63304 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 229 / Friday, November 28, 1997 / Proposed Rules

§ 64.1703 Interception requirements and

restrictions.

An employee or officer of a

telecommunications carrier shall assist

in intercepting and disclosing to a third

party a wire, oral, or electronic

communication or shall provide access

to call-identifying information only

upon receiving a court order or other

lawful authorization.

§ 64.1704 Carrier records.

(a) The officers of any

telecommunications carrier shall ensure

that the carrier maintains records of any

assistance provided for the interception

and disclosure to third parties of any

wire, oral, or electronic communication

or of any call-identifying information.

The record will be made either

contemporaneously with each

interception, or not later than 48 hours

from the time each interception begins,

and shall include:

(1) The telephone number(s) or circuit

number(s) involved;

(2) The date and time the interception

started;

(3) The date and time the interception

stopped;

(4) The identity of the law

enforcement officer presenting the

authorization;

(5) The name of the judge or

prosecuting attorney signing the

authorization;

(6) The type of interception (e.g., pen

register, trap and trace, ‘‘Title III’’

interception pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 2510

et seq. and collateral state statutes,

Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act

(‘‘FISA’’) 50 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.); and

(7) The names of all

telecommunications carrier personnel

involved in performing, supervising,

and internally authorizing, the

interception, and the names of those

who possessed knowledge of the

interception.

(b) A separate record shall be kept of

any instances of interception, and of the

identities of third parties to which

disclosure of call-identifying

information is made. In addition to the

information listed in paragraphs (a) (1)

through (7) of this section, these records

will provide a complete discussion of

the facts and circumstances surrounding

the interception and disclosure. Each

record shall be maintained in a secure

location accessible only by authorized

carrier personnel for a period of ten (10)

years from its creation.

(c) The officers of any

telecommunications carrier shall assure

that any employee, agent, or officer of

the carrier engaged in performing

authorized interceptions for law

enforcement personnel or having access

to such information does not disclose to

any other person any information about

such activity. Any employee or officer

who has access to such information

shall sign a statement that provides as

follows:

(1) The telephone number(s) or circuit

identification number(s) involved;

(2) The name of each employee or

officer who effected the interception

and possessed information concerning

its existence, and their respective

positions within the

telecommunications carrier;

(3) The date and time the interception

started;

(4) The date and time the interception

stopped;

(5) The type of interception (e.g., pen

register, trap and trace, ‘‘Title III’’

interception pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 2510

et seq. and collateral state statutes,

Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act

(‘‘FISA’’) 50 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.);

(6) A copy or description of the

written authorization for the employee

and officer to participate in surveillance

activity; and

(7) A statement that the employee or

officer will not disclose information

about the interception to any person,

not properly authorized by statute or

court order.

§ 64.1705 Compliance statements.

(a) Each telecommunications carrier

having annual revenues from

telecommunications operations in

excess of the threshold defined in 47

CFR 32.9000 shall file with the

Commission a statement of the policies,

processes and procedures it uses to

comply with the requirements of this

subpart. These statements shall be filed

with the Secretary, Federal

Communications Commission, on or

before [Date to be inserted in Final

Rule], and shall be captioned,

‘‘Interception Procedures’’ filed

pursuant to § 64.1704. Carriers seeking

confidential treatment for any part of

the statement shall clearly state the

authority justifying such treatment

pursuant to 47 CFR 0.459 and shall fully

document all facts upon which that

carrier proposes to rely in its request for

confidential treatment.

(b) Any telecommunications carrier

having annual revenues from

telecommunications operations that do

not exceed the threshold defined in 47

CFR 32.9000 may elect:

(1) To file the statement required in

paragraph (a) of this section; or

(2) To certify that it observes

procedures specified in the submission

made pursuant to paragraph (a) of this

section.

[FR Doc. 97–30902 Filed 11–26–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

49 CFR Part 10

[Docket No. OST–97–1472; Notice 97–12]

RIN: 2105–AC68

Privacy Act Implementation: Coast

Guard’s Marine Safety Information

System

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: DOT proposes to amend its

rules implementing the Privacy Act of

1974 to exempt from certain provisions

of the Act the Coast Guard’s Marine

Safety Information System. Public

comment is invited.

DATES: Comments are due December 29,

1997.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be

addressed to Documentary Services

Division, Attention: Docket Section,

Room PL401, Docket OST–97–1472,

Department of Transportation, C–55,

Washington, DC 20590. Any person

wishing acknowledgment that his/her

comments have been received should

include a self-addressed stamped

postcard. Comments received will be

available for public inspection and

copying in the Documentary Services

Division, Room PL401, Department of

Transportation Building, 400 Seventh

Street, SW., Washington, DC, from 9:00

AM to 5:00 PM ET Monday through

Friday except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Robert I. Ross, Office of the General

Counsel, C–10, Department of

Transportation, Washington, DC 20590,

telephone (202) 366–9156. Fax (202)

366–9170.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The Coast Guard’s Marine Safety

Information System (MSIS) collects

selected information on commercial

and/or documented vessels operating in

US waters, and collects and manages the

data needed to monitor the safety

performance of maritime vessels and

facilities, with which the Coast Guard

comes into contact while performing its

marine safety functions. It also monitors

the identities of individuals and

corporations that own or operate these
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 229 / Friday, November 28, 1997 / Proposed Rules 63305

vessels, and, if appropriate, aids the

Coast Guard to develop law enforcement

actions against such vessels, facilities,

individuals, and corporations.

MSIS consolidates information from

two other Coast Guard Privacy Act

record systems: DOT/CG 561, Port

Safety Reporting System (Individual

Violation Histories), and DOT/CG 587,

Investigation of Marine Safety Laws or

Regulations. It also encompasses the

automated, but not the manual, portions

of DOT/C 591, Merchant Vessel

Documentation System.

Because of the capability to retrieve

information by the names or other

unique identifiers of individuals, MSIS

is subject to the Privacy Act, which

imposes many restrictions on the use

and dissemination of information in the

system. However, because MSIS can be

used for law enforcement purposes, it is

exempted from some of these

restrictions.

Privacy Act Exemption

All records in this system that fall

within 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(2) are exempt

from the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552a,

subsections (c)(3), (d), (e)(1), (e)(4)(G),

(e)(4)(H), (e)(4)(I), and (f). However,

should at any time Exemption (j)(2) be

deemed inapplicable, then under

Exemption (k)(2), if a person is denied

any right, privilege, or benefit to which

he or she would otherwise be entitled to

by Federal law as a result of keeping

this material, the material must be

released to the subject of the record,

unless doing so would reveal the

identity of a confidential source.

These records are exempt from

subsection (c)(3) because the release of

the accounting for disclosures made

pursuant to subsection (b), including

those permitted under the routine uses

published for this system of records,

would permit the subject of an

investigation of an actual or potential

criminal, civil, or regulatory violation to

determine whether he or she is the

subject or investigation, or to obtain

valuable information concerning the

nature of that investigation, and the

information obtained, or the identity of

witnesses and informants and would

therefore present a serious impediment

to law enforcement.

These records are exempt from

subsection (d) because access to

information contained in this records

system would inform the subject of an

investigation of an actual or potential

criminal, civil, or regulatory violation of

the existence of that investigation, or the

nature and scope of the information and

evidence obtained as to his activities, or

the identity of witnesses and

informants. These factors would present

a serious impediment to effective law

enforcement because they could prevent

the successful completion of an

investigation, lead to the improper

influencing of witnesses, the destruction

of evidence, or disclose information

which would constitute an unwarranted

invasion of another individual’s

personal privacy.

To require the Coast Guard to amend

information thought to be incorrect,

irrelevant or untimely, because of the

nature of the information collected and

the essential length of time it is

maintained, would create an impossible

administrative and investigative burden

by forcing the agency to continuously

retrograde its investigations attempting

to resolve questions of accuracy, etc.

These records are also exempt from

subsections (e)(1), (e)(4)(G), (H), and (I)

because of and to the extent that the

records are exempt from the individual

access provisions of subsection (d). The

nature of the investigative activities is

such that vital information about an

individual can only be obtained from

other persons who are familiar with

such individual and his activities. In

such investigations, it is not feasible to

rely upon information furnished by the

individual concerning his or her own

activities.

In a criminal investigation, the

requirement that information be

collected to the greatest extent

practicable from the subject individual

would present a serious impediment to

law enforcement because the subject of

the investigation would be placed on

notice as to the existence of the

investigation and would be able to avoid

detection, influence witnesses

improperly, destroy evidence, or

fabricate testimony.

In the collection of information for

criminal law enforcement purposes it is

impossible to determine in advance

what information is accurate, relevant,

timely, and complete. With the passage

of time, seemingly irrelevant or

untimely information may acquire new

significance as further investigation

brings new details to light and the

accuracy of such information can often

only be determined in a court of law.

The restriction of subsection (e)(5)

would restrict the ability of trained

investigators, intelligence analysts, and

government attorneys in exercising their

judgment in reporting on information

and investigations and impede the

development of criminal or other

intelligence necessary for effective law

enforcement.

In the course of criminal and other

law enforcement investigations, cases

and matters, the Coast Guard will

occasionally obtain information

concerning actual or potential violations

of law which are not strictly within its

statutory or other authority or may

compile information in the course of an

investigation which may not be relevant

to a specific inquiry. In the interests of

effective law enforcement, it is

necessary to retain such information in

this system of records since it can aid

in establishing pattern of criminal

activity and can provide valuable leads

for other law enforcement agencies.

These records are exempt from

subsection (f) because procedures for

notice to an individual pursuant to

subsection (f)(1) as to the existence of

records pertaining to him or her dealing

with an actual or potential criminal,

civil, or regulatory investigation must be

exempted because such notice to an

individual would be detrimental to the

successful conduction and/or

completion of an investigation, pending

or future. In addition, mere notice of the

fact of an investigation could inform the

subject or others that their activities are

under, or may become the subject of, an

investigation and could enable the

subjects to avoid detection, to influence

witnesses improperly, to destroy

evidence, or to fabricate testimony.

Since an exemption is being claimed

for subsection (d) of the Act the rules

required pursuant to subsection (f)(2)

through (5) are inapplicable to the

system of records to the extent that this

system of records is exempted from

subsection (d).

Analysis of Regulatory Impacts

This amendment is not a ‘‘significant

regulatory action’’ within the meaning

of Executive Order 12866. It is also not

significant within the definition in

DOT’s Regulatory Policies and

Procedures, 49 FR 11034 (1979), in part

because it does not involve any change

in important Departmental policies.

Because the economic impact should be

minimal, further regulatory evaluation

is not necessary. Moreover, I certify that

this proposal will not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities, because the

reporting requirements, themselves, are

not changed.

This proposal does not significantly

affect the environment, and therefore an

environmental impact statement is not

required under the National

Environmental Policy Act of 1969.

The Department has analyzed this

rule under the principles and criteria

contained in Executive Order 12612

(‘‘Federalism’’) and has determined that

the rule does not have sufficient

federalism implications to warrant the

preparation of a Federalism Assessment.

This rule does not impose any unfunded
63306 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 229 / Friday, November 28, 1997 / Proposed Rules

mandates as defined by the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act of 1995.

Finally, the proposal does not contain

any collection of information

requirements, requiring review under

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 10:

Penalties, Privacy.

Accordingly, DOT proposes to amend

49 CFR part 10 as follows:

PART 10—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation to part 10

would remain as follows:

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552a; 49 U.S.C. 322.

2. Part II.A of the appendix to part 10

would be amended by adding a new

paragraph 15, to read as follows:

Appendix to Part 10—Exemptions

* * * * *

Part II. Specific exemptions.

A. * * *

* * * * *

15. Marine Safety Information System,

maintained by the Operations Systems

Center, U.S. Coast Guard (DOT/CG 588). The

purpose of this exemption is to prevent

persons who are the subjects of criminal

investigations from learning too early in the

investigative process that they are subjects,

what information there is in Coast Guard files

that indicates that they may have committed

unlawful conduct, and who provided such

information.

* * * * *

Issued in Washington, DC, on November

18, 1997.

Rodney E. Slater,

Secretary of Transportation.

[FR Doc. 97–31171 Filed 11–26–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–62–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Research and Special Programs

Administration

49 CFR Parts 171, 172 and 175

[Docket HM–224A; Notice No. 97–15]

RIN 2137–AC92

Hazardous Materials: Prohibition of

Oxidizers Aboard Aircraft; Notice of

Public Meeting and Reopening of

Comment Period

AGENCY: Research and Special Programs

Administration (RSPA), DOT.

ACTION: Proposed rules; public meeting

and reopening of comment period.

SUMMARY: RSPA is inviting additional

comments concerning proposals to

prohibit the transportation of oxidizers

in passenger-carrying aircraft and in

inaccessible locations on cargo aircraft,

as issued by RSPA in a notice of

proposed rulemaking on December 30,

1996, and a supplemental notice of

proposed rulemaking on August 20,

1997. RSPA and FAA will hold a public

meeting on January 14, 1998, in

Washington, DC. In addition, RSPA is

reopening the comment period for

Docket HM–224A until February 13,

1998.

DATES: Comments. Comments must be

received by February 13, 1998.

Public meeting The public meeting

will be held on January 14, 1998

beginning at 9:00 a.m.

ADDRESSES: Comments. Address

comments to the Dockets Unit, Research

and Special Programs Administration,

U.S. Department of Transportation,

room 8421, 400 Seventh Street, SW,

Washington, D.C. 20590–0001.

Comments should identify the docket

number and be submitted in five copies.

Persons wishing to receive confirmation

of receipt of their comments should

include a self-addressed, stamped

postcard. Comments may also be

submitted by e-mail to the following

address: rules@rspa.dot.gov. The

Dockets Unit is located in the

Department of Transportation

headquarters building (Nassif Building)

at the above address on the eighth floor.

Public dockets may be reviewed there

between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 5:00

p.m., Monday through Friday, except

Federal holidays.

Public meeting The public meeting

will be held at the Federal Aviation

Administration Auditorium, Third floor,

800 Independence Avenue, SW,

Washington, D.C. 20591. Any person

planning to present a statement at the

public meeting should notify Diane

LaValle, by telephone or by e-mail

before January 9, 1998. Oral statements

should be limited to 10 minutes in

length.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Diane LaValle or John Gale, Office of

Hazardous Materials Standards, (202)

366–8553, Research and Special

Programs Administration, 400 Seventh

Street, SW, Washington, DC 20590–

0001. E-mail address:

rules@rspa.dot.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On

December 30, 1996, RSPA published a

notice of proposed rulemaking in the

Federal Register [61 FR 68955] which

proposed to amend the Hazardous

Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR

parts 171–180) to prohibit the carriage

of oxidizers, including compressed

oxygen, in passenger-carrying aircraft

and in inaccessible locations on cargo

aircraft. The December 30, 1996 notice

of proposed rulemaking analyzed Class

D cargo compartments. On August 20,

1997 a supplemental notice of proposed

rulemaking was published in the

Federal Register [62 FR 44374] which

specifically analyzed the prohibition of

oxidizers in other than Class D cargo

compartments.

Nine associations requested that

RSPA schedule a public meeting to

more fully explore issues relating to the

necessity and effect of the proposed ban

on transportation of oxidizers aboard

aircraft. RSPA believes the request has

merit and will hold a public meeting on

January 14, 1998 to provide an

opportunity for oral comment on the

proposed action. RSPA is also reopening

the comment period to provide

additional time for submission of

written comments.

Issued in Washington, DC on November 21,

1997 under authority delegated in 49 CFR,

Part 106.

Alan I. Roberts,

Associate Administrator for Hazardous

Materials Safety.

[FR Doc. 97–31114 Filed 11–26–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–60–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. NHTSA–97–3148]

RIN 2127–AC62

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety

Standards; Fuel System Integrity;

Crossover Lines

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration (NHTSA),

Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Termination of rulemaking.

SUMMARY: This document terminates a

rulemaking in which the agency had

considered amending Federal Motor

Vehicle Safety Standard No. 301, Fuel

System Integrity, to limit fuel spillage

experienced by vehicles equipped with

a crossover fuel line. Upon reviewing

the comments on its proposal, the

agency concludes that the safety

benefits of the proposed amendment are

too small to justify its issuance.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For

technical issues: Dr. William J.J. Liu,

Office of Crashworthiness Standards,

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration, 400 Seventh Street,

S.W., Washington, D.C., 20590.

Telephone: (202) 366–4923. FAX (202)

366–4329.