48 C.F.R. § 24.102

24.102 General.

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) The Act requires that when an agency contracts for the design, development, or operation of a system of records on individuals on behalf of the agency to accomplish an agency function the agency must apply the requirements of the Act to the contractor and its employees working on the contract.

(b) An agency officer or employee may be criminally liable for violations of the Act. When the contract provides for operation of a system of records on individuals, contractors and their employees are considered employees of the agency for purposes of the criminal penalties of the Act.

(c) If a contract specifically provides for the design, development, or operation of a system of records on individuals on behalf of an agency to accomplish an agency function, the agency must apply the requirements of the Act to the contractor and its employees working on the contract. The system of records operated under the contract is deemed to be maintained by the agency and is subject to the Act.

(d) Agencies, which within the limits of their authorities, fail to require that systems of records on individuals operated on their behalf under contracts be operated in conformance with the Act may be civilly liable to individuals injured as a consequence of any subsequent failure to maintain records in conformance with the Act.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 5 cases, 2004–2019 · leading case: U.S. Office of Pers. Mgmt. Data SEC. Breach Litig. v. Office of Pers. Mgmt.

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

U.S. Office of Pers. Mgmt. Data SEC. Breach Litig. v. Office of Pers. Mgmt. (2019) cadc · cites it 6× “§ 552a(e)(10) ; see Arnold Plaintiffs' Compl.”

In Re: U.S. Office of Personnel Management Data Security Breach Litigation (2017) dcd “§ 552a(m)(l); see also 48 C.F.R. § 24.102 (a). But the implementing regulation goes on to provide: “the system of records.”

INTERNATIONAL UNION, SEC., POLICE, AND FIRE PROFESSIONALS OF AMERICA (SPFPA) v. US Marshal's Service (2004) nysd · cites it 2× “1 of the CBA expressly states that the Marshal’s Service may revoke or deny credentials even after the 60-day probationary period, which is what occurred here.”

Koch v. Schapiro (2011) dcd · cites it 2× “” 48 C.F.R. § 24.102 (a) (emphasis added); see also id.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.