Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 9 / Friday, January 13, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 3087

overpayment have been reviewed. MMS

expects to use this authority only in

limited circumstances, such as when

there is information suggesting there has

been no overpayment, or where the

proposed recoupment would be

extraordinarily large and result in

reduced revenues for a long period of

time to the Indian lessor.

IV. Procedural Matters

The Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Department certifies that this rule

will not have a significant economic

effect on a substantial number of small

entities under the Regulatory Flexibility

Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.).

The rule is needed to conform

regulations to existing policy and

practice.

Executive Order 12630

The Department certifies that the rule

does not represent a governmental

action capable of interference with

constitutionally protected property

rights. Thus, a Takings Implication

Assessment need not be prepared under

Executive Order 12630, ‘‘Government

Action and Interference with

Constitutionally protected Property

Rights.’’

Executive Order 12778

The Department has certified to the

Office of Management and Budget that

these final regulations meet the

applicable standards provided in

sections 2(a) and 2(b)(2) of Executive

Order 12778.

Executive Order 12866

This document has been reviewed

under Executive Order 12866 and is not

a significant regulatory action.

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980

The collections of information

contained in this rule have been

approved by the Office of Management

and Budget under 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.

and assigned clearance number 1010–

0022.

National Environmental Policy Act of

1969

We have determined that this

rulemaking is not a major Federal action

significantly affecting the quality of the

human environment, and a detailed

statement under section 102(2)(C) of the

National Environmental Policy Act of

1969 [42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)] is not

required.

List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 218

Coal, Continental shelf, Electronic

funds transfers, Geothermal energy,

Government contracts, Indian lands,

Mineral royalties, Natural gas, Penalties,

Petroleum, Public lands-mineral

resources, Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

Dated: November 28, 1994.

Bob Armstrong,

Assistant Secretary—Land and Minerals

Management.

For the reasons set out in the

preamble, 30 CFR part 218 is amended

as set forth below:

PART 218—COLLECTION OF

ROYALTIES, RENTALS, BONUSES

AND OTHER MONIES DUE THE

FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

1. The authority citation for Part 218

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301 et seq.; 25 U.S.C.

396 et seq., 396a et seq., 25 U.S.C. 2101 et

seq.; 30 U.S.C. 181 et seq., 351 et seq., 1001

et seq., 1701 et seq.; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 43 U.S.C.

1301 et seq., 1331 et seq., and 1801 et seq.

2. Section 218.53 (previously

reserved) under Subpart B (Oil and Gas,

General) is added to read as follows:

§ 218.53 Recoupment of overpayments on

Indian mineral leases.

(a) Whenever an overpayment is made

under an Indian oil and gas lease, a

payor may recoup the overpayment

through a recoupment on Form MMS–

2014 against the current month’s

royalties or other revenues owed on the

same lease. However, for any month a

payor may not recoup more than 50

percent of the royalties or other

revenues owed in that month under an

individual allotted lease or more than

100 percent of the royalties or other

revenues owed in that month under a

tribal lease.

(b) With written permission

authorized by tribal statute or

resolution, a payor may recoup an

overpayment against royalties or other

revenues owed in that month under

other leases for which that tribe is the

lessor. A copy of the tribe’s written

permission must be furnished to MMS

pursuant to instructions for reporting

recoupments in the MMS ‘‘Oil and Gas

Payor Handbook.’’ See 30 CFR 210.53.

Recouping overpayments on one

allotted lease from royalties paid to

another allotted lease is specifically

prohibited.

(c) Overpayments subject to

recoupment under this section include

all payments made in excess of the

required payment for royalty, rental,

bonus, or other amounts owed as

specified by statute, regulation, order, or

terms of an Indian mineral lease.

(d) The MMS Director or his/her

designee may order any payor to not

recoup any amount for such reasonable

period of time as may be necessary for

MMS to review the nature and amount

of any claimed overpayment.

3. A new § 218.203 under Subpart E

(Solid Minerals, General) is added to

read as follows:

§ 218.203 Recoupment of overpayments

on Indian mineral leases.

(a) Whenever an overpayment is made

under an Indian solid mineral lease, a

payor may recoup the overpayment

through a recoupment on Form MMS–

2014 against the current month’s

royalties or other revenues owed on the

same lease. However, for any month a

payor may not recoup more than 50

percent of the royalties or other

revenues owed in that month under an

individual allotted lease or more than

100 percent of the royalties or other

revenues owed in that month under a

tribal lease.

(b) With written permission

authorized by tribal statute or

resolution, a payor may recoup an

overpayment against royalties or other

revenues owed in that month under

other leases for which that tribe is the

lessor. A copy of the tribe’s written

permission must be furnished to MMS

pursuant to instructions for reporting

recoupments in the ‘‘AFS Payor

Handbook—Solid Minerals.’’ See 30

CFR 210.204. Recouping overpayments

on one allotted lease from royalties paid

to another allotted lease is specifically

prohibited.

(c) Overpayments subject to

recoupment under this section include

all payments made in excess of the

required payment for royalty, rental,

bonus, or other amounts owed as

specified by statute, regulation, order, or

terms of an Indian mineral lease.

(d) The MMS Director or his/her

designee may order any payor to not

recoup any amount for such reasonable

period of time as may be necessary for

MMS to review the nature and amount

of any claimed overpayment.

[FR Doc. 95–854 Filed 1–12–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–MR–M

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Defense Logistics Agency

32 CFR Part 323

[Defense Logistics Agency Reg. 5400.21]

Privacy Act; Implementation

AGENCY: Defense Logistics Agency, DoD.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Defense Logistics Agency

adopts an exemption to a system of
3088 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 9 / Friday, January 13, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

records from certain provisions of the

Privacy Act. The system of records is

identified as S100.10 GC, entitled

Whistleblower Complaint and

Investigation Files.

The exemption is intended to increase

the value of the system of records for

law enforcement purposes; to comply

with prohibitions against the disclosure

of certain kinds of information; and to

protect the privacy of individuals

identified in the system of records.

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 15, 1994.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

Barry Christensen, 703–617–7583.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Executive Order 12866

The Director, Administration and

Management, Office of the Secretary of

Defense has determined that this

Privacy Act rule for the Department of

Defense does not constitute ‘‘significant

regulatory action.’’ Analysis of the rule

indicates that it does not have an annual

effect on the economy of $100 million

or more; does not create a serious

inconsistency or otherwise interfere

with an action taken or planned by

another agency; does not materially alter

the budgetary impact of entitlement,

grants, user fees, or loan programs or the

right and obligations of recipients

thereof; does not raise novel legal or

policy issues arising out of legal

mandates, the President’s priorities, or

the principles set forth in Executive

Order 12866 (1993).

Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980

The Director, Administration and

Management, Office of the Secretary of

Defense certifies that this Privacy Act

rule for the Department of Defense does

not have significant economic impact on

a substantial number of small entities

because it is concerned only with the

administration of Privacy Act systems of

records within the Department of

Defense.

Paperwork Reduction Act

The Director, Administration and

Management, Office of the Secretary of

Defense, certifies that this Privacy Act

rule for the Department of Defense

imposes 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.

This rule adds an exempt Privacy Act

system of records to the DLA inventory

of systems of records. DLA performs as

one of its principal functions

investigations into whistleblower

complaints arising from DLA employees

and the employees of DLA contractors.

The exempt system reflects recognition

that certain records in the system may

be deemed to require protection from

disclosure in order to protect

confidential sources mentioned in the

files and avoid compromising,

impeding, or interfering with

investigative and enforcement

proceedings. The authority for the

exemption may be found in 5 U.S.C

552a(k)(2). The system would thus be

exempt from sections 552a(c)(3), (d)(1)

through (4), (e)(1), (e)(4)(G), (e)(4)(H),

and (e)(4)(I), and (f). The Director adopts

these exemptions. The proposed rule

was published on October 13, 1994, at

59 FR 51911. No comments were

received, therefore, the DLA is adopting

the exemption rule.

List of Subjects in 32 CFR Part 323

Privacy.

Accordingly, the Defense Logistics

Agency amends 32 CFR part 323 as

follows:

1. The authority citation for 32 CFR

part 323 continues to read as follows:

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

U.S.C. 552a).

2. 32 CFR part 323, Appendix H is

amended by adding paragraph d.

Appendix H to Part 323—DLA

Exemption Rules

* * * * *

d. ID: S100.10 GC (Specific

exemption).

1. System name: Whistleblower

Complaint and Investigation Files.

2. Exemption: Portions of this system

of records may be exempt under the

provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552a(c)(3), (d)(1)

through (d)(4), (e)(1), (e)(4)(G), (e)(4)(H),

and (e)(4)(I), and (f).

3. Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(2).

4. Reasons: From subsection (c)(3)

because granting access to the

accounting for each disclosure as

required by the Privacy Act, including

the date, nature, and purpose of each

disclosure and the identity of the

recipient, could alert the subject to the

existence of the investigation or

prosecutive interest by DLA or other

agencies. This could seriously

compromise case preparation by

prematurely revealing its existence and

nature; compromise or interfere with

witnesses or make witnesses reluctant to

cooperate; and lead to suppression,

alteration, or destruction of evidence.

From subsections (d)(1) through

(d)(4), and (f) because providing access

to records of a civil investigation and

the right to contest the contents of those

records and force changes to be made to

the information contained therein

would seriously interfere with and

thwart the orderly and unbiased

conduct of the investigation and impede

case preparation. Providing access rights

normally afforded under the Privacy Act

would provide the subject with valuable

information that would allow

interference with or compromise of

witnesses or render witnesses reluctant

to cooperate; lead to suppression,

alteration, or destruction of evidence;

and result in the secreting of or other

disposition of assets that would make

them difficult or impossible to reach in

order to satisfy any Government claim

growing out of the investigation or

proceeding.

From subsection (e)(1), because it is

not always possible to detect the

relevance or necessity of each piece of

information in the early stages of an

investigation. In some cases, it is only

after the information is evaluated in

light of other evidence that its relevance

and necessity will be clear.

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

(e)(4)(H) because there is no necessity

for such publication since the system of

records will be exempt from the

underlying duties to provide

notification about and access to

information in the system and to make

amendments to and corrections of the

information in the system. However,

DLA will continue to publish such a

notice in broad generic terms as is its

current practice.

From subsection (e)(4)(I) because to

the extent that this provision is

construed to require more detailed

disclosure than the broad, generic

information currently published in the

system notice, an exemption from this

provision is necessary to protect the

confidentiality of sources of information

and to protect privacy and physical

safety of witnesses and informants. DLA

will, nevertheless, continue to publish

such a notice in broad generic terms as

is its current practice.

Dated: January 6, 1995.

L.M. Bynum,

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison

Officer, Department of Defense.

[FR Doc. 95–843 Filed 1–12–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 5000–04–F