Privacy Act; Implementation, 9260-9261 [05-3666]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
9260
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 37 / Friday, February 25, 2005 / Proposed Rules
regulatory action’’ under Executive
Order 12866. The Office of Management
and Budget, therefore, has reviewed this
notice under Executive Order 12866.
The PBGC certifies under section
605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act
that this proposed rule would not have
a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. A
section 4062(e) event is generally not
relevant for small employers. Most
small employers sponsoring defined
benefit plans tend not to have multiple
operations. For these small employers,
the shutdown of operations would be
accompanied by plan termination.
Section 4062(e) protection is only
relevant when the plan is ongoing after
the cessation of operations. Thus, the
change would not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Accordingly,
sections 603 and 604 of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act do not apply.
List of Subjects
29 CFR Part 4062
Employee Benefit Plans, Pension
insurance, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
29 CFR Part 4063
Employee Benefit Plans, Pension
insurance, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
For the reasons set forth above, the
PBGC proposes to amend parts 4062 and
4063 of 29 CFR chapter LX as follows:
PART 4062—LIABILITY FOR
TERMINATION OF SINGLE-EMPLOYER
PLANS
1. The authority citation for part 4062
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 29 U.S.C. 1302(b)(3), 1362–
1364, 1367, 1368.
2. Amend § 4062.1 by adding the
following sentence after the first
sentence to read as follows:
§ 4062.1
§ 4062.8
4062(e).
If, pursuant to section 4062(e) of
ERISA, an employer ceases operations at
a facility in any location and, as a result
of such cessation of operations, more
than 20% of the total number of the
employer’s employees who are
participants under a plan established
and maintained by the employer are
separated from employment, the PBGC
will determine the amount of liability
under section 4063(b) of ERISA to be the
amount described in section 4062 of
ERISA for the entire plan, as if the plan
had been terminated by the PBGC
immediately after the date of the
cessation of operations, multiplied by a
fraction—
(a) The numerator of which is the
number of the employer’s employees
who are participants under the plan and
are separated from employment as a
result of the cessation of operations; and
(b) The denominator of which is the
total number of the employer’s
employees who were participants under
the plan before taking the cessation of
operations into account.
§ 4062.3
§ 4062.7
PART 4063—LIABILITY OF
SUBSTANTIAL EMPLOYER FOR
WITHDRAWAL FROM SINGLEEMPLOYER PLANS UNDER MULTIPLE
CONTROLLED GROUPS AND OF
EMPLOYER EXPERIENCING A
CESSATION OF OPERATION
Authority: 29 U.S.C. 1302(b)(3).
§§ 4062.8, 4062.9, and 4062.10
[Redesignated]
3. Redesignate §§ 4062.8, 4062.9, and
4062.10 as §§ 4062.9, 4062.10, and
4062.11, respectively.
4. Add new § 4062.8 to read as
follows:
Jkt 205001
[Amended]
6. In paragraph (a) of § 4062.7, remove
the reference to ‘‘§ 4062.8’’ and add in
its place the reference ‘‘§ 4062.9’’.
Purpose and scope.
*
*
*
*
This part also sets forth rules for
determining the amount of liability
incurred under section 4063 of ERISA
pursuant to the occurrence of a
cessation of operations as described by
section 4062(e) of ERISA.
*
*
*
*
*
16:21 Feb 24, 2005
[Amended]
5. In paragraph (b) of § 4062.3, remove
the references to ‘‘§ 4062.8(c)’’ and
‘‘4062.8(b)’’ and add the references to
‘‘§ 4062.9(c)’’ and ‘‘§ 4062.9(b)’’ in their
places, respectively.
7. The authority citation for part 4063
continues to read as follows:
*
VerDate jul<14>2003
Liability pursuant to section
8. Revise paragraph (a) of § 4063.1 to
read as follows:
§ 4063.1
Cross-references.
(a) Part 4062 of this chapter sets forth
rules for determination and payment of
the liability incurred, under section
4062(b) of ERISA, upon termination of
any single-employer plan and, to the
extent appropriate, determination of the
liability incurred with respect to
multiple employer plans under sections
4063 and 4064 of ERISA. Part 4062 also
sets forth rules for determining the
amount of liability incurred under
section 4063 of ERISA pursuant to the
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
occurrence of a cessation of operations
as described by section 4062(e) of
ERISA.
*
*
*
*
*
Issued in Washington, DC, this 22nd day
of February, 2005.
Bradley D. Belt,
Executive Director, Pension Benefit Guaranty
Corporation.
[FR Doc. 05–3702 Filed 2–24–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7708–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Office of the Secretary
32 CFR Part 311
[Administrative Instruction 81]
Privacy Act; Implementation
Office of the Secretary, DoD.
Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
SUMMARY: The Office of the Secretary of
Defense is proposing to exempt those
records contained in DCIFA 01, entitled
‘‘CIFA Operational and Analytical
Records’’ when an exemption has been
previously claimed for the records in
another Privacy Act system of records.
The exemption is intended to preserve
the exempt status of the record when
the purposes underlying the exemption
for the original records are still valid
and necessary to protect the contents of
the records.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before April 26, 2005, to be
considered by this agency.
ADDRESSES: Send comments to OSD
Privacy Act Coordinator, Records
Management Section, Washington
Headquarters Services, 1155 Defense
Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301–1155.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.
Juanita Irvin at (703) 601–4722,
extension 110.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Executive Order 12866, ‘‘Regulatory
Planning and Review’’
It has been determined that Privacy
Act rules for the Department of Defense
are not significant rules. This rules do
not (1) Have an annual effect on the
economy of $100 million or more or
adversely affect in a material way the
economy; a sector of the economy;
productivity; competition; jobs; the
environment; public health or safety; or
State, local, or tribal governments or
communities; (2) Create a serious
inconsistency or otherwise interfere
with an action taken or planned by
another Agency; (3) Materially alter the
E:\FR\FM\25FEP1.SGM
25FEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 37 / Friday, February 25, 2005 / Proposed Rules
budgetary impact of entitlements,
grants, user fees, or loan programs, or
the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or (4) Raise novel legal or policy
issues arising out of legal mandates, the
President’s priorities, or the principles
set forth in this Executive order.
Public Law 96–354, ‘‘Regulatory
Flexibility Act’’ (5 U.S.C. Chapter 6)
It has been determined that Privacy
Act rules for the Department of Defense
do not have significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities
because they are concerned only with
the administration of Privacy Act
systems of records within the
Department of Defense.
Public Law 96–511, ‘‘Paperwork
Reduction Act’’ (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35)
It has been determined that Privacy
Act rules for the Department of Defense
impose no information requirements
beyond the Department of Defense and
that the information collected within
the Department of Defense is necessary
and consistent with 5 U.S.C. 552a,
known as the Privacy Act of 1974.
Section 202, Public Law 104–4,
‘‘Unfunded Mandates Reform Act’’
It has been determined that Privacy
Act rulemaking for the Department of
Defense does not involve a Federal
mandate that may result in the
expenditure by State, local and tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or by the
private sector, of $100 million or more
and that such rulemaking will not
significantly or uniquely affect small
governments.
Executive Order 13132, ‘‘Federalism’’
It has been determined that Privacy
Act rules for the Department of Defense
do not have federalism implications.
The rules do not have substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship
between the National Government and
the States, or on the distribution of
power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government.
§ 311.8
Procedures for exemptions.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) * * *
(15) System identifier and name:
DCIFA 01, CIFA Operational and
Analytical Records.
(1) Exemptions: This system of
records is a compilation of information
from other Department of Defense and
U.S. Government systems of records. To
the extent that copies of exempt records
from those ‘‘other’’ systems of records
are entered into this system, OSD
hereby claims the same exemptions for
the records from those ‘‘other’’ systems
that are entered into this system, as
claimed for the original primary system
of which they are a part.
(ii) Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2),
(k)(1), (k)(2), (k)(3), (k)(4), (k)(5), (k)(6),
and (k)(7).
(iii) Records are only exempt from
pertinent provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552a to
the extent such provisions have been
identified and an exemption claimed for
the original record and the purposes
underlying the exemption for the
original record still pertain to the record
which is now contained in this system
of records. In general, the exemptions
are claimed in order to protect properly
classified information relating to
national defense and foreign policy, to
avoid interference during the conduct of
criminal, civil, or administrative actions
or investigations, to ensure protective
services provided the President and
others are not compromised, to protect
the identity of confidential sources
incident to Federal employment,
military service, contract, and security
clearance determinations, and to
preserve the confidentiality and
integrity of Federal evaluation materials.
The exemption rule for the original
records will identify the specific reasons
why the records are exempt from
specific provisions of 5 U.S.C. 522a.
BILLING CODE 5001–06–M
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
List of Subjects in 32 CFR Part 311
Department of the Army
Privacy.
Accordingly, 32 CFR part 311 is
proposed to be amended to read as
follows:
32 CFR Part 505
[Army Regulation 195–2]
Privacy Act; Implementation
PART 311—[Amended]
1. The authority citation for 32 CFR
part 311 continues to read as follows:
16:21 Feb 24, 2005
2. Section 311.8 is amended by
adding paragraph (c)(15) as follows:
[FR Doc. 05–3666 Filed 2–24–05; 8:45 am]
Dated: February 18, 2005.
Jeannette Owings-Ballard,
OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer,
Department of Defense.
VerDate jul<14>2003
Authority: Pub. L. 93–579, 88 Stat. 1986 (5
U.S.C. 522a).
Jkt 205001
Department of the Army, DoD.
Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
9261
SUMMARY: The Department of the Army
is proposing to add an exemption rule
for the system of records A0195–2c
USACIDC, entitled ‘DoD Criminal
Investigation Task Force Files’. The
exemption ((j)(2)) will increase the value
of the system of records for criminal law
enforcement purposes.
DATES: This proposed action will be
effective without further notice on April
26, 2005, unless comments are received
which result in a contrary
determination.
ADDRESSES: Department of the Army,
Freedom of Information/Privacy
Division, U.S. Army Records
Management and Declassification
Agency, ATTN: AHRC–PDD–FPZ, 7701
Telegraph Road, Casey Building, Suite
144, Alexandria, VA 22325–3905.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.
Janice Thornton at (703) 428–6497.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Executive
Order 12866, ‘‘Regulatory Planning and
Review’’.
It has been determined that Privacy
Act rules for the Department of Defense
are not significant rules. The rules do
not (1) have an annual effect on the
economy of $100 million or more or
adversely affect in a material way the
economy; a sector of the economy;
productivity; competition; jobs; the
environment; public health or safety; or
State, local, or tribal governments or
communities; (2) create a serious
inconsistency or otherwise interfere
with an action taken or planned by
another Agency; (3) materially alter the
budgetary impact of entitlements,
grants, user fees, or loan programs, or
the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or (4) raise novel legal or policy
issues arising out of legal mandates, the
President’s priorities, or the principles
set forth in this Executive order.
Public Law 96–354, ‘‘Regulatory
Flexibility Act’’ (5 U.S.C. Chapter 6)
It has been certified that Privacy Act
rules for the Department of Defense do
not have significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities
because they are concerned only with
the administration of Privacy Act
systems of records within the
Department of Defense.
Public Law 96–511, ‘‘Paperwork
Reduction Act’’ (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35)
It has been certified that Privacy Act
rules for the Department of Defense
impose no information requirements
beyond the Department of Defense and
that the information collected within
the Department of Defense is necessary
and consistent with 5 U.S.C. 552a,
known as the Privacy Act of 1974.
E:\FR\FM\25FEP1.SGM
25FEP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 37 (Friday, February 25, 2005)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 9260-9261]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-3666]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Office of the Secretary
32 CFR Part 311
[Administrative Instruction 81]
Privacy Act; Implementation
AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, DoD.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Office of the Secretary of Defense is proposing to exempt
those records contained in DCIFA 01, entitled ``CIFA Operational and
Analytical Records'' when an exemption has been previously claimed for
the records in another Privacy Act system of records. The exemption is
intended to preserve the exempt status of the record when the purposes
underlying the exemption for the original records are still valid and
necessary to protect the contents of the records.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before April 26, 2005, to be
considered by this agency.
ADDRESSES: Send comments to OSD Privacy Act Coordinator, Records
Management Section, Washington Headquarters Services, 1155 Defense
Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-1155.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Juanita Irvin at (703) 601-4722,
extension 110.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Executive Order 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review''
It has been determined that Privacy Act rules for the Department of
Defense are not significant rules. This rules do not (1) Have an annual
effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a
material way the economy; a sector of the economy; productivity;
competition; jobs; the environment; public health or safety; or State,
local, or tribal governments or communities; (2) Create a serious
inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by
another Agency; (3) Materially alter the
[[Page 9261]]
budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs,
or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) Raise novel
legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's
priorities, or the principles set forth in this Executive order.
Public Law 96-354, ``Regulatory Flexibility Act'' (5 U.S.C. Chapter 6)
It has been determined that Privacy Act rules for the Department of
Defense do not have significant economic impact on a substantial number
of small entities because they are concerned only with the
administration of Privacy Act systems of records within the Department
of Defense.
Public Law 96-511, ``Paperwork Reduction Act'' (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35)
It has been determined that Privacy Act rules for the Department of
Defense impose no information requirements beyond the Department of
Defense and that the information collected within the Department of
Defense is necessary and consistent with 5 U.S.C. 552a, known as the
Privacy Act of 1974.
Section 202, Public Law 104-4, ``Unfunded Mandates Reform Act''
It has been determined that Privacy Act rulemaking for the
Department of Defense does not involve a Federal mandate that may
result in the expenditure by State, local and tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more and
that such rulemaking will not significantly or uniquely affect small
governments.
Executive Order 13132, ``Federalism''
It has been determined that Privacy Act rules for the Department of
Defense do not have federalism implications. The rules do not have
substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between
the National Government and the States, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
Dated: February 18, 2005.
Jeannette Owings-Ballard,
OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
List of Subjects in 32 CFR Part 311
Privacy.
Accordingly, 32 CFR part 311 is proposed to be amended to read as
follows:
PART 311--[Amended]
1. The authority citation for 32 CFR part 311 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: Pub. L. 93-579, 88 Stat. 1986 (5 U.S.C. 522a).
2. Section 311.8 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(15) as follows:
Sec. 311.8 Procedures for exemptions.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(15) System identifier and name: DCIFA 01, CIFA Operational and
Analytical Records.
(1) Exemptions: This system of records is a compilation of
information from other Department of Defense and U.S. Government
systems of records. To the extent that copies of exempt records from
those ``other'' systems of records are entered into this system, OSD
hereby claims the same exemptions for the records from those ``other''
systems that are entered into this system, as claimed for the original
primary system of which they are a part.
(ii) Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2), (k)(1), (k)(2), (k)(3),
(k)(4), (k)(5), (k)(6), and (k)(7).
(iii) Records are only exempt from pertinent provisions of 5 U.S.C.
552a to the extent such provisions have been identified and an
exemption claimed for the original record and the purposes underlying
the exemption for the original record still pertain to the record which
is now contained in this system of records. In general, the exemptions
are claimed in order to protect properly classified information
relating to national defense and foreign policy, to avoid interference
during the conduct of criminal, civil, or administrative actions or
investigations, to ensure protective services provided the President
and others are not compromised, to protect the identity of confidential
sources incident to Federal employment, military service, contract, and
security clearance determinations, and to preserve the confidentiality
and integrity of Federal evaluation materials. The exemption rule for
the original records will identify the specific reasons why the records
are exempt from specific provisions of 5 U.S.C. 522a.
[FR Doc. 05-3666 Filed 2-24-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-M
