This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains notices to the public of the proposed

issuance of rules and regulations. The

purpose of these notices is to give interested

persons an opportunity to participate in the

rule making prior to the adoption of the final

rules.

Proposed Rules Federal Register

61323

Vol. 69, No. 200

Monday, October 18, 2004

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Agricultural Marketing Service 

7 CFR Part 1032 

[Docket No. AO–313–A48; DA–04–06] 

Milk in the Central Marketing Area; 

Delay of Hearing Date

AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, 

USDA.

ACTION: Proposed rule; notice of hearing 

delay. 

SUMMARY: The Agricultural Marketing 

Service is delaying the hearing for the 

proposed rule that appeared in the 

Federal Register of September 22, 2004 

(69 FR 56725), which gave notice of a 

public hearing being held to consider 

proposals that would amend certain 

provisions of the Central milk marketing 

order. The hearing was originally 

scheduled to begin October 18, 2004, 

and has been delayed until December 6, 

2004.

DATES: The hearing will convene at 1 

p.m. on Monday, December 6, 2004.

ADDRESSES: The hearing will be held at 

the Hilton Kansas City Airport, 8801 

NW 112th Street, Kansas City, Missouri 

64153; (816) 891–8900.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jack 

Rower, Marketing Specialist, Order 

Formulation and Enforcement, USDA/

AMS/Dairy Programs, STOP 0231—

Room 2971, 1400 Independence 

Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250–

0231, (202) 720–2357, e-mail address: 

Jack.Rower@usda.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the 

proposed rule beginning on page 56725 

of the Federal Register for Wednesday, 

September 22, 2004, the hearing dates in 

the third column on page 56725 is 

changed in both the DATES and 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION sections to 

read as follows:

DATES: The hearing will convene at 1:00 

p.m. on Monday, December 6, 2004.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 

administrative action is governed by the 

provisions of sections 556 and 557 of 

Title 5 of the United States Code and, 

therefore, is excluded from the 

requirements of Executive Order 12866. Notice is hereby given of a public 

hearing to be held at the Hilton Kansas 

City Airport, 8801 NW 112th Street, 

Kansas City, Missouri 64153; (816) 891–

8900, beginning at 1 p.m., on Monday, 

December 6, 2004, with respect to 

proposed amendments to the tentative 

marketing agreement and to the order 

regulating the handling of milk in the 

Central milk marketing area. The 

hearing is being delayed to 

accommodate a request by industry 

participants for additional time to 

prepare for the hearing.

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601–674.

Dated: October 13, 2004. 

A.J. Yates, 

Administrator, Agricultural Marketing 

Service.

[FR Doc. 04–23351 Filed 10–14–04; 10:17 

am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–02–P

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

28 CFR Part 16 

[AAG/A Order No. 014–2004] 

Privacy Act of 1974; Implementation

AGENCY: Criminal Division, Department 

of Justice.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The Criminal Division (CRM), 

Department of Justice, proposes to 

amend its Privacy Act regulations to add 

exemptions for a newly-created Privacy 

Act system of records entitled 

‘‘Organized Crime Drug Enforcement 

Task Force Fusion Center System,’’ 

JUSTICE/CRM–028, as described in 

today’s notice section of the Federal 

Register. The ‘‘Organized Crime Drug 

Enforcement Task Force Fusion Center 

System,’’ JUSTICE/CRM–028, will be 

exempt from the subsections of the 

Privacy Act listed below for the reasons 

set forth in the following text. 

Information in this system of records 

relates to matters of law enforcement, 

and the exemptions are necessary to 

avoid interference with law enforcement 

responsibilities and to protect the 

privacy of third parties.

DATES: Submit any comments by 

November 17, 2004.

ADDRESSES: Address all comments to 

Mary Cahill, Management and Planning 

Staff, Justice Management Division, 

Department of Justice, Washington, DC 

20530 (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 view an 

electronic version of this proposed rule 

at www.regulations.gov. You may also 

comment via the Internet to the DOJ/

Justice Management Division at the 

following e-mail address: 

DOJPrivacyACTProposedRegulations@

usdoj.gov; or by using the 

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 Cahill, (202) 307–1823.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 

proposed rule seeks to amend 28 CFR 

16.91 to add paragraphs (u) and (v) as 

set forth below. These new paragraphs 

exempt the ‘‘Organized Crime Drug 

Enforcement Task Force Fusion Center 

System,’’ JUSTICE/CRM–028, from 

certain provisions of the Privacy Act of 

1974, as amended. 

This order relates to individuals 

rather than small business entities. 

Nevertheless, pursuant to the 

requirements of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601–612, this 

order 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, Sunshine Act and Privacy.

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] 

1. The authority citation for Part 16 

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301, 552, 552a, 552b(g), 

and 553; 18 U.S.C. 4203(a)(1); 28 U.S.C. 509, 

510, 534; 31 U.S.C. 3717 and 9701.

2. Section 16.91 is amended by 

adding paragraphs (u) and (v) as 

follows:

§ 16.91 Exemption of Criminal Division 

Systems—limited access, as indicated.

* * * * *

61324 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 200 / Monday, October 18, 2004 / Proposed Rules 

(u) The following system of records is 

exempted pursuant to the provisions of 

5 U.S.C. 552a(j) and/or (k) from 

subsections (c)(3) and (4); (d)(1), (2), (3), 

and (4); (e)(1), (2), (3), (5), and (8); and 

(g) of 5 U.S.C. 552a. 

Organized Crime Drug Enforcement 

Task Force Fusion Center System 

(JUSTICE/CRM–028). These exemptions 

apply only to the extent that 

information in this system is subject to 

exemption pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(j) 

and/or (k). 

(v) Exemptions from the particular 

subsections are justified for the 

following reasons: 

(1) From subsection (c)(3) because to 

provide the subject with an accounting 

of disclosures of records in this system 

could inform that individual of the 

existence, nature, or scope of an actual 

or potential law enforcement or 

counterintelligence investigation by the 

Organized Crime Drug Enforcement 

Task Force Fusion Center or the 

recipient agency, and could permit that 

individual to take measures to avoid 

detection or apprehension, to learn the 

identity of witnesses and informants, or 

to destroy evidence, and would 

therefore present a serious impediment 

to law enforcement or 

counterintelligence efforts. In addition, 

disclosure of the accounting would 

amount to notice to the individual of the 

existence of a record. Moreover, release 

of an accounting may reveal information 

that is properly classified pursuant to 

Executive Order 12958 (or successor or 

prior Executive Order) or a statute and 

could compromise the national defense 

or foreign policy. 

(2) From subsection (c)(4) because this 

subsection is inapplicable to the extent 

that an exemption is being claimed for 

subsection (d)(1), (2), (3), and (4). 

(3) From subsection (d)(1) because 

disclosure of records in the system 

could alert the subject of an actual or 

potential criminal, civil, or regulatory 

violation of the existence of that 

investigation, of the nature and scope of 

the information and evidence obtained 

as to his activities, of the identity of 

confidential witnesses and informants, 

of the investigative interest of Organized 

Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force 

Fusion Center and other intelligence or 

law enforcement agencies (including 

those responsible for civil proceedings 

related to laws against drug trafficking 

or related financial crimes); lead to the 

destruction of evidence, improper 

influencing of witnesses, fabrication of 

testimony, and/or flight of the subject; 

reveal the details of a sensitive 

investigative or intelligence technique, 

or the identity of a confidential source; 

or otherwise impede, compromise, or 

interfere with investigative efforts and 

other related law enforcement and/or 

intelligence activities. In addition, 

disclosure could invade the privacy of 

third parties and/or endanger the life, 

health, and physical safety of law 

enforcement personnel, confidential 

informants, witnesses, and potential 

crime victims. Access to records could 

also result in the release of information 

properly classified pursuant to 

Executive Order 12958 (or successor or 

prior Executive Order) or by statute, 

thereby compromising the national 

defense or foreign policy. 

(4) From subsection (d)(2) because 

amendment of the records thought to be 

incorrect, irrelevant, or untimely would 

also interfere with ongoing 

investigations, criminal or civil law 

enforcement proceedings, and other law 

enforcement activities and impose an 

impossible administrative burden by 

requiring investigations, analyses, and 

reports to be continuously 

reinvestigated and revised.

(5) From subsections (d)(3) and (4) 

because these subsections are 

inapplicable to the extent exemption is 

claimed from (d)(1) and (2). 

(6) From subsection (e)(1) because, in 

the course of its acquisition, collation, 

and analysis of information under the 

statutory authority granted to it, the 

Organized Crime Drug Enforcement 

Task Force Fusion Center will 

occasionally obtain information 

concerning actual or potential violations 

of law that are not strictly within its 

statutory or other authority or may 

compile information in the course of an 

investigation which may not be relevant 

to a specific prosecution. It is 

impossible to determine in advance 

what information collected during an 

investigation will be important or 

crucial to the apprehension of fugitives. 

In the interests of effective law 

enforcement, it is necessary to retain 

such information in this system of 

records because it can aid in 

establishing patterns of criminal activity 

and can provide valuable leads for 

federal and other law enforcement 

agencies. This consideration applies 

equally to information acquired from, or 

collated or analyzed for, both law 

enforcement agencies and agencies of 

the U.S. foreign intelligence community 

and military community. 

(7) From subsection (e)(2) because in 

a criminal, civil, or regulatory 

investigation, prosecution, or 

proceeding, the requirement that 

information be collected to the greatest 

extent practicable from the subject 

individual would present a serious 

impediment to law enforcement because 

the subject of the investigation, 

prosecution, or proceeding would be 

placed on notice as to the existence and 

nature of the investigation, prosecution, 

and proceeding and would therefore be 

able to avoid detection or apprehension, 

to influence witnesses improperly, to 

destroy evidence, or to fabricate 

testimony. Moreover, thorough and 

effective investigation and prosecution 

may require seeking information from a 

number of different sources. 

(8) From subsection (e)(3) (to the 

extent applicable) because the 

requirement that individuals supplying 

information be provided a form stating 

the requirements of subsection (e)(3) 

would constitute a serious impediment 

to law enforcement in that it could 

compromise the existence of a 

confidential investigation or reveal the 

identity of witnesses or confidential 

informants and endanger their lives, 

health, and physical safety. The 

individual could seriously interfere 

with undercover investigative 

techniques and could take appropriate 

steps to evade the investigation or flee 

a specific area. 

(9) From subsection (e)(5) because the 

acquisition, collation, and analysis of 

information for law enforcement 

purposes from various agencies does not 

permit a determination in advance or a 

prediction of what information will be 

matched with other information and 

thus whether it is accurate, relevant, 

timely and complete. With the passage 

of time, seemingly irrelevant or 

untimely information may acquire new 

significance as further investigation 

brings new details to light and the 

accuracy of such information can often 

only be determined in a court of law. 

The restrictions imposed by subsection 

(e)(5) would restrict the ability of 

trained investigators, intelligence 

analysts, and government attorneys to 

exercise their judgment in collating and 

analyzing information and would 

impede the development of criminal or 

other intelligence necessary for effective 

law enforcement. 

(10) From subsection (e)(8) because 

the individual notice requirements of 

subsection (e)(8) could present a serious 

impediment to law enforcement by 

revealing investigative techniques, 

procedures, evidence, or interest and 

interfering with the ability to issue 

warrants or subpoenas, and could give 

persons sufficient warning to evade 

investigative efforts. 

(11) From subsection (g) because this 

subsection is inapplicable to the extent 

that the system is exempt from other 

specific subsections of the Privacy Act. 

(12) In addition, exemption is claimed 

for this system of records from 

compliance with the following 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 200 / Monday, October 18, 2004 / Proposed Rules 61325

1 In any year in which the last day of February 

falls on Saturday, Sunday, a holiday or other 

nonbusiness day within the District of Columbia or 

the Federal Government, DART claims received by 

the Copyright Office by the first business day in 

March, or properly addressed and deposited with 

sufficient postage with the United States Postal 

Service by the first business day in March and 

bearing a U.S. postmark shall be considered timely 

filed. 37 CFR 259.5(b). Likewise, in any year in 

which July 31 falls on Saturday, Sunday, a holiday 

or other nonbusiness day within the District of 

Columbia or the Federal Government, cable and 

satellite claims received by the Copyright Office by 

the first business day in August or claims that are 

properly addressed and deposited with sufficient 

postage with the United States Postal Service by the 

first business day in August and bearing a U.S. 

postmark shall be considered timely filed. 37 CFR 

252.4(b), 257.4(b).

provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552a pursuant to 

the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552a(k): 

subsections (c)(3), (d), (e)(1), to the 

extent that the records contained in this 

system are specifically authorized to be 

kept secret in the interests of national 

defense and foreign policy.

Dated: October 9, 2004. 

Paul R. Corts, 

Assistant Attorney General for 

Administration.

[FR Doc. 04–23243 Filed 10–15–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–14–P

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS

Copyright Office 

37 CFR Parts 252, 257, and 259 

[Docket No. RM 2004–6 CARP] 

Filing of Claims for Cable, Satellite, 

and DART Royalties

AGENCY: Copyright Office, Library of 

Congress.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The Copyright Office of the 

Library of Congress is proposing to 

amend its regulations governing the 

filing of claims to allow for the on-line 

submission of cable, satellite, and DART 

claims and to require claimants file their 

claims by hand delivery or by mail 

using forms created by the Copyright 

Office.

DATES: Comments must be received no 

later than November 17, 2004.

ADDRESSES: If hand delivered by a 

private party, an original and five copies 

of comments should be brought to Room 

LM–401 of the James Madison Memorial 

Building and the envelope should be 

addressed as follows: Office of the 

General Counsel/CARP, U.S. Copyright 

Office, James Madison Memorial 

Building, Room LM–401, 101 

Independence Avenue, SE., 

Washington, DC 20559–6000 between 

8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. If delivered by a 

commercial courier, an original and five 

copies of comments must be delivered 

to the Congressional Courier Acceptance 

Site located at 2nd and D Streets, N.E. 

between 8:30 a.m. and 4 p.m. The 

envelope should be addressed as 

follows: Office of the General Counsel/

CARP, Room LM–403, James Madison 

Memorial Building, 101 Independence 

Avenue, SE., Washington, DC. If sent by 

mail (including overnight delivery using 

U.S. Postal Service Express Mail), an 

original and five copies of comments 

should be addressed to: Copyright 

Arbitration Royalty Panel (CARP), PO 

Box 70977, Southwest Station, 

Washington, DC. 20024. Comments may 

not be delivered by means of overnight 

delivery services such as Federal 

Express, United Parcel Service, etc., due 

to delays in processing receipt of such 

deliveries.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

David O. Carson, General Counsel, or 

Gina Giuffreda, Attorney-Advisor, 

Copyright Arbitration Royalty Panel 

(CARP), PO Box 70977, Southwest 

Station, Washington, DC 20024. 

Telephone: (202) 707–8380. Telefax: 

(202) 252–3423.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The Copyright Act directs the 

Copyright Office to collect royalties paid 

by cable systems and satellite carriers 

for the retransmission of over-the-air 

broadcast signals, 17 U.S.C. 

111(d)(4)(A), 119(b)(4)(A), respectively, 

as well as royalties paid by 

manufacturers and importers of digital 

audio recording devices and media 

(‘‘DART’’) who distribute the products 

in the United States. 17 U.S.C. 1003. 

Eligibility to receive royalties from any 

of these three funds is predicated upon 

the submission of a claim during the 

time specified by statute: DART claims 

must be filed during the months of 

January and February, 17 U.S.C. 1007; 

cable and satellite claims must be filed 

during the month of July, 17 U.S.C. 111, 

119.1

Prior to 2002, claims to the cable, 

satellite, and DART royalties generally 

were considered timely filed with the 

Copyright Office only if they were hand 

delivered to the correct location within 

the Copyright Office during the requisite 

month, or if the claim was mailed to the 

correct address and bore the appropriate 

U.S. Postal Service postmark. However, 

in October 2001, concerns about 

possible anthrax contamination of mail 

addressed to facilities in the District of 

Columbia caused severe disruptions of 

postal service to the Copyright Office. 

See 66 FR 62942 (December 4, 2001) 

and 66 FR 63267 (December 5, 2001). As 

a result, the Copyright Office announced 

alternative methods for the filing of 

DART, cable, and satellite claims for the 

claim year 2001. See 67 FR 5213 

(February 5, 2002) and 67 FR 21176 

(April 30, 2002). Specifically, the Office 

waived its CARP regulations requiring 

that claims bear the original signature of 

the copyright owner claimant or of a 

duly authorized representative of the 

copyright owner claimant to allow the 

submission of claims via electronic mail 

as file attachments to specified 

mailboxes. 67 FR 5213 (February 5, 

2002) and 67 FR 21176, 21177 (April 30, 

2002). Additionally, since the volume of 

DART claims received by the Office is 

significantly lower than that of cable 

and satellite claims, the Office also 

waived its CARP regulation prohibiting 

the filing of claims by facsimile 

transmission and allowed DART claims 

to be filed via facsimile. See 67 FR 5214 

(February 5, 2002). 

Although mail delivery to the 

Copyright Office resumed, the Office 

continued to experience delays in the 

receipt of mail due in part to the 

diversion of all incoming mail to an offsite location for screening. 

Consequently, the Office again waived 

its CARP regulations that required an 

original signature and prohibited the 

submission of DART claims via 

facsimile transmission, and the Office 

offered alternative methods for the 

electronic filing of DART, cable, and 

satellite claims for the claim years 2002 

and 2003. However, instead of 

submitting claims via electronic mail, 

claimants were allowed to make on-line 

submissions of claims. DART: See 67 FR 

71477 (December 2, 2002) and 68 FR 

74481 (December 24, 2003); cable and 

satellite: See 68 FR 32381 (May 30, 

2003) and 69 FR 30577 (May 28, 2004). 

As noted in the May 28, 2004, Notice 

regarding the filing of claims to the 2003 

cable and satellite royalty funds, the 

Office’s mail will continue to be 

diverted to an off-site location for 

screening. Moreover, problems 

associated with untimely filings of 

claims by mail, see Metro-GoldwynMayer Studios, Inc. v. Peters, 309 F. 

Supp.2d. 48 (D.D.C. 2004), and 

Universal Studios LLLP v. Peters, 308 F. 

Supp.2d. 1 (D.D.C. 2004), have led the 

Office to conclude that claimants should 

be encouraged to file their claims 

electronically. Indeed, the vast majority 

of claims filed for claim years 2001 

through 2003 have been filed 

electronically. In addition, the 

electronic submission of claims has 

proven to be more administratively 

efficient for the Office. Therefore, the