Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 220 / Wednesday, November 16, 2005 / Proposed Rules 69487 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This order 

relates to individuals rather than small 

business entities. Nevertheless, 

pursuant to the requirements of the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601–

612, this order 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, Sunshine Act and Privacy. 

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, it is proposed to 

amend 28 CFR part 16 as follows: 

PART 16—PRODUCTION OR 

DISCLOSURE OF MATERIAL OR 

INFORMATION 

1. The authority for part 16 continues 

to read as follows: 

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301, 552, 552a, 552b(g), 

and 553; 18 U.S.C. 4203(a)(1); 28 U.S.C. 509, 

510, 534; 31 U.S.C. 3717, and 9701. 

2. Section 16.93 is amended by: 

a. Removing the first sentence of 

paragraph (a)(2); 

b. Revising paragraph (b) introductory 

text; 

c. Revising paragraphs (e) and (f). 

Therefore, amend the section to read 

as follows: 

§ 16.93 Exemption of Tax Division 

Systems—limited access. 

* * * * * 

(b) The system of records listed under 

paragraph (a)(1) of this section is 

exempted for the reasons set forth 

below, from the following provisions of 

5 U.S.C. 552a: 

* * * * * 

(e) The following system of records is 

exempt from subsections (c)(3), (d)(1), 

and (e)(1) of the Privacy Act pursuant to 

5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(2) and (k)(5): Files of 

Applicants for Attorney and NonAttorney Positions with the Tax 

Division, Justice/TAX–003. These 

exemptions apply only to the extent that 

information in a record is subject to 

exemption pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 

552a(k)(2) and (k)(5). 

(f) Exemption from the particular 

subsections is justified for the following 

reasons: 

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

accounting could reveal the identity of 

confidential sources and result in an 

unwarranted invasion of the privacy of 

others. Many persons are contacted 

who, without an assurance of 

anonymity, refuse to provide 

information concerning an applicant for 

a position with the Tax Division. 

Disclosure of an accounting could reveal 

the identity of a source of information 

and constitutes a breach of the promise 

of confidentiality by the Tax Division. 

This would result in the reduction in 

the free flow of information vital to a 

determination of an applicant’s 

qualifications and suitability for federal 

employment. 

(2) From subsection (d)(1) because 

disclosure of records in the system 

could reveal the identity of confidential 

sources and result in an unwarranted 

invasion of the privacy of others. Many 

persons are contacted who, without an 

assurance of anonymity, refuse to 

provide information concerning an 

applicant for a Tax Division position. 

Access could reveal the identity of the 

source of the information and constitute 

a breach of the promise of 

confidentiality on the part of the Tax 

Division. Such breaches ultimately 

would restrict the free flow of 

information vital to a determination of 

an applicant’s qualifications and 

suitability. 

(3) From subsection (e)(1) because in 

the collection of information for 

investigation and evaluative purposes, it 

is impossible to determine in advance 

what exact information may be of 

assistance in determining the 

qualification and suitability of an 

applicant. Information which may 

appear irrelevant, when combined with 

other seemingly irrelevant information, 

can on occasion provide a composite 

picture of an applicant for a position 

which assists in determining whether 

the applicant should be hired. 

Dated: November 7, 2005. 

Paul R. Corts, 

Assistant Attorney General for 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 05–22640 Filed 11–15–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–16–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

28 CFR Part 16 

[AAG/A Order No. 017–2005] 

Privacy Act of 1974; Implementation 

AGENCY: Department of Justice. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Justice, 

Bureau of Prisons (Bureau or BOP), 

proposes to exempt a Privacy Act 

system of records from the following 

subsections of the Privacy Act: (c)(3) 

and (4), (d)(1)–(4), (e)(2) and (3), (e)(5), 

and (g). This system of records is the 

‘‘Inmate Electronic Message Record 

System, (JUSTICE/BOP–013)’’, as stated 

and described in today’s notice section 

of the Federal Register. 

The exemptions are necessary to 

preclude the compromise of institution 

security, to better ensure the safety of 

inmates, Bureau personnel and the 

public, to better protect third party 

privacy, to protect law enforcement and 

investigatory information, and/or to 

otherwise ensure the effective 

performance of the Bureau’s law 

enforcement functions. 

DATES: Submit any comments by 

January 17, 2006. 

ADDRESSES: Address all comments to 

Mary Cahill, Management and Planning 

Staff, Justice Management Division, 

Department of Justice, Washington, DC 

20530 (1400 National Place Building), 

Facsimile Number (202) 307–1853. To 

ensure proper handling, please 

reference the AAG/A Order No. on your 

correspondence. You may view an 

electronic version of this proposed rule 

at http://www.regulations.gov. You may 

also comment via the Internet to the 

DOJ/Justice Management Division at the 

following e-mail address: 

DOJPrivacyACTProposed

Regulations@usdoj.gov; or by using the 

http://www.regulations.gov comment 

form for this regulation. When 

submitting comments electronically, 

you must include the AAG/A Order No. 

in the subject box. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Mary Cahill, (202) 307–1823. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This order 

relates to individuals rather than small 

business entities. Nevertheless, 

pursuant to the requirements of the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601–

612, this order 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 

procedure, Freedom of Information Act, 

Government in the Sunshine Act, and 

Privacy Act. 

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, it is proposed to 

amend 28 CFR part 16 as follows: 

PART 16—PRODUCTION OR 

DISCLOSURE OF MATERIAL 

INFORMATION 

1. The authority for part 16 continues 

to read as follows: 

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301, 552, 552a, 552b(g) 

and 553; 18 U.S.C. 4203(a)(1); 28 U.S.C. 509, 

510, 534; 31 U.S.C. 3717 and 9701. 

69488 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 220 / Wednesday, November 16, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

2. Section 16.97 is amended by 

adding paragraphs (p) and (q) to read as 

follows: 

§ 16.97 Exemption of Bureau of Prisons 

Systems—limited access. 

* * * * * 

(p) The following system of records is 

exempt from 5 U.S.C. 552a (c)(3) and 

(4), (d)(1)–(4), (e)(2) and (3), (e)(5), and 

(g): 

Inmate Electronic Message Record 

System (JUSTICE /BOP–013). 

(q) 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) to the 

extent that this system of records is 

exempt from subsection (d), and for 

such reasons as those cited for 

subsection (d) in paragraph (q)(3) below. 

(2) From subsection (c)(4) to the 

extent that exemption from subsection 

(d) makes this exemption inapplicable. 

(3) From the access provisions of 

subsection (d) because exemption from 

this subsection is essential to prevent 

access of information by record subjects 

that may invade third party privacy; 

frustrate the investigative process; 

jeopardize the legitimate correctional 

interests of safety, security and good 

order to prison facilities; or otherwise 

compromise, impede, or interfere with 

BOP or other law enforcement agency 

activities. 

(4) From the amendment provisions of 

subsection (d) because amendment of 

the records may interfere with law 

enforcement operations and would 

impose an impossible administrative 

burden by requiring that, in addition to 

efforts to ensure accuracy so as to 

withstand possible judicial scrutiny, it 

would require that law enforcement 

information be continuously 

reexamined, even where the information 

may have been collected from the record 

subject. Also, some of these records 

come from other Federal criminal 

justice agencies or State, local and 

foreign jurisdictions, or from Federal 

and State probation and judicial offices, 

and it is administratively impossible to 

ensure that records comply with this 

provision. 

(5) From subsection (e)(2) because the 

nature of criminal and other 

investigative 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 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 subsection (e)(3) because in 

view of BOP’s operational 

responsibilities, application of this 

provision to the collection of 

information is inappropriate. 

Application of this provision could 

provide the subject with substantial 

information which may in fact impede 

the information gathering process or 

compromise ongoing criminal 

investigations or correctional 

management decisions. 

(7) From subsection (e)(5) because in 

the collection and maintenance of 

information for law enforcement 

purposes, it is impossible to determine 

in advance what information is 

accurate, relevant, timely and complete. 

Material which may seem unrelated, 

irrelevant or incomplete when collected 

may take on added meaning or 

significance at a later date or as an 

investigation progresses. Also, some of 

these records may come from other 

Federal, State, local and foreign law 

enforcement agencies, and from Federal 

and State probation and judicial offices 

and it is administratively impossible to 

ensure that the records comply with this 

provision. It would also require that law 

enforcement information be 

continuously reexamined even where 

the information may have been 

collected from the record subject. 

(8) From subsection(g) to the extent 

that this system is exempted from other 

provisions of the Act. 

Dated: November 7, 2005. 

Paul R. Corts, 

Assistant Attorney General for 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 05–22642 Filed 11–15–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–05–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR PART 52 

[R05–OAR–2005–IN–0008; FRL–7997–7] 

Determination of Attainment, Approval 

and Promulgation of Implementation 

Plans and Designation of Areas for Air 

Quality Planning Purposes; Indiana; 

Redesignation of Delaware County to 

Attainment of the 8-Hour Ozone 

Standard 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to make a 

determination that the Delaware County 

ozone nonattainment area has attained 

the 8-hour ozone National Ambient Air 

Quality Standard (NAAQS). This 

proposed determination is based on 

three years of complete, quality-assured 

ambient air quality monitoring data for 

the period of 2002–2004 that 

demonstrate that the 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS has been attained in the area. 

EPA is proposing to approve a request 

from the State of Indiana to redesignate 

Delaware County to attainment of the 8- 

hour ozone NAAQS. This request was 

submitted by the Indiana Department of 

Environmental Management (IDEM) on 

August 25, 2005. In proposing to 

approve this request, EPA is also 

proposing to approve the State’s plan for 

maintaining the 8-hour ozone NAAQS 

through 2015 in this area as a revision 

to the Indiana State Implementation 

Plan (SIP). EPA is also proposing to find 

adequate and approve the State’s 2015 

Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets 

(MVEBs) for this area. 

In the final rules section of this 

Federal Register, EPA is approving the 

State’s ozone redesignation request and 

the requested SIP revision as a direct 

final rule without prior proposal 

because EPA views this action as noncontroversial and anticipates no adverse 

comments. A detailed rationale for the 

approval is set forth in the direct final 

rule. If we do not receive any adverse 

comments in response to these direct 

final and proposed rules, we do not 

contemplate taking any further action in 

relation to this proposed rule. If EPA 

receives adverse comments with respect 

to this rule, we will publish a timely 

withdrawal of the action, informing the 

public that the rule will not take effect. 

EPA will respond to the public 

comments in a subsequent final rule 

based on this proposed rule. EPA will 

not institute a second comment period 

on this action. Any parties interested in