[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 114 (Wednesday, June 15, 2005)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 34656-34658]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-11814]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary

32 CFR Part 311

[Administrative Instruction 81]


Privacy Act; Implementation

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, DoD.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Office of the Secretary of Defense is exempting those 
records contained in DCIFA 01, entitled ``CIFA Operational and 
Analytical Records'' when an exemption has been previously claimed for 
the records in another Privacy Act system of records. The exemption 
will preserve the exempt

[[Page 34657]]

status of the record when the purposes underlying the exemption for the 
original record is still valid and necessary to protect the contents of 
the record.

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 15, 2005.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mrs. Juanita Irvin at (703) 601-4722.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The proposed rule was published on February 
25, 2005, at 70 FR 9260-9261. One public comment was received where the 
commenter expressed a number of concerns that the rule violates the 
spirit and letter of the Privacy Act. The commenter observes that it is 
objectionable for the Department to borrow exemptions from other 
systems of records. We disagree. The public policy that dictates the 
need for exempting records is based on the need to protect the contents 
of the records in the system--not the location of the records. The 
record does not lose its exempt status when recompiled in another 
system of records if the purposes underlying the exemption of the 
original record pertain to the recompilation as well. The commenter 
expresses concern that adoption of the rule will enable the Department 
to shield documents that heretofore have been made available to 
individuals and will prevent citizens and lawful residents from 
obtaining access to records about themselves. We disagree. As provided 
by law, the rule provides a basis for the Department to exempt 
specified records from certain provisions of the Act. It does not act 
to suspend any rights the individual otherwise may be entitled to under 
the law. To the extent the records were available to the individual 
formerly or to the extent the individual could obtain access to those 
records previously, the individual still will be able to obtain/access 
the records. But to the extent the records were not obtainable or not 
accessible before, the rule will permit the Department to continue to 
protect the records as is contemplated by the rule for the original 
records. And finally, the commenter observes that the Department is 
attempting to create a new exemption, a prerogative that only Congress 
possesses. We disagree. The Department is not establishing a new 
exemption. Rather, within the framework of existing law, the Department 
is adopting a rule that will protect the records to the same extent the 
records are now protected by a rule that has been adopted for the 
system of records from which the record was lawfully obtained.

Executive Order 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review''

    It has been determined that Privacy Act rules for the Department of 
Defense are not significant rules. The rules do not: (1) Have an annual 
effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a 
material way the economy; a sector of the economy; productivity; 
competition; jobs; the environment; public health or safety; or State, 
local, or tribal governments or communities; (2) create a serious 
inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by 
another Agency; (3) materially alter the budgetary impact of 
entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs, or the rights and 
obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) raise novel legal or policy 
issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or 
the principles set forth in this Executive order.

Pub. L. 96-354, ``Regulatory Flexibility Act'' (5 U.S.C. Chapter 6)

    It has been determined that Privacy Act rules for the Department of 
Defense do not have significant economic impact on a substantial number 
of small entities because they are concerned only with the 
administration of Privacy Act systems of records within the Department 
of Defense.

Pub. L. 96-511, ``Paperwork Reduction Act'' (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35)

    It has been determined that Privacy Act rules for the Department of 
Defense impose 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.

Section 202, Pub. L. 104-4, ``Unfunded Mandates Reform Act''

    It has been determined that Privacy Act rulemaking for the 
Department of Defense does not involve a Federal mandate that may 
result in the expenditure by State, local and tribal governments, in 
the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more and 
that such rulemaking will not significantly or uniquely affect small 
governments.

Executive Order 13132, ``Federalism''

    It has been determined that Privacy Act rules for the Department of 
Defense do not have federalism implications. The rules do not have 
substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between 
the National Government and the States, or on the distribution of power 
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

    Dated: June 8, 2005.
Jeannette Owings-Ballard,
OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.

List of Subjects in 32 CFR Part 311

    Privacy.

0
Accordingly, 32 CFR part 311 is amended to read as follows:

PART 311--OSD PRIVACY PROGRAM

0
1. The authority citation for 32 CFR part 311 continues to read as 
follows:

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

0
2. Section 311.8 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(15) as follows:


Sec.  311.8  Procedures for exemptions.

* * * * *
    (c) Specific exemptions. * * *
* * * * *
    (15) System identifier and name: DCIFA 01, CIFA Operational and 
Analytical Records.
    (i) Exemptions: This system of records is a compilation of 
information from other Department of Defense and U.S. Government 
systems of records. To the extent that copies of exempt records from 
those `other' systems of records are entered into this system, OSD 
hereby claims the same exemptions for the records from those `other' 
systems that are entered into this system, as claimed for the original 
primary system of which they are a part.
    (ii) Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2), (k)(1), (k)(2), (k)(3), 
(k)(4), (k)(5), (k)(6), and (k)(7).
    (iii) Records are only exempt from pertinent provisions of 5 U.S.C. 
552a to the extent (1) such provisions have been identified and an 
exemption claimed for the original record and (2) the purposes 
underlying the exemption for the original record still pertain to the 
record which is now contained in this system of records. In general, 
the exemptions are claimed in order to protect properly classified 
information relating to national defense and foreign policy, to avoid 
interference during the conduct of criminal, civil, or administrative 
actions or investigations, to ensure protective services provided the 
President and others are not compromised, to protect the identity of 
confidential sources incident to Federal employment, military service, 
contract, and security clearance determinations, and to preserve the 
confidentiality and integrity of Federal evaluation materials. The 
exemption rule for the original records will identify the specific 
reasons

[[Page 34658]]

why the records are exempt from specific provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552a.

[FR Doc. 05-11814 Filed 6-14-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-P