Cross County Patriots: (REAL ID)
Tuesday May 17 at the Panda Buffet located at 1009 Hwy 321 N, Lenoir City, TN 37771.  The meeting starts at 6:30 PM and Tona will begin speaking at 6:45 PM.  Come early at 5:30 PM to fellowship and enjoy the buffet.  The cost of the buffet is less than $10. 

East Tennessee Research Institute: (Fusion Centers)
Monday June 13th at 7 PM at the Mandarin House on Merchant’s Drive in Knoxville Tennessee (off I-75 exit 108) at 7 PM.  Come early at 6 PM to enjoy dinner.  The buffet cost is less than $10.  Bring a friend and learn. 

South Knoxville Republican Club: (Fusion Centers)
Thursday June 17th at 7 PM at Gary Underwood Park
Address: 6135 Moore Road Knoxville, TN 37920

For more information or if you live in Tennessee, western North Carolina or north Georgia and would like for your civic group to host a Fusion Center presentation contact Tona.

http://greenevillesun.com/story/313846

The TFC was singled out among the 72 fusion centers nationwide for its progress in analyzing and sharing terrorism and criminal information among federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies across Tennessee at both the tactical and strategic levels.

DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano presented the award earlier this week at the National Fusion Center Conference in Denver.

Secretary Napolitano also recognized TFC analyst Oxana Munson as State/Local Fusion Center Representative of the Year.

“The dedicated team at the Tennessee Fusion Center analyzes information from various sources and ‘connects the dots’ to prevent potential criminal and terrorist activities in our state,” said Tennessee Department of Safety and Homeland Security Commissioner Bill Gibbons.

“The recognition this award gives the Fusion Center is well deserved by the individuals who work daily to gather information on incidents across the state and have the ability to link those incidents on the local, state and federal levels,” said TBI Director Mark Gwyn. “The Fusion Center has revolutionized law enforcement in Tennessee.”

Housed in the TBI Headquarters in Nashville, the TFC was created in 2007.

The collaborative effort of the partner agencies provides resources, expertise and information to the center with the goal of maximizing the ability to detect, prevent, apprehend and respond to criminal and terrorist activity.

ABOUT THE TFC

The TFC uses intelligence information with an “all crimes” approach.

It provides a central location for the collection and analysis of law enforcement related information and produces a continuous flow of that information to the law enforcement community.

The TFC forecasts and identifies emerging crime trends and gives assistance to law enforcement in criminal investigations.

In addition to the TBI and Tennessee Department of Homeland Security, Tennessee Fusion Center partners include the Tennessee Highway Patrol, the Tennessee Department of Correction, the Tennessee Board of Probation and Parole, the National Guard, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, the Regional Organized Crime Information Center, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

Copyright © 2011, The Greeneville Sun

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thelookout/20101220/ts_yblog_thelookout/the-5-most-surprising-revelations-from-the-posts-monitoring-america-investigation

As it turns out, I care about 9/11.  On that day America lost 3,000 lives, two of the world’s most impressive buildings, an economy centered around debt and credit, and nearly all of her Civil Liberties.

Digging deeper through all the information regarding Building 7 (the third building that fell on 9/11), one can possibly conclude The 9/11 Commission Report does not add up to the events of that day.  Also, Larry Silverstein, the leaseholder for the World Trade Center admits Building 7 was taken down with controlled demolition.  The question I have is: How did they manage to squeeze weeks and weeks and weeks of work (planning and loading explosives into the perfect places in the building) down to just hours?

One may believe 9/11 is old news and focus should be elsewhere; that’s perfectly fine with me.  In my opinion, if there is a reinvestigation and there is something hidden from the people, 9/11 is a main focal-point of which the Patriot Act disappears, ALL the cameras are dismantled, the FBI and CIA are no longer able to collect biometric data, the FBI and CIA must halt installing iris scanning ability to track the citizens’ every move, TSA body scanners are sold for parts, and all of our troops are brought home.  Operation Defuse would not be in existence.

Everyone should care about 9/11, even to only care about a losing a single life, about the hard work put forth from our law enforcement and firemen, about a family losing a father, mother, or child.  History has shown the government and the people do not take action without a reason.  The people ended the Vietnam War after the release of the Pentagon Papers… What if 9/11 was controlled demolition?

1.              The Council on Foreign Relations’ report entitled “Building a North American Community.”

2.              The adoption of Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America

President Barack Obama, left, Mexico's President Felipe Calderon, right, and Canada's Prime Minister Stephen Harper, center, at the North American Leader's Summit at the Cabanas Cultural Center in Guadalajara, Monday, August 10, 2009. Official White House Photo by Pete Souza

Both items center on how America is to correspond with Mexico and Canada in order to “improve cooperative efforts among the three countries in areas related to economic prosperity and the protection of the environment, the food supply, and public health.”  There has yet to be a signed treaty or document, signifying the final step in becoming what is dubbed “The North American Union.”  However due to the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) put into law in 1994, Congress is working against the people and sovereignty of our States and Nation through the funding of non-profit organizations.

First is the non-profit organization known as North America’s SuperCorridor Coalition (NASCO).  “Since 1994, North America’s Corridor Coalition members have been leaders at the forefront of uniting public AND private sectors to address critical national and international trade, transportation, security and environmental issues. Spanning almost 2,500 hundred miles through the central United States, eastern and central Canada, and deep into Mexico, the NASCO trade corridor is a multi-modal transportation network that connects 71 million people and supports a large part of $1 trillion dollars in total commerce between the three nations.” http://www.nascocorridor.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=73&Itemid=101

NASCO conference in Iowa. The 2011 NASCO Conference heads to KANSAS CITY. The 2011 NASCO Conference will be a ONE day meeting on Wednesday, May 18th. NASCO will market to its members along the mid-continent corridor and especially in Mexico and Canada. For more information on Futurallia KC 2011, visit www.futuralliaKc2011.com

NASCO’s goal is to improve the existing highways, freight lines, and canals in order to stretch transportation from the very base of Mexico, through the Heartland of the United States (Kansas City), and branching across Canada. “NASCO is devoted to uniting public AND private sectors to address critical national and international trade, transportation, security and environmental issues.”  Dennis Moore, Emanuel Cleaver, Sam Graves, Eddie Bernice Johnson, Pete Sessions, Kenny Marchant, Henry Bonilla, Henry Cuellar, Tom Latham, Kay Granger, and Michael Burgess were the NASCO SuperCorridor Caucus for Capitol Hill in 2006 as presented in this Security and Prosperity Partnership PowerPoint Presentation.

Through improving our current infrastructure, NASCO is working with Lockheed-Martin to implement a freight tracking system claimed to add security of containers coming into the United States.  Due to the claim of improving safety, NAFTRACS (information provided later) was allowed federal grants.

Lockheed-Martin:

CUSTOMER BASE: As a global security and information technology company, the majority of Lockheed Martin’s business is with the U.S. Department of Defense and the U.S. federal government agencies. In fact, Lockheed Martin is the largest provider of IT services, systems integration, and training to the U.S. Government. The remaining portion of Lockheed Martin’s business is comprised of international government and some commercial sales of our products, services and platforms.

ORGANIZATION: Lockheed Martin’s operating units are organized into broad business areas.

Aeronautics, with approximately $12.2 billion in 2009 sales, includes tactical aircraft, airlift, and aeronautical research and development lines of business.

Electronic Systems, with approximately $12.2 billion in 2009 sales, includes missiles and fire control, naval systems, platform integration, simulation and training and energy programs lines of business.

Information Systems & Global Solutions (IS&GS), with approximately $12.1 billion in 2009 sales, includes C4I, federal services, government and commercial IT solutions.

Space Systems, with approximately $8.6 billion in 2009 sales, includes space launch, commercial satellites, government satellites, and strategic missiles lines of business.

FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE: The Corporation reported 2009 sales of $45.2 billion, a backlog of $78 billion, and cash flow from operations of $3.2 billion.

Back to NASCO:

The Goal of NASCO is to provide adequate tracking devices along the highway system for international companies to place RFID chips on all items being transported within the corridor so international communities and businesses are aware of the exact location of items at all times. The following is from this link:

Transportation Efficiency and Security

NASCO’s experience in researching and developing leading edge information technology and software applications is significant. Over the years, the nonprofit has partnered and worked with some of the most outstanding companies operating in the industry across North America.

NAFTRACS

In April 2009, NASCO concluded a two-year study on a pilot project called NAFTRACS (North American Facilitation of Transportation, Trade, Reduced Congestion and Security), a research and development program to test advanced freight tracking technologies along the 2,480-mile (3,991 kilometers) corridor and their benefits to both the public and private sectors.

A NASCO effort secured two Congressional R&D grants, totaling about $1.8 million, overseen by the U.S. Dept. of Transportation’s Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) to fund the pilot. The pilot project Team consisted of project manager Lockheed Martin Co. and two additional technology partners – OnAsset Intelligence of Irving, Texas and GeoDecisions of Pennsylvania, a provider of worldwide logistics support to the U.S. Defense Department.

Major trucking companies and shippers took part in the pilot program and the international cargo tracking and tracing project was completed and submitted to the U.S. DOT in the summer of 2009.

The program was viewed as providing a highly valuable model and example of a hybrid public-private cargo tracking system that would benefit multiple U.S. states, Mexico and Canada through near real-time reporting of cargo movements through the heartland of North America.

C-TIP

Immediately following NAFTRACS, the U.S. DOT and FHWA partnered with NASCO to collaborate again on an information technology-driven development program that could greatly increase safety and security at key major metropolitan areas along the NASCO Corridor.

The Cross-Town Improvement Program (C-TIP) is an effort by the FHWA to work with industry to reduce unnecessary short-haul truck trips across urban areas.

The C-TIP project does this by collecting and disseminating information on short-haul congestion, expanding the capacity of existing transportation infrastructure, and reducing negative fuel emissions from freight movements. NASCO is working with C-TIP to promote the program in other urban areas along its corridor.

In the C-TIP pilot project in Kansas City, by surfacing information from trucking, rail, warehousing and distribution operations, shippers and others, the FHWA and the project aim to cut unnecessary, cross-town, short-haul truck trips by as much as 40 percent, which would reduce carbon emissions by the same percent in the metro region of Kansas City, MO.

While NASCO is not receiving federal funding for its efforts related to C-TIP, it is actively promoting the C-TIP concept as “a best practice” for study and possible adoption by other major, urban transport hubs along the NASCO Corridor.

NAIPN

The North American Inland Port Network (NAIPN) is a committee of NASCO that exists to advocate for the interests of Inland Ports (or intermodal transportation facilities) along the NASCO Corridor in the three nations of North America. It is considered the leading inland port trade association in North America.

NAIPN was founded in 2003 by NASCO members in Canada, the U.S. and Mexico to unite growing numbers of Inland Ports along the tri-national NASCO Corridor and to provide a business development forum for the inland ports.

NAIPN supports NASCO’s mission to strengthen and secure the multi-modal trade and transportation corridor system and to identify and disseminate best practices affecting these juggernauts of economic development, investment and job creation within North America. NAIPN acts to expand job creation and raise public awareness of inland ports’ integral role in economic development and trade.

Through this Johnson County, Kansas Website: studies, layouts, and planning are detailed in restructuring the I-435/I-35/K-10 interchange.  This is the Heart of the Super Corridor.  Construction begins in 2012 [an interesting year to begin such tasks, I would add].

Unrelated to NASCO and to also further the North American Police State; Americans, Mexicans, and Canadians must worry about the international non-profit organization known as Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance (CVSA).  CVSA is comprised of local, state, provincial, territorial and federal motor carrier safety officials and industry representatives from the United States, Canada, and Mexico (AKA Police Officers).  1980 marked the beginning of this organization through informal meetings. Over the years CVSA has gained prominence from the United States, Canada, and Mexico as becoming one of the main inspectors of commercial vehicles and busses. CVSA is both privately and, since 1994, federally funded. CVSA is currently pushing Congress to change laws and increase funding.

The Kansas Highway Patrol is the State of Kansas host agency for CVSA. Located at 1220 S. Enterprise Street, Olathe, KS 66061, Troop A is responsible for Johnson, Wyandotte, Leavenworth, and Miami counties. Furthermore, CVSA’s Cooperative Hazardous Materials Enforcement Department (COHMED) National Chairman, Rex Railsback, is also stationed at this location.  I would not have known about this organization if it weren’t for seeing the following picture in the back window of a police vehicle at a very populated, local event:

Commercial Vehicle Service Alliance Logo

In conclusion, our country’s sovereignty is under attack due to Congress and private companies funding non-profit organizations with international goals involving Canada, United States, and Mexico.  The “North American Union” is not in existence, however we are quickly marching toward a Fascist Corpocracy.

“Educate and inform the whole mass of the people…they are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty.” – Thomas Jefferson

Dear Operation Defuse,

It’s happening again. Congress is preparing to quietly reauthorize the USA PATRIOT Act with barely any public debate. Our leaders think you’re not paying attention, so—despite opposition from liberals and libertarians alike—they’re going to continue letting the government intrude on your privacy and violate your fundamental constitutional rights.

Show them you are paying attention. Join us in Washington next Thursday, January 27.

This is our chance to let policy makers in DC know that Americans of all walks of life are concerned about wiretapping law-abiding people, infiltrating peaceful activist groups, subjecting air travelers to virtual strip searches, and more. This is our opportunity to bring attention to the abuses that the PATRIOT Act allows, and the government’s violations of even its minimal requirements.

Next Thursday, bring your concerns to your members of Congress—in person.

If you are not able to come to Washington, you can still participate:

• Set up meetings at the district offices of your senators and representative. We can help.
• Whether or not you’re able to join us in DC, please take a moment to add your voice to our letter calling for change at the FBI. Nearly 1,500 concerned Americans have signed so far, and we’ll deliver the letter to Congress when we visit next week—so there’s still time to sign on.

We’re looking forward to seeing you in Washington on January 27.

With our deepest thanks for your commitment to our nation’s most fundamental values,

Shahid Buttar
Executive Director

Bill of Rights Defense Committee
8 Bridge Street, Suite A, Northampton, MA 01060
www.bordc.org
info@bordc.org
Telephone: 413-582-0110
Fax: 413-582-0116

United States Army Military Police School

• 71 pages
• March 1994

Civil disturbances may be riots, violent uprisings, or unlawful actions. As a member of the military forces, you may be ordered under certain conditions to help restore law and order and protect property. The National Guard is likely to face most of the violence during demonstrations. To gain successful control of a civil disturbance, it will require an understanding of the reason for social unrest and basic human behavior patterns. Planning control strategy depends on knowing why people behave as they do. Group behavior sets the scene for civil disturbances. However, it is individual behavior which in the end is the most important.

A study of past civil disorders shows that civil disturbances will follow definite stages. Understanding individual attitudes and behavior factors which influence these basic stages will be helpful in stopping civil disturbances.

Behind all disturbances is a cause which can be traced to one or more existing problems in a particular community. Causes change with the times. For example, economic and nuclear control are the main new issues for the 80′s. It matters little whether the problem is real or imagined. The impact is the same. Problems can be divided into two basic categories: politicalideological and socioeconomic.

CENTER FOR LAW AND MILITARY OPERATIONS

• 236 pages
• September 1, 2010

The Domestic Operational Law (DOPLAW) Handbook for Judge Advocates is a product of the Center for Law and Military Operations (CLAMO). First published in April of 2001, it was the first of its kind. Designed as a resource for operational lawyers involved in domestic support operations, its publication was indeed timely. After the events of September 11, 2001, and more recently, Hurricanes Katrina in 2005 and Ike in 2008, the Handbook continued to meet a growing need for an understanding of the legal issues inherent in such operations. As with the original publication of the Handbook, this update would not have been possible without the tireless efforts of countless active, reserve, and National Guard judge advocates who participate in these unique operations on an ongoing basis.

The contents of this Handbook are based on statutes, Executive Orders and Directives, national policy, DoD Directives, joint publications, service regulations and field manuals, and lessons learned by judge advocates. The Handbook is not a substitute for complete references. Indeed, as this update goes to publication, changes in these references are being discussed and in some cases, in the process of completion. Judge Advocates advising in this area of the law should monitor developments in this area closely as the landscape continues to evolve. Further, upon release, the new FM 3-28, Civil Support Operations, should be added to the bookshelf of Judge Advocates and operators alike that may be called to support operations in the Homeland. It provides an excellent overview of the subject and should be read in its entirety.

…

CIVIL DISTURBANCE OPERATIONS

KEY REFERENCES:
• 10 U.S.C. § 331-335 – The Restoration Act (Formerly known as “The Insurrection Act”)
• 10 U.S.C. § 2667 – Leases: Non-Excess Property of Military Departments
• 18 U.S.C. § 231 – Civil Disorders
• 18 U.S.C. § 1382 – Entering Military, Naval, or Coast Guard Property
• 18 U.S.C. § 1385 – The Posse Comitatus Act (PCA)
• 28 U.S.C. § 1346, 2671-2680 – The Federal Tort Claims Act
• 31 U.S.C. § 1535 – Agency Agreements
• Executive Order 12656 – Assignment of Emergency Preparedness Responsibilities
• EO 13527 – Establishing Federal Capability for the Timely Provision of Medical Countermeasures Following a Biological Attack (Dec. 30, 2009)
• DoDD 3025.12 – Military Assistance for Civil Disturbances, 4 Feb 94
• DoDD 3025.15 – Military Assistance to Civil Authorities,18 Jan 97
• DoDD 5111.13 – Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense and Americas’ Security Affairs, 16 Jan 09
• DoDD 5525.5 – DoD Cooperation with Civilian Law Enforcement Officials, 15 Jan 86
• CJCSI 3121.01B, Standing Rules of Engagement/Standing Rules For the Use of Force for U.S. Forces (S), 13 JUN 2005
• CJCSI 3110.07C, Guidance Concerning Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear Defense and Employment of RIOT Control Agents and Herbicides (S), 22 NOV 2006
• Joint Pub 3-28 – Civil Support (14 Sep. 2007)
• Army Regulation 700-131 – Loan and Lease of Army Materiel (23 Aug. 2004)
• National Guard Regulation 500-1/ANGI 10-8101 – National Guard Domestic Operations (13 Jun. 2008)
• FM 3-07 – Stability Operations and Support Operations (6 Oct. 2008)
• FM 3-19.15 – Civil Disturbances (18 Apr. 2005)
• USNORTHCOM CONPLAN 3502 (S)
• USNORTHCOM CONPLAN 3600 (S)
• USPACOM CONPLAN 7502 (S)

A. Introduction

Within civilian communities in the United States, the local government and the state have the primary responsibility for protecting life and property and maintaining law and order. Generally, federal forces are employed in support of state and local authorities to enforce civil law and order only when circumstances arise that overwhelm the resources of state and local authorities. This basic policy reflects the Founding Fathers’ hesitancy to raise a standing army and their desire to render the military subordinate to civilian authority. The basic policy is rooted in the Constitution and laws of the United States, and allows for exception only under extreme, emergency conditions.

The Constitution guarantees to the states that the Federal government will aid in suppressing civil disturbances (Civil Disturbance Operations (CDO)) and empowers Congress to create laws that provide Federal forces for that purpose.5 Other emergency conditions, which are outside the constitutionally and congressionally prescribed conditions, may also allow for CDO.

…

…

B. The Posse Comitatus Act

The primary statute restricting military support to civilian law enforcement is the Posse Comitatus Act (PCA). The PCA states:

Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.

The PCA was enacted in 1878, primarily as a result of the military presence in the South during Reconstruction following the Civil War. This military presence increased during the bitter presidential election of 1876, when the Republican candidate, Rutherford B. Hayes, defeated the Democratic candidate, Samuel J. Tilden, by one electoral vote. Many historians attribute Hayes’ victory to President Grant’s decision to send federal troops for use by U.S. Marshals at polling places in the states of South Carolina, Louisiana, and Florida. Possibly as a result of President Grant’s actions, Hayes won the electoral votes of these hotly contested states. The use of the military in this manner by a President led Congress to enact the PCA in 1878.

The intent of the PCA was to limit direct military involvement with civilian law enforcement, absent Congressional or Constitutional authorization, in the enforcement of the laws of the United States. The PCA is a criminal statute and violators are subject to fine and/or imprisonment. The PCA does not, however, prohibit all military involvement with civilian law enforcement. A considerable amount of military participation with civilian law enforcement is permissible, either as indirect support or under one of the numerous PCA exceptions.

…

Read the entire PDF on an army.mil webserver here.

[Federal Register: November 4, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 213)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 67909-67910]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr04no10-1]                         

========================================================================
Rules and Regulations
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents
having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed
to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published
under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents.
Prices of new books are listed in the first FEDERAL REGISTER issue of each
week.

========================================================================

[[Page 67909]]

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Office of the Secretary

6 CFR Part 5

[Docket No. DHS-2010-0082]

Privacy Act of 1974: Implementation of Exemptions; Department of
Homeland Security Office of the Inspector General-002 Investigative
Records System of Records

AGENCY: Privacy Office, DHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Department of Homeland Security is issuing a final rule to
amend its regulations to exempt portions of an updated and reissued
system of records titled, ``Department of Homeland Security Office of
the Inspector General--002 Investigative Records System of Records''
from one or more provisions of the Privacy Act because of criminal,
civil, and administrative enforcement requirements.

DATES: Effective Date: This final rule is effective November 4, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general questions please contact:
Melinda D. Holliday McDonald, Esq. (202-254-4284), Privacy Officer,
Office of the Inspector General, Mail Stop 2600, 245 Murray Drive, SW.,
Building 410, Washington, DC 20528; or by facsimile (202) 254-4299. For
privacy issues please contact: Mary Ellen Callahan (703-235-0780),
Chief Privacy Officer, Privacy Office, Department of Homeland Security,
Washington, DC 20528.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Office of Inspector
General (OIG) published a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal
Register, 74 FR 55482, October 28, 2009, proposing to exempt portions
of the system of records from one or more provisions of the Privacy Act
because of criminal, civil, and administrative enforcement
requirements. The system of records is the DHS/OIG-002 Investigative
Records System of Records. The DHS/OIG-002 Investigative Records System
of Records notice was published concurrently in the Federal Register,
74 FR 55569, October 28, 2009, and comments were invited on both the
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) and System of Records Notice
(SORN).

Public Comments

    DHS received one comment on the NPRM and no comments on the SORN.

NPRM

    The one comment received on the NPRM noted the inability to correct
personal information contained within the DHS/OIG-002 Investigative
Records System of Records and the inability to obtain legal and/or
civil remedy to dispute incorrect information contained within the
system of records. The commenter acknowledged that the overall
exemptions DHS seeks from the Privacy Act are necessary and consistent
with common exemptions sought by law enforcement agencies nationally.
However, the commenter expressed concern with the exemptions in
subsection (e)(5) of the Privacy Act (Collection of Information),
coupled with exemption in subsection (g). The commenter stated that
information contained in a file that is inaccurate should not be in
that file when the effects could damage that individual. The commenter
stated that on a case-by-case basis there must be an opportunity to
remedy incomplete and irrelevant information to make that person's
character whole.
    DHS/OIG believes that there is a need for the exemptions provided
for in this document. However, DHS/OIG recognizes that there may be
instances where such exemptions can be waived as stated in the NPRM and
implemented in the Final Rule. In appropriate circumstances, where
compliance would not appear to interfere with, or adversely affect, the
law enforcement and national security purposes of the system and the
overall law enforcement and security process, the applicable exemptions
may be waived.
    In the case of access requests from the DHS/OIG-002 Investigative
Records System of Records, each access request will be evaluated on a
case-by-case basis and if no harm to law enforcement interests or
national security would ensue from disclosure, the exemption may be
waived and the records (or portions of the records) may be disclosed.
    In the case of amendment requests from the DHS/OIG-002
Investigative Records System of Records, such requests would impose an
impossible administrative burden by requiring investigations to be
continuously reinvestigated and could disclose security-sensitive
information that could be detrimental to homeland security; therefore,
the exemption from amendment requests is necessary.

SORN

    No SORN comments were received.
    After consideration of public comments, the Department will
implement the rulemaking as proposed.

List of Subjects in 6 CFR Part 5

    Freedom of information; Privacy.

0
For the reasons stated in the preamble, DHS amends Chapter I of Title
6, Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:

PART 5--DISCLOSURE OF RECORDS AND INFORMATION

0
1. The authority citation for Part 5 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 6 U.S.C. 101 et seq.; Pub. L. 107-296, 116 Stat.
2135; 5 U.S.C. 301. Subpart A also issued under 5 U.S.C. 552.
Subpart B also issued under 5 U.S.C. 552a.

0
2. In Appendix C to Part 5, revise paragraph ``5'' to read as follows:

Appendix C to Part 5--DHS Systems of Records Exempt From the Privacy
Act

* * * * *
    5. The DHS/OIG-002 Investigative Records System of Records
consists of electronic and paper records used by the DHS OIG. The
DHS/OIG-002 Investigative Records System of Records is a repository
of information held by DHS in connection with its several and varied
missions and functions, including, but not limited to the
enforcement of civil and criminal laws; investigations, inquiries,
and proceedings there under; and national security and intelligence
activities. The DHS/OIG-002 Investigative Records System of Records
contains information that is collected by, on behalf of, in support
of, or in cooperation with DHS components and

[[Page 67910]]

may contain personally identifiable information collected by other
federal, state, local, tribal, foreign, or international government
agencies. The Secretary of Homeland Security has exempted this
system from the following provisions of the Privacy Act, subject to
limitations set forth in 5 U.S.C. 552a(c)(3) and (c)(4); (d);
(e)(1), (e)(2), (e)(3), (e)(4)(G), (e)(4)(H), (e)(5) and (e)(8);
(f); and (g) pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2). Additionally, the
Secretary of Homeland Security has exempted this system from the
following provisions of the Privacy Act, subject to limitations set
forth in 5 U.S.C. 552a(c)(3); (d); (e)(1), (e)(4)(G), (e)(4)(H); and
(f) pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(1), (k)(2) and (k)(5). Exemptions
from these particular subsections are justified, on a case-by-case
basis to be determined at the time a request is made, for the
following reasons:
    (a) From subsection (c)(3) and (c)(4) (Accounting for
Disclosures) because release of the accounting of disclosures could
alert the subject of an investigation of an actual or potential
criminal, civil, or regulatory violation, to the existence of the
investigation; and reveal investigative interest on the part of DHS
as well as the recipient agency. Disclosure of the accounting would
therefore present a serious impediment to law enforcement efforts
and/or efforts to preserve national security. Disclosure of the
accounting would also permit the individual who is the subject of a
record to impede the investigation, tamper with witnesses or
evidence, and avoid detection or apprehension, which would undermine
the entire investigative process.
    (b) From subsection (d) (Access to Records) because access to
the records contained in this system of records could inform the
subject of an investigation of an actual or potential criminal,
civil, or regulatory violation, to the existence of the
investigation, and reveal investigative interest on the part of DHS
or another agency. Access to the records could permit the individual
who is the subject of a record to impede the investigation, tamper
with witnesses or evidence, and avoid detection or apprehension.
Amendment of the records could interfere with ongoing investigations
and law enforcement activities and would impose an impossible
administrative burden by requiring investigations to be continuously
reinvestigated. In addition, permitting access and amendment to such
information could disclose security-sensitive information that could
be detrimental to homeland security.
    (c) From subsection (e)(1) (Relevancy and Necessity of
Information) because in the course of investigations into potential
violations of federal law, the accuracy of information obtained or
introduced occasionally may be unclear or the information may not be
strictly relevant or necessary to a specific investigation. In the
interests of effective law enforcement, it is appropriate to retain
all information that may aid in establishing patterns of unlawful
activity.
    (d) From subsection (e)(2) (Collection of Information from
Individuals) because requiring that information be collected from
the subject of an investigation would alert the subject as to the
nature or existence of an investigation, thereby interfering with
the related investigation and law enforcement activities.
    (e) From subsection (e)(3) (Notice to Subjects) because
providing such detailed information would impede law enforcement in
that it could compromise investigations by: revealing the existence
of an otherwise confidential investigation and thereby providing an
opportunity for the subject of an investigation to conceal evidence,
alter patterns of behavior, or take other actions that could thwart
investigative efforts; revealing the identity of witnesses in
investigations thereby providing an opportunity for the subjects of
the investigations or others to harass, intimidate, or otherwise
interfere with the collection of evidence or other information from
such witnesses; or revealing the identity of confidential
informants, which would negatively affect the informants' usefulness
in any ongoing or future investigations and discourage members of
the public from cooperating as confidential informants in any future
investigations.
    (f) From subsections (e)(4)(G) and (e)(4)(H) (Agency
Requirements) and (f) (Agency Rules), because portions of this
system are exempt from the individual access provisions of
subsection (d) for the reasons noted above, and therefore DHS is not
required to establish rules or procedures with respect to such
access. Providing notice to individuals with respect to existence of
records pertaining to them in this system of records or otherwise
setting up procedures pursuant to which individuals may access and
view records pertaining to themselves in the system would undermine
investigative efforts and reveal the identities of witnesses,
potential witnesses, and confidential informants.
    (g) From subsection (e)(5) (Collection of Information) because
in the collection of information for law enforcement purposes it is
impossible to determine in advance what information is accurate,
relevant, timely, and complete. Compliance with (e)(5) would
preclude DHS agents from using their investigative training and
exercise of good judgment to both conduct and report on
investigations.
    (h) From subsection (e)(8) (Notice on Individuals) because
compliance would interfere with DHS' ability to obtain, serve, and
issue subpoenas, warrants and other law enforcement mechanisms that
may be filed under seal, and could result in disclosure of
investigative techniques, procedures, and evidence.
    (i) From subsection (g) (Civil Remedies) to the extent that the
system is exempt from other specific subsections of the Privacy Act
relating to individuals' rights to access and amend their records
contained in the system. Therefore, DHS is not required to establish
rules or procedures pursuant to which individuals may seek a civil
remedy for the agency's refusals to amend a record; refusal to
comply with a request for access to records; failure to maintain
accurate, relevant, timely, and complete records; or failure to
otherwise comply with an individual's right to access or amend
records.
* * * * *

    Dated: October 6, 2010.
Mary Ellen Callahan,
Chief Privacy Officer, Department of Homeland Security.
[FR Doc. 2010-27830 Filed 11-3-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-9B-P