Privacy Act; Implementation, 34656-34658 [05-11814]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
34656
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 15, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
public interest. This finding is based on
the need to determine and issue new
interest assumptions promptly so that
the assumptions can reflect, as
accurately as possible, current market
conditions.
Because of the need to provide
immediate guidance for the valuation
and payment of benefits in plans with
valuation dates during July 2005, the
PBGC finds that good cause exists for
making the assumptions set forth in this
amendment effective less than 30 days
after publication.
The PBGC has determined that this
action is not a ‘‘significant regulatory
action’’ under the criteria set forth in
Executive Order 12866.
Rate set
*
3. In appendix C to part 4022, Rate Set
141, as set forth below, is added to the
table. (The introductory text of the table
is omitted.)
*
141 ....................................
*
i2
i1
*
4.00
*
*
4. The authority citation for part 4044
continues to read as follows:
n2
*
7
8
*
Deferred annuities (percent)
Immediate
annuity rate
(percent)
i1
i2
*
i3
*
2.50
4.00
5. In appendix B to part 4044, a new
entry, as set forth below, is added to the
table. (The introductory text of the table
is omitted.)
n1
*
4.00
4.00
I
I
n1
*
4.00
4.00
Authority: 29 U.S.C. 1301(a), 1302(b)(3),
1341, 1344, 1362.
PART 4044—ALLOCATION OF
ASSETS IN SINGLE-EMPLOYER
PLANS
i3
*
2.50
*
8–1–05
7–1–05
Deferred annuities (percent)
Immediate
annuity rate
(percent)
*
Before
*
2. In appendix B to part 4022, Rate Set
141, as set forth below, is added to the
table. (The introductory text of the table
is omitted.)
I
Appendix C to Part 4022—Lump Sum
Interest Rates for Private-Sector
Payments
For plans with a valuation
date
On or after
1. The authority citation for part 4022
continues to read as follows:
I
29 CFR Part 4044
Employee benefit plans, Pension
Appendix B to Part 4022—Lump Sum
insurance, Pensions.
Interest Rates for PBGC Payments
I In consideration of the foregoing, 29
CFR parts 4022 and 4044 are amended as *
*
*
*
*
follows:
*
8–1–05
7–1–05
PART 4022—BENEFITS PAYABLE IN
TERMINATED SINGLE-EMPLOYER
PLANS
Authority: 29 U.S.C. 1302, 1322, 1322b,
1341(c)(3)(D), and 1344.
29 CFR Part 4022
Employee benefit plans, Pension
insurance, Pensions, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Before
I
Rate set
List of Subjects
For plans with a valuation
date
On or after
*
141 ....................................
Because no general notice of proposed
rulemaking is required for this
amendment, the Regulatory Flexibility
Act of 1980 does not apply. See 5 U.S.C.
601(2).
n2
*
7
8
Appendix B to Part 4044—Interest
Rates Used To Value Benefits
*
*
*
*
*
The values of it are:
For valuation dates occurring in the month—
it
*
*
*
July 2005 ..........................................................................
Issued in Washington, DC, on this 8th day
of June 2005.
Vincent K. Snowbarger,
Deputy Executive Director, Pension Benefit
Guaranty Corporation.
[FR Doc. 05–11769 Filed 6–14–05; 8:45 am]
for t =
*
.0360
for t =
*
N/A
N/A
Final rule.
ACTION:
Office of the Secretary
SUMMARY: The Office of the Secretary of
Defense is exempting 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 will preserve the exempt
32 CFR Part 311
[Administrative Instruction 81]
AGENCY:
Jkt 205001
*
>20
.0475
it
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Privacy Act; Implementation
16:54 Jun 14, 2005
for t =
*
1–20
BILLING CODE 7708–01–P
VerDate jul<14>2003
it
PO 00000
Office of the Secretary, DoD.
Frm 00030
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\15JNR1.SGM
15JNR1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 15, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
status of the record when the purposes
underlying the exemption for the
original record is still valid and
necessary to protect the contents of the
record.
EFFECTIVE DATE:
July 15, 2005.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mrs.
Juanita Irvin at (703) 601–4722.
The
proposed rule was published on
February 25, 2005, at 70 FR 9260–9261.
One public comment was received
where the commenter expressed a
number of concerns that the rule
violates the spirit and letter of the
Privacy Act. The commenter observes
that it is objectionable for the
Department to borrow exemptions from
other systems of records. We disagree.
The public policy that dictates the need
for exempting records is based on the
need to protect the contents of the
records in the system—not the location
of the records. The record does not lose
its exempt status when recompiled in
another system of records if the
purposes underlying the exemption of
the original record pertain to the
recompilation as well. The commenter
expresses concern that adoption of the
rule will enable the Department to
shield documents that heretofore have
been made available to individuals and
will prevent citizens and lawful
residents from obtaining access to
records about themselves. We disagree.
As provided by law, the rule provides
a basis for the Department to exempt
specified records from certain
provisions of the Act. It does not act to
suspend any rights the individual
otherwise may be entitled to under the
law. To the extent the records were
available to the individual formerly or
to the extent the individual could obtain
access to those records previously, the
individual still will be able to obtain/
access the records. But to the extent the
records were not obtainable or not
accessible before, the rule will permit
the Department to continue to protect
the records as is contemplated by the
rule for the original records. And
finally, the commenter observes that the
Department is attempting to create a
new exemption, a prerogative that only
Congress possesses. We disagree. The
Department is not establishing a new
exemption. Rather, within the
framework of existing law, the
Department is adopting a rule that will
protect the records to the same extent
the records are now protected by a rule
that has been adopted for the system of
records from which the record was
lawfully obtained.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
VerDate jul<14>2003
16:54 Jun 14, 2005
Jkt 205001
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.
Pub. L. 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.
Pub. L. 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, Pub. L. 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.
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
34657
Dated: June 8, 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
amended to read as follows:
I
PART 311—OSD PRIVACY PROGRAM
1. The authority citation for 32 CFR
part 311 continues to read as follows:
I
Authority: Pub. L. 93–579, 88 Stat. 1896 (5
U.S.C. 552a).
2. Section 311.8 is amended by adding
paragraph (c)(15) as follows:
I
§ 311.8
Procedures for exemptions.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) Specific exemptions. * * *
*
*
*
*
*
(15) System identifier and name:
DCIFA 01, CIFA Operational and
Analytical Records.
(i) 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 (1) such provisions have been
identified and an exemption claimed for
the original record and (2) 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
E:\FR\FM\15JNR1.SGM
15JNR1
34658
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 15, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
why the records are exempt from
specific provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552a.
rule. No public meeting was requested,
and none was held.
[FR Doc. 05–11814 Filed 6–14–05; 8:45 am]
Background and Purpose
The Offshore Super Series will
sponsor an offshore powerboat race on
the near-shore waters of Fort Myers
Beach, Florida. The annual event will be
held on the second consecutive
Saturday and Sunday in June from 10
a.m. to 5 p.m. The event will host
approximately 50 participant vessels
that travel up to speeds of 130 mph and
approximately 300 spectator craft. This
regulation is needed to provide for the
safety of life on the Navigable waters of
the United States during the Annual
Offshore Super Series Boat Race in the
vicinity of the racecourse. The
anticipated concentration of spectator
and participant vessels associated with
the event poses a safety concern that is
addressed in this special local
regulation.
BILLING CODE 5001–06–P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 100
[CGD 07–05–019]
RIN 1625–AA08
Special Local Regulations: Annual
Offshore Super Series Boat Race, Fort
Myers Beach, FL
Coast Guard, DHS.
Final rule.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is
establishing permanent special local
regulations for the Offshore Super Series
Boat Race in Fort Myers Beach Florida.
This event will be held annually during
the second consecutive Saturday and
Sunday of June between 10 a.m. and 5
p.m. EDT (Eastern Daylight Time).
Historically, there have been
approximately 350 participant and
spectator craft. The resulting congestion
of navigable channels creates an extra or
unusual hazard in the navigable waters
of the United States. This rule is
necessary to ensure the safety of life for
the participating vessels, spectators, and
mariners in the area on the navigable
waters of the United States.
DATES: This rule is effective July 15,
2005.
Comments and material
received from the public, as well as
documents indicated in this preamble as
being available in the docket, are part of
docket [CGD 07–05–019] and are
available for inspection or copying at
Coast Guard Marine Safety Office
Tampa between 7:30 a.m. and 4 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Lieutenant Junior Grade Jennifer
Andrew at Coast Guard Marine Safety
Office Tampa (813) 228–2191 Ext 8203.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
ADDRESSES:
Regulatory Information
On April 26, 2005, we published a
notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
entitled Special Local Regulations:
Annual Offshore Super Series Boat
Race, Fort Myers Beach, FL in the
Federal Register (70 FR 21376). We
received no comments on the proposed
VerDate jul<14>2003
16:54 Jun 14, 2005
Jkt 205001
Discussion of Comments and Changes
No comments were received for this
rule.
Discussion of Rule
This regulation includes a regulated
area around the racecourse that will
prohibit all non-participant vessels and
persons from entering the regulated area
annually from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. on the
second consecutive Saturday and
Sunday of June. The regulation will
only permit anchoring of spectator
vessels seaward of a designated
spectator line. All spectator craft will be
required to remain seaward of a
designated spectator line. Although the
regulation allows continuous entry and
exit to Matanzas Pass Channel for the
duration of the event, the northern
portion of the regulated area is in very
close proximity to the channel entrance.
In order to avoid incursions into the
northern portion of the regulated area by
vessels avoiding collision due to traffic
congestion in the channel, the rule will
require vessels entering and exiting
Matanzas Pass to proceed cautiously
and take early action to avoid closequarters situations until finally past and
clear of the regulated area. This
regulation is intended to provide for the
safety of life on the navigable waters of
the United States for event participants
and for mariners traveling in the
vicinity of the near-shore waters of Fort
Myers Beach Florida.
Regulatory Evaluation
This rule is not a ‘‘significant
regulatory action’’ under section 3(f) of
Executive Order 12866, Regulatory
Planning and Review, and does not
require an assessment of potential costs
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that
Order. The Office of Management and
Budget has not reviewed it under that
Order. It is not ‘‘significant’’ under the
regulatory policies and procedures of
the Department of Homeland Security
(DHS).
We expect the economic impact of
this rule to be so minimal that a full
Regulatory Evaluation under the
regulatory policies and procedures of
DHS is unnecessary. The regulation will
be in effect for only a limited time in an
area where vessel traffic is limited and
vessels will still be allowed to enter and
exit through Matanzas Pass Channel.
Small Entities
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
(5 U.S.C. 601–612), we have considered
whether this rule would have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
The term ‘‘small entities’’ comprises
small businesses, not-for-profit
organizations that are independently
owned and operated and are not
dominant in their fields, and
governmental jurisdictions with
populations of less than 50,000.
The Coast Guard certifies under 5
U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have
a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
This rule may affect the following
entities, some of which may be small
entities: the owners and operators of
vessels intending to transit near to shore
at Fort Myers Beach, FL in the vicinity
of Matanzas Pass annually from 10 a.m.
to 5 p.m. on the second consecutive
Saturday and Sunday in June. This rule
will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities since it would only be in effect
for a limited time in an area where
vessel traffic is limited and vessels will
still be allowed to enter and exit
through Matanzas Pass Channel.
Assistance for Small Entities
Small businesses may send comments
on the actions of Federal employees
who enforce, or otherwise determine
compliance with, Federal regulations to
the Small Business and Agriculture
Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman
and the Regional Small Business
Regulatory Fairness Boards. The
Ombudsman evaluates these actions
annually and rates each agency’s
responsiveness to small business. If you
wish to comment on actions by
employees of the Coast Guard, call 1–
888–REG–FAIR (1–888–734–3247).
Collection of Information
This rule calls for no new collection
of information under the Paperwork
E:\FR\FM\15JNR1.SGM
15JNR1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 114 (Wednesday, June 15, 2005)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 34656-34658]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-11814]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Office of the Secretary
32 CFR Part 311
[Administrative Instruction 81]
Privacy Act; Implementation
AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, DoD.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Office of the Secretary of Defense is exempting 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
will preserve the exempt
[[Page 34657]]
status of the record when the purposes underlying the exemption for the
original record is still valid and necessary to protect the contents of
the record.
EFFECTIVE DATE: July 15, 2005.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mrs. Juanita Irvin at (703) 601-4722.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The proposed rule was published on February
25, 2005, at 70 FR 9260-9261. One public comment was received where the
commenter expressed a number of concerns that the rule violates the
spirit and letter of the Privacy Act. The commenter observes that it is
objectionable for the Department to borrow exemptions from other
systems of records. We disagree. The public policy that dictates the
need for exempting records is based on the need to protect the contents
of the records in the system--not the location of the records. The
record does not lose its exempt status when recompiled in another
system of records if the purposes underlying the exemption of the
original record pertain to the recompilation as well. The commenter
expresses concern that adoption of the rule will enable the Department
to shield documents that heretofore have been made available to
individuals and will prevent citizens and lawful residents from
obtaining access to records about themselves. We disagree. As provided
by law, the rule provides a basis for the Department to exempt
specified records from certain provisions of the Act. It does not act
to suspend any rights the individual otherwise may be entitled to under
the law. To the extent the records were available to the individual
formerly or to the extent the individual could obtain access to those
records previously, the individual still will be able to obtain/access
the records. But to the extent the records were not obtainable or not
accessible before, the rule will permit the Department to continue to
protect the records as is contemplated by the rule for the original
records. And finally, the commenter observes that the Department is
attempting to create a new exemption, a prerogative that only Congress
possesses. We disagree. The Department is not establishing a new
exemption. Rather, within the framework of existing law, the Department
is adopting a rule that will protect the records to the same extent the
records are now protected by a rule that has been adopted for the
system of records from which the record was lawfully obtained.
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.
Pub. L. 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.
Pub. L. 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, Pub. L. 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: June 8, 2005.
Jeannette Owings-Ballard,
OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
List of Subjects in 32 CFR Part 311
Privacy.
0
Accordingly, 32 CFR part 311 is amended to read as follows:
PART 311--OSD PRIVACY PROGRAM
0
1. The authority citation for 32 CFR part 311 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: Pub. L. 93-579, 88 Stat. 1896 (5 U.S.C. 552a).
0
2. Section 311.8 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(15) as follows:
Sec. 311.8 Procedures for exemptions.
* * * * *
(c) Specific exemptions. * * *
* * * * *
(15) System identifier and name: DCIFA 01, CIFA Operational and
Analytical Records.
(i) 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 (1) such provisions have been identified and an
exemption claimed for the original record and (2) 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
[[Page 34658]]
why the records are exempt from specific provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552a.
[FR Doc. 05-11814 Filed 6-14-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
