32272 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 115 / Thursday, June 14, 2001 / Proposed Rules

§ 301.38–5 Assembly and inspection of

regulated articles: issuance and

cancellation of certificates.

* * * * *

(b) An inspector may issue a

certificate for the interstate movement of

a regulated article if he or she:

(1) Determines, upon examination,

that the regulated article may be moved

interstate in accordance with § 301.38–

4;

(2) Determines that the regulated

article may be moved interstate in

accordance with all other Federal

domestic plant quarantines and

regulations applicable to the regulated

article; and

(3) Verifies that the regulated article,

if being moved interstate in accordance

with § 301.38–4(b)(2), matches the

description provided to APHIS in

accordance with § 301.38–2(b).

* * * * *

Done in Washington, DC, this 8th day of

June 2001.

Bobby R. Acord,

Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant

Health Inspection Service.

[FR Doc. 01–14943 Filed 6–13–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–34–P

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

10 CFR Part 1008

RIN: 1901–AA69

Privacy Act; Implementation

AGENCY: Department of Energy.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: The Department of Energy

(DOE) proposes to amend its Privacy

Act regulation by adding three systems

of records to the list of systems

exempted from certain subsections of

the Act. Exemptions for two systems of

records are needed to enable the Office

of Employee Concerns and the Office of

Hearings and Appeals to perform their

duties and responsibilities with regard

to investigation and/or adjudication of

employee and contractor employee

concerns or complaints, pursuant to the

whistleblower protection provisions in

Part 708 of title 10 of the Code of

Federal Regulations (CFR) and

applicable laws. An exemption for a

third system of records is needed to

enable the Office of Intelligence to

perform its duties and responsibilities.

DATES: Written comments should be

made on or before July 16, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should

be directed to: Abel Lopez, Director,

Freedom of Information Act and Privacy

Act Division, U.S. Department of

Energy, MA–73, 1000 Independence

Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20585.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Abel

Lopez (Privacy Act Officer), (202) 586–

5955; William Lewis (program contact

for Office of Employee Concerns), (202)

586–6530; William Schwartz (program

contact for Office of Hearings and

Appeals), (202) 287–1522; or Caryl

Butler Gross (program contact for Office

of Intelligence), (202) 586–5172.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

II. Analysis

III. Regulatory and Procedural Requirements

A. Review Under Executive Order 12866

B. Review Under Executive Order 12988

C. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility

Act

D. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction

Act

E. Review Under the National

Environmental Policy Act

F. Review Under Executive Order 13132

G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates

Reform Act of 1995

H. Review Under the Treasury and General

Government Appropriations Act, 1999

I. Review Under Executive Order 13084

IV. Public Comment

I. Background

Pursuant to the Privacy Act of 1974

(the Act), as amended (5 U.S.C. 552a(j)

and (k)), the Secretary of Energy is

authorized to promulgate rules, in

accordance with the notice and

comment requirements in 5 U.S.C. 553,

to exempt any system of records within

the agency from certain subsections of

the Act. Accordingly, DOE is proposing

three new systems of records to be

added to the list of systems of records

exempted from certain subsections of

the Act.

One of the proposed exemptions

would amend the DOE’s Privacy Act

regulation to enable the Office of

Employee Concerns to carry out its

investigative duties and responsibilities.

DOE recognizes that free and open

expression of DOE Federal and

contractor and subcontractor employee

concerns is essential to safe and

efficient accomplishment of DOE’s

mission. DOE and contractor employees

have the right and responsibility to

report concerns relating to the

environment, safety, health, or

management of Department operations.

The Employee Concerns Program is

designed to encourage open

communication; inform employees of

the proper forum for consideration of

their concerns; ensure employees can

raise issues without fearing reprisal;

address employee concerns in a timely

and objective manner; and provide

employees an avenue for consideration

of concerns that fall outside existing

systems. Employee Concerns Program

records include concerns or complaints

brought to the attention of DOE

Employee Concerns Program offices.

These records include the receipt of

complaints filed under 10 CFR part 708,

the DOE Contractor Employee

Protection Program. The records in this

system will be used by employee

concerns program offices to document

concerns brought to their attention and

to assist in the resolution of concerns

about various work-related issues

including the environment, safety,

health, employer-supervisor

relationships, or work processes and

practices.

A second proposed exemption would

amend the DOE’s Privacy Act regulation

to enable the Office of Hearings and

Appeals to carry out its investigative

and adjudicatory duties and

responsibilities under 10 CFR part 708

and other whistleblower protection

laws. These include investigating

allegations of acts of reprisal taken

against a DOE employee or DOE

contractor employee who claims to have

made a protected disclosure, as defined

in 10 CFR part 708, and subsequently

processing such ‘‘whistleblower’’

claims, including hearings and appeals

on such matters. These duties and

responsibilities are carried out pursuant

to those regulations and section 3164 of

the National Defense Authorization Act

for FY 2000 (Pub. L. 106–65), codified

in 42 U.S.C. 7239.

The third proposed exemption would

amend the DOE’s Privacy Act regulation

to enable the Office of Intelligence to

carry out its duties and responsibilities

involving national security. More

specifically, these include controlling

access to and use of Sensitive

Compartmented Information (SCI) and

other classified intelligence information

bearing the Director, Central Intelligence

(DCI) authorized control markings;

approving access to SCI in compliance

with DCI directives; and conducting

eligibility determinations,

adjudications, revocations and appeals

from denials and revocations.

II. Analysis

DOE proposes to amend § 1008.12 (b)

of its Privacy Act regulation to exempt

the following three new systems of

records from certain subsections of the

Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a).

The system of records, ‘‘Employee

Concerns Program Records’’ (DOE–3),

will be exempt from subsections (c)(3),

(d)(2), and (e)(1) of 5 U.S.C. 552a

pursuant to subsections (k)(1), (2), and

(5), to the extent that information in this

system meets the requirements of those

subsections of the Act.

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 115 / Thursday, June 14, 2001 / Proposed Rules 32273

The system of records,

‘‘Whistleblower Investigation, Hearing

and Appeal Records’’ (DOE–7), will be

exempt from subsections (c)(3), (d)(2),

and (e)(1) of 5 U.S.C. 552a pursuant to

subsections (k)(1), (2), and (5), to the

extent that information in this system

meets the requirements of those

subsections of the Act.

The system of records, ‘‘Intelligence

Related Access Authorization’’ (DOE–

15), will be exempt from subsections

(c)(3), (d), (e)(1), (e)(4)(G) and (H), and

(f) of 5 U.S.C. 552a pursuant to

subsections (k)(1), (2), and (5), to the

extent that information in this system

meets the requirements of those

subsections of the Act. This system of

records will consist of administrative

records of DOE and contractor

employees, consultants, and certain

persons applying for, granted or denied

access to certain categories of classified

information. The purpose of the system

is to satisfy the requirements of

Executive Order 12968, the Department

of Energy Procedures for Intelligence

Activities, and DOE Order 5670.1A

‘‘Management and Control of Foreign

Intelligence.’’

Subsections (k)(1), (2), and (5)

Generally speaking, subsection (k)(1),

5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(1), provides that the

head of an agency may exempt an

agency system of records from certain

provisions of the Privacy Act if the

system of records is subject to Section

552(b)(1) of the Freedom of Information

Act, 5 U.S.C. 552. That section of the

Freedom of Information Act protects

from disclosure properly classified

national security information.

Subsection (k)(2), 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(2),

provides that the head of an agency may

exempt an agency system of records

from certain provisions of the Privacy

Act if the system of records is

investigatory material compiled for law

enforcement purposes, provided that, if

any individual is denied a right,

privilege or benefit under Federal law,

the material will be provided, except to

the extent that disclosure would reveal

the identity of a confidential source.

Subsection (k)(5), 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(5),

provides that the head of an agency may

exempt an agency system of records

from certain provisions of the Privacy

Act if the system of records is

investigatory material compiled solely

for the purpose of determining

suitability, eligibility, or qualifications

for Federal civilian employment,

military service, Federal contracts, or

access to classified information, but

only to the extent that disclosure would

reveal the identity of a confidential

source.

The detailed reasons for exemptions

under 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(1), (2) and (5) are

as follows:

Subsection (k)(1) Exemption

Under subsection (k)(1) of the Privacy

Act records may be exempted that are

‘‘specifically authorized under criteria

established by an Executive Order to be

kept secret in the interest of national

defense or foreign policy and are in fact

properly classified pursuant to such

Executive Order,’’ 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(1).

To the extent that records in these

systems are classified pursuant to an

Executive Order, they may not be

disclosed. Therefore, this exemption

will apply as follows:

Subsections Exempt Pursuant to (k)(1)

(1) Except for disclosures made under

(b)(7) of the Act, 5 U.S.C. 552a(c)(3)

requires that upon request, an agency

must give an individual named in a

record an accounting that reflects the

disclosure of the record to other persons

or agencies. This accounting must state

the date, nature, and purpose of each

disclosure of the record and the name

and address of the recipient. Under

subsection (k)(1) of the Privacy Act,

records may be exempted that are

specifically authorized under criteria

established by an Executive Order to be

kept secret in the interest of national

defense or foreign policy and are in fact

properly classified pursuant to such

Executive Order. To the extent that

records in these systems are classified

pursuant to an Executive Order, they

may not be disclosed.

The DOE has programs involving

classified material that may be the

subject of a whistleblower complaint,

and the Office of Intelligence handles

certain types of classified information.

The application of this accounting

provision to records involving properly

classified material could reveal

classified material. If this information

about classified material were disclosed,

national security might be

compromised. An example of an issue

involving classified material that can

affect national security would be a

whistleblower complaint that discusses

security measures at a particular

weapons facility. Such information

could be utilized improperly to the

detriment of national security.

(2) These systems also are exempt

from paragraph (d)(2) of this section. To

require the Office of Employee

Concerns, the Office of Hearings and

Appeals and the Office of Intelligence to

amend information thought to be

incorrect, irrelevant, or untimely,

because of the nature of the information

collected and the essential length of

time it is maintained, would create an

impossible administrative and

investigative burden by forcing the

agency to continuously retrograde its

investigations and access adjudications

attempting to resolve questions of

accuracy.

(3) 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(1) requires each

agency to maintain in its records only

such information about an individual

that is relevant and necessary to

accomplish a purpose of the agency

required by statute or Executive Order.

The Office of Intelligence maintains

records relating to authorization for

individuals to have access to classified

information. The Office of Employee

Concerns and the Office of Hearings and

Appeals do not create the material they

collect and have no control over the

content of that material. An exemption

from the foregoing is needed because:

a. It is not always possible to detect

the relevance or necessity of specific

information in the early stages of an

investigation that involves use of

properly classified information or of an

adjudication of access to classified

national security information.

b. Relevance and necessity are

questions of judgment and timing, and

it is only after the information is

evaluated that the relevancy and

necessity of such information can be

established. Furthermore, information

outside the scope of the Office of

Employee Concerns’ and the Office of

Hearings and Appeals’ jurisdiction may

be helpful in establishing patterns of

activities or problems or in developing

information that should be referred to

other entities. Such information cannot

always readily be segregated. Likewise,

in any adjudication of access,

information may be obtained concerning

violations of laws other than those

within the scope of the adjudication. In

the interest of effective law

enforcement, such information should

be retained for dissemination to

appropriate law enforcement agencies.

c. In interviewing persons or

obtaining information from other

sources during an adjudication

including the background investigation,

information may be supplied to the

investigator which relates to matters

incidental to the main purpose of the

inquiry or investigation, but which also

relates to matters under the jurisdiction

of another agency. Such information

cannot readily be segregated.

Subsection (k)(2) Exemption

Subsection (k)(2) permits the

exemption of investigatory material

compiled for law enforcement purposes,

other than material within the scope of

5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2), provided, however,

32274 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 115 / Thursday, June 14, 2001 / Proposed Rules

that if any individual is denied any

right, privilege, or benefit to which he

would otherwise be entitled by Federal

law, or for which he would otherwise be

eligible, as a result of the maintenance

of such material, such material shall be

provided to such individual. The

material will be provided except to the

extent that the disclosure of such

material would reveal the identity of a

source who furnished information to the

Government under an express promise

that the identity of the source would be

held in confidence, or, prior to

September 27, 1975, under an implied

promise that the identity of the source

would be held in confidence.

Subsections Exempt Pursuant to (k)(2)

(1) Except for disclosures made under

(b)(7) of the Act, 5 U.S.C. 552a(c)(3)

requires that upon request, an agency

must give an individual named in a

record an accounting that reflects the

disclosure of the record to other persons

or agencies. This accounting must state

the date, nature, and purpose of each

disclosure of the records and the name

and address of the recipient. To the

extent that such an accounting would

lead directly or indirectly to the

disclosure of the identity of a source as

described above, the (k)(2) exemption is

applicable.

(2) These systems also are exempt

from paragraph (d)(2) of this section. To

require the Office of Employee

Concerns, the Office of Hearings and

Appeals and the Office of Intelligence to

amend information thought to be

incorrect, irrelevant, or untimely,

because of the nature of the information

collected and the essential length of

time it is maintained, would create an

impossible administrative and

investigative burden by forcing the

agency to continuously retrograde its

investigations and access adjudications

attempting to resolve questions of

accuracy.

(3) 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(1) requires each

agency to maintain in its records only

such information about an individual

that is relevant and necessary to

accomplish a purpose of the agency

required by statute or Executive Order.

An exemption from the foregoing is

needed because:

a. It is not always possible to detect

the relevance or necessity of specific

information in the early stages of an

investigation involving employee

complaints or concerns and

whistleblowing or of an adjudication of

access to classified national security

information.

b. Relevance and necessity are

questions of judgment and timing. What

appears relevant and necessary when

collected may ultimately be determined

to be unnecessary. It is only after the

information is evaluated or the

investigation, hearing or appeal is

completed that the relevancy and

necessity of such information can be

established.

c. In investigating an employee

complaint or conducting a

whistleblower proceeding, or in the

adjudication of access to classified

national security information, the

relevant office may obtain information

concerning the violation of laws other

than those within the scope of its

jurisdiction. In the interest of effective

law enforcement, these offices should be

able to retain this information as it may

aid in establishing patterns of program

violations or criminal activity and

provide leads for those law enforcement

agencies charged with enforcing other

segments of criminal or civil law.

d. In addition, information obtained

by these offices may relate not only to

an investigation or proceeding under 10

CFR part 708 or to an adjudication of

access to classified national security

information, but also to matters under

the jurisdiction of another agency. Such

information is not readily segregable

and should be retained for

dissemination to appropriate law

enforcement agencies charged with

enforcing other criminal or civil law.

(4) The Office of Intelligence system

of records is exempt from paragraphs

(d), (e)(4)(G) and (H), and (f) as they

relate to an individual’s right to be

notified of the existence of records

pertaining to such individual;

requirements for identifying an

individual who requests access to

records; and agency procedures relating

to access to records and the content of

information contained in such records.

The reason for this exemption is that to

notify an individual, at the individual’s

request, of the existence of records in an

investigative file pertaining to such

individual or to grant access to an

investigative file could interfere with

investigations undertaken in connection

with national security, or could disclose

the identity of sources kept secret to

protect national security or reveal

confidential information supplied by

these sources.

Subsection (k)(5) Exemption

The (k)(5) exemption is for

investigatory material compiled solely

for the purpose of determining

suitability, eligibility, or qualifications

for Federal civilian employment,

military service, Federal contracts, or

access to classified information. The

(k)(5) exemption applies only to the

extent that disclosure would reveal the

identity of a source who furnished

information under an express promise

of confidentiality. Where this is the

case, the (k)(5) exemption applies, as

follows:

Subsections Exempt Pursuant to (k)(5)

(1) Except for disclosures made under

(b)(7) of the Act, 5 U.S.C. 552a(c)(3)

requires that upon request, an agency

must give an individual named in a

record an accounting which reflects the

disclosure of the record to other persons

or agencies. This accounting must state

the date, nature, and purpose of each

disclosure of the records and the name

and address of the recipient. To the

extent that such an accounting would

lead directly or indirectly to the

disclosure of the identity of a source as

described above, the (k)(5) exemption is

applicable.

(2) 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(1) requires each

agency to maintain in its records only

such information about an individual

that is relevant and necessary to

accomplish a purpose of the agency

required by statute or Executive Order.

Any information compiled solely for

one of the purposes enumerated in (k)(5)

e.g., determining access to sensitive or

classified information is properly

subject to the (k)(5) exemption when it

reveals confidential sources or

confidential information. An exemption

from the foregoing is needed because:

a. It is not always possible to detect

the relevance or necessity of specific

information in the early stages of an

investigation of a complaint or concern

that may involve whistleblowing or in

the early stages of an adjudication of

access to classified national security

information.

b. Relevance and necessity are

questions of judgment and timing. What

appears relevant and necessary when

collected may ultimately be determined

to be unnecessary. It is only after the

information is evaluated or the

investigation, hearing or appeal is

completed that the relevancy and

necessity of such information can be

established.

c. In investigating an employee

complaint or concern or in conducting

a whistleblower proceeding, or in the

adjudication of access to classified

national security information, the

relevant office may obtain information

concerning the violation of laws other

than those within the scope of its

jurisdiction. In the interest of effective

law enforcement, these offices should be

able to retain this information as it may

aid in establishing patterns of program

violations or criminal activity and

provide leads for those law enforcement

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 115 / Thursday, June 14, 2001 / Proposed Rules 32275

agencies charged with enforcing other

segments of criminal or civil law.

d. Information obtained by the Office

of Employee Concerns, the Office of

Hearings and Appeals, or the Office of

Intelligence in an investigation or

adjudication, may relate to the DOE

proceeding as well as to matters under

the jurisdiction of another agency. Such

information is not readily segregable

and in the interest of effective law

enforcement, such information should

be retained for dissemination to

appropriate law enforcement agencies

charged with enforcing other criminal or

civil law.

(3) 5 U.S.C. 552a(c)(4) requires

disclosure of corrections or notations of

disputes in records made in accordance

with subsection (d). These systems are

exempt from paragraph (d)(2) of this

section because to require the Office of

Employee Concerns, the Office of

Hearings and Appeals or the Office of

Intelligence to amend information

thought to be incorrect, irrelevant, or

untimely, because of the nature of the

information collected and the essential

length of time it is maintained, would

create an impossible administrative and

investigative burden by forcing the

agency to continuously retrograde its

investigations and adjudications

attempting to resolve questions of

accuracy.

(4) 5 U.S.C. 552a(d), (e)(4)(G) and (H),

and (f) relate to the following: An

individual’s right to be notified of the

existence of records pertaining to such

individual; requirements for identifying

an individual who requests access to

records; and agency procedures relating

to access to records and the content of

information contained in such records.

The Office of Intelligence system of

records is exempt from the foregoing

provisions because to notify an

individual, at the individual’s request,

of the existence of records in an

investigative file pertaining to such

individual or to grant access to an

investigative file could interfere with

investigations undertaken in connection

with national security, or could disclose

the identity of sources kept secret to

protect national security or reveal

confidential information supplied by

these sources.

III. Regulatory and Procedural

Requirements

A. Review Under Executive Order 12866

Today’s regulatory action has been

determined not to be ‘‘a significant

regulatory action’’ under Executive

Order 12866, ‘‘Regulatory Planning and

Review’’ (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993).

Accordingly, this action was not subject

to review under that Executive Order by

the Office of Information and Regulatory

Affairs of the Office of Management and

Budget.

B. Review Under Executive Order 12988

With respect to the review of existing

regulations and the promulgation of

new regulations, section 3(a) of

Executive Order 12988, ‘‘Civil Justice

Reform’’ (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996)

imposes on Executive agencies the

general duty to adhere to the following

requirements: (1) Eliminate drafting

errors and ambiguity; (2) write

regulations to minimize litigation; and

(3) provide a clear legal standard for

affected conduct rather than a general

standard and promote simplification

and burden reduction. With regard to

the review required by section 3(a),

section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988

specifically requires that Executive

agencies make every reasonable effort to

ensure that the regulation: (1) Clearly

specifies the preemptive effect, if any;

(2) clearly specifies any effect on

existing federal law or regulation; (3)

provides a clear legal standard for

affected conduct while promoting

simplification and burden reduction; (4)

specifies the retroactive effect, if any; (5)

adequately defines key terms; and (6)

addresses other important issues

affecting clarity and general

draftsmanship under any guidelines

issued by the Attorney General. Section

3(c) of Executive Order 12988 requires

Executive agencies to review regulations

in light of applicable standards in

section 3(a) and section 3(b) to

determine whether they are met or it is

unreasonable to meet one or more of

them. DOE has completed the required

review and determined that, to the

extent permitted by law, this proposed

rule meets the relevant standards of

Executive Order 12988.

C. Review Under the Regulatory

Flexibility Act

This rule was reviewed under the

Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601

et seq., which requires preparation of a

regulatory flexibility analysis for any

proposed rule that is likely to have a

significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities.

This proposed rule will have no impact

on interest rates, tax policies or

liabilities, the cost of goods or services,

or other direct economic factors. It also

will not have any indirect economic

consequences. The DOE certifies that

this proposed rule will not have a

significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities

and, therefore, no regulatory flexibility

analysis has been prepared.

D. Review Under the Paperwork

Reduction Act

No new information collection or

record keeping requirements are

imposed by this proposed rule.

Accordingly, no clearance by the Office

of Management and Budget is required

under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44

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

E. Review Under the National

Environmental Policy Act

DOE has concluded that this proposed

rule would not represent a major

Federal action having significant impact

on the human environment, as

determined by DOE’s regulations

implementing the National

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42

U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). Specifically, this

rule amends an existing regulation and

does not change its environmental

impact, and, therefore, is covered under

the Categorical Exclusion in paragraph

A5 of Appendix A to subpart D, 10 CFR

Part 1021. Accordingly, neither an

environmental assessment nor an

environmental impact statement is

required.

F. Review Under Executive Order 13132

Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255,

August 4, 1999) imposes certain

requirements on agencies formulating

and implementing policies or

regulations that preempt State law or

that have federalism implications.

Agencies are required to examine the

constitutional and statutory authority

supporting any action that would limit

the policy making discretion of the

States and carefully assess the necessity

for such actions. DOE has examined

today’s rule and has determined that it

does not preempt State law and does not

have a substantial direct effect on the

States, on the relationship between the

national government and the States, or

on the distribution of power and

responsibilities among the various

levels of government. No further action

is required by Executive Order 13132.

G. Review Under the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act of 1995

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates

Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4)

requires each Federal agency to prepare

a written assessment of the effects of

any Federal mandate in a proposed or

final rule that may result in the

expenditure by State, local, and tribal

governments, in the aggregate, or by the

private sector, of $100 million in any

one year. The Act also requires a

Federal agency to develop an effective

process to permit timely input by

elected officers of State, local, and tribal

governments on a proposed ‘‘significant

32276 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 115 / Thursday, June 14, 2001 / Proposed Rules

intergovernmental mandate,’’ and it

requires an agency to develop a plan for

giving notice and opportunity for timely

input to potentially affected small

governments before establishing any

requirement that might significantly or

uniquely affect them. This proposed

rule does not contain any Federal

mandate and, therefore, these

requirements do not apply.

H. Review Under the Treasury and

General Government Appropriations

Act, 1999

Section 654 of the Treasury and

General Government Appropriations

Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105–277), requires

Federal agencies to issue a Family

Policymaking Assessment for any

proposed rule or policy that may affect

family well-being. This proposed rule

would not have any impact on the

autonomy or integrity of the family as

an institution. Accordingly, DOE has

not prepared a Family Policymaking

Assessment.

I. Review Under Executive Order 13084

Under Executive Order 13084

(Consultation and Coordination with

Indian Tribal Governments), DOE may

not issue a discretionary rule that

significantly or uniquely affects Indian

tribal governments and imposes

substantial direct compliance costs.

This proposed rulemaking would not

have such effects. Accordingly,

Executive Order 13084 does not apply

to this rulemaking.

IV. Public Comment

Interested persons are invited to

participate by submitting data, views, or

arguments with respect to the proposed

amendments to the DOE Privacy Act

regulation as set forth in this notice.

Three copies of written comments

should be submitted to the address

indicated in the ADDRESSES section of

this notice. All comments received will

be available for public inspection in the

DOE Freedom of Information Public

Reading Room, Room 1E–190, Forrestal

Building, 1000 Independence Avenue,

SW, Washington, DC 20585, between

the hours of 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday

through Friday, except Federal holidays.

All written comments received by the

date indicated in the DATES section of

this notice will be carefully assessed

and fully considered prior to

publication of the proposed amendment

as a final rule. Any information

considered to be confidential must be so

identified and submitted in writing, one

copy only. DOE reserves the right to

determine the confidential status of the

information and to treat it according to

that determination.

The Department has concluded that

this proposed rule does not involve a

substantial issue of fact or law and that

the proposed rule should not have

substantial impact on the nation’s

economy or a large number of

individuals or businesses. Therefore,

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 7191(b), the

Department does not plan to hold a

public hearing on this proposed rule.

List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 1008

Government employees,

Investigations, Privacy, Security

measures, Whistleblowing.

Issued in Washington, DC on May 21,

2001.

Richard H. Hopf,

Acting Director, Office of Management and

Administration.

For the reasons set forth in the

preamble, part 1008 of Chapter X of

Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, is

proposed to be amended as set forth

below:

PART 1008—RECORDS MAINTAINED

ON INDIVIDUALS (PRIVACY ACT)

1. The authority citation for part 1008

is revised to read as follows:

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

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

2. Section 1008.12 is amended:

a. by adding paragraphs (b)(1)(ii)(K),

(b)(1)(ii)(L), (b)(1)(ii)(M);

b. by adding paragraphs (b)(2)(ii)(N),

(b)(2)(ii)(O), (b)(2)(ii)(P);

c. by adding paragraphs (b)(3)(ii)(P),

(b)(3)(ii)(Q) and (b)(3)(ii)(R).

The additions specified above read as

follows:

§ 1008.12 Exemptions.

* * * * *

(b) * * *

(1) * * *

(ii) * * *

(K) Employee Concerns Program

Records (DOE–3)

(L) Whistleblower Investigation,

Hearing and Appeal Records (DOE–7)

(M) Intelligence Related Access

Authorization (DOE–15)

(2) * * *

(ii) * * *

(N) Employee Concerns Program

Records (DOE–3)

(O) Whistleblower Investigation,

Hearing and Appeal Records (DOE–7)

(P) Intelligence Related Access

Authorization (DOE–15)

(3) * * *

(ii) * * *

(P) Employee Concerns Program

Records (DOE–3)

(Q) Whistleblower Investigation,

Hearing and Appeal Records (DOE–7)

(R) Intelligence Related Access

Authorization (DOE–15)

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 01–14990 Filed 6–13–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 99–NM–90–AD]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell

Douglas Model DC–9 Series Airplanes

and Model MD–88 Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Supplemental notice of

proposed rulemaking; reopening of

comment period.

SUMMARY: This document revises an

earlier proposed airworthiness directive

(AD), applicable to certain McDonnell

Douglas Model DC–9 series airplanes

and C–9 airplanes, that would have

required modification of the electrical

power center and modification and

overhaul of certain alternating current

power relays. That proposal was

prompted by reports indicating that the

alternating current (AC) cross-tie relay

shorted out internally, which caused

severe smoke and burn damage to the

relay, aircraft wiring, and adjacent

panels. This new action revises the

proposed rule by expanding the

applicability to include additional

airplanes; removing certain

requirements; and revising certain

requirements and service information.

The actions specified by this new

proposed AD are intended to prevent a

short in the cross-tie relay, which may

result in in-flight electrical fires.

DATES: Comments must be received by

July 9, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in

triplicate to the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), Transport

Airplane Directorate, ANM–114,

Attention: Rules Docket No. 99–NM–

90–AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW.,

Renton, Washington 98055–4056.

Comments may be inspected at this

location between 9 a.m. and 3 p.m.,

Monday through Friday, except Federal

holidays. Comments may be submitted

via fax to (425) 227–1232. Comments

may also be sent via the Internet using

the following address: 9-anmnprmcomment@faa.gov. Comments sent

via fax or the Internet must contain