DHS ICE 018 Analytical Records System SORN

61665

Rules and Regulations

Federal Register
Vol. 86, No. 213
Monday, November 8, 2021

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.

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Office of the Secretary
6 CFR Part 5
[Docket No. DHS–2021–ICEB–2021–0012]

Privacy Act of 1974: Implementation of
Exemptions; U.S. Department of
Homeland Security/U.S. Immigration
and Custom Enforcement–018
Analytical Records System of Records
U.S. Immigration and Custom
Enforcement U.S. Department of
Homeland Security.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:

The U.S. Department of
Homeland Security (DHS) is issuing a
final rule to amend its regulations to
exempt portions of a newly established
system of records titled, ‘‘DHS/U.S.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement
(IC)–018 Analytical Records System of
Records’’ from certain provisions of the
Privacy Act. Specifically, the
Department exempts portions of the
system of records’’ from one or more
provisions of the Privacy Act because of
criminal, civil, and administrative
enforcement requirements.
DATES: This final rule is effective
November 8, 2021.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
general questions please contact: Jordan
Holz, [email protected], Privacy
Officer, U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement (ICE), 500 12th Street SW,
Mail Stop 5004, Washington, DC 20536.
For privacy issues please contact: Lynn
Parker Dupree (202) 343–1717, Privacy@
hq.dhs.gov, Chief Privacy Officer,
Privacy Office, U.S. Department of
Homeland Security, Washington, DC
20528.

lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1

SUMMARY:

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background
The U.S. Department of Homeland
Security (DHS) U.S. Immigration and

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:24 Nov 05, 2021

Jkt 256001

Customs Enforcement (ICE) published a
notice of proposed rulemaking in the
Federal Register, (86 FR 15134, March
22, 2021), proposing to exempt portions
of the system of records titled, ‘‘DHS/
ICE–018 Analytical Records’’ from one
or more provisions of the Privacy Act
because of criminal, civil, and
administrative enforcement
requirements. The DHS/ICE–018
Analytical Records system of records
notice was published concurrently in
the Federal Register, (86 FR 15246,
March 22, 2021), and comments were
invited on both the Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (NPRM) and System of
Records Notice (SORN).
Public Comments
DHS received four comments on the
NPRM, two of which also referenced the
SORN.
NPRM
All comments related to the NPRM
state that exempting the SORN from
portions of the Privacy Act will restrict
the public’s ability to demand
transparency regarding ICE analytical
systems.
The first concern commenters
presented was that ICE’s claiming of
Privacy Act exemptions create a lack of
transparency in ICE operations and the
analytical systems themselves, stating:
‘‘[t]he American public has the right to
know how our tax dollars are being
spent and if their tax dollars are being
spent wisely and ethically in regards to
immigrants’’ and ‘‘[e]xemptions under
the Privacy Act will not just protect
DHS’ system of records but also the
data, software, and systems owned by
private companies, perpetuating further
a lack of transparency in deportations
and other investigations under the guise
of ‘national security.’ ’’
As discussed in the SORN and below,
individuals about whom ICE maintains
information in its records systems may
still submit a Privacy Act amendment
request or a request for access to
information. While ICE has exempted
this system of records from the access
and amendment provisions of the
Privacy Act, it will still consider these
requests on a case-by-case basis to
ensure that agency data is complete,
accurate, and current.
Further, to provide the greatest access
to information, ICE considers
individuals’ requests under both the
Privacy Act and the Freedom of

PO 00000

Frm 00001

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

Information Act (FOIA). To this end, the
public can seek records described in the
Analytical Records SORN under FOIA.
In contrast to the broad scope of FOIA,
5 U.S.C. 552, the Privacy Act is
narrowly focused on individuals’
personal information maintained in
agency systems of records. As stated in
the comment, the Privacy Act is meant
to ‘‘. . . ensure accuracy of and
individuals’ access to information that
agencies gather about them.’’ FOIA’s
broad scope allows the public access to
governmental information generally.
This includes information on data,
systems, and connections within the
agency. Subsections (t)(1) and (t)(2) of
the Privacy Act prohibit agencies not
only from restricting an individual’s
access to his/her record under FOIA
based solely on claimed Privacy Act
exemptions, but also from withholding
records under the Privacy Act based on
FOIA exemptions. Information about
filing a FOIA request with ICE is
available at www.ice.gov/foia.
The publication process for the
Analytical Records SORN as required by
the Privacy Act promotes the
accountability, responsibility, legislative
oversight, and open government
requested by commenters. Subsection (r)
of the Privacy Act requires agencies,
when establishing or significantly
modifying a system of records, to
provide adequate advance notice to the
Office of Management and Budget
(OMB), the Committee on Oversight and
Government Reform of the House of
Representatives, and the Committee on
Homeland Security and Governmental
Affairs of the Senate. This advance
notice is separate from the public
comment period ICE is engaging in here.
The advanced notice that ICE provided
to OMB and the committees of
jurisdiction in Congress allows each
body to make an evaluation of the
probable or potential effects of ICE’s
proposal on the privacy or other rights
of individuals.
Finally, in addition to the publication
of SORNs here in the Federal Register,
ICE also provides transparency into its
systems through the publication of
Privacy Impact Assessments (PIA). PIAs
are conducted in accordance with the EGovernment Act of 2002 (Pub. L. 107–
347) by ICE Privacy personnel, are
reviewed by the DHS Privacy Office,
and signed by the DHS Chief Privacy
Officer. PIAs describe how ICE

E:\FR\FM\08NOR1.SGM

08NOR1

61666

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 213 / Monday, November 8, 2021 / Rules and Regulations

lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1

information technology systems work,
what information they collect, how ICE
uses that information, any external
parties with whom the information is
shared, and the privacy risks and
corresponding mitigations employed by
ICE. ICE and all DHS PIAs are published
on the DHS website, www.dhs.gov/
privacy.
The second concern raised by
commenters is the perceived inability
for an individual to access ICE records
about him/her due to the exemptions
claimed in this rule. Commenters state
‘‘[e]xemptions intended to prevent the
subject of an investigation from being
aware of the investigation undermine
the presumption of innocence enjoyed
by individuals in the United States by
proposing that individuals being
investigated should be denied rights
. . .’’ and that they ‘‘. . . take exception
to the fact that the DHS is not required
to establish requirements, rules, or
procedures with respect to such access.’’
The commenters’ concern is amplified
as the exemptions may not just apply to
individuals under investigation, but
their associates and family members as
well.
As recognized in the comments, DHS
is exempting this system as law
enforcement sensitive to ensure that
information and records produced in
response to Privacy Act requests are not
used to disrupt or frustrate ICE
investigations. As stated in the
accompanying SORN, ‘‘DHS/ICE will
consider individual requests to
determine whether or not information
may be released.’’ ICE will consider all
Privacy Act requests, whether access or
amendment requests, on a case-by-case
basis. As such, ICE has established
access requirements, rules, and
procedures outlined in the SORN
accompanying this rule. The Privacy
Act exemptions claimed here in no way
alter or abrogate an individual’s due
process and fair trial rights guaranteed
by the U.S. Constitution.
SORN
The comments filed in response to the
proposed rule also raised objections
regarding the DHS/ICE–018 Analytical
Records SORN. Two objections are
outside the scope of this rulemaking and
so will not be addressed here. One
objection from a commenter is that the
SORN does not examine ICE’s
relationship with a private software
vendor. ICE will not respond to this
objection as a final rule is not the proper
forum to discuss ICE contractual
relationships. Additionally, ICE will not
examine U.S. Citizenship and
Immigration Services’ (USCIS)
biometrics NPRM, as requested by a

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:24 Nov 05, 2021

Jkt 256001

commenter, as that proposed rule has
been withdrawn (86 FR 24750, May 10,
2021).
The comments ICE received on the
SORN were focused on four distinct
areas of concern: (1) The SORN expands
ICE’s existing authority and ability to
collect records on individuals; (2) The
SORN lacks transparency, in that the
SORN did not address issues important
to the commenters; (3) ICE analytical
systems use artificial intelligence and
machine learning, with specific concern
that these analytical systems will be
used for ‘‘predictive policing’’ or
‘‘constant and ongoing surveillance of
immigrants and citizens;’’ and, (4) The
SORN’s routine uses are so overly broad
that ‘‘they provide no limit on
permissible sharing.’’
The Analytical Records SORN Expands
ICE’s Existing Records Collection
A commenter expressed concern that
the Analytical Records SORN was
‘‘expanding the sources from which data
is gathered as well as the categories of
individuals covered and records
included and allows use of algorithmic
processes.’’ ICE did not intend the
SORN to be understood as solely a
consolidation of two previously
published SORNs. Rather, as stated in
the background section of the SORN,
ICE is establishing a new system of
records that clarifies and more
accurately reflects the nature of records
ICE collects, maintains, processes, and
shares in large analytical data
environments.
The purpose for ICE’s publication of
the Analytical Records SORN is to give
the public notice of the types of records
ICE maintains in support of analytical
and algorithmic processes. Information
derived from the ICE Tip Line and trade
data, previously covered by the DHS/
ICE–016 FALCON-Search and Analysis
(FALCON–SA) SORN and DHS/ICE–005
Trade Transparency and Research
(TTAR) SORN, respectively, are now
covered under the Analytical Records
SORN. Beyond those two categories of
information, the Analytical Records
SORN does not provide stand-alone
coverage for any other ICE collection
efforts. As stated in the SORN, ICE
analytical systems ingest data collected
through other efforts and authorities and
covered by other SORNs. Differences in
the categories of individuals or records
described in the DHS/ICE–016
FALCON–SA SORN and DHS/ICE–005
TTAR SORN and those described in the
Analytical Records SORN are reflective
of these other ingestions.
The SORNs covering the ingested
information restrict ICE’s use of that
information to what is compatible with

PO 00000

Frm 00002

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

the original purpose of the collection.
Technological advancements allow ICE
to institute protections at the record
level that follow the data as it passes
from the originating systems into ICE
analytical systems. As such, the initial
protections and restrictions on the use
and sharing of the ingested information
as described in those originating SORNs
are retained by ICE as a record is
ingested into its analytical systems. To
reiterate an example given in the SORN,
data available through an ingest from
ICE’s Investigative Case Management
System (ICM) would be covered by the
DHS/ICE–009 External Investigations
SORN (85 FR 74362, November 20,
2020) and each record stored from that
ingest is tagged as belonging to that
system of record. An analytical system
may filter, search, graph, or link that
data with other datasets, but only for a
purpose described in DHS/ICE–009,
such as generating leads for
investigations. If ICE personnel wish to
share an analytical product from an ICE
analysis system with a third party, the
tags of the underlying data, and its
accompanying restrictions, must
similarly be respected. Therefore, ICE
analytical systems covered by the
Analytical Records SORN do not
expand ICE collections, use, or sharing
of personal data.
The Analytical Records SORN Does Not
Provide an Adequate Accounting of
DHS Collection, Use, and Sharing of
Data
The commenters maintain that the
Analytical Records SORN does not
describe the access controls and
auditing mechanisms within ICE’s
analytical systems in sufficient
granularity. They also raise objections
that the SORN does not discuss different
analytical systems, such as ICE’s
FALCON–SA system and ICE’s
‘‘complex network of interlocking
systems’’ including ICE’s connections to
DHS’s Homeland Advanced Recognition
Technology system (HART).
The publication of the Analytical
Records SORN is an effort to provide
broader transparency of the ICE
analytical environment so that ICE does
not continue to rely on disparate and
segregated notices from previouslypublished SORNs. The Analytical
Records SORN reflects the realities of
cloud computing and modern
technological processes, where access
and control are derived from user
privileges rather than the physical
location of data. As stated in the SORN,
ICE’s analytical processes may span
multiple information technology
systems within the ICE domain and
records may be derived from multiple

E:\FR\FM\08NOR1.SGM

08NOR1

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 213 / Monday, November 8, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
collection points. Moreover, the purpose
of a SORN is to provide notice to the
public regarding personally identifiable
information maintained by an agency; it
is not meant to outline or provide a full
description of the technical capabilities
and nuances of an IT system. Granular
detail of system connections,
algorithmic processes, access controls,
and auditing functions can be found in
the applicable system’s PIA, which can
be found at www.dhs.gov/privacy. All
PIAs link to their associated SORN(s),
providing clear notice as to which
systems are covered under the
Analytical Records SORN.

lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1

The SORN Allows for ICE To Conduct
Unlimited Surveillance and ‘‘Predictive
Policing’’
Several commenters expressed
concern with ICE’s use of advanced
analytics and artificial intelligence to
engage in controversial policing tactics.
The first tactic, ‘‘predictive policing,’’ is
the practice of using statistics and
analysis to forecast crime or identify
where crime may occur in the near
future.1 Certain state or local police
departments have used these methods to
determine where to deploy resources or
to identify those who are likely to
commit crimes in the future by
examining past behaviors.
The Analytical Records SORN does
not support predictive policing. The
SORN lists the purposes of the
collection, use, and sharing of
information in ICE analytical systems.
The purposes of the systems are to
identify current violations of law and
regulation or generate leads for ongoing
investigations. There is no purpose
stated in the SORN that allows for its
systems to engage in future state risk
modelling.
Commenters expressed concern with
a second controversial policing tactic,
‘‘ongoing and constant surveillance of
immigrants and citizens.’’ This is
similarly not supported by the
Analytical Records SORN. As stated in
the SORN and above, the Analytical
Records SORN does not expand ICE
collections of personal data. ICE
analytical systems ingest data that has
already been collected through other
efforts and authorities. The restrictions
on use of that data are listed in the
SORN relevant to that collection and are
transferred to the ICE analytical systems
for linkage and further analysis. ICE
analytical systems are meant to process
data that has already been collected in
1 Tim Lau, Predictive Policing Explained (April 1,
2020), available at https://www.brennancenter.org/
our-work/research-reports/predictive-policingexplained.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:24 Nov 05, 2021

Jkt 256001

a more efficient manner using advanced
analytics and modern processing
techniques. They are not used to
monitor or surveil the public.
The SORN’s Routine Uses Are Overly
Broad
Finally, a commenter objected that the
routine uses listed in the Analytical
Records SORN are ‘‘so expansive . . .
they provide no limit on permissible
sharing.’’ The commenter,
unfortunately, has not articulated any
specific routine use that is inconsistent
with the Privacy Act or ICE’s statutory
authorities for ICE to address. Generally,
however, any routine use listed in the
SORN must be compatible with the
purpose of the system of records, as
stated in the SORN, the purpose for
which ICE originally collected the
information, and ICE’s statutory
mission. Each routine use is analyzed
and vetted for compatibility by ICE and
DHS. As the Analytical Records SORN
consolidates two previous ICE SORNs,
the vast majority of routine uses in the
new Analytical Records SORN are the
same as the routine uses listed in those
previously published SORNs. This
means that the Analytical Records
SORN routine uses were examined on
multiple occasions by government
oversight bodies that determined they
were neither overly broad nor outside
the stated purpose of the system of
records.
As described in the SORN, if data is
ingested from another system of records,
the ICE analytical system, through
record tagging and controls, ensures any
subsequent sharing is compatible with
the original SORN’s purposes. This
provides additional safeguards in the
flow of information and limits the
permissible sharing of data.
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.
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
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.

2. In appendix C to part 5, add
paragraph 86 to read as follows:

■

PO 00000

Frm 00003

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

61667

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

*

*

*

*

86. The DHS/ICE–018 Analytical Records
System of Records consists of electronic and
paper records and will be used by DHS and
its components. The DHS/ICE–018 Analytical
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;
national security and intelligence activities.
The DHS/ICE–018 Analytical Records System
of Records contains information that is
collected by, on behalf of, in support of, or
in cooperation with DHS and its components
and 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 (4), (d), (e)(1), (e)(2) and
(3), (e)(4)(G), (e)(4)(H), (e)(4)(I), (e)(5), (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)(2). Where a
record received from another system has
been exempted in that source system under
5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2), DHS will claim the same
exemptions for those records that are claimed
for the original primary systems of records
from which they originated and claims any
additional exemptions set forth here.
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 (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 that 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, to tamper with witnesses or
evidence, and to avoid detection or
apprehension, which would undermine the
entire investigative process.
(b) From subsection (d) (Access and
Amendment 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 that 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, to
tamper with witnesses or evidence, and to

E:\FR\FM\08NOR1.SGM

08NOR1

lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1

61668

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 213 / Monday, November 8, 2021 / Rules and Regulations

avoid detection or apprehension.
Amendment of the records could interfere
with ongoing investigations and law
enforcement activities. Further, permitting
amendment to counterintelligence records
after an investigation has been completed
would impose an unmanageable
administrative burden. 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 to the nature or existence of the
investigation, thereby interfering with that
investigation and related law enforcement
activities.
(e) From subsection (e)(3) (Notice to
Subjects) because providing such detailed
information could impede law enforcement
by compromising the existence of a
confidential investigation or reveal the
identity of witnesses or confidential
informants.
(f) From subsections (e)(4)(G), (e)(4)(H),
and (e)(4)(I) (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 requirements, rules, or
procedures with respect to such access.
Providing notice to individuals with respect
to existence of records pertaining to them in
the 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, and potential witnesses, and
confidential informants.
(g) From subsection (e)(5) (Collection of
Information) because with the collection of
information for law enforcement purposes, it
is impossible to determine in advance what
information is accurate, relevant, timely, and
complete.
(h) From subsection (e)(8) (Notice on
Individuals) because compliance would
interfere with DHS’s 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.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:24 Nov 05, 2021

Jkt 256001

(i) From subsection (g)(1) (Civil Remedies)
to the extent that the system is exempt from
other specific subsections of the Privacy Act.
Lynn Parker Dupree,
Chief Privacy Officer, U.S. Department of
Homeland Security.
[FR Doc. 2021–24328 Filed 11–5–21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111–28–P

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Agricultural Marketing Service
7 CFR Part 1220
[Document No. AMS–LP–20–0085]

Soybean Promotion and Research:
Adjusting Representation on the
United Soybean Board
Agricultural Marketing Service,
USDA.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:

This final rule adjusts the
number of members on the United
Soybean Board (Board) to reflect
changes in production levels that have
occurred since the Board was last
reapportioned in 2018. As required by
the Soybean Promotion, Research, and
Consumer Information Act (Act),
membership on the Board is reviewed
every 3 years and adjustments are made
accordingly. This change results in a
decrease in Board membership for one
State (Alabama), decreasing the total
number of Board members from 78 to
77. These changes are reflected in the
Soybean Promotion and Research Order
(Order) and will be effective with the
Secretary of Agriculture’s (Secretary)
appointments for terms in the year 2022.
This final rule also corrects the number
of States and units to the Order.
Technical corrections to the regulations
adjust the number of States and units
from 30 to 31.
DATES: This rule is effective as of
December 8, 2021.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Sarah Aswegan, (515) 201–5190;
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
SUMMARY:

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
Executive Orders (E.O.) 12866 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; distributive impacts; and
equity). E.O. 13563 emphasizes the
importance of quantifying both costs

PO 00000

Frm 00004

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

and benefits, reducing costs,
harmonizing rules, and promoting
flexibility. This rule does not meet the
definition of a significant regulatory
action contained in section 3(f) of E.O.
12866 and therefore, the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) has
waived review of this action.
Executive Order 12988
This final rule has been reviewed
under E.O. 12988, Civil Justice Reform.
This rule is not intended to have
retroactive effect.
Section 11 of the Act (7 U.S.C. 2910)
provides that nothing in the Act may be
construed to preempt or supersede any
other program relating to soybean
promotion organized and operated
under the laws of the U.S. or any State.
There are no administrative proceedings
that must be exhausted prior to any
judicial challenge to the provisions of
this rule.
Executive Order 13175
This proposed rule has been reviewed
under E.O. 13175—Consultation and
Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments. E.O. 13175 requires
Federal agencies to consult and
coordinate with tribes on a governmentto-government basis on: (1) Policies that
have tribal implication, including
regulation, legislative comments, or
proposed legislation; and (2) other
policy statements or actions that have
substantial direct effects on one or more
Indian tribes, on the relationship
between the Federal Government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of
power and responsibilities between the
Federal Government and Indian tribes.
AMS has assessed the impact of this
proposed rule on Indian tribes and
determined that this rule would not
have tribal implications that require
consultation under E.O. 13175. AMS
hosts a quarterly teleconference with
tribal leaders where matters of mutual
interest regarding the marketing of
agricultural products are discussed.
Information about the proposed
regulation has been shared during a
quarterly call, and tribal leaders were
informed about the proposed regulation
and the opportunity to submit
comments. AMS will work with the
USDA Office of Tribal Relations to
ensure meaningful consultation is
provided as needed with regards to the
regulations.
Paperwork Reduction Act
In accordance with OMB regulations
(5 CFR part 1320) that implement the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. Chapter 35), the information
collection and recordkeeping

E:\FR\FM\08NOR1.SGM

08NOR1