56852 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 179 / Monday, September 16, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

previously guaranteed by the fund does 

not exceed a total amount equal to 500 

percent of the total costs of the assets 

held by the fund as of December 16, 

2009. 

(ii) The Commissioner may, by 

published guidance, set forth additional 

circumstances under which guarantees 

by certain perpetual trust funds will not 

cause amounts in the fund to be treated 

as replacement proceeds. 

* * * * * 

(k) [Reserved] 

(l) Additional arbitrage guidance 

updates—(1) In general. Sections 1.148– 

1(b); 1.148–1(c)(4)(i)(B)(1); 1.148– 

1(c)(4)(i)(B)(4); 1.148–1(c)(4)(ii); 1.148– 

1(f); 1.148–2(e)(3)(i); 1.148–5(c)(3); 

1.148–5(d)(2); 1.148–5(d)(3); 1.148– 

5(d)(6)(i); 1.148–6(d)(4); 1.148–10(a)(4); 

1.148–10(e); 1.148–11(d)(1)(i)(B); 1.148– 

11(d)(1)(i)(D); 1.148–11(d)(1)(i)(F); and 

1.148–11(d)(1)(ii) apply to bonds that 

are sold on or after the date that is 90 

days after the date of publication of final 

regulations in the Federal Register. 

(2) Section 1.148–4(h)(2)(viii) applies 

to hedges that are entered into on or 

after the date that is 90 days after the 

date of publication of the final 

regulations in the Federal Register. 

(3) Section 1.148–4(h)(3)(iv)(A) 

through (H) and (h)(4)(iv) apply to— 

(i) Hedges that are entered into on or 

after the date that is 90 days after the 

date of publication of the final 

regulations in the Federal Register; 

(ii) Qualified hedges that are modified 

on or after the date that is 90 days after 

the date of publication of the final 

regulations in the Federal Register with 

respect to modifications on or after such 

date; and 

(iii) Qualified hedges on bonds that 

are refunded on or after the date that is 

90 days after the date of publication of 

the final regulations in the Federal 

Register with respect to the refunding 

on or after such date. 

■ Par. 13. Section 1.150–1 is amended 

by: 

■ 1. Adding a new paragraph (a)(2)(iii). 

■ 2. Adding a definition for taxadvantaged bond in alphabetical order 

to paragraph (b). 

■ 3. Revising paragraph (c)(2). 

■ 4. Adding a new paragraph (f). 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: 

§ 1.150–1 Definitions. 

(a) * * * 

(2) * * * 

(iii) Special effective date for 

definitions of tax-advantaged bond, 

issue, and grant. The definition of taxadvantaged bond in paragraph (b) of 

this section, the revisions to the 

definition of issue in paragraph (c)(2) of 

this section, and the definition and rules 

regarding the treatment of grants in 

paragraph (f) of this section apply to 

bonds that are sold on or after the date 

that is 90 days after publication of final 

regulations in the Federal Register. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

Tax-advantaged bond means a taxexempt bond, a taxable bond that 

provides a Federal tax credit to the 

investor with respect to the issuer’s 

borrowing costs, a taxable bond that 

provides a refundable Federal tax credit 

payable directly to the issuer of the 

bond for its borrowing costs under 

section 6431, or any future similar bond 

that provides a Federal subsidy for any 

portion of the borrowing costs. 

Examples of tax-advantaged bonds 

include qualified tax credit bonds under 

section 54A(d)(1) and build America 

bonds under section 54AA. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(2) Exceptions for different types of 

tax-advantaged bonds and taxable 

bonds. Each type of tax-advantaged 

bond that has a different structure for 

delivery of the borrowing subsidy or 

different program eligibility 

requirements is treated as part of a 

different issue under this paragraph (c). 

Further, tax-advantaged bonds and 

bonds that are not tax-advantaged bonds 

are treated as part of different issues 

under this paragraph (c). The issuance 

of tax-advantaged bonds in a transaction 

with other non tax-advantaged bonds 

must be tested under the arbitrage antiabuse rules under § 1.148–10(a) and 

other applicable anti-abuse rules (for 

example, limitations against window 

maturity structures or unreasonable 

allocations of bonds). 

* * * * * 

(f) Definition and treatment of 

grants—(1) Definition. Grant means a 

transfer for a governmental purpose of 

money or property to a transferee that is 

not a related party to or an agent of the 

transferor. The transfer must not impose 

any obligation or condition to directly 

or indirectly repay any amount to the 

transferor or a related party. Obligations 

or conditions intended solely to assure 

expenditure of the transferred moneys 

in accordance with the governmental 

purpose of the transfer do not prevent 

a transfer from being a grant. 

(2) Treatment. Except as otherwise 

provided (for example, § 1.148–6(d)(4), 

which treats proceeds used for grants as 

spent for arbitrage purposes when the 

grant is made), the character and nature 

of a grantee’s use of proceeds are taken 

into account in determining which rules 

are applicable to the bond issue and 

whether the applicable requirements for 

the bond issue are met. 

For example, a grantee’s use of 

proceeds generally determines whether 

the proceeds are used for capital 

projects or working capital expenditures 

under section 148 and whether the 

qualified purposes for the specific type 

of bond issue are met. 

Beth Tucker, 

Deputy Commissioner for Operations 

Support. 

[FR Doc. 2013–21880 Filed 9–13–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4830–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

28 CFR Part 16 

[CPCLO Order No. 005–2013] 

Exemption of Records Systems Under 

the Privacy Act 

AGENCY: Executive Office for Organized 

Crime Drug Enforcement Task Forces 

(OCDETF), Department of Justice. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Justice 

(the Department or DOJ) proposes to 

amend its Privacy Act regulations for 

two systems of records entitled the 

‘‘Drug Enforcement Task Force 

Evaluation and Reporting System, 

JUSTICE/DAG–003,’’ last published, 

March 10, 1992 in the Federal Register, 

and the ‘‘Organized Crime Drug 

Enforcement Task Force Fusion Center 

and International Organized Crime 

Intelligence and Operations Center 

System, JUSTICE/CRM–028,’’ last 

published, June 3, 2009 in the Federal 

Register. These Privacy Act regulations 

are being amended to reflect a recent 

reorganization of the Department 

establishing the Executive Office for 

OCDETF as a separate DOJ component, 

and transferring responsibility for these 

systems from the Office of the Deputy 

Attorney General (ODAG) and the 

Criminal Division to this component. In 

light of this departmental 

reorganization, JUSTICE/DAG–003 is 

being renumbered to JUSTICE/

OCDETF–001 and will be renamed as 

the ‘‘Organized Crime Drug Enforcement 

Task Forces Management Information 

System (OCDETF MIS).’’ JUSTICE/

CRM–028 is being renumbered to 

JUSTICE/OCDETF–002 but will retain 

its system name. When under the 

responsibility of ODAG and the 

Criminal Division, these systems were 

exempted from certain provisions of the 

Privacy Act of 1974 by exemptions 

placed in the Code of Federal 

Regulations (CFR) sections containing 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 179 / Monday, September 16, 2013 / Proposed Rules 56853 

exemptions for ODAG’s and the 

Criminal Division’s Privacy Act 

systems. These proposed amendments 

will remove references to these systems 

from the CFR sections for ODAG and 

Criminal Division exemptions and add 

a new section for OCDETF exemptions. 

Public comment is invited. 

DATES: Comments must be received by 

October 16, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: Address all comments to 

Privacy Analyst, Office of Privacy and 

Civil Liberties, National Place Building, 

1331 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Suite 

1000, Washington, DC 20530, or by 

facsimile to 202–307–0693. To ensure 

proper handling, please reference the 

CPCLO Order Number on your 

correspondence. You may review an 

electronic version of the proposed rule 

at http://www.regulations.gov, and you 

may also comment by using that Web 

site’s comment form for this regulation. 

Please include the CPCLO Order 

Number in the subject box. 

Please note that the Department is 

requesting that electronic comments be 

submitted before midnight Eastern Time 

on the day the comment period closes 

because this is when http://

www.regulations.gov terminates the 

public’s ability to submit comments. 

Commenters in time zones other than 

Eastern Time may want to consider this 

so that their electronic comments are 

received. All comments sent via regular 

or express mail will be considered 

timely if postmarked on or before the 

day the comment period closes. 

Posting of Public Comments: Please 

note that all comments received are 

considered part of the public record and 

made available for public inspection 

online at http://www.regulations.gov 

and in the Department’s public docket. 

Such information includes personally 

identifying information (such as your 

name, address, etc.) voluntarily 

submitted by the commenter. 

If you want to submit personally 

identifying information (such as your 

name, address, etc.) as part of your 

comment, but do not want it to be 

posted online or made available in the 

public docket, you must include the 

phrase ‘‘PERSONALLY IDENTIFYING 

INFORMATION’’ in the first paragraph 

of your comment. You must also place 

all the personally identifying 

information you do not want posted 

online or made available in the public 

docket in the first paragraph of your 

comment and identify what information 

you want redacted. 

If you want to submit confidential 

business information as part of your 

comment, but do not want it to be 

posted online or made available in the 

public docket, you must include the 

phrase ‘‘CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS 

INFORMATION’’ in the first paragraph 

of your comment. You must also 

prominently identify confidential 

business information to be redacted 

within the comment. If a comment has 

so much confidential business 

information that it cannot be effectively 

redacted, all or part of that comment 

may not be posted online or made 

available in the public docket. 

Personally identifying information 

and confidential business information 

identified and located as set forth above 

will be redacted and the comment, in 

redacted form, will be posted online and 

placed in the Department’s public 

docket file. Please note that the Freedom 

of Information Act applies to all 

comments received. If you wish to 

inspect the agency’s public docket file 

in person by appointment, please see 

the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

paragraph. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jill 

Aronica, Chief Information Systems 

Section, Executive Office for OCDETF, 

U.S. Department of Justice, 1331 

Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Suite 1060, 

Washington, DC 20530, phone 202–514– 

1860. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the 

Notices section of today’s Federal 

Register, the Department has published 

two modified systems of records notices 

for the ‘‘Organized Crime Drug 

Enforcement Task Force Fusion Center 

and International Organized Crime 

Intelligence and Operations Center 

System’’ (last published at 74 FR 26733 

(June 3, 2009)) and the ‘‘Organized 

Crime Drug Enforcement Task Forces 

Management Information System’’ (last 

published at 57 FR 8473 (March 10, 

1992)). Previously, when these systems 

were under the purview of ODAG and 

of the Criminal Division, these systems 

of records were exempted from certain 

provisions of the Privacy Act pursuant 

to 5 U.S.C. 552a(j) and (k). These 

exemptions were promulgated in the 

sections of the CFR for exemptions of 

ODAG systems (28 CFR 16.71) and of 

Criminal Division systems (28 CFR 

16.91). The Department is now 

proposing to establish a new section for 

exemptions of OCDETF systems (28 CFR 

16.135); to delete references to the 

exemptions for the Drug Enforcement 

Task Force Evaluation and Reporting 

System, JUSTICE/DAG–003 in 28 CFR 

16.71; and to delete references to the 

Organized Crime Drug Enforcement 

Task Force Fusion Center and 

International Organized Crime 

Intelligence and Operations Center 

System, JUSTICE/CRM–028 in 28 CFR 

16.91. The Department intends that the 

exemptions previously established 

under 28 CFR 16.71 and 28 CFR 16.91 

will continue to apply to these systems 

and all their records until the effective 

date of 28 CFR 16.135. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

This proposed rule relates to 

individuals, as opposed to small 

business entities. Nevertheless, 

pursuant to the requirements of the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601– 

612, the proposed rule will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

Small Entity Inquiries 

The Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 

(SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., requires 

the Executive Office for OCDETF to 

comply with small entity requests for 

information and advice about 

compliance with statutes and 

regulations within the Executive Office 

for OCDETF’s jurisdiction. Any small 

entity that has a question regarding this 

document may contact the person listed 

in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. 

Persons can obtain further information 

regarding SBREFA on the Small 

Business Administration’s Web page at 

http://www.sba.gov/advocacy/825. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 

1995, 44 U.S.C. 3507(d), requires that 

the Executive Office for OCDETF 

consider the impact of paperwork and 

other information collection burdens 

imposed on the public. There are no 

current or new information collection 

requirements associated with this 

proposed rule. The records that are 

contributed to this system would be 

created in any event by law enforcement 

entities and their sharing of this 

information electronically will not 

increase the paperwork burden on these 

entities. 

Analysis of Regulatory Impacts 

This proposed rule is not a 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ within 

the meaning of Executive Order 12866 

and therefore further regulatory 

evaluation is not necessary. This 

proposed rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities, because it 

applies only to information about 

individuals. 

Unfunded Mandates 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public 

Law 104–4, 109 Stat. 48, requires 

Federal agencies to assess the effects of 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

56854 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 179 / Monday, September 16, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

certain regulatory actions on State, 

local, and tribal governments, and the 

private sector. UMRA requires a written 

statement of economic and regulatory 

alternatives for proposed and final rules 

that contain Federal mandates. A 

‘‘Federal mandate’’ is a new or 

additional enforceable duty imposed on 

any State, local, or tribal government or 

the private sector. If any Federal 

mandate causes those entities to spend, 

in aggregate, $100 million or more in 

any one year, the UMRA analysis is 

required. This proposed rule would not 

impose Federal mandates on any State, 

local, or tribal government or the private 

sector. 

List of Subjects in 28 CFR Part 16 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Courts, Freedom of 

information, Privacy, 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 2940–2008, the Department of 

Justice proposes 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), 553; 18 U.S.C. 4203(a)(1); 28 U.S.C. 

509, 510, 534; 31 U.S.C. 3717, 9701. 

Subpart E—Exemption of Records 

Systems Under the Privacy Act 

§ 16.71 [Amended] 

■ 2. Amend § 16.71 as follows: 

■ a. Remove the existing paragraphs 

(c)(1) and (c)(2) and amend paragraph 

(c) to read as follows: ‘‘The General 

Files System of the Office of the Deputy 

Attorney General (JUSTICE/DAG–013) 

is exempt from 5 U.S.C. 552a(c)(3) and 

(4); (d); (e)(1), (2), (3) and (5); and (g).’’ 

■ b. Remove the first two sentences of 

paragraph (d); 

■ c. Remove existing paragraph (e)(7); 

and 

■ d. Redesignate paragraph (e)(8) as 

paragraph (e)(7). 

§ 16.91 [Amended] 

■ 3. Amend § 16.91 by removing 

paragraphs (u) and (v) 

§ 16.135 [Added] 

■ 4. Add § 16.135 to subpart E to read 

as follows: 

§ 16.135 Exemptions of Executive Office 

for Organized Crime Drug Enforcement 

Task Forces Systems. 

(a) The following systems of records 

are exempt from 5 U.S.C. 552a(c)(3) and 

(4); (d)(1), (2), (3), and (4); (e)(1), (2), (3), 

(4)(G), (H), and (I), (5), and (8); (f); and 

(g): 

(1) The Organized Crime Drug 

Enforcement Task Forces Management 

Information System (OCDETF MIS) 

(JUSTICE/OCDETF–001); and 

(2) The Organized Crime Drug 

Enforcement Task Force Fusion Center 

and International Organized Crime 

Intelligence and Operations Center 

System (JUSTICE/OCDETF–002). 

(b) These exemptions apply only to 

the extent that information is subject to 

exemption under 5 U.S.C. 552a(j) and/ 

or (k). 

(c) 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 these 

systems 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 Forces, the Organized Crime Drug 

Enforcement Task Force Fusion Center, 

the International Organized Crime 

Intelligence and Operations Center, or 

the recipient agency, and could permit 

that individual to take measures to 

avoid detection or apprehension, to 

learn of 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. 

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

subsection is inapplicable to the extent 

that an exemption is being claimed for 

subsections (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 or her activities, of the identity 

of confidential witnesses and 

informants, of the investigative interest 

of the Organized Crime Drug 

Enforcement Task Forces, the Organized 

Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force 

Fusion Center, the International 

Organized Crime Intelligence and 

Operations Center, and other 

intelligence or law enforcement 

agencies (including those responsible 

for civil proceedings related to laws 

against drug trafficking or related 

financial crimes or international 

organized crime); could lead to the 

destruction of evidence, improper 

influencing of witnesses, fabrication of 

testimony, and/or flight of the subject; 

could reveal the details of a sensitive 

investigative or intelligence technique, 

or the identity of a confidential source; 

or could 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. 

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

amendment of the records thought to be 

inaccurate, irrelevant, incomplete, or 

untimely would also interfere with 

ongoing investigations, criminal or civil 

law enforcement proceedings, and other 

law enforcement activities; would 

impose an impossible administrative 

burden by requiring investigations, 

analyses, and reports to be continuously 

reinvestigated and revised; and may 

impact information properly classified 

pursuant to Executive Order. 

(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) and for the reasons stated 

in paragraphs (b)(3) and (b)(4), above. 

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

the course of their acquisition, collation, 

and analysis of information under the 

statutory authority granted, the 

Organized Crime Drug Enforcement 

Task Forces, the Organized Crime Drug 

Enforcement Task Force Fusion Center, 

and the International Organized Crime 

Intelligence and Operations Center will 

occasionally obtain information, 

including information properly 

classified pursuant to Executive Order, 

that concerns actual or potential 

violations of law that are not strictly 

within their statutory or other authority 

or may compile and maintain 

information which may not be relevant 

to a specific investigation or 

prosecution. This is because it is 

impossible to determine in advance 

what information collected during an 

investigation or in support of these 

mission activities will be important or 

crucial to an investigation. 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 of a suspect and can provide 

valuable leads for federal and other law 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 179 / Monday, September 16, 2013 / Proposed Rules 56855 

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, 

or 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) because to 

comply with the requirements of this 

subsection during the course of an 

investigation could impede the 

information-gathering process, thus 

hampering the investigation or 

intelligence gathering. Disclosure to an 

individual of investigative interest 

would put the subject on notice of that 

fact and allow the subject an 

opportunity to engage in conduct 

intended to impede that activity or 

avoid apprehension. Disclosure to other 

individuals would likewise put them on 

notice of what might still be a sensitive 

law enforcement interest and could 

result in the further intentional or 

accidental disclosure to the subject or 

other inappropriate recipients, convey 

information that might constitute 

unwarranted invasions of the personal 

privacy of other persons, unnecessarily 

burden law enforcement personnel in 

information-collection activities, and 

chill the willingness of witnesses to 

cooperate. 

(9) From subsections (e)(4)(G) and (H) 

because this system is exempt from the 

access and amendment provisions of 

subsection (d). 

(10) From subsection (e)(4)(I) to the 

extent that this subsection could be 

interpreted to require more detail 

regarding system record sources than 

has been published in the Federal 

Register. Should this subsection be so 

interpreted, exemption from this 

provision is necessary to protect the 

sources of law enforcement and 

intelligence information and to protect 

the privacy and safety of witnesses and 

informants and other information 

sources. Further, greater specificity 

could compromise other sensitive law 

enforcement information, techniques, 

and processes. 

(11) 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. 

(12) From subsection (e)(8) because 

the individual notice requirements 

could present a serious impediment to 

law enforcement by revealing 

investigative techniques, procedures, 

evidence, or interest, and by interfering 

with the ability to issue warrants or 

subpoenas; could give persons sufficient 

warning to evade investigative efforts; 

and would pose an unacceptable 

administrative burden on the 

maintenance of these records and the 

conduct of the underlying 

investigations. 

(13) From subsections (f) and (g) 

because these subsections are 

inapplicable to the extent that the 

system is exempt from other specific 

subsections of the Privacy Act. 

Dated: August 21, 2013. 

Joo Y. Chung, 

Acting Chief Privacy and Civil Liberties 

Officer, United States Department of Justice. 

[FR Doc. 2013–22370 Filed 9–13–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–NY–P 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS