Privacy Act of 1974; Implementation, 49870-49871 [05-16866]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
49870
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 164 / Thursday, August 25, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
§ 40.6302(c)–3 Special rules for use of
Government depositaries under chapter 33.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(2) * * *
(ii) Separate account. The account
required under paragraph (b)(2)(i)(A) of
this section (the separate account)—
(A) Must reflect for each month all
items of tax that are included in
amounts billed or tickets sold to
customers during the month;
(B) May not reflect an item of
adjustment for any month during a
quarter if the adjustment results from a
refusal to pay or inability to collect the
tax and the uncollected tax has not been
reported under § 49.4291–1 of this
chapter on or before the due date of the
return for that quarter; and
(C) Must reflect for each month items
of adjustment (including bad debts and
errors) relating to the tax for prior
months within the period of limitations
on credits or refunds.
*
*
*
*
*
§ 40.6302(c)–3T
[Removed]
Par. 3. Section 40.6302(c)–3T is
removed.
n
PART 49—FACILITIES AND SERVICES
EXCISE TAXES
Par. 4. The authority citation for part
49 continues to read, in part, as follows:
n
Authority: 26 U.S.C. 7805 * * *
Par. 5. Section 49.4291–1 is amended
as follows:
n 1. The fourth sentence is revised.
n 2. The fifth sentence is amended by
removing the language ‘‘this
information’’ and adding the language
‘‘this report’’ in its place.
n 3. A new sentence is added at the end
of the paragraph.
n 4. Paragraphs (a) and (b) are added.
The revisions and addition read as
follows:
n
§ 49.4291–1 Persons receiving payment
must collect tax.
* * * Applicable October 1, 2004,
this report must be made on or before
the report due date. * * * For purposes
of this section, the report due date is—
(a) In the case of a person using the
alternative method of making deposits
described in § 40.6302(c)–3 of this
chapter, the due date of the return on
which the item of adjustment relating to
the uncollected tax would be reflected
if items of adjustment were determined
without regard to the limitation in
§ 40.6302(c)–3 of this chapter; and
(b) In any other case, the due date of
the return on which the tax would have
been reported but for the refusal to pay
or inability to collect.
VerDate jul<14>2003
15:45 Aug 24, 2005
Jkt 205001
§ 49.4291–1T
n
[Removed]
Par. 6. Section 49.4291–1T is removed.
Mark E. Matthews,
Deputy Commissioner for Services and
Enforcement.
Approved: July 20, 2005.
Eric Solomon,
Acting Deputy Secretary of the Treasury (Tax
Policy).
[FR Doc. 05–16612 Filed 8–24–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830–01–P
Information Act, Privacy Act, and
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, amend 28 CFR part 16
as follows:
n
PART 16—[AMENDED]
Subpart E—Exemption of Records
Systems under the Privacy Act
1. The authority for part 16 continues
to read as follows:
n
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
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.
28 CFR Part 16
[AAG/A Order No. 007–2005]
Privacy Act of 1974; Implementation
2. Section 16.133 is added to read as
follows:
AGENCY: Department of Justice.
ACTION: Final rule.
§ 16.133 Exemption of Department of
Justice Regional Data Exchange System
(RDEX), DOJ–012.
SUMMARY: The Department of Justice is
exempting the 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. The
system of records document was
published in the Federal Register on
July 11, 2005 at 70 FR 39790. The
proposed rule was published in the
Federal Register on July 11, 2005 at
39696.
(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).
n
DATES: Effective Date: This final rule is
effective August 25, 2005.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mary E. Cahill, (202) 307–1823.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On July
11, 2005 at 70 FR 39696 a proposed rule
was published in the Federal Register
with an invitation to comment. No
comments were received.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
This 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 this 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
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\25AUR1.SGM
25AUR1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 164 / Thursday, August 25, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
(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,
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: August 19, 2005.
Paul R. Corts,
Assistant Attorney General for
Administration.
[FR Doc. 05–16866 Filed 8–24–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410–FB–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Minerals Management Service
30 CFR Parts 250 and 256
RIN 1010–AD16
Oil, Gas, and Sulphur Operations and
Leasing in the Outer Continental Shelf
(OCS)—Cost Recovery
AGENCY: Minerals Management Service
(MMS), Interior.
VerDate jul<14>2003
15:45 Aug 24, 2005
Jkt 205001
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: MMS is changing some
existing fees and implementing several
new fees to offset MMS’s costs of
performing certain services relating to
its minerals programs.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This regulation is
effective as of September 26, 2005.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Angela Mazzullo, Offshore Minerals
Management (OMM) Budget Office at
(703) 787–1691.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Legal Authority and Policy Guidance:
The Independent Offices Appropriation
Act of 1952 (IOAA), 31 U.S.C. 9701, is
a general law applicable Governmentwide, that provides authority to MMS to
recover the costs of providing services
to the non-federal sector. It requires
implementation through rulemaking.
There are several policy documents that
provide guidance on the process of
charging applicants for service costs.
These policy documents are found in
the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) Circular A–25, ‘‘User Charges,’’
and the Department of the Interior (DOI)
Departmental Manual (DM), 330 DM
1.3A and 6.4, ‘‘Cost Recovery’’ and
‘‘User Charges.’’ The general policy that
governs charges for services provided
states that a charge ‘‘will be assessed
against each identifiable recipient for
special benefits derived from federal
activities beyond those received by the
general public’’ (OMB Circular A–25).
The DOI Manual mirrors this policy
(330 DM 1.3 A.). Certain activities may
be exempted from these fees under
certain conditions set out at 330 DM
1.3A and 6.4.4.
Cost Recovery Definition: In this
rulemaking, cost recovery means
reimbursement to MMS for its costs of
performing a service by charging a fee
to the identifiable applicant/beneficiary
of the service. Further guidance is
provided by Solicitor’s Opinion M–
36987, ‘‘BLM’s Authority to Recover
Costs of Mineral Document Processing’’
(December 5, 1996). The DOI Office of
Inspector General issued reports in 1988
and 1995 addressing BLM’s cost
recovery responsibilities.
Discussion of Comments Received
MMS published a proposed rule to
revise some existing fees and implement
several new fees in the Federal Register
on March 15, 2005. The comment
period for the proposed rule closed on
April 14, 2005. MMS received 23 sets of
comments on the proposed rulemaking
on 14 different issues. Respondents
included: Anadarko, BP, Beacon
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
49871
Exploration & Production, Chevron
Texaco, the Domestic Petroleum
Council (DPC), EOG Resources, Exxon
Mobil, the Independent Petroleum
Association of America (IPAA), the
International Association of Drilling
Contractors (IADC), the International
Association of Geophysical Contractors
(IAGC), Marathon Oil, NCX Company,
the National Ocean Industries
Association (NOIA), the Natural Gas
Supply Association (NGSA), Newfield
Exploration Company, the Offshore
Operators Committee (OOC), Shell
Exploration & Production Company
(Shell), Spinnaker Exploration, Success
Energy, the U.S. Oil & Gas Association
(USOGA), Waring & Associates, and
WJP. These respondents raised a
number of important issues that are
addressed immediately below.
Issue No. 1: The comment period
should be extended.
MMS received seven requests to
extend the comment period beyond 30
days on the proposed rule. MMS
considers this rule to be fairly
straightforward and not exceptionally
complex, and the fees are not significant
in terms of potential economic impact.
Therefore, MMS considers thirty days to
be sufficient time for comment.
Issue No. 2: The implementation of
the fees in this rule will discourage
exploration activity on the OCS,
particularly by small businesses.
MMS received five comments on this
issue. MMS disagrees with the
comments. The current classification of
a small business by the Small Business
Administration (SBA) is a company
with fewer than 500 employees. Over 70
percent of companies operating on the
OCS meet that criterion. Most of these
companies are financially sound and
payment of cost recovery fees will not
affect plans for exploratory drilling. In
addition, the proposed fees represent a
small percentage increase in operating
costs when compared to the cost of
drilling a well. For example, the
proposed fees range from $150–$10,700
while well drilling costs range from $5
million–$23 million.
Issue No. 3: The fees being
implemented are too high. Can more
information be provided as to how the
fees were calculated?
MMS received seven comments on
this issue. Because this rule is
implementing cost recovery authority,
the fees were set at what it currently
costs MMS to perform these services.
The following example provides greater
detail of how the costs were calculated.
The Suspension of Operations/
Suspension of Production (SOO/SOP)
request was broken down into five subprocesses, also shown in the table below
E:\FR\FM\25AUR1.SGM
25AUR1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 164 (Thursday, August 25, 2005)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 49870-49871]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-16866]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
28 CFR Part 16
[AAG/A Order No. 007-2005]
Privacy Act of 1974; Implementation
AGENCY: Department of Justice.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Department of Justice is exempting the 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. The system of records document was published
in the Federal Register on July 11, 2005 at 70 FR 39790. The proposed
rule was published in the Federal Register on July 11, 2005 at 39696.
DATES: Effective Date: This final rule is effective August 25, 2005.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mary E. Cahill, (202) 307-1823.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On July 11, 2005 at 70 FR 39696 a proposed
rule was published in the Federal Register with an invitation to
comment. No comments were received.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
This 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 this 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, and Government in Sunshine Act.
0
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, amend 28
CFR part 16 as follows:
PART 16--[AMENDED]
Subpart E--Exemption of Records Systems under the Privacy Act
0
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.
0
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).
[[Page 49871]]
(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, 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: August 19, 2005.
Paul R. Corts,
Assistant Attorney General for Administration.
[FR Doc. 05-16866 Filed 8-24-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-FB-P
