49486 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 163 / Wednesday, August 24, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

(d) Preparation of Certification. The 

following rules apply for the completion 

of the certification set forth in paragraph 

(c) of this section: 

(1) Block 1 must state the legal name 

and address (including country) of the 

producer of the wine. 

(2) Block 2 must include a complete 

description of the wine, including its 

brand name, year of production, class or 

type, and country of origin. 

(3) The importer must check the 

applicable box in block 3: 

(i) The importer must check box 3a 

and ensure that blocks 4 and 5 are 

completed if no alternative certification 

applies to the wine under paragraph 

(b)(2)(i) of this section. 

(ii) If paragraph (b)(2)(i)(B) applies to 

the wine, the importer must check box 

3b and complete the certification in 

block 4. 

(4) If the certification is submitted 

subsequent to approval of a label, the 

importer must complete block 6 by 

including the TTB identification 

number from the certificate of label 

approval, TTB Form 5100.31.

Signed: August 4, 2005. 

John J. Manfreda, 

Administrator. 

Approved: August 4, 2005. 

Timothy E. Skud, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary (Tax, Trade, and 

Tariff Policy).

[FR Doc. 05–16772 Filed 8–23–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4810–31–U

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Army 

32 CFR Part 505

[Army Regulation 340–21] 

Privacy Act; Implementation

AGENCY: Department of the Army, DoD.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Department of the Army 

is exempting those records contained in 

A0195–2c USACIDC DoD, entitled ‘‘DoD 

Criminal Investigation Task Force 

(CITF) Files’’ when the records are 

compiled in furtherance of activities 

pertaining to the enforcement of 

criminal laws.

DATES: Effective August 24, 2005.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Janice Thornton at (703) 428–6503.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

proposed rule was published on 

February 25, 2005, at 70 FR 9261–9262. 

One public comment was received 

which has prompted a change in the 

final rule. The rule, as changed, is being 

adopted as final. 

The commenter expressed two 

principal concerns. First, the 

commenter observes that the 

Department is attempting to establish a 

new exemption, a prerogative that only 

Congress possesses. We disagree. As 

provided by law, the Department may 

promulgate a rule exempting a system of 

records from provisions of the Act if the 

system of records is maintained by a 

Component of the Agency that performs 

as its principal function the 

enforcement of criminal laws. Because 

the principal function of the DoD 

Criminal Investigation Task Force is law 

enforcement (i.e., criminal 

investigations into acts of terrorism and 

war crimes), the Department is 

authorized to adopt an exemption rule 

that will serve to preserve the integrity 

of the investigative process. And 

second, the commenter observes that 

adoption of the exemption will enable 

the Department to shield documents 

that heretofore were available to the 

public, thereby potentially resulting in 

the denial of access to individuals who, 

for example, are innocent members of 

the Armed Forces or individuals who 

have witnessed an act of terrorism or 

war crime. We disagree that the rule 

will deny access to all documents. As 

provided by law, the rule provides a 

basis for the Department to exempt 

certain records from the access 

provisions of the Act. It does not act to 

suspend any rights the individual 

otherwise may be entitled to under the 

law. Moreover, to the extent the 

documents may be disclosed without 

prejudicing the investigative process, 

the rule does not bar release. To 

eliminate any potential ambiguity that 

may exist regarding release of 

nonexempt documents from the system 

of records, the rule has been revised to 

make clear that only those records, the 

disclosure of which would have a 

deleterious impact on the investigative 

process, are shielded by the rule. 

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 certified 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 certified 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 certified that the 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 certified that the 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.

Dated: August 18, 2005. 

Jeannette Owings-Ballard, 

OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, 

Department of Defense.

List of Subjects in 32 CFR Part 505

Privacy.

n Accordingly, 32 CFR part 505 is to be 

amended to read as follows:

PART 505—ARMY PRIVACY ACT 

PROGRAM

n 1. The authority citation for 32 CFR 

part 505 continues to read as follows:

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 163 / Wednesday, August 24, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 49487

Authority: Pub. L. 93–579, 88 Stat. 1896 (5 

U.S.C. 552a).

n 2. In § 505.5, paragraph (e)(20) is added 

to read as follows:

§ 505.5 Exemptions.

* * * * *

(e) Exempt Army records. * * *

* * * * *

(20) System identifier and name:

A0195–2c USACIDC DoD, DoD Criminal 

Investigation Task Force (CITF) Files. 

(i) Exemption: Parts of this system 

may be exempt pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 

552a(j)(2) if the information is compiled 

and maintained by a component of the 

agency, which performs as its principle 

function any activity pertaining to the 

enforcement of criminal laws. Any 

portion of this system of records which 

falls within the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 

552a(j)(2) may be exempt from the 

following subsections of 5 U.S.C. 

552a(c)(3), (c)(4), (d), (e)(1), (e)(2), (e)(3), 

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

and (g). 

(ii) Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2). 

(iii) Reasons: (A) From subsection 

(c)(3) because the release of accounting 

of disclosure would inform a subject 

that he or she is under investigation. 

This information would provide 

considerable advantage to the subject in 

providing him or her with knowledge 

concerning the nature of the 

investigation and the coordinated 

investigative efforts and techniques 

employed by the cooperating agencies. 

This would greatly impede criminal law 

enforcement. 

(B) From subsection (c)(4) and (d), 

because notification would alert a 

subject to the fact that an open 

investigation on that individual is 

taking place, and might weaken the ongoing investigation, reveal investigative 

techniques, and place confidential 

informants in jeopardy. 

(C) From subsection (e)(1) because the 

nature of the criminal and/or civil 

investigative function creates unique 

problems in prescribing a specific 

parameter in a particular case with 

respect to what information is relevant 

or necessary. Also, information may be 

received which may relate to a case 

under the investigative jurisdiction of 

another agency. The maintenance of this 

information may be necessary to 

provide leads for appropriate law 

enforcement purposes and to establish 

patterns of activity that may relate to the 

jurisdiction of other cooperating 

agencies. 

(D) From subsection (e)(2) because 

collecting information to the fullest 

extent possible directly from the subject 

individual may or may not be practical 

in a criminal and/or civil investigation. 

(E) From subsection (e)(3) because 

supplying an individual with a form 

containing a Privacy Act Statement 

would tend to inhibit cooperation by 

many individuals involved in a criminal 

and/or civil investigation. The effect 

would be somewhat adverse to 

established investigative methods and 

techniques. 

(F) From subsections (e)(4)(G), (H), 

and (I) because this system of records is 

exempt from the access provisions of 

subsection (d).

(G) From subsection (e)(5) because the 

requirement that records be maintained 

with attention to accuracy, relevance, 

timeliness, and completeness would 

unfairly hamper the investigative 

process. It is the nature of law 

enforcement for investigations to 

uncover the commission of illegal acts 

at diverse stages. It is frequently 

impossible to determine initially what 

information is accurate, relevant, timely, 

and least of all complete. With the 

passage of time, seemingly irrelevant or 

untimely information may acquire new 

significance as further investigation 

brings new details to light. 

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

notice requirements of this provision 

could present a serious impediment to 

law enforcement by revealing 

investigative techniques, procedures, 

and existence of confidential 

investigations. 

(I) From subsection (f) because the 

agency’s rules are inapplicable to those 

portions of the system that are exempt 

and would place the burden on the 

agency of either confirming or denying 

the existence of a record pertaining to a 

requesting individual might in itself 

provide an answer to that individual 

relating to an on-going investigation. 

The conduct of a successful 

investigation leading to the indictment 

of a criminal offender precludes the 

applicability of established agency rules 

relating to verification of record, 

disclosure of the record to that 

individual, and record amendment 

procedures for this record system. 

(J) From subsection (g) because this 

system of records should be exempt to 

the extent that the civil remedies relate 

to provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552a from 

which this rule exempts the system. 

(K) Consistent with the legislative 

purpose of the Privacy Act of 1974, the 

Department of the Army will grant 

access to nonexempt material in the 

records being maintained. Disclosure 

will be governed by the Department of 

the Army’s Privacy regulation, but will 

be limited to the extent that the identity 

of confidential sources will not be 

compromised; subjects of an 

investigation of an actual or potential 

criminal violation will not be alerted to 

the investigation; the physical safety of 

witnesses, informants and law 

enforcement personnel will not be 

endangered, the privacy of third parties 

will not be violated; and that the 

disclosure would not otherwise impede 

effective law enforcement. Whenever 

possible, information of the above 

nature will be deleted from the 

requested documents and the balance 

made available. The controlling 

principle behind this limited access is 

to allow disclosures except those 

indicated above. The decisions to 

release information from these systems 

will be made on a case-by-case basis 

necessary for effective law enforcement.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 05–16775 Filed 8–23–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 5001–06–P

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 165

[CGD05–05–101] 

RIN 1625–AA00

Safety Zone; Patapsco River, 

Northwest and Inner Harbors, 

Baltimore, MD

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is 

establishing a temporary safety zone in 

the Port of Baltimore, Maryland during 

the movement of the historic Sloop-ofWar U.S.S. CONSTELLATION. This 

action is necessary to provide for the 

safety of life on navigable waters during 

the dead ship tow of the vessel from its 

berth, to the Fort McHenry Angle on the 

Patapsco River, and return. This action 

will restrict vessel traffic in portions of 

Baltimore’s Inner Harbor, the Northwest 

Harbor, and the Patapsco River.

DATES: This rule is effective from 2 p.m. 

to 7 p.m. local time on September 9, 

2005.

ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this 

preamble as being available in the 

docket are part of docket CGD05–05–

101 and are available for inspection or 

copying at Commander, U.S. Coast 

Guard Sector, Waterways Management 

Division, 2401 Hawkins Point Road, 

Baltimore, Maryland 21226, between 9 

a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Ronald Houck, at Coast Guard Sector