[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 191 (Tuesday, October 3, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 51764-51765]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-24471]



Defense Investigative Service

32 CFR Part 321

Privacy Program

AGENCY: Defense Investigative Service, DOD.


ACTION: Proposed rule.
SUMMARY: The Defense Investigative Service proposes to exempt a system 
of records identified as V5-04, entitled Counterintelligence Issues 
Database (CII-DB), from certain provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552a. Exemption 
is needed to comply with prohibitions against disclosure of information 
provided the government under a promise of confidentiality and to 
protect privacy rights of individuals identified in the system of 

DATES: Comments must be received no later than December 4, 1995, to be 
considered by the agency.

ADDRESSES: Send comments to the Chief, Office of Information and Public 
Affairs (V0020), Defense Investigative Service, 1340 Braddock Place, 
Alexandria, VA 22314-1651.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Dale Hartig at (703) 325-5324.


Executive Order 12866

    The Director, Administration and Management, Office of the 
Secretary of Defense has determined that this proposed 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 entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs 
or the rights 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 proposed 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 321


    Accordingly, 32 CFR part 321 is amended as follows:

    1. The authority citation for 32 CFR part 321 continues to read as 

    Authority: Pub. L. 93-579, 88 Stat 1896 (5 U.S.C.552a).

    2. Section 321.14, paragraph (g) is redesignated as (h) and a new 
paragraph (g) is added as follows:

Sec. 321.14  Exemptions.

* * * * *

    (g) System identifier. VDIS V50904.

    (1) System name. Counterintelligence Issues Database (CII-DB).

    (2) Exemption. Portions of this system of records that fall within 
the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(1), (k)(2), (k)(3) and (k)(5) may be 
exempt from the following subsections (c)(3); (d)(1) through (d)(5); 
(e)(1); (e)(4)(G), (H), and (I); and (f).

[[Page 51765]]

    (3) Authority. 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(1), (k)(2), (k)(3) and (k)(5).

    (4) Reasons.  From subsection (c)(3) because giving the individual 
access to the disclosure accounting could alert the subject of an 
investigation to the existence and nature of the investigation and 
reveal investigative or prosecutive interest by other agencies, 
particularly in a joint-investigation situation. This would seriously 
impede or compromise the investigation and case preparation by 
prematurely revealing its existence and nature; compromise or interfere 
with witnesses or make witnesses reluctant to cooperate with the 
investigators; lead to suppression, alteration, fabrication, or 
destruction of evidence; and endanger the physical safety of 
confidential sources, witnesses, law enforcement personnel and their 

    From subsection (d) because the application of these provisions 
could impede or compromise an investigation or prosecution if the 
subject of an investigation had access to the records or were able to 
use such rules to learn of the existence of an investigation before it 
would be completed. In addition, the mere notice of the fact of an 
investigation could inform the subject and others that their activities 
are under or may become the subject of an investigation and could 
enable the subjects to avoid detection or apprehension, to influence 
witnesses improperly, to destroy evidence, or to fabricate testimony.

    From subsection (e)(1) because during an investigation it is not 
always possible to detect the relevance or necessity of each piece of 
information in the early stages of an investigation. In some cases, it 
is only after the information is evaluated in light of other evidence 
that its relevance and necessity will be clear. In other cases, what 
may appear to be a relevant and necessary piece of information may 
become irrelevant in light of further investigation. In addition, 
during the course of an investigation, the investigator may obtain 
information that related primarily to matters under the investigative 
jurisdiction of another agency, and that information may not be 
reasonably segregated. In the interest of effective law enforcement, 
DIS investigators should retain this information, since it can aid in 
establishing patterns of criminal activity and can provide valuable 
leads for Federal and other law enforcement agencies.

    From subsections (e)(4)(G), (e)(4)(H), (e)(4)(I) and (f) because 
this system is exempt from subsection (d) of the Act, concerning access 
to records. These requirements are inapplicable to the extent that 
these records will be exempt from these subsections. However, DIS has 
published information concerning its notification and access 
procedures, and the records source categories because under certain 
circumstances, DIS could decide it is appropriate for an individual to 
have access to all or a portion of his/her records in this system of 

* * * * *

    Dated: September 28, 1995.

L. M. Bynum,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense
[FR Doc. 95-24471 Filed 10-2-95; 8:45 am]