Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 245 / Wednesday, December 22, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 80313 

to file all workpapers that fully support 

the data reported on Form No. 6 page 

700, including a total cost-of-service. 

ATA and NPGA also assert that 

pipelines must file Form No. 6 before 

initiating an index rate increase. ATA 

and NPGA also argue that the 

Commission should change the interest 

rates applicable to refunds as provided 

in 18 CFR § 340.1(c)(2)(i) to reflect the 

pipeline’s rate of return as reported on 

Form No. 6, page 700. 

130. SPOPS urges, in its reply 

comments, that shippers and customers 

should be allowed access to the 

workpapers underlying page 700. 

SPOPS also contends that the page 700 

data should reveal both the nominal and 

the real rate of return on equity, 

including the amount of dollars of 

equity both collected in rates and 

dollars placed in rate base. SPOPS states 

that the current rate of return on equity 

must be known to determine the need 

for the index increase to attract capital. 

131. In reply comments, AOPL argues 

that the Commission has addressed and 

rejected the proposal regarding 

segmented data and workpapers. AOPL 

states the Commission in its ruling 

explained that page 700 is designed to 

be a preliminary screening tool for 

pipeline rate filings and not form the 

basis of a decision or demonstrates the 

just and reasonableness of proposed or 

existing rates. AOPL asserts the 

Commission has revisited this issue as 

recently as December 2008 and upheld 

its initial views. 

2. Commission Determination 

132. The Commission finds that the 

proposals to modify Form No. 6 are 

outside the scope of this proceeding, 

which is to set the going-forward index 

level. 

The Commission orders: Consistent 

with our review and verification of the 

sample pipeline Form No. 6 data, and 

the application of the previously 

approved Order No. 561 methodology to 

that data, the Commission determines 

that the appropriate oil pricing index for 

the next five years, July 1, 2011 through 

June 30, 2016, should be PPI–FG+2.65. 

By the Commission. 

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., 

Deputy Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2010–32062 Filed 12–21–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6717–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

28 CFR Part 16 

[CPCLO Order No. 006–2010] 

Privacy Act of 1974; Implementation 

AGENCY: Federal Bureau of 

Investigation, Department of Justice. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Federal Bureau of 

Investigation (FBI), a component of the 

Department of Justice, issued a 

proposed rule for a new Privacy Act 

system of records entitled, the ‘‘Data 

Integration and Visualization System 

(DIVS),’’ JUSTICE/FBI–021, 75 FR 53262 

(August 31, 2010). DIVS is exempt from 

the subsections of the Privacy Act listed 

below for the reasons set forth in the 

following text. Information in this 

system of records related to matters of 

law enforcement and the exemptions are 

necessary to avoid interference with the 

national security and criminal law 

enforcement functions and 

responsibilities of the FBI. This 

document addresses a public comment 

on the proposed rule. 

DATES: Effective Date: December 22, 

2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Erin 

Page, Assistant General Counsel, 

Privacy and Civil Liberties Unit, Office 

of the General Counsel, FBI, 

Washington, DC 20535–0001, telephone 

202–324–3000. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On August 31, 2010, the FBI 

published notice of a new Privacy Act 

system of records entitled, ‘‘Data 

Integration and Visualization System 

(DIVS),’’ JUSTICE/FBI–021, which 

became effective on October 1, 2010. In 

conjunction with publication of the 

DIVS system of records notice, the FBI 

initiated a rulemaking to exempt DIVS 

from a number of provisions of the 

Privacy Act, in accordance with 

subsections 553a(j) and/or (k). On 

August 31, 2010, the FBI published at 

75 FR 53262 a proposed rule exempting 

records in the DIVS from Privacy Act 

subsections (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). 

Public Comment 

The FBI received one comment on the 

proposed rule. The commenter 

concurred with the exemptions cited 

but requested that the FBI provide more 

information explaining the FBI’s 

‘‘internal controls’’ in protecting the data 

itself from improper violations. The FBI 

determined that the public comment 

merited no change in the rule, as the 

commenter concurred with the 

exemptions claimed, and because an 

exemption rule does not provide an 

appropriate venue for the discussion 

requested. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

This proposed rule relates to 

individuals as opposed to small 

business entities. Pursuant to the 

requirements of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601–612, 

therefore, the proposed rule will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act 

The Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 

1996, codified as a note to 5 U.S.C. 601, 

requires the FBI to comply with small 

entity requests for information and 

advice about compliance with statutes 

and regulations within FBI 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/archive/ 

sum_sbrefa.html. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 

1995, 44 U.S.C. 3507(d), requires that 

the FBI consider the impact of 

paperwork and other information 

collection burdens imposed on the 

public. There is no current or new 

information collection requirements 

associated with this proposed rule. The 

records that are contributed to DIVS are 

created by the FBI or other law 

enforcement and intelligence entities 

and sharing of this information 

electronically will not increase the 

paperwork burden on the public. 

Unfunded Mandates 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public 

Law 104–4, 109 Stat. 48, requires 

Federal agencies to assess the effects of 

certain regulatory actions on State, 

local, and tribal governments, and the 

private sector. UMRA requires a written 

statement of economic and regulatory 

alternatives for proposed and final rules 

that contain Federal mandates. A 

‘‘Federal mandate’’ is a new or 

additional enforceable duty, imposed on 

any State, local, or tribal government, or 

the private sector. If any Federal 

mandate causes those entities to spend, 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES
80314 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 245 / Wednesday, December 22, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

in aggregate, $100 million or more in 

any one year, the UMRA analysis is 

required. This proposed rule would not 

impose Federal mandates on any State, 

local, or tribal government or the private 

sector. 

List of Subjects in 28 CFR Part 16 

Administrative practices and 

procedures, Courts, Freedom of 

Information Act, Government in the 

Sunshine Act, and the 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 2940–2008, 28 CFR Part 16 is 

amended as follows: 

PART 16—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 16 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301, 552, 552a, 552(b) 

(g), 553; 18 U.S.C. 4203(a)(1); 28 U.S.C. 509, 

510, 534; 31 U.S.C. 3717, 9701. 

Subpart E—Exemption of Records 

Systems Under the Privacy Act 

■ 2. Section 16.96 is amended to add 

new paragraphs (v) and (w) to read as 

follows: 

§ 16.96 Exemption of Federal Bureau of 

Investigation Systems—limited access. 

* * * * * 

(v) 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) and (3); 

(e)(4)(G), (H) and (I); (e)(5) and (8); (f) 

and (g) of the Privacy Act: 

(1) Data Integration and Visualization 

System (DIVS), (JUSTICE/FBI–021). 

(2) These exemptions apply only to 

the extent that information in this 

system is subject to exemption pursuant 

to 5 U.S.C. 552a(j) and/or (k). Where 

compliance would not appear to 

interfere with or adversely affect the 

intelligence and law enforcement 

purpose of this system, and the overall 

law enforcement process, the applicable 

exemption may be waived by the FBI in 

its sole discretion. 

(w) Exemptions from the particular 

subsections are justified for the 

following reasons: 

(1) From subsection (c)(3), the 

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). Also, 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 

by the FBI or agencies that are recipients 

of the disclosures. Revealing this 

information could compromise ongoing, 

authorized law enforcement and 

intelligence efforts, particularly efforts 

to identify and defuse any potential acts 

of terrorism or other potential violations 

of criminal law. Revealing this 

information could also permit the 

record subject to obtain valuable insight 

concerning the information obtained 

during an investigation and to take 

measures to impede the investigation, 

e.g., destroy evidence or flee the area to 

avoid the investigation. 

(2) From subsection (c)(4) notification 

requirements because this system is 

exempt from the access and amendment 

provisions of subsection (d) as well as 

the access to accounting of disclosures 

provision of subsection (c)(3). The FBI 

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 records, it 

will share that information in 

appropriate cases. 

(3) From subsection (d)(1), (2), (3), 

and (4), (e)(4)(G) and (H) because these 

provisions concern individual access to 

and amendment of law enforcement, 

intelligence and counterintelligence, 

and counterterrorism records, and 

compliance could alert the subject of an 

authorized law enforcement or 

intelligence activity about that 

particular activity and the investigative 

interest of the FBI and/or other law 

enforcement or intelligence agencies. 

Providing access could compromise 

sensitive information classified to 

protect national security; disclose 

information which would constitute an 

unwarranted invasion of another’s 

personal privacy; reveal a sensitive 

investigative or intelligence technique; 

could 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, and witnesses. 

(4) From subsection (e)(1) because it 

is not always possible to know in 

advance what information is relevant 

and necessary for law enforcement and 

intelligence purposes, and a major tenet 

of DIVS is that the relevance and utility 

of certain information that may have a 

nexus to terrorism or other crimes may 

not always be evident until and unless 

it is vetted and matched with other 

sources of information that are 

necessarily and lawfully maintained by 

the FBI. 

(5) From subsection (e)(2) and (3) 

because application of this provision 

could present a serious impediment to 

efforts to solve crimes and improve 

national security. Application of these 

provisions would put the subject of an 

investigation on notice of that fact and 

allow the subject an opportunity to 

engage in conduct intended to impede 

that activity or avoid apprehension. 

(6) From subsection (e)(4)(I), 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 the sources of law 

enforcement and intelligence 

information and to protect the privacy 

and safety of witnesses and informants 

and others who provide information to 

the FBI. Further, greater specificity of 

properly classified records could 

compromise national security. 

(7) From subsection (e)(5) because in 

the collection of information for 

authorized law enforcement and 

intelligence purposes, it is impossible to 

determine in advance what information 

is accurate, relevant, timely and 

complete. With time, seemingly 

irrelevant or untimely information may 

acquire new significance when new 

details are brought to light. 

Additionally, the information may aid 

in establishing patterns of activity and 

providing criminal or intelligence leads. 

It could impede investigative progress if 

it were necessary to assure relevance, 

accuracy, timeliness and completeness 

of all information obtained during the 

scope of an investigation. Further, some 

of the records searched by and/or 

contained in DIVS may come from other 

agencies and it would be 

administratively impossible for the FBI 

to vouch for the compliance of these 

agencies with this provision. 

(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 FBI and 

may alert the subjects of law 

enforcement investigations, who might 

be otherwise unaware, to the fact of 

those investigations. 

(9) From subsections (f) and (g) to the 

extent that the system is exempt from 

other specific subsections of the Privacy 

Act. 

Dated: November 2, 2010. 

Nancy C. Libin, 

Chief Privacy and Civil Liberties Officer. 

[FR Doc. 2010–32108 Filed 12–21–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–02–P 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES