[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 182 (Wednesday, September 20, 1995)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 48651-48653]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-23238]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Department of the Army
32 CFR Part 505
[Department of the Army Reg. 340-21]
Department of the Army Privacy Program
AGENCY: Department of the Army, DoD.
ACTION: Final Rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 48652]]
SUMMARY: The Department of the Army is revising an existing exemption
rule. The exemption rule is for the system of records notice identified
as A0381-100bDAMI, entitled Technical Surveillance Index.
EFFECTIVE DATE: November 1, 1994.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Pat Turner at (602) 538-6856 or
DSN 879-6856.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Executive Order 12866. The Director,
Administration and Management, Office of the Secretary of Defense has
determined that this Privacy Act rule for the Department of Defense
does not constitute `significant regulatory action.' Analysis of the
rule indicates that it does not have an annual effect on the economy of
$100 million or more; does not create a serious inconsistency or
otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency;
does not materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlement, grants,
user fees, or loan programs or the right and obligations of recipients
thereof; does not raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of
legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth
in Executive Order 12866 (1993).
Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980. The Director, Administration
and Management, Office of the Secretary of Defense certifies that this
Privacy Act rule for the Department of Defense does not have
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
because it is concerned only with the administration of Privacy Act
systems of records within the Department of Defense.
Paperwork Reduction Act. The Director, Administration and
Management, Office of the Secretary of Defense, certifies that this
Privacy Act rule for the Department of Defense imposes no information
requirements beyond the Department of Defense and that the information
collected within the Department of Defense is necessary and consistent
with 5 U.S.C. 552a, known as the Privacy Act of 1974.
List of Subjects in 32 CFR Part 505
Privacy.
Accordingly, the Department of the Army revises 32 CFR part 505 as
follows:
1.The authority citation for 32 CFR part 505 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: Pub. L. 93-597, 88 Stat. 1896 (5 U.S.C. 552a)
2.Section 505.5(e), paragraph ag. is revised as follows:
* * * * *
(e) * * *
ag. System identifier and name: A0381-l00bDAMI, Technical
Surveillance Index.
(1) Exemption. This system of records may be exempt from the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552a(c)(3), (d)(1) through (d)(5), (e)(1),
(e)(4)(G), (e)(4)(H), and (e)(4)(I).
(2) Authority. 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(1), (k)(2) or (k)(5).
(3) Reasons. From subsection (c)(3) because disclosing the
identities of agencies to which information from this system has been
released could inform the subject of an investigation of an actual or
potential criminal violation or intelligence operation; of the
existence of that investigation or operation; of the nature and scope
of the information and evidence obtained as to his/her activities or of
the identify of confidential sources, witnesses, and intelligence or
law enforcement personnel and could provide information to enable the
subject to avoid detection or apprehension. Granting access to such
information could seriously impede or compromise an investigation;
endanger the physical safety of confidential sources, witnesses,
intelligence or law enforcement personnel, and their families; lead to
the improper influencing of witnesses; the destruction of evidence or
the fabrication of testimony and disclose investigative techniques and
procedures. In addition, granting access to such information could
disclose classified and sensitive sources and operational methods and
could constitute an unwarranted invasion of the personal privacy of
others.
From subsection (d)(1) through (d)(5) because granting access to
records in this system of records could inform the subject of an
investigation of an actual or potential criminal violation; of the
existence of that investigation; of the nature and scope of the
information and evidence obtained as to his/her activities; or of the
identity of confidential sources, witnesses and intelligence or law
enforcement personnel and could provide information to enable the
subject to avoid detection or apprehension. Granting access to such
information could seriously impede or compromise an investigation;
endanger the physical safety of confidential sources, witnesses,
intelligence or law enforcement personnel and their families; lead to
the improper influencing of witnesses; the destruction of evidence or
the fabrication of testimony and disclose investigative techniques and
procedures. In addition, granting access to such information could
disclose classified, sensitive sources and operational methods and
could constitute an unwarranted invasion of the personal privacy of
others.
From subsection (e)(1) because it is not always possible to detect
the relevance or necessity of specific information in the early stages
of an investigation or operation. Relevance and necessity are often
questions of judgment and timing, and it is only after the information
is evaluated that the relevance and necessity of such information can
be established. In addition, during the course of the investigation or
operation, the investigator may obtain information which is incidental
to the main purpose of the investigative jurisdiction of another
agency. Such information cannot readily be segregated. Furthermore,
during the course of the investigation or operation, the investigator
may obtain information concerning violation of laws other than those
which are within the scope of his/her jurisdiction. In the interest of
effective intelligence operations and law enforcement, criminal law
enforcement investigators and military intelligence agents should
retain this information, since it can aid in establishing patterns of
criminal or intelligence activity and can provide valuable leads for
other law enforcement or intelligence agencies.
From subsections (e)(4)(G) and (e)(4)(H) because this system of
records is being exempt from subsections (d) of the Act, concerning
access to records, these requirements are inapplicable to the extent
that this system of records will be exempt from subsections (d)(1)
through (d)(5) of the Act. Although the system would be exempt from
these requirements, the Deputy Chief of Staff for Intelligence and the
U.S. Army Criminal Investigations Command have published information
concerning its notification, access, and contest procedures for their
respective areas because, under certain circumstances, the Deputy Chief
of Staff for Intelligence or the U.S. Army Criminal Investigations
Command could decide it is appropriate for an individual to have access
to all or a portion of his/her records in this system of records.
From subsection (e)(4)(I) because it is necessary to protect the
confidentiality of the sources of information, to protect the privacy
and physical safety of confidential sources and witnesses and to avoid
the disclosure of investigative techniques and procedures. Although the
system will be exempt from this requirement, the Deputy Chief of Staff
for Intelligence and the U.S. Army Criminal Investigations Command have
[[Page 48653]]
published such a notice in broad, generic terms.
* * * * *
Dated: September 13, 1995.
L. M. Bynum,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 95-23238 Filed 9-19-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5000-04-F
