Criminal Intelligence Systems Operating Policies, 44673-44677 [E8-17519]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 148 / Thursday, July 31, 2008 / Proposed Rules
reactors, we continue to support the view
that issues of relevance to both current plant
operation and operation during the license
renewal period must be addressed as they
arise within the present license term rather
than at the time of renewal. Emergency
planning is such an issue. Through its
standards and required exercises, the
Commission ensures that existing emergency
plans are adequate throughout the life of any
plant, even in the face of changing
demographics and other site-related factors.
The emergency preparedness regulations in
10 CFR part 50 require licensees to test the
adequacy of their preparedness and ability to
respond to emergency situations through the
performance of a full-scale exercise at least
once every two years. These drills and
independent evaluations provide a process to
ensure continued adequacy of emergency
preparedness in light of changes in site
characteristics. Consequently, consistent
with the Commission’s policy to confine the
review of issues during license renewal to
those uniquely relevant to protecting the
public health and safety and common
defense and security during the renewal
period, we find no lost opportunity here and
see no necessity for a review of emergency
planning as part of the license renewal
process.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 25th day
of July 2008.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Annette L. Vietti-Cook,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. E8–17544 Filed 7–30–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Office of Justice Programs
28 CFR Part 23
[Docket No. OJP 1473]
RIN 1121–AA59
Criminal Intelligence Systems
Operating Policies
Office of Justice Programs,
Justice.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
yshivers on PROD1PC62 with PROPOSALS
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The Office of Justice Programs
is publishing this proposed rule to
amend its regulations that govern the
operating policies of criminal
intelligence systems that receive federal
funding under the Omnibus Crime
Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, as
amended (‘‘Crime Control Act’’). The
regulations were issued pursuant to 42
U.S.C. 3789(g), which requires that
‘‘criminal intelligence systems’’
receiving Crime Control Act support
must collect, maintain, and disseminate
criminal intelligence information ‘‘in
conformance with policy standards
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:08 Jul 30, 2008
Jkt 214001
which are prescribed by the Office of
Justice Programs.’’ The statute specifies
that the policy standards must be
written to assure that the funding and
operation of the systems further the
purpose of the funding provisions and
assure that such systems ‘‘are not
utilized in violation of the privacy and
constitutional rights of individuals.’’
The existing regulations were last
revised in 1993 and the purpose of the
revisions proposed in this document is
to clarify and update the regulations in
light of the new, post-9/11 information
sharing environment and investigative
policies aimed at preventing terrorism.
DATES: Written comments must be
submitted on or before September 2,
2008.
ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to
Michael Dever, Bureau of Justice
Assistance, 810 7th Street, NW.,
Washington, DC 20531. To ensure
proper handling, please reference OJP
Docket No. 1473 in your
correspondence. You may submit
comments electronically or view an
electronic version of this proposed rule
at https://www.regulations.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Michael Dever, Bureau of Justice
Assistance, 810 7th Street, NW.,
Washington, DC 20531. Telephone:
(202) 616–6500.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Posting of Public Comments
Please note that all comments
received are considered part of the
public record and made available for
public inspection online at https://
www.regulations.gov. Such information
includes personal identifying
information (such as name and address)
voluntarily submitted by the
commenter.
If you wish to submit personal
identifying information (such as your
name, address, etc.) as part of your
comment, but do not wish for it to be
posted online, you must include the
phrase ‘‘PERSONAL IDENTIFYING
INFORMATION’’ in the first paragraph
of your comment. You also must locate
all the personal identifying information
you do not wish to be posted online in
the first paragraph of your comment and
identify what information you would
like redacted.
If you wish to submit confidential
business information as part of your
comment but do not wish for it to be
posted online, you must include the
phrase ‘‘CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS
INFORMATION’’ in the first paragraph
of your comment. You also must
prominently identify confidential
business information to be redacted
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
44673
within the comment. If a comment has
so much confidential business
information that it cannot be effectively
redacted, all or part of that comment
may not be posted on https://
www.regulations.gov.
Personal identifying information and
confidential business information
identified and located as set forth above
will be placed in the agency’s public
docket file, but not posted online. If you
wish to inspect the agency’s public
docket file in person by appointment,
please see the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT paragraph.
Discussion
The proposed rule would revise the
Office of Justice Program (OJP)
regulations in 28 CFR part 23 that set
forth policy guidelines for Crime
Control Act-funded state criminal
intelligence information systems. The
part 23 regulations were issued
pursuant to a requirement in 42 U.S.C.
3789(g) that ‘‘criminal intelligence
systems’’ receiving Crime Control Act
support must collect, maintain, and
disseminate criminal intelligence
information ‘‘in conformance with
policy standards which are prescribed
by the Office of Justice Programs.’’ The
statute specifies that the policy
standards must be written to assure that
the funding and operation of the
systems further the purpose of the
funding provisions and assure that such
systems ‘‘are not utilized in violation of
the privacy and constitutional rights of
individuals.’’
The existing part 23 regulations were
last revised in 1993 and the purpose of
the revisions proposed in this notice is
to clarify and update the regulations in
light of the new, post-9/11 informationsharing environment and investigative
policies aimed at preventing terrorism.
Multiple initiatives are being pursued at
the federal, state, and local levels to
promote and strengthen information
sharing among responsible government
agencies that can promote risk
identification and protective action,
including, for example, the creation of
state, local, and regional fusion centers
across the country and information
sharing initiatives involving Joint
Terrorism Task Forces. The intent of
these proposed revisions to part 23 is to
ensure that the standards for sharing
criminal intelligence information
subject to the regulation be uniform and
clear and not create unreasonable
impediments to information sharing,
whether real or perceived, while at the
same time continuing to ensure that the
systems not be used in violation of the
privacy and constitutional rights of
individuals.
E:\FR\FM\31JYP1.SGM
31JYP1
44674
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 148 / Thursday, July 31, 2008 / Proposed Rules
Section 23.1
Section 23.1 contains a parenthetical
list of statutory amendments to the
Crime Control Act that is out of date. It
is proposed that this section be revised
to strike this parenthetical.
Section 23.2
Section 23.2 describes the background
for the part 23 criminal intelligence
operating policies. It recognizes that
certain criminal activities often involve
some degree of regular coordination and
permanent organization involving a
large number of participants over a
broad geographical area. The examples
currently cited of such ongoing
networks of criminal activities do not
include a reference to terrorism or the
material support of terrorism. To clarify
that the detection, exposure,
investigation, and prevention of terrorist
activity and conduct is an important
part of the role played by criminal
intelligence systems, it is proposed that
‘‘domestic and international terrorism,
including the material support thereof,’’
be added to the examples of criminal
activities about which it is important to
gather, maintain, and share criminal
intelligence information.
yshivers on PROD1PC62 with PROPOSALS
Section 23.3
It is proposed to remove the outdated
parenthetical statutory references and to
make some non-substantive
grammatical/syntactical changes in this
section.
Section 23.20
Paragraph (a) of section 23.20
currently states the basic operating
principle that a project shall collect and
maintain criminal intelligence
information concerning ‘‘an individual’’
only if there is reasonable suspicion that
the individual is involved in criminal
conduct or activity and the information
is relevant to that conduct or activity.
Because criminal conduct or activities
can be engaged in by organizations as
well as individuals, it is proposed that
this section be amended to clarify that
criminal intelligence information can be
collected and maintained about
organizations, as well as individuals.
This clarification is consistent with
section 23.3(b)(3)(i), which defines the
term ‘‘criminal intelligence
information’’ as meaning data that has
been evaluated to determine that it ‘‘is
relevant to the identification of criminal
activity engaged in by an individual
who or organization which is
reasonably suspected of involvement in
criminal activity.’’ (Emphasis added.) It
should be noted that the inclusion of the
term ‘‘organization’’ in section 23.20(a)
does not affect the prohibition in section
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:08 Jul 30, 2008
Jkt 214001
23.20(b) of the ‘‘[collection] or
[maintenance of] criminal intelligence
information about the political, religious
or social views, associations, or
activities of any individual or any
group, association, corporation,
business, partnership, or other
organization. * * *’’
Paragraph (e) is proposed to be
revised to define more clearly the
circumstances under which criminal
intelligence information subject to the
regulations may be shared. The existing
language provides that such information
shall only be disseminated ‘‘where there
is a need to know and a right to know
the information in the performance of a
law enforcement activity.’’ The terms
‘‘need to know’’ or ‘‘right to know’’ are
not defined in the regulation. Instead,
section 23.20(g) requires that ‘‘[e]ach
project must establish written
definitions for the need to know and
right to know standards for
dissemination to other agencies as
provided in paragraph (e) of this
section.’’ While some agencies may
broadly interpret these terms to allow
efficient sharing of criminal intelligence
information with all authorized officials
or entities, other agencies may construe
this language more restrictively. There
is no uniform definition of the
information sharing standard. In
addition, there is no reference in this
provision to disseminating criminal
intelligence information for preventative
law enforcement, homeland security, or
counterterrorism purposes. The terrorist
attacks of September 11, 2001, have
made it clear that the sharing of
intelligence information should be
maximized, to the extent consistent
with applicable law and protection for
privacy and civil liberties, among
federal, state, and local agencies
responsible for law enforcement,
preventing terrorism, and securing our
homeland. Reducing real or perceived
barriers to the sharing of investigative
and intelligence information that could
aid in law enforcement or in the
prevention of crime or terrorism is now
a well-recognized priority of federal,
state, and local agencies. Therefore, to
provide clearer guidance on the
circumstances under which criminal
intelligence information may be shared,
a revision to paragraph (e) is proposed
that would establish a uniform standard
of permissible purposes for the
dissemination of criminal intelligence
information, authorizing dissemination
when the information falls within the
law enforcement, counterterrorism, or
national security responsibility of the
receiving agency or may assist in
preventing crime or the use of violence
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
or any conduct dangerous to human life
or property. The proposed revision also
would clarify the authorities to whom
information may be disseminated,
including agencies with law
enforcement, homeland security, or
counterterrorism missions. The
proposed revision also would provide
that criminal intelligence information
may be disseminated to officials of the
Office of Justice Programs when such
officials are monitoring or auditing
compliance by a project with the
operating principles and funding
guidelines under Part 23.
Paragraph (f)(1) currently limits
dissemination of criminal intelligence
information only to ‘‘law enforcement
authorities’’ that ‘‘agree to follow
procedures regarding information
receipt, maintenance, security, and
dissemination which are consistent
with’’ part 23 principles. Consistent
with the change in the dissemination
rule in section 23.20(e), this section is
proposed to be amended to clarify that
the authorities to which information
may be disseminated would include
agencies qualified to receive the
information under paragraph (e). In
addition, it is proposed that paragraph
(f)(1) be further amended to provide that
the receiving agencies have information
procedures in place that are consistent
with part 23’s operating principles,
rather than that they ‘‘agree to follow’’
such procedures. This retains the
requirement that receiving agencies
implement part 23 principles, while
removing the potential barrier to
information sharing that requiring an
‘‘agreement’’ for each sharing
arrangement might entail. It is important
to note that a new proposed provision—
section 23.30, paragraph (f)—will
require projects to have in place, or
establish within timeframes specified by
OJP’s Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA),
a written privacy policy specifying the
operational steps being followed to
comply with section 23.20 principles.
Paragraph (f)(2) creates an exception
to the requirement in paragraph (f)(1)
allowing the dissemination of ‘‘an
assessment of criminal intelligence
information to a government official or
any other individual, when necessary to
avoid imminent danger to life or
property.’’ The term ‘‘imminent’’ is not
defined. Because the provision already
requires a determination that the
sharing of the information assessment is
‘‘necessary’’ to avoid danger to life or
property, it is proposed that the term
‘‘imminent’’ be deleted.
Changes are proposed to paragraph (g)
to conform to the proposed change in
paragraph (e) that substitutes a national
standard of dissemination for the
E:\FR\FM\31JYP1.SGM
31JYP1
yshivers on PROD1PC62 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 148 / Thursday, July 31, 2008 / Proposed Rules
existing, locally-defined ‘‘need to know
and right to know’’ dissemination
standard. The proposed changes do not
substantively alter the longstanding
requirement that criminal intelligence
systems record certain information
regarding the dissemination of criminal
intelligence information. Taking this
into account, OJP has determined that
there is no need for a new Information
Collection Review or burden calculation
for this recordkeeping requirement in
this notice of proposed rulemaking.
Paragraph (h) provides rules for
projects to assure the continuing
relevance and importance of criminal
intelligence information and requires
projects to have procedures for the
periodic review of information and
destruction of any information that is
misleading, obsolete, or otherwise
unreliable. The regulation limits the
retention period to a maximum of five
years without a review and validation of
the information. When information has
been reviewed or updated and a
determination has been made that it
continues to meet system submission
criteria, the information has been
‘‘validated’’ and a new retention period
begins. The five-year retention period
was established before the events of 9/
11 and the advent of the current terrorist
threat environment. This relativelyshort retention period may not be long
enough to cover terrorist planning
cycles and/or the need for historical
data for terrorism threat assessment.
New technologies for data storage and
analysis make possible the extended
retention and potential usefulness of
this information for purposes of such
threat assessments. In addition,
information about subjects of criminal
intelligence incarcerated during the
five-year retention period may be
unavailable to a jurisdiction upon the
subject’s release from prison. For these
reasons, it is proposed that the retention
period be changed to 10 years and that
an exception be made to allow the
tolling of the retention period during a
subject’s incarceration so that the
intelligence file can be available to law
enforcement upon the subject’s release
from prison.
Finally, paragraph (i)(1) currently
prohibits making remote terminal access
to intelligence information available to
system participants except as
specifically approved by OJP upon a
determination that the system has
adequate policies and procedures in
place to insure that such access is
available only to authorized users.
System managers have informed the
Department that this provision’s
requirement of pre-approval by OJP is
outdated, given the modern access
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:08 Jul 30, 2008
Jkt 214001
controls that routinely provide
appropriate security for remote access
arrangements. It is therefore proposed
that this provision be revised to remove
the requirement that OJP approve a
system’s security policy and procedures
before remote-access may be
implemented. Although this would
remove the requirement of OJP
approval, OJP expects to continue to
provide projects with training and
technical assistance regarding
information privacy and security
practices and polices, including those
prescribed through the Department of
Justice’s Global Justice Information
Sharing Initiative or successor entity.
Finally, a few non-substantive
grammatical/syntactical changes are
proposed variously throughout the
section.
Section 23.30
Section 23.30 specifies funding
guidelines that require, among other
things, that intelligence systems agree to
adhere to the principles set forth in
section 23.20, have an agency head or
official with general policy-making
authority certify in writing that he takes
responsibility and will be accountable
for the information in the system and
the system’s compliance with the
section 23.20 principles. In the case of
interjurisdictional systems, section
23.30(d)(2) requires (1) that section
23.20 principles be made part of the
system’s by-laws or operating policies
and (2) that agencies participating in the
interjurisdictional system, as a
condition of participation, ‘‘accept in
writing’’ section 23.20 principles
relating to the submission, maintenance,
and dissemination of information. In
light of advancements in technology
since the rule was first published, it is
proposed that the latter requirement be
modified to provide that participating
agencies, as a condition of ‘‘access’’
thereunder, ‘‘affirmatively accept’’ those
principles. This change is proposed to
account for new technology that
provides methods other than writing for
an individual to express acceptance of
conditions of access, such as when
computer users click on an ‘‘accept’’
button for an end-user’s licensing
agreement. Also, changing the
affirmative acceptance requirement as a
condition of ‘‘access’’ (as opposed to a
condition of ‘‘participation’’) means that
the user will be required to express his
acceptance of section 23.20 principles
each time access is sought, and not
merely just once at the outset of an
agency’s participation in the
interjurisdictional system.
It is also proposed that a reference to
counterterrorism be added in paragraph
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
44675
(a) regarding the purposes for which
criminal intelligence information may
be collected and exchanged.
In addition (aside from some nonsubstantive grammatical/syntactical
proposed changes), it is proposed that
another requirement be added to section
23.30, in a new paragraph (f), requiring
systems to have in place, or establish
within timeframes specified in grantmaking or other guidance by BJA, a
written privacy policy that details the
specific operational steps being
followed to comply the section 23.20
privacy and civil liberty safeguards. It is
expected that such a requirement would
be imposed within BJA-specified
timeframes that allow projects adequate
time and support to develop such
written policies. It is also contemplated
that such written policies would be
consistent with existing privacy
guidance for justice information
systems, including the Global Justice
Information Sharing Initiative’s privacy
recommendations, DOJ privacy
guidance, and other relevant privacy
guidelines such as the privacy guidance
for the information sharing
environment.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Attorney General, in accordance
with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 605(b)), has reviewed this
proposed rule and by approving it
certifies that it would not have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities for
the following reasons: The proposed
clarifying changes in the regulations
governing operating policies for
federally-funded criminal intelligence
systems do not involve changes that
would impose significant costs on the
state and local projects that manage
these systems.
Executive Order 12866
This proposed rule has been drafted
and reviewed in accordance with
Executive Order 12866, ‘‘Regulatory
Planning and Review,’’ section 1(b),
Principles of Regulation. The
Department of Justice has determined
that this proposed rule is a ‘‘significant
regulatory action’’ under Executive
Order 12866, section 3(f), and
accordingly it has been reviewed by the
Office of Management and Budget.
Executive Order 13132
This proposed rule would not have
substantial direct effects 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, in
E:\FR\FM\31JYP1.SGM
31JYP1
44676
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 148 / Thursday, July 31, 2008 / Proposed Rules
accordance with Executive Order 13132,
it is determined that this rule does not
have sufficient federalism implications
to warrant the preparation of a
Federalism Assessment.
Executive Order 12988—Civil Justice
Reform
This proposed rule meets the
applicable standards set forth in
sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive
Order 12988.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of
1995
This proposed rule would not result
in the expenditure by State, local and
tribal governments, in the aggregate, or
by the private sector, of $100 million or
more in any one year, and it would not
significantly or uniquely affect small
governments. Therefore, no actions were
deemed necessary under the provisions
of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995.
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996
This proposed rule is not a major rule
as defined by section 251 of the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996. 5 U.S.C. 804. This
proposed rule would not result in an
annual effect on the economy of $100
million or more; a major increase in
costs or prices; or significant adverse
effects on competition, employment,
investment, productivity, or innovation,
or on the ability of United States-based
companies to compete with foreignbased companies in domestic and
export markets.
List of Subjects in 28 CFR Part 23
Crime, Information, Law enforcement,
Recordkeeping.
For the reasons stated in the
preamble, the Office of Justice Programs
proposes to amend 28 CFR Chapter I
part 23 as follows:
PART 23—CRIMINAL INTELLIGENCE
SYSTEMS OPERATING POLICIES
1. The authority citation for part 23
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 3782(a); 42 U.S.C.
3789g(c).
2. Section 23.1 is revised to read as
follows:
yshivers on PROD1PC62 with PROPOSALS
§ 23.1
Purpose.
The purpose of this regulation is to
assure that all criminal intelligence
systems operating through support
under the Omnibus Crime Control and
Safe Streets Act of 1968, Public Law 90–
351, codified as amended at 42 U.S.C.
3711, et seq., (‘‘Crime Control Act’’) are
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:08 Jul 30, 2008
Jkt 214001
utilized in conformance with the
privacy and constitutional rights of
individuals and organizations.
§ 23.2
[Amended]
3. The first sentence of Section 23.2
is amended by removing ‘‘and’’ after
‘‘bribery,’’ and adding ‘‘and domestic
and international terrorism (including
the material support thereof)’’ after
‘‘corruption of public officials’’.
4. Section 23.3 is revised to read as
follows:
§ 23.3
Applicability.
(a) The provisions of this part are
applicable to all criminal intelligence
systems described in section 23.1.
(b) As used in this part:
(1) Criminal Intelligence System or
Intelligence System means the
arrangements, equipment, facilities, and
procedures used for the receipt, storage,
interagency exchange or dissemination,
and analysis of criminal intelligence
information;
(2) Interjurisdictional Intelligence
System means an intelligence system
that involves two or more participating
agencies representing different
governmental units or jurisdictions;
(3) Criminal Intelligence Information
means data that have been evaluated to
determine that it:
(i) Is relevant to the identification of
and the criminal activity engaged in by
an individual who, or an organization
that is reasonably suspected of
involvement in criminal activity, and
(ii) Meets criminal intelligence system
submission criteria;
(4) Participating Agency means an
agency of local, county, State, Federal,
or other governmental unit that
exercises law enforcement or criminal
investigation authority and that is
authorized to submit and receive
criminal intelligence information
through an interjurisdictional
intelligence system. A participating
agency may be a member or a
nonmember of an interjurisdictional
intelligence system;
(5) Intelligence Project or Project
means either the organizational unit that
operates an intelligence system on
behalf of and for the benefit of a single
agency, or the organization that operates
an interjurisdictional intelligence
system on behalf of a group of
participating agencies; and
(6) Validation of Information means
the procedures governing the periodic
review of criminal intelligence
information to assure its continuing
compliance with system submission
criteria established by regulation or
program policy.
5. Section 23.20 is amended as
follows:
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
a. In paragraph (a), add ‘‘or
organization’’ after ‘‘individual’’ both
places it occurs.
b. In paragraphs (c), (d), (h), and (n),
remove ‘‘which’’ each place it occurs
and add ‘‘that’’ in its place; in paragraph
(n), remove ‘‘so’’ from the last sentence.
c. Remove reserved paragraph (ii)
immediately preceding paragraph (j).
d. Revise paragraphs (e), (f), and (g)
introductory text, revise the last
sentence of paragraph (h) and add a new
sentence to follow it; and revise
paragraph (i) to read as follows:
§ 23.20
Operating principles.
*
*
*
*
*
(e)(1) Criminal intelligence
information may be disseminated to law
enforcement, homeland security, or
counterterrorism agencies by a project
or authorized recipient for any type of
detective, investigative, preventive, or
intelligence activity only when the
information—
(i) Falls within the law enforcement,
counterterrorism, or national security
responsibility of the receiving agency or
(ii) May assist in preventing a crime
or the use of violence or any conduct
dangerous to human life or property.
(2) Criminal intelligence information
may also be disseminated to officials
within the Office of Justice Programs
when they are monitoring or auditing a
project’s compliance with the
provisions of this part.
(f)(1) Except as provided in paragraph
(f)(2) of this section, a project shall
disseminate criminal intelligence
information only to agencies qualified to
receive the information under paragraph
(e) of this section and that have
procedures regarding information
receipt, maintenance, security, and
dissemination that are consistent with
the privacy and civil liberties safeguards
included in these operating principles.
(2) Paragraph (f)(1) of this section
shall not limit dissemination of an
assessment of criminal intelligence
information to a government official or
to any other individual, when
reasonably necessary to avoid danger to
life or property.
(g) A project shall ensure the adoption
of administrative, technical, and
physical safeguards (including audit
trails) to protect against unauthorized
access and against intentional or
unintentional damage. A record
indicating to whom information has
been disseminated outside the project,
the reason for the dissemination, and
the date of each such dissemination
shall be kept. Information shall be
labeled to indicate levels of sensitivity,
levels of confidence, and the identity of
submitting agencies and control
E:\FR\FM\31JYP1.SGM
31JYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 148 / Thursday, July 31, 2008 / Proposed Rules
officials. Each intelligence project shall
assure the implementation and regular
review of appropriate security
requirements and policies, including the
following:
* * *
(h) * * * Criminal intelligence
information retained in an intelligence
system must be reviewed and validated
for continuing compliance with system
submission criteria before the expiration
of the information’s retention period,
which in no event shall be longer than
ten (10) years. The retention period
relating to a subject shall be tolled while
the subject is incarcerated.
(i)(1) A project shall have in place
security policies and procedures to
ensure that remote access to intelligence
information be available only to
authorized system users; and
(2) A project shall undertake no major
modifications to system design without
prior grantor agency approval.
*
*
*
*
*
6. Section 23.30 is amended as
follows:
a. In paragraph (a), remove
‘‘investigatory or’’ and add
‘‘investigatory,’’ in its place and after
‘‘prosecutorial’’ add ‘‘, or
counterterrorism’’.
b. In paragraph (b) introductory text,
remove ‘‘activity’’ and add ‘‘activities’’
in its place and remove ‘‘areas of’’.
c. In paragraph (b)(1), remove ‘‘of
citizens’’.
d. Revise paragraphs (c) and (d) and
add a new paragraph (f), to read as
follows:
§ 23.30
Funding guidelines.
yshivers on PROD1PC62 with PROPOSALS
*
*
*
*
*
(c) Control and supervision of
information collection and
dissemination by an intelligence system
shall be retained by the head of a
government agency or an individual
with general policy making authority
who has been expressly delegated such
control by the agency head. This official
shall certify in writing that he takes full
responsibility for the system’s
compliance with this part.
(d) (1) Official responsibility and
accountability for actions taken by an
inter-jurisdictional criminal intelligence
system shall be assumed by the head of
the governmental agency exercising
control and supervision over the
operation of the system or by an
individual with general policy making
authority who has been expressly
delegated such control or supervision by
the agency head. This official shall
certify in writing that he takes full
responsibility for the inter-jurisdictional
system’s compliance with this part.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:08 Jul 30, 2008
Jkt 214001
(2) The principles set forth in § 23.20
shall be made part of the by-laws or
operating procedures for the interjurisdictional system. Each participating
agency, as a condition of access, must
affirmatively accept those principles
that govern the collection, maintenance,
and dissemination of information
included as part of the
interjurisdictional system.
*
*
*
*
*
(f) The project has in place, or will
establish within timeframes specified in
grant-making or other guidance by BJA,
a written privacy policy specifying the
operational steps being followed to
comply with § 23.20 principles.
Dated: July 16, 2008.
Jeffrey L. Sedgwick,
Acting Assistant Attorney General, Office of
Justice Programs.
[FR Doc. E8–17519 Filed 7–30–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410–18–P
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 73
[DA 08–1712; MB Docket No. 08–129; RM–
11461]
Television Broadcasting Services;
Spokane, WA
Federal Communications
Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The Commission requests
comments on a channel substitution
proposed by KHQ, Incorporated
(‘‘KHQ’’), the licensee of station KHQ–
DT, DTV channel 7, Spokane,
Washington, and a related channel
substitution proposed by Spokane
School District #81 (‘‘Spokane School
District’’), licensee of noncommercial
educational KSPS–DT, DTV channel *8,
Spokane, Washington. KHQ requests the
substitution of DTV channel 15 for
channel 7 at Spokane, and Spokane
School District requests substitution of
DTV channel *7 for channel *8 at
Spokane.
Comments must be filed on or
before September 2, 2008, and reply
comments on or before September 15,
2008.
DATES:
Federal Communications
Commission, Office of the Secretary,
445 12th Street, SW., TW–A325,
Washington, DC 20554. In addition to
filing comments with the FCC,
interested parties should serve each
petitioner’s counsel as follows: David H.
Pawlik, Esq., Skadden, Arps, Slate,
ADDRESSES:
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
44677
Meagher & Flom LLP, 1440 New York
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20005;
Melodie A. Virtue, Esq., Garvey
Schubert Barer, 1000 Potomac Street,
NW., Fifth Floor, Washington, DC
20007–3501.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
David Brown, david.brown@fcc.gov,
Media Bureau, (202) 418–1600.
This is a
synopsis of the Commission’s Notice of
Proposed Rule Making, MB Docket No.
08–129, adopted July 22, 2008, and
released July 23, 2008. The full text of
this document is available for public
inspection and copying during normal
business hours in the FCC’s Reference
Information Center at Portals II, CY–
A257, 445 12th Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20554. This document
will also be available via ECFS (https://
www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/). (Documents
will be available electronically in ASCII,
Word 97, and/or Adobe Acrobat.) This
document may be purchased from the
Commission’s duplicating contractor,
Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 445 12th
Street, SW., Room CY–B402,
Washington, DC 20554, telephone
1–800–478–3160 or via e-mail https://
www.BCPIWEB.com. To request this
document in accessible formats
(computer diskettes, large print, audio
recording, and Braille), send an e-mail
to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the
Commission’s Consumer and
Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202)
418–0530 (voice), (202) 418–0432
(TTY). This document does not contain
proposed information collection
requirements subject to the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104–
13. In addition, therefore, it does not
contain any proposed information
collection burden ‘‘for small business
concerns with fewer than 25
employees,’’ pursuant to the Small
Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002,
Public Law 107–198, see 44 U.S.C.
3506(c)(4).
Provisions of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act of 1980 do not apply to
this proceeding. Members of the public
should note that from the time a Notice
of Proposed Rule Making is issued until
the matter is no longer subject to
Commission consideration or court
review, all ex parte contacts are
prohibited in Commission proceedings,
such as this one, which involve channel
allotments. See 47 CFR 1.1204(b) for
rules governing permissible ex parte
contacts.
For information regarding proper
filing procedures for comments, see 47
CFR 1.415 and 1.420.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
E:\FR\FM\31JYP1.SGM
31JYP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 148 (Thursday, July 31, 2008)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 44673-44677]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-17519]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Office of Justice Programs
28 CFR Part 23
[Docket No. OJP 1473]
RIN 1121-AA59
Criminal Intelligence Systems Operating Policies
AGENCY: Office of Justice Programs, Justice.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Office of Justice Programs is publishing this proposed
rule to amend its regulations that govern the operating policies of
criminal intelligence systems that receive federal funding under the
Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, as amended (``Crime
Control Act''). The regulations were issued pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
3789(g), which requires that ``criminal intelligence systems''
receiving Crime Control Act support must collect, maintain, and
disseminate criminal intelligence information ``in conformance with
policy standards which are prescribed by the Office of Justice
Programs.'' The statute specifies that the policy standards must be
written to assure that the funding and operation of the systems further
the purpose of the funding provisions and assure that such systems
``are not utilized in violation of the privacy and constitutional
rights of individuals.'' The existing regulations were last revised in
1993 and the purpose of the revisions proposed in this document is to
clarify and update the regulations in light of the new, post-9/11
information sharing environment and investigative policies aimed at
preventing terrorism.
DATES: Written comments must be submitted on or before September 2,
2008.
ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to Michael Dever, Bureau of Justice
Assistance, 810 7th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20531. To ensure proper
handling, please reference OJP Docket No. 1473 in your correspondence.
You may submit comments electronically or view an electronic version of
this proposed rule at https://www.regulations.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Dever, Bureau of Justice
Assistance, 810 7th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20531. Telephone: (202)
616-6500.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Posting of Public Comments
Please note that all comments received are considered part of the
public record and made available for public inspection online at http:/
/www.regulations.gov. Such information includes personal identifying
information (such as name and address) voluntarily submitted by the
commenter.
If you wish to submit personal identifying information (such as
your name, address, etc.) as part of your comment, but do not wish for
it to be posted online, you must include the phrase ``PERSONAL
IDENTIFYING INFORMATION'' in the first paragraph of your comment. You
also must locate all the personal identifying information you do not
wish to be posted online in the first paragraph of your comment and
identify what information you would like redacted.
If you wish to submit confidential business information as part of
your comment but do not wish for it to be posted online, you must
include the phrase ``CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION'' in the first
paragraph of your comment. You also must prominently identify
confidential business information to be redacted within the comment. If
a comment has so much confidential business information that it cannot
be effectively redacted, all or part of that comment may not be posted
on https://www.regulations.gov.
Personal identifying information and confidential business
information identified and located as set forth above will be placed in
the agency's public docket file, but not posted online. If you wish to
inspect the agency's public docket file in person by appointment,
please see the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT paragraph.
Discussion
The proposed rule would revise the Office of Justice Program (OJP)
regulations in 28 CFR part 23 that set forth policy guidelines for
Crime Control Act-funded state criminal intelligence information
systems. The part 23 regulations were issued pursuant to a requirement
in 42 U.S.C. 3789(g) that ``criminal intelligence systems'' receiving
Crime Control Act support must collect, maintain, and disseminate
criminal intelligence information ``in conformance with policy
standards which are prescribed by the Office of Justice Programs.'' The
statute specifies that the policy standards must be written to assure
that the funding and operation of the systems further the purpose of
the funding provisions and assure that such systems ``are not utilized
in violation of the privacy and constitutional rights of individuals.''
The existing part 23 regulations were last revised in 1993 and the
purpose of the revisions proposed in this notice is to clarify and
update the regulations in light of the new, post-9/11 information-
sharing environment and investigative policies aimed at preventing
terrorism. Multiple initiatives are being pursued at the federal,
state, and local levels to promote and strengthen information sharing
among responsible government agencies that can promote risk
identification and protective action, including, for example, the
creation of state, local, and regional fusion centers across the
country and information sharing initiatives involving Joint Terrorism
Task Forces. The intent of these proposed revisions to part 23 is to
ensure that the standards for sharing criminal intelligence information
subject to the regulation be uniform and clear and not create
unreasonable impediments to information sharing, whether real or
perceived, while at the same time continuing to ensure that the systems
not be used in violation of the privacy and constitutional rights of
individuals.
[[Page 44674]]
Section 23.1
Section 23.1 contains a parenthetical list of statutory amendments
to the Crime Control Act that is out of date. It is proposed that this
section be revised to strike this parenthetical.
Section 23.2
Section 23.2 describes the background for the part 23 criminal
intelligence operating policies. It recognizes that certain criminal
activities often involve some degree of regular coordination and
permanent organization involving a large number of participants over a
broad geographical area. The examples currently cited of such ongoing
networks of criminal activities do not include a reference to terrorism
or the material support of terrorism. To clarify that the detection,
exposure, investigation, and prevention of terrorist activity and
conduct is an important part of the role played by criminal
intelligence systems, it is proposed that ``domestic and international
terrorism, including the material support thereof,'' be added to the
examples of criminal activities about which it is important to gather,
maintain, and share criminal intelligence information.
Section 23.3
It is proposed to remove the outdated parenthetical statutory
references and to make some non-substantive grammatical/syntactical
changes in this section.
Section 23.20
Paragraph (a) of section 23.20 currently states the basic operating
principle that a project shall collect and maintain criminal
intelligence information concerning ``an individual'' only if there is
reasonable suspicion that the individual is involved in criminal
conduct or activity and the information is relevant to that conduct or
activity. Because criminal conduct or activities can be engaged in by
organizations as well as individuals, it is proposed that this section
be amended to clarify that criminal intelligence information can be
collected and maintained about organizations, as well as individuals.
This clarification is consistent with section 23.3(b)(3)(i), which
defines the term ``criminal intelligence information'' as meaning data
that has been evaluated to determine that it ``is relevant to the
identification of criminal activity engaged in by an individual who or
organization which is reasonably suspected of involvement in criminal
activity.'' (Emphasis added.) It should be noted that the inclusion of
the term ``organization'' in section 23.20(a) does not affect the
prohibition in section 23.20(b) of the ``[collection] or [maintenance
of] criminal intelligence information about the political, religious or
social views, associations, or activities of any individual or any
group, association, corporation, business, partnership, or other
organization. * * *''
Paragraph (e) is proposed to be revised to define more clearly the
circumstances under which criminal intelligence information subject to
the regulations may be shared. The existing language provides that such
information shall only be disseminated ``where there is a need to know
and a right to know the information in the performance of a law
enforcement activity.'' The terms ``need to know'' or ``right to know''
are not defined in the regulation. Instead, section 23.20(g) requires
that ``[e]ach project must establish written definitions for the need
to know and right to know standards for dissemination to other agencies
as provided in paragraph (e) of this section.'' While some agencies may
broadly interpret these terms to allow efficient sharing of criminal
intelligence information with all authorized officials or entities,
other agencies may construe this language more restrictively. There is
no uniform definition of the information sharing standard. In addition,
there is no reference in this provision to disseminating criminal
intelligence information for preventative law enforcement, homeland
security, or counterterrorism purposes. The terrorist attacks of
September 11, 2001, have made it clear that the sharing of intelligence
information should be maximized, to the extent consistent with
applicable law and protection for privacy and civil liberties, among
federal, state, and local agencies responsible for law enforcement,
preventing terrorism, and securing our homeland. Reducing real or
perceived barriers to the sharing of investigative and intelligence
information that could aid in law enforcement or in the prevention of
crime or terrorism is now a well-recognized priority of federal, state,
and local agencies. Therefore, to provide clearer guidance on the
circumstances under which criminal intelligence information may be
shared, a revision to paragraph (e) is proposed that would establish a
uniform standard of permissible purposes for the dissemination of
criminal intelligence information, authorizing dissemination when the
information falls within the law enforcement, counterterrorism, or
national security responsibility of the receiving agency or may assist
in preventing crime or the use of violence or any conduct dangerous to
human life or property. The proposed revision also would clarify the
authorities to whom information may be disseminated, including agencies
with law enforcement, homeland security, or counterterrorism missions.
The proposed revision also would provide that criminal intelligence
information may be disseminated to officials of the Office of Justice
Programs when such officials are monitoring or auditing compliance by a
project with the operating principles and funding guidelines under Part
23.
Paragraph (f)(1) currently limits dissemination of criminal
intelligence information only to ``law enforcement authorities'' that
``agree to follow procedures regarding information receipt,
maintenance, security, and dissemination which are consistent with''
part 23 principles. Consistent with the change in the dissemination
rule in section 23.20(e), this section is proposed to be amended to
clarify that the authorities to which information may be disseminated
would include agencies qualified to receive the information under
paragraph (e). In addition, it is proposed that paragraph (f)(1) be
further amended to provide that the receiving agencies have information
procedures in place that are consistent with part 23's operating
principles, rather than that they ``agree to follow'' such procedures.
This retains the requirement that receiving agencies implement part 23
principles, while removing the potential barrier to information sharing
that requiring an ``agreement'' for each sharing arrangement might
entail. It is important to note that a new proposed provision--section
23.30, paragraph (f)--will require projects to have in place, or
establish within timeframes specified by OJP's Bureau of Justice
Assistance (BJA), a written privacy policy specifying the operational
steps being followed to comply with section 23.20 principles.
Paragraph (f)(2) creates an exception to the requirement in
paragraph (f)(1) allowing the dissemination of ``an assessment of
criminal intelligence information to a government official or any other
individual, when necessary to avoid imminent danger to life or
property.'' The term ``imminent'' is not defined. Because the provision
already requires a determination that the sharing of the information
assessment is ``necessary'' to avoid danger to life or property, it is
proposed that the term ``imminent'' be deleted.
Changes are proposed to paragraph (g) to conform to the proposed
change in paragraph (e) that substitutes a national standard of
dissemination for the
[[Page 44675]]
existing, locally-defined ``need to know and right to know''
dissemination standard. The proposed changes do not substantively alter
the longstanding requirement that criminal intelligence systems record
certain information regarding the dissemination of criminal
intelligence information. Taking this into account, OJP has determined
that there is no need for a new Information Collection Review or burden
calculation for this recordkeeping requirement in this notice of
proposed rulemaking.
Paragraph (h) provides rules for projects to assure the continuing
relevance and importance of criminal intelligence information and
requires projects to have procedures for the periodic review of
information and destruction of any information that is misleading,
obsolete, or otherwise unreliable. The regulation limits the retention
period to a maximum of five years without a review and validation of
the information. When information has been reviewed or updated and a
determination has been made that it continues to meet system submission
criteria, the information has been ``validated'' and a new retention
period begins. The five-year retention period was established before
the events of 9/11 and the advent of the current terrorist threat
environment. This relatively-short retention period may not be long
enough to cover terrorist planning cycles and/or the need for
historical data for terrorism threat assessment. New technologies for
data storage and analysis make possible the extended retention and
potential usefulness of this information for purposes of such threat
assessments. In addition, information about subjects of criminal
intelligence incarcerated during the five-year retention period may be
unavailable to a jurisdiction upon the subject's release from prison.
For these reasons, it is proposed that the retention period be changed
to 10 years and that an exception be made to allow the tolling of the
retention period during a subject's incarceration so that the
intelligence file can be available to law enforcement upon the
subject's release from prison.
Finally, paragraph (i)(1) currently prohibits making remote
terminal access to intelligence information available to system
participants except as specifically approved by OJP upon a
determination that the system has adequate policies and procedures in
place to insure that such access is available only to authorized users.
System managers have informed the Department that this provision's
requirement of pre-approval by OJP is outdated, given the modern access
controls that routinely provide appropriate security for remote access
arrangements. It is therefore proposed that this provision be revised
to remove the requirement that OJP approve a system's security policy
and procedures before remote-access may be implemented. Although this
would remove the requirement of OJP approval, OJP expects to continue
to provide projects with training and technical assistance regarding
information privacy and security practices and polices, including those
prescribed through the Department of Justice's Global Justice
Information Sharing Initiative or successor entity.
Finally, a few non-substantive grammatical/syntactical changes are
proposed variously throughout the section.
Section 23.30
Section 23.30 specifies funding guidelines that require, among
other things, that intelligence systems agree to adhere to the
principles set forth in section 23.20, have an agency head or official
with general policy-making authority certify in writing that he takes
responsibility and will be accountable for the information in the
system and the system's compliance with the section 23.20 principles.
In the case of interjurisdictional systems, section 23.30(d)(2)
requires (1) that section 23.20 principles be made part of the system's
by-laws or operating policies and (2) that agencies participating in
the interjurisdictional system, as a condition of participation,
``accept in writing'' section 23.20 principles relating to the
submission, maintenance, and dissemination of information. In light of
advancements in technology since the rule was first published, it is
proposed that the latter requirement be modified to provide that
participating agencies, as a condition of ``access'' thereunder,
``affirmatively accept'' those principles. This change is proposed to
account for new technology that provides methods other than writing for
an individual to express acceptance of conditions of access, such as
when computer users click on an ``accept'' button for an end-user's
licensing agreement. Also, changing the affirmative acceptance
requirement as a condition of ``access'' (as opposed to a condition of
``participation'') means that the user will be required to express his
acceptance of section 23.20 principles each time access is sought, and
not merely just once at the outset of an agency's participation in the
interjurisdictional system.
It is also proposed that a reference to counterterrorism be added
in paragraph (a) regarding the purposes for which criminal intelligence
information may be collected and exchanged.
In addition (aside from some non-substantive grammatical/
syntactical proposed changes), it is proposed that another requirement
be added to section 23.30, in a new paragraph (f), requiring systems to
have in place, or establish within timeframes specified in grant-making
or other guidance by BJA, a written privacy policy that details the
specific operational steps being followed to comply the section 23.20
privacy and civil liberty safeguards. It is expected that such a
requirement would be imposed within BJA-specified timeframes that allow
projects adequate time and support to develop such written policies. It
is also contemplated that such written policies would be consistent
with existing privacy guidance for justice information systems,
including the Global Justice Information Sharing Initiative's privacy
recommendations, DOJ privacy guidance, and other relevant privacy
guidelines such as the privacy guidance for the information sharing
environment.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Attorney General, in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility
Act (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), has reviewed this proposed rule and by approving
it certifies that it would not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: The
proposed clarifying changes in the regulations governing operating
policies for federally-funded criminal intelligence systems do not
involve changes that would impose significant costs on the state and
local projects that manage these systems.
Executive Order 12866
This proposed rule has been drafted and reviewed in accordance with
Executive Order 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review,'' section
1(b), Principles of Regulation. The Department of Justice has
determined that this proposed rule is a ``significant regulatory
action'' under Executive Order 12866, section 3(f), and accordingly it
has been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.
Executive Order 13132
This proposed rule would not have substantial direct effects 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, in
[[Page 44676]]
accordance with Executive Order 13132, it is determined that this rule
does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the
preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
Executive Order 12988--Civil Justice Reform
This proposed rule meets the applicable standards set forth in
sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
This proposed rule would not result in the expenditure by State,
local and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private
sector, of $100 million or more in any one year, and it would not
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Therefore, no
actions were deemed necessary under the provisions of the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995.
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996
This proposed rule is not a major rule as defined by section 251 of
the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996. 5
U.S.C. 804. This proposed rule would not result in an annual effect on
the economy of $100 million or more; a major increase in costs or
prices; or significant adverse effects on competition, employment,
investment, productivity, or innovation, or on the ability of United
States-based companies to compete with foreign-based companies in
domestic and export markets.
List of Subjects in 28 CFR Part 23
Crime, Information, Law enforcement, Recordkeeping.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Office of Justice
Programs proposes to amend 28 CFR Chapter I part 23 as follows:
PART 23--CRIMINAL INTELLIGENCE SYSTEMS OPERATING POLICIES
1. The authority citation for part 23 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 3782(a); 42 U.S.C. 3789g(c).
2. Section 23.1 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 23.1 Purpose.
The purpose of this regulation is to assure that all criminal
intelligence systems operating through support under the Omnibus Crime
Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, Public Law 90-351, codified as
amended at 42 U.S.C. 3711, et seq., (``Crime Control Act'') are
utilized in conformance with the privacy and constitutional rights of
individuals and organizations.
Sec. 23.2 [Amended]
3. The first sentence of Section 23.2 is amended by removing
``and'' after ``bribery,'' and adding ``and domestic and international
terrorism (including the material support thereof)'' after ``corruption
of public officials''.
4. Section 23.3 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 23.3 Applicability.
(a) The provisions of this part are applicable to all criminal
intelligence systems described in section 23.1.
(b) As used in this part:
(1) Criminal Intelligence System or Intelligence System means the
arrangements, equipment, facilities, and procedures used for the
receipt, storage, interagency exchange or dissemination, and analysis
of criminal intelligence information;
(2) Interjurisdictional Intelligence System means an intelligence
system that involves two or more participating agencies representing
different governmental units or jurisdictions;
(3) Criminal Intelligence Information means data that have been
evaluated to determine that it:
(i) Is relevant to the identification of and the criminal activity
engaged in by an individual who, or an organization that is reasonably
suspected of involvement in criminal activity, and
(ii) Meets criminal intelligence system submission criteria;
(4) Participating Agency means an agency of local, county, State,
Federal, or other governmental unit that exercises law enforcement or
criminal investigation authority and that is authorized to submit and
receive criminal intelligence information through an
interjurisdictional intelligence system. A participating agency may be
a member or a nonmember of an interjurisdictional intelligence system;
(5) Intelligence Project or Project means either the organizational
unit that operates an intelligence system on behalf of and for the
benefit of a single agency, or the organization that operates an
interjurisdictional intelligence system on behalf of a group of
participating agencies; and
(6) Validation of Information means the procedures governing the
periodic review of criminal intelligence information to assure its
continuing compliance with system submission criteria established by
regulation or program policy.
5. Section 23.20 is amended as follows:
a. In paragraph (a), add ``or organization'' after ``individual''
both places it occurs.
b. In paragraphs (c), (d), (h), and (n), remove ``which'' each
place it occurs and add ``that'' in its place; in paragraph (n), remove
``so'' from the last sentence.
c. Remove reserved paragraph (ii) immediately preceding paragraph
(j).
d. Revise paragraphs (e), (f), and (g) introductory text, revise
the last sentence of paragraph (h) and add a new sentence to follow it;
and revise paragraph (i) to read as follows:
Sec. 23.20 Operating principles.
* * * * *
(e)(1) Criminal intelligence information may be disseminated to law
enforcement, homeland security, or counterterrorism agencies by a
project or authorized recipient for any type of detective,
investigative, preventive, or intelligence activity only when the
information--
(i) Falls within the law enforcement, counterterrorism, or national
security responsibility of the receiving agency or
(ii) May assist in preventing a crime or the use of violence or any
conduct dangerous to human life or property.
(2) Criminal intelligence information may also be disseminated to
officials within the Office of Justice Programs when they are
monitoring or auditing a project's compliance with the provisions of
this part.
(f)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (f)(2) of this section, a
project shall disseminate criminal intelligence information only to
agencies qualified to receive the information under paragraph (e) of
this section and that have procedures regarding information receipt,
maintenance, security, and dissemination that are consistent with the
privacy and civil liberties safeguards included in these operating
principles.
(2) Paragraph (f)(1) of this section shall not limit dissemination
of an assessment of criminal intelligence information to a government
official or to any other individual, when reasonably necessary to avoid
danger to life or property.
(g) A project shall ensure the adoption of administrative,
technical, and physical safeguards (including audit trails) to protect
against unauthorized access and against intentional or unintentional
damage. A record indicating to whom information has been disseminated
outside the project, the reason for the dissemination, and the date of
each such dissemination shall be kept. Information shall be labeled to
indicate levels of sensitivity, levels of confidence, and the identity
of submitting agencies and control
[[Page 44677]]
officials. Each intelligence project shall assure the implementation
and regular review of appropriate security requirements and policies,
including the following:
* * *
(h) * * * Criminal intelligence information retained in an
intelligence system must be reviewed and validated for continuing
compliance with system submission criteria before the expiration of the
information's retention period, which in no event shall be longer than
ten (10) years. The retention period relating to a subject shall be
tolled while the subject is incarcerated.
(i)(1) A project shall have in place security policies and
procedures to ensure that remote access to intelligence information be
available only to authorized system users; and
(2) A project shall undertake no major modifications to system
design without prior grantor agency approval.
* * * * *
6. Section 23.30 is amended as follows:
a. In paragraph (a), remove ``investigatory or'' and add
``investigatory,'' in its place and after ``prosecutorial'' add ``, or
counterterrorism''.
b. In paragraph (b) introductory text, remove ``activity'' and add
``activities'' in its place and remove ``areas of''.
c. In paragraph (b)(1), remove ``of citizens''.
d. Revise paragraphs (c) and (d) and add a new paragraph (f), to
read as follows:
Sec. 23.30 Funding guidelines.
* * * * *
(c) Control and supervision of information collection and
dissemination by an intelligence system shall be retained by the head
of a government agency or an individual with general policy making
authority who has been expressly delegated such control by the agency
head. This official shall certify in writing that he takes full
responsibility for the system's compliance with this part.
(d) (1) Official responsibility and accountability for actions
taken by an inter-jurisdictional criminal intelligence system shall be
assumed by the head of the governmental agency exercising control and
supervision over the operation of the system or by an individual with
general policy making authority who has been expressly delegated such
control or supervision by the agency head. This official shall certify
in writing that he takes full responsibility for the inter-
jurisdictional system's compliance with this part.
(2) The principles set forth in Sec. 23.20 shall be made part of
the by-laws or operating procedures for the inter-jurisdictional
system. Each participating agency, as a condition of access, must
affirmatively accept those principles that govern the collection,
maintenance, and dissemination of information included as part of the
interjurisdictional system.
* * * * *
(f) The project has in place, or will establish within timeframes
specified in grant-making or other guidance by BJA, a written privacy
policy specifying the operational steps being followed to comply with
Sec. 23.20 principles.
Dated: July 16, 2008.
Jeffrey L. Sedgwick,
Acting Assistant Attorney General, Office of Justice Programs.
[FR Doc. E8-17519 Filed 7-30-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-18-P
