Privacy Act of 1974; Implementation, 11575-11577 [2013-03693]
Download as PDF
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: https://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: https://
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
Federal Bureau of Prisons,
Department of Justice.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
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,
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:41 Feb 15, 2013
Jkt 229001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
11575
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,’’
E:\FR\FM\19FER1.SGM
19FER1
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:
■
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
§ 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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:41 Feb 15, 2013
Jkt 229001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
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
E:\FR\FM\19FER1.SGM
19FER1
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
Office of Surface Mining
Reclamation and Enforcement, Interior.
ACTION: Final rule; approval of
amendment.
AGENCY:
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.
SUMMARY:
DATES:
Effective Date: February 19,
2013.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:41 Feb 15, 2013
Jkt 229001
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)
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
11577
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.
E:\FR\FM\19FER1.SGM
19FER1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 33 (Tuesday, February 19, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 11575-11577]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-03693]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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,''
[[Page 11576]]
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]
0
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
0
2. Amend Sec. 16.97 by revising paragraphs (a)(4) through (7) and (j)
and (k) to read as follows:
Sec. 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
[[Page 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