### 11575 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 33 / Tuesday, February 19, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

(5) For Pilatus Aircraft Ltd. service information identified in this AD, contact Pilatus Aircraft Ltd., Customer Service Manager, CH–6371 STANS, Switzerland; telephone: +41 (0) 41 619 62 08; fax: +41 (0)
41 619 73 11; Internet: http://www.pilatusaircraft.com or email: SupportPC12@pilatusaircraft.com.

(6) You may view this service information at the FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (816) 329–4148.

(7) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the

National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call
202–741–6030, or go to: http:// www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/

index.html.

Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on February 8, 2013.
John Colomy,
Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 2013–03407 Filed 2–15–13; 8:45 am]

**BILLING CODE 4910–13–P**

**DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE**

**28 CFR Part 16**

**[CPCLO Order No. 001–2013]**

**Privacy Act of 1974; Implementation**

**AGENCY :**  Federal Bureau of Prisons, Department of Justice.

**ACTION :**  Final rule.

**SUMMARY :**  The Department of Justice (DOJ or Department), Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP), is issuing a final rule for the modified system of records notice
entitled ‘‘Inmate Central Records System’’ (ICRS) (JUSTICE/BOP–005). This system is being exempted from certain subsections of the Privacy Act of
1974 listed below for the reasons set forth in the following text.

**DATES :**  Effective: February 19, 2013.

**FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT :**  Wanda M. Hunt, FOIA/Privacy Act Chief, Federal Bureau of Prisons, 202–

514–6655.

**SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION :**  On April 26, 2012, at 77 FR 24982, the Department published an updated Privacy Act system of records notice (SORN) for the ICRS, a BOP SORN originally published on August 27, 1975 (40 FR 38704). The proposed SORN
amendments reflected overall modernization and technological changes of BOP’s information system, and included updates to system routine uses. On April 26, 2012, at 77 FR 24878, the Department also published a proposed rule to amend 28 CFR 16.97, which had previously established exemptions of the ICRS from various Privacy Act provisions, as expressly authorized by Privacy Act subsection (j). The proposed rule did not significantly change the previously established ICRS exemptions from Privacy Act subsections (c)(3) and (4); (d)(1), (2), (3), and (4); (e)(1), (2), (3), (4)(H), (5), and (8); (f); and (g). In addition to such exemptions, the proposed rule sought to exempt ICRS from Privacy Act subsections (e)(4)(G) and (I), add exemptions pursuant to Privacy Act subsection (k)(2), and made general
editorial revisions to the reasons for the already existing ICRS exemptions.
Public comments were invited. Comments on the proposed SORN changes were to be submitted by May 29, 2012 (77 FR 24982); comments on the proposed rule were to be received by the Department’s designated recipient by May 29, 2012 (77 FR 24878).

The Department received comments from one member of the public. Although some of the comments received pertain to the applicability of exemptions to this SORN, the comments reference only the Federal Register citation for the proposed SORN modifications and not the proposed rule. Moreover, the comments were not received timely with regard to the proposed rule. Accordingly, the Department has carefully reviewed and analyzed these comments in the context of the SORN, but declines to adopt them and hereby implements the proposed rule without substantive change.

The comments received to the SORN address four main issues: (1) The
routine use disclosures to the news media and public; (2) the routine use disclosures to health care agencies/ professionals; (3) the inapplicability of 5 U.S.C. 552a(j); and (4) the inapplicability of 5 U.S.C. 552a(k). Responses to the comments are set forth
below.

First, the commenter objected to the scope and lack of specificity of two new routine uses, namely routine use (r) for
disclosures to the news media and the public, and new routine use (t) for disclosures to health care agencies/ professionals. The Department, however, maintains that these routine uses provide appropriate specificity, as each routine use indicates the purpose for permissible disclosures and incorporates a defined standard that
further limits disclosures to data relevant to each routine use’s particular

purpose.

Second, the commenter objected to
disclosure of medical information
without an individual’s consent. The Department understands the sensitivity of medical information of former/ current inmates, and thus, has instituted safeguards appropriate for this kind of information. The Department considers the health care disclosures encompassed in routine use (t) to be lawful, appropriate, and necessary to meet BOP’s responsibilities for the safekeeping, care, and custody of incarcerated (and formerly incarcerated) persons and for the continued safety and security of federal prisons and the public.

The commenter also objected to the applicability of 5 U.S.C. 552a (j) and (k). Subsection (j)(2) of the Privacy Act
covers records created and maintained by the BOP. This subsection includes records maintained by any component that performs as its principal function any activity pertaining to the enforcement of criminal laws, including activities of correctional authorities (e.g. BOP). Further specified in subsection (j)(2) are the types of records that may be exempted, which include, for example: information compiled for the purpose of identifying individual criminal offenders and alleged offenders, including the nature and disposition of criminal charges, sentencing, confinement, release, and parole and probation status; and reports identifiable to an individual compiled at any stage of the process of enforcement
of the criminal laws from arrest or indictment through release from supervision. Such records comprise the vast majority of records in the ICRS. Any ICRS records that would not be within the scope of subsection (j)(2) might nonetheless come within the scope of subsection (k)(2), and thus, are appropriately subject to the (k)(2)-based exemptions that have now being established by this final rule. Moreover,
the sections of the SORN that reflect the exemptions established by the underlying rule must necessarily conform to the exemption provisions finalized by this final rule.

Additionally, as suggested by the commenter, the Department proposed, and hereby includes in paragraph 16.97(k) of the final rule, that the exemptions apply only to the extent that information in this system is subject to exemption under these subsections.

Finally, the commenter alleged that the Department failed to provide a statement of reasons for the exemptions as required by the Privacy Act. However, the Department detailed the reasons for each exemption in paragraphs 16.97(k)(1)–(12) of both the proposed rule and final rule below. The SORN incorporates this underlying
information via the section for ‘‘Exemptions Claimed for the System,’’


### 11576 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 33 / Tuesday, February 19, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

which expressly references the rule. Accordingly, the Department hereby declines to adopt changes to the ICRS SORN, and implements this corresponding exemption regulation without substantive change as set forth
below.

List of Subjects in 28 CFR Part 16

Administrative practice and procedure, Courts, Freedom of information, Privacy, Sunshine Act.

Pursuant to the authority vested in the Attorney General by 5 U.S.C. 552a and delegated to me by Attorney General Order 2940–2008, 28 CFR part 16 is
amended as follows:

**PART 16—[AMENDED]**

■ 1. The authority citation 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.

**Subpart E—Exemption of Records Systems Under the Privacy Act** 

■ 2. Amend § 16.97 by revising paragraphs (a)(4) through (7) and (j) and (k) to read as follows:

**§ 16.97 Exemption of Bureau of Prisons Systems—limited access.** 

(a) * * * (4) Inmate Commissary Accounts Record System (JUSTICE/BOP–006).

(5) Inmate Physical and Mental Health Record System (JUSTICE/BOP–007).

(6) Inmate Safety and Accident Compensation Record System (JUSTICE/BOP–008).

(7) Federal Tort Claims Act Record System (JUSTICE/BOP–009).

* * * * *

(j) The following system of records is exempt pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(j) and (k) from subsections (c)(3) and (4); (d); (e)(1), (2), (3), (4)(G), (H), and (I), (5), (8); (f); and (g): Inmate Central Records System (JUSTICE/BOP–005).

(k) These exemptions apply only to
the extent that information in this system is subject to exemption pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a (j)(2) and/or (k)(2). Where compliance would not appear to interfere with or adversely affect the law enforcement process, and/or where it may be appropriate to permit individuals to contest the accuracy of the information collected, the applicable exemption may be waived, either partially or totally, by the BOP. Exemptions from the particular subsections are justified for the following reasons:

(1) From subsection (c)(3), the requirement that an accounting be made available to the named subject of a record, because this system is exempt from the access provisions of subsection (d). Also, because making available to a record subject the accounting of disclosures from records concerning the subject individual would specifically reveal any investigative interest in the individual. Revealing this information may thus compromise ongoing law enforcement efforts, as well as efforts to identify and defuse any potential acts of terrorism. Revealing this information may also permit the subject individual to take measures to impede the investigation, such as destroying evidence, intimidating potential witnesses, or fleeing the area to avoid the investigation.

(2) From subsection (c)(4) notification requirements because this system is exempt from the access and amendment provisions of subsection (d).

(3) From subsections (d)(1), (2), (3), and (4), because these provisions
concern individual access to and amendment of records, compliance with which could jeopardize the legitimate correctional interests of safety, security, and good order of prison facilities; alert the subject of a suspicious activity report of the fact and nature of the report and any underlying investigation and/or the investigative interest of the
BOP and other law enforcement agencies; interfere with the overall law enforcement process by leading to the destruction of evidence, improper influencing of witnesses, and/or flight of the subject; possibly identify a
confidential source or disclose
information which would constitute an
unwarranted invasion of another’s personal privacy; reveal a sensitive investigative or intelligence technique; or constitute a potential danger to the health or safety of law enforcement personnel, confidential informants, and witnesses. Although the BOP has rules in place emphasizing that records should be kept up to date, the requirement for amendment of these records would interfere with ongoing law enforcement activities and impose an impossible administrative burden by requiring investigations, analyses, and reports to be continuously reinvestigated and revised.

(4) From subsection (e)(1) because it is not always possible to know in
advance what information is relevant and necessary for the proper safekeeping, care, and custody of incarcerated persons, and for the proper security and safety of federal prisons and the public. In addition, to the extent that the BOP may collect information that may also be relevant to the law enforcement operations of other agencies, in the interests of overall, effective law enforcement, such
information should be retained and made available to those agencies with such relevant responsibilities.

(5) From subsections (e)(2) because the nature of criminal investigative and
correctional activities is such that vital
information about an individual can be obtained from other persons who are
familiar with such individual and his/ her activities. In such investigations and activities, it is not feasible to rely solely upon information furnished by the individual concerning his/her own activities since it may result in inaccurate information and compromise ongoing criminal investigations or correctional management decisions.

(6) From subsections (e)(3) because in view of BOP’s operational responsibilities, the application of this provision would provide the subject of an investigation or correctional matter with significant information which may in fact impede the information gathering process or compromise ongoing criminal investigations or correctional management decisions.

(7) From subsections (e)(4)(G) and (H) because this system is exempt from the access provisions of subsection (d).

(8) From subsection (e)(4)(I) because publishing further details regarding categories of sources of records in the system may compromise ongoing investigations, reveal investigatory techniques and descriptions of confidential informants, or constitute a potential danger to the health or safety of law enforcement personnel.

(9) From subsection (e)(5) because in
the collection and maintenance of
information for law enforcement purposes, it is difficult to determine in advance what information is accurate, relevant, timely, and complete. Data which may seem unrelated, irrelevant, or incomplete when collected may take on added meaning or significance during the course of an investigation or with the passage of time, and could be
relevant to future law enforcement decisions. In addition, because many of
these records come from courts and other state and local criminal justice agencies, it is administratively impossible for them and the BOP to ensure compliance with this provision. The restrictions of subsection (e)(5) would restrict and delay trained correctional managers from timely exercising their judgment in managing the inmate population and providing for the safety and security of the prisons and the public.

(10) From subsection (e)(8), because to require individual notice of disclosure of information due to a compulsory


### 11577 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 33 / Tuesday, February 19, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

legal process would pose an impossible administrative burden on BOP and may alert subjects of investigations, who might otherwise be unaware, to the fact of those investigations.

(11) From subsection (f) to the extent that this system is exempt from the provisions of subsection (d).

(12) From subsection (g) to the extent that this system is exempted from other provisions of the Act.

* * * * *

Dated: February 12, 2013.
Joo Y. Chung,
Acting Chief Privacy and Civil Liberties Officer, United States Department of Justice.

[FR Doc. 2013–03693 Filed 2–15–13; 8:45 am]

**BILLING CODE 4410–05–P**

**DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR**

**Office of Surface Mining Reclamation**

**and Enforcement**

**30 CFR Part 901**

**[SATS No. AL–077–FOR; Docket No. OSM– 2012–0016]** 

**Alabama Regulatory Program**

**AGENCY :**  Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Interior.

**ACTION :**  Final rule; approval of
amendment.

**SUMMARY :**  We, the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM), are approving an amendment to the Alabama regulatory program (Alabama program) under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA or the Act). Alabama proposed revisions to its Program regarding revegetation success
standards. Alabama intends to revise its program to improve operational efficiency.

**DATES :**  Effective Date: February 19,

2013.

**FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT :**  Sherry Wilson, Director, Birmingham Field Office. Telephone: (205) 290–
7280. Email: swilson@osmre.gov.

**SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION :** 
I. Background on the Alabama Program

II. Submission of the Amendment III. OSM’s Findings IV. Summary and Disposition of Comments

V. OSM’s Decision
VI. Procedural Determinations

I. Background on the Alabama Program

Section 503(a) of the Act permits a State to assume primacy for the regulation of surface coal mining and reclamation operations on non-Federal and non-Indian lands within its borders by demonstrating that its program includes, among other things, ‘‘a State law which provides for the regulation of surface coal mining and reclamation operations in accordance with the requirements of this Act * * *; and rules and regulations consistent with regulations issued by the Secretary pursuant to this Act.’’ See 30 U.S.C. 1253(a)(1) and (7). On the basis of these criteria, the Secretary of the Interior conditionally approved the Alabama program effective May 20, 1982. You can find background information on the Alabama program, including the Secretary’s findings, the disposition of comments, and the conditions of approval of the Alabama program in the May 20, 1982, Federal Register (47 FR 22030). You can also find later actions concerning the Alabama program and program amendments at 30 CFR 901.10, 901.15, and 901.16.

II. Submission of the Amendment

By letter dated June 26, 2012 (Administrative Record No. AL–0664),
Alabama sent us an amendment to its program under SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1201
et seq. ). Alabama sent the amendment

on its own initiative.

We announced receipt of the proposed amendment in the September

5, 2012, Federal Register (77 FR 54490). In the same document, we opened the public comment period and provided an opportunity for a public hearing or meeting on the adequacy of the amendment. We did not hold a public hearing or meeting because no one requested one. The public comment period ended on October 5, 2012.

III. OSM’s Findings

The following are the findings we made concerning the amendment under SMCRA and the Federal regulations at
30 CFR 732.15 and 732.17. We are approving the amendment as described
below.

Alabama 880–X–10C–.62 Revegetation: Standards for Success; and Alabama 880–X–10D–.56 Revegetation: Standards for Success

Alabama proposed to add new subsections 880–X–10C–.62(1)(c) and (d) of its surface mining regulations and 880–X–10D–.56(1)(c) and (d) of its underground mining regulations regarding the revegetation standards for success related to its ground cover requirements and determining stocking
success for trees and shrubs. Alabama’s new subsections contain substantially the same language as their Federal counterparts at 30 CFR 816.116(b)(3)(ii) and (iii) and 30 CFR 817.116(b)(3)(ii) and (iii), respectively. Concerning its tree and shrub stocking requirements, Alabama replaces the Federal requirement related to the phrase ‘‘for 60 percent of the applicable minimum period of responsibility’’ with the phrase ‘‘three years.’’ The minimum applicable period of responsibility for Alabama is five years. Since three years would be 60 percent of the five-year responsibility period, OSM finds the revised language no less effective than the Federal and is approving the changes. Furthermore, Alabama proposed to delete subsections 880–X– 10C–.62(2)(c)(iv) of its surface mining regulations and 880–X–10C–.56(2)(c)(iv) of its underground mining regulations regarding tree count requirements on
forest land use areas because these subsections became redundant by addition of the previously mentioned subsections. Therefore, we approve
Alabama’s deletion of these subsections.

Alabama revised subsections 880–X– 10C–.62(2)(e) and (g) of its surface mining regulations and 880–X–10D– .56(2)(e) and (g) of its underground mining regulations regarding ground cover requirements and woody plant standards for areas with the post-mining land uses of recreation, wildlife habitat, or undeveloped land. These proposed changes to Alabama’s regulations are counterpart to the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 816.116(b)(3) and 30 CFR 817.116(b)(3). Alabama requires that in order to avoid competition, herbaceous ground cover on areas planted with woody vegetation or planted to food plots shall be limited to that necessary to adequately control erosion. Herbaceous ground cover on areas not planted with woody vegetation or as food plots shall equal or exceed 80 percent. We find that this proposed language is no less effective than the Federal requirement that vegetative ground cover shall not be less than that required to achieve the approved postmining land use. Therefore we are approving the change.

IV. Summary and Disposition of

Comments

Public Comments

We asked for public comments on the amendment, but did not receive any.

Federal Agency Comments

On July 11, 2012, under 30 CFR 732.17(h)(11)(i) and section 503(b) of SMCRA, we requested comments on the
amendment from various Federal agencies with an actual or potential interest in the Alabama program (Administrative Record No. AL–0664– 02). We did not receive any comments.