[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