Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 174 / Monday, September 10, 2007 / Notices 51659 

comment in the Office of the 

Superintendent, Reed E. Detring, Big 

South Fork National River and 

Recreation Area; 4564 Leatherwood 

Road; Oneida, TN 37841. The 

documents are also available at the 

Planning, Environment and Public 

Comment (PEPC) Web site at: http:// 

parkplanning.nps.gov/BISO. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Phyllis Trabold, Community Planner, 

Big South Fork National River and 

Recreation Area; 4564 Leatherwood 

Road; Oneida, TN 37841, telephone: 

423–569–2404 extension 231. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: If you 

wish to comment on the EA, you may 

mail comments to the name and address 

above or post comments online at 

http://parkplanning.nps.gov/BISO. This 

EA will be on public review for 30 days. 

Before including your address, phone 

number, e-mail address, or other 

personal identifying information in your 

comment, you should be aware that 

your entire comment, including your 

personal identifying information, may 

be made publicly available at any time. 

While you can ask us in your comment 

to withhold your personal identifying 

information from public review, we 

cannot guarantee that we will be able to 

do so. 

Dated: August 28, 2007. 

Art Frederick, 

Acting Regional Director, Southeast Region. 

[FR Doc. E7–17768 Filed 9–7–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–JD–P 

JUDICIAL CONFERENCE OF THE 

UNITED STATES 

Committee on Court Administration 

and Case Management; Notice of 

Request for Public Comment 

AGENCY: Judicial Conference of the 

United States, Committee on Court 

Administration and Case Management. 

ACTION: Notice of request for public 

comment. 

SUMMARY: The Court Administration and 

Case Management Committee of the 

Judicial Conference of the United States 

is seeking comment on the attached 

document relating to the privacy and 

security implications of public Internet 

access to plea agreements filed in 

federal court cases. 

DATES: Comments will be accepted from 

September 10, 2007 through October 26, 

2007. 

ADDRESSES: All comments should be 

received by 5 p.m. Eastern Daylight 

Time, October 26, 2007. The electronic 

submission of comments is highlly 

encouraged. Electronic comments may 

be submitted via e-mail to 

privacycomments@ao.uscourts.gov. 

Comments may also be submitted by 

regular mail to The Administrative 

Office of the United States Courts, Court 

Administration Policy Staff, Attn: 

Privacy Comments, Suite 4–560, One 

Columbus Circle, NE., Washington, DC 

20544. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Abel 

J. Mattos, Chief, Court Administration 

Policy Staff, Administrative Office of 

the United States Courts, One Columbus 

Circle, NE., Washington, DC 20544, 

telephone (202) 502–1560, fax (202) 

502–1022. 

Dated: September 5, 2007. 

Abel J. Mattos, 

Chief, Court Administration Policy Staff. 

Request for Comment on Privacy and 

Security Implications of Public Access 

to Certain Electronic Criminal Case File 

Documents 

The federal Judiciary is seeking 

comment on the privacy and security 

implications related to electronic public 

access to certain documents in criminal 

case files. The Court Administration and 

Case Management Committee of the 

Judicial Conference of the United States 

is studying these issues in order to 

develop policy guidance to the federal 

courts. 

Specifically, the Committee is 

interested in comments on a proposal to 

restrict public Internet access to plea 

agreements in criminal cases, which 

may contain information identifying 

defendants who are cooperating with 

law enforcement investigations. 

• This request for public comment 

addresses two related issues: 

• The privacy and security 

implications of public Internet access to 

plea agreements filed in federl court 

cases; and 

• Potential policy alternatives. 

Information on how to submit 

comments is contained at the end of this 

document. 

Electronic Public Access to Federal 

Court Case Files 

Historically, most documents filed in 

federal courts are considered to be 

public information. Over the last 

decade, the federal courts have 

established an electronic case files 

system that allows public access to 

court case files through the Internet. 

This transition from paper case files to 

electronic files has transformed the way 

that case file documents are used by 

attorneys, litigants, courts, and the 

public. In the past, attorneys and parties 

were required to file case documents at 

the courthouse. Likewise, the public 

was required to go to the courthouse 

where a paper case file was maintained 

to review the file or obtain a copy of a 

document from that court file. Now, 

electronic case files allow anyone with 

an account with the Judiciary’s Public 

access to Court Electronic Records 

(PACER) system to view, print, or 

download these documents via the 

Internet. 

PACER is a Web-based system that 

provides access to both the dockets (a 

list of all the documents in the case) and 

actual case file documents. Individuals 

who seek a particular document or case 

file can open a PACER account and 

obtain a login and password. Those who 

register a valid credit card number will 

receive their account login and 

password in minutes. Immediately after 

establishing an account, and individual 

can access case files over the Internet. 

As established by Congress, public 

access through PACER involves a fee. 

Currently, the fee is $.08 per page of a 

case file document or report that is 

viewed, downloaded, or printed. There 

is a fee cap of $2.40 for all documents 

(excluding transcripts of court 

proceedings) that exceed 30 pages in 

length. Additionally, no fee is owed by 

a PACER account holder until charges of 

$10 are accrued in a calaendar year. 

Electronic case files are also available 

for review, free of charge, at public 

computer terminals at courthouses. 

Printouts from the public access 

terminals cost $.10 per page. 

Privacy and Security Implications of 

Electronic Criminal Case Files 

Electronic case files bring significant 

benefits to the courts, litigants, 

attorneys, and the public. There are 

also, however, personal privacy and 

security implications of unlimited 

Internet access to court case files, 

especially criminal case files. Many 

federal court case files contain personal 

and sensitive information that litigants 

and third parties may be compelled by 

law to disclose for adjudicatory 

purposes. 

The Judiciary has a long tradition—

rooted in both constitutional and 

common law principles—of open access 

to public court records. Accordingly, all 

case file documents, unless sealed or 

otherwise subject to restricted access by 

statute or federal rule, have traditionally 

been available for public inspection and 

copying. The Supreme Court has 

recognized, however, that access rights 

are not absolute, and that technology 

may affect the balance between access 

rights and privacy and security 

interests. See Nixon v. Warner 

Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. 589 


ebenthall on PRODPC61 with NOTICES
51660 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 174 / Monday, September 10, 2007 / Notices 

1Absent action by Congress to reject, modify, or 

defer them, the rules will go into effect on 

December 1, 2007. 

(1978) and United States Department of 

Justice v. Reporters Committee for 

Freedom of the Press, 489 U.S. 749 

(1989). 

In September 2003, the Judicial 

Conference adopted a privacy policy for 

criminal case files that included 

providing the same level of public 

access to electronic case files as it has 

provided to paper case files. It did so, 

in part, based on the results of a pilot 

project completed earlier that year. The 

pilot project allowed public Internet 

access to criminal case files in ten 

district courts and one court of appeals 

for two years. A report on the pilot 

project by the Federal Judicial Center 

found that there were no significant 

reports of misuse of criminal case 

documents, nor were there any reports 

of harm stemming from the availability 

of these documents via public Internet 

access. Nonetheless, individual courts 

may have chosen a more restrictive 

approach to public Internet access to 

these documents. 

Both the 2003 policy and pending 

Federal Rules of Procedure regarding 

privacy in court filings prescribed by 

the Supreme Court in April 2007 1

require that certain limited information 

be redacted or truncated in filings with 

the court, including: Social Security and 

financial account numbers, dates of 

birth, names of minor children, and, in 

criminal cases, home addresses. In 

addition, the pending Federal Rules 

allow courts to seal documents or limit 

public Internet access to documents on 

a case-by-case basis, if good cause is 

shown. See Pending FR Crim. P. 49.1(e). 

Request To Limit Access to Certain 

Documents in Federal Court Criminal 

Case Files 

The Department of Justice has asked 

the Judicial Conference to restrict public 

Internet access to a specific type of 

document: Plea agreements in criminal 

cases, which may disclose the fact that 

the defendant in the case is cooperating 

or has cooperated with law enforcement 

investigations. The ease with which the 

public is able to both retrieve federal 

court case information from electronic 

case files and redistribute it 

electronically through the Internet has 

raised concerns about whether the 

Judiciary’s policy of allowing access to 

all unsealed plea agreements provides a 

sufficient measure of safety for those 

defendants cooperating with law 

enforcement. Certain private parties or 

organizations have compiled lists 

setting forth names, locations, and 

descriptions of alleged cooperating 

witnesses and have posted them on the 

Internet. Some have expressed concern 

that wide dissemination of this 

information may facilitate or encourage 

retaliation and/or witness intimidation. 

The Judiciary is requesting comment 

on its policy of providing public 

Internet access to all non-sealed plea 

agreements in electronic criminal case 

files (described further below). This 

policy has been in effect since 

November 2004, but only came into play 

in any particular local court level when 

that court adopted an electronic case 

files system, typically at some point 

between 2005–2007. To assist it in 

considering the issue, the Judiciary 

welcomes comments on this policy, 

including, but not limited to, the 

question of whether the policy should 

be changed to prohibit public Internet 

access to plea agreements or other 

documents in the criminal case files that 

identify a person cooperating with law 

enforcement. These plea agreements and 

documents would still be available for 

public inspection at the courthouse. 

Additionally, the Judiciary seeks 

comments on how it could otherwise 

meet the need to balance access issues 

against competing concerns such as 

privacy and personal security. 

How To Submit Comments 

All comments should be received by 

October 26, 2007 and must include the 

name, organization (if any), mailing 

address, and telephone number of the 

commentator. All comments should also 

include an e-mail address and a fax 

number, where available, as well as an 

indication of whether the commentator 

is interested in participating in a public 

hearing, if one is held. The public 

should be advised that it may not be 

possible to honor all requests to speak 

at any such hearing. Any such hearing 

may be recorded for broadcast. 

The electronic submission of 

comments is highly encouraged. 

Electronic comments may be submitted 

by e-mail to 

privacycomments@ao.uscourts.gov. 

Comments may be submitted through 

the U.S. Postal Service to The 

Administrative Office of the United 

States Courts, Court Administration 

Policy Staff, Attn: Privacy Comments, 

Suite 4–560, One Columbus Circle, NE., 

Washington, DC 20544. 

[FR Doc. 07–4415 Filed 9–7–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 2210–55–M 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

[OMB Number 1124–0001] 

National Security Division; Agency 

Information Collection Activities: 

Proposed Collection; Comments 

Requested 

ACTION: Correction to OMB Number 

1124–0003, 30-Day Notice of 

Information Collection Under Review: 

Registration Statement (Foreign Agents). 

The Department of Justice (DOJ), 

National Security Division (NSD), will 

be submitting the following information 

collection request to the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) for 

review and approval in accordance with 

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. 

The proposed information collection is 

published to obtain comments from the 

public and affected agencies. This 

proposed information collection was 

previously published in the Federal 

Register Volume 72, Number 128, pages 

36721–36722 on July 5, 2007, allowing 

for a 60-day comment period. 

The purpose of this notice is to allow 

for an additional 30 days for public 

comment until October 10, 2007. This 

process is conducted in accordance with 

5 CFR 1320.10. 

Written comments and/or suggestions 

regarding the items contained in this 

notice, especially the estimated public 

burden and associated response time, 

should be directed to the Office of 

Management and Budget, Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs, 

Attention Department of Justice Desk 

Officer, Washington, DC 20503. 

Additionally, comments may be 

submitted to OMB via facsimile to (202) 

395–5806. 

Written comments and suggestions 

from the public and affected agencies 

concerning the proposed collection of 

information are encouraged. Your 

comments should address one or more 

of the following four points: 

—Evaluate whether the proposed 

collection of information is necessary 

for the proper performance of the 

functions of the agency, including 

whether the information will have 

practical utility; 

—Evaluate the accuracy of the agency’s 

estimate of the burden of the 

proposed collection of information, 

including the validity of the 

methodology and assumptions used; 

—Enhance the quality, utility, and 

clarity of the information to be 

collected; and 

—Minimize the burden of the collection 

of information on those who are to 

respond, including through the use of 


ebenthall on PRODPC61 with NOTICES