Computer Security; Access to Information on Department of Energy Computers and Computer Systems, 40880-40886 [06-6319]
Download as PDF
40880
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 138 / Wednesday, July 19, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
Immediate Action
Immediate action is warranted to
relieve restrictions that are no longer
necessary. Under these circumstances,
the Administrator has determined that
prior notice and opportunity for public
comment are contrary to the public
interest and that there is good cause
under 5 U.S.C. 553 for making this
action effective less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register.
We will consider comments we
receive during the comment period for
this interim rule (see DATES above).
After the comment period closes, we
will publish another document in the
Federal Register. The document will
include a discussion of any comments
we receive and any amendments we are
making to the rule.
mstockstill on PROD1PC68 with RULES
Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory
Flexibility Act
This rule has been reviewed under
Executive Order 12866. For this action,
the Office of Management and Budget
has waived its review under Executive
Order 12866.
We are amending the ALB regulations
by removing of Oz Park area within
Cook County, IL, from the list of
quarantined areas and removing
restrictions on the interstate movement
of regulated articles from that area. We
have determined that the ALB no longer
presents a risk of spread from that area
and that the quarantine and restrictions
are no longer necessary.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act
requires that agencies consider the
economic impact of their rules on small
entities, i.e., small businesses,
organizations, and governmental
jurisdictions. The entities most likely to
be affected by this rule include
nurserymen, tree care services, firewood
retailers, and lawn maintenance
businesses in the area being removed
from quarantine.
In the Oz Park area of Cook County,
IL, that we are deregulating in this
interim rule, which is about 9 square
miles in size, there are at least 71
entities that will be affected by this
interim rule. These entities are mainly
tree and landscape companies; there are
also a few municipalities and wood
recycling services. While the size of
these 71 entities is unknown, it is
reasonable to assume that most are
small entities based on Small Business
Administration size standards.
Any affected entities located within
the area removed from quarantine stand
to benefit from the interim rule, since
they are no longer subject to the
restrictions in the regulations. However,
our experience with the ALB program in
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:11 Jul 18, 2006
Jkt 208001
Illinois, New York, and New Jersey has
shown that the number and value of
regulated articles that are, upon
inspection, determined to be infested,
and therefore denied a certificate or a
limited permit for movement, is small.
Thus, any benefit for affected entities in
the areas removed from quarantine is
likely to be minimal, given that the costs
associated with the restrictions that
have been relieved were themselves
minimal.
Under these circumstances, the
Administrator of the Animal and Plant
Health Inspection Service has
determined that this action will not
have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities.
Executive Order 12372
This program/activity is listed in the
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance
under No. 10.025 and is subject to
Executive Order 12372, which requires
intergovernmental consultation with
State and local officials. (See 7 CFR part
3015, subpart V.)
Executive Order 12988
This rule has been reviewed under
Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice
Reform. This rule: (1) Preempts all State
and local laws and regulations that are
inconsistent with this rule; (2) has no
retroactive effect; and (3) does not
require administrative proceedings
before parties may file suit in court
challenging this rule.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This interim rule contains no
information collection or recordkeeping
requirements under the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.).
List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 301
Agricultural commodities, Plant
diseases and pests, Quarantine,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Transportation.
I Accordingly, we are amending 7 CFR
part 301 as follows:
PART 301—DOMESTIC QUARANTINE
NOTICES
1. The authority citation for part 301
continues to read as follows:
I
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 7701–7772 and 7781–
7786; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.3.
Section 301.75–15 issued under Sec. 204,
Title II, Public Law 106–113, 113 Stat.
1501A–293; sections 301.75–15 and 301.75–
16 issued under Sec. 203, Title II, Public Law
106–224, 114 Stat. 400 (7 U.S.C. 1421 note).
§ 301.51–3
[Amended]
I 2. In § 301.51–3, paragraph (c) is
amended by removing the heading
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
‘‘Illinois’’ and the entry for Cook
County.
Done in Washington, DC, this 13th day of
July 2006.
Kevin Shea,
Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant
Health Inspection Service.
[FR Doc. E6–11430 Filed 7–18–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410–34–P
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
10 CFR Part 727
48 CFR Parts 904 and 952
RIN 1992–AA27
Computer Security; Access to
Information on Department of Energy
Computers and Computer Systems
Department of Energy.
Final rule.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
SUMMARY: The Department of Energy
(DOE) is publishing regulations to
codify minimum requirements
governing access to information on
Department of Energy computers.
DATES: This rule is effective August 18,
2006.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Warren Udy, Acting Associate CIO for
Cyber Security, Office of Chief
Information Officer, NNSA (NA–65),
1000 Independence Avenue, SW.,
Washington, DC 20585, (202) 586–1283;
Gordon Errington, Acting Associate CIO
for Cyber Security, Office of the Chief
Information Officer, DOE (IM–1), 1000
Independence Avenue, SW.,
Washington, DC 20585, (202) 586–9595,
or Samuel M. Bradley, Office of General
Counsel (GC–53), 1000 Independence
Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585,
(202) 586–6738.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
II. Discussion of Comments and Final Rule
III. Regulatory Review
I. Background
Pursuant to the DOE Organization Act
(42 U.S.C. 7101, et seq.) and the Atomic
Energy Act of 1954 (AEA) (42 U.S.C.
2011, et. seq.), DOE carries out a variety
of programs, including defense nuclear
programs. DOE performs its defense
nuclear program activities in the
Washington, DC area, and at locations
that DOE controls around the United
States, including national laboratories
and nuclear weapons production
facilities. DOE contractors operate the
national laboratories and production
facilities.
E:\FR\FM\19JYR1.SGM
19JYR1
mstockstill on PROD1PC68 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 138 / Wednesday, July 19, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
DOE, as the successor agency to the
Atomic Energy Commission, has broad
responsibilities under the AEA to
protect sensitive and classified
information and materials involved in
the design, production, and
maintenance of nuclear weapons (42
U.S.C. 2161–69, 2201). DOE also has a
general obligation to ensure that
permitting an individual to have access
to information classified under the AEA
will not endanger the nation’s common
defense and security (42 U.S.C. 2165b).
In addition, various Executive Orders of
government-wide applicability require
DOE to take steps to protect classified
information. Executive Order No. 12958,
Classified National Security Information
(April 17, 1995), requires the Secretary
to establish controls to ensure that
classified information is used only
under conditions that provide adequate
protection and prevent access by
unauthorized persons. Executive Order
No. 12968, Access to Classified
Information (August 2, 1995), requires
the Secretary to establish and maintain
an effective program to ensure that
employee access to classified
information is clearly consistent with
the interests of national security.
However, DOE’s obligation to protect
information is not limited to classified
information and materials involved in
the design, production, and
maintenance of nuclear weapons. DOE
is obligated to protect, according to the
requirements of various laws,
regulations and directives, information
which it creates, collects, and
maintains. Much of this information is
sensitive but unclassified.
In recent years, in order to protect its
information, DOE has developed and
elaborated policies that limit
unauthorized access to DOE computer
systems, particularly those used for
work with classified information, and
assure that no employee misuses the
computers assigned for the performance
of work-related assignments. DOE has
issued these policies in the form of
internal directives in the DOE Directives
System. These directives apply to DOE
employees and to DOE contractors to
the extent their contracts require
compliance. Directives that apply to
DOE contractors are listed in an
appendix to the contracts under the
standard Laws, Regulations, and DOE
Directives clause that is set forth at 48
CFR 970.5204–2.
The directives issued by DOE relating
to computer security include DOE
Notice 205.3, Password Generation,
Protection, and Use, which establishes
minimum requirements for the
generation, protection, and use of
passwords to support authentication
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:11 Jul 18, 2006
Jkt 208001
when accessing classified and
unclassified DOE information systems
where feasible; and DOE Order 471.2A,
Information Security Program, and DOE
Manual 471.2–2, Classified Information
Systems Security Manual, which require
that warning banners appear whenever
an individual logs on to a DOE
computer. A DOE memorandum signed
by the Chief Information Officer on June
17, 1999, requires that the banner
inform users that activities on the
system are subject to interception,
monitoring, recording, copying,
auditing, inspection, and disclosure.
The banner notifies users that continued
use of the system indicates awareness of
and consent to such monitoring and
recording. Other directives relevant to
computer security include DOE O 200.1,
Information Management Program; DOE
P 205.1, Departmental Cyber Security
Management Program; DOE O 205.1,
Cyber Security Management Program;
DOE O 470.1 Chg 1, Safeguards and
Security Program; DOE O 471.1A,
Identification and Protection of
Unclassified Controlled Nuclear
Information; DOE O 5639.8A, Security
of Foreign Intelligence Information and
Sensitive Compartmented Information
Facilities; and DOE O 5670.3,
Counterintelligence Program. These
directives are available for inspection
and downloading at the DOE Web site,
https://www.directives.doe.gov.
Sections 3235 and 3295(c) of the
National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2000 (NDAA) (50 U.S.C.
2425, 2483(c)) require DOE to
promulgate regulations establishing
certain requirements for access to
information on National Nuclear
Security Administration (NNSA or
Administration) computers. The key
provision in section 3235 requires
NNSA employees and contractor
employees with access to information
on NNSA computers to give written
consent for access by an authorized
investigative agency to any
Administration computer used in the
performance of his or her duties during
the term of that employment and for a
period of three years thereafter. Section
3235(c) defines the term ‘‘authorized
investigative agency’’ to mean an agency
authorized by law or regulation to
conduct a counterintelligence
investigation or investigations of
persons who are proposed for access to
classified information to ascertain
whether such persons satisfy the criteria
for obtaining and retaining access to
such information. The written consent
requirement in section 3235(a) is
mandatory as it pertains to individuals
with access to or use of NNSA
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
40881
computers or computer systems. An
individual that does not provide such
written consent may not be allowed
access to or use of NNSA computers or
computer systems.
Upon the recommendation of the
Administrator of NNSA, the Secretary of
Energy has determined that the
requirements of section 3235 should be
applied to the entire DOE complex. In
arriving at this determination, the
Secretary took into account that the
considerations underlying section 3235
with respect to information on NNSA
computers also apply to other
information on computers throughout
the DOE complex; that the requirements
of section 3235 are similar to DOE’s
present computer access policies; and
that DOE and DOE contractor computers
outside of the NNSA organization
occasionally contain NNSA information.
Consistent with section 3235 and
general rulemaking authorities in the
DOE Organization Act, DOE on March
17, 2005 proposed a new Part 727 to
Title 10 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) to codify computer
access policies and, also, proposed
conforming amendments to its
acquisition regulations that would apply
to prime contractors consistent with the
terms of their contracts with DOE (70 FR
12974). DOE received written comments
from Battelle Energy Alliance, LLC, the
management and operating contractor
for DOE’s Idaho National Laboratory
(hereafter ‘‘Battelle’’) and from
Brookhaven Science Associates, the
management and operating contractor of
Brookhaven National Laboratory
(hereafter ‘‘Brookhaven’’). After
carefully considering all issues raised by
the comments and making appropriate
revisions, DOE today publishes a final
rule which codifies the minimum
requirements governing access to
information on Department of Energy
computers.
The Secretary has approved this
notice of final rulemaking for
publication.
II. Discussion of Comments and Final
Rule
This portion of the Supplementary
Information discusses the issues raised
by the public comments on the
proposed rule and any changes to the
rule that DOE has made in response to
the comments. All of the specific
comments relate to provisions of
proposed Part 727, although the
comments also may apply to the
proposed conforming amendments to
DOE’s acquisition regulations.
1. Scope and applicability. Both
comments addressed the scope
(proposed § 727.1) and the applicability
E:\FR\FM\19JYR1.SGM
19JYR1
40882
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 138 / Wednesday, July 19, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
(proposed § 727.3) provisions in the
proposed rule and made
recommendations for changes.
Battelle urged DOE to limit the scope
of the rule to classified computer
systems because such a limitation
would be consistent with the statute and
because the benefits from including
other DOE computers would be
outweighed by implementation costs. It
is clear from Battelle’s comment that it
read the proposed rule to require the
obtaining of written consent from
members of the public who send e-mail
to DOE computers or visit DOE Web
sites. Battelle also asked for clarification
on whether summer students, domestic
and foreign visitors, and collaborators
under various types of agreements (e.g.,
cooperative research and development
agreements, laboratory-directed research
and development agreements) were
covered by the rule.
Brookhaven had similar concerns and
recommendations. Its comment states:
mstockstill on PROD1PC68 with RULES
As currently drafted, the proposed rule
would require written acknowledgement of a
‘‘no privacy expectation’’ with anyone
seeking to communicate with any computer
or computer system owned, supplied or
operated by DOE. This would include
students, government officials, private
individuals and businesses, educational
institutions, and the occasional personal
email from friends and family. To obtain and
maintain written authorization from such a
plethora of entities would be unrealistic.
Brookhaven, page 1. It also
commented that some of the persons
who would be covered by the proposed
rule are not DOE contractors or
subcontractors or employees of DOE
contractors or subcontractors and, thus,
would not be covered by DOE contracts.
DOE has made several revisions to the
rule in response to comments on the
scope and applicability provisions of
the proposed rule. DOE has revised both
§ 727.1 and § 727.3 to create a new
paragraph (b) in each section to provide
that the only provision of Part 727 that
applies to a person who uses a DOE
computer only by sending an e-mail
message to such a computer is § 727.4,
the general expectation of privacy
provision. Each of those sections now
has a paragraph (a) that covers
individuals who are granted access by
DOE or DOE contractors and
subcontractors to information on DOE
computers. In addition, DOE has revised
the definition of ‘‘individual’’ in § 727.2
to expressly exclude a member of the
public who sends an e-mail message to
a DOE computer or who obtains
information available to the public on
DOE websites. DOE never intended the
rule to apply to members of the public
who obtain information from publicly
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:11 Jul 18, 2006
Jkt 208001
accessible websites, nor did it intend
provisions, such as the written consent
requirement, to apply to members of the
public who only e-mail messages to
DOE computers.
The revised scope and applicability
provisions are consistent with section
3235 of the NDAA. Section 3235(a)
provides that, at a minimum, DOE’s
computer access procedures must apply
to ‘‘any individual who has access to
information on an Administration
computer’’ (50 U.S.C. 2425(a)). Section
3235(b) provides that, notwithstanding
any other provision of law, ‘‘no user of
an Administration computer shall have
any expectation of privacy in the use of
that computer.’’ (50 U.S.C. 2425(b)).
This final rule maintains the statutory
distinction between ‘‘individuals’’
granted access to information on DOE
computers and other ‘‘users’’ of DOE
computers.
DOE believes the revisions described
above address the concerns raised by
the commenters, and it rejects other
suggestions for limiting the scope and
applicability of the rule. In particular,
DOE does not agree with the comment
that the rule should be limited to access
to classified computers. As explained in
the notice of proposed rulemaking (51
FR 12975) and the Background section
of this Supplementary Information, the
Secretary of Energy has decided that the
requirements of section 3235 should be
applied to the entire DOE complex
because the considerations underlying
section 3235 also apply to other
information on computers throughout
the DOE complex. Also, as discussed in
the section below on ‘‘Definitions,’’ DOE
has not narrowed the definition of
‘‘computer’’ in other ways to restrict the
scope of the rule.
2. Definitions. Both commenters
addressed the definition of ‘‘computer’’
in proposed § 727.3, which defines the
term to mean ‘‘desktop computers,
portable computers, computer networks
(including the DOE network and local
area networks at or controlled by DOE
organizations), network devices,
automated information systems, or other
related computer equipment owned by,
leased, or operated on behalf of the
DOE.’’ Battelle asked if the term
included ‘‘Blackberry’’ devices and cell
phones. Brookhaven said the definition
was overbroad and would cause a
problem for implementing the written
acknowledgement and consent
requirement in § 727. 5 because ‘‘anyone
who accesses the [DOE] home page or
any individual DOE site’s homepage is
an individual and user under this rule.’’
Brookhaven, page 2.
DOE has not revised the definition of
‘‘computer’’ in response to these
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
comments. DOE believes the catch-all
language in the definition (i.e., ‘‘or other
related computer equipment owned by,
leased, or operated on behalf of the
DOE’’) is broad enough to include
devices such as a Blackberry device or
a cell phone. DOE has previously
addressed the Brookhaven comment
about the overbreadth of the definition
in responding to comments on the
proposed rule’s scope and applicability
provisions.
Brookhaven also asked that DOE
include a definition of the term
‘‘authorized investigative agency’’ in the
rule. DOE agrees with Brookhaven’s
recommendation that the rule include a
definition of ‘‘authorized investigative
agency’’ in the final rule. Section
3235(c) of the NDAA contains such a
definition, and its omission from the
proposed rule was an oversight. The
statutory definition is included in
§ 727.2 of today’s rule.
3. Expectation of privacy. Proposed
§ 727.4 would have provided that no
user of a DOE computer, including any
person who sends an e-mail message to
a DOE computer, has any expectation of
privacy in the use of that DOE
computer.
Battelle asked several questions about
the proposed expectation of privacy
provision, including whether an e-mail
from an outside counsel for a DOE
contractor to the contractor, otherwise
entitled to confidentiality under the
attorney-client privilege, would be
protected from disclosure to the public.
It also asked whether there are
circumstances in which DOE or a DOE
contractor would be required to provide
advance notice that there is no
expectation of privacy on DOE
computers.
Proposed § 727.4 tracked closely the
language of section 3235(b) of the
NDAA, and DOE has retained the
provision in this final rule. While
section 3235(b) categorically provides
that a user of an Administration
computer shall have no expectation of
privacy in the use of that computer,
there is nothing in the statute or its
history that indicates Congress intended
to affect disclosure of information to the
public under the Freedom of
Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552.
Exemption 5 of the Act (5 U.S.C.
552(b)(5)) allows for the exemption from
public disclosure documents that are
normally privileged in the civil
discovery context, which would include
attorney-client communications.
With regard to Battelle’s second
question, regarding the circumstances in
which DOE or a DOE contractor would
be required to provide advance notice
that there is no expectation of privacy
E:\FR\FM\19JYR1.SGM
19JYR1
mstockstill on PROD1PC68 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 138 / Wednesday, July 19, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
on DOE computers, the final rule retains
the proposed requirement in § 727.5 for
an individual granted access to
information on a DOE computer to
acknowledge in writing that the
individual has no expectation of privacy
in the use of that computer. Of course,
as discussed previously, this
requirement of written
acknowledgement does not extend to
members of the public who only send emails to DOE computers. The final rule
does not provide for advance notice to
such users of DOE computers, nor does
DOE think it is feasible to provide such
notice.
4. Written consent. Proposed § 727.5
would have restricted access to
information on a DOE computer to an
individual who has: (1) acknowledged
in writing that the individual has no
expectation of privacy in the use of a
DOE computer; and (2) consented in
writing to permit access by an
authorized investigative agency to any
DOE computer used by the individual
during the period of the individual’s
access to information on a DOE
computer and for a period of three years
thereafter.
Battelle questioned how a contractor
could get written consent from
anonymous users and guests on FTP
servers and telnet services, or from
those searching DOE Web sites. Battelle
asked that these situations be covered
by exemptions in the final rule.
Brookhaven made a similar comment,
asking who must obtain written
acknowledgments and consents from a
non-DOE contractor or its employees. It
also questioned how a member of the
public who only sends an e-mail to a
DOE computer could give consent for
inspection of a DOE computer, as would
be required by proposed § 727.5.
As previously explained in this
section of the Supplementary
Information, DOE has revised the scope
and applicability provisions of the rule
to exclude members of the public who
send e-mail to DOE computers from the
written consent requirement. DOE
interprets section 3235(a) of the NDAA
to apply to individuals who are granted
access to information on a DOE
computer by DOE or a DOE contractor
or subcontractor. In all cases, the
granting of such access will involve the
use of passwords.
Battelle, in commenting on proposed
§ 727.6, also asked whether a DOE
contractor is required to give each
authorized person a password to
prevent unauthorized access to its
computers or whether a warning screen
on the computer would be sufficient.
Section 3235(a) provides that ‘‘written
consent’’ is required as a condition of
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:11 Jul 18, 2006
Jkt 208001
being granted access to information on
an Administration computer. The
statute does not contain any provision
giving DOE the discretion to allow use
of a warning screen in lieu of a written
consent.
5. Other comment. Brookhaven urged
DOE to not issue a final Part 727 until
the on-going implementation of
Homeland Security Presidential
Directive 12 (HSPD–12), entitled
‘‘Policy for a Common Identification
Standard for Federal Employees and
Contractors,’’ is completed. HSPD–12
provides for integrated physical access
controls for all federally-owned or
controlled facilities and information
systems.
DOE does not accept this
recommendation. The provisions of this
final rule are written in general language
that closely tracks the language in
section 3235 of the NDAA, and, in
DOE’s view, there is little potential for
conflict between the requirements of
this rule and the implementation of
HSPD–12. If such a conflict is revealed
when HSPD–12 is fully implemented,
DOE will then evaluate the need to
amend Part 727.
III. Regulatory Review
A. National Environmental Policy Act
DOE has determined that this final
rule is covered under the Categorical
Exclusion found in DOE’s National
Environmental Policy Act regulations at
paragraph A.6 of Appendix A to Subpart
D, 10 CFR part 1021, which applies to
rule makings that are strictly
procedural. Accordingly, neither an
environmental assessment nor an
environmental impact statement is
required.
B. Executive Order 12866
Section 6 of Executive Order 12866
provides for a review by the Office of
Management and Budget’s Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs
(OIRA) of a significant regulatory action,
which is defined to include an action
that may have an effect on the economy
of $100 million or more, or adversely
affect, in a material way, the economy,
competition, jobs, productivity, the
environment, public health or safety, or
State, local, or tribal governments.
Today’s regulatory action has been
determined not to be a significant
regulatory action. Accordingly, this
rulemaking is not subject to review
under that Executive Order by OIRA.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires preparation
of an initial regulatory flexibility
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
40883
analysis for any rule that by law must
be proposed for public comment, unless
the agency certifies that the rule, if
promulgated, will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. As required by
Executive Order 13272, ‘‘Proper
Consideration of Small Entities in
Agency Rulemaking,’’ 67 FR 53461
(August 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 Web site: https://
www.gc.doe.gov.
DOE has reviewed today’s rule under
the provisions of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act and the procedures and
policies published on February 19,
2003. This rule does not directly
regulate small businesses or other small
entities. The rule applies only to
individuals who use DOE computers.
Under the rule, DOE and DOE
contractor employees who are granted
access to information on DOE
computers, or applicants for such
positions, are required to execute a
written acknowledgment and consent
provided by DOE. Although a small
number of individuals subject to this
rule may work for DOE subcontractors
who are small entities, the costs
associated with compliance with the
rule’s requirements will be negligible
and in most cases reimbursable under
the contract. On the basis of the
foregoing, DOE certifies that this final
rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Accordingly,
DOE has not prepared a regulatory
flexibility analysis for this rulemaking.
DOE’s certification and supporting
statement of factual basis will be
provided to the Chief Counsel for
Advocacy of the Small Business
Administration pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
605(b).
D. Paperwork Reduction Act
This final rule contains a collection of
information subject to review and
approval by the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork
Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et
seq. Section 727.6(b) requires DOE
contractors to maintain a file of written
acknowledgments and consents
executed by its employees and
subcontractor employees. This
collection of information was submitted
to OMB for approval. Notwithstanding
any other provision of law, no person is
required to respond to, nor shall any
E:\FR\FM\19JYR1.SGM
19JYR1
40884
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 138 / Wednesday, July 19, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
person be subject to a penalty for failure
to comply with, a collection of
information subject to the requirements
of the PRA, unless that collection of
information displays a currently valid
OMB Control Number.
mstockstill on PROD1PC68 with RULES
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of
1995
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4) generally
requires Federal agencies to examine
closely the impacts of regulatory actions
on State, local, and tribal governments.
Subsection 101(5) of title I of that law
defines a Federal intergovernmental
mandate to include any regulation that
would impose upon State, local, or
tribal governments an enforceable duty,
except a condition of Federal assistance
or a duty arising from participating in a
voluntary federal program. Title II of
that law requires each Federal agency to
assess the effects of Federal regulatory
actions on State, local, and tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or to the
private sector, other than to the extent
such actions merely incorporate
requirements specifically set forth in a
statute. Section 202 of that title requires
a Federal agency to perform a detailed
assessment of the anticipated costs and
benefits of any rule that includes a
Federal mandate which may result in
costs to State, local, or tribal
governments, or to the private sector, of
$100 million or more. Section 204 of
that title requires each agency that
proposes a rule containing a significant
Federal intergovernmental mandate to
develop an effective process for
obtaining meaningful and timely input
from elected officers of State, local, and
tribal governments.
This rule does not impose a Federal
mandate on State, local or tribal
governments, and will not 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 one year. Accordingly, no
assessment or analysis is required under
the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of
1995.
F. 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 that may affect family
well being. While this final rule applies
to individuals who may be members of
a family, the rule does not have any
impact on the autonomy or integrity of
the family as an institution.
Accordingly, DOE has concluded that it
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:11 Jul 18, 2006
Jkt 208001
is not necessary to prepare a Family
Policymaking Assessment.
I. Treasury and General Government
Appropriations Act, 2001
G. 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 policymaking discretion of the
States and carefully assess the necessity
for such actions. DOE has examined this
rule and has 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.
The Treasury and General
Government Appropriations Act, 2001
(44 U.S.C. 3516, note) provides for
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). DOE has
reviewed today’s notice under the OMB
and DOE guidelines and has concluded
that it is consistent with applicable
policies in those guidelines.
H. 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, the final rule
meets the relevant standards of
Executive Order 12988.
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
J. Congressional Notification
As required by 5 U.S.C. 801, DOE will
report to Congress on the promulgation
of today’s rule prior to its effective date.
The report will state that it has been
determined that the rule is not a ‘‘major
rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
List of Subjects
10 CFR Part 727
Classified information, Computers,
Contractor employees, Government
employees, National defense, Security
information.
48 CFR Part 904
Classified information, Government
procurement.
48 CFR Part 952
Government procurement, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.
Issued in Washington, DC on July 7, 2006.
Clay Sell,
Deputy Secretary.
For the reasons stated in the preamble,
DOE hereby amends Chapter III of title
10 and Chapter 9 of title 48 of the Code
of Federal Regulations as set forth
below:
I 1. 10 CFR part 727 is added to read
as follows:
I
PART 727—CONSENT FOR ACCESS
TO INFORMATION ON DEPARTMENT
OF ENERGY COMPUTERS
Sec.
727.1 What is the purpose and scope of this
part?
727.2 What are the definitions of the terms
used in this part?
727.3 To whom does this part apply?
727.4 Is there any expectation of privacy
applicable to a DOE computer?
727.5 What acknowledgment and consent is
required for access to information on
DOE computers?
727.6 What are the obligations of a DOE
contractor?
E:\FR\FM\19JYR1.SGM
19JYR1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 138 / Wednesday, July 19, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7101, et seq.; 42
U.S.C. 2011, et. seq.; 50 U.S.C. 2425, 2483;
E.O. No. 12958, 60 FR 19825, 3 CFR, 1995
Comp., p. 333; and E.O. 12968, 60 FR 40245,
3 CFR, 1995 Comp., p. 391.
§ 727.1 What is the purpose and scope of
this part?
(a) The purpose of this part is to
establish minimum requirements
applicable to each individual granted
access to a DOE computer or to
information on a DOE computer,
including a requirement for written
consent to access by an authorized
investigative agency to any DOE
computer used in the performance of
the individual’s duties during the term
of that individual’s employment and for
a period of three years thereafter.
(b) Section 727.4 of this part also
applies to any person who uses a DOE
computer by sending an e-mail message
to such a computer.
mstockstill on PROD1PC68 with RULES
§ 727.2 What are the definitions of the
terms used in this part?
For purposes of this part:
Authorized investigative agency
means an agency authorized by law or
regulation to conduct a
counterintelligence investigation or
investigations of persons who are
proposed for access to classified
information to ascertain whether such
persons satisfy the criteria for obtaining
and retaining access to such
information.
Computer means desktop computers,
portable computers, computer networks
(including the DOE network and local
area networks at or controlled by DOE
organizations), network devices,
automated information systems, or other
related computer equipment owned by,
leased, or operated on behalf of the
DOE.
DOE means the Department of Energy,
including the National Nuclear Security
Administration.
DOE computer means any computer
owned by, leased, or operated on behalf
of the DOE.
Individual means an employee of DOE
or a DOE contractor, or any other person
who has been granted access to a DOE
computer or to information on a DOE
computer, and does not include a
member of the public who sends an email message to a DOE computer or who
obtains information available to the
public on DOE Web sites.
User means any person, including any
individual or member of the public,
who sends information to or receives
information from a DOE computer.
§ 727.3
To whom does this part apply?
(a) This part applies to DOE
employees, DOE contractors, DOE
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:11 Jul 18, 2006
Jkt 208001
contractor and subcontractor employees,
and any other individual who has been
granted access to a DOE computer or to
information on a DOE computer.
(b) Section 727.4 of this part also
applies to any person who uses a DOE
computer by sending an e-mail message
to such computer.
§ 727.4 Is there any expectation of privacy
applicable to a DOE computer?
Notwithstanding any other provision
of law (including any provision of law
enacted by the Electronic
Communications Privacy Act of 1986),
no user of a DOE computer shall have
any expectation of privacy in the use of
that DOE computer.
§ 727.5 What acknowledgment and
consent is required for access to
information on DOE computers?
An individual may not be granted
access to information on a DOE
computer unless:
(a) The individual has acknowledged
in writing that the individual has no
expectation of privacy in the use of a
DOE computer; and
(b) The individual has consented in
writing to permit access by an
authorized investigative agency to any
DOE computer used during the period
of that individual’s access to
information on a DOE computer and for
a period of three years thereafter.
§ 727.6 What are the obligations of a DOE
contractor?
(a) A DOE contractor must ensure that
neither its employees nor the employees
of any of its subcontractors has access
to information on a DOE computer
unless the DOE contractor has obtained
a written acknowledgment and consent
by each contractor or subcontractor
employee that complies with the
requirements of § 727.5 of this part.
(b) A DOE contractor must maintain a
file of original written acknowledgments
and consents executed by its employees
and all subcontractors employees that
comply with the requirements of § 727.5
of this part.
(c) Upon demand by the cognizant
DOE contracting officer, a DOE
contractor must provide an opportunity
for a DOE official to inspect the file
compiled under this section and to copy
any portion of the file.
(d) If a DOE contractor violates the
requirements of this section with regard
to a DOE computer with Restricted Data
or other classified information, then the
DOE contractor may be assessed a civil
penalty or a reduction in fee pursuant
to section 234B of the Atomic Energy
Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2282b).
I 2. The authority citation for Parts 904
and 952 continues to read as follows:
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
40885
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 2201, 2282a, 2282b,
2282c, 7101 et seq.; 41 U.S.C. 418b; 50 U.S.C.
2401 et seq.
PART 904—ADMINISTRATIVE
MATTERS
3. Section 904.404 is amended by
adding a new paragraph (d)(7) to read as
follows:
I
904.404 Solicitation provision and
contract clause. [DOE coverage—paragraph
(d)].
(d) * * *
(7) Computer Security, 952.204–77.
This clause is required in contracts in
which the contractor may have access to
computers owned, leased or operated on
behalf of the Department of Energy.
PART 952—SOLICITATION
PROVISIONS AND CONTRACT
CLAUSES
4. Section 952.204–77 is added to read
as follows:
I
952.204–77
Computer Security.
As prescribed in 904.404(d)(7), the
following clause shall be included:
Computer Security (AUG 2006)
(a) Definitions.
(1) Computer means desktop computers,
portable computers, computer networks
(including the DOE Network and local area
networks at or controlled by DOE
organizations), network devices, automated
information systems, and or other related
computer equipment owned by, leased, or
operated on behalf of the DOE.
(2) Individual means a DOE contractor or
subcontractor employee, or any other person
who has been granted access to a DOE
computer or to information on a DOE
computer, and does not include a member of
the public who sends an e-mail message to
a DOE computer or who obtains information
available to the public on DOE Web sites.
(b) Access to DOE computers. A contractor
shall not allow an individual to have access
to information on a DOE computer unless:
(1) The individual has acknowledged in
writing that the individual has no
expectation of privacy in the use of a DOE
computer; and,
(2) The individual has consented in writing
to permit access by an authorized
investigative agency to any DOE computer
used during the period of that individual’s
access to information on a DOE computer,
and for a period of three years thereafter.
(c) No expectation of privacy.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law
(including any provision of law enacted by
the Electronic Communications Privacy Act
of 1986), no individual using a DOE
computer shall have any expectation of
privacy in the use of that computer.
(d) Written records. The contractor is
responsible for maintaining written records
for itself and subcontractors demonstrating
compliance with the provisions of paragraph
E:\FR\FM\19JYR1.SGM
19JYR1
40886
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 138 / Wednesday, July 19, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
(b) of this section. The contractor agrees to
provide access to these records to the DOE,
or its authorized agents, upon request.
(e) Subcontracts. The contractor shall
insert this clause, including this paragraph
(e), in subcontracts under this contract that
may provide access to computers owned,
leased or operated on behalf of the DOE.
(End of Clause)
[FR Doc. 06–6319 Filed 7–18–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. FAA–2006–24093; Directorate
Identifier 2006–CE–19–AD; Amendment 39–
14683; AD 2006–15–03]
RIN 2120–AA64
Airworthiness Directives; Pilatus
Aircraft Ltd. Models PC–6, PC–6–H1,
PC–6–H2, PC–6/350, PC–6/350–H1, PC–
6/350–H2, PC–6/A, PC–6/A–H1, PC–6/
A–H2, PC–6/B–H2, PC–6/B1–H2, PC–6/
B2–H2, PC–6/B2–H4, PC–6/C–H2, and
PC–6/C1–H2 Airplanes
Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
We are adopting a new
airworthiness directive (AD) that
supersedes AD 2003–13–04, which
applies to certain Pilatus Aircraft Ltd
(Pilatus) Model PC–6 airplanes. AD
2003–13–04 currently requires you to
inspect the integral fuel tank wing ribs
for cracks and the top and bottom wing
skins for distortion, repair any cracks or
distortion before further flight, and do a
fuel tank ventilating system installation.
Since we issued AD 2003–13–04, the
FAA determined the action should also
apply to all the models of the PC–6
airplanes listed in the type certificate
data sheet of Type Certificate (TC) No.
7A15 that were produced in the United
States through a licensing agreement
between Pilatus and Fairchild Republic
Company (also identified as Fairchild
SUMMARY:
Industries, Fairchild Heli Porter, or
Fairchild-Hiller Corporation). In
addition, the intent of the applicability
of AD 2003–13–04 was to apply to all
the affected serial numbers of the
airplane models listed in TC No. 7A15.
This AD retains all the actions of AD
2003–13–04, adds those Fairchild
Republic Company airplanes to the
applicability of this AD, and lists the
individual specific airplane models. We
are issuing this AD to detect and correct
cracks in the ribs of the inboard integral
fuel tanks in the left and right wings,
which could lead to wing failure during
flight with consequent loss of control of
the airplane.
DATES: This AD becomes effective on
August 23, 2006.
As of August 15, 2003 (68 FR 37394,
June 24, 2003), the Director of the
Federal Register previously approved
the incorporation by reference of Pilatus
Aircraft Ltd. PC–6 Service Bulletin No.
57–002, dated November 27, 2002; and
Pilatus Aircraft Ltd. PC–6 Service
Bulletin No. 118, dated December 1972,
in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and
1 CFR part 51.
ADDRESSES: To get the service
information identified in this AD,
contact Pilatus Aircraft Ltd., Customer
Liaison Manager, CH–6371 Stans,
Switzerland; telephone: +41 41 619 63
19; facsimile: +41 41 619 6224.
To view the AD docket, go to the
Docket Management Facility; U.S.
Department of Transportation, 400
Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building,
Room PL–401, Washington, DC 20590–
001 or on the Internet at https://
dms.dot.gov. The docket number is
FAA–2006–24093; Directorate Identifier
2006–CE–19–AD.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Doug Rudolph, Aerospace Engineer,
FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901
Locust, Room 301, Kansas City,
Missouri 64106; telephone: (816) 329–
4059; facsimile: (816) 329–4090.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Discussion
On May 3, 2006, we issued a proposal
to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation
Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to include
an AD that would apply to all the
models of the PC–6 airplanes listed in
the type certificate data sheet of TC No.
7A15 that were produced in the United
States through a licensing agreement
between Pilatus and Fairchild Republic
Company (also identified as Fairchild
Industries, Fairchild Heli Porter, or
Fairchild-Hiller Corporation) airplanes.
This proposal was published in the
Federal Register as a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) on May 9, 2006 (71
FR 26882). The NPRM proposed to
supersede AD 2003–13–04 (68 FR
37394, June 24, 2003), add those
Fairchild Republic Company airplanes
to the applicability of this proposed AD,
and would list the individual specific
airplane models. The NPRM proposed
to retain all of the actions of AD 2003–
13–04 for inspecting the integral fuel
tank wing ribs for cracks and the top
and bottom wing skins for distortion,
repairing any cracks or distortion before
further flight, and installing a fuel tank
ventilating system.
Comments
We provided the public the
opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. We received one comment in
favor of the proposed AD.
Conclusion
We have carefully reviewed the
available data and determined that air
safety and the public interest require
adopting the AD as proposed except for
minor editorial corrections. We have
determined that these minor
corrections:
• Are consistent with the intent that
was proposed in the NPRM for
correcting the unsafe condition; and
• Do not add any additional burden
upon the public than was already
proposed in the NPRM.
Costs of Compliance
We estimate that this AD affects 49
airplanes in the U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to do
the inspection:
Parts cost
5 work-hours × $80 per hour = $400 ......................................................................................
mstockstill on PROD1PC68 with RULES
Labor cost
Not applicable ....
We estimate the following costs for
each rib to do any necessary rib repair
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:11 Jul 18, 2006
Jkt 208001
that will be required based on the
results of the inspection. We have no
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Total cost per
airplane
Total cost on
U.S. operators
$400
$19,600
way of determining the number of
airplanes that may need this repair:
E:\FR\FM\19JYR1.SGM
19JYR1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 138 (Wednesday, July 19, 2006)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 40880-40886]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-6319]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
10 CFR Part 727
48 CFR Parts 904 and 952
RIN 1992-AA27
Computer Security; Access to Information on Department of Energy
Computers and Computer Systems
AGENCY: Department of Energy.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Department of Energy (DOE) is publishing regulations to
codify minimum requirements governing access to information on
Department of Energy computers.
DATES: This rule is effective August 18, 2006.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Warren Udy, Acting Associate CIO for
Cyber Security, Office of Chief Information Officer, NNSA (NA-65), 1000
Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585, (202) 586-1283; Gordon
Errington, Acting Associate CIO for Cyber Security, Office of the Chief
Information Officer, DOE (IM-1), 1000 Independence Avenue, SW.,
Washington, DC 20585, (202) 586-9595, or Samuel M. Bradley, Office of
General Counsel (GC-53), 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC
20585, (202) 586-6738.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
II. Discussion of Comments and Final Rule
III. Regulatory Review
I. Background
Pursuant to the DOE Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7101, et seq.) and
the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (AEA) (42 U.S.C. 2011, et. seq.), DOE
carries out a variety of programs, including defense nuclear programs.
DOE performs its defense nuclear program activities in the Washington,
DC area, and at locations that DOE controls around the United States,
including national laboratories and nuclear weapons production
facilities. DOE contractors operate the national laboratories and
production facilities.
[[Page 40881]]
DOE, as the successor agency to the Atomic Energy Commission, has
broad responsibilities under the AEA to protect sensitive and
classified information and materials involved in the design,
production, and maintenance of nuclear weapons (42 U.S.C. 2161-69,
2201). DOE also has a general obligation to ensure that permitting an
individual to have access to information classified under the AEA will
not endanger the nation's common defense and security (42 U.S.C.
2165b). In addition, various Executive Orders of government-wide
applicability require DOE to take steps to protect classified
information. Executive Order No. 12958, Classified National Security
Information (April 17, 1995), requires the Secretary to establish
controls to ensure that classified information is used only under
conditions that provide adequate protection and prevent access by
unauthorized persons. Executive Order No. 12968, Access to Classified
Information (August 2, 1995), requires the Secretary to establish and
maintain an effective program to ensure that employee access to
classified information is clearly consistent with the interests of
national security.
However, DOE's obligation to protect information is not limited to
classified information and materials involved in the design,
production, and maintenance of nuclear weapons. DOE is obligated to
protect, according to the requirements of various laws, regulations and
directives, information which it creates, collects, and maintains. Much
of this information is sensitive but unclassified.
In recent years, in order to protect its information, DOE has
developed and elaborated policies that limit unauthorized access to DOE
computer systems, particularly those used for work with classified
information, and assure that no employee misuses the computers assigned
for the performance of work-related assignments. DOE has issued these
policies in the form of internal directives in the DOE Directives
System. These directives apply to DOE employees and to DOE contractors
to the extent their contracts require compliance. Directives that apply
to DOE contractors are listed in an appendix to the contracts under the
standard Laws, Regulations, and DOE Directives clause that is set forth
at 48 CFR 970.5204-2.
The directives issued by DOE relating to computer security include
DOE Notice 205.3, Password Generation, Protection, and Use, which
establishes minimum requirements for the generation, protection, and
use of passwords to support authentication when accessing classified
and unclassified DOE information systems where feasible; and DOE Order
471.2A, Information Security Program, and DOE Manual 471.2-2,
Classified Information Systems Security Manual, which require that
warning banners appear whenever an individual logs on to a DOE
computer. A DOE memorandum signed by the Chief Information Officer on
June 17, 1999, requires that the banner inform users that activities on
the system are subject to interception, monitoring, recording, copying,
auditing, inspection, and disclosure. The banner notifies users that
continued use of the system indicates awareness of and consent to such
monitoring and recording. Other directives relevant to computer
security include DOE O 200.1, Information Management Program; DOE P
205.1, Departmental Cyber Security Management Program; DOE O 205.1,
Cyber Security Management Program; DOE O 470.1 Chg 1, Safeguards and
Security Program; DOE O 471.1A, Identification and Protection of
Unclassified Controlled Nuclear Information; DOE O 5639.8A, Security of
Foreign Intelligence Information and Sensitive Compartmented
Information Facilities; and DOE O 5670.3, Counterintelligence Program.
These directives are available for inspection and downloading at the
DOE Web site, https://www.directives.doe.gov.
Sections 3235 and 3295(c) of the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2000 (NDAA) (50 U.S.C. 2425, 2483(c)) require DOE to
promulgate regulations establishing certain requirements for access to
information on National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA or
Administration) computers. The key provision in section 3235 requires
NNSA employees and contractor employees with access to information on
NNSA computers to give written consent for access by an authorized
investigative agency to any Administration computer used in the
performance of his or her duties during the term of that employment and
for a period of three years thereafter. Section 3235(c) defines the
term ``authorized investigative agency'' to mean an agency authorized
by law or regulation to conduct a counterintelligence investigation or
investigations of persons who are proposed for access to classified
information to ascertain whether such persons satisfy the criteria for
obtaining and retaining access to such information. The written consent
requirement in section 3235(a) is mandatory as it pertains to
individuals with access to or use of NNSA computers or computer
systems. An individual that does not provide such written consent may
not be allowed access to or use of NNSA computers or computer systems.
Upon the recommendation of the Administrator of NNSA, the Secretary
of Energy has determined that the requirements of section 3235 should
be applied to the entire DOE complex. In arriving at this
determination, the Secretary took into account that the considerations
underlying section 3235 with respect to information on NNSA computers
also apply to other information on computers throughout the DOE
complex; that the requirements of section 3235 are similar to DOE's
present computer access policies; and that DOE and DOE contractor
computers outside of the NNSA organization occasionally contain NNSA
information.
Consistent with section 3235 and general rulemaking authorities in
the DOE Organization Act, DOE on March 17, 2005 proposed a new Part 727
to Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) to codify computer
access policies and, also, proposed conforming amendments to its
acquisition regulations that would apply to prime contractors
consistent with the terms of their contracts with DOE (70 FR 12974).
DOE received written comments from Battelle Energy Alliance, LLC, the
management and operating contractor for DOE's Idaho National Laboratory
(hereafter ``Battelle'') and from Brookhaven Science Associates, the
management and operating contractor of Brookhaven National Laboratory
(hereafter ``Brookhaven''). After carefully considering all issues
raised by the comments and making appropriate revisions, DOE today
publishes a final rule which codifies the minimum requirements
governing access to information on Department of Energy computers.
The Secretary has approved this notice of final rulemaking for
publication.
II. Discussion of Comments and Final Rule
This portion of the Supplementary Information discusses the issues
raised by the public comments on the proposed rule and any changes to
the rule that DOE has made in response to the comments. All of the
specific comments relate to provisions of proposed Part 727, although
the comments also may apply to the proposed conforming amendments to
DOE's acquisition regulations.
1. Scope and applicability. Both comments addressed the scope
(proposed Sec. 727.1) and the applicability
[[Page 40882]]
(proposed Sec. 727.3) provisions in the proposed rule and made
recommendations for changes.
Battelle urged DOE to limit the scope of the rule to classified
computer systems because such a limitation would be consistent with the
statute and because the benefits from including other DOE computers
would be outweighed by implementation costs. It is clear from
Battelle's comment that it read the proposed rule to require the
obtaining of written consent from members of the public who send e-mail
to DOE computers or visit DOE Web sites. Battelle also asked for
clarification on whether summer students, domestic and foreign
visitors, and collaborators under various types of agreements (e.g.,
cooperative research and development agreements, laboratory-directed
research and development agreements) were covered by the rule.
Brookhaven had similar concerns and recommendations. Its comment
states:
As currently drafted, the proposed rule would require written
acknowledgement of a ``no privacy expectation'' with anyone seeking
to communicate with any computer or computer system owned, supplied
or operated by DOE. This would include students, government
officials, private individuals and businesses, educational
institutions, and the occasional personal email from friends and
family. To obtain and maintain written authorization from such a
plethora of entities would be unrealistic.
Brookhaven, page 1. It also commented that some of the persons who
would be covered by the proposed rule are not DOE contractors or
subcontractors or employees of DOE contractors or subcontractors and,
thus, would not be covered by DOE contracts.
DOE has made several revisions to the rule in response to comments
on the scope and applicability provisions of the proposed rule. DOE has
revised both Sec. 727.1 and Sec. 727.3 to create a new paragraph (b)
in each section to provide that the only provision of Part 727 that
applies to a person who uses a DOE computer only by sending an e-mail
message to such a computer is Sec. 727.4, the general expectation of
privacy provision. Each of those sections now has a paragraph (a) that
covers individuals who are granted access by DOE or DOE contractors and
subcontractors to information on DOE computers. In addition, DOE has
revised the definition of ``individual'' in Sec. 727.2 to expressly
exclude a member of the public who sends an e-mail message to a DOE
computer or who obtains information available to the public on DOE
websites. DOE never intended the rule to apply to members of the public
who obtain information from publicly accessible websites, nor did it
intend provisions, such as the written consent requirement, to apply to
members of the public who only e-mail messages to DOE computers.
The revised scope and applicability provisions are consistent with
section 3235 of the NDAA. Section 3235(a) provides that, at a minimum,
DOE's computer access procedures must apply to ``any individual who has
access to information on an Administration computer'' (50 U.S.C.
2425(a)). Section 3235(b) provides that, notwithstanding any other
provision of law, ``no user of an Administration computer shall have
any expectation of privacy in the use of that computer.'' (50 U.S.C.
2425(b)). This final rule maintains the statutory distinction between
``individuals'' granted access to information on DOE computers and
other ``users'' of DOE computers.
DOE believes the revisions described above address the concerns
raised by the commenters, and it rejects other suggestions for limiting
the scope and applicability of the rule. In particular, DOE does not
agree with the comment that the rule should be limited to access to
classified computers. As explained in the notice of proposed rulemaking
(51 FR 12975) and the Background section of this Supplementary
Information, the Secretary of Energy has decided that the requirements
of section 3235 should be applied to the entire DOE complex because the
considerations underlying section 3235 also apply to other information
on computers throughout the DOE complex. Also, as discussed in the
section below on ``Definitions,'' DOE has not narrowed the definition
of ``computer'' in other ways to restrict the scope of the rule.
2. Definitions. Both commenters addressed the definition of
``computer'' in proposed Sec. 727.3, which defines the term to mean
``desktop computers, portable computers, computer networks (including
the DOE network and local area networks at or controlled by DOE
organizations), network devices, automated information systems, or
other related computer equipment owned by, leased, or operated on
behalf of the DOE.'' Battelle asked if the term included ``Blackberry''
devices and cell phones. Brookhaven said the definition was overbroad
and would cause a problem for implementing the written acknowledgement
and consent requirement in Sec. 727. 5 because ``anyone who accesses
the [DOE] home page or any individual DOE site's homepage is an
individual and user under this rule.'' Brookhaven, page 2.
DOE has not revised the definition of ``computer'' in response to
these comments. DOE believes the catch-all language in the definition
(i.e., ``or other related computer equipment owned by, leased, or
operated on behalf of the DOE'') is broad enough to include devices
such as a Blackberry device or a cell phone. DOE has previously
addressed the Brookhaven comment about the overbreadth of the
definition in responding to comments on the proposed rule's scope and
applicability provisions.
Brookhaven also asked that DOE include a definition of the term
``authorized investigative agency'' in the rule. DOE agrees with
Brookhaven's recommendation that the rule include a definition of
``authorized investigative agency'' in the final rule. Section 3235(c)
of the NDAA contains such a definition, and its omission from the
proposed rule was an oversight. The statutory definition is included in
Sec. 727.2 of today's rule.
3. Expectation of privacy. Proposed Sec. 727.4 would have provided
that no user of a DOE computer, including any person who sends an e-
mail message to a DOE computer, has any expectation of privacy in the
use of that DOE computer.
Battelle asked several questions about the proposed expectation of
privacy provision, including whether an e-mail from an outside counsel
for a DOE contractor to the contractor, otherwise entitled to
confidentiality under the attorney-client privilege, would be protected
from disclosure to the public. It also asked whether there are
circumstances in which DOE or a DOE contractor would be required to
provide advance notice that there is no expectation of privacy on DOE
computers.
Proposed Sec. 727.4 tracked closely the language of section
3235(b) of the NDAA, and DOE has retained the provision in this final
rule. While section 3235(b) categorically provides that a user of an
Administration computer shall have no expectation of privacy in the use
of that computer, there is nothing in the statute or its history that
indicates Congress intended to affect disclosure of information to the
public under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552. Exemption 5
of the Act (5 U.S.C. 552(b)(5)) allows for the exemption from public
disclosure documents that are normally privileged in the civil
discovery context, which would include attorney-client communications.
With regard to Battelle's second question, regarding the
circumstances in which DOE or a DOE contractor would be required to
provide advance notice that there is no expectation of privacy
[[Page 40883]]
on DOE computers, the final rule retains the proposed requirement in
Sec. 727.5 for an individual granted access to information on a DOE
computer to acknowledge in writing that the individual has no
expectation of privacy in the use of that computer. Of course, as
discussed previously, this requirement of written acknowledgement does
not extend to members of the public who only send e-mails to DOE
computers. The final rule does not provide for advance notice to such
users of DOE computers, nor does DOE think it is feasible to provide
such notice.
4. Written consent. Proposed Sec. 727.5 would have restricted
access to information on a DOE computer to an individual who has: (1)
acknowledged in writing that the individual has no expectation of
privacy in the use of a DOE computer; and (2) consented in writing to
permit access by an authorized investigative agency to any DOE computer
used by the individual during the period of the individual's access to
information on a DOE computer and for a period of three years
thereafter.
Battelle questioned how a contractor could get written consent from
anonymous users and guests on FTP servers and telnet services, or from
those searching DOE Web sites. Battelle asked that these situations be
covered by exemptions in the final rule. Brookhaven made a similar
comment, asking who must obtain written acknowledgments and consents
from a non-DOE contractor or its employees. It also questioned how a
member of the public who only sends an e-mail to a DOE computer could
give consent for inspection of a DOE computer, as would be required by
proposed Sec. 727.5.
As previously explained in this section of the Supplementary
Information, DOE has revised the scope and applicability provisions of
the rule to exclude members of the public who send e-mail to DOE
computers from the written consent requirement. DOE interprets section
3235(a) of the NDAA to apply to individuals who are granted access to
information on a DOE computer by DOE or a DOE contractor or
subcontractor. In all cases, the granting of such access will involve
the use of passwords.
Battelle, in commenting on proposed Sec. 727.6, also asked whether
a DOE contractor is required to give each authorized person a password
to prevent unauthorized access to its computers or whether a warning
screen on the computer would be sufficient. Section 3235(a) provides
that ``written consent'' is required as a condition of being granted
access to information on an Administration computer. The statute does
not contain any provision giving DOE the discretion to allow use of a
warning screen in lieu of a written consent.
5. Other comment. Brookhaven urged DOE to not issue a final Part
727 until the on-going implementation of Homeland Security Presidential
Directive 12 (HSPD-12), entitled ``Policy for a Common Identification
Standard for Federal Employees and Contractors,'' is completed. HSPD-12
provides for integrated physical access controls for all federally-
owned or controlled facilities and information systems.
DOE does not accept this recommendation. The provisions of this
final rule are written in general language that closely tracks the
language in section 3235 of the NDAA, and, in DOE's view, there is
little potential for conflict between the requirements of this rule and
the implementation of HSPD-12. If such a conflict is revealed when
HSPD-12 is fully implemented, DOE will then evaluate the need to amend
Part 727.
III. Regulatory Review
A. National Environmental Policy Act
DOE has determined that this final rule is covered under the
Categorical Exclusion found in DOE's National Environmental Policy Act
regulations at paragraph A.6 of Appendix A to Subpart D, 10 CFR part
1021, which applies to rule makings that are strictly procedural.
Accordingly, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental
impact statement is required.
B. Executive Order 12866
Section 6 of Executive Order 12866 provides for a review by the
Office of Management and Budget's Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs (OIRA) of a significant regulatory action, which is defined to
include an action that may have an effect on the economy of $100
million or more, or adversely affect, in a material way, the economy,
competition, jobs, productivity, the environment, public health or
safety, or State, local, or tribal governments. Today's regulatory
action has been determined not to be a significant regulatory action.
Accordingly, this rulemaking is not subject to review under that
Executive Order by OIRA.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires
preparation of an initial regulatory flexibility analysis for any rule
that by law must be proposed for public comment, unless the agency
certifies that the rule, if promulgated, will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. As required
by Executive Order 13272, ``Proper Consideration of Small Entities in
Agency Rulemaking,'' 67 FR 53461 (August 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 Web site: https://www.gc.doe.gov.
DOE has reviewed today's rule under the provisions of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act and the procedures and policies published on
February 19, 2003. This rule does not directly regulate small
businesses or other small entities. The rule applies only to
individuals who use DOE computers. Under the rule, DOE and DOE
contractor employees who are granted access to information on DOE
computers, or applicants for such positions, are required to execute a
written acknowledgment and consent provided by DOE. Although a small
number of individuals subject to this rule may work for DOE
subcontractors who are small entities, the costs associated with
compliance with the rule's requirements will be negligible and in most
cases reimbursable under the contract. On the basis of the foregoing,
DOE certifies that this final rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. Accordingly, DOE has
not prepared a regulatory flexibility analysis for this rulemaking.
DOE's certification and supporting statement of factual basis will be
provided to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business
Administration pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b).
D. Paperwork Reduction Act
This final rule contains a collection of information subject to
review and approval by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under
the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. Section
727.6(b) requires DOE contractors to maintain a file of written
acknowledgments and consents executed by its employees and
subcontractor employees. This collection of information was submitted
to OMB for approval. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no
person is required to respond to, nor shall any
[[Page 40884]]
person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection
of information subject to the requirements of the PRA, unless that
collection of information displays a currently valid OMB Control
Number.
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4) generally
requires Federal agencies to examine closely the impacts of regulatory
actions on State, local, and tribal governments. Subsection 101(5) of
title I of that law defines a Federal intergovernmental mandate to
include any regulation that would impose upon State, local, or tribal
governments an enforceable duty, except a condition of Federal
assistance or a duty arising from participating in a voluntary federal
program. Title II of that law requires each Federal agency to assess
the effects of Federal regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector, other than to
the extent such actions merely incorporate requirements specifically
set forth in a statute. Section 202 of that title requires a Federal
agency to perform a detailed assessment of the anticipated costs and
benefits of any rule that includes a Federal mandate which may result
in costs to State, local, or tribal governments, or to the private
sector, of $100 million or more. Section 204 of that title requires
each agency that proposes a rule containing a significant Federal
intergovernmental mandate to develop an effective process for obtaining
meaningful and timely input from elected officers of State, local, and
tribal governments.
This rule does not impose a Federal mandate on State, local or
tribal governments, and will not 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 one year. Accordingly, no
assessment or analysis is required under the Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act of 1995.
F. 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 that may affect family
well being. While this final rule applies to individuals who may be
members of a family, the rule does 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.
G. 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
policymaking discretion of the States and carefully assess the
necessity for such actions. DOE has examined this rule and has
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.
H. 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,
the final rule meets the relevant standards of Executive Order 12988.
I. Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2001
The Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2001 (44
U.S.C. 3516, note) provides for 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). DOE has reviewed
today's notice under the OMB and DOE guidelines and has concluded that
it is consistent with applicable policies in those guidelines.
J. Congressional Notification
As required by 5 U.S.C. 801, DOE will report to Congress on the
promulgation of today's rule prior to its effective date. The report
will state that it has been determined that the rule is not a ``major
rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
List of Subjects
10 CFR Part 727
Classified information, Computers, Contractor employees, Government
employees, National defense, Security information.
48 CFR Part 904
Classified information, Government procurement.
48 CFR Part 952
Government procurement, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Issued in Washington, DC on July 7, 2006.
Clay Sell,
Deputy Secretary.
0
For the reasons stated in the preamble, DOE hereby amends Chapter III
of title 10 and Chapter 9 of title 48 of the Code of Federal
Regulations as set forth below:
0
1. 10 CFR part 727 is added to read as follows:
PART 727--CONSENT FOR ACCESS TO INFORMATION ON DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
COMPUTERS
Sec.
727.1 What is the purpose and scope of this part?
727.2 What are the definitions of the terms used in this part?
727.3 To whom does this part apply?
727.4 Is there any expectation of privacy applicable to a DOE
computer?
727.5 What acknowledgment and consent is required for access to
information on DOE computers?
727.6 What are the obligations of a DOE contractor?
[[Page 40885]]
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7101, et seq.; 42 U.S.C. 2011, et. seq.; 50
U.S.C. 2425, 2483; E.O. No. 12958, 60 FR 19825, 3 CFR, 1995 Comp.,
p. 333; and E.O. 12968, 60 FR 40245, 3 CFR, 1995 Comp., p. 391.
Sec. 727.1 What is the purpose and scope of this part?
(a) The purpose of this part is to establish minimum requirements
applicable to each individual granted access to a DOE computer or to
information on a DOE computer, including a requirement for written
consent to access by an authorized investigative agency to any DOE
computer used in the performance of the individual's duties during the
term of that individual's employment and for a period of three years
thereafter.
(b) Section 727.4 of this part also applies to any person who uses
a DOE computer by sending an e-mail message to such a computer.
Sec. 727.2 What are the definitions of the terms used in this part?
For purposes of this part:
Authorized investigative agency means an agency authorized by law
or regulation to conduct a counterintelligence investigation or
investigations of persons who are proposed for access to classified
information to ascertain whether such persons satisfy the criteria for
obtaining and retaining access to such information.
Computer means desktop computers, portable computers, computer
networks (including the DOE network and local area networks at or
controlled by DOE organizations), network devices, automated
information systems, or other related computer equipment owned by,
leased, or operated on behalf of the DOE.
DOE means the Department of Energy, including the National Nuclear
Security Administration.
DOE computer means any computer owned by, leased, or operated on
behalf of the DOE.
Individual means an employee of DOE or a DOE contractor, or any
other person who has been granted access to a DOE computer or to
information on a DOE computer, and does not include a member of the
public who sends an e-mail message to a DOE computer or who obtains
information available to the public on DOE Web sites.
User means any person, including any individual or member of the
public, who sends information to or receives information from a DOE
computer.
Sec. 727.3 To whom does this part apply?
(a) This part applies to DOE employees, DOE contractors, DOE
contractor and subcontractor employees, and any other individual who
has been granted access to a DOE computer or to information on a DOE
computer.
(b) Section 727.4 of this part also applies to any person who uses
a DOE computer by sending an e-mail message to such computer.
Sec. 727.4 Is there any expectation of privacy applicable to a DOE
computer?
Notwithstanding any other provision of law (including any provision
of law enacted by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986),
no user of a DOE computer shall have any expectation of privacy in the
use of that DOE computer.
Sec. 727.5 What acknowledgment and consent is required for access to
information on DOE computers?
An individual may not be granted access to information on a DOE
computer unless:
(a) The individual has acknowledged in writing that the individual
has no expectation of privacy in the use of a DOE computer; and
(b) The individual has consented in writing to permit access by an
authorized investigative agency to any DOE computer used during the
period of that individual's access to information on a DOE computer and
for a period of three years thereafter.
Sec. 727.6 What are the obligations of a DOE contractor?
(a) A DOE contractor must ensure that neither its employees nor the
employees of any of its subcontractors has access to information on a
DOE computer unless the DOE contractor has obtained a written
acknowledgment and consent by each contractor or subcontractor employee
that complies with the requirements of Sec. 727.5 of this part.
(b) A DOE contractor must maintain a file of original written
acknowledgments and consents executed by its employees and all
subcontractors employees that comply with the requirements of Sec.
727.5 of this part.
(c) Upon demand by the cognizant DOE contracting officer, a DOE
contractor must provide an opportunity for a DOE official to inspect
the file compiled under this section and to copy any portion of the
file.
(d) If a DOE contractor violates the requirements of this section
with regard to a DOE computer with Restricted Data or other classified
information, then the DOE contractor may be assessed a civil penalty or
a reduction in fee pursuant to section 234B of the Atomic Energy Act of
1954 (42 U.S.C. 2282b).
0
2. The authority citation for Parts 904 and 952 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 2201, 2282a, 2282b, 2282c, 7101 et seq.; 41
U.S.C. 418b; 50 U.S.C. 2401 et seq.
PART 904--ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS
0
3. Section 904.404 is amended by adding a new paragraph (d)(7) to read
as follows:
904.404 Solicitation provision and contract clause. [DOE coverage--
paragraph (d)].
(d) * * *
(7) Computer Security, 952.204-77. This clause is required in
contracts in which the contractor may have access to computers owned,
leased or operated on behalf of the Department of Energy.
PART 952--SOLICITATION PROVISIONS AND CONTRACT CLAUSES
0
4. Section 952.204-77 is added to read as follows:
952.204-77 Computer Security.
As prescribed in 904.404(d)(7), the following clause shall be
included:
Computer Security (AUG 2006)
(a) Definitions.
(1) Computer means desktop computers, portable computers,
computer networks (including the DOE Network and local area networks
at or controlled by DOE organizations), network devices, automated
information systems, and or other related computer equipment owned
by, leased, or operated on behalf of the DOE.
(2) Individual means a DOE contractor or subcontractor employee,
or any other person who has been granted access to a DOE computer or
to information on a DOE computer, and does not include a member of
the public who sends an e-mail message to a DOE computer or who
obtains information available to the public on DOE Web sites.
(b) Access to DOE computers. A contractor shall not allow an
individual to have access to information on a DOE computer unless:
(1) The individual has acknowledged in writing that the
individual has no expectation of privacy in the use of a DOE
computer; and,
(2) The individual has consented in writing to permit access by
an authorized investigative agency to any DOE computer used during
the period of that individual's access to information on a DOE
computer, and for a period of three years thereafter.
(c) No expectation of privacy. Notwithstanding any other
provision of law (including any provision of law enacted by the
Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986), no individual using
a DOE computer shall have any expectation of privacy in the use of
that computer.
(d) Written records. The contractor is responsible for
maintaining written records for itself and subcontractors
demonstrating compliance with the provisions of paragraph
[[Page 40886]]
(b) of this section. The contractor agrees to provide access to
these records to the DOE, or its authorized agents, upon request.
(e) Subcontracts. The contractor shall insert this clause,
including this paragraph (e), in subcontracts under this contract
that may provide access to computers owned, leased or operated on
behalf of the DOE.
(End of Clause)
[FR Doc. 06-6319 Filed 7-18-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P