![[logo] US EPA](http://www.epa.gov/epafiles/images/logo_epaseal.gif){kind=logo}
Privacy Act; Implementation
Note: EPA no longer updates this information, but it may be useful as a reference or resource.
[Federal Register: June 14, 2001 (Volume 66, Number 115)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 32272-32276]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr14jn01-20]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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