Privacy Act; Implementation, 46180-46181 [06-6848]

Download as PDF 46180 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 155 / Friday, August 11, 2006 / Proposed Rules themselves, violate the Act. But because asking applicants to state their age may tend to deter older individuals from applying, or otherwise indicate discrimination against older individuals, employment notices or advertisements that include such requests will be closely scrutinized to assure that the requests were made for a lawful purpose. 4. Revise the first paragraph of § 1625.5 to read as follows: § 1625.5 Employment Applications. A request on the part of an employer for information such as Date of Birth or age on an employment application form is not, in itself, a violation of the Act. But because the request that an applicant state his age may tend to deter older applicants or otherwise indicate discrimination against older individuals, employment application forms that request such information will be closely scrutinized to assure that the request is for a permissible purpose and not for purposes proscribed by the Act. That the purpose is not one proscribed by the statute should be made known to the applicant by a reference on the application form to the statutory prohibition in language to the following effect: * * * * * [FR Doc. E6–13138 Filed 8–10–06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6570–01–P DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Defense Logistics Agency 32 CFR Part 323 RIN 0790–AI00 Privacy Act; Implementation Defense Logistics Agency. Proposed rule. AGENCY: jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL SUMMARY: The Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) is proposing to update the DLA Privacy Act Program Rules, 32 CFR, part 323, by replacing the (k)(2) exemption with a (k)(5) exemption to more accurately describe the basis for exempting the records. DATES: Comments must be received on or before October 10, 2006 to be considered by this agency. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by docket number and or RIN number and title, by any of the following methods. • Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments. VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:01 Aug 10, 2006 Ms. Jody Sinkler at (703) 767–5045. 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. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Public Law 96–354, ‘‘Regulatory Flexibility Act’’ (5 U.S.C. Chapter 6) [Docket: DoD–2006–OS–0022] ACTION: • Mail: Federal Docket Management System Office, 1160 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301–1160. Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency Name and docket number or Regulatory Information Number (RIN) for this Federal Register document. The general policy for comments and other submissions from members of the public is to make these submissions available for public viewing on the Internet at http://regulations.gov as they are received without change, including any personal identifiers or contact information. Jkt 208001 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 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 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. List of Subjects in 32 CFR Part 323 Privacy. Accordingly, 32 CFR part 323 is proposed to be amended as follows: PART 323—DLA PRIVACY ACT PROGRAM 1. The authority citation for 32 CFR part 323 continues to read as follows: Authority: Public Law 93–579, 88 Stat. 1896 (5 U.S.C. 552a). 2. Appendix H to part 323 is amended by revising the current paragraphs a.1. through a.4. with the following: Appendix H to Part 323, DLA Exemption Rules * * * * * a. ID: S500.10 (Specific Exemption) 1. System name: Personnel Security Files. 2. Exemption: Investigatory material compiled solely for the purpose of determining suitability, eligibility, or qualifications for federal civilian employment, federal contracts, or access to classified information may be exempt pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(5), but only to the extent that such material would reveal the identify of a confidential source. Therefore, portions of this system may be exempt pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(5) from the following subsections of 5 U.S.C. 552a(c)(3), (d), and (e)(1). 3. Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(5). 4. Reasons: (i) From subsection (c)(3) and (d) when access to accounting disclosures and access to or amendment of records would cause the identity of a confidential source to be revealed. Disclosure of the source’s identity not only will result in the Department breaching the promise of confidentiality made to the source but it will impair the Department’s future ability to compile investigatory material for the purpose of determining suitability, eligibility, or qualifications for Federal civilian employment, Federal contracts, or access to classified information. Unless sources can be assured that a promise of confidentiality will be honored, they will be less likely to E:\FR\FM\11AUP1.SGM 11AUP1 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 155 / Friday, August 11, 2006 / Proposed Rules provide information considered essential to the Department in making the required determinations. (ii) From (e)(1) because in the collection of information for investigatory purposes, it is not always possible to determine the relevance and necessity of particular information in the early stages of the investigation. In some cases, it is only after the information is evaluated in light of other information that its relevance and necessity becomes clear. Such information permits more informed decision-making by the Department when making required suitability, eligibility, and qualification determinations. * * * * * Dated: August 7, 2006. C.R. Choate, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense. [FR Doc. 06–6848 Filed 8–10–06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001–06–M DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 110 [CGD01–06–026] RIN 1625–AA01 Anchorage Regulations; Falmouth, ME, Casco Bay Coast Guard, DHS. Notice of proposed rulemaking. AGENCY: ACTION: SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to amend the existing special anchorage area in Falmouth, Maine, on Casco Bay. This proposed action is necessary to facilitate safe navigation and provide a safe and secure anchorage for vessels of not more than 65 feet in length. This action is intended to increase the safety of life and property on Casco Bay, improve the safety of anchored vessels, and provide for the overall safe and efficient flow of vessel traffic and commerce. Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or before October 10, 2006. ADDRESSES: You may mail comments and related material to Commander (dpw) (CGD01–06–026), First Coast Guard District, 408 Atlantic Ave., Boston, Massachusetts 02110, or deliver them to room 628 at the same address between 8 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Comments and material received from the public, as well as documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket, will become part jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL DATES: VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:01 Aug 10, 2006 Jkt 208001 of this docket and will be available for inspection or copying at room 628, First Coast Guard District Boston, between 8 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. John J. Mauro, Commander (dpw), First Coast Guard District, 408 Atlantic Ave., Boston, MA 02110, Telephone (617) 223–8355 or e-mail at John.J.Mauro@uscg.mil. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 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 (CGD01–06–026), 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. 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 Waterways Management Branch at 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 The rule is intended to reduce the risk of vessel collisions by enlarging the current special anchorage area in Falmouth, Maine, by an additional 206 acres. The proposed rule would expand the existing special anchorage, described in 33 CFR 110.5(d), to allow anchorage for approximately 150 additional vessels. When at anchor in any special anchorage, vessels not more than 65 feet in length need not carry or exhibit the white anchor lights required by the Navigation Rules. In developing this proposed rule, the Coast Guard has consulted with the Army Corps of Engineers, Northeast, located at 696 Virginia Rd., Concord, MA 01742. Discussion of Proposed Rule The proposed rule would amend the existing special anchorage located at the PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 46181 Town of Falmouth, Maine, on Casco Bay. The Mussel Cove and adjacent waters at Falmouth Foreside, Falmouth special anchorage would include all waters of Casco Bay enclosed by a line beginning at the Dock House (F.S.) located at latitude 43°44′22″ N, longitude 70°11′41″ W; thence to latitude 43°44′19″ N, longitude 70°11′33″ W; thence to latitude 43°44′00″ N, longitude 70°11′44″ W; thence to latitude 43°43′37″ N, longitude 70°11′37″ W; thence to latitude 43°43′04″ N, longitude 70°12′13″ W; thence to latitude 43°41′56″ N, longitude 70°12′53″ W; thence to latitude 43°41′49″ N, longitude 70°13′05″ W; thence to latitude 43°42′11″ N, longitude 70°13′30″ W; thence along the shoreline to the point of beginning. All proposed coordinates are North American Datum 1983 (NAD 83). This special anchorage area would be limited to vessels no greater than 65 feet in length. Vessels not more than 65 feet in length are not required to sound signals as required by rule 35 of the Inland Navigation Rules (33 U.S.C. 2035) nor exhibit anchor lights or shapes required by rule 30 of the Inland Navigation Rules (33 U.S.C 2030) when at anchor in a special anchorage area. Additionally, mariners using the anchorage areas are encouraged to contact local and state authorities, such as the local harbormaster, to ensure compliance with any additional applicable state and local laws. Such laws may involve, for example, compliance with direction from the local harbormaster when placing or using moorings within the anchorage. 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. We expect the economic impact of this proposed rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation is unnecessary. This finding is based on the fact that this proposal conforms to the changing needs of the Town of Falmouth, the changing needs of recreational, fishing and commercial vessels, and makes the best use of the available navigable water. This proposed special area, while in the interest of safe navigation and protection of the vessels moored at the Town of Falmouth, does not impede the passage of vessels intending to transit E:\FR\FM\11AUP1.SGM 11AUP1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 155 (Friday, August 11, 2006)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 46180-46181]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-6848]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Defense Logistics Agency

32 CFR Part 323

[Docket: DoD-2006-OS-0022]
RIN 0790-AI00


Privacy Act; Implementation

AGENCY: Defense Logistics Agency.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) is proposing to update the 
DLA Privacy Act Program Rules, 32 CFR, part 323, by replacing the 
(k)(2) exemption with a (k)(5) exemption to more accurately describe 
the basis for exempting the records.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before October 10, 2006 to be 
considered by this agency.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by docket number and or 
RIN number and title, by any of the following methods.
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Federal Docket Management System Office, 1160 
Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-1160.
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency Name 
and docket number or Regulatory Information Number (RIN) for this 
Federal Register document. The general policy for comments and other 
submissions from members of the public is to make these submissions 
available for public viewing on the Internet at http://regulations.gov 
as they are received without change, including any personal identifiers 
or contact information.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Jody Sinkler at (703) 767-5045.

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 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.

List of Subjects in 32 CFR Part 323

    Privacy.

    Accordingly, 32 CFR part 323 is proposed to be amended as follows:

PART 323--DLA PRIVACY ACT PROGRAM

    1. The authority citation for 32 CFR part 323 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: Public Law 93-579, 88 Stat. 1896 (5 U.S.C. 552a).

    2. Appendix H to part 323 is amended by revising the current 
paragraphs a.1. through a.4. with the following:

Appendix H to Part 323, DLA Exemption Rules

* * * * *

a. ID: S500.10 (Specific Exemption)

    1. System name: Personnel Security Files.
    2. Exemption: Investigatory material compiled solely for the 
purpose of determining suitability, eligibility, or qualifications 
for federal civilian employment, federal contracts, or access to 
classified information may be exempt pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 
552a(k)(5), but only to the extent that such material would reveal 
the identify of a confidential source. Therefore, portions of this 
system may be exempt pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(5) from the 
following subsections of 5 U.S.C. 552a(c)(3), (d), and (e)(1).
    3. Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(5).
    4. Reasons: (i) From subsection (c)(3) and (d) when access to 
accounting disclosures and access to or amendment of records would 
cause the identity of a confidential source to be revealed. 
Disclosure of the source's identity not only will result in the 
Department breaching the promise of confidentiality made to the 
source but it will impair the Department's future ability to compile 
investigatory material for the purpose of determining suitability, 
eligibility, or qualifications for Federal civilian employment, 
Federal contracts, or access to classified information. Unless 
sources can be assured that a promise of confidentiality will be 
honored, they will be less likely to

[[Page 46181]]

provide information considered essential to the Department in making 
the required determinations.
    (ii) From (e)(1) because in the collection of information for 
investigatory purposes, it is not always possible to determine the 
relevance and necessity of particular information in the early 
stages of the investigation. In some cases, it is only after the 
information is evaluated in light of other information that its 
relevance and necessity becomes clear. Such information permits more 
informed decision-making by the Department when making required 
suitability, eligibility, and qualification determinations.
* * * * *

    Dated: August 7, 2006.
C.R. Choate,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.

[FR Doc. 06-6848 Filed 8-10-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-M