Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 107 /Thursday, June 4, 1998 / Proposed Rules 30429

received on or before the closing date

for comments will be considered before

taking action on the proposed rule. The

proposal contained in this notice may

be change in light of comments

received. All comments submitted will

be available for examination in the

Rules Docket both before and after the

closing date for comments. A report

summarizing each substantive public

contact with the FAA personnel

concerned with this rulemaking will be

filed in the docket.

Availability of NPRMs

Any person may obtain a copy of this

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM)

by submitting a request to the Office of

the Regional Counsel, AEA–7, F.A.A.

Eastern Region, Federal Building # 111,

John F. Kennedy International Airport,

Jamaica, NY 11430. Communications

must identify the notice number of this

NPRM. Persons interested in being

placed on a mailing list for future

NPRMs should also request a copy of

Advisory Circular No. 11–2A, which

described the application procedure.

The Proposal

The FAA is considering an

amendment to Part 71 of the Federal

Aviation Regulations (14 CFR Part 71) to

amend the Class E airspace area at

Dunkirk, NY. A GPS RWY 1 SIAP has

been developed for the Angola Airport.

Additional controlled airspace

extending upward from 700 feet AGL is

needed to accommodate the SIAP and

for IFR operations at the airport. Class

E airspace designations for airspace

areas extending upward from 700 feet or

more above the surface are published in

Paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9E,

dated September 10, 1997, and effective

September 16, 1997, which is

incorporated by reference in 14 CFR

71.1. The Class E airspace designation

listed in this document would be

published subsequently in the Order.

The FAA has determined that this

proposed regulation only involves an

established body of technical

regulations for which frequent and

routine amendments are necessary to

keep them operationally current.

Therefore, this proposed regulation—(1)

is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’

under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not

a ‘‘significant rule’’ under DOT

Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44

FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3)

does not warrant preparation of a

regulatory evaluation as the anticipated

impact is so minimal. Since this is a

routine matter that would only affect air

traffic procedures and air navigation, it

is certified that this proposed rule

would not have significant economic

impact on a substantial number of small

entities under the criteria of the

Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

Airspace, Incorporation by reference,

Navigation (air).

The Proposed Amendment

In considered of the foregoing, the

Federal Aviation Administration

proposes to amend 14 CFR Part 71 as

follows:

PART 71—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for Part 71

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113,

40120; E.O. 10854; 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR 1959–

1963 Comp., p. 389.

§ 71.1 [Amended]

2. The incorporation by reference in

14 CFR 71.1 of Federal Aviation

Administration Order 7400.9E, dated

September 10, 1997, and effective

September 16, 1997, is proposed to be

amended as follows:

Paragraph 6005 Class E airspace areas

extending upward from 700 feet or more

above the surface of the earth.

* * * * *

AEA NY E5 Dunkirk, NY [Revised]

Chautauqua County/Dunkirk Airport, NY

(lat. 42°29′36′′N., long. 79°16′19′′W.)

Angola Airport, NY

(lat. 42°39′37′′N., long. 78°59′28′′W.)

That airspace extending upward from 700

feet above the surface within a 6.6-mile

radius of Chautauqua County/Dunkirk

Airport and within an 11.8-mile radius of the

airport extending clockwise from a 022° to a

264° bearing from the airport and within a

6.3-mile radius of the Angola Airport and

within 4 miles each side of the 359° bearing

from the airport extending from the 6.3-mile

radius to 10.5 miles south of the airport.

* * * * *

Issued in Jamaica, New York, on May 27,

1998.

Franklin D. Hatfield,

Manager, Air Traffic Division, Eastern Region.

[FR Doc. 98–14887 Filed 6–3–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–M

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

28 CFR Part 16

[AAG/A Order No. 152–98]

Exemption of System of Records

Under the Privacy Act

AGENCY: Department of Justice.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The Department of Justice,

Federal Bureau of Investigation,

proposes to exempt the National Instant

Criminal Background Check System

(NICS) from 5 U.S.C. 552a(c)(3) and (4);

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

(e)(5) and (8); and (g). The purpose of

the proposed rule is to exempt the NICS

from certain requirements of the Privacy

Act for the reasons specified below. The

exemptions are necessary because some

information in NICS is from law

enforcement records. Therefore, to the

extent that they may be subject to

exemption under subsections (j)(2),

(k)(2), and (k)(3), these records are not

available under the Privacy Act and not

subject to certain of its procedures such

as obtaining an accounting of

disclosures, notification, access, or

amendment/correction.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on

or before July 6, 1998.

ADDRESSES: All comments should be

submitted to Patricia E. Neely, Program

Analyst, Information Management and

Security Staff, Justice Management

Division, Department of Justice,

Washington, DC 20530 (Room 850,

WCTR Building).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Patricia E. Neely, (202) 616–0178.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the

notice section of today’s Federal

Register, the Department of Justice

provides a description of the ‘‘National

Instant Criminal Background Check

System (NICS), JUSTICE/FBI–018.’’ Also

in the rules section of today’s Federal

Register, the Department of Justice

provides proposed rules to establish

policies and procedures for operating

the system, ensuring the privacy and

security of the NICS, and implementing

its alternative access and appeal

provisions.

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, it is

hereby stated that 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 Act, Government in the

Sunshine Act, and the Privacy Act.

Dated: May 7, 1998.

Stephen R. Colgate,

Assistant Attorney General for

Administration.

Pursuant to the authority vested in the

Attorney General by 5 U.S.C. 552a and

delegated to me by Attorney General

Order 793–78, it is proposed to revise 28

CFR part 16, as set forth below.
30430 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 107 /Thursday, June 4, 1998 / Proposed Rules

PART 16—[AMENDED]

1. The authority 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.

2. It is proposed that 28 CFR 16.96 be

amended by adding paragraphs (p) and

(q) to read as follows:

§ 16.96 Exemption of Federal Bureau of

Investigation (FBI) Systems—limited

access.

* * * * *

(p) The National Instant Criminal

Background Check System (NICS),

(JUSTICE/FBI–018), a Privacy Act

system of records, is exempt:

(1) Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2),

from subsections (c) (3) and (4); (d); (e)

(1), (2), (3); (e)(4) (G) and (H); (e) (5) and

(8); and (g); and

(2) Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k) (2)

and (3), from subsections (c) (3), (d), (e)

(1), and (e)(4) (G) and (H).

(q) These exemptions apply only to

the extent that information in the

system is subject to exemption pursuant

to 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2), (k)(2), and (k)(3).

Exemptions from the particular

subsections are justified for the

following reasons:

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

release of the accounting of disclosures

would place the subject on notice that

the subject is or has been the subject of

investigation and result in a serious

impediment to law enforcement.

(2) From subsection (c)(4) to the

extent that it is not applicable since an

exemption is claimed from subsection

(d).

(3)(i) From subsection (d) and (e)(4)

(G) and (H) because these provisions

concern an individual’s access to

records which concern the individual

and such access to records in the system

would compromise ongoing

investigations, reveal investigatory

techniques and confidential informants,

invade the privacy of persons who

provide information in connection with

a particular investigation, or constitute

a potential danger to the health or safety

of law enforcement personnel.

(ii) In addition, from subsection (d)(2)

because, to require the FBI to amend

information thought to be not accurate,

timely, relevant, and complete, because

of the nature of the information

collected and the essential length of

time it is maintained, would create an

impossible administrative burden by

forcing the agency to continuously

retrograde its investigations attempting

to resolve these issues.

(iii) Although the Attorney General is

exempting this system from subsection

(d) and (e)(4) (G) and (H), an alternate

method of access and correction has

been provided in 28 CFR, part 25,

subpart A.

(4) From subsection (e)(1) because it

is impossible to state with any degree of

certainty that all information in these

records is relevant to accomplish a

purpose of the FBI, even though

acquisition of the records from state and

local law enforcement agencies is based

on a statutory requirement. In view of

the number of records in the system, it

is impossible to review them for

relevancy.

(5) From subsections (e) (2) and (3)

because the purpose of the system is to

verify information about an individual.

It would not be realistic to rely on

information provided by the individual.

In addition, much of the information

contained in or checked by this system

from Federal, State, and local criminal

history records.

(6) From subsection (e)(5) because it

is impossible to predict when it will be

necessary to use the information in the

system, and, accordingly, it is not

possible to determine in advance when

the records will be timely. Since most

of the records are from State and local

or other Federal agency records, it

would be impossible to review all of

them to verify that they are accurate. In

addition, no alternate procedure is being

established in 28 CFR, part 25, subpart

A, so the records can be amended if

found to be incorrect.

(7) From subsection (e)(8) because the

notice requirement could present a

serious impediment to law enforcement

by revealing investigative techniques

and confidential investigations.

(8) From subsection (g) to the extent

that, pursuant to subsections (j)(2),

(k)(2), and (k)(3), the system is

exempted from the other subsections

listed in paragraph (p) of this section.

[FR Doc. 98–14796 Filed 6–3–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–02–M

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

28 CFR Part 25

[AG Order No. 2158–98]

RIN 1105–AA51

National Instant Criminal Background

Check System Regulations

AGENCY: Department of Justice.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The United States Department

of Justice is publishing a proposed rule

for the National Instant Criminal

Background Check System (NICS) to

establish policies and procedures for

ensuring the privacy and security of this

system and to implement a NICS

appeals policy for persons who have

been denied the purchase of a firearm

because of information in the NICS they

believe to be erroneous or incorrect.

Specifically, this rule will detail

policies for validating NICS data,

storing, accessing, and querying records

in the system, retaining and destroying

NICS information, and correcting

erroneous data in the system.

DATES: Written comments must be

received on or before September 2,

1998.

ADDRESSES: All comments concerning

this proposed rule should be mailed to:

Mr. Emmet A. Rathbun, NICS Project

Manager, Federal Bureau of

Investigation, CJIS Division, Module C–

3, 1000 Custer Hollow Road, Clarksburg,

West Virginia 26306–0147.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

Emmet A. Rathbun, NICS Project

Manager, telephone number (304) 625–

2000.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On

November 30, 1993, Pub. L. 103–159

(107 Stat. 1536) was enacted, amending

the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA), as

amended (18 U.S.C Chapter 44). Title I

of Pub. L. 103–159, the ‘‘Brady Handgun

Violence Prevention Act’’ (‘‘Brady

Act’’), requires the Attorney General to

establish by November 30, 1998, ‘‘a

national instant criminal background

check system that any [firearms]

licensee may contact, by telephone or by

other electronic means in addition to

the telephone, for information, to be

supplied immediately, on whether

receipt of a firearm by a prospective

transferee would violate section 922 of

title 18, United States Code, or State

law.’’ To implement the NICS, the Brady

Act authorizes the development of

hardware and software systems to link

State criminal history check systems

into the national system. It also

authorizes the Attorney General to

obtain official information from any

Federal Department or agency on

persons for whom receipt of a firearm

would be in violation of the law.

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and

Firearms (ATF), Department of the

Treasury, issued proposed regulations,

63 FR 8379 (Feb. 19, 1998), Notice

Number 857, ‘‘Implementation of Pub.

L. 53–159, Relating to the Permanent

Provisions of the Brady Handgun

Violence Prevention Act,’’ which

specify how Federal firearms licensees

(FFLs) shall interact with the NICS. In

general, the proposed ATF regulations:

Specify the time when an FFL must

contact the NICS; detail the criteria that