[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 166 (Monday, August 29, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-21249]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: August 29, 1994]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of the Army proposes to revised an existing 
exemption rule. The exemption rules is for the system of records notice 
identified as A0381-100bDAMI, entitled Technical Surveillance Index.

DATE: Comments must be received no later than October 28, 1994, to be 
considered by the agency.

ADDRESSES: Send comments to the U.S. Army Information Systems Command, 
ATTN: ASOP-MP, Fort Huachuca, AZ 85613-5000.

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 proposes to amend 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 to read as follows:
* * * * *
    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 
published such a notice in broad, generic terms.

    Dated: August 22, 1994.


L. M. Bynum,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 94-21249 Filed 8-26-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5000-04-F