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

(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,’’ 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
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 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 33 / Tuesday, February 19, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 11577 

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. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES