Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 45 / Thursday, March 7, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 14669 

§ 520.182 [Removed] 

■ 4. Remove § 520.182. 

■ 5. In § 520.260, revise the section 

heading and add paragraphs (b)(1) 

through (3) to read as follows: 

§ 520.260 n-Butyl chloride. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(1) Specifications. Each capsule 

contains 221, 272, 442, 816, 884, 1,768 

milligrams, or 4.42 grams of n-butyl 

chloride. 

(2) Sponsors. See sponsors in 

§ 510.600(c) of this chapter for use as in 

paragraph (c) of this section: 

(i) No. 000069 for use of 221- 

milligram capsules. 

(ii) No. 021091 for use of 272- or 816- 

milligram capsules. 

(iii) No. 023851 for use of 221-, 442- 

, 884-, or 1,768-milligram, or 4.42-gram 

capsules. 

(3) Conditions of use in dogs—(i) 

Amount. Administered capsules orally. 

Capsules containing 221 milligrams of 

n-butyl chloride are administered to 

dogs weighing under 5 pounds at a 

dosage of 1 capsule per 11⁄4 pounds of 

body weight. Capsules containing 442 

milligrams of n-butyl chloride are 

administered to dogs weighing under 5 

pounds at a dosage of 1 capsule per 21⁄2

pounds body weight. Capsules 

containing 884 milligrams of n-butyl 

chloride are administered to dogs as 

follows: Weighing under 5 pounds, 1 

capsule; weighing 5 to 10 pounds, 2 

capsules; weighing 10 to 20 pounds, 3 

capsules; weighing 20 to 40 pounds, 4 

capsules; over 40 pounds, 5 capsules. 

Capsules containing 1,768 milligrams of 

n-butyl chloride are administered at a 

dosage level of 1 capsule per dog 

weighing 5 to 10 pounds. Capsules 

containing 4.42 grams of n-butyl 

chloride are administered at a dosage 

level of 1 capsule per dog weighing 40 

pounds or over. 

(ii) Indications for use. For the 

removal of ascarids (Toxocara canis and 

Toxascaris leonina) and hookworms 

(Ancylostoma caninum, Ancylostoma 

braziliense, and Uncinaria 

stenocephala). 

(iii) Limitations. Dogs should not be 

fed for 18 to 24 hours before being given 

the drug. Administration of the drug 

should be followed in 1⁄2 to 1 hour with 

a mild cathartic. Normal feeding may be 

resumed 4 to 8 hours after treatment. 

Animals subject to reinfection may be 

retreated in 2 weeks. A veterinarian 

should be consulted before using in 

severely debilitated dogs. 

■ 6. In § 520.580, revise the section 

heading and paragraphs (a), (b), and 

(d)(1) and (2) to read as follows: 

§ 520.580 Dichlorophene and toluene. 

(a) Specifications. Each capsule 

contains 50 milligrams (mg) of 

dichlorophene and 60 mg of toluene, or 

multiples thereof. 

(b) Sponsors. See sponsors in 

§ 510.600(c) of this chapter for use as in 

paragraph (c) of this section: 

(1) Nos. 017135, 023851, 051311, and 

058670 for use only as a single dose. 

(2) Nos. 000010 and 000061 for use in 

a single dose or divided-dosage regimen. 

* * * * * 

(d) * * * 

(1) Amount. Administer as follows: 

(i) Single dose: Administer 100 mg of 

dicholorophene and 120 mg of toluene 

per pound of body weight. 

(ii) Divided dose: Administer 100 mg 

of dichlorophene and 120 mg of toluene 

per 5 pounds of body weight (20 and 24 

mg per pound) daily for 6 days. 

(2) Indications for use. For the 

removal of ascarids (Toxocara canis and 

Toxascaris leonina) and hookworms 

(Ancylostoma caninum and Uncinaria 

stenocephala); and as an aid in 

removing tapeworms (Taenia pisiformis, 

Dipylidium caninum, and Echinococcus 

granulosus) from dogs and cats. 

* * * * * 

PART 522—IMPLANTATION OR 

INJECTABLE DOSAGE FORM NEW 

ANIMAL DRUGS 

■ 7. The authority citation for 21 CFR 

part 522 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 21 U.S.C. 360b. 

§ 522.46 [Removed] 

■ 8. Remove § 522.46. 

PART 529—CERTAIN OTHER DOSAGE 

FORM NEW ANIMAL DRUGS 

■ 9. The authority citation for 21 CFR 

part 529 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 21 U.S.C. 360b. 

§ 529.469 [Removed] 

■ 10. Remove § 529.469. 

§ 529.1003 [Removed] 

■ 11. Remove § 529.1003. 

§ 529.1186 [Amended] 

■ 12. In paragraph (b) of § 529.1186, 

remove ‘‘000209,’’. 

PART 558—NEW ANIMAL DRUGS FOR 

USE IN ANIMAL FEEDS 

■ 13. The authority citation for 21 CFR 

part 558 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 21 U.S.C. 360b, 371. 

§ 558.485 [Amended] 

■ 14. In § 558.485, in paragraph (b)(6), 

remove ‘‘Nos. 034936 and 046987’’ and 

add in its place ‘‘No. 034936’’. 

§ 558.625 [Amended] 

■ 15. In § 558.625, remove and reserve 

paragraphs (b)(35), (b)(63), (b)(66), and 

(b)(77). 

■ 16. In § 558.630, add paragraph (b)(5) 

to read as follows: 

§ 558.630 Tylosin and sulfamethazine. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(5) Nos. 000986, 012286, 034936, and 

046573: 5, 10, 20, or 40 grams per 

pound each for use as in paragraph 

(e)(2)(ii) of this section. 

* * * * * 

Dated: February 27, 2013. 

Bernadette Dunham, 

Director, Center for Veterinary Medicine. 

[FR Doc. 2013–04999 Filed 3–6–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4160–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

28 CFR Part 16 

[CPCLO Order No. 002–2013] 

Privacy Act of 1974; Implementation 

AGENCY: Drug Enforcement 

Administration, United States 

Department of Justice. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Justice 

(DOJ or Department), Drug Enforcement 

Administration (DEA) is issuing a final 

rule for the recently modified system of 

records titled ‘‘Investigative Reporting 

and Filing System’’ (IRFS), JUSTICE/ 

DEA–008. This system, which has 

already been exempted from particular 

subsections of the Privacy Act of 1974, 

is now being exempted further. 

Information in this system relates to law 

enforcement and intelligence matters, 

and for the reasons set forth in the rule 

these exemptions are necessary to avoid 

interference with the law enforcement, 

counterterrorism, and national security 

functions and responsibilities of the 

DEA. 

DATES: Effective March 7, 2013. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: DEA 

Headquarters, Attn: Bettie E. Goldman, 

Assistant Deputy Chief Counsel (CV), 

8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, VA 

22152, telephone 202–307–8040. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On April 11, 2012, the Department 

published an updated Privacy Act 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
14670 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 45 / Thursday, March 7, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

1 DOJ did not receive any comments directed at 

the updated IRFS SORN during the SORN comment 

period. EPIC’s comments on the proposed rule did 

characterize the IRFS SORN as containing ‘‘a 

staggering twenty-seven routine uses’’ that EPIC 

perceived as presaging the disclosure of ‘‘troves of 

personally identifiable information to a seemingly 

endless list of recipients.’’ To the extent that this 

might be deemed a general comment on the number 

and substance of the IRFS routine uses, the 

Department considers that these routine uses 

support disclosures that in appropriate 

circumstances are functionally equivalent to the 

purpose for which the information was collected or 

necessary and proper to the lawful furtherance of 

DEA’s authorized mission functions. The 

Department also notes that many of these routine 

uses were in place before the most recent update 

to the SORN. 2 5 U.S.C. 552a(j) and (k). 

system of records notice (SORN) for 

IRFS at 77 FR 21808, a DEA system of 

records notice originally published on 

August 8, 1975, at 40 FR 38712. In 

conjunction with the IRFS SORN 

update, on April 18, 2012, the 

Department published a proposed rule 

at 77 FR 23173 to amend 28 CFR 16.98, 

which had established exemptions of 

IRFS from various Privacy Act 

provisions, as expressly authorized by 

Privacy Act subsections (j) and (k). The 

proposed rule did not significantly 

change the previously established 

exemptions of IRFS from Privacy Act 

subsections (c)(3) and (4); (d)(1), (2), (3), 

and (4); (e)(1), (2), (3), (5), and (8); and 

(g). However, the proposed rule did add 

new exemptions of IRFS from Privacy 

Act subsections (e)(4)(G), (H), and (I); (f); 

and (h) and made general editorial 

revisions to the reasons for the existing 

IRFS exemptions. The public was 

provided with thirty (30) days in which 

to comment on the updated SORN and 

the proposed rule. 

Public Comments 

The only comments the Department 

received with regard to the proposed 

rule were from the Electronic Privacy 

Information Center (EPIC).1 The 

Department has carefully considered 

these comments but has declined to 

adopt them in the final rule. The 

Department has, however, added 

additional information in paragraphs 

16.98(j)(9) and (11) of the final rule to 

provide greater clarity and help enhance 

public understanding of the reasons for 

these exemptions. A summary of EPIC’s 

comments and the Department’s 

responses are set forth below. 

EPIC specifically noted five issues 

that it stated were raised by the 

proposed rule that EPIC considered to 

be substantial. In EPIC’s opinion: (1) 

The proposed exemptions contravene 

the intent of the Privacy Act; (2) the 

DEA does not clearly articulate its legal 

authority to claim certain exemptions; 

(3) the DEA is required to collect only 

relevant and necessary information, and 

therefore, it should limit its information 

collection; (4) individuals within the 

IRFS system of records should have 

access to their information after 

criminal investigations are complete; 

and (5) individuals within the system 

should have a right to correct their 

information. Each of these contentions 

is separately discussed below. 

(1) The Proposed Exemptions Do Not 

Contravene the Intent of the Privacy Act 

EPIC noted that IRFS may contain 

records about not only convicted drug 

offenders but also presumptively 

innocent individuals, such as those 

simply suspected of or alleged to have 

committed drug offenses. EPIC asserted 

that the ‘‘broad exemptions’’ established 

for IRFS would allow DEA employees to 

use sensitive information with little 

accountability and would contravene 

the intent of the Privacy Act. 

The Privacy Act itself, specifically 5 

U.S.C. 552a(j) and (k), authorizes DOJ to 

apply exemptions to IRFS. 5 U.S.C. 

552a(j) states, ‘‘the head of any agency 

may promulgate rules * * * to exempt 

any system of records within the agency 

from any part of [the Privacy Act] except 

subsections (b), (c)(1) and (2), (e)(4)(A) 

through (F), (e)(6), (7), (9), (10), and (11), 

and (i).’’ Similarly, Privacy Act 

subsection (k) expressly authorizes 

‘‘[t]he head of any agency * * * [to] 

promulgate rules * * * to exempt any 

system of records within the agency 

from subsections (c)(3), (d), (e)(1), 

(e)(4)(G), (H), and (I) and (f) of [the 

Privacy Act].’’ Thus, DOJ’s application 

of exemptions to IRFS is fully within 

the intent of the Privacy Act as it falls 

squarely within the statutory terms of 

the Act. 

Further, applying exemptions to IRFS 

does not equate to DEA employees using 

IRFS ‘‘with little accountability.’’ The 

DEA and its employees still must 

comply with important agency 

requirements in the Privacy Act that are 

not subject to exemption. For example, 

5 U.S.C. 552a(j) lists the provisions of 

the Privacy Act from which the statute 

permits no exemption. In addition, as 

the proposed rule stated, exemptions 

apply only to the extent that 

information in the system is subject to 

the exemption. 

The need for these exemptions exists 

even if a record subject may only be 

suspected of or alleged to have 

committed an offense, or may even be 

clearly innocent (such as victims or 

witnesses), because the reasons for these 

exemptions are present even if the 

individual may not be culpable. For 

example, disclosures to non-suspect 

individuals may present risks that the 

individual may either intentionally or 

accidently reveal the information to the 

suspect or to others involved in criminal 

activities or for whom disclosure would 

otherwise be inappropriate; may reveal 

sensitive investigative or intelligence 

techniques; may reveal classified 

information; may invade the privacy of 

third parties; or may otherwise 

prejudice investigative and adjudicative 

processes. 

In addition, although the Department 

has exempted IRFS from subsection 

(e)(4)(1), the Department continues to 

describe the record source categories in 

order to provide greater public 

transparency. Withholding additional 

details 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 DEA; and further, 

greater specificity of properly classified 

records could compromise national 

security. (The Department has added a 

discussion of this point in § 16.98(j)(9) 

of the final rule.) Finally, the 

Department again notes that most of 

these exemptions were in place prior to 

the notice of proposed rulemaking. 

(2) DOJ Has Clear Legal Authority To 

Establish These Exemptions 

EPIC commented on DOJ’s statutory 

authority to apply exemptions to IRFS, 

especially under subsection (k)(2), and 

questioned whether DOJ’s application of 

exemptions is procedurally and 

substantively sound. As discussed 

above, the Privacy Act provides clear 

statutory authority for the exemptions 

DOJ is applying to IRFS,2 the rule 

expressly provides that the exemptions 

will apply only to the extent that the 

IRFS information is subject to 

exemption, and the exemptions are 

justified for the reasons set forth in 

§ 16.98(j) of the rule. Further, DOJ has 

complied with procedural requirements 

to promulgate this rule. 

The Department fully appreciates that 

exemption under (k)(2) generally does 

not permit an agency to deny an 

individual access to a record where the 

agency’s maintenance of the record has 

resulted in the individual ’being denied 

a right, privilege, or benefit to which he 

or she would otherwise be entitled by 

Federal law, or for which he or she 

would otherwise be eligible. Subsection 

(k)(2) exemptions apply to investigatory 

material compiled for law enforcement 

purposes that is not otherwise subject to 

exemption under subsection (j)(2). The 

DEA is establishing (k)(2) exemptions in 

order to protect investigatory 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 45 / Thursday, March 7, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 14671 

information that may not be subject to 

exemption under subsection (j)(2), as 

well as in circumstances where there is 

no issue relating to a denial of a right, 

privilege, or benefit. 

EPIC further objected to the provision 

in paragraph 16.98(i) of the rule that 

DEA may waive an applicable 

exemption in DEA’s sole discretion. 

EPIC asserted that ‘‘it is not within the 

agency’s sole discretion to waive an 

exemption if the exemption does not 

apply.’’ As previously noted, the 

exemptions to IRFS only apply to the 

extent that information in this system is 

subject to exemption. If a record in IRFS 

is not subject to exemption under 

Privacy Act subsections (j)(2), (k)(1), or 

(k)(2), then the record will be subject to 

all pertinent Privacy Act provisions. It 

is only where a record is subject to an 

exemption that DEA would have the 

administrative discretion to waive an 

exemption in whole or in part. 

(3) The Scope of IRFS’s Information 

Collection Is Necessary and Specifically 

Authorized by the Privacy Act 

EPIC’s comments stated that the 

Privacy Act’s ‘‘relevant and necessary’’ 

requirements were ‘‘designed to assure 

observance of basic principles of 

privacy and due process’’ and preclude 

arbitrary agency action. EPIC expressed 

the concern that government databases 

might become dossiers and be pressed 

into unintended uses (‘‘mission creep’’). 

EPIC suggested that, ‘‘[a]s investigations 

proceed to a close, information can be 

added or removed from the system as it 

becomes more or less relevant and 

necessary.’’ 

Both subsection (e)(1) and subsection 

(e)(5) are subject to exemption under 

subsection (j)(2), and subsection (e)(1) is 

also subject to exemption under 

subsection (k). As discussed in detail 

above, IRFS exemptions such as these 

are fully consistent with the language 

and intent of the Privacy Act, will apply 

only to the extent that the IRFS 

information is subject to exemption, and 

are justified for the reasons set forth in 

paragraph 16.98(j) of the rule. It is not 

always possible to know in advance 

what information will turn out to be 

relevant or necessary, nor to know in 

advance whether information is 

accurate, timely, or complete. The 

process of conducting a law 

enforcement investigation involves the 

movement, in time, toward collection of 

relevant, necessary, accurate, timely, 

and complete information; however, it 

would be administratively impracticable 

for DEA to persistently add and remove 

information. The Privacy Act’s 

exemption provisions strike the 

appropriate balance in anticipating and 

accommodating the law enforcement 

investigative process and administrative 

practicalities. This rule simply applies 

the law’s provisions to help ensure the 

most effective and efficient 

accomplishment of DEA’s statutory 

mission. 

(4) Exempting IRFS From Subsections 

(c)(3) and (e)(8) (and Similar Privacy 

Act Provisions) Is Necessary and 

Specifically Authorized by the Privacy 

Act 

EPIC’s comments stated that DOJ 

should limit the extent of the (c)(3) and 

(e)(8) exemptions: ‘‘While EPIC 

recognizes the need to withhold notice 

during the period of the investigation, 

entities should be able to know, after an 

investigation is completed or made 

public, the information stored about 

them in the system.’’ 

The Privacy Act authorizes DOJ to 

exempt IRFS from subsections (c)(3) and 

(e)(8) under subsection (j)(2), and 

subsection (c)(3) is also subject to 

exemption under subsection (k). As 

discussed in detail above, these 

exemptions will apply only to the extent 

that the IRFS information is subject to 

exemption, and they are justified for the 

reasons set forth in paragraph 16.98(j) of 

the rule (e.g., because access to 

accounting of disclosures under 

subsection (c)(3) could impede or 

compromise an ongoing investigation, 

interfere with a law enforcement 

activity, lead to the disclosure of 

properly classified information which 

could compromise the national defense 

or disrupt foreign policy, invade the 

privacy of a person who provides 

information in connection with a 

particular investigation, or result in 

danger to an individual’s safety, 

including the safety of a law 

enforcement officer). Notice under 

subsection (e)(8) could impede criminal 

law enforcement by giving persons 

sufficient warning to evade investigative 

efforts, revealing investigative 

techniques, procedures, evidence, or 

interest, and interfering with the ability 

to issue warrants or subpoenas. In 

regard to subsection (e)(8), the 

Department would additionally note 

that investigations may still be ongoing 

even when related compulsory process 

becomes a matter of public record, and 

thus disclosures about related 

compulsory process may also have the 

same potentially adverse consequences 

explained in the proposed rule. Further, 

a necessity for DEA to monitor all 

instances of compulsory process 

involving IRFS records, to individually 

assess when each instance becomes a 

matter of public record, and to then 

provide notices to affected individuals 

would pose an impossible 

administrative burden on the 

maintenance of these records and the 

conduct of the underlying 

investigations. (The Department has 

added a discussion of this burden in 

§ 16.98(j)(11) of the final rule.) 

In addition, pursuant to subsection 

(t)(2) of the Privacy Act, the Department 

cannot use Privacy Act exemptions 

established for IRFS as grounds to 

withhold from an individual any record 

which is otherwise accessible to such 

individual under the FOIA. To the 

extent that appropriately redacted IRFS 

records of completed investigations 

would not undermine law enforcement 

interests or invade the privacy of others, 

the individual may be able to obtain 

access to such records under the FOIA. 

(5) Exempting IRFS From Subsections 

(d)(2), (3), and (4) and (g) Is Necessary 

and Specifically Authorized by the 

Privacy Act 

EPIC objected to the Department’s 

proposed exemption of IRFS from 

Privacy Act subsections (d)(2), (3), and 

(4) (which provide a process for 

individuals to seek and obtain 

correction of agency records about 

them), and from subsection (g) (which 

provides for judicial review of agency 

compliance with the Privacy Act). EPIC 

commented that individuals should be 

able to correct records about them 

because, ‘‘[i]ndividuals erroneously 

listed in the IRFS system of records can 

be subject to investigations by federal 

and local law enforcement agencies.’’ 

EPIC also asserted that in proposing 

these exemptions the Department gave 

no consideration to the burdens placed 

on individuals from government agency 

misinformation. EPIC’s comments also 

objected to exempting IRFS from 

subsection (g) because ‘‘individuals will 

have no judicially enforceable rights of 

access to their records or correction of 

erroneous information in such records.’’ 

Just as for the other exemptions that 

the Department proposed, Privacy Act 

subsections (d)(2), (3), and (4) and (g) 

are all subject to exemption under 

subsection (j)(2), and subsections (d)(2), 

(3), and (4) are also subject to exemption 

under subsection (k). IRFS exemptions 

such as these are thus fully consistent 

with the language and intent of the 

Privacy Act, will apply only to the 

extent that the IRFS information is 

subject to exemption, and are justified 

for the reasons set forth in § 16.98(j) of 

the rule. Further, contrary to EPIC’s 

contention, in proposing these 

exemptions the Department did 

carefully consider the interests of the 

affected individuals. This consideration 

is reflected in the express notation in 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
14672 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 45 / Thursday, March 7, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

the proposed rule that, notwithstanding 

that the system may be exempted from 

a particular Privacy Act provision, 

where compliance with the provision 

would not appear to interfere with or 

adversely affect the law enforcement or 

counterterrorism purposes of this 

system, or the overall law enforcement 

process, the DEA in its discretion may 

waive the exemption. The Department 

remains convinced that the proposed 

rule strikes the appropriate balance 

between the potential burdens the 

exemptions may place on individuals 

and the potential burdens the absence of 

exemptions may place on authorized 

law enforcement processes. 

In sum, DOJ is adding a few new 

exemptions and making a few general 

revisions to its longstanding and 

existing IRFS exemptions, as permitted 

by the Privacy Act. The Department has 

carefully considered EPIC’s comments, 

but declines to adopt them in the final 

rule. 

List of Subjects in 28 CFR Part 16 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Courts, Freedom of 

information, Privacy, Sunshine 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, 

552b(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. Amend § 16.98 by revising the 

section heading, paragraph (c), and 

paragraph (d) introductory text, and 

adding paragraphs (i) and (j) to read as 

follows: 

§ 16.98 Exemption of Drug Enforcement 

Administration (DEA) Systems—limited 

access. 

* * * * * 

(c) Systems of records identified in 

paragraphs (c)(1) through (6) of this 

section are exempted pursuant to the 

provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552a (j)(2) from 

subsections (c)(3) and (4); (d)(1), (2), (3), 

and (4); (e)(1), (2), (3), (5), and (8); and 

(g) of 5 U.S.C. 552a. In addition, systems 

of records identified in paragraphs (c)(1) 

through (5) of this section are also 

exempted pursuant to the provisions of 

5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(1) from subsections 

(c)(3); (d)(1), (2), (3) and (4); and (e)(1): 

(1) Air Intelligence Program (Justice/ 

DEA–001). 

(2) Clandestine Laboratory Seizure 

System (CLSS) (Justice/DEA–002). 

(3) Planning and Inspection Division 

Records (Justice/DEA–010). 

(4) Operation Files (Justice/DEA–011). 

(5) Security Files (Justice/DEA–013). 

(6) System to Retrieve Information 

from Drug Evidence (STRIDE/Ballistics) 

(Justice/DEA–014). 

(d) Exemptions apply to the following 

systems of records only to the extent 

that information in the systems is 

subject to exemption pursuant to 5 

U.S.C. 552a(j)(2), (k)(1), and (k)(2): Air 

Intelligence Program (Justice/DEA–001); 

Clandestine Laboratory Seizure System 

(CLSS) (Justice/DEA–002); Planning and 

Inspection Division Records (Justice/ 

DEA–010); and Security Files (Justice/ 

DEA–013). Exemptions apply to the 

Operations Files (Justice/DEA–011) only 

to the extent that information in the 

system is subject to exemption pursuant 

to 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2) and (k)(2). 

Exemptions apply to the System to 

Retrieve Information from Drug 

Evidence (STRIDE/Ballistics) (Justice/ 

DEA–014) only to the extent that 

information in the system is subject to 

exemption pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 

552a(j)(2). Exemption from the 

particular subsections is justified for the 

following reasons: 

* * * * * 

(i) 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), 

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

(h): Investigative Reporting and Filing 

System (IRFS) (JUSTICE/DEA–008). 

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), or (k)(2). Where 

compliance would not appear to 

interfere with or adversely affect the law 

enforcement or counterterrorism 

purposes of this system, or the overall 

law enforcement process, the applicable 

exemption may be waived by the DEA 

in its sole discretion. 

(j) Exemptions from the particular 

subsections are justified for the 

following reasons: 

(1) From subsection (c)(3) because to 

provide a record subject with an 

accounting of disclosure of records in 

this system could impede or 

compromise an ongoing investigation, 

interfere with a law enforcement 

activity, lead to the disclosure of 

properly classified information which 

could compromise the national defense 

or disrupt foreign policy, invade the 

privacy of a person who provides 

information in connection with a 

particular investigation, or result in 

danger to an individual’s safety, 

including the safety of a law 

enforcement officer. 

(2) From subsection (c)(4) because this 

subsection is inapplicable to the extent 

that an exemption is being claimed for 

subsections (d)(1), (2), (3), and (4). 

(3) From subsection (d)(1) because 

disclosure of records in the system 

could alert the subject of an 

investigation of an actual or potential 

criminal, civil, or regulatory violation of 

the existence of that investigation, of the 

nature and scope of the information and 

evidence obtained as to his activities, of 

the identity of confidential witnesses 

and informants, or of the investigative 

interest of the DEA; lead to the 

destruction of evidence, improper 

influencing of witnesses, fabrication of 

testimony, and/or flight of the subject; 

reveal the details of a sensitive 

investigative or intelligence technique, 

or the identity of a confidential source; 

or otherwise impede, compromise, or 

interfere with investigative efforts and 

other related law enforcement and/or 

intelligence activities. In addition, 

disclosure could invade the privacy of 

third parties and/or endanger the life, 

health, and physical safety of law 

enforcement personnel, confidential 

informants, witnesses, and potential 

crime victims. Access to records could 

also result in the release of information 

properly classified pursuant to 

Executive order, thereby compromising 

the national defense or foreign policy. 

(4) From subsection (d)(2) because 

amendment of the records thought to be 

incorrect, irrelevant, or untimely would 

also interfere with ongoing 

investigations, criminal or civil law 

enforcement proceedings, and other law 

enforcement activities; would impose an 

impossible administrative burden by 

requiring investigations, analyses, and 

reports to be continuously 

reinvestigated and revised; and may 

impact information properly classified 

pursuant to Executive order. 

(5) From subsections (d)(3) and (4) 

because these subsections are 

inapplicable to the extent exemption is 

claimed from (d)(1) and (2). 

(6) From subsection (e)(1) because, in 

the course of its acquisition, collation, 

and analysis of information under the 

statutory authority granted to it, an 

agency may occasionally obtain 

information, including information 

properly classified pursuant to 

Executive order, that concerns actual or 

potential violations of law that are not 

strictly within its statutory or other 

authority, or may compile information 

in the course of an investigation which 

may not be relevant to a specific 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 45 / Thursday, March 7, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 14673 

prosecution. It is impossible to 

determine in advance what information 

collected during an investigation will be 

important or crucial to the investigation 

and the apprehension of fugitives. In the 

interests of effective law enforcement, it 

is necessary to retain such information 

in this system of records because it can 

aid in establishing patterns of criminal 

activity and can provide valuable leads 

for federal and other law enforcement 

agencies. This consideration applies 

equally to information acquired from, or 

collated or analyzed for, both law 

enforcement agencies and agencies of 

the U.S. foreign intelligence community 

and military community. 

(7) From subsection (e)(2) because in 

a criminal investigation, prosecution, or 

proceeding, the requirement that 

information be collected to the greatest 

extent practicable from the subject 

individual would present a serious 

impediment to law enforcement because 

the subject of the investigation, 

prosecution, or proceeding would be 

placed on notice as to the existence and 

nature of the investigation, prosecution, 

and proceeding and would therefore be 

able to avoid detection or apprehension, 

to influence witnesses improperly, to 

destroy evidence, or to fabricate 

testimony. Moreover, thorough and 

effective investigation and prosecution 

may require seeking information from a 

number of different sources. 

(8) From subsection (e)(3) because the 

requirement that individuals supplying 

information be provided a form stating 

the requirements of subsection (e)(3) 

would constitute a serious impediment 

to criminal law enforcement in that it 

could compromise the existence of a 

confidential investigation or reveal the 

identity of witnesses or confidential 

informants and endanger their lives, 

health, and physical safety. The 

individual could seriously interfere 

with undercover investigative 

techniques and could take appropriate 

steps to evade the investigation or flee 

a specific area. 

(9) From subsections (e)(4)(G) and (H) 

because this system is exempt from the 

access provisions of subsection (d) 

pursuant to subsections (j) and (k) of the 

Privacy Act, and from subsection 

(e)(4)(I) to preclude any claims that the 

Department must provide more detail 

regarding the record sources for this 

system than the Department publishes 

in the system of records notice for this 

system. Exemption from providing any 

additional details about sources is 

necessary to preserve the security of 

sensitive law enforcement and 

intelligence information and to protect 

the privacy and safety of witnesses and 

informants and others who provide 

information to the DEA; and further, 

greater specificity of properly classified 

records could compromise national 

security. 

(10) From subsection (e)(5) because 

the acquisition, collation, and analysis 

of information for criminal law 

enforcement purposes from various 

agencies does not permit a 

determination in advance or a 

prediction of what information will be 

matched with other information and 

thus whether it 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 and the 

accuracy of such information can often 

only be determined in a court of law. 

The restrictions imposed by subsection 

(e)(5) would restrict the ability of 

trained investigators, intelligence 

analysts, and government attorneys to 

exercise their judgment in collating and 

analyzing information and would 

impede the development of criminal or 

other intelligence necessary for effective 

law enforcement. 

(11) From subsection (e)(8) because 

the individual notice requirements of 

subsection (e)(8) could present a serious 

impediment to criminal law 

enforcement by revealing investigative 

techniques, procedures, evidence, or 

interest, and by interfering with the 

ability to issue warrants or subpoenas; 

could give persons sufficient warning to 

evade investigative efforts; and would 

pose an impossible administrative 

burden on the maintenance of these 

records and the conduct of the 

underlying investigations. 

(12) From subsections (f) and (g) 

because these subsections are 

inapplicable to the extent that the 

system is exempt from other specific 

subsections of the Privacy Act. 

(13) From subsection (h) when 

application of this provision could 

impede or compromise an ongoing 

criminal investigation, interfere with a 

law enforcement activity, reveal an 

investigatory technique or confidential 

source, invade the privacy of a person 

who provides information for an 

investigation, or endanger law 

enforcement personnel. 

Dated: February 28, 2013. 

Joo Y. Chung, 

Acting Chief Privacy and Civil Liberties 

Officer, United States Department of Justice. 

[FR Doc. 2013–05146 Filed 3–6–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–09–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

National Park Service 

36 CFR Part 7 

[NPS–NCR–10414] [PPNCNAMA00, 

PPMPSPD1Z.YM0000] 

RIN 1024–AD89 

Special Regulation; Areas of the 

National Park System, National Capital 

Region, Demonstrations and Special 

Events 

AGENCY: National Park Service, Interior. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: We, the National Park 

Service, are amending the regulations 

on demonstrations and special events 

for the National Capital Region. This 

rule revises the definition of 

‘‘demonstration,’’ lifts the prior 

regulatory ban on soliciting money or 

funds but requires a permit for the inperson solicitation of money or funds on 

Federal park land, and revises an 

introductory sentence prohibiting 

demonstrations or special events in 

designated memorial areas. This rule 

also changes the name of the permit 

office to the Division of Permits 

Management. 

DATES: Effective Date: April 8, 2013. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Marisa Richardson, Acting Chief, 

Division of Permits Management, 900 

Ohio Drive SW., Washington, DC 20024, 

Telephone: 202–245–4715. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Introduction and Background 

We published a proposed rule in the 

Federal Register on January 3, 2011 (76 

FR 57) and provided a 60-day period for 

public review and comment that closed 

on March 4, 2011. In this rule we 

proposed to: 

• Revise the definition of 

‘‘demonstration’’ at 36 CFR 7.96(g)(1)(i) 

by replacing the phrase ‘‘intent or 

propensity’’ with the phrase 

‘‘reasonably likely.’’ This change was 

based upon the court’s decision in 

Boardley v. U.S. Department of the 

Interior, 605 F. Supp. 2d 8 (D.D.C. 

2009), holding that the prior phrase 

granted overly broad discretion to NPS 

personnel in the permit process, which 

may result in an impermissible 

regulation of speech protected by the 

First Amendment. 

• Amend 36 CFR 7.96(h) to allow 

solicitation of gifts, money, goods, or 

services funds as part of a permit issued 

for a demonstration or special event, to 

be consistent with the United States 

Court of Appeals for the District of 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES