![[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: January 29, 2002 (Volume 67, Number 19)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 4167-4171]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr29ja02-1]
========================================================================
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.
========================================================================
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