49870 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 164 / Thursday, August 25, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

§ 40.6302(c)–3 Special rules for use of 

Government depositaries under chapter 33.

* * * * *

(b) * * *

(2) * * *

(ii) Separate account. The account 

required under paragraph (b)(2)(i)(A) of 

this section (the separate account)— 

(A) Must reflect for each month all 

items of tax that are included in 

amounts billed or tickets sold to 

customers during the month; 

(B) May not reflect an item of 

adjustment for any month during a 

quarter if the adjustment results from a 

refusal to pay or inability to collect the 

tax and the uncollected tax has not been 

reported under § 49.4291–1 of this 

chapter on or before the due date of the 

return for that quarter; and 

(C) Must reflect for each month items 

of adjustment (including bad debts and 

errors) relating to the tax for prior 

months within the period of limitations 

on credits or refunds.

* * * * *

§ 40.6302(c)–3T [Removed]

n Par. 3. Section 40.6302(c)–3T is 

removed.

PART 49—FACILITIES AND SERVICES 

EXCISE TAXES

n Par. 4. The authority citation for part 

49 continues to read, in part, as follows:

Authority: 26 U.S.C. 7805 * * *

n Par. 5. Section 49.4291–1 is amended 

as follows:

n 1. The fourth sentence is revised.

n 2. The fifth sentence is amended by 

removing the language ‘‘this 

information’’ and adding the language 

‘‘this report’’ in its place.

n 3. A new sentence is added at the end 

of the paragraph.

n 4. Paragraphs (a) and (b) are added.

The revisions and addition read as 

follows:

§ 49.4291–1 Persons receiving payment 

must collect tax. 

* * * Applicable October 1, 2004, 

this report must be made on or before 

the report due date. * * * For purposes 

of this section, the report due date is— 

(a) In the case of a person using the 

alternative method of making deposits 

described in § 40.6302(c)–3 of this 

chapter, the due date of the return on 

which the item of adjustment relating to 

the uncollected tax would be reflected 

if items of adjustment were determined 

without regard to the limitation in 

§ 40.6302(c)–3 of this chapter; and 

(b) In any other case, the due date of 

the return on which the tax would have 

been reported but for the refusal to pay 

or inability to collect.

§ 49.4291–1T [Removed]

n Par. 6. Section 49.4291–1T is removed.

Mark E. Matthews, 

Deputy Commissioner for Services and 

Enforcement. 

Approved: July 20, 2005. 

Eric Solomon, 

Acting Deputy Secretary of the Treasury (Tax 

Policy).

[FR Doc. 05–16612 Filed 8–24–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4830–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

28 CFR Part 16 

[AAG/A Order No. 007–2005] 

Privacy Act of 1974; Implementation

AGENCY: Department of Justice.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Department of Justice is 

exempting the Privacy Act system of 

records entitled, ‘‘Department of Justice 

Regional Data Exchange System (RDEX), 

DOJ–012,’’ from subsections (c)(3) and 

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

(5), and (8); and (g) of the Privacy Act 

pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2). The 

information in this system of records 

relates to matters of criminal law 

enforcement, and the exemption is 

necessary in order to avoid interference 

with law enforcement responsibilities 

and functions and to protect criminal 

law enforcement information. The 

system of records document was 

published in the Federal Register on 

July 11, 2005 at 70 FR 39790. The 

proposed rule was published in the 

Federal Register on July 11, 2005 at 

39696.

DATES: Effective Date: This final rule is 

effective August 25, 2005.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mary E. Cahill, (202) 307–1823.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On July 

11, 2005 at 70 FR 39696 a proposed rule 

was published in the Federal Register

with an invitation to comment. No 

comments were received. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

This rule 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 rule 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, Privacy Act, and 

Government in Sunshine Act.

n Pursuant to the authority vested in the 

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

delegated to me by Attorney General 

Order No. 793–78, amend 28 CFR part 16 

as follows:

PART 16—[AMENDED]

Subpart E—Exemption of Records 

Systems under the Privacy Act

n 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.

n 2. Section 16.133 is added to read as 

follows:

§ 16.133 Exemption of Department of 

Justice Regional Data Exchange System 

(RDEX), DOJ–012. 

(a) The Department of Justice Regional 

Data Exchange System (RDEX), DOJ–

012, is exempted from subsections (c)(3) 

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

(3), (5), and (8); and (g) of the Privacy 

Act pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2). 

These exemptions apply only to the 

extent that information in a record is 

subject to exemption pursuant to 5 

U.S.C. 552a(j)(2). 

(b) This system is exempted from the 

following subsections for the reasons set 

forth below: 

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

making available to a record subject the 

accounting of disclosures of criminal 

law enforcement records concerning 

him or her could inform that individual 

of the existence, nature, or scope of an 

investigation, or could otherwise 

seriously impede law enforcement 

efforts. 

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

system is exempt from subsections 

(d)(1), (2), (3), and (4). 

(3) From subsection (d)(1) because 

disclosure of criminal law enforcement 

information could interfere with an 

investigation, reveal the identity of 

confidential sources, and result in an 

unwarranted invasion of the privacy of 

others. 

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

amendment of the records would 

interfere with ongoing criminal law 

enforcement proceedings and impose an 

impossible administrative burden by 

requiring investigations to be 

continuously reinvestigated. 

(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). 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 164 / Thursday, August 25, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 49871

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

is often impossible to determine in 

advance if criminal law enforcement 

records contained in this system are 

relevant and necessary, but, in the 

interests of effective law enforcement, it 

is necessary to retain this information to 

aid in establishing patterns of activity 

and provide investigative leads. 

(7) From subsection (e)(2) because 

collecting information from the subject 

individual could serve notice that he or 

she is the subject of a criminal law 

enforcement matter and thereby present 

a serious impediment to law 

enforcement efforts. Further, because of 

the nature of criminal law enforcement 

matters, vital information about an 

individual frequently can be obtained 

only from other persons who are 

familiar with the individual and his or 

her activities and it often is not 

practicable to rely on information 

provided directly by the individual. 

(8) From subsection (e)(3) because 

informing individuals as required by 

this subsection could reveal the 

existence of a criminal law enforcement 

matter and compromise criminal law 

enforcement efforts. 

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

is often impossible to determine in 

advance if criminal law enforcement 

records contained in this system are 

accurate, relevant, timely, and complete, 

but, in the interests of effective law 

enforcement, it is necessary to retain 

this information to aid in establishing 

patterns of activity and obtaining 

investigative leads. 

(10) From subsection (e)(8) because 

serving notice could give persons 

sufficient warning to evade criminal law 

enforcement efforts. 

(11) From subsection (g) to the extent 

that this system is exempt from other 

specific subsections of the Privacy Act.

Dated: August 19, 2005. 

Paul R. Corts, 

Assistant Attorney General for 

Administration.

[FR Doc. 05–16866 Filed 8–24–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–FB–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Minerals Management Service 

30 CFR Parts 250 and 256 

RIN 1010–AD16 

Oil, Gas, and Sulphur Operations and 

Leasing in the Outer Continental Shelf 

(OCS)—Cost Recovery

AGENCY: Minerals Management Service 

(MMS), Interior.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: MMS is changing some 

existing fees and implementing several 

new fees to offset MMS’s costs of 

performing certain services relating to 

its minerals programs.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This regulation is 

effective as of September 26, 2005.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Angela Mazzullo, Offshore Minerals 

Management (OMM) Budget Office at 

(703) 787–1691.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

Legal Authority and Policy Guidance:

The Independent Offices Appropriation 

Act of 1952 (IOAA), 31 U.S.C. 9701, is 

a general law applicable Governmentwide, that provides authority to MMS to 

recover the costs of providing services 

to the non-federal sector. It requires 

implementation through rulemaking. 

There are several policy documents that 

provide guidance on the process of 

charging applicants for service costs. 

These policy documents are found in 

the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) Circular A–25, ‘‘User Charges,’’ 

and the Department of the Interior (DOI) 

Departmental Manual (DM), 330 DM 

1.3A and 6.4, ‘‘Cost Recovery’’ and 

‘‘User Charges.’’ The general policy that 

governs charges for services provided 

states that a charge ‘‘will be assessed 

against each identifiable recipient for 

special benefits derived from federal 

activities beyond those received by the 

general public’’ (OMB Circular A–25). 

The DOI Manual mirrors this policy 

(330 DM 1.3 A.). Certain activities may 

be exempted from these fees under 

certain conditions set out at 330 DM 

1.3A and 6.4.4. 

Cost Recovery Definition: In this 

rulemaking, cost recovery means 

reimbursement to MMS for its costs of 

performing a service by charging a fee 

to the identifiable applicant/beneficiary 

of the service. Further guidance is 

provided by Solicitor’s Opinion M–

36987, ‘‘BLM’s Authority to Recover 

Costs of Mineral Document Processing’’ 

(December 5, 1996). The DOI Office of 

Inspector General issued reports in 1988 

and 1995 addressing BLM’s cost 

recovery responsibilities. 

Discussion of Comments Received 

MMS published a proposed rule to 

revise some existing fees and implement 

several new fees in the Federal Register

on March 15, 2005. The comment 

period for the proposed rule closed on 

April 14, 2005. MMS received 23 sets of 

comments on the proposed rulemaking 

on 14 different issues. Respondents 

included: Anadarko, BP, Beacon 

Exploration & Production, Chevron 

Texaco, the Domestic Petroleum 

Council (DPC), EOG Resources, Exxon 

Mobil, the Independent Petroleum 

Association of America (IPAA), the 

International Association of Drilling 

Contractors (IADC), the International 

Association of Geophysical Contractors 

(IAGC), Marathon Oil, NCX Company, 

the National Ocean Industries 

Association (NOIA), the Natural Gas 

Supply Association (NGSA), Newfield 

Exploration Company, the Offshore 

Operators Committee (OOC), Shell 

Exploration & Production Company 

(Shell), Spinnaker Exploration, Success 

Energy, the U.S. Oil & Gas Association 

(USOGA), Waring & Associates, and 

WJP. These respondents raised a 

number of important issues that are 

addressed immediately below. 

Issue No. 1: The comment period 

should be extended.

MMS received seven requests to 

extend the comment period beyond 30 

days on the proposed rule. MMS 

considers this rule to be fairly 

straightforward and not exceptionally 

complex, and the fees are not significant 

in terms of potential economic impact. 

Therefore, MMS considers thirty days to 

be sufficient time for comment. 

Issue No. 2: The implementation of 

the fees in this rule will discourage 

exploration activity on the OCS, 

particularly by small businesses.

MMS received five comments on this 

issue. MMS disagrees with the 

comments. The current classification of 

a small business by the Small Business 

Administration (SBA) is a company 

with fewer than 500 employees. Over 70 

percent of companies operating on the 

OCS meet that criterion. Most of these 

companies are financially sound and 

payment of cost recovery fees will not 

affect plans for exploratory drilling. In 

addition, the proposed fees represent a 

small percentage increase in operating 

costs when compared to the cost of 

drilling a well. For example, the 

proposed fees range from $150–$10,700 

while well drilling costs range from $5 

million–$23 million.

Issue No. 3: The fees being 

implemented are too high. Can more 

information be provided as to how the 

fees were calculated?

MMS received seven comments on 

this issue. Because this rule is 

implementing cost recovery authority, 

the fees were set at what it currently 

costs MMS to perform these services. 

The following example provides greater 

detail of how the costs were calculated. 

The Suspension of Operations/

Suspension of Production (SOO/SOP) 

request was broken down into five subprocesses, also shown in the table below