EPIC Administrative Procedure Act (APA) Comments
The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) governs internal procedures of administrative agencies, including how they interact with the public. The APA is codified at 5 U.S.C. §§ 551-559, and encompasses the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. § 552) and the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a). The APA serves to police improper agency behavior, protect public safety, and secure proper entitlements. More information on the APA can be found at EPIC: The Administrative Procedure Act (APA).
Since 1997, EPIC has consistently submitted extensive public comments to federal agencies, pursuant to the APA. EPIC has also submitted administrative comments to state and international administrative agencies. Through these comments, EPIC makes detailed recommendations, grounded in both policy and law, for stronger privacy protection. Below is a list of comments, arranged by agency in reverse chronological order, that EPIC has submitted since 1997.
The APA defines a "rule" as "the whole or a part of an agency statement of general or particular applicability and future effect designed to implement, interpret, or prescribe law or policy or describing the organization, procedure, or practice requirements of an agency and includes the approval or prescription for the future of rates, wages, corporate or financial structures or reorganizations thereof, prices, facilities, appliances, services or allowances therefore or of valuations, costs, or accounting, or practices bearing on any of the foregoing." In short, an agency creates a rule when it seeks to "implement, interpret, or prescribe law or policy."
The APA describes a particular rulemaking process with which agencies are required to comply. Typically, the agency must give a notice of a proposed rulemaking, published in the Federal Register. The Federal Register "is the official daily publication for rules, proposed rules, and notices of Federal agencies and organizations, as well as executive orders and other presidential documents." The notice must include the date the rule will come into effect, the legal authority the agency has proposed the rule under, and the substance of the rule.
After notice is given, the agency is required to solicit and accept public comments on the rule. There is no minimum period specified for the comment period to remain open, and it often varies with the complexity of the rule. Most comment periods last between 30 and 60 days, and some are re-opened if the agency believes that there was insufficient time for the public to respond or that the agency did not receive as much feedback as it would like. The agency must then consider all of the comments that are submitted in passing the final rule.
In certain cases, an agency must undergo a formal rulemaking, which requires a courtroom-style hearing. During formal rulemaking, decisions are reached on the basis of evidence given and received on the record. Formal rulemaking is appropriate in two cases: (1) where a statute provides that rules are "required to be made on the record after opportunity for an agency hearing"; and (2) in rulemakings that involve adjudicative facts, or facts specific to the rights of an individual. A statute that requires more than an informal notice and comment rulemaking, but is less stringent than a formal rulemaking, may result in a hybrid rulemaking that blends elements of each.
The APA also describes certain cases where the notice and comment rulemaking process is not required, including 2 general exceptions and 2 specific exceptions:
General Exception 1: the Rule involves a military or foreign affairs function of the United States
General Exception 2: The Rules involves a matter relating to agency management or personally or to public property, loans, grants, benefits, or contracts
Specific Exception 1: Cases of interpretative rules, general statements of policy, or rules of agency organizations, procedure, or practice
Specific Exception 2: When the agency finds for good cause that the notice and comment process is impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.Note that courts employ a functional analysis to determine if a rule is procedural or substantive, in that substantive rules embody value judgments or substantially alter the rights or interests of parties (see Air Transp. Ass'n of Am. v. Dep't of Transp., 900 F.2d 369). Also, under Specific Exception 2, the agency's own delay cannot bring about good cause that the notice and comment process is impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.
Like rulemakings, adjudications come in two forms - formal and informal. A formal adjudication is expressly required by statute to be held "on the record after opportunity for an agency hearing," though certain limited exceptions apply. The APA does not set out rules for informal adjudications, leaving it to each agency to determine its own procedures. However, formal adjudications require the same measures as formal rulemakings, including evidence introduced on the record.
Notice must be given to an individual subject to a formal adjudication, including the time, place, and nature of the hearing, the legal authority and jurisdiction, and the matters of asserted fact and law. An agency does not need to have a private party plaintiff - instead an agency can choose to initiate action to explore an issue or an alleged violation of some law or rule (see Office of Communication of United Church of Christ v. FCC, 359 F.2d 994). However, when a private party would have standing to appeal a decision, they will also have the right to intervene in a formal adjudication.
Formal hearings (and rulemakings) are presided over by an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ). The ALJ renders a final decision on the record, which can be held as final or appealed to the full agency. Final agency decisions are subject to judicial review.
Adjudications are subject to due process requirements when two requirements are met: (1) the hearing involves issues of adjudicative facts, or facts that effect a small, individualized group, and (2) the hearing involves the possibility of a deprivation of a property or liberty interest. That interest must be created and defined by existing rules or understandings that stem from independent sources (see Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564).
When a license is required by a law, the agency in granting that license must comply with the same procedures governing formal rulemaking and adjudication. Application for all other licenses is governed by internal agency rules. An agency cannot revoke a license while an application for a new license remains pending. Further, licenses cannot be revoked unless the agency gives notice as to what action has provided cause for the revocation and has allowed the licensee an opportunity to correct that action.
Final agency decisions are subject to judicial review. Generally, challenges to agency regulations have a six-year statute of limitations.
Scope of Review
The reviewing court shall decide "all relevant questions of law, interpret constitutional and statutory provisions, and determine the meaning or applicability of the terms of an agency action." The reviewing court must (A) compel agency action that was either "unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed" and (B) find unlawful and "set aside agency action, findings, and conclusions" that are: (1) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law; (2) contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity; (3) in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations, or short of statutory right; (4) without observance of procedure required by law; (5) unsupported by substantial evidence in a case subject to sections 556 and 557 of Title 5 (Government Organization and Employees) of the United States Code or otherwise reviewed on the record of an agency hearing provided by statute; or (6) unwarranted by the facts to the extend that the facts are subject to trial de novo by the reviewing court.
Standards of Review
There are three standards of review: (1) substantial evidence; (2) arbitrary and capricious; and (3) statutory interpretation.
The "substantial evidence" standard of review is required for formal rulemaking and formal adjudication. Courts are required to uphold a rule if they find the agency's decision to be "reasonable, or the record contains such evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion." Agency actions that are invalidated by substantial evidence review are typically abandoned.
The "arbitrary and capricious" standard is mainly applied to informal rulemakings. In Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe (401 U.S. 402), the Supreme Court held that in order to find agency decisions arbitrary in informal adjudications, courts must first "consider whether the decision was based on a consideration of the relevant factors and whether there has been a clear error of judgment." In performing this inquiry, courts cannot inquire as to why agencies relied upon particular data to make their decisions; however, courts can inquire as to what data the agency reviewed. Typically, when agency action is invalidated under the arbitrary and capricious standard of review, the action is remanded to the agency to substantiate the record. In the Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association of the United States, Inc. v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance, the Supreme Court held that "the agency nevertheless must examine the relevant data and articulate a satisfactory explanation for its action" including a "rational connection between facts and judgment . . . to pass muster under the 'arbitrary and capricious' standard."
The "statutory interpretation" standard of review involves a two-step analysis, which derived from Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council (468 U.S. 1227). Under Chevron, courts must first assess whether Congress has spoken to the "precise question at issue." To do this, courts must look to the language and design of the statute, as well as look to the traditional canons of construction. If the court finds that Congress has not directly addressed the precise issue, the court must then determine if the agency's action is based on a "permissible construction of the statute." Under Chevron, legislative regulations are given deference unless they are arbitrary, capricious, or manifestly contrary to the statute.
Mixed Judicial Review
Mixed judicial review encompasses judicial review of both law and fact. Judicial review of law investigates the statutory authority that permits the agency to make its regulation; judicial review of fact investigates the agency's factual findings that guided its decision-making process.
Persons who suffer a "legal wrong because of agency action" or are "adversely affected or aggrieved by agency action within the meaning of a relevant statute" has standing to receive judicial review of the agency's action (5 U.S.C. § 702). There are four elements that must be proven to gain judicial review: (1) injury in fact; (2)causation; (3) redressability; and (4) zone of interest.
Injury in Fact
In Sierra Club v. Morton (405 U.S. 727), the Supreme Court held that agency action which affected environmental, aesthetic, or recreational interest, could qualify as injury in fact for standing purposes. The Supreme Court also held that agency action must directly affect personal interests, not simply those of a corporation. Additionally, if government action or inaction injures a third person in a direct fashion, that person has suffered sufficient injury in fact for standing purposes.
Causation is the connection between the injury and the agency action.
Redressability analyzes whether judicial review of agency action is likely to bring relief to the complaining party.
Zone of Interest
The"zone of interest" requires the complaining party to demonstrate that her injury is the type of injury protected by the statute or regulation.
Comments to the Administrative Office of the United States Courts
Comments to the Department of Commerce
- EPIC, On Public Information, Freedom of Information Act and Privacy Act Regulations (Docket No. 140127076-4076-01/RIN 0605-AA33) (Mar. 31, 2014)
- EPIC, On the Multistakeholder Process to Develop Consumer Data Privacy Codes of Conduct (Docket No. 120214135-2135-01/RIN 0660-XA27) (April 2, 2012)
- EPIC, Regarding Information Privacy and Innovation in the Internet Economy (Docket No. 101214614-0614-01/RIN 0660- XA22) (Jan. 25, 2011)
- EPIC et al., On the Development and Implementation of Cross-border Privacy Rules in the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation Group (APEC) (2006)
- EPIC, In the Matter of Digital Entertainment and Rights Managements (July 17, 2002)
- EPIC, Public Comments on Barriers to Electronic Commerce (March 17, 2000)
Comments to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
- EPIC, On DHS/U.S. Coast Guard "Notice of Arrival and Departure System of Records" (Docket Nos. DHS-2015-0078, -0079) (Dec. 28, 2015)
- EPIC, On "Freedom of Information Regulations" (Docket No. DHS-2009-0036) (Sept. 28, 2015)
- EPIC, On "Passenger Screening Using Advanced Imaging Technology" (Docket No. TSA-2013-0004) (June 24, 2013)
- EPIC, On Biometric Data Collection at the Ports of Entry (Docket No. DHS-2013-0016)(June 14, 2013)
- EPIC, Automated Targeting System Privacy Act System of Records Notice and Privacy Act Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (DHS Docket Nos. 2012-0019, 2012-0020) (June 21, 2012)
- EPIC, Comments on "The Menlo Report: Ethical Principles Guiding Information and Communication Technology Research" (Docket No. DHS-2011-0074)(Feb. 27, 2012)
- EPIC, Regarding a DHS Privacy Act System of Records "Routine Use" Expansion (Docket No.DHS-2011-0094)(Dec. 23, 2011)
- EPIC, Regarding a DHS Privacy Act System of Records "Routine Use" Expansion (Docket No. DHS-2011-0082) (Nov. 28, 2011)
- EPIC et al., NPRM: Implementation of Exemptions; Department of Homeland Security/ALL-030 Use of Terrorist Screening Database System of Records and Notice of Privacy Act System of Records (Docket Nos. DHS-2011-0060, 2011-0061) (Aug. 5, 2011)
- EPIC et al., Records and Information from Department of Motor Vehicles for E-Verify (E-Verify RIDE) (DHS-2011-0030) (June 8, 2011)
- EPIC, Concerning the "Operations Collection, Planning, Coordination, Reporting, Analysis, and Fusion System of Records" (DHS Nos. 2010-0052, 2010-0053) (Dec. 15, 2010)
- EPIC, On the National Infrastructure Coordinating Center Records System of Records (DHS Nos. 2010-0086, 2010-0085) (Dec. 15, 2010)
- EPIC, On the "Establishment of Global Entry Program" (Docket No. USCBP-2008-0097) (Jan. 19, 2010)
- EPIC, Concerning the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Verification Information System Changes (Docket No. DHS-2007-0066) (March 31, 2008)
- EPIC, Regarding the Secure Flight "TSA" passenger prescreening program (Docket Nos. TSA-2007-28972, 2007-28572) (Sept. 24, 2007)
- EPIC, In Response to a Notice of Privacy Act System of Records: U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Automated Targeting System, System of Records and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking: Implementation of Exemptions; Automated Targeting System (Automated Targeting System) (Docket Nos. DHS-2007-0042 AND DHS-2007-0043) (Sept. 5, 2007)
- EPIC, Concerning a Proposed Rule on Documents Required for Travelers Departing From or Arriving in the United States From Within the Western Hemisphere (use of radio frequency identification (RFID) technology (Docket No. USCBP-2007-0061) (Aug. 1, 2007)
- EPIC et al., NPRM: Minimum Standards for Driver's Licenses and Identification Cards Acceptable by Federal Agencies for Official Purposes (Docket No. DHS 2006-0030) (May 8, 2007)
- EPIC, Addressing DHS's Redress and Response System of Records (Docket Nos. DHS 2006-0077 and DHS-2007-0003) (Feb. 20, 2007)
- EPIC, Concerning the revision and expansion to Privacy Act system of records, the Global Enrollment System(Docket No. DHS-2005-0053) (May 22, 2006)
- EPIC et al., Automated Targeting System Privacy Act System of Records Notice (DHS-2006-0060) (2006)
- EPIC, Regarding the expansion of Registered Traveler Operations Files System of Records (Docket Nos. TSA-2004-19166 and TSA-2004-17982) (Dec. 8, 2005)
- EPIC, Addressing the substantial privacy issues raised by the use of radio frequency identification (RFID) tags in the United States Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology ("US-VISIT") program and the E-Passport program (Docket No. DHS-2005-0047) (Dec. 6, 2005)
- EPIC, Responding to Request for Comment on United States Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology Notice on Automatic Identification of Certain Nonimmigrants Exiting the United States at Select Land Border Ports-of-Entry(Docket No. DHS-2005-0011) (Oct. 3, 2005)
- EPIC, Regarding the Privacy Act System of Records Automated Identification Management System(Docket No. DHS-2005-0040) (Aug. 4, 2005)
- EPIC, Concerning the United States Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology ("US-VISIT") Program(Docket No. DHS-2007-0002) (2004)
- EPIC, Commenting on a Privacy Act System of Records, Arrival Departure Information System (ADIS) (privacy protections for US VISIT)(Docket. No. DHS/ICE-CBP-001) (2004)
- EPIC, Responding to the United States Visitor and Immigrant Status Technology ("US-VISIT") Interim Final Rule and Notice (Docket No. BTS 03-01) (2003)
- EPIC, Concerning the Interim Final Privacy Act Notice Aviation Security Screening Records (Docket No. DHS/TSA-2003-1) (2003)
Comments to the Department of Defense (DOD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)
Comments to the Department of Defense (DOD)
- EPIC et al., Regarding the DOD Privacy Program (Docket No. DOD-2013-OS-0023/RIN 0790-AJ03) (Oct. 21, 2013)
- EPIC, On a Proposed Rule Amending the Defense Logistics Agency Freedom of Information Act Program (Docket ID. DOD-2012-OS-0019/RIN 0790-AI87) (Dec. 5, 2012)
- EPIC, Regarding the Defense Industrial Base (DIB) Voluntary Cyber Security and Information Assurance (CS/IA) Activities (DOD-2009-OS-0183/RIN 0790-AI60) (July 10, 2012)
- EPIC et al., Concerning the Joint Advertising and Market Research Recruiting Database (June 21, 2005)
Comments to the Department of the Interior (DOI)
- EPIC, Concerning Proposed Revisions to the Department of the Interior Freedom of Information Act Regulations (RIN 1093-AA15) (Nov. 13, 2012)
Comments to the Department of Justice (DOJ)
- EPIC, Commenting on Proposed DEA Privacy Act Exemptions (CPCLO Order No. 006-2012) (May 18, 2012)
- EPIC, Regarding the Revision of Department of Justice Freedom of Information Act Regulations (Docket ID OAG Docket No. 140) (Oct. 18, 2011)
- EPIC, Regarding a Notice to Establish a Terrorist Screening Records System of Records (AAG/A Order Nos. 005-2005 and 006-2005) (Sept. 6, 2005)
- EPIC, Concerning the Interim Rule with Requests for Comments on the Preservation of Biological Evidence (Docket No. OAG 109, A.G. Order No. 2762-2005) (June 27, 2005)
Comments to the Department of State
- EPIC, On the 60-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: DS-5513, Biographical Questionnaire for U.S. Passport, 1405-XXXX (REAL ID) (April 28, 2011)
- EPIC, Regarding the People Access Security Service "PASS"card (Docket No. DOS-2006-0329) (Jan. 8, 2007)
Comments to the Department of Transportation (DOT)
- EPIC, Regarding the Commercial Driver's License Drug and Alcohol Clearinghouse (Docket No. FMCSA-2001-0031/RIN 2126-AB18) (May 21, 2014)
- EPIC, In the Matter of Privacy Act Notice Concerning Aviation Security Screening Records (DOT/TSA 010 - OST-1996-1437)(February 24, 2003)
Comments to the Department of Treasury
- EPIC, In the Matter of FACT Act Biometric Study (File No. R411005) (April 1, 2004)
- EPIC, Concerning Interagency Guidance on Response Programs for Unauthorized Access to Customer Information and Customer Notice (OCC File No. 03-18, BOG File No. OP-1155, OTS File No. 03-35) (Oct. 14, 2003)
Comments to the Education Department
- EPIC, "Study of Promising Features of Teacher Preparation Programs" New System of Records (July 30, 2012)
- EPIC, Responding to a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking amending the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974 ("FERPA") (RIN 1880-AA86) (May 23, 2011)
Comments to the Election Assistance Commission
- EPIC, Regarding the 2009 Voluntary Voting System Guidelines Version 1.1 (Sept. 28, 2009)
- EPIC, Concerning Federal General Election Voter Registration Information Collection (Feb. 25, 2005)
Comments to the Federal Aviation Administration
- EPIC, On Unmanned Aircraft System Test Site Program (Docket No. FAA-2013-0061) (Apr. 23, 2013)
- EPIC, Comments on FAA Unmanned Aircraft System Test Sites (Docket No. FAA-2012-0252) (May 8, 2012)
Comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC)
- EPIC and Consumer Watchdog, On "Privacy and Security of Information Stored on Mobile Communications Devices" (CC Docket No. 96-115; DA 12-818) (July 13, 2012)
- EPIC, In the Matter of Rules and Regulations Implementing the Truth in Caller ID Act of 2009 (WC Docket No. 11-39) (2011)
- EPIC, In the Matter of ACA International Petition for Expedited Clarification (comments on exempting debt collectors from cell phone privacy rules)(Docket No. 02-278) (May 11, 2006)
- EPIC, In the Matter of Customer Proprietary Information (comments on phone record privacy)(CC Docket No. 96-115)(April 14, 2006)
- EPIC, On Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (comments concerning the implementation of the Junk Fax Prevention Act) (CG Docket No. 05-338)(Jan. 18, 2006)
- EPIC, On Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991(comments in response to a petition for declaratory ruling filed by the Fax Ban Coalition) (Docket Nos. CG 02-278, DA 05-2975) (Jan. 13, 2006)
- EPIC, In the Matter of Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act and Broadband Access and Services (comments on internet wiretap authority) (ET Docket No. 04-295) (Nov. 15, 2005)
- EPIC, On Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (preemption of state anti-telemarketing laws) (Docket Nos. CG 02-278, DA 05-1346,DA 05-1347, DA 04-3185, DA 04-3187, DA 04-3835, DA 04-3836, DA 04-3837, DA 05-342) (July 29, 2005)
- EPIC, et al., In the Matter of Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (CG Docket No. 02-278) (Dec. 9, 2002)
- EPIC, In the Matter of Digital Broadcast Copy Protection (broadcast flag mandate) (MB Docket No. 02-230) (Dec. 6, 2002)
- EPIC, In the Matter of Inquiry Concerning High Speed Access to the Internet Over Cable and Other Facilities Proprietary Network Information and Appropriate Regulatory Treatment for Broadband Access to Internet Over Cable Facilities (GN Docket No. 00-185 and CS Docket No. 02-52) (June 18, 2002)
- EPIC, In the Matter of Telecommunications Carriers' Use of Customer Proprietary Network Information (CC Docket Nos. 96-115 and 96-149) (Nov. 16, 2001)
- EPIC, In the Matter of Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CC Docket No. 97-213) (May 20, 1998)
- EPIC, In the Matter of Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA) (CC Docket No. 97-213) (Dec. 12, 1997)
Comments to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC)
- EPIC, In the Matter of Apperian, Inc. et al. (FTC File Nos. 142-3017-3020; 142-3022-3024; 142-3028; 142-3025; 142-3030-3032) (Feb. 20, 2014)
- EPIC, Regarding FOIA Fee Schedule Rulemaking (Project No. P122102) (Mar. 29, 2013)
- EPIC, In the Matter of Google, Inc. (FTC File No. 121 0120) (Feb. 22, 2013)
- EPIC, In the Matter of Compete, Inc. (FTC File No. 102 3155) (Nov. 19, 2012)
- EPIC, On Rent-to-Own Computer Spying Proposed Settlements (FTC File No. File No. 112 3151) (Oct. 25, 2012)
- EPIC, On the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act Rule Review (Project No. P104503) (Sept. 24, 2012)
- EPIC, In Short: Advertising and Privacy Disclosures in a Digital World (FTC Project No. P114506) (July 11, 2012)
- EPIC, In the Matter of Myspace, LLC (FTC File No. 102 3058) (June 8, 2012)
- EPIC, On Advertising and Privacy Disclosures in a Digital World (May 11, 2012)
- EPIC, On "Face Facts: A Forum on Facial Recognition" (Project Number P115406) (Jan. 31, 2012)
- EPIC, In the Matter of Facebook, Inc. (FTC File No. 092 3184) (Dec. 27, 2011)
- EPIC, On the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act Rule ("COPPA Rule") Review (RIN 3084-AB20) (Dec. 23, 2011)
- EPIC, In the Matter of Google, Inc. (FTC File No. 102 3136) (May 2, 2011)
- EPIC, Regarding the 2010 Children's Online Privacy Protection Act Rule Review (FTC Matter No. P104503) (July 9, 2010)
- EPIC, Regarding a Notice of Proposed Routine Use Permitting Disclosure of FTC Records in Cases of Data Security Breach (FTC. File No. P072104) (April 30, 2007)
- EPIC, Regarding the Email Authentication Summit (Sept. 28, 2004)
- EPIC, In the Matter of CAN-SPAM Act Rulemaking (Do Not E-Mail Registry) (FTC Project No. R411008) (March 31, 2004)
- EPIC, In the Matter of Interagency Proposal to Consider Alternative Forms of Privacy Notices Under the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (FTC File No. 034815) (March 29, 2004)
- EPIC, In the Matter of Microsoft Consent Order (FTC File No. 0123240, M03)(Sept. 9, 2002)
- EPIC, In the Matter of Telemarketing Rulemaking (FTC File No. R411001) (April 10, 2001)
Comments to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
- EPIC, Regarding Consumer-Directed Promotion of Regulated Medical Products (Docket No. 2005N-0354) (Oct. 11, 2005)
Comments to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC)
Comments to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)
- EPIC, On the HIPAA Privacy Rule and the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (June 7, 2013)
- EPIC, On People Locator Proposed Data Collection (June 14, 2013)
- EPIC, Concerning the National Disaster Medical System (NDMS) Patient Treatment and Tracking Records System (Docket No. HHS-2007-0159) (July 26, 2007)
- EPIC et al., On Human Subjects Research Protections: Enhancing Protections for Research Subjects and Reducing Burden, Delay, and Ambiguity for Investigators (Docket ID No. HHS-OPHS-2011-0005) (Oct. 26, 2011)
- EPIC, On the State Parent Locator Service (Dec. 13, 2005)
- EPIC, On the Control of Communicable Diseases (RIN 0920-AA03) (Jan. 30, 2006)
Comments to the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
- EPIC, In The Matter of Homeless Management Information Systems (HMIS) Data and Technical Standards Notice(HUD Docket No. FR-4848-N-01) (Sept. 22, 2003)
Comments to the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS)
Comments to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS)
- EPIC, Regarding Tax Return Information Sharing (E-Filing REG-137243-02)(March 8, 2006)
- EPIC, Concerning a Privacy Act System of Records Proposed Rule exempting Tax Exempt/Government Entities Case Management Records (Jan. 6, 2006)
Comments to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)
- EPIC et al., On Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Event Data Recorders (2014 Mandate) (Docket No. NHTSA-2012-0177/RIN 2121-AK86) (Feb. 11, 2013)
- EPIC, On Standardizing the Data Format of Event Data Recorders (EDRs) in Passenger Vehicles (Docket No. NHTSA-2004-18029) (Aug. 13, 2004)
- EPIC, On the Development and Installation of Event Data Recorders (EDRs) in Motor Vehicles (Docket No. NHTSA-2002-13546) (Feb. 28, 2003)
Comments to the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)
- EPIC, On Developing a Framework to Improve Critical Infrastructure Cybersecurity (Apr. 8, 2013)
- EPIC, Concerning Smart Grid Cyber Security Strategy and Requirements (Docket No. 0909301329-‐91332-‐01) (Dec. 1, 2009)
- EPIC, Regarding the NIST Framework and Roadmap for Smart Grid Interoperability Standards Release 1.0 (Nov. 9, 2009)
Comments to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI)
Comments to the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP)
- EPIC, On Big Data and the Future of Privacy (Apr. 4, 2014)
- EPIC, et al., On Big Data and the Future of Privacy (Apr. 4, 2014)
Comments to the Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues
Comments to the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board (PCLOB)
- EPIC, On Freedom of Information, Privacy Act, and Government in the Sunshine Act Procedures (PCLOB Docket No. 2013-0005; Sequence 1/RIN 0311-AA01) (July 15, 2013)
Comments to the Social Security Administration (SSA)
- EPIC, In the Matter of the Social Security Administration’s Proposed Rule Change Regarding A New Routine Use for Social Security Administration (SSA) System Records Entitled, Master Files of the Social Security Number (SSN) Holders and SSN Applications (60-0058) (Sept. 3, 2004)
Comments to the Transportation Security Administration (TSA)
- EPIC, Combined Filings on TSA PreCheck Application Program System of Records and Proposed Privacy Act Exemptions and Secure Flight System of Records (Docket Nos. DHS-2013-0040, 2013-0041, and 2013-0020) (Oct. 10, 2013)
- EPIC, Regarding Biometrics and Airport Access Control Systems (Docket No. TSA-2005-20485) (March 17, 2005)
- EPIC, Regarding a Notice of Emergency Clearance Request Secure Flight Test Records (Docket No. TSA-2004-19160) (2004)
- EPIC, Concerning Secure Flight Test Records (Docket No. TSA-2004-19160) (2004)
Comments to the United States Trade Representative
- EPIC, On the Proposed Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership Agreement (Docket No. USTR-2013-0019) (May 10, 2013)
Comments to the California Public Utility Commission
- EPIC, Comments on Proposed Policies and Findings Pertaining to the EISA Standard Regarding Smart Grid and Customer Privacy (March 9, 2010)
- EPIC, Comments on Proposed Policies and Findings Pertaining to the EISA Standard Regarding Smart Grid and Customer Privacy (recommendations for Smart Grid Implementations) (April 7, 2010)
- EPIC, Comments on Proposed Decision Adopting Requirements for Smart Grid Deployment Plans Pursuant to Senate Bill 17 (June 10, 2010)
Comments to the Metropolitan Police Department for the District of Columbia
Comments to the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority
- EPIC, Concerning comments on Proposed Amendments to the Public Access to Records Policy ("PARP") Proposed Amendments (Feb. 14, 2005)
Comments to the Florida Supreme Court
- EPIC, Regarding Privacy, Access and Court Records / Report and Recommendations of the Committee on Privacy and Court Records (Feb. 28, 2006)
Comments to the Maryland Attorney General Identity Theft Forum
Comments to the Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts
Comments to the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission
- EPIC, Regarding Telecommunications Carriers’ Use of Consumer Information (Docket No. UT-990146) (July 8, 2002)
Comments to the OASIS XML Common Biometric Format (XCBF) Technical Committee
Comments to the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission
- EPIC, On the Proceeding to Establish a National Do-Not-Call List Framework (8665-C12-200601626, 8662-C131-200408543, 8662-F20-200409814, 662-B48-200409228, 8662-A84-200410035) (April 3, 2006)
Comments to the European Commission
Share this page:
EPIC relies on support from individual donors to pursue our work.
Subscribe to the EPIC Alert
The EPIC Alert is a biweekly newsletter highlighting emerging privacy issues.
Reclaiming Conversation: The Power of Talk in a Digital Age by Sherry Turkle