[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 78 (Monday, April 23, 2001)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 20406-20407]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-9997]
[[Page 20406]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Office of the Secretary
49 CFR Part 10
[Docket No. OST-96-1437]
RIN 2105-AC9
Privacy Act of 1974; Implementation
AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: DOT exempts from certain provisions of the Privacy Act the
record system designed to assist in finding Suspected Unapproved Parts
used in aviation, and a record system used to manage the flow of data
about commercial motor carriers. An editorial correction is also made
to some existing language.
DATES: These changes take effect May 23, 2001.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Yvonne Coates, S-80, Office of the
Chief Information Officer, Department of Transportation, Washington, DC
20590-0001; telephone: 202-366-6964; fax: 202-366-7024; e-mail:
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Aviation. To assist in the ongoing campaign
of the Department's Federal Aviation Administration against defective
and dangerous parts being used in aircraft, DOT is establishing a
Privacy Act record system in which evidence will be gathered as
investigations are conducted (DOT/FAA 852 Suspected Unapproved Parts
(SUP) Program). Motor Carriage. The recent establishment of DOT's
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration has led to the development
of a management information system (Motor Carrier Management
Information System, DOT/FMCSA 001) that will encompass, among other
things, safety investigations of commercial motor carriers and of their
drivers. In both instances, investigations can result in criminal
prosecutions. To facilitate the cooperation of persons who have
information relevant to these investigations and who ask for
confidentiality as a condition of their providing that information, DOT
is exempting these systems from subsections (c)(3) (Accounting for
Certain Disclosures), (d) (Access to Records), (e)(4)(G), (H), and (I)
(Agency Requirements), and (f) (Agency Rules) of the Privacy Act, 5 USC
552a. If we do not exempt this system from these provisions, persons
who are subjects of investigation will be able to learn that they are
and who has provided information about them, both of which could well
frustrate any investigation.
Finally, in the Appendix, a reference to subsection (e)(4)(I) was
inadvertently omitted from, and section (g) was inadvertently included
in explanatory paragraph 2 at the end of, paragraph A; these are
corrected.
All of these changes were proposed for public comment (January 8,
2001; 66 FR 1294) and none was received. The amendment is being adopted
as proposed.
Analysis of Regulatory Impacts
This rule is not a ``significant regulatory action'' within the
meaning of Executive Order 12866. It is also not significant within the
definition in DOT's Regulatory Policies and Procedures, 49 FR 11034
(1979), in part because it does not involve any change in important
Departmental policies. Because the economic impact should be minimal,
further regulatory evaluation is not necessary. Moreover, I certify
that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities, because the reporting
requirements, themselves, are not changed and because it applies only
to information on individuals.
This rule does not significantly affect the environment, and
therefore an environmental impact statement is not required under the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. It has also been reviewed
under Executive Order 12612, Federalism, and it has been determined
that it does not have sufficient implications for federalism to warrant
preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
Collection of Information
This rule contains no collection of information requirements under
the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
Unfunded Mandates
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), (Pub.
L. 104-4, 109 Stat. 48), requires Federal agencies to assess the
effects of certain regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal
governments, and the private sector. UMRA requires a written statement
of economic and regulatory alternatives for proposed and final rules
that contain Federal mandates. A ``Federal mandate,'' is a new or
additional enforceable duty, imposed on any State, local, or tribal
government, or the private sector. If any Federal mandate causes those
entities, to spend, in aggregate, $100 million or more in any one year
the UMRA analysis is required. This rule does not impose Federal
mandates on any State, local or tribal governments or the private
sector.
[[Page 20407]]
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 10
Privacy.
Accordingly, DOT amends Part 10 of 49 CFR as follows:
1. The authority citation for Part 10 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 5 USC 552a; 49 USC 322; 49 CFR 10.13
2. Part IIA of the Appendix is amended as follows:
a. By republishing the introductory text;
b. By adding new paragraphs 17 and 18; and
c. By revising explanatory paragraph 2.
The additions and revisions read as follows:
* * * * *
Part II. Specific Exemptions
A. The following systems of records are exempt from subsections
(c)(3) (Accounting of Certain Disclosures), (d) (Access to Records,
(e)(4)(G), (H), (I) (Agency Requirements) and (f) (Agency rules) of
5 USC 552a, to the extent that they contain investigatory material
for law enforcement purposes in accordance with 5 USC 552a(k)(2):
* * * * *
17. Suspected Unapproved Parts (SUP) Program, maintained by the
Federal Aviation Administration (DOT/FAA 852).
18. Motor Carrier Management Information System (MCMIS),
maintained by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (DOT/
FMCSA 001). These exemptions are justified for the following
reasons:
* * * * *
2. From subsections (d), (e)(4)(G), (H), and (I), and (f),
because granting an individual access to investigative records, and
granting him/her access to investigative records with that
information, could interfere with the overall law enforcement
process by revealing a pending sensitive investigation, possibly
identify a confidential source, disclose information that would
constitute an unwarranted invasion of another individual's personal
privacy, reveal a sensitive investigative technique, or constitute a
potential danger to the health or safety of law enforcement
personnel.
* * * * *
Dated: April 17, 2001.
Eugene K. Taylor, Jr.,
Deputy Chief Information Officer.
[FR Doc. 01-9997 Filed 4-20-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-62-P