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


This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.