigative functions creates unique problems in
prescribing a specific parameter and a particular case with respect to
what information is relevant or necessary. Also, due to the DoD OIG's
close liaison and working relationships with other Federal, State,
local and foreign country criminal and administrative law enforcement
agencies, information may be received which may relate to a case under
the investigative jurisdiction of another agency. The maintenance of
this information may be necessary to provide leads for appropriate
criminal and administrative law enforcement purposes and to establish
patterns of activity which may relate to the jurisdiction of other
cooperating agencies.
(D) From subsection (e)(2) because it is not always in the best
interest of law enforcement to collect information to the greatest
extent practicable directly from an investigative subject. Requiring
the collection of information to the greatest extent practicable
directly from an investigative subject would present a serious
impediment to law enforcement in that the subject of the investigation
would be placed on notice of the existence of the investigation and
would therefore be able to avoid detection.
(E) From subsection (e)(3) because supplying an individual with a
form containing a Privacy Act Statement would tend to inhibit
cooperation by many individuals involved in a criminal investigation.
The effect would be somewhat adverse to established investigative
methods and techniques.
(F) From subsections (e)(4)(G) through (I) because this system of
records is exempt from the access provisions of subsection (d).
(G) From subsection (e)(5) because the requirement that records be
maintained with attention to accuracy, relevance, timeliness, and
completeness would unfairly hamper the investigative process. It is the
nature of criminal law enforcement for investigations to uncover the
commission of illegal acts at diverse stages. It is frequently
impossible to determine initially what information is accurate,
relevant, timely, and complete. With the passage of time, seemingly
irrelevant or untimely information may acquire new significance as
further investigation brings new details to light.
(H) From subsection (e)(8) because the notice requirements of this
provision could present a serious impediment to criminal law
enforcement investigations by revealing investigative techniques,
procedures, and existence of sensitive information and/or confidential
sources.
(I) To the extent that exemptions have been established from other
provisions of the Privacy Act, the civil remedies provisions of
subsection (g) are inapplicable. The nature of criminal law enforcement
investigations and the utilization of authorized exemptions should not
increase the Department's exposure to civil litigation under the
Privacy Act.
Dated: September 23, 2020.
Aaron T. Siegel,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 2020-21379 Filed 9-25-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
