Rule2023-19093
Privacy Act of 1974; Implementation
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
September 5, 2023
Effective
October 5, 2023
Issuing agencies
Justice Department
Abstract
The Office of Privacy and Civil Liberties (OPCL), a component within the United States Department of Justice (DOJ or Department), is finalizing without changes its Privacy Act exemption regulations for the system of records titled, Data Protection Review Court Records System, JUSTICE/OPCL-001, which were published as a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) on May 23, 2023. The notice for this new system of records, Data Protection Review Court Records System, JUSTICE/OPCL-001, was also published in the Federal Register on May 23, 2023. Specifically, the Department's regulations will exempt this system of records from certain provisions of the Privacy Act to protect national security and law enforcement sensitive information, preserve judicial independence, and ensure the integrity of adjudicatory records in cases before the Data Protection Review Court (DPRC). The Department received no comments on the NPRM.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 88 Issue 170 (Tuesday, September 5, 2023)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 170 (Tuesday, September 5, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 60583-60586]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2023-19093]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
28 CFR Part 16
[CPCLO Order No. 004-2023]
Privacy Act of 1974; Implementation
AGENCY: Office of Privacy and Civil Liberties, United States Department
of Justice.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Office of Privacy and Civil Liberties (OPCL), a component
within the United States Department of Justice (DOJ or Department), is
finalizing without changes its Privacy Act exemption regulations for
the system of records titled, Data Protection Review Court Records
System, JUSTICE/OPCL-001, which were published as a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) on May 23, 2023. The notice for this new system of
records, Data Protection Review Court Records System, JUSTICE/OPCL-001,
was also published in the Federal Register on May 23, 2023.
Specifically, the Department's regulations will exempt this system of
records from certain provisions of the Privacy Act to protect national
security and law enforcement sensitive information, preserve judicial
independence, and ensure the integrity of adjudicatory records in cases
before the Data Protection Review Court (DPRC). The Department received
no comments on the NPRM.
DATES: This final rule is effective October 5, 2023.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Katherine Harman-Stokes, Director
(Acting), Office of Privacy and Civil Liberties, U.S. Department of
Justice, Two Constitution Square, 145 N St. NE, Suite 8W-300,
Washington, DC 20530; email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#d3a3a1baa5b2b0aafdb0bcbea3bfbab2bdb0b693a6a0b7bcb9fdb4bca5"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="d9a9abb0afb8baa0f7bab6b4a9b5b0b8b7babc99acaabdb6b3f7beb6af">[email protected]</span></a>; telephone:
(202) 514-0208; facsimile: (202) 307-0693.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974, OPCL is establishing a
new system of records, Data Protection Review Court Records System,
JUSTICE/OPCL-001, to maintain an accurate record of the DPRC review of
determinations made by the Civil Liberties Protection Officer of the
Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI CLPO) in response
to complaints alleging violations of United States law in the conduct
of United States signals intelligence activities, under the EU-U.S.
Data Protection Framework established on October 7, 2022, pursuant to
Executive Order (E.O.) 14086, Enhancing Safeguards for United States
Signals Intelligence Activities, 87 FR 62283 (Oct. 14, 2022).
E.O. 14086 directed the Attorney General to issue a regulation
establishing the DPRC as the second level of a two-level redress
mechanism for alleged violations of law regarding signals intelligence
activities. The Attorney General issued the regulation on October 7,
2022, ``Data Protection Review Court.'' 87 FR 628303 (Oct. 14, 2022)
(codified at 28 CFR part 201).
The first level of the new redress mechanism established by E.O.
14086 is the investigation, review, and determination by the ODNI CLPO
of whether a covered violation occurred and, where necessary, the
appropriate remediation in response to a complaint. The complainant or
an element of the Intelligence Community may seek review by the DPRC of
the ODNI CLPO's determination.
Exercising the Attorney General's authority under 28 U.S.C. 511 and
512 to provide his advice and opinion on questions of law and the
authority delegated to the Attorney General under E.O. 14086, the DPRC
will review whether the ODNI CLPO's determination regarding the
occurrence of a covered violation was legally correct and supported by
substantial evidence and whether, in the event of a covered violation,
the ODNI CLPO's determination as to the appropriate remediation was
consistent with E.O. 14086.
The regulations require the DPRC, and OPCL in support of the DPRC,
to maintain all records relating to the DPRC's review. For each
application for review, OPCL shall maintain records of the information
reviewed or created by the DPRC and the decision of the DPRC panel,
which records shall be made available for consideration as non-binding
precedent to future DPRC panels considering applications for review. 28
CFR 201.9(j), see also 28 CFR 201.5 through 201.15. Records of the
DPRC's review will include material created by the complainant, the
public authority of a designated state, ODNI CLPO, elements of the
Intelligence Community, DPRC Judges and Special Advocates, and
Department of Justice personnel. Most of the information in this system
consists of records that are classified, including the record of review
received from the ODNI CLPO.
Pursuant to 28 CFR 201.9(i), information in the system indicating a
violation of any authority subject to the oversight of the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) will be shared with the
Assistant Attorney General for National Security, who shall report
violations to the FISC as required by law and in accordance with its
rules of procedure. Similarly, information in the system will be
provided to the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board (PCLOB) as
necessary for the PCLOB to conduct the annual review of the redress
process described in section 3(e) of E.O. 14086, consistent with the
protection of intelligence sources and methods.
II. Privacy Act Exemption
The Privacy Act allows Federal agencies to exempt eligible records
in a system of records from certain provisions of the Act, including
those that provide individuals with a right to request access to and
amendment of records about the individual. If an agency intends to
exempt a particular system of records, it must first issue a rulemaking
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(1)-(3), (c), and (e).
The Department modifies 28 CFR part 16 to add a new Privacy Act
exemption for the new system of records, Data Protection Review Court
Records System, JUSTICE/OPCL-001. The Department adds this exemption
because most of the records in this system will contain classified
national security information. As such, notice, access, amendment, and
disclosure (to include accounting for those records) to an individual,
as well as certain record-keeping requirements, may cause damage to
national security. The Privacy Act, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
[[Page 60584]]
552a(k)(1), authorizes agencies to claim an exemption for systems of
records that contain information properly classified pursuant to
applicable law. Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(1), the Department has
claimed an exemption from several provisions of the Privacy Act,
including provisions for individual access, amendment, disclosure of
accounting, as well as certain provisions for record-keeping and
notice, to prevent disclosure of any information properly classified
pursuant to applicable law.
The Department has also claimed an exemption for this system of
records from the above references provision of the Privacy Act because
the records in this system relate to criminal law enforcement
activities, and certain requirements of the Privacy Act may interfere
with the effective execution of these law enforcement activities. The
Privacy Act, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2), authorizes agencies with
a principal law enforcement function pertaining to the enforcement of
criminal laws (including activities of prosecutors, courts, etc.) to
claim an exemption for systems of records that contain information
identifying criminal offenders and alleged offenders, information
compiled for the purpose of criminal investigation, or reports compiled
for the purpose of criminal law enforcement proceedings. Additionally,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(2), agencies may exempt a system of
records from certain provisions of the Privacy Act if it contains
investigatory material compiled for law enforcement purposes, other
than materials within the scope of 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2). The Department
has claimed exemptions from several provisions of the Privacy Act,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2) and 552a(k)(2), to prevent the harms
articulated in this rule from occurring. Records in this system of
records are only exempt from the Privacy Act to the extent the purposes
underlying the exemption pertain to the record.
Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 14094--Regulatory Review
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552a(j) and 552a(k), this regulation
was subject to formal rulemaking procedures by giving interested
persons an opportunity to participate in the rulemaking process
``through submission of written data, views, or arguments,'' pursuant
to 5 U.S.C. 553. This regulation exempts this system of records from
certain provisions of the Privacy Act to protect national security and
law enforcement sensitive information, preserve judicial independence
and to ensure the integrity of adjudicatory records in cases before
DPRC.
The Department has determined that this rule is not a
``significant'' regulatory action under section 3(f) of E.O. 12866.
Accordingly, the rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) under E.O. 12866.
This rule has been drafted and reviewed in accordance with
Executive Order 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review,'' section
1(b), Principles of Regulation; Executive Order 13563, ``Improving
Regulation and Regulatory Review,'' section 1(b), General Principles of
Regulation; and Executive Order 14094, ``Modernizing Regulatory
Review''. OPCL anticipates no costs or benefits accruing from this
rule.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
This regulation will impact records related to or reviewed in
handling complaints in accordance with E.O. 14086 and DOJ regulation,
28 CFR part 201, which are personal and generally do not apply to an
individual's entrepreneurial capacity, subject to limited exceptions.
Even though this system will contain records that are not covered by
the Privacy Act, the Chief Privacy and Civil Liberties Officer has
nevertheless reviewed this regulation in accordance with the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), and by approving it certifies that
this regulation will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Subtitle
E--Congressional Review Act)
The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of
1996, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., requires the Department to comply with
small entity requests for information and advice about compliance with
statutes and regulations within the Department's 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 <a href="https://www.sba.gov/advocacy">https://www.sba.gov/advocacy</a>. This
regulation is not a major rule as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804 of the
Congressional Review Act.
Executive Order 13132--Federalism
This regulation will not have substantial direct effects on the
States, on the relationship between the National Government and the
States, or on distribution of power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government. Therefore, in accordance with E.O. 13132,
it is determined that this regulation does not have sufficient
federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism
Assessment.
Executive Order 12988--Civil Justice Reform (Plain Language)
This regulation meets the applicable standards set forth in
sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of E.O. 12988 to eliminate drafting errors
and ambiguity, minimize litigation, provide a clear legal standard for
affected conduct, and promote simplification and burden reduction.
Executive Order 13175--Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
This regulation will have no implications for Indian Tribal
governments. More specifically, it does not have substantial direct
effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the
Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
Therefore, the consultation requirements of E.O. 13175 do not apply.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
This regulation will not result in the expenditure by State, local,
and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of
$100,000,000, as adjusted for inflation, or more in any one year, and
it will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments.
Therefore, no actions were deemed necessary under the provisions of the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.
Paperwork Reduction Act
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3507(d), requires
the Department to consider the impact of paperwork and other
information collection burdens imposed on the public. There are no
current or new information collection requirements associated with this
regulation.
List of Subjects in 28 CFR Part 16
Administrative practices and procedures, Courts, Freedom of
information, Privacy.
Pursuant to the authority vested in the Attorney General by 5
U.S.C. 552a and delegated to me by Attorney General Order 2940-2008,
the Department of Justice amends 28 CFR part 16 as follows:
[[Page 60585]]
PART 16--PRODUCTION OR DISCLOSURE OF MATERIAL OR INFORMATION
0
1. The authority citation for part 16 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301, 552, 552a, 553; 28 U.S.C. 509, 510,
534; 31 U.S.C. 3717.
Subpart E--Exemption of Records Systems Under the Privacy Act
0
2. Add Sec. 16.139 to read as follows:
Sec. 16.139 Exemption of the Department of Justice Data Protection
Review Court Records System, JUSTICE/OPCL-001.
(a) The Department of Justice Data Protection Review Court system
of records JUSTICE/OPCL-001 is exempted from subsections 5 U.S.C.
552a(c)(3) and (4); (d)(1), (2), (3) and (4); (e)(1), (2) and (3);
(e)(4)(G), (H) and (I); (e)(5) and (8); (f) and (g) of the Privacy Act.
These exemptions apply only to the extent that information in this
system is subject to exemption pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(j) or (k).
Where DOJ determines that compliance would not appear to interfere with
or adversely affect the purpose of this system to address certain
violations of United States law in the conduct of United States signals
intelligence activities, and not interfere with national security or
law enforcement operations, the applicable exemption may be waived by
the DOJ in its sole discretion.
(b) Exemptions from these particular subsections are justified for
the following reasons:
(1) From the subsection (c)(3) (accounting of disclosures)
requirement that an accounting be made available to the named subject
of a record, because this system is exempt from the access provisions
of subsection (d). Where the individual is the subject of intelligence
activities, to provide that individual with the disclosure accounting
records would hinder authorized United States intelligence activities
by informing that individual of the existence, nature, or scope of
information that is properly classified pursuant to Executive Order
12958, as amended, and thereby cause damage to the national security.
Revealing this information would also be contrary to Executive Order
14086 and could compromise ongoing, authorized law enforcement and
intelligence efforts, particularly efforts to identify and/or mitigate
national security threats.
(2) From subsection (c)(4) (notice of amendment to record
recipients) notification requirements because this system is exempt
from the access and amendment provisions of subsection (d) as well as
the provision for making the accounting of disclosures available to an
individual in subsection (c)(3). The DOJ takes seriously its obligation
to maintain accurate records despite its assertion of this exemption,
and to the extent it, in its sole discretion, agrees to permit
amendment or correction of DOJ records, it will share that information
in appropriate cases.
(3) From subsection (d)(1), (2), (3) and (4) (record subject's
right to access and amend records), (e)(4)(G) and (H) (publication of
procedures for notifying subjects of the existence of records about
them and how they may access records and contest contents), (e)(8)
(notice of compelled disclosures), (f) (agency rules for notifying
subjects to the existence of records about them, for accessing and
amending records, and for assessing fees) and (g) (civil remedies)
because these provisions concern individual access to and amendment of
records containing national security, law enforcement, intelligence,
counterintelligence and counterterrorism sensitive information that
could alert the subject of an authorized law enforcement or
intelligence activity about that particular activity and the interest
of the DOJ and/or other law enforcement or intelligence agencies in the
subject. Providing access could compromise information classified to
protect national security; disclose information that would constitute
an unwarranted invasion of another's personal privacy; reveal a
sensitive investigative or intelligence technique; provide information
that would allow a subject to avoid detection or apprehension; or
constitute a potential danger to the health or safety of law
enforcement personnel, confidential sources, witnesses, or other
individuals. Nevertheless, DOJ has published notice concerning
notification, access, and contest procedures because it may in certain
circumstances determine it appropriate to provide subjects access to
all or a portion of the records about them in a system of records,
particularly if information pertaining to the individual has been
declassified.
(4) From subsection (e)(1) (maintain only relevant and necessary
records) because the Data Protection Review Court (DPRC), in the course
of receiving information pursuant to an application for review,
including the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI)
Civil Liberties Protection Officer's (CLPO) record of review, may
receive records that are ultimately deemed irrelevant or unnecessary
for the adjudication of the matter. Relevance and necessity are
questions of judgment and timing; what appears relevant and necessary
when collected ultimately may be deemed unnecessary. It is only after
the information is assessed that its relevancy and necessity can be
established. Even if the records received are ultimately determined to
be irrelevant or unnecessary to the adjudication of an application for
review, the Office of Privacy and Civil Liberties (OPCL) generally must
nevertheless retain such records to maintain an accurate and complete
record of the information reviewed by the DPRC.
(5) From subsection (e)(2) (collection directly from the
individual) and (3) (provide Privacy Act Statement to subjects
furnishing information). The DPRC will rely on records received from
the ODNI CLPO, including records that the ODNI CLPO received from other
elements of the Intelligence Community. The collection efforts of
agencies that supply information ultimately received by the DPRC would
be thwarted if the agencies were required to collect information with
the subject's knowledge. Application of these provisions would put the
subject of United States signals intelligence activities on notice of
the signals intelligence activities and allow the subject an
opportunity to engage in conduct intended to impede the investigative
activity or avoid apprehension.
(6) From subsection (e)(4)(I) (identifying sources of records in
the system of records), to the extent that this subsection is
interpreted to require more detail regarding the record sources in this
system than has been published in the Federal Register. Should the
subsection be so interpreted, exemption from this provision is
necessary to protect disclosure of properly classified national
security and law enforcement sensitive information. Further, greater
specificity of sources of properly classified records could compromise
national security.
(7) From subsection (e)(5) (maintain timely, accurate, complete and
up-to-date records) because many of the records in the system were
derived from other domestic and foreign agency record systems over
which DOJ exercises no control. It is often impossible to determine in
advance if intelligence records contained in this system are accurate,
relevant, timely and complete, but in the interest of maintaining a
complete record of the information reviewed by the DPRC in each case,
it is necessary to retain this information. The restrictions imposed by
subsection (e)(5) would impede development of the record for review
[[Page 60586]]
and limit the DPRC's ability to exercise independent judgment in the
adjudication of applications for review.
(8) Continue in effect and assert all exemptions claimed under 5
U.S.C. 552a(j) or (k) by an originating agency from which DOJ obtains
records where the purposes underlying the original exemption remain
valid and necessary to protect the contents of the record.
Dated: August 23, 2023.
Peter Winn,
Chief Privacy and Civil Liberties Officer (Acting), United States
Department of Justice.
[FR Doc. 2023-19093 Filed 9-1-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-PJ-P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on September 5, 2023.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.