[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 19 (Tuesday, January 29, 2002)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 4167-4171]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-2111]



 ========================================================================
 Rules and Regulations
                                                 Federal Register
 ________________________________________________________________________
 
 This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents 
 having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed 
 to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published 
 under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.
 
 The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents. 
 Prices of new books are listed in the first FEDERAL REGISTER issue of each 
 week.
 
 ========================================================================
 

  Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 19 / Tuesday, January 29, 2002 / 
Rules and Regulations  

[[Page 4167]]



DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

10 CFR Part 1008

RIN 1901-AA69


Privacy Act; Implementation

AGENCY: Department of Energy.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Energy (DOE) amends 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 adjudication of 
employee and contractor employee concerns or complaints, pursuant to 
the whistleblower protection provisions 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.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This final rule is effective February 28, 2002.

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. Summary of Final Rule
    A. Systems of Records Exempted
    B. Basis for Exemptions
    1. Subsection (k)(1) Exemption
    2. Subsection (k)(2) Exemption
    3. Subsection (k)(5) Exemption
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. 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
    J. Review Under Executive Order 13211
    K. Congressional Notification

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. The Department of Energy (DOE) is 
adding three new systems of records to the list of systems of records 
exempted from certain subsections of the Act.
    One of the exemptions will enable the Office of Employee Concerns 
to carry out its investigative duties and responsibilities. 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.
    A second exemption will enable the Office of Hearings and Appeals 
to carry out its investigative and adjudicatory responsibilities under 
10 CFR part 708 and other whistleblower protection laws. These 
responsibilities include investigating allegations of acts of reprisal 
taken against a 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 responsibilities also include 
investigating allegations of acts of reprisal taken against a DOE 
employee or DOE contractor employee who claims to have made a protected 
disclosure pursuant to section 3164 of the National Defense 
Authorization Act for FY 2000 (Pub. L. 106-65), codified in 42 U.S.C. 
7239.
    The third exemption will 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.
    A notice of proposed rulemakng was published in the Federal 
Register on June 14, 2001 (66 FR 32272), following publication of DOE's 
comprehensive systems notice on May 16, 2001 (66 FR 27300). No public 
comments were received on the proposed rule.

II. Summary of Final Rule

A. Systems of Records Exempted

    Today's final rule amends Sec. 1008.12 (b) of DOE's 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.
    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

[[Page 4168]]

(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.''

B. Basis for Exemptions

    The detailed reasons for exemptions of the three systems of records 
under 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(1), (2) and (5) are as follows:
    1. Subsection (k)(1) Exemption. Under subsection (k)(1) of the 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:
    (a) 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 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.
    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 the 
Act's accounting provision to records involving properly classified 
material could reveal classified material. If 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 used to the detriment of national security.
    (b) These systems also are exempt from 5 U.S.C. 552a(d)(2). 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 in response to questions 
involving the accuracy of these investigations and adjudications.
    (c) 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 
provision is needed because:
    (i) It is not always possible to assess 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.
    (ii) 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 jurisdiction of the Office of 
Employee Concerns and the Office of Hearings and Appeals 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.
    (iii) In interviewing persons or obtaining information from other 
sources during an adjudication, including the background investigation, 
information may be supplied to the investigator that relates to matters 
incidental to the main purpose of the inquiry or investigation, but 
that also relates to matters under the jurisdiction of another agency. 
Such information cannot be readily segregated.
    2. 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, 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.
    (a) 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.
    (b) These systems also are exempt from 5 U.S.C. 552a(d)(2). 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 review its investigations 
and access adjudications.
    (c) 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

[[Page 4169]]

required by statute or Executive Order. An exemption from the foregoing 
is needed because:
    (i) It is not always possible to assess 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.
    (ii) 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.
    (iii) 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 criminal or civil law.
    (iv) 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 cannot be readily segregated and should be retained for 
dissemination to appropriate law enforcement agencies charged with 
enforcing other criminal or civil law.
    (d) 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 of the existence of records in 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 could reveal confidential information 
supplied by these sources.
    3. 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:
    (a) 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.
    (b) 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:
    (i) It is not always possible to assess 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.
    (ii) 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.
    (iii) 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 agencies charged 
with enforcing criminal or civil law.
    (iv) 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 cannot be readily segregated 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.
    (c) 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 the Act 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 in response to questions involving the 
accuracy of these investigations and adjudications.
    (d) 5 U.S.C. 552a(d), (e)(4)(G) and (H), and (f) relate to the 
following: a 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's system of records is 
exempt from the foregoing provisions because to notify an individual of 
the existence of records in an investigative file 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 could reveal 
confidential information supplied by these sources.

[[Page 4170]]

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 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 rule that is likely to have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This 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. DOE certifies that 
this 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 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 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, ``Federalism'' (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 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 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 rule or policy that may affect 
family well-being. This 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 rulemaking would not have 
such effects. Accordingly, Executive Order 13084 does not apply to this 
rulemaking.

J. Review Under Executive Order 13211

    Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,'' 66 FR 28355 
(May 22, 2001), requires Federal agencies to prepare and submit to the 
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), Office of 
Management and Budget, a Statement of Energy Effects for any 
significant energy action. A ``significant energy action'' is defined 
as any action by an agency that promulgates or is expected to lead to 
the promulgation of a final rule, and that: (1) Is a significant 
regulatory action under Executive Order 12866, or any successor order; 
and (2) is likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, 
distribution, or use of energy; or

[[Page 4171]]

(3) is designated by the Administrator of OIRA as a significant energy 
action. For any proposed significant energy action, the agency must 
give a detailed statement of any adverse effects on energy supply, 
distribution, or use should the proposal be implemented, and of 
reasonable alternatives to the action and their expected benefits on 
energy supply, distribution, and use. Today's rule is not a significant 
energy action. Accordingly, DOE has not prepared a Statement of Energy 
Effects.

K. Congressional Notification

    As required by 5 U.S.C. 801, DOE will submit to Congress a report 
regarding the issuance of today's final rule prior to the effective 
date set forth at the outset of this notice. The report will state that 
it has been determined that the rule is not a ``major rule'' as defined 
by 5 U.S.C. 801(2).

List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 1008

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

    Issued in Washington, DC, on January 22, 2002.
Bruce M. Carnes,
Director, Office of Management, Budget and Evaluation/Chief Financial 
Officer.


    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, part 1008 of Chapter X 
of Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, is 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. 02-2111 Filed 1-28-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P