Protection of Sensitive Security Information; Technical Amendment, 1379-1382 [05-366]
Download as PDF
1379
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 5 / Friday, January 7, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 4.—CONSULTATION AREA COORDINATES FOR LAND STATIONS, SET 1 (1.7–30 MHZ)—Continued
Command name
Location
Latitude
Camslant ......................................................................
COMMSTA Miami ........................................................
COMMSTA New Orleans .............................................
Camspac ......................................................................
COMMSTA Honolulu ...................................................
COMMSTA Kodiak .......................................................
Guam ...........................................................................
Chesapeake, VA ..........................................................
Miami, FL .....................................................................
Belle Chasse, IA ..........................................................
Pt. Reyes Sta, CA .......................................................
Wahiawa, HI ................................................................
Kodiak, AK ...................................................................
Finegayan, GU ............................................................
36°33′59″ N
25°36′58″ N
29°52′40″ N
38°06′00″ N
21°31′08″ N
57°04′26′ N
13°53′08″ N
Longitude
76°15′23″ W
80°23′04″ W
89°54′46″ W
122°55′48″ W
157°59′28″ W
152°28′20″ W
144°50′20″ E
Note: Systems of coordinates conform to NAD 83.
Point of contact: COTHEN Technical
Support Center, COTHEN Program
Manager, Tel: (800) 829–6336.
TABLE 5.—CONSULTATION AREA COORDINATES FOR LAND STATIONS, SET 2 (1.7–30 MHZ)
Site name
Latitude
Albuquerque, NM ...................................................................................................................................................
Arecibo, PR ............................................................................................................................................................
Atlanta, GA .............................................................................................................................................................
Beaufort, SC ...........................................................................................................................................................
Cape Charles, VA ..................................................................................................................................................
Cedar Rapids, IA ....................................................................................................................................................
Denver, CO ............................................................................................................................................................
Fort Myers, FL ........................................................................................................................................................
Kansas City, MO ....................................................................................................................................................
Las Vegas, NV .......................................................................................................................................................
Lovelock, NV ..........................................................................................................................................................
Memphis, TN ..........................................................................................................................................................
Miami, FL ................................................................................................................................................................
Morehead City, NC .................................................................................................................................................
Oklahoma City, OK ................................................................................................................................................
Orlando, FL ............................................................................................................................................................
Reno, NV ................................................................................................................................................................
Sarasota, FL ...........................................................................................................................................................
Wilmington, NC ......................................................................................................................................................
35°05′02″ N
18°17′26″ N
32°33″06 N
34°34′22″ N
37°05′37″ N
42°00′09″ N
39°15′45″ N
81°31′20″ N
38°22′10″ N
36°21′15″ N
40°03′07″ N
34°21′57″ N
25°46′20″ N
34°34′50″ N
34°30′52″ N
28°31′30″ N
38°31′12″ N
27°12′41″ N
34°29′24″ N
Longitude
105°34′23″ W
66°22′33″ W
84°23′35″ W
76°09′48″ W
75°58′06″ W
91°17′39″ W
103°34′23″ W
26°20′01″ W
93°21′48″ W
114°17′33″ W
118°18′56″ W
90°02′43″ W
80°28′48″ W
78°13′59″ W
97°30′52″ W
80°48′58″ W
119°14′37″ W
81°31′20″ W
78°04′31″ W
Note: Systems of coordinates conform to NAD 83.
Point Of Contact: ROTHR Deputy
Program Manager, (540) 653–3624.
ACTION:
Office of the Secretary of
Transportation
SUMMARY: OST and TSA are revising
their regulations governing the
protection of sensitive security
information (SSI) to remove an
unintended limitation on parties that
have a need to know such information.
Specifically, this rule removes the
limiting words ‘‘aviation or maritime’’
from 49 CFR 15.11 and 49 CFR 1520.11
in order to clearly permit the sharing of
vulnerability assessments and other
documents properly designated as SSI
with covered persons who meet the
need to know requirements regardless of
mode of transportation.
DATES: Effective January 7, 2005.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
questions on 49 CFR part 15: Astrid
Lopez-Goldberg, Senior Attorney, Office
of the Chief Counsel, Research and
Special Programs Administration,
Department of Transportation,
Washington, DC 20590; e-mail:
Astrid.Lopez-Goldberg@rspa.dot.gov,
telephone: (202) 366–4400.
TABLE 6.—CONSULTATION AREA COORDINATES FOR RADAR RECEIVER
49 CFR Part 15
STATIONS (1.7–30 MHZ)
RIN 2105–AD33
Latitude/Longitude
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
18°01′ N/66°30′ W
28°05′ N/98°43′ W
36°34′ N/76°18′ W
Transportation Security Administration
Note: Systems of coordinates conform to
NAD 83.
[FR Doc. 05–246 Filed 1–6–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712–01–P
49 CFR Part 1520
[Docket No. TSA–2003–15569; Amendment
No. 1520–2]
RIN 1652–AA08
Protection of Sensitive Security
Information; Technical Amendment
Office of the Secretary of
Transportation (OST), Department of
Transportation, and Transportation
Security Administration (TSA),
Department of Homeland Security.
AGENCY:
VerDate jul<14>2003
16:17 Jan 06, 2005
Jkt 205001
Technical amendment.
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PO 00000
Frm 00055
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\07JAR1.SGM
07JAR1
1380
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 5 / Friday, January 7, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
For questions on 49 CFR part 1520:
David Graceson, Acting Director,
Aviation Operations Litigation Support
& Special Activities Staff, TSA–7,
Transportation Security Administration,
601 South 12th Street, Arlington, VA
22202–4220; e-mail:
David.Graceson@dhs.gov, telephone:
(571) 227–2277.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Availability of Final Rule
You can get an electronic copy using
the Internet by—
(1) Searching the Department of
Transportation’s electronic Docket
Management System (DMS) Web page
(https://dms.dot.gov/search). Use Docket
No. TSA–2003–15569;
(2) Accessing the Government
Printing Office’s Web page at https://
www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/aces/
aces140.html; or
(3) Visiting TSA’s Law and Policy
Web page at https://www.tsa.dot.gov/
public/index.jsp.
In addition, copies are available by
writing or calling the individuals in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section. Make sure to identify the docket
number of this rulemaking.
Background
On May 18, 2004, TSA and OST
published an interim final rule (IFR) on
the protection of sensitive security
information (SSI) in the Federal
Register (69 FR 28066). The preamble to
that rule provided a full description of
the statutory and regulatory background
for the SSI program. As explained there,
the original SSI program provided for
the protection of SSI involved in
aviation programs. However, the
Aviation and Transportation Security
Act (ATSA) (Pub. L. 107–71), enacted
two months after the terrorist attacks of
September 11, 2001, amended the
statutory authority underlying the
aviation SSI program to mandate
coverage of appropriate security
information in all modes of
transportation. By deleting ‘‘air’’ as a
limiting word before ‘‘transportation,’’
in ATSA, Congress enlarged its specific
direction to issue protective regulations
to encompass all modes of
transportation.
While the general focus of TSA’s 2002
regulation to implement ATSA
remained on aviation programs, TSA’s
regulation also provided for the
protection of vulnerability assessments
and certain other SSI (including
information concerning threats against
transportation) regardless of mode of
VerDate jul<14>2003
16:17 Jan 06, 2005
Jkt 205001
transportation.1 Later in 2002, in the
Homeland Security Act (Pub. L. 107–
296) that created the Department of
Homeland Security (DHS), Congress: (1)
transferred TSA’s authority to issue SSI
regulations to DHS, and (2) directed the
Secretary of Transportation to also
prescribe SSI regulations. Also in 2002,
the Maritime Transportation Security
Act (Pub. L. 107–295), which
established a new framework for
maritime security, became law and
called for the preparation of many
security-related documents that would
need SSI protection.
The May 2004 IFR consisted of
virtually identical TSA and OST rules to
implement Congressional direction that
both agencies issue SSI regulations. The
IFR expanded the 2002 regulatory
framework governing information
generally related to aviation security to
also cover information related to
security in maritime transportation.
This expansion was the main theme of
the IFR. However, the IFR also
continued the TSA 2002 regulation’s
coverage for vulnerability assessments
and, with some changes, certain other
SSI for all modes. For example, the TSA
2002 regulation coverage of
‘‘Information concerning threats against
transportation’’ was not limited by
mode of transportation. The May 2004
IFR continued that coverage for ‘‘Threat
information’’ regardless of the mode of
transportation.
assessed risks), but the SSI regulation
literally provides that, unless they were
acting in the performance of a contract
with or grant from DHS or DOT, they
may share these assessments only with
entities in the aviation or maritime
industries, because the language of the
regulation defines only these entities as
having a ‘‘need to know.’’
More than one commenter to the
docket on the May 2004 IFR brought
this issue to our attention. In light of the
well-justified concern about the
vulnerability of all transportation modes
to terrorist activities, and the crucial
need to share information to ‘‘connect
the dots’’ to forestall future attacks, DOT
and DHS believe that this is a technical
problem that must be fixed. By
removing the limiting words ‘‘aviation
or maritime’’ from 49 CFR 15.11 and
1520.11, we correct this mistake and
restore the original intent of this aspect
of the SSI rule—to share vulnerability
assessments and threat information with
entities in all transportation modes that
need the information to help forestall
future attacks.
TSA and OST received many useful,
constructive comments on the May 2004
IFR. We plan to publish in the Federal
Register a rulemaking document
responding to comments related to
subjects other than this need to know
issue.
Technical Amendment
SSI rules limit the disclosure of
vulnerability assessments and other SSI
to persons with a ‘‘need to know.’’ The
TSA 2002 regulation contained no
modal-specific limits in its need-toknow provision (49 CFR 1520.5(b)
(2002)). However, consistent with the
May 2004 IFR’s focus on adding
provisions for the maritime industry to
existing, mostly aviation-related,
provisions, the IFR added a restriction
of ‘‘aviation or maritime’’ at several
locations in the need-to-know section.
(Under the regulation, Federal
employees and persons acting in the
performance of a contract with or grant
from DHS or DOT are not subject to this
restriction.) This led to unintended
situations. For example, transportation
entities in land modes that transport
hazardous materials are required by 49
CFR subpart I to perform vulnerability
assessments (see 49 CFR 172.802—
assessment of possible transportation
security risks for shipments of the
hazardous materials listed in § 172.800
and appropriate measures to address the
Good Cause for Immediate Adoption
1 67 FR 8351, Feb. 22, 2002. The TSA SSI
regulation is codified at 49 CFR part 1520.
PO 00000
Frm 00056
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Regulatory Analyses and Notices
TSA and OST are issuing this
technical amendment without prior
notice and opportunity for comment
pursuant to the authority under section
4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act
(APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision
allows an agency to issue a regulatory
action without notice and opportunity
for comment when the agency for good
cause finds that notice and comment
procedures are ‘‘impracticable,
unnecessary or contrary to the public
interest.’’
As noted previously, it is essential to
fix this problem in the SSI regulation
immediately, lest the unintended
restriction in the regulation inhibit the
exchange of vital security-related
information. In addition, the technical
amendment will relieve a restriction on
regulated parties. For these reasons,
TSA and OST have determined that
prior notice and an opportunity for
comment would be impracticable,
unnecessary, and contrary to the public
interest. This same rationale provides
good cause to make the technical
amendment effective immediately upon
publication.
E:\FR\FM\07JAR1.SGM
07JAR1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 5 / Friday, January 7, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
Paperwork Reduction Act
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires
consideration of the impact of
paperwork and other information
collection burdens imposed on the
public. TSA and OST have determined
that there are no new information
collection requirements associated with
this technical amendment.
As protection provided by the
Paperwork Reduction Act, as amended,
an agency may not conduct or sponsor,
and a person is not required to respond
to, a collection of information unless it
displays a currently valid Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) control
number.
Executive Order 12886 and DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures
Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993), provides for making
determinations whether a regulatory
action is ‘‘significant’’ and therefore
subject to Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) review and to the
requirements of the Executive Order.
This is a nonsignificant regulatory
action under Executive Order 12866.
The technical amendment will not add
any requirements or burdens on any
party. It simply relieves a restriction
that would prevent transportation
entities from sharing certain information
with those who need to know,
regardless of mode. This will enhance
security by allowing TSA and OST to
share vital security information with
regulated parties. For the same reasons,
this regulatory action is nonsignificant
under the Department of
Transportation’s Regulatory Policies and
Procedures.
Regulatory Flexibility Act Assessment
Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility
Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., as amended by
the Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of
1996), an agency is required to prepare
and make available a regulatory
flexibility analysis that describes the
effect of the regulatory action on small
entities (i.e., small businesses, small
organizations, and small governmental
jurisdictions). Because good cause exists
for issuing this regulation as a final
technical amendment, no regulatory
flexibility analysis is required. However,
because this technical amendment will
not impose any costs on any entities,
including small entities, we have
determined and certify that this
regulatory action does not have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
VerDate jul<14>2003
16:17 Jan 06, 2005
Jkt 205001
Trade Impact Assessment
The Trade Agreement Act of 1979
prohibits Federal agencies from
engaging in any standards or related
activities that create unnecessary
obstacles to the foreign commerce of the
United States. Legitimate domestic
objectives, such as safety and security,
are not considered unnecessary
obstacles. The Act also requires
consideration of international standards
and, where appropriate, that they be the
basis for U.S. standards. We have
assessed the potential effect of this
regulatory action and determined that it
will have no effect on any tradesensitive activity and will not constitute
a barrier to international trade.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Assessment
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 is intended, among other things,
to curb the practice of imposing
unfunded Federal mandates on State,
local, and tribal governments. Title II of
the Act requires each Federal agency to
prepare a written statement assessing
the effects of any Federal mandate in a
proposed or final agency rule that may
result in a $100 million or more
expenditure (adjusted annually for
inflation) in any one year by State, local,
and tribal governments, in the aggregate,
or by the private sector; such a mandate
is deemed to be a ‘‘significant regulatory
action.’’
This regulatory action does not
contain such a mandate. The
requirements of Title II of the Act,
therefore, do not apply and a statement
has not been prepared under the Act.
Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
This regulatory action has been
analyzed under the principles and
criteria of Executive Order 13132,
Federalism. We have determined that it
would not have a substantial direct
effect on the States, on the relationship
between the National Government and
the States, or on the distribution of
power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government. Therefore,
this regulatory action does not have
federalism implications.
Environmental Analysis
This action has been reviewed for
purposes of the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C.
4321–4347), and we have determined
that it will not have a significant effect
on the human environment.
Conservation Act (EPCA), Public Law
94–163, as amended (42 U.S.C. 6362).
We have determined that this technical
amendment is not a major regulatory
action under the provisions of the
EPCA.
Small Entity Inquiries
The Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of
1996 requires an agency to comply with
small entity requests for information
and advice about compliance with
statutes and regulations within the
agency’s jurisdiction. Any small entity
that has a question regarding this
document may contact the individuals
listed in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT for information. You can get
further information regarding SBREFA
on the Small Business Administration’s
Web page at https://www.sba.gov/advo/
laws/law_lib.html.
List of Subjects
49 CFR Part 15
Air carriers, Aircraft, Airports,
Maritime carriers, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Security
measures, Vessels, Vulnerability
assessments.
49 CFR Part 1520
Air carriers, Aircraft, Airports,
Maritime carriers, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Security
measures, Vessels, Vulnerability
assessments.
Department of Transportation
Office of the Secretary of
Transportation
For the reasons stated in the preamble,
the Department of Transportation
amends title 49, Code of Federal
Regulations, by amending part 15 as
follows:
I
PART 15—PROTECTION OF
SENSITIVE SECURITY INFORMATION
1. The authority citation for part 15
continues to read as follows:
I
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 40119.
§ 15.11
[Amended]
2. In § 15.11(a), remove the words
‘‘aviation or maritime’’ wherever those
words appear.
I
Energy Impact
The energy impact of this technical
amendment has been assessed in
accordance with the Energy Policy and
PO 00000
Frm 00057
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
1381
E:\FR\FM\07JAR1.SGM
07JAR1
1382
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 5 / Friday, January 7, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
Issued in Washington, DC, on January 4,
2005.
Norman Y. Mineta,
Secretary of Transportation.
Department of Homeland Security
title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, by
amending part 1520 as follows:
PART 1520—PROTECTION OF
SENSITIVE SECURITY INFORMATION
49 CFR Chapter XII
1. The authority citation for part 1520
continues to read as follows:
For the reasons stated in the preamble,
the Transportation Security
Administration amends chapter XII of
Authority: 46 U.S.C. 70102–70106, 70117;
49 U.S.C. 114, 40113, 44901–44907, 44913–
44914, 44916–44918, 44935–44936, 44942,
46105.
Transportation Security Administration
I
VerDate jul<14>2003
16:17 Jan 06, 2005
Jkt 205001
I
PO 00000
Frm 00058
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
§ 1520.11
[Amended]
2. In § 1520.11(a), remove the words
‘‘aviation or maritime’’ wherever those
words appear.
I
Issued in Arlington, Virginia, on January 4,
2005.
David M. Stone,
Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security
(Transportation Security Administration).
[FR Doc. 05–366 Filed 1–6–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–62–P
E:\FR\FM\07JAR1.SGM
07JAR1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 5 (Friday, January 7, 2005)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 1379-1382]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-366]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Office of the Secretary of Transportation
49 CFR Part 15
RIN 2105-AD33
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Transportation Security Administration
49 CFR Part 1520
[Docket No. TSA-2003-15569; Amendment No. 1520-2]
RIN 1652-AA08
Protection of Sensitive Security Information; Technical Amendment
AGENCY: Office of the Secretary of Transportation (OST), Department of
Transportation, and Transportation Security Administration (TSA),
Department of Homeland Security.
ACTION: Technical amendment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: OST and TSA are revising their regulations governing the
protection of sensitive security information (SSI) to remove an
unintended limitation on parties that have a need to know such
information. Specifically, this rule removes the limiting words
``aviation or maritime'' from 49 CFR 15.11 and 49 CFR 1520.11 in order
to clearly permit the sharing of vulnerability assessments and other
documents properly designated as SSI with covered persons who meet the
need to know requirements regardless of mode of transportation.
DATES: Effective January 7, 2005.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions on 49 CFR part 15:
Astrid Lopez-Goldberg, Senior Attorney, Office of the Chief Counsel,
Research and Special Programs Administration, Department of
Transportation, Washington, DC 20590; e-mail: Astrid.Lopez-
Goldberg@rspa.dot.gov, telephone: (202) 366-4400.
[[Page 1380]]
For questions on 49 CFR part 1520: David Graceson, Acting Director,
Aviation Operations Litigation Support & Special Activities Staff, TSA-
7, Transportation Security Administration, 601 South 12th Street,
Arlington, VA 22202-4220; e-mail: David.Graceson@dhs.gov, telephone:
(571) 227-2277.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Availability of Final Rule
You can get an electronic copy using the Internet by--
(1) Searching the Department of Transportation's electronic Docket
Management System (DMS) Web page (https://dms.dot.gov/search). Use
Docket No. TSA-2003-15569;
(2) Accessing the Government Printing Office's Web page at https://
www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/aces/aces140.html; or
(3) Visiting TSA's Law and Policy Web page at https://
www.tsa.dot.gov/public/index.jsp.
In addition, copies are available by writing or calling the
individuals in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Make sure
to identify the docket number of this rulemaking.
Background
On May 18, 2004, TSA and OST published an interim final rule (IFR)
on the protection of sensitive security information (SSI) in the
Federal Register (69 FR 28066). The preamble to that rule provided a
full description of the statutory and regulatory background for the SSI
program. As explained there, the original SSI program provided for the
protection of SSI involved in aviation programs. However, the Aviation
and Transportation Security Act (ATSA) (Pub. L. 107-71), enacted two
months after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, amended the
statutory authority underlying the aviation SSI program to mandate
coverage of appropriate security information in all modes of
transportation. By deleting ``air'' as a limiting word before
``transportation,'' in ATSA, Congress enlarged its specific direction
to issue protective regulations to encompass all modes of
transportation.
While the general focus of TSA's 2002 regulation to implement ATSA
remained on aviation programs, TSA's regulation also provided for the
protection of vulnerability assessments and certain other SSI
(including information concerning threats against transportation)
regardless of mode of transportation.\1\ Later in 2002, in the Homeland
Security Act (Pub. L. 107-296) that created the Department of Homeland
Security (DHS), Congress: (1) transferred TSA's authority to issue SSI
regulations to DHS, and (2) directed the Secretary of Transportation to
also prescribe SSI regulations. Also in 2002, the Maritime
Transportation Security Act (Pub. L. 107-295), which established a new
framework for maritime security, became law and called for the
preparation of many security-related documents that would need SSI
protection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 67 FR 8351, Feb. 22, 2002. The TSA SSI regulation is
codified at 49 CFR part 1520.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The May 2004 IFR consisted of virtually identical TSA and OST rules
to implement Congressional direction that both agencies issue SSI
regulations. The IFR expanded the 2002 regulatory framework governing
information generally related to aviation security to also cover
information related to security in maritime transportation. This
expansion was the main theme of the IFR. However, the IFR also
continued the TSA 2002 regulation's coverage for vulnerability
assessments and, with some changes, certain other SSI for all modes.
For example, the TSA 2002 regulation coverage of ``Information
concerning threats against transportation'' was not limited by mode of
transportation. The May 2004 IFR continued that coverage for ``Threat
information'' regardless of the mode of transportation.
Technical Amendment
SSI rules limit the disclosure of vulnerability assessments and
other SSI to persons with a ``need to know.'' The TSA 2002 regulation
contained no modal-specific limits in its need-to-know provision (49
CFR 1520.5(b) (2002)). However, consistent with the May 2004 IFR's
focus on adding provisions for the maritime industry to existing,
mostly aviation-related, provisions, the IFR added a restriction of
``aviation or maritime'' at several locations in the need-to-know
section. (Under the regulation, Federal employees and persons acting in
the performance of a contract with or grant from DHS or DOT are not
subject to this restriction.) This led to unintended situations. For
example, transportation entities in land modes that transport hazardous
materials are required by 49 CFR subpart I to perform vulnerability
assessments (see 49 CFR 172.802--assessment of possible transportation
security risks for shipments of the hazardous materials listed in Sec.
172.800 and appropriate measures to address the assessed risks), but
the SSI regulation literally provides that, unless they were acting in
the performance of a contract with or grant from DHS or DOT, they may
share these assessments only with entities in the aviation or maritime
industries, because the language of the regulation defines only these
entities as having a ``need to know.''
More than one commenter to the docket on the May 2004 IFR brought
this issue to our attention. In light of the well-justified concern
about the vulnerability of all transportation modes to terrorist
activities, and the crucial need to share information to ``connect the
dots'' to forestall future attacks, DOT and DHS believe that this is a
technical problem that must be fixed. By removing the limiting words
``aviation or maritime'' from 49 CFR 15.11 and 1520.11, we correct this
mistake and restore the original intent of this aspect of the SSI
rule--to share vulnerability assessments and threat information with
entities in all transportation modes that need the information to help
forestall future attacks.
TSA and OST received many useful, constructive comments on the May
2004 IFR. We plan to publish in the Federal Register a rulemaking
document responding to comments related to subjects other than this
need to know issue.
Regulatory Analyses and Notices
Good Cause for Immediate Adoption
TSA and OST are issuing this technical amendment without prior
notice and opportunity for comment pursuant to the authority under
section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C.
553(b)). This provision allows an agency to issue a regulatory action
without notice and opportunity for comment when the agency for good
cause finds that notice and comment procedures are ``impracticable,
unnecessary or contrary to the public interest.''
As noted previously, it is essential to fix this problem in the SSI
regulation immediately, lest the unintended restriction in the
regulation inhibit the exchange of vital security-related information.
In addition, the technical amendment will relieve a restriction on
regulated parties. For these reasons, TSA and OST have determined that
prior notice and an opportunity for comment would be impracticable,
unnecessary, and contrary to the public interest. This same rationale
provides good cause to make the technical amendment effective
immediately upon publication.
[[Page 1381]]
Paperwork Reduction Act
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires
consideration of the impact of paperwork and other information
collection burdens imposed on the public. TSA and OST have determined
that there are no new information collection requirements associated
with this technical amendment.
As protection provided by the Paperwork Reduction Act, as amended,
an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently
valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number.
Executive Order 12886 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures
Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), provides for
making determinations whether a regulatory action is ``significant''
and therefore subject to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review
and to the requirements of the Executive Order. This is a
nonsignificant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. The
technical amendment will not add any requirements or burdens on any
party. It simply relieves a restriction that would prevent
transportation entities from sharing certain information with those who
need to know, regardless of mode. This will enhance security by
allowing TSA and OST to share vital security information with regulated
parties. For the same reasons, this regulatory action is nonsignificant
under the Department of Transportation's Regulatory Policies and
Procedures.
Regulatory Flexibility Act Assessment
Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.,
as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
(SBREFA) of 1996), an agency is required to prepare and make available
a regulatory flexibility analysis that describes the effect of the
regulatory action on small entities (i.e., small businesses, small
organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions). Because good
cause exists for issuing this regulation as a final technical
amendment, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required. However,
because this technical amendment will not impose any costs on any
entities, including small entities, we have determined and certify that
this regulatory action does not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
Trade Impact Assessment
The Trade Agreement Act of 1979 prohibits Federal agencies from
engaging in any standards or related activities that create unnecessary
obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. Legitimate
domestic objectives, such as safety and security, are not considered
unnecessary obstacles. The Act also requires consideration of
international standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis
for U.S. standards. We have assessed the potential effect of this
regulatory action and determined that it will have no effect on any
trade-sensitive activity and will not constitute a barrier to
international trade.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Assessment
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 is intended, among other
things, to curb the practice of imposing unfunded Federal mandates on
State, local, and tribal governments. Title II of the Act requires each
Federal agency to prepare a written statement assessing the effects of
any Federal mandate in a proposed or final agency rule that may result
in a $100 million or more expenditure (adjusted annually for inflation)
in any one year by State, local, and tribal governments, in the
aggregate, or by the private sector; such a mandate is deemed to be a
``significant regulatory action.''
This regulatory action does not contain such a mandate. The
requirements of Title II of the Act, therefore, do not apply and a
statement has not been prepared under the Act.
Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
This regulatory action has been analyzed under the principles and
criteria of Executive Order 13132, Federalism. We have determined that
it would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the
relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. Therefore, this regulatory action does not have federalism
implications.
Environmental Analysis
This action has been reviewed for purposes of the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4347), and we
have determined that it will not have a significant effect on the human
environment.
Energy Impact
The energy impact of this technical amendment has been assessed in
accordance with the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA), Public
Law 94-163, as amended (42 U.S.C. 6362). We have determined that this
technical amendment is not a major regulatory action under the
provisions of the EPCA.
Small Entity Inquiries
The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of
1996 requires an agency to comply with small entity requests for
information and advice about compliance with statutes and regulations
within the agency's jurisdiction. Any small entity that has a question
regarding this document may contact the individuals listed in FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT for information. You can get further
information regarding SBREFA on the Small Business Administration's Web
page at https://www.sba.gov/advo/laws/law_lib.html.
List of Subjects
49 CFR Part 15
Air carriers, Aircraft, Airports, Maritime carriers, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Vessels, Vulnerability
assessments.
49 CFR Part 1520
Air carriers, Aircraft, Airports, Maritime carriers, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Vessels, Vulnerability
assessments.
Department of Transportation
Office of the Secretary of Transportation
0
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Department of
Transportation amends title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, by
amending part 15 as follows:
PART 15--PROTECTION OF SENSITIVE SECURITY INFORMATION
0
1. The authority citation for part 15 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 40119.
Sec. 15.11 [Amended]
0
2. In Sec. 15.11(a), remove the words ``aviation or maritime''
wherever those words appear.
[[Page 1382]]
Issued in Washington, DC, on January 4, 2005.
Norman Y. Mineta,
Secretary of Transportation.
Department of Homeland Security
Transportation Security Administration
49 CFR Chapter XII
0
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Transportation Security
Administration amends chapter XII of title 49, Code of Federal
Regulations, by amending part 1520 as follows:
PART 1520--PROTECTION OF SENSITIVE SECURITY INFORMATION
0
1. The authority citation for part 1520 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 46 U.S.C. 70102-70106, 70117; 49 U.S.C. 114, 40113,
44901-44907, 44913-44914, 44916-44918, 44935-44936, 44942, 46105.
Sec. 1520.11 [Amended]
0
2. In Sec. 1520.11(a), remove the words ``aviation or maritime''
wherever those words appear.
Issued in Arlington, Virginia, on January 4, 2005.
David M. Stone,
Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security (Transportation Security
Administration).
[FR Doc. 05-366 Filed 1-6-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-62-P