Privacy Act of 1974; Implementation, 104069-104071 [2024-29916]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 245 / Friday, December 20, 2024 / Proposed Rules
2024–13, dated April 29, 2024 (Transport
Canada AD CF–2024–13).
(d) Subject
Air Transport Association (ATA) of
America Code 29, Hydraulic Power.
(e) Unsafe Condition
This AD was prompted by an investigation
of an in-service leakage event that indicated
the use potential of an uncalibrated torque
wrench when tightening the union fittings at
the pressure and return interfaces of all three
rudder hydraulic power control units (PCUs).
The FAA is issuing this AD to address union
fittings that could come loose and leak when
improperly torqued. The unsafe condition, if
not addressed, could result in the potential
loss of one or more hydraulic systems.
(f) Compliance
Comply with this AD within the
compliance times specified, unless already
done.
(g) Requirements
Except as specified in paragraph (h) of this
AD: Comply with all required actions and
compliance times specified in, and in
accordance with, Transport Canada AD CF–
2024–13.
(h) Exception to Transport Canada AD CF–
2024–13
(1) Where Transport Canada AD CF–2024–
13 refers to its effective date, this AD requires
using the effective date of this AD.
(2) Where Transport Canada AD CF–2024–
13 refers to hours air time, this AD requires
using flight hours.
(3) Where the material referenced in
Transport Canada AD CF–2024–13 specifies
to ‘‘perform a visual inspection for
hydraulics leaks for all Rudder PCUs coil
tube fitting (Upper, Middle and Lower)’’ this
AD requires replacing that text with ‘‘perform
a visual inspection for hydraulics leaks for all
Rudder PCUs coil tube fitting (Upper, Middle
and Lower), and if any leak is found, the leak
must be repaired before further flight.’’
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
(i) No Reporting Requirement
Although the material referenced in
Transport Canada AD CF–2024–13 specifies
to submit certain information to the
manufacturer, this AD does not include that
requirement.
(j) Additional AD Provisions
The following provisions also apply to this
AD:
(1) Alternative Methods of Compliance
(AMOCs): The Manager, AIR–520, Continued
Operational Safety Branch, FAA, has the
authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if
requested using the procedures found in 14
CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19,
send your request to your principal inspector
or responsible Flight Standards Office, as
appropriate. If sending information directly
to the manager of the Continued Operational
Safety Branch, send it to the attention of the
person identified in paragraph (k) of this AD
and email to: AMOC@faa.gov. Before using
any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal
inspector, the manager of the responsible
Flight Standards Office.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:58 Dec 19, 2024
Jkt 265001
(2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any
requirement in this AD to obtain instructions
from a manufacturer, the instructions must
be accomplished using a method approved
by the Manager, AIR–520, Continued
Operational Safety Branch, FAA; or
Transport Canada; or Airbus Canada Limited
Partnership’s Transport Canada Design
Approval Organization (DAO). If approved by
the DAO, the approval must include the
DAO-authorized signature.
(k) Additional Information
For more information about this AD,
contact Brenda Buitrago Perez, Aviation
Safety Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue,
Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone
516–228 7300; email 9-avs-nyaco-cos@
faa.gov.
(l) Material Incorporated by Reference
(1) The Director of the Federal Register
approved the incorporation by reference of
the material listed in this paragraph under 5
U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this material as
applicable to do the actions required by this
AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Transport Canada AD CF–2024–13,
dated April 29, 2024.
(ii) [Reserved]
(3) For Transport Canada material
identified in this AD, contact Transport
Canada, Transport Canada National Aircraft
Certification, 159 Cleopatra Drive, Nepean,
Ontario K1A 0N5, Canada; telephone 888–
663–3639; email TC.AirworthinessDirectivesConsignesdenavigabilite.TC@tc.gc.ca. You
may find this Transport Canada material on
the Transport Canada website at
tc.canada.ca/en/aviation.
(4) You may view this material at the FAA,
Airworthiness Products Section, Operational
Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des
Moines, WA. For information on the
availability of this material at the FAA, call
206–231–3195.
(5) You may view this material at the
National Archives and Records
Administration (NARA). For information on
the availability of this material at NARA,
visit www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/
ibr-locations or email fr.inspection@nara.gov.
Issued on December 16, 2024.
Peter A. White,
Deputy Director, Integrated Certificate
Management Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2024–30310 Filed 12–19–24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Office of the Secretary
32 CFR Part 310
[Docket ID: DoD–2024–OS–0137]
RIN 0790–AL80
Privacy Act of 1974; Implementation
Office of the Secretary of
Defense, Department of Defense (DoD).
AGENCY:
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
ACTION:
104069
Proposed rule.
The Department of Defense
(Department or DoD) is giving
concurrent notice of a modified system
of records titled ‘‘Defense Sexual
Assault Incident Database,’’ DHRA 06,
and this rulemaking, which exempts
portions of this system of records from
certain provisions of the Privacy Act to
avoid interference during the conduct of
criminal, civil, or administrative actions
or investigations.
DATES: Send comments on or before
February 18, 2025.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments,
identified by docket number, Regulation
Identifier Number (RIN), and title, by
any of the following methods.
* Federal Rulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
* Mail: Department of Defense, Office
of the Assistant to the Secretary of
Defense for Privacy, Civil Liberties, and
Transparency, Regulatory Directorate,
4800 Mark Center Drive, Attn: Mailbox
24, Suite 05F16, Alexandria, VA 22350–
1700.
Instructions: All submissions received
must include the agency name and
docket number or 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.
SUMMARY:
Ms.
Rahwa Keleta, OSD.DPCLTD@mail.mil;
(703) 571–0070.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
I. Background
In accordance with the Privacy Act of
1974, the Office of the Secretary of
Defense is modifying and reissuing a
system of records titled ‘‘Defense Sexual
Assault Incident Database,’’ DHRA 06.
This system of records was originally
established to centralize case-level
sexual assault data involving a member
of the Armed Forces, in a manner
consistent with law and DoD regulations
for Unrestricted and Restricted reporting
and to facilitate reports to Congress on
claims of retaliation in connection with
an Unrestricted Report of sexual assault
made by or against a member of the
Armed Forces.
II. Privacy Act Exemption
The Privacy Act permits Federal
agencies to exempt eligible records in a
system of records from certain
E:\FR\FM\20DEP1.SGM
20DEP1
104070
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 245 / Friday, December 20, 2024 / Proposed Rules
provisions of the Act, including the
provisions providing individuals with a
right to request access to and
amendment of their own records and
accountings of disclosures of such
records. If an agency intends to exempt
a particular system of records, it must
first go through the rulemaking process
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(1)–(3), (c),
and (e). This proposed rule explains
why an exemption is being claimed for
this system of records and invites public
comment, which DoD will consider
before the issuance of a final rule
implementing the exemption.
The DoD proposes to modify 32 CFR
part 310 to add a new Privacy Act
exemption rule for DHRA 06, ‘‘Defense
Sexual Assault Incident Database,’’ and
to exempt portions of this system of
records from certain provisions of the
Privacy Act because some records may
contain investigatory material compiled
for law enforcement purposes within
the scope of 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(2), other
than material within the scope of
subsection (j)(2). The DoD is proposing
to claim exemptions from several
provisions of the Privacy Act, including
various access, amendment, disclosure
of accounting, and notice requirements,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(2).
A notice of a modified system of
records for DHRA 06, ‘‘Defense Sexual
Assault Incident Database,’’ is also
published in this issue of the Federal
Register.
Regulatory Analysis
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Executive Order 12866, ‘‘Regulatory
Planning and Review,’’ as Amended by
Executive Order 14094, ‘‘Modernizing
Regulatory Review,’’ and Executive
Order 13563, ‘‘Improving Regulation
and Regulatory Review’’
Executive Orders 12866 (as amended
by Executive Order 14094) 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, distribute impacts, and equity).
Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the
importance of quantifying both costs
and benefits, of reducing costs, of
harmonizing rules, and of promoting
flexibility. It has been determined that
this proposed rule is not a significant
regulatory action under these executive
orders.
Section 202, Public Law 104–4,
‘‘Unfunded Mandates Reform Act’’
Section 202(a) of the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA)
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:58 Dec 19, 2024
Jkt 265001
(2 U.S.C. 1532(a)) requires agencies to
assess anticipated costs and benefits
before issuing any rule whose mandates
may result in the expenditure by State,
local, and Tribal governments in the
aggregate, or by the private sector, in
any one year of $100 million in 1995
dollars, updated annually for inflation.
This proposed rule will not mandate
any requirements for State, local, or
Tribal governments, nor will it affect
private sector costs.
Public Law 96–354, ‘‘Regulatory
Flexibility Act’’ (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.)
The Assistant to the Secretary of
Defense for Privacy, Civil Liberties, and
Transparency has certified that this
proposed rule is not subject to the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
et seq.) because it would not, if
promulgated, have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. This proposed
rule is concerned only with the
administration of Privacy Act systems of
records within the DoD. Therefore, the
Regulatory Flexibility Act, as amended,
does not require DoD to prepare a
regulatory flexibility analysis.
Public Law 96–511, ‘‘Paperwork
Reduction Act’’ (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)
The Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) was enacted to
minimize the paperwork burden for
individuals; small businesses;
educational and nonprofit institutions;
Federal contractors; State, local, and
Tribal governments; and other persons
resulting from the collection of
information by or for the Federal
Government. The Act requires agencies
obtain approval from the Office of
Management and Budget before using
identical questions to collect
information from ten or more persons.
This proposed rule does not impose
reporting or recordkeeping requirements
on the public.
Executive Order 13132, ‘‘Federalism’’
Executive Order 13132 establishes
certain requirements that an agency
must meet when it promulgates a rule
that has federalism implications,
imposes substantial direct compliance
costs on State and local governments,
and is not required by statute, or has
federalism implications and preempts
State law. This proposed rule will not
have a substantial effect on State and
local governments.
Executive Order 13175, ‘‘Consultation
and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments’’
Executive Order 13175 establishes
certain requirements that an agency
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
must meet when it promulgates a
proposed rule (and subsequent final
rule) that imposes substantial direct
compliance costs on one or more Indian
Tribes, preempts Tribal law, or affects
the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal
Government and Indian Tribes. This
proposed rule will not have a
substantial effect on Indian Tribal
governments.
List of Subjects in 32 CFR Part 310
Privacy.
Accordingly, 32 CFR part 310 is
proposed to be amended as follows:
PART 310—PROTECTION OF PRIVACY
AND ACCESS TO AND AMENDMENT
OF INDIVIDUAL RECORDS UNDER
THE PRIVACY ACT OF 1974
1. The authority citation for 32 CFR
part 310 continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552a.
2. Amend § 310.29 by adding
paragraph (c)(30) to read as follows:
■
§ 310.29 Office of the Secretary of Defense
(OSD) exemptions.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) * * *
(30) System identifier and name.
DHRA 06, Defense Sexual Assault
Incident Database.
(i) Exemptions. This system of records
is exempt from 5 U.S.C. 552a(c)(3);
(d)(1), (2), (3), and (4); (e)(1); (e)(4)(G),
(H), (I), and (f).
(ii) Authority. 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(2).
(iii) Exemption from the particular
subsections. Exemption from the
particular subsections is justified for the
following reasons:
(A) Subsections (c)(3), (d)(1), and
(d)(2)—Exemption (k)(2). Records in this
system of records may contain
investigatory material compiled for law
enforcement purposes other than
material within the scope of 5 U.S.C.
552a(j)(2). Application of exemption
(k)(2) may be necessary because access
to, amendment of, or release of the
accounting of disclosures of such
records could: inform the record subject
of an investigation of the existence,
nature, or scope of an actual or potential
law enforcement or disciplinary
investigation, and thereby seriously
impede law enforcement efforts by
permitting the record subject and other
persons to whom the subject might
disclose the records or accounting of
records to avoid criminal penalties, civil
remedies, or disciplinary measures;
interfere with a civil or administrative
action or investigation by allowing the
subject to tamper with witnesses or
evidence, and to avoid detection or
E:\FR\FM\20DEP1.SGM
20DEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 245 / Friday, December 20, 2024 / Proposed Rules
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
apprehension, which may undermine
the entire investigatory process; or
reveal confidential sources who might
not have otherwise come forward to
assist in an investigation and thereby
hinder DoD’s ability to obtain
information from future confidential
sources, and result in an unwarranted
invasion of the privacy of others.
(B) Subsection (d)(3), and (d)(4).
These subsections are inapplicable to
the extent that an exemption is being
claimed from subsections (d)(1) and (2).
Accordingly, exemptions from
subsections (d)(3), and (d)(4) are
claimed pursuant to (k)(2).
(C) Subsection (e)(1). In the collection
of information for investigatory
purposes it is not always possible to
conclusively determine the relevance
and necessity of particular information
in the early stages of the investigation or
adjudication. In some instances, it will
be only after the collected information
is evaluated in light of other information
that its relevance and necessity for
effective investigation and adjudication
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:58 Dec 19, 2024
Jkt 265001
can be assessed. Collection of such
information permits more informed
decision-making by the Department
when making required disciplinary
determinations. Accordingly,
application of exemption (k)(2) may be
necessary.
(D) Subsection (e)(4)(G) and (H).
These subsections are inapplicable to
the extent exemption is claimed from
subsections (d)(1) and (2).
(E) Subsection (e)(4)(I). To the extent
that this provision is construed to
require more detailed disclosure than
the broad, generic information currently
published in the system notice, an
exemption from this provision is
necessary to protect the confidentiality
of sources of information and to protect
the privacy and physical safety of
individuals providing information,
including witnesses, victims,
informants, or others. Accordingly,
application of exemption (k)(2) may be
necessary.
(F) Subsection (f). The agency’s rules
are inapplicable to those portions of the
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 9990
104071
system that are exempt. Accordingly,
application of exemption (k)(2) may be
necessary.
(iv) Exempt records from other
systems. In the course of carrying out
the overall purpose for this system,
exempt records from other systems of
records may in turn become part of the
records maintained in this system. To
the extent that copies of exempt records
from those other systems of records are
maintained in this system, the DoD
claims the same exemptions for the
records from those other systems that
are entered into this system, as claimed
for the prior system(s) of which they are
a part, provided the reason for the
exemption remains valid and necessary.
Dated: December 12, 2024.
Aaron T. Siegel,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison
Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 2024–29916 Filed 12–19–24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6001–FR–P
E:\FR\FM\20DEP1.SGM
20DEP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 245 (Friday, December 20, 2024)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 104069-104071]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-29916]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Office of the Secretary
32 CFR Part 310
[Docket ID: DoD-2024-OS-0137]
RIN 0790-AL80
Privacy Act of 1974; Implementation
AGENCY: Office of the Secretary of Defense, Department of Defense
(DoD).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Department of Defense (Department or DoD) is giving
concurrent notice of a modified system of records titled ``Defense
Sexual Assault Incident Database,'' DHRA 06, and this rulemaking, which
exempts portions of this system of records from certain provisions of
the Privacy Act to avoid interference during the conduct of criminal,
civil, or administrative actions or investigations.
DATES: Send comments on or before February 18, 2025.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by docket number,
Regulation Identifier Number (RIN), and title, by any of the following
methods.
* Federal Rulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow
the instructions for submitting comments.
* Mail: Department of Defense, Office of the Assistant to the
Secretary of Defense for Privacy, Civil Liberties, and Transparency,
Regulatory Directorate, 4800 Mark Center Drive, Attn: Mailbox 24, Suite
05F16, Alexandria, VA 22350-1700.
Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name
and docket number or 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. Rahwa Keleta, [email protected];
(703) 571-0070.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974, the Office of the
Secretary of Defense is modifying and reissuing a system of records
titled ``Defense Sexual Assault Incident Database,'' DHRA 06. This
system of records was originally established to centralize case-level
sexual assault data involving a member of the Armed Forces, in a manner
consistent with law and DoD regulations for Unrestricted and Restricted
reporting and to facilitate reports to Congress on claims of
retaliation in connection with an Unrestricted Report of sexual assault
made by or against a member of the Armed Forces.
II. Privacy Act Exemption
The Privacy Act permits Federal agencies to exempt eligible records
in a system of records from certain
[[Page 104070]]
provisions of the Act, including the provisions providing individuals
with a right to request access to and amendment of their own records
and accountings of disclosures of such records. If an agency intends to
exempt a particular system of records, it must first go through the
rulemaking process pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(1)-(3), (c), and (e).
This proposed rule explains why an exemption is being claimed for this
system of records and invites public comment, which DoD will consider
before the issuance of a final rule implementing the exemption.
The DoD proposes to modify 32 CFR part 310 to add a new Privacy Act
exemption rule for DHRA 06, ``Defense Sexual Assault Incident
Database,'' and to exempt portions of this system of records from
certain provisions of the Privacy Act because some records may contain
investigatory material compiled for law enforcement purposes within the
scope of 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(2), other than material within the scope of
subsection (j)(2). The DoD is proposing to claim exemptions from
several provisions of the Privacy Act, including various access,
amendment, disclosure of accounting, and notice requirements, pursuant
to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(2).
A notice of a modified system of records for DHRA 06, ``Defense
Sexual Assault Incident Database,'' is also published in this issue of
the Federal Register.
Regulatory Analysis
Executive Order 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review,'' as Amended
by Executive Order 14094, ``Modernizing Regulatory Review,'' and
Executive Order 13563, ``Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review''
Executive Orders 12866 (as amended by Executive Order 14094) 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, distribute
impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance
of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of
harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. It has been determined
that this proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action under
these executive orders.
Section 202, Public Law 104-4, ``Unfunded Mandates Reform Act''
Section 202(a) of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA)
(2 U.S.C. 1532(a)) requires agencies to assess anticipated costs and
benefits before issuing any rule whose mandates may result in the
expenditure by State, local, and Tribal governments in the aggregate,
or by the private sector, in any one year of $100 million in 1995
dollars, updated annually for inflation. This proposed rule will not
mandate any requirements for State, local, or Tribal governments, nor
will it affect private sector costs.
Public Law 96-354, ``Regulatory Flexibility Act'' (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.)
The Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for Privacy, Civil
Liberties, and Transparency has certified that this proposed rule is
not subject to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.)
because it would not, if promulgated, have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. This proposed rule is
concerned only with the administration of Privacy Act systems of
records within the DoD. Therefore, the Regulatory Flexibility Act, as
amended, does not require DoD to prepare a regulatory flexibility
analysis.
Public Law 96-511, ``Paperwork Reduction Act'' (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)
The Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) was
enacted to minimize the paperwork burden for individuals; small
businesses; educational and nonprofit institutions; Federal
contractors; State, local, and Tribal governments; and other persons
resulting from the collection of information by or for the Federal
Government. The Act requires agencies obtain approval from the Office
of Management and Budget before using identical questions to collect
information from ten or more persons. This proposed rule does not
impose reporting or recordkeeping requirements on the public.
Executive Order 13132, ``Federalism''
Executive Order 13132 establishes certain requirements that an
agency must meet when it promulgates a rule that has federalism
implications, imposes substantial direct compliance costs on State and
local governments, and is not required by statute, or has federalism
implications and preempts State law. This proposed rule will not have a
substantial effect on State and local governments.
Executive Order 13175, ``Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments''
Executive Order 13175 establishes certain requirements that an
agency must meet when it promulgates a proposed rule (and subsequent
final rule) that imposes substantial direct compliance costs on one or
more Indian Tribes, preempts Tribal law, or affects the distribution of
power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian
Tribes. This proposed rule will not have a substantial effect on Indian
Tribal governments.
List of Subjects in 32 CFR Part 310
Privacy.
Accordingly, 32 CFR part 310 is proposed to be amended as follows:
PART 310--PROTECTION OF PRIVACY AND ACCESS TO AND AMENDMENT OF
INDIVIDUAL RECORDS UNDER THE PRIVACY ACT OF 1974
0
1. The authority citation for 32 CFR part 310 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552a.
0
2. Amend Sec. 310.29 by adding paragraph (c)(30) to read as follows:
Sec. 310.29 Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) exemptions.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(30) System identifier and name. DHRA 06, Defense Sexual Assault
Incident Database.
(i) Exemptions. This system of records is exempt from 5 U.S.C.
552a(c)(3); (d)(1), (2), (3), and (4); (e)(1); (e)(4)(G), (H), (I), and
(f).
(ii) Authority. 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(2).
(iii) Exemption from the particular subsections. Exemption from the
particular subsections is justified for the following reasons:
(A) Subsections (c)(3), (d)(1), and (d)(2)--Exemption (k)(2).
Records in this system of records may contain investigatory material
compiled for law enforcement purposes other than material within the
scope of 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2). Application of exemption (k)(2) may be
necessary because access to, amendment of, or release of the accounting
of disclosures of such records could: inform the record subject of an
investigation of the existence, nature, or scope of an actual or
potential law enforcement or disciplinary investigation, and thereby
seriously impede law enforcement efforts by permitting the record
subject and other persons to whom the subject might disclose the
records or accounting of records to avoid criminal penalties, civil
remedies, or disciplinary measures; interfere with a civil or
administrative action or investigation by allowing the subject to
tamper with witnesses or evidence, and to avoid detection or
[[Page 104071]]
apprehension, which may undermine the entire investigatory process; or
reveal confidential sources who might not have otherwise come forward
to assist in an investigation and thereby hinder DoD's ability to
obtain information from future confidential sources, and result in an
unwarranted invasion of the privacy of others.
(B) Subsection (d)(3), and (d)(4). These subsections are
inapplicable to the extent that an exemption is being claimed from
subsections (d)(1) and (2). Accordingly, exemptions from subsections
(d)(3), and (d)(4) are claimed pursuant to (k)(2).
(C) Subsection (e)(1). In the collection of information for
investigatory purposes it is not always possible to conclusively
determine the relevance and necessity of particular information in the
early stages of the investigation or adjudication. In some instances,
it will be only after the collected information is evaluated in light
of other information that its relevance and necessity for effective
investigation and adjudication can be assessed. Collection of such
information permits more informed decision-making by the Department
when making required disciplinary determinations. Accordingly,
application of exemption (k)(2) may be necessary.
(D) Subsection (e)(4)(G) and (H). These subsections are
inapplicable to the extent exemption is claimed from subsections (d)(1)
and (2).
(E) Subsection (e)(4)(I). To the extent that this provision is
construed to require more detailed disclosure than the broad, generic
information currently published in the system notice, an exemption from
this provision is necessary to protect the confidentiality of sources
of information and to protect the privacy and physical safety of
individuals providing information, including witnesses, victims,
informants, or others. Accordingly, application of exemption (k)(2) may
be necessary.
(F) Subsection (f). The agency's rules are inapplicable to those
portions of the system that are exempt. Accordingly, application of
exemption (k)(2) may be necessary.
(iv) Exempt records from other systems. In the course of carrying
out the overall purpose for this system, exempt records from other
systems of records may in turn become part of the records maintained in
this system. To the extent that copies of exempt records from those
other systems of records are maintained in this system, the DoD claims
the same exemptions for the records from those other systems that are
entered into this system, as claimed for the prior system(s) of which
they are a part, provided the reason for the exemption remains valid
and necessary.
Dated: December 12, 2024.
Aaron T. Siegel,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 2024-29916 Filed 12-19-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6001-FR-P