Proposed Rule2024-29916
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
December 20, 2024
Issuing agencies
Defense Department
Abstract
The Department of Defense (Department or DoD) is giving concurrent notice of a modified system of records titled "Defense Sexual Assault Incident Database," DHRA 06, and this rulemaking, which exempts portions of this system of records from certain provisions of the Privacy Act to avoid interference during the conduct of criminal, civil, or administrative actions or investigations.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 89 Issue 245 (Friday, December 20, 2024)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 245 (Friday, December 20, 2024)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 104069-104071]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2024-29916]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Office of the Secretary
32 CFR Part 310
[Docket ID: DoD-2024-OS-0137]
RIN 0790-AL80
Privacy Act of 1974; Implementation
AGENCY: Office of the Secretary of Defense, Department of Defense
(DoD).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Department of Defense (Department or DoD) is giving
concurrent notice of a modified system of records titled ``Defense
Sexual Assault Incident Database,'' DHRA 06, and this rulemaking, which
exempts portions of this system of records from certain provisions of
the Privacy Act to avoid interference during the conduct of criminal,
civil, or administrative actions or investigations.
DATES: Send comments on or before February 18, 2025.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by docket number,
Regulation Identifier Number (RIN), and title, by any of the following
methods.
* Federal Rulemaking Portal: <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>. Follow
the instructions for submitting comments.
* Mail: Department of Defense, Office of the Assistant to the
Secretary of Defense for Privacy, Civil Liberties, and Transparency,
Regulatory Directorate, 4800 Mark Center Drive, Attn: Mailbox 24, Suite
05F16, Alexandria, VA 22350-1700.
Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name
and docket number or RIN for this Federal Register document. The
general policy for comments and other submissions from members of the
public is to make these submissions available for public viewing on the
internet at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> as they are received without
change, including any personal identifiers or contact information.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Rahwa Keleta, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#511e02157f1501121d0515113c30383d7f3c383d"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="6f203c2b412b3f2c233b2b2f020e060341020603">[email protected]</span></a>;
(703) 571-0070.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974, the Office of the
Secretary of Defense is modifying and reissuing a system of records
titled ``Defense Sexual Assault Incident Database,'' DHRA 06. This
system of records was originally established to centralize case-level
sexual assault data involving a member of the Armed Forces, in a manner
consistent with law and DoD regulations for Unrestricted and Restricted
reporting and to facilitate reports to Congress on claims of
retaliation in connection with an Unrestricted Report of sexual assault
made by or against a member of the Armed Forces.
II. Privacy Act Exemption
The Privacy Act permits Federal agencies to exempt eligible records
in a system of records from certain
[[Page 104070]]
provisions of the Act, including the provisions providing individuals
with a right to request access to and amendment of their own records
and accountings of disclosures of such records. If an agency intends to
exempt a particular system of records, it must first go through the
rulemaking process pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(1)-(3), (c), and (e).
This proposed rule explains why an exemption is being claimed for this
system of records and invites public comment, which DoD will consider
before the issuance of a final rule implementing the exemption.
The DoD proposes to modify 32 CFR part 310 to add a new Privacy Act
exemption rule for DHRA 06, ``Defense Sexual Assault Incident
Database,'' and to exempt portions of this system of records from
certain provisions of the Privacy Act because some records may contain
investigatory material compiled for law enforcement purposes within the
scope of 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(2), other than material within the scope of
subsection (j)(2). The DoD is proposing to claim exemptions from
several provisions of the Privacy Act, including various access,
amendment, disclosure of accounting, and notice requirements, pursuant
to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(2).
A notice of a modified system of records for DHRA 06, ``Defense
Sexual Assault Incident Database,'' is also published in this issue of
the Federal Register.
Regulatory Analysis
Executive Order 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review,'' as Amended
by Executive Order 14094, ``Modernizing Regulatory Review,'' and
Executive Order 13563, ``Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review''
Executive Orders 12866 (as amended by Executive Order 14094) and
13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available
regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select
regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential
economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distribute
impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance
of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of
harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. It has been determined
that this proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action under
these executive orders.
Section 202, Public Law 104-4, ``Unfunded Mandates Reform Act''
Section 202(a) of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA)
(2 U.S.C. 1532(a)) requires agencies to assess anticipated costs and
benefits before issuing any rule whose mandates may result in the
expenditure by State, local, and Tribal governments in the aggregate,
or by the private sector, in any one year of $100 million in 1995
dollars, updated annually for inflation. This proposed rule will not
mandate any requirements for State, local, or Tribal governments, nor
will it affect private sector costs.
Public Law 96-354, ``Regulatory Flexibility Act'' (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.)
The Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for Privacy, Civil
Liberties, and Transparency has certified that this proposed rule is
not subject to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.)
because it would not, if promulgated, have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. This proposed rule is
concerned only with the administration of Privacy Act systems of
records within the DoD. Therefore, the Regulatory Flexibility Act, as
amended, does not require DoD to prepare a regulatory flexibility
analysis.
Public Law 96-511, ``Paperwork Reduction Act'' (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)
The Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) was
enacted to minimize the paperwork burden for individuals; small
businesses; educational and nonprofit institutions; Federal
contractors; State, local, and Tribal governments; and other persons
resulting from the collection of information by or for the Federal
Government. The Act requires agencies obtain approval from the Office
of Management and Budget before using identical questions to collect
information from ten or more persons. This proposed rule does not
impose reporting or recordkeeping requirements on the public.
Executive Order 13132, ``Federalism''
Executive Order 13132 establishes certain requirements that an
agency must meet when it promulgates a rule that has federalism
implications, imposes substantial direct compliance costs on State and
local governments, and is not required by statute, or has federalism
implications and preempts State law. This proposed rule will not have a
substantial effect on State and local governments.
Executive Order 13175, ``Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments''
Executive Order 13175 establishes certain requirements that an
agency must meet when it promulgates a proposed rule (and subsequent
final rule) that imposes substantial direct compliance costs on one or
more Indian Tribes, preempts Tribal law, or affects the distribution of
power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian
Tribes. This proposed rule will not have a substantial effect on Indian
Tribal governments.
List of Subjects in 32 CFR Part 310
Privacy.
Accordingly, 32 CFR part 310 is proposed to be amended as follows:
PART 310--PROTECTION OF PRIVACY AND ACCESS TO AND AMENDMENT OF
INDIVIDUAL RECORDS UNDER THE PRIVACY ACT OF 1974
0
1. The authority citation for 32 CFR part 310 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552a.
0
2. Amend Sec. 310.29 by adding paragraph (c)(30) to read as follows:
Sec. 310.29 Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) exemptions.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(30) System identifier and name. DHRA 06, Defense Sexual Assault
Incident Database.
(i) Exemptions. This system of records is exempt from 5 U.S.C.
552a(c)(3); (d)(1), (2), (3), and (4); (e)(1); (e)(4)(G), (H), (I), and
(f).
(ii) Authority. 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(2).
(iii) Exemption from the particular subsections. Exemption from the
particular subsections is justified for the following reasons:
(A) Subsections (c)(3), (d)(1), and (d)(2)--Exemption (k)(2).
Records in this system of records may contain investigatory material
compiled for law enforcement purposes other than material within the
scope of 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2). Application of exemption (k)(2) may be
necessary because access to, amendment of, or release of the accounting
of disclosures of such records could: inform the record subject of an
investigation of the existence, nature, or scope of an actual or
potential law enforcement or disciplinary investigation, and thereby
seriously impede law enforcement efforts by permitting the record
subject and other persons to whom the subject might disclose the
records or accounting of records to avoid criminal penalties, civil
remedies, or disciplinary measures; interfere with a civil or
administrative action or investigation by allowing the subject to
tamper with witnesses or evidence, and to avoid detection or
[[Page 104071]]
apprehension, which may undermine the entire investigatory process; or
reveal confidential sources who might not have otherwise come forward
to assist in an investigation and thereby hinder DoD's ability to
obtain information from future confidential sources, and result in an
unwarranted invasion of the privacy of others.
(B) Subsection (d)(3), and (d)(4). These subsections are
inapplicable to the extent that an exemption is being claimed from
subsections (d)(1) and (2). Accordingly, exemptions from subsections
(d)(3), and (d)(4) are claimed pursuant to (k)(2).
(C) Subsection (e)(1). In the collection of information for
investigatory purposes it is not always possible to conclusively
determine the relevance and necessity of particular information in the
early stages of the investigation or adjudication. In some instances,
it will be only after the collected information is evaluated in light
of other information that its relevance and necessity for effective
investigation and adjudication can be assessed. Collection of such
information permits more informed decision-making by the Department
when making required disciplinary determinations. Accordingly,
application of exemption (k)(2) may be necessary.
(D) Subsection (e)(4)(G) and (H). These subsections are
inapplicable to the extent exemption is claimed from subsections (d)(1)
and (2).
(E) Subsection (e)(4)(I). To the extent that this provision is
construed to require more detailed disclosure than the broad, generic
information currently published in the system notice, an exemption from
this provision is necessary to protect the confidentiality of sources
of information and to protect the privacy and physical safety of
individuals providing information, including witnesses, victims,
informants, or others. Accordingly, application of exemption (k)(2) may
be necessary.
(F) Subsection (f). The agency's rules are inapplicable to those
portions of the system that are exempt. Accordingly, application of
exemption (k)(2) may be necessary.
(iv) Exempt records from other systems. In the course of carrying
out the overall purpose for this system, exempt records from other
systems of records may in turn become part of the records maintained in
this system. To the extent that copies of exempt records from those
other systems of records are maintained in this system, the DoD claims
the same exemptions for the records from those other systems that are
entered into this system, as claimed for the prior system(s) of which
they are a part, provided the reason for the exemption remains valid
and necessary.
Dated: December 12, 2024.
Aaron T. Siegel,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 2024-29916 Filed 12-19-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6001-FR-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 December 20, 2024.
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.