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 

[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 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 155 / Friday, August 11, 2006 / Proposed Rules 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 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 110 

[CGD01–06–026] 

RIN 1625–AA01 

Anchorage Regulations; Falmouth, ME, 

Casco Bay 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

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. 

DATES: 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 

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 

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 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL