[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 115 (Thursday, June 14, 2001)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 32272-32276]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-14990]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

10 CFR Part 1008

RIN: 1901-AA69


Privacy Act; Implementation

AGENCY: Department of Energy.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Department of Energy (DOE) proposes to amend its Privacy 
Act regulation by adding three systems of records to the list of 
systems exempted from certain subsections of the Act. Exemptions for 
two systems of records are needed to enable the Office of Employee 
Concerns and the Office of Hearings and Appeals to perform their duties 
and responsibilities with regard to investigation and/or adjudication 
of employee and contractor employee concerns or complaints, pursuant to 
the whistleblower protection provisions in Part 708 of title 10 of the 
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) and applicable laws. An exemption for 
a third system of records is needed to enable the Office of 
Intelligence to perform its duties and responsibilities.

DATES: Written comments should be made on or before July 16, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should be directed to: Abel Lopez, 
Director, Freedom of Information Act and Privacy Act Division, U.S. 
Department of Energy, MA-73, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, 
DC 20585.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Abel Lopez (Privacy Act Officer), 
(202) 586-5955; William Lewis (program contact for Office of Employee 
Concerns), (202) 586-6530; William Schwartz (program contact for Office 
of Hearings and Appeals), (202) 287-1522; or Caryl Butler Gross 
(program contact for Office of Intelligence), (202) 586-5172.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background
II. Analysis
III. Regulatory and Procedural Requirements A. Review Under 
Executive Order 12866
    B. Review Under Executive Order 12988
    C. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
    D. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act
    E. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act
    F. Review Under Executive Order 13132
    G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
    H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government 
Appropriations Act, 1999
    I. Review Under Executive Order 13084
IV. Public Comment

I. Background

    Pursuant to the Privacy Act of 1974 (the Act), as amended (5 U.S.C. 
552a(j) and (k)), the Secretary of Energy is authorized to promulgate 
rules, in accordance with the notice and comment requirements in 5 
U.S.C. 553, to exempt any system of records within the agency from 
certain subsections of the Act. Accordingly, DOE is proposing three new 
systems of records to be added to the list of systems of records 
exempted from certain subsections of the Act.
    One of the proposed exemptions would amend the DOE's Privacy Act 
regulation to enable the Office of Employee Concerns to carry out its 
investigative duties and responsibilities. DOE recognizes that free and 
open expression of DOE Federal and contractor and subcontractor 
employee concerns is essential to safe and efficient accomplishment of 
DOE's mission. DOE and contractor employees have the right and 
responsibility to report concerns relating to the environment, safety, 
health, or management of Department operations. The Employee Concerns 
Program is designed to encourage open communication; inform employees 
of the proper forum for consideration of their concerns; ensure 
employees can raise issues without fearing reprisal; address employee 
concerns in a timely and objective manner; and provide employees an 
avenue for consideration of concerns that fall outside existing 
systems. Employee Concerns Program records include concerns or 
complaints brought to the attention of DOE Employee Concerns Program 
offices. These records include the receipt of complaints filed under 10 
CFR part 708, the DOE Contractor Employee Protection Program. The 
records in this system will be used by employee concerns program 
offices to document concerns brought to their attention and to assist 
in the resolution of concerns about various work-related issues 
including the environment, safety, health, employer-supervisor 
relationships, or work processes and practices.
    A second proposed exemption would amend the DOE's Privacy Act 
regulation to enable the Office of Hearings and Appeals to carry out 
its investigative and adjudicatory duties and responsibilities under 10 
CFR part 708 and other whistleblower protection laws. These include 
investigating allegations of acts of reprisal taken against a DOE 
employee or DOE contractor employee who claims to have made a protected 
disclosure, as defined in 10 CFR part 708, and subsequently processing 
such ``whistleblower'' claims, including hearings and appeals on such 
matters. These duties and responsibilities are carried out pursuant to 
those regulations and section 3164 of the National Defense 
Authorization Act for FY 2000 (Pub. L. 106-65), codified in 42 U.S.C. 
7239.
    The third proposed exemption would amend the DOE's Privacy Act 
regulation to enable the Office of Intelligence to carry out its duties 
and responsibilities involving national security. More specifically, 
these include controlling access to and use of Sensitive Compartmented 
Information (SCI) and other classified intelligence information bearing 
the Director, Central Intelligence (DCI) authorized control markings; 
approving access to SCI in compliance with DCI directives; and 
conducting eligibility determinations, adjudications, revocations and 
appeals from denials and revocations.

II. Analysis

    DOE proposes to amend Sec. 1008.12 (b) of its Privacy Act 
regulation to exempt the following three new systems of records from 
certain subsections of the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a).
    The system of records, ``Employee Concerns Program Records'' (DOE-
3), will be exempt from subsections (c)(3), (d)(2), and (e)(1) of 5 
U.S.C. 552a pursuant to subsections (k)(1), (2), and (5), to the extent 
that information in this system meets the requirements of those 
subsections of the Act.

[[Page 32273]]

    The system of records, ``Whistleblower Investigation, Hearing and 
Appeal Records'' (DOE-7), will be exempt from subsections (c)(3), 
(d)(2), and (e)(1) of 5 U.S.C. 552a pursuant to subsections (k)(1), 
(2), and (5), to the extent that information in this system meets the 
requirements of those subsections of the Act.
    The system of records, ``Intelligence Related Access 
Authorization'' (DOE-15), will be exempt from subsections (c)(3), (d), 
(e)(1), (e)(4)(G) and (H), and (f) of 5 U.S.C. 552a pursuant to 
subsections (k)(1), (2), and (5), to the extent that information in 
this system meets the requirements of those subsections of the Act. 
This system of records will consist of administrative records of DOE 
and contractor employees, consultants, and certain persons applying 
for, granted or denied access to certain categories of classified 
information. The purpose of the system is to satisfy the requirements 
of Executive Order 12968, the Department of Energy Procedures for 
Intelligence Activities, and DOE Order 5670.1A ``Management and Control 
of Foreign Intelligence.''

Subsections (k)(1), (2), and (5)

    Generally speaking, subsection (k)(1), 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(1), 
provides that the head of an agency may exempt an agency system of 
records from certain provisions of the Privacy Act if the system of 
records is subject to Section 552(b)(1) of the Freedom of Information 
Act, 5 U.S.C. 552. That section of the Freedom of Information Act 
protects from disclosure properly classified national security 
information.
    Subsection (k)(2), 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(2), provides that the head of 
an agency may exempt an agency system of records from certain 
provisions of the Privacy Act if the system of records is investigatory 
material compiled for law enforcement purposes, provided that, if any 
individual is denied a right, privilege or benefit under Federal law, 
the material will be provided, except to the extent that disclosure 
would reveal the identity of a confidential source.
    Subsection (k)(5), 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(5), provides that the head of 
an agency may exempt an agency system of records from certain 
provisions of the Privacy Act if the system of records is investigatory 
material compiled solely for the purpose of determining suitability, 
eligibility, or qualifications for Federal civilian employment, 
military service, Federal contracts, or access to classified 
information, but only to the extent that disclosure would reveal the 
identity of a confidential source.
    The detailed reasons for exemptions under 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(1), (2) 
and (5) are as follows:

Subsection (k)(1) Exemption

    Under subsection (k)(1) of the Privacy Act records may be exempted 
that are ``specifically authorized under criteria established by an 
Executive Order to be kept secret in the interest of national defense 
or foreign policy and are in fact properly classified pursuant to such 
Executive Order,'' 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(1).
    To the extent that records in these systems are classified pursuant 
to an Executive Order, they may not be disclosed. Therefore, this 
exemption will apply as follows:

Subsections Exempt Pursuant to (k)(1)

    (1) Except for disclosures made under (b)(7) of the Act, 5 U.S.C. 
552a(c)(3) requires that upon request, an agency must give an 
individual named in a record an accounting that reflects the disclosure 
of the record to other persons or agencies. This accounting must state 
the date, nature, and purpose of each disclosure of the record and the 
name and address of the recipient. Under subsection (k)(1) of the 
Privacy Act, records may be exempted that are specifically authorized 
under criteria established by an Executive Order to be kept secret in 
the interest of national defense or foreign policy and are in fact 
properly classified pursuant to such Executive Order. To the extent 
that records in these systems are classified pursuant to an Executive 
Order, they may not be disclosed.
    The DOE has programs involving classified material that may be the 
subject of a whistleblower complaint, and the Office of Intelligence 
handles certain types of classified information. The application of 
this accounting provision to records involving properly classified 
material could reveal classified material. If this information about 
classified material were disclosed, national security might be 
compromised. An example of an issue involving classified material that 
can affect national security would be a whistleblower complaint that 
discusses security measures at a particular weapons facility. Such 
information could be utilized improperly to the detriment of national 
security.
    (2) These systems also are exempt from paragraph (d)(2) of this 
section. To require the Office of Employee Concerns, the Office of 
Hearings and Appeals and the Office of Intelligence 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 and access adjudications attempting to resolve 
questions of accuracy.
    (3) 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(1) requires each agency to maintain in its 
records only such information about an individual that is relevant and 
necessary to accomplish a purpose of the agency required by statute or 
Executive Order. The Office of Intelligence maintains records relating 
to authorization for individuals to have access to classified 
information. The Office of Employee Concerns and the Office of Hearings 
and Appeals do not create the material they collect and have no control 
over the content of that material. An exemption from the foregoing is 
needed because:
    a. It is not always possible to detect the relevance or necessity 
of specific information in the early stages of an investigation that 
involves use of properly classified information or of an adjudication 
of access to classified national security information.
    b. Relevance and necessity are questions of judgment and timing, 
and it is only after the information is evaluated that the relevancy 
and necessity of such information can be established. Furthermore, 
information outside the scope of the Office of Employee Concerns' and 
the Office of Hearings and Appeals' jurisdiction may be helpful in 
establishing patterns of activities or problems or in developing 
information that should be referred to other entities. Such information 
cannot always readily be segregated. Likewise, in any adjudication of 
access, information may be obtained concerning violations of laws other 
than those within the scope of the adjudication. In the interest of 
effective law enforcement, such information should be retained for 
dissemination to appropriate law enforcement agencies.
    c. In interviewing persons or obtaining information from other 
sources during an adjudication including the background investigation, 
information may be supplied to the investigator which relates to 
matters incidental to the main purpose of the inquiry or investigation, 
but which also relates to matters under the jurisdiction of another 
agency. Such information cannot readily be segregated.

Subsection (k)(2) Exemption

    Subsection (k)(2) permits the exemption of investigatory material 
compiled for law enforcement purposes, other than material within the 
scope of 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2), provided, however,

[[Page 32274]]

that if any individual is denied any right, privilege, or benefit to 
which he would otherwise be entitled by Federal law, or for which he 
would otherwise be eligible, as a result of the maintenance of such 
material, such material shall be provided to such individual. The 
material will be provided except to the extent that the disclosure of 
such material would reveal the identity of a source who furnished 
information to the Government under an express promise that the 
identity of the source would be held in confidence, or, prior to 
September 27, 1975, under an implied promise that the identity of the 
source would be held in confidence.

Subsections Exempt Pursuant to (k)(2)

    (1) Except for disclosures made under (b)(7) of the Act, 5 U.S.C. 
552a(c)(3) requires that upon request, an agency must give an 
individual named in a record an accounting that reflects the disclosure 
of the record to other persons or agencies. This accounting must state 
the date, nature, and purpose of each disclosure of the records and the 
name and address of the recipient. To the extent that such an 
accounting would lead directly or indirectly to the disclosure of the 
identity of a source as described above, the (k)(2) exemption is 
applicable.
    (2) These systems also are exempt from paragraph (d)(2) of this 
section. To require the Office of Employee Concerns, the Office of 
Hearings and Appeals and the Office of Intelligence 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 and access adjudications attempting to resolve 
questions of accuracy.
    (3) 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(1) requires each agency to maintain in its 
records only such information about an individual that is relevant and 
necessary to accomplish a purpose of the agency required by statute or 
Executive Order. An exemption from the foregoing is needed because:
    a. It is not always possible to detect the relevance or necessity 
of specific information in the early stages of an investigation 
involving employee complaints or concerns and whistleblowing or of an 
adjudication of access to classified national security information.
    b. Relevance and necessity are questions of judgment and timing. 
What appears relevant and necessary when collected may ultimately be 
determined to be unnecessary. It is only after the information is 
evaluated or the investigation, hearing or appeal is completed that the 
relevancy and necessity of such information can be established.
    c. In investigating an employee complaint or conducting a 
whistleblower proceeding, or in the adjudication of access to 
classified national security information, the relevant office may 
obtain information concerning the violation of laws other than those 
within the scope of its jurisdiction. In the interest of effective law 
enforcement, these offices should be able to retain this information as 
it may aid in establishing patterns of program violations or criminal 
activity and provide leads for those law enforcement agencies charged 
with enforcing other segments of criminal or civil law.
    d. In addition, information obtained by these offices may relate 
not only to an investigation or proceeding under 10 CFR part 708 or to 
an adjudication of access to classified national security information, 
but also to matters under the jurisdiction of another agency. Such 
information is not readily segregable and should be retained for 
dissemination to appropriate law enforcement agencies charged with 
enforcing other criminal or civil law.
    (4) The Office of Intelligence system of records is exempt from 
paragraphs (d), (e)(4)(G) and (H), and (f) as they relate to an 
individual's right to be notified of the existence of records 
pertaining to such individual; requirements for identifying an 
individual who requests access to records; and agency procedures 
relating to access to records and the content of information contained 
in such records. The reason for this exemption is that to notify an 
individual, at the individual's request, of the existence of records in 
an investigative file pertaining to such individual or to grant access 
to an investigative file could interfere with investigations undertaken 
in connection with national security, or could disclose the identity of 
sources kept secret to protect national security or reveal confidential 
information supplied by these sources.

Subsection (k)(5) Exemption

    The (k)(5) exemption is for investigatory material compiled solely 
for the purpose of determining suitability, eligibility, or 
qualifications for Federal civilian employment, military service, 
Federal contracts, or access to classified information. The (k)(5) 
exemption applies only to the extent that disclosure would reveal the 
identity of a source who furnished information under an express promise 
of confidentiality. Where this is the case, the (k)(5) exemption 
applies, as follows:

Subsections Exempt Pursuant to (k)(5)

    (1) Except for disclosures made under (b)(7) of the Act, 5 U.S.C. 
552a(c)(3) requires that upon request, an agency must give an 
individual named in a record an accounting which reflects the 
disclosure of the record to other persons or agencies. This accounting 
must state the date, nature, and purpose of each disclosure of the 
records and the name and address of the recipient. To the extent that 
such an accounting would lead directly or indirectly to the disclosure 
of the identity of a source as described above, the (k)(5) exemption is 
applicable.
    (2) 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(1) requires each agency to maintain in its 
records only such information about an individual that is relevant and 
necessary to accomplish a purpose of the agency required by statute or 
Executive Order. Any information compiled solely for one of the 
purposes enumerated in (k)(5) e.g., determining access to sensitive or 
classified information is properly subject to the (k)(5) exemption when 
it reveals confidential sources or confidential information. An 
exemption from the foregoing is needed because:
    a. It is not always possible to detect the relevance or necessity 
of specific information in the early stages of an investigation of a 
complaint or concern that may involve whistleblowing or in the early 
stages of an adjudication of access to classified national security 
information.
    b. Relevance and necessity are questions of judgment and timing. 
What appears relevant and necessary when collected may ultimately be 
determined to be unnecessary. It is only after the information is 
evaluated or the investigation, hearing or appeal is completed that the 
relevancy and necessity of such information can be established.
    c. In investigating an employee complaint or concern or in 
conducting a whistleblower proceeding, or in the adjudication of access 
to classified national security information, the relevant office may 
obtain information concerning the violation of laws other than those 
within the scope of its jurisdiction. In the interest of effective law 
enforcement, these offices should be able to retain this information as 
it may aid in establishing patterns of program violations or criminal 
activity and provide leads for those law enforcement

[[Page 32275]]

agencies charged with enforcing other segments of criminal or civil 
law.
    d. Information obtained by the Office of Employee Concerns, the 
Office of Hearings and Appeals, or the Office of Intelligence in an 
investigation or adjudication, may relate to the DOE proceeding as well 
as to matters under the jurisdiction of another agency. Such 
information is not readily segregable and in the interest of effective 
law enforcement, such information should be retained for dissemination 
to appropriate law enforcement agencies charged with enforcing other 
criminal or civil law.
    (3) 5 U.S.C. 552a(c)(4) requires disclosure of corrections or 
notations of disputes in records made in accordance with subsection 
(d). These systems are exempt from paragraph (d)(2) of this section 
because to require the Office of Employee Concerns, the Office of 
Hearings and Appeals or the Office of Intelligence 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 and adjudications attempting to resolve questions of 
accuracy.
    (4) 5 U.S.C. 552a(d), (e)(4)(G) and (H), and (f) relate to the 
following: An individual's right to be notified of the existence of 
records pertaining to such individual; requirements for identifying an 
individual who requests access to records; and agency procedures 
relating to access to records and the content of information contained 
in such records. The Office of Intelligence system of records is exempt 
from the foregoing provisions because to notify an individual, at the 
individual's request, of the existence of records in an investigative 
file pertaining to such individual or to grant access to an 
investigative file could interfere with investigations undertaken in 
connection with national security, or could disclose the identity of 
sources kept secret to protect national security or reveal confidential 
information supplied by these sources.

III. Regulatory and Procedural Requirements

A. Review Under Executive Order 12866

    Today's regulatory action has been determined not to be ``a 
significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866, 
``Regulatory Planning and Review'' (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). 
Accordingly, this action was not subject to review under that Executive 
Order by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of the Office 
of Management and Budget.

B. Review Under Executive Order 12988

    With respect to the review of existing regulations and the 
promulgation of new regulations, section 3(a) of Executive Order 12988, 
``Civil Justice Reform'' (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996) imposes on 
Executive agencies the general duty to adhere to the following 
requirements: (1) Eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity; (2) write 
regulations to minimize litigation; and (3) provide a clear legal 
standard for affected conduct rather than a general standard and 
promote simplification and burden reduction. With regard to the review 
required by section 3(a), section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988 
specifically requires that Executive agencies make every reasonable 
effort to ensure that the regulation: (1) Clearly specifies the 
preemptive effect, if any; (2) clearly specifies any effect on existing 
federal law or regulation; (3) provides a clear legal standard for 
affected conduct while promoting simplification and burden reduction; 
(4) specifies the retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately defines 
key terms; and (6) addresses other important issues affecting clarity 
and general draftsmanship under any guidelines issued by the Attorney 
General. Section 3(c) of Executive Order 12988 requires Executive 
agencies to review regulations in light of applicable standards in 
section 3(a) and section 3(b) to determine whether they are met or it 
is unreasonable to meet one or more of them. DOE has completed the 
required review and determined that, to the extent permitted by law, 
this proposed rule meets the relevant standards of Executive Order 
12988.

C. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

    This rule was reviewed under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 
U.S.C. 601 et seq., which requires preparation of a regulatory 
flexibility analysis for any proposed rule that is likely to have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
This proposed rule will have no impact on interest rates, tax policies 
or liabilities, the cost of goods or services, or other direct economic 
factors. It also will not have any indirect economic consequences. The 
DOE certifies that this proposed rule will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities and, 
therefore, no regulatory flexibility analysis has been prepared.

D. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act

    No new information collection or record keeping requirements are 
imposed by this proposed rule. Accordingly, no clearance by the Office 
of Management and Budget is required under the Paperwork Reduction Act 
(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

E. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act

    DOE has concluded that this proposed rule would not represent a 
major Federal action having significant impact on the human 
environment, as determined by DOE's regulations implementing the 
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). 
Specifically, this rule amends an existing regulation and does not 
change its environmental impact, and, therefore, is covered under the 
Categorical Exclusion in paragraph A5 of Appendix A to subpart D, 10 
CFR Part 1021. Accordingly, neither an environmental assessment nor an 
environmental impact statement is required.

F. Review Under Executive Order 13132

    Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 4, 1999) imposes certain 
requirements on agencies formulating and implementing policies or 
regulations that preempt State law or that have federalism 
implications. Agencies are required to examine the constitutional and 
statutory authority supporting any action that would limit the policy 
making discretion of the States and carefully assess the necessity for 
such actions. DOE has examined today's rule and has determined that it 
does not preempt State law and does not have a substantial direct 
effect on the States, on the relationship between the national 
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and 
responsibilities among the various levels of government. No further 
action is required by Executive Order 13132.

G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-
4) requires each Federal agency to prepare a written assessment of the 
effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed or final rule that may 
result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in 
the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million in any one 
year. The Act also requires a Federal agency to develop an effective 
process to permit timely input by elected officers of State, local, and 
tribal governments on a proposed ``significant

[[Page 32276]]

intergovernmental mandate,'' and it requires an agency to develop a 
plan for giving notice and opportunity for timely input to potentially 
affected small governments before establishing any requirement that 
might significantly or uniquely affect them. This proposed rule does 
not contain any Federal mandate and, therefore, these requirements do 
not apply.

H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 
1999

    Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations 
Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105-277), requires Federal agencies to issue a 
Family Policymaking Assessment for any proposed rule or policy that may 
affect family well-being. This proposed rule would not have any impact 
on the autonomy or integrity of the family as an institution. 
Accordingly, DOE has not prepared a Family Policymaking Assessment.

I. Review Under Executive Order 13084

    Under Executive Order 13084 (Consultation and Coordination with 
Indian Tribal Governments), DOE may not issue a discretionary rule that 
significantly or uniquely affects Indian tribal governments and imposes 
substantial direct compliance costs. This proposed rulemaking would not 
have such effects. Accordingly, Executive Order 13084 does not apply to 
this rulemaking.

IV. Public Comment

    Interested persons are invited to participate by submitting data, 
views, or arguments with respect to the proposed amendments to the DOE 
Privacy Act regulation as set forth in this notice. Three copies of 
written comments should be submitted to the address indicated in the 
ADDRESSES section of this notice. All comments received will be 
available for public inspection in the DOE Freedom of Information 
Public Reading Room, Room 1E-190, Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence 
Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20585, between the hours of 9 a.m. and 4 
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. All written 
comments received by the date indicated in the DATES section of this 
notice will be carefully assessed and fully considered prior to 
publication of the proposed amendment as a final rule. Any information 
considered to be confidential must be so identified and submitted in 
writing, one copy only. DOE reserves the right to determine the 
confidential status of the information and to treat it according to 
that determination.
    The Department has concluded that this proposed rule does not 
involve a substantial issue of fact or law and that the proposed rule 
should not have substantial impact on the nation's economy or a large 
number of individuals or businesses. Therefore, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 
7191(b), the Department does not plan to hold a public hearing on this 
proposed rule.

List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 1008

    Government employees, Investigations, Privacy, Security measures, 
Whistleblowing.

    Issued in Washington, DC on May 21, 2001.
Richard H. Hopf,
Acting Director, Office of Management and Administration.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, part 1008 of Chapter X 
of Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, is proposed to be amended as 
set forth below:

PART 1008--RECORDS MAINTAINED ON INDIVIDUALS (PRIVACY ACT)

    1. The authority citation for part 1008 is revised to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7101 et seq.; 50 U.S.C. 2401 et seq.; 5 
U.S.C. 552a.

    2. Section 1008.12 is amended:
    a. by adding paragraphs (b)(1)(ii)(K), (b)(1)(ii)(L), 
(b)(1)(ii)(M);
    b. by adding paragraphs (b)(2)(ii)(N), (b)(2)(ii)(O), 
(b)(2)(ii)(P);
    c. by adding paragraphs (b)(3)(ii)(P), (b)(3)(ii)(Q) and 
(b)(3)(ii)(R).
    The additions specified above read as follows:


Sec. 1008.12  Exemptions.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (ii) * * *
    (K) Employee Concerns Program Records (DOE-3)
    (L) Whistleblower Investigation, Hearing and Appeal Records (DOE-7)
    (M) Intelligence Related Access Authorization (DOE-15)
    (2) * * *
    (ii) * * *
    (N) Employee Concerns Program Records (DOE-3)
    (O) Whistleblower Investigation, Hearing and Appeal Records (DOE-7)
    (P) Intelligence Related Access Authorization (DOE-15)
    (3) * * *
    (ii) * * *
    (P) Employee Concerns Program Records (DOE-3)
    (Q) Whistleblower Investigation, Hearing and Appeal Records (DOE-7)
    (R) Intelligence Related Access Authorization (DOE-15)
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 01-14990 Filed 6-13-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P