Source: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2001/11/14/01-28543/testimony-by-dnfsb-employees-and-production-of-official-records-in-legal-proceedings
Timestamp: 2017-08-20 12:53:17
Document Index: 683732867

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 1707', '§\u20091707', '§\u20091707', '§\u20091707', '§\u20091707', '§\u20091707', '§\u20091707', 'art 1707', '§\u20091707', '§\u20091707', '§\u20091707', '§\u20091707', '§\u20091707', '§\u20091707', '§\u20091707', '§\u20091707', '§\u20091707', '§\u20091707', '§\u20091707', '§\u20091707', '§\u20091707', '§\u20091707', '§\u20091707', '§\u20091707']

Federal Register :: Testimony by DNFSB Employees and Production of Official Records in Legal Proceedings
Testimony by DNFSB Employees and Production of Official Records in Legal Proceedings
A Proposed Rule by the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board on 11/14/2001
Comments must be received on or before December 14, 2001.
57003-57007 (5 pages)
10 CFR 1707
List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 1707
https://www.federalregister.gov/d/01-28543 https://www.federalregister.gov/d/01-28543
The Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (DNFSB) is issuing a proposed rule that sets forth procedures that requesters would have to follow when making demands or requests to a DNFSB employee to produce official records or information or to provide testimony relating to official information in connection with a legal proceeding in which the DNFSB is not a party. This proposed rule establishes procedures to respond to such demands and requests in an orderly and consistent manner. The rule, among other benefits, promotes uniformity in decisions, protects confidential information, provides guidance to requesters, and reduces the potential for both inappropriate disclosures of official information and wasteful allocation of agency resources.
Send comments to Richard A. Azzaro, General Counsel, Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, 625 Indiana Avenue, NW., Suite 700, Washington, DC 20004-2901.
Richard A. Azzaro, General Counsel, Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, 625 Indiana Avenue, NW., Suite 700, Washington, DC 20004-2901, telephone: 202-694-7062; FAX: 202-208-6518.
The Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board may receive subpoenas and requests for DNFSB employees to provide evidence in litigation in which the DNFSB is not a party. These subpoenas and requests may also be for DNFSB records that are not available to the public under the Freedom of Information Act. Also, DNFSB could receive subpoenas or requests for DNFSB employees to appear as witnesses in litigation in conjunction with a request for nonpublic records.
Responding to such demands and requests could divert DNFSB resources from their congressionally mandated functions. The proposed regulation will ensure a more efficient use of DNFSB resources, minimize the possibility of involving DNFSB in issues unrelated to its responsibilities, promote uniformity in responding to such requests and subpoenas, and maintain impartiality of DNFSB in matters that are in dispute between other parties. It also serves DNFSB's duty to protect sensitive, confidential, and privileged information and records.
Furthermore, responding to such demands and requests could also result in significant disruption in a DNFSB employee's work schedule. The result is that employees may be diverted from performing their official duties in order to respond to requests from parties in litigation. In order to address this problem, many agencies over the years have issued “Touhy” regulations that are similar to this proposed regulation, governing the circumstances and manner in which an employee may respond to demands for testimony or for the production of documents. Such a regulation was upheld by the United States Supreme Court in United States ex rel. Touhy v. Ragen, 340 U.S. 462 (1951).
In Touhy, the Supreme Court held that a Department of Justice (DOJ) official, acting on order of the Attorney Start Printed Page 57004General, could not be held in contempt for declining to produce records in response to a subpoena. The employee's refusal was based upon a DOJ regulation that prohibited disclosure of agency files, documents, records, or information without the express approval of the Attorney General. The Court upheld the validity of the DOJ regulation, reasoning that it was appropriate for the Attorney General to prescribe regulations not inconsistent with law for the custody, use, and preservation of records, papers, and property pertaining to the Department of Justice.
Briefly summarized, this proposed rule would prohibit disclosure of nonpublic official records or testimony by DNFSB employees unless authorization is provided pursuant to the rule (§§ 1707.201 and 1707.203). The proposed rule identifies the factors that DNFSB will consider in making determinations in response to such requests and what information requesters must provide (§§ 1707.202 and 1707.203). The proposed rule also specifies when the request should be submitted (§ 1707.203), the time period for review (§ 1707.205), potential fees (§ 1707.301), and, if a request is granted, any restrictions that may be placed on the disclosure of records or the appearance of a DNFSB employee as a witness (§§ 1707.207 and 1707.208). The charges for witnesses are the same as those provided by the Federal courts; and the fees related to production of records are the same as those charged under FOIA. The charges for time spent by an employee to prepare for testimony and for certification of records by DNFSB are authorized under 31 U.S.C. 9701, which permits an agency to charge for services or things of value that are provided by the agency.
The proposed rule applies to a broad range of matters in any legal proceeding in which DNFSB is not a named party. It also applies to former and current DNFSB employees (as well as DNFSB consultants and advisors). Former employees are prohibited from testifying about specific matters for which they had responsibility during their active employment unless permitted to testify as provided in the proposed rule. They would not be barred from appearing to testify about general matters unconnected with the specific matters for which they had responsibility.
The proposed DNFSB rule is internal to the agency, and is essentially procedural, not substantive. It would not create a right to obtain official records or the testimony of a DNFSB employee nor would it create any additional right or privilege not already available to DNFSB to deny any demand or request therefor. However, failure to comply with the procedures in the proposed rule would be a basis for denying a demand or request submitted to DNFSB.
This rulemaking is in compliance with the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553) and allows for a 30-day comment period. Interested persons are invited to submit written comments to DNFSB on this proposed regulation, to be received on or before December 14, 2001. The Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board will review all comments received and consider any modifications to this proposal which appear warranted in issuing its final rule.
For purposes of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6), the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The rule addresses only the procedures to be followed in the production or disclosure of DNFSB materials and information in litigation where DNFSB is not a party.
Accordingly, DNFSB has determined that a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is not required.
In issuing this regulation, the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board has adhered to the regulatory philosophy and the applicable principles of regulation as set forth in section 1 of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review. This rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget under that Executive Order since it is not a significant regulatory action within the meaning of the Executive Order.
The Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, has reviewed this regulation in light of section 3 of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, and certifies that it meets the applicable standards provided therein.
The Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35) does not apply because this regulation does not contain information collection requirements that require approval by the Office of Management and Budget. The Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board expects the collection of information that is called for by the regulation would involve fewer than ten persons each year.
The Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board has determined that this rulemaking does not involve a rule within the meaning of the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 8).
Approved: November 8, 2001.
Chairman, Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board.
Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board propses to add a new part 1707 to 10 CFR to read as follows:
1707.101
1707.102
1707.103
1707.201
1707.202
Factors DNFSB will consider.
1707.203
1707.204
1707.205
1707.206
1707.207
1707.208
1707.209
1707.210
1707.301
1707.401
Start Printed Page 57005 Authority: Enabling Statute of the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, 42 U.S.C. 2286b(c); 44 U.S.C. 3101-3107, 3301-3303a, 3308-3314.
§ 1707.101
§ 1707.102
§ 1707.103
§ 1707.201
§ 1707.202
(n) A substantial Government interest is implicated; Start Printed Page 57006
§ 1707.203
§ 1707.204
§ 1707.205
§ 1707.206
§ 1707.207
§ 1707.208
(b) If the General Counsel so determines, original DNFSB records may be presented for examination in response to a demand or request, but they are not to be presented as evidence or otherwise used in a manner by which they could lose their identity as official DNFSB records, nor are they to be marked or altered. In lieu of the original records, certified copies will be Start Printed Page 57007presented for evidentiary purposes (see 28 U.S.C. 1733).
§ 1707.209
If a response to a demand or request is required before the General Counsel can make the determination referred to in § 1707.201, the General Counsel, when necessary, will provide the court or other competent authority with a copy of this part, inform the court or other competent authority that the demand or request is being reviewed, and seek a stay of the demand or request pending a final determination.
§ 1707.210
§ 1707.301
§ 1707.401
[FR Doc. 01-28543 Filed 11-13-01; 8:45 am]