Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 148 / Thursday, July 31, 2008 / Proposed Rules 44673 

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 

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 http://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 http:// 

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. 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with PROPOSALS
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. 

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 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 148 / Thursday, July 31, 2008 / Proposed Rules 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 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 

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 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 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with PROPOSALS
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: 

§ 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. 

§ 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: 

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 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 148 / Thursday, July 31, 2008 / Proposed Rules 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: 

§ 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 § 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 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

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. 

DATES: Comments must be filed on or 

before September 2, 2008, and reply 

comments on or before September 15, 

2008. 

ADDRESSES: 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, 

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. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 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 (http:// 

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 http:// 

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. 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with PROPOSALS