Privacy Act of 1974: Implementation of Exemptions; U.S. Department of Homeland Security/U.S. Immigration and Custom Enforcement-018 Analytical Records System of Records, 61665-61668 [2021-24328]

Download as PDF 61665 Rules and Regulations Federal Register Vol. 86, No. 213 Monday, November 8, 2021 This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510. The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Office of the Secretary 6 CFR Part 5 [Docket No. DHS–2021–ICEB–2021–0012] Privacy Act of 1974: Implementation of Exemptions; U.S. Department of Homeland Security/U.S. Immigration and Custom Enforcement–018 Analytical Records System of Records U.S. Immigration and Custom Enforcement U.S. Department of Homeland Security. ACTION: Final rule. AGENCY: The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is issuing a final rule to amend its regulations to exempt portions of a newly established system of records titled, ‘‘DHS/U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (IC)–018 Analytical Records System of Records’’ from certain provisions of the Privacy Act. Specifically, the Department exempts portions of the system of records’’ from one or more provisions of the Privacy Act because of criminal, civil, and administrative enforcement requirements. DATES: This final rule is effective November 8, 2021. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general questions please contact: Jordan Holz, ICEPrivacy@ice.dhs.gov, Privacy Officer, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), 500 12th Street SW, Mail Stop 5004, Washington, DC 20536. For privacy issues please contact: Lynn Parker Dupree (202) 343–1717, Privacy@ hq.dhs.gov, Chief Privacy Officer, Privacy Office, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Washington, DC 20528. lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1 SUMMARY: SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) U.S. Immigration and VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:24 Nov 05, 2021 Jkt 256001 Customs Enforcement (ICE) published a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register, (86 FR 15134, March 22, 2021), proposing to exempt portions of the system of records titled, ‘‘DHS/ ICE–018 Analytical Records’’ from one or more provisions of the Privacy Act because of criminal, civil, and administrative enforcement requirements. The DHS/ICE–018 Analytical Records system of records notice was published concurrently in the Federal Register, (86 FR 15246, March 22, 2021), and comments were invited on both the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) and System of Records Notice (SORN). Public Comments DHS received four comments on the NPRM, two of which also referenced the SORN. NPRM All comments related to the NPRM state that exempting the SORN from portions of the Privacy Act will restrict the public’s ability to demand transparency regarding ICE analytical systems. The first concern commenters presented was that ICE’s claiming of Privacy Act exemptions create a lack of transparency in ICE operations and the analytical systems themselves, stating: ‘‘[t]he American public has the right to know how our tax dollars are being spent and if their tax dollars are being spent wisely and ethically in regards to immigrants’’ and ‘‘[e]xemptions under the Privacy Act will not just protect DHS’ system of records but also the data, software, and systems owned by private companies, perpetuating further a lack of transparency in deportations and other investigations under the guise of ‘national security.’ ’’ As discussed in the SORN and below, individuals about whom ICE maintains information in its records systems may still submit a Privacy Act amendment request or a request for access to information. While ICE has exempted this system of records from the access and amendment provisions of the Privacy Act, it will still consider these requests on a case-by-case basis to ensure that agency data is complete, accurate, and current. Further, to provide the greatest access to information, ICE considers individuals’ requests under both the Privacy Act and the Freedom of PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 Information Act (FOIA). To this end, the public can seek records described in the Analytical Records SORN under FOIA. In contrast to the broad scope of FOIA, 5 U.S.C. 552, the Privacy Act is narrowly focused on individuals’ personal information maintained in agency systems of records. As stated in the comment, the Privacy Act is meant to ‘‘. . . ensure accuracy of and individuals’ access to information that agencies gather about them.’’ FOIA’s broad scope allows the public access to governmental information generally. This includes information on data, systems, and connections within the agency. Subsections (t)(1) and (t)(2) of the Privacy Act prohibit agencies not only from restricting an individual’s access to his/her record under FOIA based solely on claimed Privacy Act exemptions, but also from withholding records under the Privacy Act based on FOIA exemptions. Information about filing a FOIA request with ICE is available at www.ice.gov/foia. The publication process for the Analytical Records SORN as required by the Privacy Act promotes the accountability, responsibility, legislative oversight, and open government requested by commenters. Subsection (r) of the Privacy Act requires agencies, when establishing or significantly modifying a system of records, to provide adequate advance notice to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform of the House of Representatives, and the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate. This advance notice is separate from the public comment period ICE is engaging in here. The advanced notice that ICE provided to OMB and the committees of jurisdiction in Congress allows each body to make an evaluation of the probable or potential effects of ICE’s proposal on the privacy or other rights of individuals. Finally, in addition to the publication of SORNs here in the Federal Register, ICE also provides transparency into its systems through the publication of Privacy Impact Assessments (PIA). PIAs are conducted in accordance with the EGovernment Act of 2002 (Pub. L. 107– 347) by ICE Privacy personnel, are reviewed by the DHS Privacy Office, and signed by the DHS Chief Privacy Officer. PIAs describe how ICE E:\FR\FM\08NOR1.SGM 08NOR1 61666 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 213 / Monday, November 8, 2021 / Rules and Regulations lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1 information technology systems work, what information they collect, how ICE uses that information, any external parties with whom the information is shared, and the privacy risks and corresponding mitigations employed by ICE. ICE and all DHS PIAs are published on the DHS website, www.dhs.gov/ privacy. The second concern raised by commenters is the perceived inability for an individual to access ICE records about him/her due to the exemptions claimed in this rule. Commenters state ‘‘[e]xemptions intended to prevent the subject of an investigation from being aware of the investigation undermine the presumption of innocence enjoyed by individuals in the United States by proposing that individuals being investigated should be denied rights . . .’’ and that they ‘‘. . . take exception to the fact that the DHS is not required to establish requirements, rules, or procedures with respect to such access.’’ The commenters’ concern is amplified as the exemptions may not just apply to individuals under investigation, but their associates and family members as well. As recognized in the comments, DHS is exempting this system as law enforcement sensitive to ensure that information and records produced in response to Privacy Act requests are not used to disrupt or frustrate ICE investigations. As stated in the accompanying SORN, ‘‘DHS/ICE will consider individual requests to determine whether or not information may be released.’’ ICE will consider all Privacy Act requests, whether access or amendment requests, on a case-by-case basis. As such, ICE has established access requirements, rules, and procedures outlined in the SORN accompanying this rule. The Privacy Act exemptions claimed here in no way alter or abrogate an individual’s due process and fair trial rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. SORN The comments filed in response to the proposed rule also raised objections regarding the DHS/ICE–018 Analytical Records SORN. Two objections are outside the scope of this rulemaking and so will not be addressed here. One objection from a commenter is that the SORN does not examine ICE’s relationship with a private software vendor. ICE will not respond to this objection as a final rule is not the proper forum to discuss ICE contractual relationships. Additionally, ICE will not examine U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services’ (USCIS) biometrics NPRM, as requested by a VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:24 Nov 05, 2021 Jkt 256001 commenter, as that proposed rule has been withdrawn (86 FR 24750, May 10, 2021). The comments ICE received on the SORN were focused on four distinct areas of concern: (1) The SORN expands ICE’s existing authority and ability to collect records on individuals; (2) The SORN lacks transparency, in that the SORN did not address issues important to the commenters; (3) ICE analytical systems use artificial intelligence and machine learning, with specific concern that these analytical systems will be used for ‘‘predictive policing’’ or ‘‘constant and ongoing surveillance of immigrants and citizens;’’ and, (4) The SORN’s routine uses are so overly broad that ‘‘they provide no limit on permissible sharing.’’ The Analytical Records SORN Expands ICE’s Existing Records Collection A commenter expressed concern that the Analytical Records SORN was ‘‘expanding the sources from which data is gathered as well as the categories of individuals covered and records included and allows use of algorithmic processes.’’ ICE did not intend the SORN to be understood as solely a consolidation of two previously published SORNs. Rather, as stated in the background section of the SORN, ICE is establishing a new system of records that clarifies and more accurately reflects the nature of records ICE collects, maintains, processes, and shares in large analytical data environments. The purpose for ICE’s publication of the Analytical Records SORN is to give the public notice of the types of records ICE maintains in support of analytical and algorithmic processes. Information derived from the ICE Tip Line and trade data, previously covered by the DHS/ ICE–016 FALCON-Search and Analysis (FALCON–SA) SORN and DHS/ICE–005 Trade Transparency and Research (TTAR) SORN, respectively, are now covered under the Analytical Records SORN. Beyond those two categories of information, the Analytical Records SORN does not provide stand-alone coverage for any other ICE collection efforts. As stated in the SORN, ICE analytical systems ingest data collected through other efforts and authorities and covered by other SORNs. Differences in the categories of individuals or records described in the DHS/ICE–016 FALCON–SA SORN and DHS/ICE–005 TTAR SORN and those described in the Analytical Records SORN are reflective of these other ingestions. The SORNs covering the ingested information restrict ICE’s use of that information to what is compatible with PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 the original purpose of the collection. Technological advancements allow ICE to institute protections at the record level that follow the data as it passes from the originating systems into ICE analytical systems. As such, the initial protections and restrictions on the use and sharing of the ingested information as described in those originating SORNs are retained by ICE as a record is ingested into its analytical systems. To reiterate an example given in the SORN, data available through an ingest from ICE’s Investigative Case Management System (ICM) would be covered by the DHS/ICE–009 External Investigations SORN (85 FR 74362, November 20, 2020) and each record stored from that ingest is tagged as belonging to that system of record. An analytical system may filter, search, graph, or link that data with other datasets, but only for a purpose described in DHS/ICE–009, such as generating leads for investigations. If ICE personnel wish to share an analytical product from an ICE analysis system with a third party, the tags of the underlying data, and its accompanying restrictions, must similarly be respected. Therefore, ICE analytical systems covered by the Analytical Records SORN do not expand ICE collections, use, or sharing of personal data. The Analytical Records SORN Does Not Provide an Adequate Accounting of DHS Collection, Use, and Sharing of Data The commenters maintain that the Analytical Records SORN does not describe the access controls and auditing mechanisms within ICE’s analytical systems in sufficient granularity. They also raise objections that the SORN does not discuss different analytical systems, such as ICE’s FALCON–SA system and ICE’s ‘‘complex network of interlocking systems’’ including ICE’s connections to DHS’s Homeland Advanced Recognition Technology system (HART). The publication of the Analytical Records SORN is an effort to provide broader transparency of the ICE analytical environment so that ICE does not continue to rely on disparate and segregated notices from previouslypublished SORNs. The Analytical Records SORN reflects the realities of cloud computing and modern technological processes, where access and control are derived from user privileges rather than the physical location of data. As stated in the SORN, ICE’s analytical processes may span multiple information technology systems within the ICE domain and records may be derived from multiple E:\FR\FM\08NOR1.SGM 08NOR1 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 213 / Monday, November 8, 2021 / Rules and Regulations collection points. Moreover, the purpose of a SORN is to provide notice to the public regarding personally identifiable information maintained by an agency; it is not meant to outline or provide a full description of the technical capabilities and nuances of an IT system. Granular detail of system connections, algorithmic processes, access controls, and auditing functions can be found in the applicable system’s PIA, which can be found at www.dhs.gov/privacy. All PIAs link to their associated SORN(s), providing clear notice as to which systems are covered under the Analytical Records SORN. lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1 The SORN Allows for ICE To Conduct Unlimited Surveillance and ‘‘Predictive Policing’’ Several commenters expressed concern with ICE’s use of advanced analytics and artificial intelligence to engage in controversial policing tactics. The first tactic, ‘‘predictive policing,’’ is the practice of using statistics and analysis to forecast crime or identify where crime may occur in the near future.1 Certain state or local police departments have used these methods to determine where to deploy resources or to identify those who are likely to commit crimes in the future by examining past behaviors. The Analytical Records SORN does not support predictive policing. The SORN lists the purposes of the collection, use, and sharing of information in ICE analytical systems. The purposes of the systems are to identify current violations of law and regulation or generate leads for ongoing investigations. There is no purpose stated in the SORN that allows for its systems to engage in future state risk modelling. Commenters expressed concern with a second controversial policing tactic, ‘‘ongoing and constant surveillance of immigrants and citizens.’’ This is similarly not supported by the Analytical Records SORN. As stated in the SORN and above, the Analytical Records SORN does not expand ICE collections of personal data. ICE analytical systems ingest data that has already been collected through other efforts and authorities. The restrictions on use of that data are listed in the SORN relevant to that collection and are transferred to the ICE analytical systems for linkage and further analysis. ICE analytical systems are meant to process data that has already been collected in 1 Tim Lau, Predictive Policing Explained (April 1, 2020), available at https://www.brennancenter.org/ our-work/research-reports/predictive-policingexplained. VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:24 Nov 05, 2021 Jkt 256001 a more efficient manner using advanced analytics and modern processing techniques. They are not used to monitor or surveil the public. The SORN’s Routine Uses Are Overly Broad Finally, a commenter objected that the routine uses listed in the Analytical Records SORN are ‘‘so expansive . . . they provide no limit on permissible sharing.’’ The commenter, unfortunately, has not articulated any specific routine use that is inconsistent with the Privacy Act or ICE’s statutory authorities for ICE to address. Generally, however, any routine use listed in the SORN must be compatible with the purpose of the system of records, as stated in the SORN, the purpose for which ICE originally collected the information, and ICE’s statutory mission. Each routine use is analyzed and vetted for compatibility by ICE and DHS. As the Analytical Records SORN consolidates two previous ICE SORNs, the vast majority of routine uses in the new Analytical Records SORN are the same as the routine uses listed in those previously published SORNs. This means that the Analytical Records SORN routine uses were examined on multiple occasions by government oversight bodies that determined they were neither overly broad nor outside the stated purpose of the system of records. As described in the SORN, if data is ingested from another system of records, the ICE analytical system, through record tagging and controls, ensures any subsequent sharing is compatible with the original SORN’s purposes. This provides additional safeguards in the flow of information and limits the permissible sharing of data. After consideration of public comments, the Department will implement the rulemaking as proposed. List of Subjects in 6 CFR Part 5 Freedom of information, Privacy. For the reasons stated in the preamble, DHS amends Chapter I of Title 6, Code of Federal Regulations, as follows: PART 5—DISCLOSURE OF RECORDS AND INFORMATION 1. The authority citation for part 5 continues to read as follows: ■ Authority: 6 U.S.C. 101 et seq.; Pub. L. 107–296, 116 Stat. 2135; 5 U.S.C. 301. Subpart A also issued under 5 U.S.C. 552. Subpart B also issued under 5 U.S.C. 552a. 2. In appendix C to part 5, add paragraph 86 to read as follows: ■ PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 61667 Appendix C to Part 5—DHS Systems of Records Exempt From the Privacy Act * * * * * 86. The DHS/ICE–018 Analytical Records System of Records consists of electronic and paper records and will be used by DHS and its components. The DHS/ICE–018 Analytical Records System of Records is a repository of information held by DHS in connection with its several and varied missions and functions, including, but not limited to the enforcement of civil and criminal laws; investigations, inquiries, and proceedings there under; national security and intelligence activities. The DHS/ICE–018 Analytical Records System of Records contains information that is collected by, on behalf of, in support of, or in cooperation with DHS and its components and may contain personally identifiable information collected by other Federal, State, local, tribal, foreign, or international government agencies. The Secretary of Homeland Security has exempted this system from the following provisions of the Privacy Act, subject to limitations set forth in 5 U.S.C. 552a(c)(3) and (4), (d), (e)(1), (e)(2) and (3), (e)(4)(G), (e)(4)(H), (e)(4)(I), (e)(5), (e)(8); (f); and (g) pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2). Additionally, the Secretary of Homeland Security has exempted this system from the following provisions of the Privacy Act, subject to limitations set forth in 5 U.S.C. 552a(c)(3), (d), (e)(1), (e)(4)(G), (e)(4)(H), and (f) pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(2). Where a record received from another system has been exempted in that source system under 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2), DHS will claim the same exemptions for those records that are claimed for the original primary systems of records from which they originated and claims any additional exemptions set forth here. Exemptions from these particular subsections are justified, on a case-by-case basis to be determined at the time a request is made, for the following reasons: (a) From subsection (c)(3) and (4) (Accounting for Disclosures) because release of the accounting of disclosures could alert the subject of an investigation of an actual or potential criminal, civil, or regulatory violation to the existence of that investigation and reveal investigative interest on the part of DHS as well as the recipient agency. Disclosure of the accounting would therefore present a serious impediment to law enforcement efforts and/or efforts to preserve national security. Disclosure of the accounting would also permit the individual who is the subject of a record to impede the investigation, to tamper with witnesses or evidence, and to avoid detection or apprehension, which would undermine the entire investigative process. (b) From subsection (d) (Access and Amendment to Records) because access to the records contained in this system of records could inform the subject of an investigation of an actual or potential criminal, civil, or regulatory violation to the existence of that investigation and reveal investigative interest on the part of DHS or another agency. Access to the records could permit the individual who is the subject of a record to impede the investigation, to tamper with witnesses or evidence, and to E:\FR\FM\08NOR1.SGM 08NOR1 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1 61668 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 213 / Monday, November 8, 2021 / Rules and Regulations avoid detection or apprehension. Amendment of the records could interfere with ongoing investigations and law enforcement activities. Further, permitting amendment to counterintelligence records after an investigation has been completed would impose an unmanageable administrative burden. In addition, permitting access and amendment to such information could disclose security-sensitive information that could be detrimental to homeland security. (c) From subsection (e)(1) (Relevancy and Necessity of Information) because in the course of investigations into potential violations of federal law, the accuracy of information obtained or introduced occasionally may be unclear, or the information may not be strictly relevant or necessary to a specific investigation. In the interests of effective law enforcement, it is appropriate to retain all information that may aid in establishing patterns of unlawful activity. (d) From subsection (e)(2) (Collection of Information from Individuals) because requiring that information be collected from the subject of an investigation would alert the subject to the nature or existence of the investigation, thereby interfering with that investigation and related law enforcement activities. (e) From subsection (e)(3) (Notice to Subjects) because providing such detailed information could impede law enforcement by compromising the existence of a confidential investigation or reveal the identity of witnesses or confidential informants. (f) From subsections (e)(4)(G), (e)(4)(H), and (e)(4)(I) (Agency Requirements) and (f) (Agency Rules), because portions of this system are exempt from the individual access provisions of subsection (d) for the reasons noted above, and therefore DHS is not required to establish requirements, rules, or procedures with respect to such access. Providing notice to individuals with respect to existence of records pertaining to them in the system of records or otherwise setting up procedures pursuant to which individuals may access and view records pertaining to themselves in the system would undermine investigative efforts and reveal the identities of witnesses, and potential witnesses, and confidential informants. (g) From subsection (e)(5) (Collection of Information) because with the collection of information for law enforcement purposes, it is impossible to determine in advance what information is accurate, relevant, timely, and complete. (h) From subsection (e)(8) (Notice on Individuals) because compliance would interfere with DHS’s ability to obtain, serve, and issue subpoenas, warrants, and other law enforcement mechanisms that may be filed under seal and could result in disclosure of investigative techniques, procedures, and evidence. VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:24 Nov 05, 2021 Jkt 256001 (i) From subsection (g)(1) (Civil Remedies) to the extent that the system is exempt from other specific subsections of the Privacy Act. Lynn Parker Dupree, Chief Privacy Officer, U.S. Department of Homeland Security. [FR Doc. 2021–24328 Filed 11–5–21; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111–28–P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Agricultural Marketing Service 7 CFR Part 1220 [Document No. AMS–LP–20–0085] Soybean Promotion and Research: Adjusting Representation on the United Soybean Board Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA. ACTION: Final rule. AGENCY: This final rule adjusts the number of members on the United Soybean Board (Board) to reflect changes in production levels that have occurred since the Board was last reapportioned in 2018. As required by the Soybean Promotion, Research, and Consumer Information Act (Act), membership on the Board is reviewed every 3 years and adjustments are made accordingly. This change results in a decrease in Board membership for one State (Alabama), decreasing the total number of Board members from 78 to 77. These changes are reflected in the Soybean Promotion and Research Order (Order) and will be effective with the Secretary of Agriculture’s (Secretary) appointments for terms in the year 2022. This final rule also corrects the number of States and units to the Order. Technical corrections to the regulations adjust the number of States and units from 30 to 31. DATES: This rule is effective as of December 8, 2021. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sarah Aswegan, (515) 201–5190; Sarah.Aswegan@usda.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: SUMMARY: Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 Executive Orders (E.O.) 12866 and 13563 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). E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 and benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility. This rule does not meet the definition of a significant regulatory action contained in section 3(f) of E.O. 12866 and therefore, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has waived review of this action. Executive Order 12988 This final rule has been reviewed under E.O. 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This rule is not intended to have retroactive effect. Section 11 of the Act (7 U.S.C. 2910) provides that nothing in the Act may be construed to preempt or supersede any other program relating to soybean promotion organized and operated under the laws of the U.S. or any State. There are no administrative proceedings that must be exhausted prior to any judicial challenge to the provisions of this rule. Executive Order 13175 This proposed rule has been reviewed under E.O. 13175—Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments. E.O. 13175 requires Federal agencies to consult and coordinate with tribes on a governmentto-government basis on: (1) Policies that have tribal implication, including regulation, legislative comments, or proposed legislation; and (2) other policy statements or actions that 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. AMS has assessed the impact of this proposed rule on Indian tribes and determined that this rule would not have tribal implications that require consultation under E.O. 13175. AMS hosts a quarterly teleconference with tribal leaders where matters of mutual interest regarding the marketing of agricultural products are discussed. Information about the proposed regulation has been shared during a quarterly call, and tribal leaders were informed about the proposed regulation and the opportunity to submit comments. AMS will work with the USDA Office of Tribal Relations to ensure meaningful consultation is provided as needed with regards to the regulations. Paperwork Reduction Act In accordance with OMB regulations (5 CFR part 1320) that implement the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the information collection and recordkeeping E:\FR\FM\08NOR1.SGM 08NOR1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 213 (Monday, November 8, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 61665-61668]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-24328]



========================================================================
Rules and Regulations
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents 
having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed 
to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published 
under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents. 

========================================================================


Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 213 / Monday, November 8, 2021 / 
Rules and Regulations

[[Page 61665]]



DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Office of the Secretary

6 CFR Part 5

[Docket No. DHS-2021-ICEB-2021-0012]


Privacy Act of 1974: Implementation of Exemptions; U.S. 
Department of Homeland Security/U.S. Immigration and Custom 
Enforcement-018 Analytical Records System of Records

AGENCY: U.S. Immigration and Custom Enforcement U.S. Department of 
Homeland Security.

ACTION:  Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is issuing a 
final rule to amend its regulations to exempt portions of a newly 
established system of records titled, ``DHS/U.S. Immigration and 
Customs Enforcement (IC)-018 Analytical Records System of Records'' 
from certain provisions of the Privacy Act. Specifically, the 
Department exempts portions of the system of records'' from one or more 
provisions of the Privacy Act because of criminal, civil, and 
administrative enforcement requirements.

DATES: This final rule is effective November 8, 2021.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general questions please contact: 
Jordan Holz, [email protected], Privacy Officer, U.S. Immigration 
and Customs Enforcement (ICE), 500 12th Street SW, Mail Stop 5004, 
Washington, DC 20536. For privacy issues please contact: Lynn Parker 
Dupree (202) 343-1717, [email protected], Chief Privacy Officer, 
Privacy Office, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Washington, DC 
20528.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) U.S. Immigration and 
Customs Enforcement (ICE) published a notice of proposed rulemaking in 
the Federal Register, (86 FR 15134, March 22, 2021), proposing to 
exempt portions of the system of records titled, ``DHS/ICE-018 
Analytical Records'' from one or more provisions of the Privacy Act 
because of criminal, civil, and administrative enforcement 
requirements. The DHS/ICE-018 Analytical Records system of records 
notice was published concurrently in the Federal Register, (86 FR 
15246, March 22, 2021), and comments were invited on both the Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) and System of Records Notice (SORN).

Public Comments

    DHS received four comments on the NPRM, two of which also 
referenced the SORN.

NPRM

    All comments related to the NPRM state that exempting the SORN from 
portions of the Privacy Act will restrict the public's ability to 
demand transparency regarding ICE analytical systems.
    The first concern commenters presented was that ICE's claiming of 
Privacy Act exemptions create a lack of transparency in ICE operations 
and the analytical systems themselves, stating: ``[t]he American public 
has the right to know how our tax dollars are being spent and if their 
tax dollars are being spent wisely and ethically in regards to 
immigrants'' and ``[e]xemptions under the Privacy Act will not just 
protect DHS' system of records but also the data, software, and systems 
owned by private companies, perpetuating further a lack of transparency 
in deportations and other investigations under the guise of `national 
security.' ''
    As discussed in the SORN and below, individuals about whom ICE 
maintains information in its records systems may still submit a Privacy 
Act amendment request or a request for access to information. While ICE 
has exempted this system of records from the access and amendment 
provisions of the Privacy Act, it will still consider these requests on 
a case-by-case basis to ensure that agency data is complete, accurate, 
and current.
    Further, to provide the greatest access to information, ICE 
considers individuals' requests under both the Privacy Act and the 
Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). To this end, the public can seek 
records described in the Analytical Records SORN under FOIA. In 
contrast to the broad scope of FOIA, 5 U.S.C. 552, the Privacy Act is 
narrowly focused on individuals' personal information maintained in 
agency systems of records. As stated in the comment, the Privacy Act is 
meant to ``. . . ensure accuracy of and individuals' access to 
information that agencies gather about them.'' FOIA's broad scope 
allows the public access to governmental information generally. This 
includes information on data, systems, and connections within the 
agency. Subsections (t)(1) and (t)(2) of the Privacy Act prohibit 
agencies not only from restricting an individual's access to his/her 
record under FOIA based solely on claimed Privacy Act exemptions, but 
also from withholding records under the Privacy Act based on FOIA 
exemptions. Information about filing a FOIA request with ICE is 
available at www.ice.gov/foia.
    The publication process for the Analytical Records SORN as required 
by the Privacy Act promotes the accountability, responsibility, 
legislative oversight, and open government requested by commenters. 
Subsection (r) of the Privacy Act requires agencies, when establishing 
or significantly modifying a system of records, to provide adequate 
advance notice to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), the 
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform of the House of 
Representatives, and the Committee on Homeland Security and 
Governmental Affairs of the Senate. This advance notice is separate 
from the public comment period ICE is engaging in here. The advanced 
notice that ICE provided to OMB and the committees of jurisdiction in 
Congress allows each body to make an evaluation of the probable or 
potential effects of ICE's proposal on the privacy or other rights of 
individuals.
    Finally, in addition to the publication of SORNs here in the 
Federal Register, ICE also provides transparency into its systems 
through the publication of Privacy Impact Assessments (PIA). PIAs are 
conducted in accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002 (Pub. L. 107-
347) by ICE Privacy personnel, are reviewed by the DHS Privacy Office, 
and signed by the DHS Chief Privacy Officer. PIAs describe how ICE

[[Page 61666]]

information technology systems work, what information they collect, how 
ICE uses that information, any external parties with whom the 
information is shared, and the privacy risks and corresponding 
mitigations employed by ICE. ICE and all DHS PIAs are published on the 
DHS website, www.dhs.gov/privacy.
    The second concern raised by commenters is the perceived inability 
for an individual to access ICE records about him/her due to the 
exemptions claimed in this rule. Commenters state ``[e]xemptions 
intended to prevent the subject of an investigation from being aware of 
the investigation undermine the presumption of innocence enjoyed by 
individuals in the United States by proposing that individuals being 
investigated should be denied rights . . .'' and that they ``. . . take 
exception to the fact that the DHS is not required to establish 
requirements, rules, or procedures with respect to such access.'' The 
commenters' concern is amplified as the exemptions may not just apply 
to individuals under investigation, but their associates and family 
members as well.
    As recognized in the comments, DHS is exempting this system as law 
enforcement sensitive to ensure that information and records produced 
in response to Privacy Act requests are not used to disrupt or 
frustrate ICE investigations. As stated in the accompanying SORN, 
``DHS/ICE will consider individual requests to determine whether or not 
information may be released.'' ICE will consider all Privacy Act 
requests, whether access or amendment requests, on a case-by-case 
basis. As such, ICE has established access requirements, rules, and 
procedures outlined in the SORN accompanying this rule. The Privacy Act 
exemptions claimed here in no way alter or abrogate an individual's due 
process and fair trial rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.

SORN

    The comments filed in response to the proposed rule also raised 
objections regarding the DHS/ICE-018 Analytical Records SORN. Two 
objections are outside the scope of this rulemaking and so will not be 
addressed here. One objection from a commenter is that the SORN does 
not examine ICE's relationship with a private software vendor. ICE will 
not respond to this objection as a final rule is not the proper forum 
to discuss ICE contractual relationships. Additionally, ICE will not 
examine U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services' (USCIS) biometrics 
NPRM, as requested by a commenter, as that proposed rule has been 
withdrawn (86 FR 24750, May 10, 2021).
    The comments ICE received on the SORN were focused on four distinct 
areas of concern: (1) The SORN expands ICE's existing authority and 
ability to collect records on individuals; (2) The SORN lacks 
transparency, in that the SORN did not address issues important to the 
commenters; (3) ICE analytical systems use artificial intelligence and 
machine learning, with specific concern that these analytical systems 
will be used for ``predictive policing'' or ``constant and ongoing 
surveillance of immigrants and citizens;'' and, (4) The SORN's routine 
uses are so overly broad that ``they provide no limit on permissible 
sharing.''

The Analytical Records SORN Expands ICE's Existing Records Collection

    A commenter expressed concern that the Analytical Records SORN was 
``expanding the sources from which data is gathered as well as the 
categories of individuals covered and records included and allows use 
of algorithmic processes.'' ICE did not intend the SORN to be 
understood as solely a consolidation of two previously published SORNs. 
Rather, as stated in the background section of the SORN, ICE is 
establishing a new system of records that clarifies and more accurately 
reflects the nature of records ICE collects, maintains, processes, and 
shares in large analytical data environments.
    The purpose for ICE's publication of the Analytical Records SORN is 
to give the public notice of the types of records ICE maintains in 
support of analytical and algorithmic processes. Information derived 
from the ICE Tip Line and trade data, previously covered by the DHS/
ICE-016 FALCON-Search and Analysis (FALCON-SA) SORN and DHS/ICE-005 
Trade Transparency and Research (TTAR) SORN, respectively, are now 
covered under the Analytical Records SORN. Beyond those two categories 
of information, the Analytical Records SORN does not provide stand-
alone coverage for any other ICE collection efforts. As stated in the 
SORN, ICE analytical systems ingest data collected through other 
efforts and authorities and covered by other SORNs. Differences in the 
categories of individuals or records described in the DHS/ICE-016 
FALCON-SA SORN and DHS/ICE-005 TTAR SORN and those described in the 
Analytical Records SORN are reflective of these other ingestions.
    The SORNs covering the ingested information restrict ICE's use of 
that information to what is compatible with the original purpose of the 
collection. Technological advancements allow ICE to institute 
protections at the record level that follow the data as it passes from 
the originating systems into ICE analytical systems. As such, the 
initial protections and restrictions on the use and sharing of the 
ingested information as described in those originating SORNs are 
retained by ICE as a record is ingested into its analytical systems. To 
reiterate an example given in the SORN, data available through an 
ingest from ICE's Investigative Case Management System (ICM) would be 
covered by the DHS/ICE-009 External Investigations SORN (85 FR 74362, 
November 20, 2020) and each record stored from that ingest is tagged as 
belonging to that system of record. An analytical system may filter, 
search, graph, or link that data with other datasets, but only for a 
purpose described in DHS/ICE-009, such as generating leads for 
investigations. If ICE personnel wish to share an analytical product 
from an ICE analysis system with a third party, the tags of the 
underlying data, and its accompanying restrictions, must similarly be 
respected. Therefore, ICE analytical systems covered by the Analytical 
Records SORN do not expand ICE collections, use, or sharing of personal 
data.

The Analytical Records SORN Does Not Provide an Adequate Accounting of 
DHS Collection, Use, and Sharing of Data

    The commenters maintain that the Analytical Records SORN does not 
describe the access controls and auditing mechanisms within ICE's 
analytical systems in sufficient granularity. They also raise 
objections that the SORN does not discuss different analytical systems, 
such as ICE's FALCON-SA system and ICE's ``complex network of 
interlocking systems'' including ICE's connections to DHS's Homeland 
Advanced Recognition Technology system (HART).
    The publication of the Analytical Records SORN is an effort to 
provide broader transparency of the ICE analytical environment so that 
ICE does not continue to rely on disparate and segregated notices from 
previously-published SORNs. The Analytical Records SORN reflects the 
realities of cloud computing and modern technological processes, where 
access and control are derived from user privileges rather than the 
physical location of data. As stated in the SORN, ICE's analytical 
processes may span multiple information technology systems within the 
ICE domain and records may be derived from multiple

[[Page 61667]]

collection points. Moreover, the purpose of a SORN is to provide notice 
to the public regarding personally identifiable information maintained 
by an agency; it is not meant to outline or provide a full description 
of the technical capabilities and nuances of an IT system. Granular 
detail of system connections, algorithmic processes, access controls, 
and auditing functions can be found in the applicable system's PIA, 
which can be found at www.dhs.gov/privacy. All PIAs link to their 
associated SORN(s), providing clear notice as to which systems are 
covered under the Analytical Records SORN.

The SORN Allows for ICE To Conduct Unlimited Surveillance and 
``Predictive Policing''

    Several commenters expressed concern with ICE's use of advanced 
analytics and artificial intelligence to engage in controversial 
policing tactics. The first tactic, ``predictive policing,'' is the 
practice of using statistics and analysis to forecast crime or identify 
where crime may occur in the near future.\1\ Certain state or local 
police departments have used these methods to determine where to deploy 
resources or to identify those who are likely to commit crimes in the 
future by examining past behaviors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Tim Lau, Predictive Policing Explained (April 1, 2020), 
available at https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/predictive-policing-explained.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Analytical Records SORN does not support predictive policing. 
The SORN lists the purposes of the collection, use, and sharing of 
information in ICE analytical systems. The purposes of the systems are 
to identify current violations of law and regulation or generate leads 
for ongoing investigations. There is no purpose stated in the SORN that 
allows for its systems to engage in future state risk modelling.
    Commenters expressed concern with a second controversial policing 
tactic, ``ongoing and constant surveillance of immigrants and 
citizens.'' This is similarly not supported by the Analytical Records 
SORN. As stated in the SORN and above, the Analytical Records SORN does 
not expand ICE collections of personal data. ICE analytical systems 
ingest data that has already been collected through other efforts and 
authorities. The restrictions on use of that data are listed in the 
SORN relevant to that collection and are transferred to the ICE 
analytical systems for linkage and further analysis. ICE analytical 
systems are meant to process data that has already been collected in a 
more efficient manner using advanced analytics and modern processing 
techniques. They are not used to monitor or surveil the public.

The SORN's Routine Uses Are Overly Broad

    Finally, a commenter objected that the routine uses listed in the 
Analytical Records SORN are ``so expansive . . . they provide no limit 
on permissible sharing.'' The commenter, unfortunately, has not 
articulated any specific routine use that is inconsistent with the 
Privacy Act or ICE's statutory authorities for ICE to address. 
Generally, however, any routine use listed in the SORN must be 
compatible with the purpose of the system of records, as stated in the 
SORN, the purpose for which ICE originally collected the information, 
and ICE's statutory mission. Each routine use is analyzed and vetted 
for compatibility by ICE and DHS. As the Analytical Records SORN 
consolidates two previous ICE SORNs, the vast majority of routine uses 
in the new Analytical Records SORN are the same as the routine uses 
listed in those previously published SORNs. This means that the 
Analytical Records SORN routine uses were examined on multiple 
occasions by government oversight bodies that determined they were 
neither overly broad nor outside the stated purpose of the system of 
records.
    As described in the SORN, if data is ingested from another system 
of records, the ICE analytical system, through record tagging and 
controls, ensures any subsequent sharing is compatible with the 
original SORN's purposes. This provides additional safeguards in the 
flow of information and limits the permissible sharing of data.
    After consideration of public comments, the Department will 
implement the rulemaking as proposed.

List of Subjects in 6 CFR Part 5

    Freedom of information, Privacy.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, DHS amends Chapter I of 
Title 6, Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:

PART 5--DISCLOSURE OF RECORDS AND INFORMATION

0
1. The authority citation for part 5 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  6 U.S.C. 101 et seq.; Pub. L. 107-296, 116 Stat. 
2135; 5 U.S.C. 301. Subpart A also issued under 5 U.S.C. 552. 
Subpart B also issued under 5 U.S.C. 552a.


0
2. In appendix C to part 5, add paragraph 86 to read as follows:

Appendix C to Part 5--DHS Systems of Records Exempt From the Privacy 
Act

* * * * *
    86. The DHS/ICE-018 Analytical Records System of Records 
consists of electronic and paper records and will be used by DHS and 
its components. The DHS/ICE-018 Analytical Records System of Records 
is a repository of information held by DHS in connection with its 
several and varied missions and functions, including, but not 
limited to the enforcement of civil and criminal laws; 
investigations, inquiries, and proceedings there under; national 
security and intelligence activities. The DHS/ICE-018 Analytical 
Records System of Records contains information that is collected by, 
on behalf of, in support of, or in cooperation with DHS and its 
components and may contain personally identifiable information 
collected by other Federal, State, local, tribal, foreign, or 
international government agencies. The Secretary of Homeland 
Security has exempted this system from the following provisions of 
the Privacy Act, subject to limitations set forth in 5 U.S.C. 
552a(c)(3) and (4), (d), (e)(1), (e)(2) and (3), (e)(4)(G), 
(e)(4)(H), (e)(4)(I), (e)(5), (e)(8); (f); and (g) pursuant to 5 
U.S.C. 552a(j)(2). Additionally, the Secretary of Homeland Security 
has exempted this system from the following provisions of the 
Privacy Act, subject to limitations set forth in 5 U.S.C. 
552a(c)(3), (d), (e)(1), (e)(4)(G), (e)(4)(H), and (f) pursuant to 5 
U.S.C. 552a(k)(2). Where a record received from another system has 
been exempted in that source system under 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2), DHS 
will claim the same exemptions for those records that are claimed 
for the original primary systems of records from which they 
originated and claims any additional exemptions set forth here. 
Exemptions from these particular subsections are justified, on a 
case-by-case basis to be determined at the time a request is made, 
for the following reasons:
    (a) From subsection (c)(3) and (4) (Accounting for Disclosures) 
because release of the accounting of disclosures could alert the 
subject of an investigation of an actual or potential criminal, 
civil, or regulatory violation to the existence of that 
investigation and reveal investigative interest on the part of DHS 
as well as the recipient agency. Disclosure of the accounting would 
therefore present a serious impediment to law enforcement efforts 
and/or efforts to preserve national security. Disclosure of the 
accounting would also permit the individual who is the subject of a 
record to impede the investigation, to tamper with witnesses or 
evidence, and to avoid detection or apprehension, which would 
undermine the entire investigative process.
    (b) From subsection (d) (Access and Amendment to Records) 
because access to the records contained in this system of records 
could inform the subject of an investigation of an actual or 
potential criminal, civil, or regulatory violation to the existence 
of that investigation and reveal investigative interest on the part 
of DHS or another agency. Access to the records could permit the 
individual who is the subject of a record to impede the 
investigation, to tamper with witnesses or evidence, and to

[[Page 61668]]

avoid detection or apprehension. Amendment of the records could 
interfere with ongoing investigations and law enforcement 
activities. Further, permitting amendment to counterintelligence 
records after an investigation has been completed would impose an 
unmanageable administrative burden. In addition, permitting access 
and amendment to such information could disclose security-sensitive 
information that could be detrimental to homeland security.
    (c) From subsection (e)(1) (Relevancy and Necessity of 
Information) because in the course of investigations into potential 
violations of federal law, the accuracy of information obtained or 
introduced occasionally may be unclear, or the information may not 
be strictly relevant or necessary to a specific investigation. In 
the interests of effective law enforcement, it is appropriate to 
retain all information that may aid in establishing patterns of 
unlawful activity.
    (d) From subsection (e)(2) (Collection of Information from 
Individuals) because requiring that information be collected from 
the subject of an investigation would alert the subject to the 
nature or existence of the investigation, thereby interfering with 
that investigation and related law enforcement activities.
    (e) From subsection (e)(3) (Notice to Subjects) because 
providing such detailed information could impede law enforcement by 
compromising the existence of a confidential investigation or reveal 
the identity of witnesses or confidential informants.
    (f) From subsections (e)(4)(G), (e)(4)(H), and (e)(4)(I) (Agency 
Requirements) and (f) (Agency Rules), because portions of this 
system are exempt from the individual access provisions of 
subsection (d) for the reasons noted above, and therefore DHS is not 
required to establish requirements, rules, or procedures with 
respect to such access. Providing notice to individuals with respect 
to existence of records pertaining to them in the system of records 
or otherwise setting up procedures pursuant to which individuals may 
access and view records pertaining to themselves in the system would 
undermine investigative efforts and reveal the identities of 
witnesses, and potential witnesses, and confidential informants.
    (g) From subsection (e)(5) (Collection of Information) because 
with the collection of information for law enforcement purposes, it 
is impossible to determine in advance what information is accurate, 
relevant, timely, and complete.
    (h) From subsection (e)(8) (Notice on Individuals) because 
compliance would interfere with DHS's ability to obtain, serve, and 
issue subpoenas, warrants, and other law enforcement mechanisms that 
may be filed under seal and could result in disclosure of 
investigative techniques, procedures, and evidence.
    (i) From subsection (g)(1) (Civil Remedies) to the extent that 
the system is exempt from other specific subsections of the Privacy 
Act.

Lynn Parker Dupree,
Chief Privacy Officer, U.S. Department of Homeland Security.
[FR Doc. 2021-24328 Filed 11-5-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-28-P