Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Energy

          - 10 CFR Part 1008
          - [DOE-HQ-2024-0084]
          - RIN 1903-AA16

# 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.                          ( print page 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 well-defined 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                           ( print page 101852)                        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 well-defined 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                           ( print page 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                           ( print page 101854)                        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%20Updated%20IQA%20Guidelines%20Dec%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

* * * * *

(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