Privacy Act of 1974; Implementation, 39696-39697 [05-13551]

Download as PDF 39696 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 131 / Monday, July 11, 2005 / Proposed Rules the bottom of the paragraph, the language ‘‘such as the Schedule M–1, ‘‘Net Income (Loss) Reconciliation for Corporations With Total Assets of $10 Million or More,’’ Schedule M–3, ‘‘Net’’ is corrected to read ‘‘such as the Schedule M–1, ‘‘Reconciliation of Income (Loss) per Books with Income per Return’’, Schedule M–3, ‘‘Net’’. § 1.475(a)–4 [Corrected] 2. On page 29670, column 3, § 1.475(a)–4 (k)(2)(i)(A), lines 11 through 13 from the top of the column, the language, ‘‘Schedule M–1, ‘‘Net Income (Loss) Reconciliation for Corporations With Total Assets of $10 Million or More’’ is corrected to read ‘‘Schedule M–1, ‘‘Reconciliation of Income (Loss) per Books with Income per Return’’. Cynthia E. Grigsby, Acting Chief, Publications and Regulations Branch, Legal Processing Division, Associate Chief Counsel, (Procedure and Administration). [FR Doc. 05–13382 Filed 7–8–05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4830–01–P DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 28 CFR Part 16 [AAG/A Order No. 003–2005] Privacy Act of 1974; Implementation Department of Justice. Proposed rule. AGENCY: ACTION: SUMMARY: The Department of Justice proposes to exempt a new Privacy Act system of records entitled, Department of Justice Regional Data Exchange System (RDEX), DOJ–012, from subsections (c)(3) and (4); (d)(1), (2), (3), and (4); (e)(1), (2), (3), (5), and (8); and (g) of the Privacy Act pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2). The information in this system of records relates to matters of criminal law enforcement, and the exemption is necessary in order to avoid interference with law enforcement responsibilities and functions and to protect criminal law enforcement information as described in the proposed rule. DATES: Comments must be received by August 10, 2005. ADDRESSES: Address all comments in writing to Mary E. Cahill, Management Analyst, Management and Planning Staff, Justice Management Division, Department of Justice, Washington, DC 20530 (Room 1400, National Place Building), Facsimile Number (202) 307– 1853. To ensure proper handling, please reference the AAG/A Order No. on your VerDate jul<14>2003 14:31 Jul 08, 2005 Jkt 205001 correspondence. You may review an electronic version of this proposed rule at https://www.regulations.gov. You may also comment via the Internet to the DOJ/Justice Management Division at the following e-mail address: DOJPrivacyACT ProposedRegulations@usdoj.gov; or by using the https://www.regulations.gov comment form for this regulation. When submitting comments electronically, you must include the AAG/A Order No. in the subject box. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mary E. Cahill, (202) 307–1823. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the notice section of today’s Federal Register, the Department of Justice provides a description of this system of records. Regulatory Flexibility Act This proposed rule relates to individuals rather than small business entities. Nevertheless, pursuant to the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601–612, it is hereby stated that the proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. List of Subjects in 28 CFR Part 16 Administrative practices and procedures, Courts, Freedom of Information Act, Privacy Act, Government in Sunshine Act. Pursuant to the authority vested in the Attorney General by 5 U.S.C. 552a and delegated to me by Attorney General Order No. 793–78, it is proposed to amend 28 CFR part 16 as follows: PART 16—[AMENDED] Subpart E—Exemption of Records Systems Under the Privacy Act 1. The authority for part 16 continues to read as follows: Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301, 552, 552a, 552b(g), 553; 18 U.S.C. 4203(a)(1); 28 U.S.C. 509, 510, 534; 31 U.S.C. 3717, 9701. 2. Section 16.133 is added to read as follows: § 16.133 Exemption of Department of Justice Regional Data Exchange System (RDEX), DOJ–012. (a) The Department of Justice Regional Data Exchange System (RDEX), DOJ– 012, is exempted from subsections (c)(3) and (4); (d)(1), (2), (3), and (4); (e)(1), (2), (3), (5), and (8); and (g) of the Privacy Act pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2). These exemptions apply only to the extent that information in a record is subject to exemption pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2). PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 (b) This system is exempted from the following subsections for the reasons set forth below: (1) From subsection (c)(3) because making available to a record subject the accounting of disclosures of criminal law enforcement records concerning him or her could inform that individual of the existence, nature, or scope of an investigation, or could otherwise seriously impede law enforcement efforts. (2) From subsection (c)(4) because this system is exempt from subsections (d)(1), (2), (3), and (4). (3) From subsection (d)(1) because disclosure of criminal law enforcement information could interfere with an investigation, reveal the identity of confidential sources, and result in an unwarranted invasion of the privacy of others. (4) From subsection (d)(2) because amendment of the records would interfere with ongoing criminal law enforcement proceedings and impose an impossible administrative burden by requiring investigations to be continuously reinvestigated. (5) From subsections (d)(3) and (4) because these subsections are inapplicable to the extent that exemption is claimed from subsections (d)(1) and (2). (6) From subsection (e)(1) because it is often impossible to determine in advance if criminal law enforcement records contained in this system are relevant and necessary, but, in the interests of effective law enforcement, it is necessary to retain this information to aid in establishing patterns of activity and provide investigative leads. (7) From subsection (e)(2) because collecting information from the subject individual could serve notice that he or she is the subject of a criminal law enforcement matter and thereby present a serious impediment to law enforcement efforts. Further, because of the nature of criminal law enforcement matters, vital information about an individual frequently can be obtained only from other persons who are familiar with the individual and his or her activities and it often is not practicable to rely on information provided directly by the individual. (8) From subsection (e)(3) because informing individuals as required by this subsection could reveal the existence of a criminal law enforcement matter and compromise criminal law enforcement efforts. (9) From subsection (e)(5) because it is often impossible to determine in advance if criminal law enforcement records contained in this system are accurate, relevant, timely, and complete, E:\FR\FM\11JYP1.SGM 11JYP1 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 131 / Monday, July 11, 2005 / Proposed Rules but, in the interests of effective law enforcement, it is necessary to retain this information to aid in establishing patterns of activity and obtaining investigative leads. (10) From subsection (e)(8) because serving notice could give persons sufficient warning to evade criminal law enforcement efforts. (11) From subsection (g) to the extent that this system is exempt from other specific subsections of the Privacy Act. as well as documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket, will become part of this docket and will be available for inspection or copying at the above address between 9 a.m. and 2 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dennis Sens, Project Manager, Auxiliary and Recreational Boating Safety Branch, at (757) 398–6204. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Dated: June 30, 2005. Paul R. Corts, Assistant Attorney General for Administration. [FR Doc. 05–13551 Filed 7–8–05; 8:45 am] Request for Comments We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting comments and related material. If you do so, please include your name and address, identify the docket number for this rulemaking CGD05–05–072, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and give the reason for each comment. Please submit all comments and related material in an unbound format, no larger than 81⁄2 by 11 inches, suitable for copying. If you would like to know they reached us, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. We may change this proposed rule in view of them. BILLING CODE 4410–FB–P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 100 [CGD05–05–072] RIN 1625–AA08 Special Local Regulations for Marine Events; Atlantic Ocean, Atlantic City, NJ Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. AGENCY: SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to establish temporary special local regulations for ‘‘Thunder over the Boardwalk’’, an aerial demonstration to be held over the waters of the Atlantic Ocean adjacent to Atlantic City, New Jersey. These special local regulations are necessary to provide for the safety of life on navigable waters during the event. This proposed action would restrict vessel traffic in portions of the Atlantic Ocean adjacent to Atlantic City, New Jersey during the aerial demonstration. Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or before July 26, 2005. ADDRESSES: You may mail comments and related material to Commander (oax), Fifth Coast Guard District, 431 Crawford Street, Portsmouth, Virginia 23704–5004, hand-deliver them to Room 119 at the same address between 9 a.m. and 2 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays, or fax them to (757) 398–6203. The Coast Guard Auxiliary and Recreational Boating Safety Branch, Fifth Coast Guard District, maintains the public docket for this rulemaking. Comments and material received from the public, DATES: VerDate jul<14>2003 14:31 Jul 08, 2005 Jkt 205001 Public Meeting We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a request for a meeting by writing to the address under ADDRESSES explaining why one would be beneficial. If we determine that one would aid this rulemaking, we will hold one at a time and place announced by a later notice in the Federal Register. Background and Purpose On August 31, 2005, the Atlantic City Chamber of Commerce will sponsor the ‘‘Thunder over the Boardwalk’’. The event will consist of high performance jet aircraft performing low altitude aerial maneuvers over the waters of the Atlantic Ocean adjacent to Atlantic City, New Jersey. A fleet of spectator vessels is expected to gather nearby to view the aerial demonstration. Due to the need for vessel control during the event, vessel traffic will be temporarily restricted to provide for the safety of spectators and transiting vessels. Discussion of Proposed Rule The Coast Guard proposes to establish temporary special local regulations on specified waters of the Atlantic Ocean adjacent to Atlantic City, New Jersey. The regulated area includes a section of the Atlantic Ocean approximately 2.5 miles long, running from Pennsylvania PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 39697 Avenue to Columbia Avenue, and extending approximately 900 yards out from the shoreline. The temporary special local regulations will be enforced from 10:30 a.m. to 3 p.m. on August 31, 2005, and will restrict general navigation in the regulated area during the aerial demonstration. Except for persons or vessels authorized by the Coast Guard Patrol Commander, no person or vessel may enter or remain in the regulated area during the enforcement period. Regulatory Evaluation This proposed 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 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 proposed rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation under the regulatory policies and procedures of DHS is unnecessary. Although this proposed regulation prevents traffic from transiting a portion of the Atlantic Ocean adjacent to Atlantic City, New Jersey during the event, the effect of this regulation will not be significant due to the limited duration that the regulated area will be in effect and the extensive advance notifications that will be made to the maritime community via marine information broadcasts and area newspapers so mariners can adjust their plans accordingly. Small Entities Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601–612), we have considered whether this proposed 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 proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule will affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: the owners or operators of vessels intending to transit E:\FR\FM\11JYP1.SGM 11JYP1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 131 (Monday, July 11, 2005)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 39696-39697]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-13551]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

28 CFR Part 16

[AAG/A Order No. 003-2005]


Privacy Act of 1974; Implementation

AGENCY: Department of Justice.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Department of Justice proposes to exempt a new Privacy Act 
system of records entitled, Department of Justice Regional Data 
Exchange System (RDEX), DOJ-012, from subsections (c)(3) and (4); 
(d)(1), (2), (3), and (4); (e)(1), (2), (3), (5), and (8); and (g) of 
the Privacy Act pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2). The information in 
this system of records relates to matters of criminal law enforcement, 
and the exemption is necessary in order to avoid interference with law 
enforcement responsibilities and functions and to protect criminal law 
enforcement information as described in the proposed rule.

DATES: Comments must be received by August 10, 2005.

ADDRESSES: Address all comments in writing to Mary E. Cahill, 
Management Analyst, Management and Planning Staff, Justice Management 
Division, Department of Justice, Washington, DC 20530 (Room 1400, 
National Place Building), Facsimile Number (202) 307-1853. To ensure 
proper handling, please reference the AAG/A Order No. on your 
correspondence. You may review an electronic version of this proposed 
rule at https://www.regulations.gov. You may also comment via the 
Internet to the DOJ/Justice Management Division at the following e-mail 
address: DOJPrivacyACT ProposedRegulations@usdoj.gov; or by using the 
https://www.regulations.gov comment form for this regulation. When 
submitting comments electronically, you must include the AAG/A Order 
No. in the subject box.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mary E. Cahill, (202) 307-1823.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the notice section of today's Federal 
Register, the Department of Justice provides a description of this 
system of records.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    This proposed rule relates to individuals rather than small 
business entities. Nevertheless, pursuant to the requirements of the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, it is hereby stated that 
the proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities.

List of Subjects in 28 CFR Part 16

    Administrative practices and procedures, Courts, Freedom of 
Information Act, Privacy Act, Government in Sunshine Act.

    Pursuant to the authority vested in the Attorney General by 5 
U.S.C. 552a and delegated to me by Attorney General Order No. 793-78, 
it is proposed to amend 28 CFR part 16 as follows:

PART 16--[AMENDED]

Subpart E--Exemption of Records Systems Under the Privacy Act

    1. The authority for part 16 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301, 552, 552a, 552b(g), 553; 18 U.S.C. 
4203(a)(1); 28 U.S.C. 509, 510, 534; 31 U.S.C. 3717, 9701.

    2. Section 16.133 is added to read as follows:


Sec.  16.133  Exemption of Department of Justice Regional Data Exchange 
System (RDEX), DOJ-012.

    (a) The Department of Justice Regional Data Exchange System (RDEX), 
DOJ-012, is exempted from subsections (c)(3) and (4); (d)(1), (2), (3), 
and (4); (e)(1), (2), (3), (5), and (8); and (g) of the Privacy Act 
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2). These exemptions apply only to the 
extent that information in a record is subject to exemption pursuant to 
5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2).
    (b) This system is exempted from the following subsections for the 
reasons set forth below:
    (1) From subsection (c)(3) because making available to a record 
subject the accounting of disclosures of criminal law enforcement 
records concerning him or her could inform that individual of the 
existence, nature, or scope of an investigation, or could otherwise 
seriously impede law enforcement efforts.
    (2) From subsection (c)(4) because this system is exempt from 
subsections (d)(1), (2), (3), and (4).
    (3) From subsection (d)(1) because disclosure of criminal law 
enforcement information could interfere with an investigation, reveal 
the identity of confidential sources, and result in an unwarranted 
invasion of the privacy of others.
    (4) From subsection (d)(2) because amendment of the records would 
interfere with ongoing criminal law enforcement proceedings and impose 
an impossible administrative burden by requiring investigations to be 
continuously reinvestigated.
    (5) From subsections (d)(3) and (4) because these subsections are 
inapplicable to the extent that exemption is claimed from subsections 
(d)(1) and (2).
    (6) From subsection (e)(1) because it is often impossible to 
determine in advance if criminal law enforcement records contained in 
this system are relevant and necessary, but, in the interests of 
effective law enforcement, it is necessary to retain this information 
to aid in establishing patterns of activity and provide investigative 
leads.
    (7) From subsection (e)(2) because collecting information from the 
subject individual could serve notice that he or she is the subject of 
a criminal law enforcement matter and thereby present a serious 
impediment to law enforcement efforts. Further, because of the nature 
of criminal law enforcement matters, vital information about an 
individual frequently can be obtained only from other persons who are 
familiar with the individual and his or her activities and it often is 
not practicable to rely on information provided directly by the 
individual.
    (8) From subsection (e)(3) because informing individuals as 
required by this subsection could reveal the existence of a criminal 
law enforcement matter and compromise criminal law enforcement efforts.
    (9) From subsection (e)(5) because it is often impossible to 
determine in advance if criminal law enforcement records contained in 
this system are accurate, relevant, timely, and complete,

[[Page 39697]]

but, in the interests of effective law enforcement, it is necessary to 
retain this information to aid in establishing patterns of activity and 
obtaining investigative leads.
    (10) From subsection (e)(8) because serving notice could give 
persons sufficient warning to evade criminal law enforcement efforts.
    (11) From subsection (g) to the extent that this system is exempt 
from other specific subsections of the Privacy Act.

    Dated: June 30, 2005.
Paul R. Corts,
Assistant Attorney General for Administration.
[FR Doc. 05-13551 Filed 7-8-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-FB-P
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.