Federal
Register Notices > Rules
- 2006 > Proposed
Rule - Privacy Act of 1974: Implementation
FR Doc E6-9976 [Federal Register: June 26, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 122)]
[Proposed Rules] [Page 36294-36295] From the Federal Register Online via GPO
Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr26jn06-26]
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Drug Enforcement Administration
28 CFR Part 16
[AAG/A Order No. 010-2006]
Privacy Act of 1974: Implementation
AGENCY: Drug Enforcement Administration, DOJ.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
SUMMARY: The Department of Justice (DOJ), Drug Enforcement
Administration (DEA), proposes to exempt a new system of records entitled the
El Paso Intelligence Center (EPIC) Seizure System (ESS) (JUSTICE/DEA-022) from
subsections (c)(3) and (4); (d)(1), (2), (3), and (4); (e)(1), (2), (3), (5),
and (8); and (g) of the Privacy Act of 1974 pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(j) and
(k). The exemption is necessary to avoid interference with the law
enforcement, intelligence, counter- drug, counterterrorism functions and
responsibilities of the DEA and its El Paso Intelligence Center (EPIC). Public
comment is invited.
DATES: Comments must be received by August 7, 2006.
ADDRESSES: Address all comments to Mary E. Cahill, Management
Analyst, Management and Planning Staff, Justice Management Division,
Department of Justice, Washington, DC 20530 (Room 1400, National Place
Building), Facsimile Number (202) 307-1853. To ensure proper handling, please
reference the AAG/A Order No. on your correspondence. You may review an
electronic version of this proposed rule at http://www.regulations.gov.
You may also comment via the Internet to the DOJ/Justice Management
Division at the following e-mail address: DOJPrivacyACTProposed Regulations@usdoj.gov;
or by using the http://www.regulations.gov
comment form for this regulation. When submitting comments electronically,
you must include the AAG/A Order No. in the subject box.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mary E. Cahill, (202) 307-1823.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the notice section of today's Federal
Register, the DEA provides a description of the ``El Paso Intelligence Center
(EPIC) Seizure System (ESS), JUSTICE/DEA-022'' in compliance with the Privacy
Act, 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(4) and (11). The ESS is a system of records established
to support the mission of the El Paso Intelligence Center to support criminal
investigations conducted by Federal, state, local, tribal, and international
law enforcement agencies. EPIC maintains information in databases obtained
from contributing law enforcement agencies and provides information upon
request from authorized law enforcement agencies and officers in support of
criminal investigations. Additional information about EPIC and its operations
is provided in the Federal Register notice referenced above.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
This proposed rule relates to individuals, as opposed to small business
entities. Nevertheless, pursuant to the requirements of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, the proposed rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Small Entity Inquiries
The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996
requires the DEA to comply with small entity requests for information and
advice about compliance with statutes and regulations within DEA jurisdiction.
Any small entity that has a question regarding this document may contact the
person listed in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. Persons can obtain further
information regarding SBREFA on the Small Business Administration's Web page
at http://www.sba.gov/advo/laws/law--lib.html.
List of Subjects in 28 CFR Part 16
Administrative practices and procedures, Courts, Freedom of Information
Act, Government in the Sunshine Act, Privacy Act.
Pursuant to the authority vested in the Attorney General by 5 U.S.C. 552a
and delegated to me by Attorney General Order 793-78, it is proposed to amend
28 CFR part 16 as follows:
PART 16--PRODUCTION OR DISCLOSURE OF MATERIAL OR INFORMATION
1. The authority citation for part 16 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301, 552, 552a, 552b(g), 553; 18 U.S.C. 4203(a)(1); 28
U.S.C. 509, 510, 534; 31 U.S.C. 3717, 9701. 2. Section 16.98 is amended to add
new paragraphs (g) and (h) to read as follows:
Sec. 16.98 Exemption of Drug Enforcement Administration Systems-- limited
access.
* * * * *
(g) The following system of records is exempt from 5 U.S.C. 552a (c)(3) and
(4); (d)(1), (2), (3), and (4); (e)(1), (2), (3), (5), and (8); and (g): EPIC
Seizure System (ESS) (JUSTICE/DEA-022). These exemptions apply only to the
extent that information in this system is subject to exemption pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 552a (j)(2), (k)(1), and (k)(2). Where compliance would not appear to
interfere with or adversely affect the law enforcement and counter-drug
purposes of this system, and the overall law enforcement process, the
applicable exemption may be waived by the DEA in its sole discretion.
(h) Exemptions from the particular subsections are justified for the
following reasons:
(1) From subsection (c)(3) because making available to a record subject the
accounting of disclosures from records concerning him/her would specifically
reveal any investigative interest in the individual. Revealing this
information would permit the subject of an investigation of an actual or
potential criminal, civil, or regulatory violation to determine whether he is
the subject of investigation, or to obtain valuable information concerning the
nature of that investigation, and the information obtained, or the identity of
witnesses and informants. Similarly, disclosing this information could
reasonably be expected to compromise ongoing investigatory efforts by
notifying the record subject that he/she is under investigation. This
information could also permit the record subject to take measures to impede
the investigation, e.g., destroy evidence, intimidate potential witnesses, or
flee the area to avoid or impede the investigation.
(2) From subsection (c)(4) because this system is exempt from the access
and amendment provisions of subsection (d).
(3) From subsections (d)(1), (2), (3), and (4) because these provisions
concern individual access to and amendment of records contained in this
system, which consists of counter-drug and criminal investigatory records.
Compliance with these provisions could alert the subject of an investigation
of an actual or potential criminal, civil, or regulatory violation of the
existence of that investigation, or the nature and scope of the information
and evidence obtained as to his activities, of the identity of witnesses and
informants, or would provide information that could enable the subject to
avoid detection or apprehension. These factors would present a serious
impediment to
[[Page 36295]]
effective law enforcement because they could prevent the successful
completion of the investigation; endanger the physical safety of witnesses or
informants; or lead to the improper influencing of witnesses, the destruction
of evidence, or the fabrication of testimony.
(4) From subsection (e)(1) because it is not always possible to know in
advance what information is relevant and necessary to complete an identity
comparison between the individual being screened and a known or suspected
criminal or terrorist. Also, it may not always be known what information will
be relevant to law enforcement for the purpose of conducting an operational
response or on-going investigation.
(5) From subsection (e)(2) because application of this provision could
present a serious impediment to law enforcement and counter-drug efforts in
that it would put the subject of an investigation, study or analysis on notice
of that fact, thereby permitting the subject to engage in conduct designed to
frustrate or impede that activity. The nature of counter-drug investigations
is such that vital information about an individual frequently can be obtained
only from other persons who are familiar with such individual and his/her
activities. In such investigations it is not feasible to rely upon information
furnished by the individual concerning his own activities.
(6) From subsection (e)(3), to the extent that this subsection is
interpreted to require EPIC to provide notice to an individual if EPIC
receives information about that individual from a third party. Should the
subsection be so interpreted, exemption from this provision is necessary to
avoid impeding counter-drug efforts by putting the subject of an
investigation, study or analysis on notice of that fact, thereby permitting
the subject to engage in conduct intended to frustrate or impede that
activity.
(7) From subsection (e)(5) because many of the records in this system are
derived from other domestic record systems and therefore it is not possible
for the DEA and EPIC to vouch for their compliance with this provision;
however, EPIC has implemented internal quality assurance procedures to ensure
that ESS data is as thorough, accurate, and current as possible. In addition,
EPIC supports but does not conduct investigations; therefore, it must be able
to collect information related to illegal drug and other criminal activities
and encounters for distribution to law enforcement and intelligence agencies
that do conduct counter-drug investigations. In the collection of information
for law enforcement and counter-drug purposes, it is impossible to determine
in advance what information is accurate, relevant, timely, and complete. With
the passage of time, seemingly irrelevant or untimely information may acquire
new significance as further investigation brings new details to light. The
restrictions imposed by (e)(5) would limit the ability of those agencies'
trained investigators and intelligence analysts to exercise their judgment in
conducting investigations and impede the development of intelligence necessary
for effective law enforcement and counterterrorism efforts. EPIC has, however,
implemented internal quality assurance procedures to ensure that ESS data is
as thorough, accurate, and current as possible. ESS is also exempt from the
requirements of subsection (e)(5) in order to prevent the use of a challenge
under subsection (e)(5) as a collateral means to obtain access to records in
the ESS. ESS records are exempt from the access and amendment requirements of
subsection (d) of the Privacy Act in order to protect the integrity of
investigations. Exempting ESS from subsection (e)(5) serves to prevent the
assertion of challenges to a record's accuracy, timeliness, completeness,
and/or relevance under subsection (e)(5) to circumvent the exemption claimed
from subsection (d).
(8) From subsection (e)(8) because to require individual notice of
disclosure of information due to compulsory legal process would pose an
impossible administrative burden on the DEA and EPIC and could alert the
subjects of counter-drug, counterterrorism, law enforcement, or intelligence
investigations to the fact of those investigations when not previously known.
Additionally, compliance could present a serious impediment to law enforcement
as this could interfere with the ability to issue warrants or subpoenas and
could reveal investigative techniques, procedures, or evidence.
(9) From subsection (g) to the extent that the system is exempt from other
specific subsections of the Privacy Act.
Dated: June 19, 2006.
Lee J. Lofthus,
Acting Assistant Attorney General for Administration.
[FR Doc. E6-9976 Filed 6-23-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-P
NOTICE: This is an
unofficial version. An official version of these publications may be obtained
directly from the Government Printing Office (GPO).
|