44602 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 151 / Monday, August 7, 2006 / Proposed Rules 

(2) In particular, an account or note 

receivable is not described in section 

1221(a)(4) on the grounds that the 

taxpayer’s act of acquiring (including 

originating) the account or note 

receivable constitutes, or includes, the 

provision of a service or services to the 

issuer of the account or note receivable, 

to the secondary market in which 

accounts or notes receivable of this sort 

may trade, or to the participants in that 

market. If a lender, however, separately 

invoiced reasonable fees for services 

that the lender rendered to the borrower 

in connection with a lending transaction 

and if the lender received as evidence 

of the obligation to make payment of 

those fees an account or note receivable 

that is separate from the debt instrument 

that was originated in the lending 

transaction, then this paragraph (e)(2) 

does not prevent the separate account or 

note receivable from being described in 

section 1221(a)(4). 

(3) This paragraph (e) applies to 

accounts or notes receivable acquired 

after the date the final regulations are 

published in the Federal Register. 

* * * * * 

Mark E. Matthews, 

Deputy Commissioner for Services and 

Enforcement. 

[FR Doc. E6–12789 Filed 8–4–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4830–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

32 CFR Part 312 

[Docket No. DOD–2006–OS–0168] 

RIN 0790–AI01 

Inspector General; Privacy Act; 

Implementation 

AGENCY: Inspector General, DoD. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Office of the Inspector 

General (OIG) is proposing to exempt a 

new system of records in its inventory 

of systems of records pursuant to the 

Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552), as 

amended, to protect records that are 

presently exempt from certain 

requirements of the Act. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before October 6, 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 20311–1160. 

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 for members of the pubic 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: Mr. 

Darryl R. Aaron at (703) 604–9785. 

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 312 

Privacy. 

Accordingly, 32 CFR part 312 is 

proposed to be amended as follows: 

PART 312—OIG PRIVACY ACT 

PROGRAM 

1. The authority citation for 32 CFR 

part 312 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: Pub. L. 93–579, 88 Stat. 1896 (5 

U.S.C. 552a). 

2. Section 312.12, is proposed to be 

revised by adding paragraph (j) to read 

as follows: 

§ 312.12 Exemptions. 

(j) System identifier: CIG 23. 

(1) System name: Public Affairs Files. 

Exemption: During the course of 

processing a request for information, 

exempt materials from other systems of 

records may in turn become part of the 

records in this system. To the extent 

that copies of exempt records from those 

‘other’ systems of records are entered 

into this Public Affairs Files, the Office 

of the Inspector General hereby claims 

the same exemptions for the records 

from those ‘other’ systems that are 

entered into this system, as claimed for 

the original primary systems of records 

which they are a part. 

(3) Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552(j)(2), (k)(1), 

(k)(2), (k)(3), (k)(4), (k)(5), (k)(6), and 

(k)(7). 

(4) Reasons: 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 


bajohnson on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 151 / Monday, August 7, 2006 / Proposed Rules 44603 

system of records. In general, the 

exemptions were 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, 

to preserve the confidentiality and 

integrity of Federal testing materials, 

and to safeguard evaluation materials 

used for military promotions when 

furnished by a confidential source. The 

exemption rule for the original records 

will identify the specific reasons why 

the records are exempt from specific 

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

* * * * * 

Dated: August 1, 2006. 

C.R. Choate, 

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison 

Officer, Department of Defense. 

[FR Doc. 06–6719 Filed 8–4–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 5001–06–M 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

32 CFR Part 318 

[Docket No. D0D–2006–OS–0169] 

RIN 0790–AI03 

Defense Threat Reduction Agency; 

Privacy Act; Implementation 

AGENCY: Defense Threat Reduction 

Agency DoD. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Defense Threat Reduction 

Agency is proposing to exempt those 

records contained in HDTRA 021, 

entitled ‘‘Freedom of Information Act 

and Privacy Act Case Files’’ when an 

exemption has been previously claimed 

for the records in another Privacy Act 

system of records. The exemption is 

intended to preserve the exempt status 

of the record when the purposes 

underlying the exemption for the 

original records are still valid and 

necessary to protect the contents of the 

records. 

DATES: Comments must be received by 

October 6, 2006. 

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. 

Brenda M. Carter at (703) 767–1771 or 

DSN 427–1771. 

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 318 

Privacy. 

Accordingly, 32 CFR part 318 is 

proposed to be amended as follows: 

PART 318—DEFENSE THREAT 

REDUCTION AGENCY PRIVACY 

PROGRAM 

1. The authority citation for 32 CFR 

part 318 continued to read as follows: 

Authority: Pub. L. 93–579, 88 Stat. 1896 (5 

U.S.C. 552a). 

2. Section 318.16 is proposed to be 

amended by adding paragraph (d) as 

follows: 

§ 318.16 Exemption rules. 

* * * * * 

(d) System identifier and name: 

HDTRA 021, Freedom of Information 

Act and Privacy Act Request Case Files. 

(1) Exemption: During the processing 

of a Freedom of Information Act or 

Privacy Act request exempt materials 

from other systems of records may in 

turn become part of the case record in 

this system. To the extent that copies of 

exempt records from those ‘other’

systems of records are entered into this 

system, the Defense Threat Reduction 

Agency 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. 

(2) Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2), 

(k)(l), (k)(2), (k)(3), (k)(4), (k)(5), (k)(6) 

and (k)(7). 

(3) Reasons: Records are only exempt 

from pertinent provisions of 5 U.S.C. 

552a to the extent such provisions have 

been identified and an exemption 


bajohnson on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS