101850 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 17, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

(N) Research, Technology, and 

Economic Security Due Diligence 

Review Records (DOE–85). 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2024–29666 Filed 12–16–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

10 CFR Part 1008 

[DOE–HQ–2024–0084] 

RIN 1903–AA16 

Privacy Act of 1974: Implementation of 

Exemptions 

AGENCY: U.S. Department of Energy. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Energy 

(DOE or Department) is revising its 

regulations to exempt certain records 

maintained under a newly established 

system of records—DOE–42 

Nondiscrimination in Federally 

Assisted Programs Files—from the 

notification and access provisions of the 

Privacy Act of 1974. The Department is 

exempting portions of this system of 

records from these subsections of the 

Privacy Act because of requirements 

related to investigatory material 

compiled for law enforcement purposes. 

DATES: This final rule is effective on 

January 16, 2025. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kyle 

David, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 

Independence Avenue SW, Office 8H– 

085, Washington, DC, 20585; facsimile: 

(202) 586–8151; email: kyle.david@

hq.doe.gov; telephone: (240) 686–9485. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Authority and Background 

A. Authority 

B. Background 

II. Discussion 

III. Summary of Public Comments 

IV. Section 1008.12 Analysis 

V. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review 

A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866, 

13563, and 14094 

B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act 

C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction 

Act of 1995 

D. Review Under the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

E. Review Under Executive Order 12988 

F. Review Under Executive Order 13132 

G. Review Under Executive Order 13175 

H. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 

I. Review Under Executive Order 12360 

J. Review Under Executive Order 13211 

K. Review Under the Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act, 1999 

L. Review Under the Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act, 2001 

M. Congressional Review 

VI. Approval by the Office of the Secretary 

of Energy 

I. Authority and Background 

A. Authority 

DOE has broad authority to manage 

the agency’s collection, use, processing, 

maintenance, storage, and disclosure of 

Personally Identifiable Information (PII) 

pursuant to the following authorities: 42 

United States Code (U.S.C.) 7101 et seq., 

50 U.S.C. 2401 et seq., 5 U.S.C. 1104, 5 

U.S.C. 552, 5 U.S.C. 552a, 42 U.S.C. 

7254, 5 U.S.C. 301, and 42 U.S.C. 405 

note. 

B. Background 

The Privacy Act of 1974 (the Act) (5 

U.S.C. 552a) embodies fair information 

practice principles in a statutory 

framework governing the means by 

which the U.S. Government collects, 

maintains, uses, and disseminates 

personally identifiable information. The 

Privacy Act applies to information that 

is maintained in a ‘‘system of records.’’ 

A ‘‘system of records’’ is a group of any 

records under the control of an agency 

from which information is retrieved by 

the name of the individual or by some 

identifying number, symbol, or other 

identifying particular assigned to the 

individual. In the Privacy Act, an 

individual is defined to encompass U.S. 

citizens and lawful permanent 

residents. 

The Privacy Act includes two sets of 

provisions that allow agencies to claim 

exemptions from certain requirements 

in the statute. These provisions allow 

agencies in certain circumstances to 

promulgate rules to exempt a system of 

records from certain provisions of the 

Privacy Act. For this system of records, 

pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(2), the 

Department exempts this system of 

records from subsections (c)(3); (d); and 

(e)(1) of the Privacy Act. This exemption 

is needed to protect from disclosure 

investigatory material compiled for law 

enforcement purposes. Pursuant to the 

Privacy Act and Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) Circular A–108, 

Federal Agency Responsibilities for 

Review, Reporting, and Publication 

under the Privacy Act, DOE is issuing 

this final rule to make clear to the 

public the reasons why this particular 

exemption is being applied. 

II. Discussion 

DOE is claiming an exemption from 

certain requirements of the Privacy Act 

for a new system of records: DOE–42 

Nondiscrimination in Federally 

Assisted Programs Files. 

The Department is exempting 

portions of a newly established system 

of records—DOE–42 Nondiscrimination 

in Federally Assisted Programs Files— 

from subsections (c)(3); (d); and (e)(1) of 

the Privacy Act of 1974. To claim this 

exemption, DOE is amending 10 CFR 

1008.12 by adding a new paragraph, 

(b)(2)(ii)(R). The Department exempts 

portions of this system of records from 

these subsections of the Privacy Act 

because of requirements related to the 

compilation of investigatory material for 

law enforcement purposes. 

DOE–42 Nondiscrimination in 

Federally Assisted Programs Files will 

provide a central electronic repository 

to: (i) maintain all records used by 

OCR–EEO personnel in making Federal 

civil rights compliance determinations 

with accuracy, relevance, timeliness, 

and completeness to assure fairness to 

the individual(s) in the determination; 

(ii) create appropriate administrative, 

technical, and physical safeguards that 

ensure the security and confidentiality 

of records and protect against any 

anticipated threats to their security or 

integrity and; (iii) create rules of 

conduct for authorized OCR–EEO 

personnel involved in the operation, 

maintenance, and routine uses for this 

system records. 

For this system of records, DOE is 

claiming the Privacy exemption from 

requirements in subsections (c)(3); (d); 

and (e)(1) of the Privacy Act. In 

addition, the system has been exempted 

from the Privacy Act, pursuant to 5 

U.S.C. 552a(k)(2). These exemptions are 

needed to protect information relating to 

DOE activities from disclosure to 

subjects or others related to these 

activities. Specifically, these 

exemptions from the Privacy Act are 

necessary in order to preclude subjects 

of these activities from frustrating these 

processes; to avoid disclosure of activity 

techniques; to protect the identities and 

physical safety of confidential 

informants and law enforcement 

personnel; to ensure DOE’s ability to 

obtain information from third parties 

and other sources; and to protect the 

privacy of third parties. Disclosure of 

information to the subject of the inquiry 

could also permit the subject to avoid 

detection or apprehension. 

Exemption from these Privacy Act 

requirements is standard for law 

enforcement and national security 

matters and are often exercised by many 

Federal law enforcement and 

intelligence agencies. In appropriate 

circumstances, where compliance 

would not appear to interfere with or 

adversely affect the law enforcement 

purposes of this system and overall law 

enforcement process, the applicable 

exemption of these requirements may be 

waived on a case-by-case basis. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 17, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 101851 

Exemption from these particular 

Privacy Act requirements for DOE–42 

Nondiscrimination in Federally 

Assisted Programs Files is justified, on 

a case-by-case basis to be determined at 

the time a request is made for the 

following reasons: 

In particular, exemption from the 

Privacy Act’s requirement in 

subsections (c)(3) (Accounting for 

Disclosures) is necessary because 

release of the accounting of disclosures 

could alert the subject of an 

investigation of an actual or potential 

criminal, civil, or regulatory violation to 

the existence of that investigation and 

reveal investigative interest on the part 

of DOE as well as the recipient agency. 

Disclosure of the accounting would, 

therefore, present a serious impediment 

to law enforcement efforts or efforts to 

preserve national security. Disclosure of 

the accounting would also permit the 

individual who is the subject of a record 

to impede the investigation, to tamper 

with witnesses or evidence, and to 

avoid detection or apprehension, which 

would undermine the entire 

investigative process. 

Exemption from the Privacy Act’s 

requirement in subsection (d) (Access to 

Records) is necessary because access to 

the records contained in this system of 

records could inform the subject of an 

investigation of an actual or potential 

criminal, civil, or regulatory violation to 

the existence of that investigation and 

reveal investigative interest on the part 

of DOE or another agency. Access to the 

records could permit the individual 

who is the subject of a record to impede 

the investigation, to tamper with 

witnesses or evidence, and to avoid 

detection or apprehension. Amendment 

of the records could interfere with 

ongoing investigations and law 

enforcement activities and would 

impose an unreasonable administrative 

burden by requiring investigations to be 

continually reinvestigated. In addition, 

permitting access and amendment to 

such information could disclose 

security-sensitive information that 

could be detrimental to nuclear or 

energy sector security. 

Exemption from the Privacy Act’s 

requirements in subsection (e)(1) 

(Relevancy and Necessity of 

Information) is necessary because in the 

course of investigations into potential 

violations of Federal law, the accuracy 

of information obtained or introduced 

occasionally may be unclear, or the 

information may not be strictly relevant 

or necessary to a specific investigation. 

In the interests of effective law 

enforcement, it is appropriate to retain 

all information that may aid in 

establishing patterns of unlawful 

activity. 

On September 20, 2024, DOE 

published a notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NOPR) (89 FR 77040), and 

received one comment, discussed in 

detail below. 

III. Summary of Public Comments 

DOE received one public comment in 

response to its NOPR, and while the 

commenter was generally supportive of 

the rule, it raised the following 

concerns: 

1. Concerns about exemption from 

subsection (c)(3): According to the 

commenter, the exemption from 5 

U.S.C. 552a(c)(3) could lead to 

unauthorized disclosure or misuse of 

sensitive data, and result in abuse or 

information leaks. In lieu of this 

exemption, the commenter 

recommended the creation of partial 

exemptions or delayed disclosures. 

DOE respectfully disagrees with the 

commenter regarding the exemption 

from 5 U.S.C. 552a(c)(3). The record 

itself is protected from unauthorized 

disclosure and misuse pursuant to 

subsection (e)(9) of the Privacy Act, 

which requires the agency to establish 

appropriate administrative, technical, 

and physical safeguards to ensure the 

security and confidentiality of records. 

Additionally, the Privacy Act governs 

records about individuals, not about 

entities that are subject to the Federal 

civil rights laws that OCR–EEO 

enforces. Where such information does 

constitute a record about an individual, 

this system of records allows the 

exemption from 5 U.S.C. 552a(c)(3) to be 

waived on a case-by-case basis in 

appropriate circumstances where 

accounting for disclosures would not 

interfere with or otherwise adversely 

affect the law enforcement purposes of 

this system of records or the overall law 

enforcement process. Finally, this 

exemption protects against misuses of 

sensitive data by preventing an 

accounting for disclosures from being 

used to alter or destroy evidence, 

improperly influence or intimidate 

witnesses, or further other evasive 

actions that could impede or 

compromise an investigation. DOE does 

not agree with the commenter’s 

recommendation to create partial 

exemptions or delayed disclosures, as 

this exemption prevents a record subject 

from using an accounting to retaliate 

against investigation witnesses or 

invade the privacy of victims or other 

persons who engaged in protected 

activity, including confidential sources 

who otherwise would be unwilling to 

come forward or participate in an OCR– 

EEO investigation. 

2. Concerns about the exemption from 

subsection (d): The commenter also 

asserted that the exemption from 5 

U.S.C. 552a(d) raises serious fairness 

and due process concerns. In lieu of this 

exemption, the commenter 

recommended a tiered approach 

allowing individuals to request access to 

their records under certain conditions, 

such as when the information no longer 

poses a threat to law enforcement, or 

portions of the record are non-sensitive, 

or based on the record’s relevance to the 

investigation. 

DOE respectfully disagrees with the 

commenter, and believes this exemption 

accords with the fairness and due 

process protections of subsection (k)(2) 

of the Privacy Act, which expressly 

provides that any individual who would 

be denied any right, privilege, or benefit 

that such person would otherwise be 

entitled by Federal law, or to which 

such individual would otherwise be 

eligible as a result of the maintenance of 

material within a system of records shall 

be provided such material, 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 or 

implied promise that the identity of the 

source would be held in confidence. 

Additionally, subsection (e)(5) of the 

Privacy Act requires OCR–EEO to 

maintain all records used in making any 

determination about any individual 

with such accuracy, relevance, 

timeliness, and completeness as is 

reasonably necessary to assure fairness 

to the individual in the determination. 

3. Concerns about the exemption from 

(e)(1): The commenter additionally 

asserted that the exemption from 5 

U.S.C. 552a (e)(1) raises concerns that 

DOE may retain information that is 

outdated, irrelevant, or unnecessarily 

harmful to individuals, which the 

commentor believes may lead to 

individuals being unfairly scrutinized or 

targeted based on information that is no 

longer accurate or relevant to the 

investigation. In relation to this 

exemption, the commenter 

recommended that DOE implement a 

regular review process based on a welldefined and publicly justifiable review 

standard, and also implement a central 

electronic repository to keep this system 

of records. 

For the following reasons, DOE 

respectfully disagrees with the 

commenter regarding the exemption 

from 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(1). First, it is often 

impossible to determine the relevance 

and necessity of information in the early 

stages of collection, investigation, or 

adjudication. Second, the DOE 

regulations implementing Federal civil 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
101852 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 17, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

rights laws define a federally assisted 

program or activity to mean all of the 

operations of any entity, any part of 

which is a recipient of Federal financial 

assistance from DOE. Third, information 

obtained during an OCR–EEO 

investigation may be relevant and 

necessary to the civil or criminal law 

enforcement activities of other Federal 

agencies, or concern a matter before 

Congress or a court of competent 

jurisdiction. Fourth, in furtherance of 

the administrative, technical, and 

physical safeguards delineated in the 

NOPR, the security and privacy controls 

applicable to this system of records are 

reviewed on an ongoing basis and 

updated in accordance with welldefined Federal government standards 

and DOE directives. 

In response to the commenter’s 

conclusion that DOE should provide a 

more complete description of this 

system of records, DOE brings the 

commenter’s attention to the ample 

description provided by the NOPR 

regarding the administrative, technical, 

and physical safeguards applicable to 

this system of records. 

IV. Section 1008.12 Analysis 

This final rule adds line-item 

paragraph (b)(2)(ii)(Q), referencing 

‘‘Nondiscrimination in Federally 

Assisted Program Files (DOE–42)’’. This 

addition demonstrates that SORN DOE– 

42 is included among the other SORNs 

taking a subsection (k)(2) exemption 

under the Privacy Act of 1974. Per 

current regulations located at 10 CFR 

1008.12(b)(2)(ii), this exemption allows 

DOE to ‘‘prevent subjects of 

investigation from frustrating the 

investigatory process through access to 

records about themselves or as a result 

of learning the identities of confidential 

informants; to prevent disclosure of 

investigative techniques; to maintain the 

ability to obtain necessary information; 

and thereby to insure the proper 

functioning and integrity of law 

enforcement activities.’’ 

V. Procedural Issues and Regulatory 

Review 

A. Review Under Executive Orders 

12866, 13563, and 14094 

Executive Order (‘‘E.O.’’) 12866, 

‘‘Regulatory Planning and Review,’’ 58 

FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993), as 

supplemented and reaffirmed by E.O. 

13563, ‘‘Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review,’’ 76 FR 3821 (Jan. 

21, 2011) and amended by E.O. 14094, 

‘‘Modernizing Regulatory Review,’’ 88 

FR 21879 (April 11, 2023), requires 

agencies, to the extent permitted by law, 

to (1) propose or adopt a regulation only 

upon a reasoned determination that its 

benefits justify its costs (recognizing 

that some benefits and costs are difficult 

to quantify); (2) tailor regulations to 

impose the least burden on society, 

consistent with obtaining regulatory 

objectives, taking into account, among 

other things, and to the extent 

practicable, the costs of cumulative 

regulations; (3) select, in choosing 

among alternative regulatory 

approaches, those approaches that 

maximize net benefits (including 

potential economic, environmental, 

public health and safety, and other 

advantages; distributive impacts; and 

equity); (4) to the extent feasible, specify 

performance objectives, rather than 

specifying the behavior or manner of 

compliance that regulated entities must 

adopt; and (5) identify and assess 

available alternatives to direct 

regulation, including providing 

economic incentives to encourage the 

desired behavior, such as user fees or 

marketable permits, or providing 

information upon which choices can be 

made by the public. DOE emphasizes as 

well that E.O. 13563 requires agencies to 

use the best available techniques to 

quantify anticipated present and future 

benefits and costs as accurately as 

possible. In its guidance, the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs 

(OIRA) has emphasized that such 

techniques may include identifying 

changing future compliance costs that 

might result from technological 

innovation or anticipated behavioral 

changes. For the reasons stated in this 

preamble, this regulatory action is 

consistent with these principles. 

Section 6(a) of E.O. 12866 requires 

agencies to submit ‘‘significant 

regulatory actions’’ to OIRA for review. 

OIRA has determined that this 

regulatory action is not a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ within the scope of 

E.O. 12866. Accordingly, this action is 

not subject to review under E.O. 12866 

by OIRA of the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB). 

B. Review Under the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 

(5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires that an 

agency prepare an initial regulatory 

flexibility analysis for any regulation for 

which a final rule is required, unless the 

agency certifies that the rule, if 

promulgated, will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities (5 U.S.C. 

605(b)). As required by Executive Order 

13272, Proper Consideration of Small 

Entities in Agency Rulemaking, 67 FR 

53461 (Aug. 16, 2002), DOE published 

procedures and policies on February 19, 

2003, to ensure that the potential 

impacts of its rules on small entities are 

properly considered during the 

rulemaking process. 68 FR 7990. DOE 

has made its procedures and policies 

available on the Office of the General 

Counsel’s website (www.energy.gov/gc/ 

office-general-counsel). 

DOE reviewed this final rule under 

the provisions of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act and the procedures and 

policies published on February 19, 

2003. DOE certifies that the final rule, 

if adopted, would not have significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. The factual 

basis for this certification is set forth 

below. 

This final rule would update DOE’s 

policies and procedures concerning the 

disclosure of records held within a 

system of records pursuant to the 

Privacy Act of 1974. This final rule 

would apply only to activities 

conducted by DOE’s Federal employees 

and contractors, who would be 

responsible for implementing the rule 

requirements. DOE does not expect 

there to be any potential economic 

impact of this final rule on small 

businesses. Small businesses, therefore, 

should not be adversely impacted by the 

requirements in this final rule. For these 

reasons, DOE certifies that this final rule 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities, and therefore, no regulatory 

flexibility analysis has been prepared. 

C. Review Under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 

This final rule does not impose a 

collection of information requirement 

subject to review and approval by OMB 

under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). 

D. Review Under the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

Pursuant to the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA), DOE has analyzed this action in 

accordance with NEPA and DOE’s 

NEPA implementing regulations (10 

CFR part 1021). DOE’s regulations 

include a categorical exclusion (CX) for 

rulemakings interpreting or amending 

an existing rule or regulation that does 

not change the environmental effect of 

the rule or regulation being amended. 10 

CFR part 1021, subpart D, appendix A5. 

DOE has determined that this final rule 

is covered under the CX found in DOE’s 

NEPA regulations at paragraph A.5 of 

appendix A to subpart D, 10 CFR part 

1021, because it is an amendment to an 

existing regulation that does not change 

the environmental effect of the amended 

regulation and, therefore, meets the 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 17, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 101853 

requirements for the application of this 

CX. See 10 CFR 1021.410. Therefore, 

DOE has determined that this final rule 

is not a major Federal action 

significantly affecting the quality of the 

human environment within the meaning 

of NEPA and does not require an 

Environmental Assessment or an 

Environmental Impact Statement. 

E. 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 Federal agencies the general 

duty to adhere to the following 

requirements: (1) eliminate drafting 

errors and ambiguity; (2) write 

regulations to minimize litigation; (3) 

provide a clear legal standard for 

affected conduct rather than a general 

standard; and (4) promote simplification 

and burden reduction. Section 3(b) of 

Executive Order 12988 specifically 

requires that Executive agencies make 

every reasonable effort to ensure 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 the affected conduct 

while promoting simplification and 

burden reduction; (4) specifies the 

retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately 

defines key terms; (6) specifies whether 

administrative proceedings are to be 

required before parties may file suit in 

court and, if so, describes those 

proceedings and requires the exhaustion 

of administrative remedies; and (7) 

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 the 

standards. DOE has completed the 

required review and determined that, to 

the extent permitted by law, this final 

rule meets the relevant standards of 

Executive Order 12988. 

F. Review Under Executive Order 13132 

Executive Order 13132, ‘‘Federalism,’’ 

64 FR 43255 (August 10, 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 policymaking discretion of the 

States and carefully assess the necessity 

for such actions. The Executive order 

also requires agencies to have an 

accountable process to ensure 

meaningful and timely input by State 

and local officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have federalism 

implications. On March 14, 2000, DOE 

published a statement of policy 

describing the intergovernmental 

consultation process it will follow in the 

development of such regulations. 65 FR 

13735. DOE has examined this final rule 

and has tentatively determined that it 

would not preempt State law and would 

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 Executive Order 13175 

Under Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 

67249, November 6, 2000) on 

‘‘Consultation and Coordination with 

Indian Tribal Governments,’’ DOE may 

not issue a discretionary rule that has 

‘‘Tribal’’ implications and imposes 

substantial direct compliance costs on 

Indian Tribal governments. DOE has 

determined that this final rule would 

not have such effects and concluded 

that Executive Order 13175 does not 

apply to this final rule. 

H. Review Under the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act (UMRA) of 1995 (Pub. L. 

104–4) requires each Federal agency to 

assess the effects of a Federal regulatory 

action on State, local, and Tribal 

governments, and the private sector. 

(Pub. L. 104–4, sec. 201 et seq. (codified 

at 2 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.)). For a 

regulatory action likely to result in a 

rule that may cause the expenditure by 

State, local, and Tribal governments, in 

the aggregate, or by the private sector of 

$100 million or more in any one year 

(adjusted annually for inflation), section 

202 of UMRA requires a Federal agency 

to publish a written statement that 

estimates the resulting costs, benefits, 

and other effects on the national 

economy. (2 U.S.C. 1532(a), (b)) UMRA 

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 

‘‘significant Federal intergovernmental 

mandate,’’ and requires an agency plan 

for giving notice and opportunity for 

timely input to potentially affected 

small governments before establishing 

any requirements that might 

significantly or uniquely affect them. On 

March 18, 1997, DOE published a 

statement of policy on its process for 

intergovernmental consultation under 

UMRA. (62 FR 12820) (This policy is 

also available at: www.energy.gov/gc/ 

guidance-opinions under ‘‘Guidance & 

Opinions’’ (Rulemaking)). DOE 

examined the final rule according to 

UMRA and its statement of policy and 

has determined that the rule contains 

neither an intergovernmental mandate, 

nor a mandate that may result in the 

expenditure by State, local, and Tribal 

governments, in the aggregate, or by the 

private sector, of $100 million or more 

in any year. Accordingly, no further 

assessment or analysis is required under 

UMRA. 

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630 

DOE has determined, under Executive 

Order 12630, ‘‘Governmental Actions 

and Interference with Constitutionally 

Protected Property Rights’’ 53 FR 8859 

(March 18, 1988), that this regulation 

would not result in any takings that 

might require compensation under the 

Fifth Amendment to the U.S. 

Constitution. 

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 OIRA, which 

is part of OMB, 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 

promulgation of a final rule, and that: 

(1)(i) is a significant regulatory action 

under Executive Order 12866, or any 

successor order; and (ii) is likely to have 

a significant adverse effect on the 

supply, distribution, or use of energy, or 

(2) is designated by the Administrator of 

OIRA as a significant energy action. For 

any significant energy action, the agency 

must give a detailed statement of any 

adverse effects on energy supply, 

distribution, or use, and of reasonable 

alternatives to the action and their 

expected benefits on energy supply, 

distribution, and use. This regulatory 

action is not a significant energy action. 

Accordingly, DOE has not prepared a 

Statement of Energy Effects. 

K. 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 final 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
101854 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 17, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

rule that may affect family well-being. 

This final rule would not have any 

impact on the autonomy or integrity of 

the family as an institution. 

Accordingly, DOE has concluded that it 

is not necessary to prepare a Family 

Policymaking Assessment. 

L. Review Under the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act, 2001 

Section 515 of the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516) provides for 

Federal agencies to review most 

disseminations of information to the 

public under guidelines established by 

each agency pursuant to general 

guidelines issued by OMB. OMB’s 

guidelines were published at 67 FR 

8452 (February 22, 2002), and DOE’s 

guidelines were published at 67 FR 

62446 (October 7, 2002). Pursuant to 

OMB Memorandum M–19–15, 

Improving Implementation of the 

Information Quality Act (April 24, 

2019), DOE published updated 

guidelines which are available at: 

www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2019/ 

12/f70/DOE%20Final%20

Updated%20IQA%20Guidelines%20

Dec%202019.pdf. 

DOE has reviewed this final rule and 

will ensure that information produced 

under this regulation remains consistent 

with the applicable OMB and DOE 

guidelines. 

M. Congressional Review 

As required by 5 U.S.C. 801, DOE will 

report to Congress on the promulgation 

of this rule prior to its effective date. 

The report will state that the rule does 

not, meet the criteria set forth in 5 

U.S.C. 804(2). 

V. Approval by the Office of the 

Secretary of Energy 

The Secretary of Energy has approved 

publication of this final rule. 

List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 1008 

Administration practice and 

procedure, Freedom of information, 

Privacy, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Signing Authority 

This document of the Department of 

Energy was signed on [December 11, 

2024, by Ann Dunkin, Senior Agency 

Official for Privacy, pursuant to 

delegated authority from the Secretary 

of Energy. That document with the 

original signature and date is 

maintained by DOE. For administrative 

purposes only, and in compliance with 

requirements of the Office of the Federal 

Register, the undersigned DOE Federal 

Register Liaison Officer has been 

authorized to sign and submit the 

document in electronic format for 

publication, as an official document of 

the Department of Energy. This 

administrative process in no way alters 

the legal effect of this document upon 

publication in the Federal Register. 

Signed in Washington, DC, on December 

12, 2024. 

Treena V. Garrett, 

Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S. 

Department of Energy. 

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, the Department of Energy 

amends part 1008 of chapter X of title 

10 of the Code of Federal Regulations as 

set forth below: 

PART 1008—RECORDS MAINTAINED 

ON INDIVIDUALS (PRIVACY ACT) 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 1008 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7101 et seq.; 50 

U.S.C. 2401 et seq.; 5 U.S.C. 552; 5 U.S.C. 

552a; 42 U.S.C. 7254; and 5 U.S.C. 301. 

Section 1008.22(c) also issued under 42 

U.S.C. 405 note. 

■ 2. Amend § 1008.12 by adding 

paragraph (b)(2)(ii)(Q) to read as 

follows: 

§ 1008.12 Exemptions. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(2) * * * 

(ii) * * * 

(Q) Nondiscrimination in Federally 

Assisted Program Files (DOE–42) 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2024–29664 Filed 12–16–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 33 

[Docket No. FAA–2022–1641; Special 

Conditions No. 33–028–SC] 

Special Conditions: BETA 

Technologies Inc. Model H500A 

Electric Engines 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Final special conditions. 

SUMMARY: These special conditions are 

issued for BETA Technologies Inc. 

(BETA) Model H500A electric engines 

that operate using electrical technology 

installed on the aircraft, for use as an 

aircraft engine. These engines will have 

a novel or unusual design feature when 

compared to the state of technology 

envisioned in the airworthiness 

standards applicable to aircraft engines. 

This design feature is the use of an 

electric motor, motor controller, and 

high-voltage systems as the primary 

source of propulsion for an aircraft. The 

applicable airworthiness regulations do 

not contain adequate or appropriate 

safety standards for this design feature. 

These special conditions contain the 

additional safety standards that the 

Administrator considers necessary to 

establish a level of safety equivalent to 

that established by the existing 

airworthiness standards. 

DATES: Effective January 16, 2025. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Mark Bouyer, Engine and Propulsion 

Standards Section, AIR–625, Technical 

Policy Branch, Policy and Standards 

Division, Aircraft Certification Service, 

1200 District Avenue, Burlington, 

Massachusetts 01803; telephone (781) 

238–7755; mark.bouyer@faa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On January 27, 2022, BETA applied 

for a type certificate for its Model 

H500A electric engines. The BETA 

Model H500A electric engine initially 

will be used as a ‘‘pusher’’ electric 

engine in a single-engine airplane that 

will be certified separately from the 

engine. A typical normal category 

general aviation aircraft locates the 

engine at the front of the fuselage. In 

this configuration, the propeller 

attached to the engine pulls the airplane 

along its flightpath. A pusher engine is 

located at the rear of the fuselage, so the 

propeller attached to the engine pushes 

the aircraft instead of pulling the 

aircraft. 

The BETA Model H500A electric 

engine is comprised of a direct drive, 

radial-flux, permanent-magnet motor, 

divided in two sections, each section 

having a three-phase motor, and one 

electric power inverter controlling each 

three-phase motor. The magnets are 

arranged in a Halbach magnet array, and 

the stator is a concentrated, toothwound configuration. A stator is the 

stationary component in the electric 

engine that surrounds the rotating 

hardware; for example: the BETA 

propeller shaft, which consists of a 

bonded core with coils of insulated 

wire, known as the windings. When 

alternating current is applied to the 

coils of insulated wire in a stator, a 

rotating magnetic field is created, which 

provides the motive force for the 

rotating components. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1