4582 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 20 / Friday, January 30, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

of contact within Government to receive

from Federal Government employees

alleged violations of the reciprocity

provisions prescribed herein and the

policy ‘‘Reciprocity of Use and

Inspections of Facilities’’ of the SPB.

§ 148.14 Procedures.

(a) Agencies that authorize, approve,

certify, or accredit facilities shall

provide to the SPB Staff a points of

contact list to include names and

telephone numbers of personnel to be

contacted for verification of the status of

facilities. The SPB Staff will publish a

comprehensive directory of agency

points of contact.

(b) After initial security authorization,

approval, certification, or accreditation,

subsequent reviews shall normally be

conducted no more frequently than

annually. Additionally, such reviews

shall be aperiodic or random, and be

based upon risk-management principles.

Security Reviews may be conducted

‘‘for cause’’, to follow up on previous

findings, or to accomplish close-out

actions.

(c) The procedures employed to

maximize interagency reciprocity shall

be based primarily upon existing

organizational reporting channels.

These channels should be used to

address alleged departures from

established reciprocity requirements

and should resolve all, including the

most egregious instances of noncompliance.

(d) Two complementary mechanisms

are hereby established to augment

existing organizational channels: (1) An

accessible and responsive venue for

reporting and resolving complaints/

reported instances of non-compliance.

Government and industry reporting

channels shall be as follows:

(1) Governnment. (A) Agency

employees are encouraged to bring

suspected departures from applicable

reciprocity requirements to the attention

of the appropriate security authority in

accordance with established agency

procedures.

(B) Should the matter remain

unresolved, the complainant (employee,

Security Officer, Special Security

Officer, or similar official) is encouraged

to report the matter formally to the

Senior Agency Official for resolution.

(C) Should the Senior Agency Official

response be determined inadequate by

the complainant, the matter should be

reported formally to the Director,

Security Policy Board Staff (D/SPBS).

The D/SPBS, may revisit the matter with

the Senior Agency Official or refer the

matter to the Security Policy Forum as

deemed appropriate.

(D) Should the matter remain

unresolved, the Security Policy Forum

may consider referral to the SPB, the

agency head, or the National Security

Council as deemed appropriate.

(ii) Industry. (A) Contractor

employees are encouraged to bring

suspected departures from the

reciprocity provisions of the NISPOM to

the attention to their Facility Security

Officer (FSO) or Contractor Special

Security Officer (CSSO), as appropriate,

for resolution.

(B) Should the matter remain

unresolved, the complainant (employee,

FSO, or CSSO) is encouraged to report

the matter formally to the Cognizant

Security Office (CSO) for resolution.

(C) Should the CSO responses be

determined inadequate by the

complainant, the matter should be

reported formally to the Senior Agency

Official within the Cognizant Security

Agency (CSA) for resolution.

(D) Should the Senior Agency Official

response be determined inadequately by

the complainant, the matter should be

reported formally to the Director,

information Security Oversight Office

(ISOO) for resolution.

(E) The Director, ISOO, may revisit

the matter with the Senior Agency

Official or refer the matter to the agency

head or the National Security Council as

deemed appropriate.

(2) An annual survey administered to

a representative sampling of agency and

private sector facilities to assess overall

effectiveness of agency adherence to

applicable reciprocity requirements.

(i) In coordination with the D/SPBS,

the Director, ISOO, as Chairman of the

NISP Policy Advisory Committee

(NISPPAC), shall develop and

administer an annual survey to a

representative number of cleared

contractor activities/employees to assess

the effectiveness of interagency

reciprocity implementation.

Administration of the survey shall be

coordinated fully with each affected

Senior Agency Official.

(ii) In coordination with the

NISPPAC, the D/SPBS shall develop

and administer an annual survey to a

representative number of agency

activities/personnel to assess the

effectiveness of interagency reciprocity

implementation. Administration of the

survey shall be coordinated fully with

each affected Senior Agency Official.

(iii) The goal of annual surveys

should not be punitive but educational.

All agencies and departments have

participated in the crafting of these

facilities policies, therefore, noncompliance is a matter of internal

education and direction.

(e) Agencies will continue to review

and assess the potential value added to

the process of co-use of facilities by

development of electronic data retrieval

across government.

Dated: January 22, 1998.

L.M. Bynum,

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison

Officer, Department of Defense.

[FR Doc. 98–1956 Filed 1–29–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 5000–04–M

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary

32 CFR Part 149

RIN 0790–AG56

National Policy on Technical

Surveillance Countermeasures

AGENCY: Department of Defense.

ACTION: Interim final rule.

SUMMARY: This rule is published to limit

the use of technical surveillance

countermeasures within the boundaries

of the U.S. to cases where there is a

reasonable showing of threat. No impact

on the public is forseen.

DATES: This rule is effective September

16, 1997. Comments must be received

by March 31, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Forward comments to the

Security Policy Board Staff, 1215

Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1101,

Arlington, VA 22202.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mr. T. Thompson, 703–602–9969.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Executive Order 12866, Regulatory

Planning and Review

It has been determined that this

interim rule (32 CFR Part 149) is not a

significant regulatory action. The rule

does not:

‘‘(1) Have an annual effect to the

economy of $100 million or more or

adversely affect in a material way the

economy; a section of the economy;

productivity; competition; jobs; the

environment, public health or safety; or

State, local, or tribal governments or

communities;

(2) Create a serious inconsistency or

otherwise interfere with an action taken

or planned by other Agency;

(3) Materially alter the budgetary

impact of entitlements, grants, user fees,

or loan programs, or the rights and

obligations of recipients thereof; or

(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues

arising out of legal mandates, the

President’s priorities, or the principles

set forth in this Executive Order.
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 20 / Friday, January 30, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 4583

Public Law 96–354, Regulatory

Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601)

It has been certified that this rule is

not subject to the Regulatory Flexibility

Act (5 U.S.C. 601) because it would not,

if promulgated, have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities. This part will

streamline personnel security clearance

procedures and make the process more

efficient.

Public Law 96–511, Paperwork

Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35)

It has been certified that this part does

not impose any reporting or

recordkeeping requirements under the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

List of Subjects in 32 CFR Part 149

Classified information, Investigations,

Security measures Accordingly; Title 32

of the Code of Federal Regulations,

Chapter I, subchapter C is amended to

add part 149 to read as follows:

Part 149—Policy on Technical

Surveillance Countermeasures

Sec.

149.1 Policy.

149.2 Responsibilities.

149.3 Definitions.

Authority: E.O. 12968 (60 FR 40245, 3 CFR

1995 Comp., p. 391.)

§ 149.1 Policy.

(a) Heads of federal departments and

agencies which process, discuss, and/or

store classified national security

information, restricted data, and

sensitive but unclassified information,

shall, in response to specific threat data

and based on risk management

principles, determine the need for

Technical Surveillance

Countermeasures (TSCM).

To obtain maximum effectiveness by

the most economical means in the

various TSCM programs, departments

and agencies shall exchange technical

information freely; coordinate programs;

practice reciprocity; and participate in

consolidated programs, when

appropriate.

§ 149.2 Responsibilities.

(a) Heads of U.S. Government

departments and agencies which plan,

implement, and manage TSCM

programs shall:

(1) Provide TSCM support consisting

of procedures and countermeasures

determined to be appropriate for the

facility, consistent with risk

management principles.

(2) Report to the Security Policy

Board, attention: Chair, Facilities

Protection Committee (FPC), for

appropriate dissemination, all-source

intelligence that concerns technical

surveillance threats, devices,

techniques, and unreported hazards,

regardless of the source or target,

domestic or foreign.

(3) Train a professional cadre of

personnel in TSCM techniques.

(4) Ensure that the FPC and Training

and Professional Development

Committee are kept apprised of their

TSCM program activities as well as

training and research and development

requirements.

(5) Assist other departments and

agencies, in accordance with federal

law, with TSCM services of common

concern.

(6) Coordinate, through the FPC,

proposed foreign disclosure of TSCM

equipment and techniques.

(b) The FPC shall advise and assist the

Security Policy Board in the

development and review of TSCM

policy, including guidelines,

procedures, and instructions. The FPC

shall:

(1) Coordinate TSCM professional

training, research, development, test,

and evaluation programs.

(2) Promote and foster joint

procurement of TSCM equipment.

(3) Evaluate the impact on the

national security of foreign disclosure of

TSCM equipment or techniques and

recommend policy changes as needed.

(4) Develop guidance for use in

obtaining intelligence information on

the plans, capabilities and actions of

organizations hostile to the U.S.

Government concerning technical

penetrations and countermeasures

against them.

(5) Biennially, review, update and

disseminate the national strategy for

TSCM.

§ 149.3 Definitions.

Classified National Security

Information (CNSI). Information that

has been determined pursuant to

Executive Order 12958 (60 FR 19825, 3

CFR 1995 Comp., p. 333) or any

predecessor order to require protection

against unauthorized disclosure and is

marked to indicate its classified status

when in documentary form.

Restricted Data (RD). All data

concerning design, manufacture or

utilization of atomic weapons; the

production of special nuclear material;

or the use of special nuclear material in

the production of energy, but shall not

include data declassified or removed

from the RD category pursuant to

section 102 of the Atomic Energy Act of

1954, as amended.

Sensitive but Unclassified. Any

information, the loss, misuse, or

unauthorized access to or modification

of which could adversely affect the

national interest or the conduct of

federal programs, or the privacy to

which individuals are entitled under 5

U.S.C. 552a, but which has not been

specifically authorized under criteria

established by an Executive Order or an

Act of Congress to be kept secret in the

interest of national defense or foreign

policy.

Technical Surveillance

Countermeasures (TSCM). Techniques

and measures to detect and nullify a

wide variety of technologies that are

used to obtain unauthorized access to

classified national security information,

restricted data, and/or sensitive but

unclassified information.

Dated: January 22, 1998.

L.M. Bynum,

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison

Officer, Department of Defense.

[FR Doc. 98–1957 Filed 1–29–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 5000–04–M

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[CGD08–97–004]

RIN 2115–AE47

Drawbridge Operation Regulations;

Minnesota River

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is removing

the 24 hour advance notice requirement

from the regulation governing operation

of drawbridges over the Minnesota River

between the mouth and LeSueur, MN.

This action is being taken to update the

regulation to reflect existing conditions

and to ensure the reasonable needs of

navigation are met. The change will

require drawbridges on that reach of the

river to operate under the General

Drawbridge Operating Regulation

contained in 33 CFR part 117 subpart A

and thus open on demand.

DATES: This final rule is effective March

2, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Documents as indicated in

this preamble are available for

inspection or copying at Director,

Western Rivers Operations, Bridge

Branch, 1222 Spruce Street, Suite

2.107f, St. Louis, Missouri, 63103–2832,

between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday

through Friday, except Federal holidays.

The telephone number is (314) 539–

3900, extension 378.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Roger K. Wiebusch, Bridge