[Federal Register: January 5, 1998 (Volume 63, Number 2)]
[Proposed Rules]               
[Page 373-386]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr05ja98-27]


[[Page 373]]

_______________________________________________________________________

Part V





Department of Energy





_______________________________________________________________________



10 CFR Part 708



Criteria and Procedures for DOE Contractor Employee Protection Program; 
Proposed Rule



48 CFR Parts 922, 952, and 970



Acquisition Regulation; Department of Energy Management and Operating 
Contracts; Proposed Rule


[[Page 374]]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------


DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

10 CFR Part 708

[RIN 1901-AA78]

 
Criteria and Procedures for <STRONG>DOE</STRONG> <STRONG>Contractor</STRONG> <STRONG>Employee</STRONG> Protection 
Program

AGENCY: Department of Energy.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Department of Energy (<STRONG>DOE</STRONG>) proposes amendments for its 
<STRONG>contractor</STRONG> <STRONG>employee</STRONG> protection program which provides recourse to <STRONG>DOE</STRONG> 
<STRONG>contractor</STRONG> employees who believe they have been retaliated against for 
activities such as a disclosure of information regarding management of 
environmental, safety, health, and other matters, for participating in 
Congressional proceedings, or for refusing to engage in illegal or 
dangerous activities.

DATES: Written comments should be forwarded not later than March 6, 
1998.

ADDRESSES: Comments (3 copies) may be submitted to William A. Lewis, 
Jr., Director, Office of <STRONG>Employee</STRONG> Concerns, Department of Energy, 1000 
Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, D.C. 20585, 202-586-4034.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Richard S. Fein, Office of <STRONG>Employee</STRONG> 
Concerns, Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW, 
Washington, D.C. 20585, 202-586-4043.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Introduction and Background

    In the control and management of its nuclear weapon maintenance and 
environmental cleanup sites, research and development laboratories, 
test sites, and other Government-owned or -leased facilities, the <STRONG>DOE</STRONG> 
is responsible for safeguarding public and <STRONG>employee</STRONG> health and safety; 
ensuring compliance with applicable laws, rules, and regulations; and 
preventing fraud, mismanagement, waste, and abuse. To this end, the 
Secretary of Energy has taken vigorous action to assure that all such 
<STRONG>DOE</STRONG> facilities are well-managed and efficient, while at the same time 
operated in a manner that does not expose the workers or the public to 
needless risks or threats to health and safety. The <STRONG>DOE</STRONG> is endeavoring 
to involve both <STRONG>DOE</STRONG> and <STRONG>contractor</STRONG> employees in an aggressive 
partnership to identify problems and seek their resolution. In that 
regard, employees of <STRONG>DOE</STRONG> contractors are encouraged to come forward 
with information that reasonably and in good faith they believe 
evidences unsafe, unlawful, fraudulent, or wasteful practices. 
Employees providing such information are entitled to protection from 
consequent discrimination by their employers with respect to 
compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment.
    The original rule was published in the Federal Register on March 3, 
1992 (57 FR 7533). In order to assure workplace conditions at <STRONG>DOE</STRONG> 
facilities that are harmonious with safety and good management, the 
rule was intended to improve the procedures for resolving complaints of 
reprisal by establishing procedures for independent fact-finding and 
hearing before a Hearing Officer at the affected <STRONG>DOE</STRONG> field 
installation, followed by an opportunity for review by the Secretary or 
designee. These new procedures were made available to those <STRONG>contractor</STRONG> 
employees who allege health and safety violations, but are not covered 
by the Department of Labor (DOL) procedures. In addition, <STRONG>contractor</STRONG> 
employees who alleged employment reprisal resulting from the disclosure 
of information relating to waste, fraud, or mismanagement, or from the 
participation in proceedings conducted before Congress or pursuant to 
the rule, or from the refusal to engage in illegal or dangerous 
activities, could also utilize the procedures regardless of whether 
they are covered by the health and safety protection procedures of DOL. 
This rule was not intended to cover complaints of reprisal stemming 
from or relating to other types of discrimination by contractors, such 
as discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, age, 
national origin, or other similar basis.
    After the operation of the rule for more than four years, the 
Department took steps to obtain the views of interested parties on the 
operation of the rule. A Notice of Inquiry was published on October 25, 
1996 (61 FR 55230), in which <STRONG>DOE</STRONG> invited members of the public, 
particularly those persons with experience under the <STRONG>DOE</STRONG> <STRONG>contractor</STRONG> 
<STRONG>employee</STRONG> protection program (e.g., contractors, claimants and 
attorneys), to recommend regulatory changes that might help to 
streamline the process and make it more responsive to the needs of both 
claimants and contractors. Comments were received from 28 individuals 
or organizations in response to the Department of Energy's Notice of 
Inquiry. These comments are summarized in III. below.
    The procedures set forth in part 708 are designed specifically to 
deal with allegations of reprisals against <STRONG>contractor</STRONG> employees and to 
provide relief where appropriate. Reprisals against <STRONG>contractor</STRONG> 
employees may also lead to the imposition of penalties under the Price 
Anderson Amendments Act of 1988 (Pub. L. 100-49, August 20, 1988), 
implemented by <STRONG>DOE</STRONG> under 10 CFR part 820 (part 820). Pursuant to Part 
820, to the extent a reprisal by a <STRONG>DOE</STRONG> <STRONG>contractor</STRONG> results from an 
<STRONG>employee</STRONG>'s involvement in matters of nuclear safety in connection with 
a <STRONG>DOE</STRONG> nuclear activity, the reprisal could constitute a violation of a 
<STRONG>DOE</STRONG> Nuclear Safety Requirement. The reprisal could therefore be subject 
to the investigatory and adjudicatory procedures of both part 820 and 
part 708, and could result in relief to the <STRONG>employee</STRONG> under part 708 and 
the imposition of civil penalties on the <STRONG>DOE</STRONG> <STRONG>contractor</STRONG> under part 820. 
A full discussion of the relationship between this part and 10 CFR part 
820 and the procedures that would be followed in situations where an 
alleged reprisal action fell under both this part and part 820 can be 
found in Federal Register Volume 57, No. 95, Friday, May 15, 1992, at 
20796-20798.

II. Summary of Changes

    A. The <STRONG>employee</STRONG> coverage would be modified in Secs. 708.1, 
708.2(b), 708.3 and 708.4 by eliminating the requirement that persons 
need to be employed by contractors performing their work on sites owned 
or leased by <STRONG>DOE</STRONG>. The proposed new language would instead cover 
employees of contractors performing work directly related to the 
operation of programs and activities at <STRONG>DOE</STRONG>-owned or -leased sites, 
even if the <STRONG>contractor</STRONG> is located, or the work is performed, off-site. 
An example would be involvement in the preparation of environmental 
impact statements related to programs and activities on <STRONG>DOE</STRONG>-owned and -
leased sites. The definition of ``work performed on-site,'' currently 
found in Sec. 708.4, would be deleted since it would no longer be used 
as a basis for determining jurisdiction under the rule.
    B. In order to fully meet the intent of the current rule not to 
duplicate protections available under other Federal statutory 
provisions, the proposed rule, in Secs. 708.2(b) and 708.6(a)(i), would 
continue to exclude from coverage <STRONG>employee</STRONG> complaints for which 
protection is provided under 29 CFR part 24, ``Procedures for the 
Handling of Discrimination Under Federal <STRONG>Employee</STRONG> Protection 
Statutes.'' This exclusion would also reflect coverage of <STRONG>DOE</STRONG> employees 
contained in the Energy Policy Act of 1992, (Public Law 102-486) which 
amended section 210(a), now 211(a), of the Energy Reorganization Act of 
1974 (42 U.S.C. 5851(a). That Act added protection for employees of ``a 
<STRONG>contractor</STRONG> or

[[Page 375]]

subcontractor of the Department of Energy that is indemnified by the 
Department of Energy under section 170 d. of the Atomic Energy Act of 
1954 (42 U.S.C. 2210(d)), but such term shall not include any 
<STRONG>contractor</STRONG> or subcontractor covered by Executive Order 12344.''
    Additional protections were afforded to <STRONG>contractor</STRONG> employees under 
section 6006 of the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 
(Public Law 103-355) against reprisals for engaging in certain 
protected activities. Section 6006 (implementing regulations found in 
48 CFR part 3, Subpart 3.9) assigns responsibilities to Inspectors 
General (including the Inspector General for the Department of Energy), 
to implement these protections. The proposed regulation would also 
exclude from coverage complaints that fall within the scope of Section 
6006, and its implementing regulations found in 48 CFR part 3, Subpart 
3.9.
    C. The Office of <STRONG>Contractor</STRONG> <STRONG>Employee</STRONG> Protection, and the position 
of Director of the Office of <STRONG>Contractor</STRONG> <STRONG>Employee</STRONG> Protection, no longer 
exist within <STRONG>DOE</STRONG>. Under the proposed rule, therefore, references to the 
Office of <STRONG>Contractor</STRONG> <STRONG>Employee</STRONG> Protection or the Director of the Office 
of <STRONG>Contractor</STRONG> <STRONG>Employee</STRONG> Protection would be removed.
    Responsibilities for certain functions currently assigned to the 
Director of the Office of <STRONG>Contractor</STRONG> <STRONG>Employee</STRONG> Protection would be the 
responsibilities of other officials under the proposed rule. The 
responsibility for making determinations of jurisdictional coverage of 
complaints where the jurisdictional coverage is questioned, currently 
contained in Sec. 708.7(a), would be the responsibility of the Director 
of the Office of <STRONG>Employee</STRONG> Concerns. Responsibility for conducting 
inquiries under the proposed Sec. 708.8 (formerly designated as 
investigations) would be the responsibility of the Deputy Inspector 
General for Inspections. The Deputy Inspector General for Inspections, 
under proposed Sec. 708.8(f), would have the responsibility for serving 
copies of Reports of Inquiry on the parties. The responsibilities of 
the Director of the Office of <STRONG>Contractor</STRONG> <STRONG>Employee</STRONG> Protection to serve 
copies of initial and final decisions on the parties would be the 
responsibility of the Director of the Office of Hearings and Appeals 
under Secs. 708.10(a) and (b) of the proposed rule.
    D. The proposed language in Secs. 708.3 and 708.5(a)(i) would cover 
protections for disclosures of ``substantial'' violations of laws, rule 
or regulations and ``gross'' mismanagement. The criteria of 
``substantial'' violations of law is consistent with Section 6006 of 
the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994, (Public Law 103-355). 
Similarly, the criterion of ``gross'' mismanagement is consistent with 
the provisions of the Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989 (5 U.S.C. 
2302(b)(8)). (See also Sen. Rep. No. 413, 100th Cong., 2nd Sess., 13, 
26, 34.)
    E. Section 708.5(a)(1) of the proposed rule would expand coverage 
of disclosures to include those made to other government officials, 
such as those from other Federal or state agencies who have 
responsibility for oversight of activities on <STRONG>DOE</STRONG>-owned or -leased 
sites.
    F. Section 708.5(a)(1) would further define the nature of the 
disclosure, requiring that the <STRONG>employee</STRONG>'s disclosure involves 
information he or she ``reasonably and in good faith believes'' is 
true. The current rule in Sec. 708.5(a)(1) only requires that the 
complainant ``in good faith believes'' the information he or she 
discloses. The additional criterion, that the complainant 
``reasonably'' believes the information, is consistent with the 
Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989 and many State statutes which 
afford protection to both public and private sector employees against 
reprisal for whistleblowing activities.
    G. Section 708.6(c) of the proposed rule would increase the time 
limit for filing a complaint from 60 to 90 days. The time limit for 
filing a complaint would still be tolled during the time a complainant 
is seeking remedial action through internal <STRONG>contractor</STRONG> procedures. The 
use of internal grievance procedures would still be required under the 
rule, but the proposed rule would permit individuals to file a 
complaint if they have not received a response on a grievance relating 
to the subject of the complaint within 120 days of the filing of the 
grievance.
    H. Under Sec. 708.6(d), the proposed rule would not cover 
allegations of reprisal for having engaged in protected activities if 
those issues had been ruled upon in binding arbitration pursuant to a 
collective bargaining agreement. Such binding arbitration would be 
considered the pursuit of a remedy under ``other applicable law.'' This 
approach respects the labor-management relationship that applies to 
many <STRONG>DOE</STRONG> <STRONG>contractor</STRONG> employees, and is consistent with the deference 
given to binding arbitration decisions issued pursuant to collective 
bargaining agreements.
    I. Section 708.7(a) would continue to encourage informal 
resolution, and language has been added to specify the use of mediation 
as a means for resolving disputes. Settlement agreements under the rule 
would be between the parties; the language in the current rule that 
``the Head of the Field Elements or designee shall enter into a 
settlement agreement which terminates the complaint'' has been deleted.
    J. Section 708.7(b)(3) and (c) of the proposed rule would give 
complainants the right, if informal resolution is unsuccessful, to 
elect to have the complaint submitted directly to the Office of 
Hearings and Appeals for a hearing, thereby bypassing the inquiry 
phase. Under the current rule, all complaints that are accepted for 
processing and which have not been informally resolved are investigated 
prior to the parties having the right to request a hearing.
    K. Section 708.8(a) of the proposed rule would grant discretion to 
the Deputy Inspector General for Inspections whether or not to direct 
the conduct of an inquiry into a complaint.
    L. Section 708.8(c) would provide for complainants to be advised of 
their right to request a hearing on their complaint in cases where the 
Deputy Inspector General for Inspections decides not to conduct an 
inquiry into the complaint.
    M. Under Sec. 708.8(g) of the proposed rule, complainants would 
have a right to request a hearing if a Report of Inquiry has not been 
issued within 240 days of the date the Deputy Inspector General for 
Inspections was advised that informal resolution of the complaint was 
not reached.
    N. Language would be added to Sec. 708.8(d) that would provide for 
the taking of sworn statements as part of inquiries conducted at the 
direction of the Deputy Inspector General for Inspections, when deemed 
appropriate by the inspector.
    O. Language would be added in Sec. 708.9(c)(2) authorizing the 
Hearing Officer to provide for reasonable discovery by the parties as 
part of hearing proceedings.
    P. Section 708.9(b) would extend the time for holding a hearing 
from 60 to 90 days after the complaint file is received by the Office 
of Hearings and Appeals.
    Q. Section 708.10(b) would extend the time for the issuance of a 
decision by the Office of Hearings and Appeals from 30 to 60 days after 
the receipt of the transcript of the hearing or after post-hearing 
briefs or other evidence permitted under Sec. 708.9(h), whichever is 
later.
    No changes are being proposed with respect to Secs. 708.13, 708.14 
or 708.15, and those sections are therefore not included in this 
notice.
    Consideration is being given to publishing the final rule in a 
different format, which might make the requirements and procedures of 
the

[[Page 376]]

program more easily understood by users of the program. One possible 
alternative is to use a question and answer format. An example of this 
format might be as follows:

Which <STRONG>Contractor</STRONG> Employees Are Covered?

    This part applies to any <STRONG>contractor</STRONG> <STRONG>employee</STRONG> if the <STRONG>employee</STRONG> 
works for a <STRONG>contractor</STRONG> responsible for the conduct of <STRONG>DOE</STRONG> programs 
or the operation of <STRONG>DOE</STRONG>-owned or leased facilities, regardless of 
the <STRONG>employee</STRONG>'s work location.

III. Summary of Public Comments Received Pursuant to the October 25, 
1996, Notice of Inquiry

    Substantive comments were received from 28 individuals or 
organizations in response to the Department of Energy's Notice of 
Inquiry, published in the Federal Register on October 25, 1996. For 
purposes of summarizing the comments, references made to the Office of 
<STRONG>Contractor</STRONG> <STRONG>Employee</STRONG> Protection (OCEP) by the commenters have been 
retained, even though that office was abolished and its functions were 
absorbed into existing Office of Inspector General functions as of 
October 1, 1996.

Comments 1-11

    One commenter, a public interest group that represents 
whistleblowers, submitted eleven comments regarding possible 
modifications to the <STRONG>contractor</STRONG> <STRONG>employee</STRONG> protection program. Twenty-
four other commenters specifically endorsed four of these 
recommendations (comments 1, 3, 5 and 9 below). The rationales for the 
comments of these 24 other commenters parallel those contained in the 
comments submitted by the public interest organization. The eleven 
comments submitted by the public interest organization were:
    Comment 1: Reconstitute the Office of <STRONG>Contractor</STRONG> <STRONG>Employee</STRONG> 
Protection under the newly created Office of <STRONG>Employee</STRONG> Concerns, and 
have it ensure ``independent investigations; performed in a timely 
manner; supported by a verifiable report of investigation, with 
supporting evidence in the way of relevant records and sworn statements 
attached;'' and ``aggressively pursue its mandate to attempt to mediate 
and resolve concerns at an early stage.''
    Response: Since the Office of <STRONG>Contractor</STRONG> <STRONG>Employee</STRONG> Protection became 
a part of the Office of Inspector General on October 1, 1996, the 
Office of Inspector General has provided a significant amount of 
training to its inspection staff on the review of complaints under the 
<STRONG>DOE</STRONG> <STRONG>Contractor</STRONG> <STRONG>Employee</STRONG> Protection Program. The proposed revisions to 
the regulations institutionalize the responsibility for conducting 
inquiries (formerly referred to as investigations) under the Deputy 
Inspector General for Inspections. The Department believes the 
continuation of this responsibility in the Office of Inspector General 
will meet the needs of the parties to a complaint in an effective and 
efficient manner. This includes the specific goals cited by the 
commenter, i.e., the availability of independent, timely 
investigations, with reports of investigation containing supporting 
evidence.
    Attempts at informal resolution remain a crucial aspect of the 
rule. <STRONG>DOE</STRONG> is proposing amendments to section 708.7(a) to further 
encourage the use of various Alternative Dispute Resolution mechanisms, 
primarily mediation.
    Comment 2: Expand the coverage of the OCEP to include <STRONG>DOE</STRONG> 
employees, not just <STRONG>contractor</STRONG> employees, change the definition of a 
protected disclosure to include reports to any governmental agency, not 
just to Congress or the <STRONG>DOE</STRONG>, clarify the protections under Part 708 to 
be extended to employees of contractors performing work at or related 
to <STRONG>DOE</STRONG>-owned or leased facilities, and clarify that the ``disclosure of 
a `substantial and specific danger to <STRONG>employee</STRONG> or public health and 
safety' includes current dangers as well as dangers arising in the 
future as a result of action or inaction at <STRONG>DOE</STRONG> sites.''
    Response: The Department does not believe that it is either 
necessary or appropriate to duplicate protections of Federal employees 
beyond those specifically provided to Federal employees by the 
Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989, implemented by the Merit Systems 
Protection Board and the Office of Special Counsel.
    The coverage of the scope of disclosures would be modified in 
section 708.5(a) to include disclosures to other governmental officials 
who have responsibility for the oversight of activities at <STRONG>DOE</STRONG> sites.
    The scope of the rule would be modified to cover employees engaged 
in work related to activities on <STRONG>DOE</STRONG>-owned or -leased sites, and would 
not require that the <STRONG>employee</STRONG> or the <STRONG>contractor</STRONG> actually be located at 
the <STRONG>DOE</STRONG> site. The tests for <STRONG>employee</STRONG> coverage would be the nature of 
the work being performed and the substance of the disclosure.
    With respect to the issue of the required specificity of 
disclosures related to the environment, safety or health, the proposed 
rule would retain the current language. The language is consistent with 
the provisions of the whistleblower protections available to Federal 
employees. The Senate Report accompanying the Civil Service Reform Act 
of 1978 explained that general criticisms or complaints, or those of a 
non-substantial nature, were not intended to be covered. The Report 
stated that ``the Committee intends that only disclosures of public 
health and safety dangers which are both substantial and specific are 
to be protected. Thus, for example, general criticism by an <STRONG>employee</STRONG> of 
the Environmental Protection Agency that the Agency is not doing enough 
to protect the environment would not be protected under this 
subsection.'' ( S. Rep. No 969, 95th Cong., 2nd Sess. 21 (1978) 
reprinted in 1978 U.S. Code Cong. &amp; Ad. News 2730.)
    Comment 3: Guarantee employees a right to a timely investigation, 
and provide employees the right to request a full hearing if a report 
has not been issued on a complaint within 180 days of its having been 
filed.
    Response: One of the primary goals of the proposed rule is to 
streamline the process in order to provide a timely review of 
complaints. A proposed provision would permit a complainant to request 
a hearing if a report of inquiry has not been issued within 240 days of 
the complaint being referred to the Deputy Inspector General for 
Inspections. While this time frame is slightly longer than recommended 
by the commenter, the Department believes it provides a more realistic 
time frame for the issuance of a report of inquiry. In addition, 
complainants would have the option under the proposed rule to elect to 
bypass the inquiry phase and go directly to a hearing if informal 
resolution is unsuccessful.
    Comment 4: Require <STRONG>DOE</STRONG> investigators to take sworn testimony from 
all witnesses interviewed, or, in the alternative, produce an affidavit 
from the investigator certifying that the notes reflect the substance 
of the witness interview.
    Response: The Department believes that inspectors of the Office of 
Inspector General must retain the discretion to determine when sworn 
statements will be taken. Language has been added to the rule 
specifying that sworn statements may be part of the record of 
inspection when deemed appropriate.
    Comment 5: Guarantee the right of employees to engage in reasonable 
discovery at the hearing stage, including the right for parties at the 
hearing stage to obtain documentary and other physical evidence through 
interrogatories and requests for production, to take depositions of 
necessary witnesses, enter and examine premises of contractors where 
necessary and relevant, and the right to obtain continuances in order 
to engage in

[[Page 377]]

reasonable discovery. The commenter noted that discovery is permitted 
under whistleblower hearings before Department of Labor Administrative 
Law Judges, reflected in 29 CFR 18.13 through 18.24.
    Response: Discovery has been available as part of the hearing 
process before the Office of Hearings and Appeals, and additional, 
clarifying language has been added to the rule recognizing the 
availability of discovery at the hearing stage.
    Comment 6: Require that <STRONG>DOE</STRONG> Office of Hearings and Appeals Hearing 
Officers have a Juris Doctorate from an accredited law school and/or 
relevant and significant amounts of legal training in order to protect 
the procedural and substantive due process rights of the parties.
    Response: The Department believes that the part 708 hearing process 
must be conducted with professionalism, the highest integrity and 
demonstrated competence. The expressed concern that hearing officers 
are not now required to possess law degrees might be a valid concern if 
evidence indicated that an unfair, inadequate or unprofessional 
adjudications have occurred as a consequence of this fact. This has not 
been the case. In addition, there is no such positive educational 
requirement for Federal employees serving in the capacity of Hearing 
Officer.
    Comment 7: Abolish the requirement that employees first exhaust 
available corporate grievance processes or certify the futility of 
doing so. This is an unnecessary, and usually fruitless and often 
counterproductive step that facilitates coverups.
    Response: The Department continues to believe that allegations of 
whistleblower reprisal should be resolved at the lowest possible 
levels, and that this includes seeking remedies through procedures made 
available by contractors to its employees. The current and proposed 
rules require the use of internal procedures first, but provide for 
bypassing such procedures if they are, as the commenter argues, futile. 
The Department believes that the complainant who does not wish to 
utilize available internal procedures must establish that available 
procedures are not operated in good faith. The proposed rule would, 
however, allow an <STRONG>employee</STRONG> to file a complaint under the rule where 
internal grievance procedures exist, but where the <STRONG>employee</STRONG> has not 
received a final decision on the grievance within 120 days of having 
filed the grievance with the <STRONG>contractor</STRONG>.
    Comment 8: Expand the period for filing a complaint from the 
present 60-day requirement to 180 days, with a provision that if the 
<STRONG>contractor</STRONG> has failed to adequately notify employees of provisions of 
part 708, the limitation period would be waived. The commenter cited 
Congress' extension of the period for filing whistleblower complaints 
under the Energy Reorganization Act to 180 days (42 U.S.C. 2000e-
5(e)(1)).
    Response: The time for filing would be increased from 60 to 90 days 
under the proposed rule. Because the rule tolls the period for filing 
while a complainant seeks remedial action through internal <STRONG>contractor</STRONG> 
procedures, the time frame for filing in essence would extend the 90-
day filing requirement. In addition, since the implementation of the 
<STRONG>Contractor</STRONG> <STRONG>Employee</STRONG> Protection Program in April 1992, the 60-day filing 
requirement has not been applied where good cause was shown for 
extending the filing deadline.
    Comment 9: Include, in the definition of discrimination, the abuse 
of the security clearance process against an <STRONG>employee</STRONG> who falls within 
the category of a protected <STRONG>employee</STRONG> under the rule, and permit the 
investigation of personnel security abuses to be investigated and 
remedied under part 708.
    Response: Allegations that the security clearance procedure has 
been abused may be raised in the regulatory process, found in 10 CFR 
Part 710, provided to employees for challenging adverse security 
determinations. There is no need to duplicate that process under this 
rule, especially since remedial action under this rule cannot include 
determinations that an adverse security clearance determination should 
be changed. In addition, personnel security actions are taken by <STRONG>DOE</STRONG> 
officials, not <STRONG>contractor</STRONG> management, and neither the current nor this 
proposed rule includes the review of actions taken by <STRONG>DOE</STRONG> officials.
    Comment 10: Specify that the rule is additive, rather than 
substitutive or a precondition for the exercise of other rights and 
remedies.
    Response: The current rule was intended to provide whistleblower 
protection for <STRONG>contractor</STRONG> employees who lacked standing to raise 
allegations of reprisal under statute, specifically, Department of 
Labor procedures. The current rule excludes from coverage employees who 
have the ability to raise allegations of whistleblower reprisal to the 
Department of Labor. The proposed rule would continue that policy, and 
also exclude from coverage complaints that fall within the statutory 
jurisdiction of the Office of Inspector General under section 6006 of 
the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994. The Department 
believes that it should not duplicate remedies available to <STRONG>contractor</STRONG> 
employees under statute.
    Comment 11: Expand available remedies to allow for the award of 
compensatory damages, including damages for mental anguish, pain and 
suffering, and emotional distress resulting from an <STRONG>contractor</STRONG>'s 
wrongful actions.
    Response: The current rule provides make whole remedies, primarily 
in the area of unwarranted personnel actions, and to prevent the 
continuation of discrimination against employees in reprisal for their 
having engaged in protected activities. <STRONG>DOE</STRONG> presently is unaware of 
substantial policy reasons or other justifications for revising and 
expanding the remedies available under part 708. The proposed rule 
would therefore continue the make whole damages available under the 
rule.
    Recommendations received from other commenters were:
    Comment: A commenter recommended that complainants should be 
required to document their certifications that internal procedures have 
been exhausted or that such procedures are nonexistent, ineffectual or 
expose the <STRONG>employee</STRONG> to reprisal.
    Response: This comment has been addressed in response to Comment 7 
above.
    Comment: A commenter recommended that final orders on whistleblower 
complaints should be subject to judicial review, either under a 
provision of the Wunderlich Act found at 41 U.S.C. 321, due to the 
contractual basis for part 708, or under the Administrative Procedure 
Act provisions found at 5 U.S.C. 701-706, if part 708 was promulgated 
under statute, i.e., the Atomic Energy Act.
    Response: The Department believes that the determination as to the 
availability of judicial review for complaints processed under this 
rule is a subject for courts to rule upon, and therefore the rule is 
silent on the issue.
    Comment: A commenter recommended that <STRONG>DOE</STRONG> streamline the intake 
process by assigning an individual to determine whether the claimant 
has stated a prima facie case.
    Response: Initial determinations of jurisdiction, including the 
establishment of a prima facie case, is a basic part of the processing 
of complaints. This function, under the proposed rule, would rest 
initially with the Director of the Office of <STRONG>Employee</STRONG> Concerns, the 
Heads of Field Elements, or their designees, with complainants having 
the right to seek a review of adverse jurisdictional determinations

[[Page 378]]

from the Secretary or designee. The assignment of particular 
individuals or staffing levels to this function would not be 
appropriate under the rule.
    Comment: A commenter recommended that bargaining unit employees be 
required to make use of grievance provisions, including binding 
arbitration. Where there is a finding for the <STRONG>employee</STRONG>, or the <STRONG>employee</STRONG> 
does not believe he or she has not been made whole, the <STRONG>employee</STRONG> should 
be able to file with <STRONG>DOE</STRONG>; if the ruling is in favor of the company, the 
<STRONG>employee</STRONG> should not be permitted to file a complaint with <STRONG>DOE</STRONG>.
    Response: The proposed rule would continue the policy that the use 
of negotiated grievance procedures is required as an available internal 
grievance process. The proposed rule would also provide that 
determinations under binding arbitration, pursuant to a bargaining unit 
agreement, will be considered dispositive of the issues under 
appropriate statute, to the extent the arbitration included the 
allegation that an action was taken against the <STRONG>employee</STRONG> in reprisal 
for activities protected under this rule.
    Comment: A commenter recommended that a <STRONG>contractor</STRONG> be allowed 30 
days to respond to a complaint, or an extension of 30 days upon request 
of both parties. Following that period, investigations should be 
completed within 60 days and a preliminary decision issued.
    Response: The proposed rule would continue to provide a 30-day 
period during which the parties are encouraged to seek informal 
resolution of the issues presented in a complaint. The rule would not 
preclude these efforts from extending beyond the 30-day period, and 
extensions can be sought for these efforts where it appears progress on 
resolution is possible. The proposed rule would eliminate some of the 
timeframes for processing specified in the original rule because they 
created unrealistic expectations, and therefore a 60-day time frame for 
the completion of inquiries is not included in the proposed rule.
    Comment: A commenter recommended that settlements should not be 
encouraged immediately, but should be addressed after a preliminary 
decision has been issued.
    Response: Experience had shown that complaints are often settled 
successfully when the parties engage in informal resolution, especially 
mediation, early in the process. The President has also directed the 
use of alternative dispute resolution when appropriate in Executive 
Order 12988. Mediation provides an excellent means for the parties to 
address the issues raised and their interests. Where cases are not 
resolved early in the process, further attempts at resolution are 
always available, including after the issuance of an initial decision.
    Comment: A commenter recommended that from the time a complaint is 
filed until there is a preliminary decision, complainants or their 
representatives should not be permitted to have access to OCEP or other 
<STRONG>DOE</STRONG> offices without advance notice to the other party, and an 
opportunity for the opposing counsel to participate and rebut either in 
person or by telephone conference allegations raised by a complainant. 
The commenter also stated that remedies should be reinstatement for 
wrongful discharge; back pay for the discharged <STRONG>employee</STRONG> to the date of 
reinstatement or the offer of reinstatement; or transfer preference. It 
was also recommended that there be a $10,000 cap on complainant 
attorney fees and that no front end or extended benefits should be 
permitted as remedies.
    Response: It is often necessary to follow-up with complainants in 
order to clarify the issues presented to make jurisdictional 
determination, or to determine appropriate parties who need to be 
contacted in order to pursue informal resolution. The Department 
believes these initial contacts are necessary for the effective 
implementation of the rule, but recognizes that they must be carried 
out in a manner that does not unfairly prejudice either party.
    The remedies in the rule are intended to be make whole remedies, 
and the Department therefore is not proposing to set arbitrary limits 
on possible remedies.
    Comment: A commenter recommended that if <STRONG>DOE</STRONG> will be disallowing 
costs to contractors found to have violated the rule, complainants who 
lose should be required to reimburse the <STRONG>contractor</STRONG> or <STRONG>DOE</STRONG>.
    Response: The rule has been established to provide a mechanism for 
employees who believed they have been subjected to wrongful 
discriminatory acts to obtain appropriate remedies. The Department 
believes the adoption of the recommendation would discourage employees 
from coming forward with allegations of wrongdoing, and therefore has 
not included it in the proposed rule.
    Comment: A commenter recommended that regulatory revisions to the 
<STRONG>Contractor</STRONG> <STRONG>Employee</STRONG> Protection Program should become fully effective on 
publication, and not be dependent on the inclusion of the rule in 
contractual agreements.
    Response: The Department believes that the provisions of the 
proposed rule would not create an undue burden on <STRONG>DOE</STRONG> contractors whose 
contracts include a clause requiring compliance with Part 708. The 
proposed rule would therefore not require renegotiation of the contract 
clause in order to become effective with respect to contractors 
currently subject to the rule.
    Comment: A commenter recommended that <STRONG>DOE</STRONG> make the punishment of 
the contractors severe by permitting compensatory damages and require 
action against managers found to have discriminated against 
whistleblowers.
    Response: The comment regarding compensatory damages has been 
addressed in response to Comment 11 above. The focus of the rule is 
corrective, and not punitive. With respect to requiring action against 
management officials, as noted in the comments that accompanied the 
publication of the current rule, the Department believes it is within 
the <STRONG>contractor</STRONG>'s managerial responsibility and discretion to address 
matters associated with employees found to have participated in 
discriminatory conduct. The proposed rule therefore does not contain 
provisions for the Department to require disciplinary action against 
<STRONG>contractor</STRONG> employees.
    Comment: A commenter recommended that employees should be kept 
informed as to the status of their cases.
    Response: The recommendation of the commenter is an operational 
suggestion that does not rise to the level of an issue that needs to be 
included in the rule, but is a suggestion that will be fully considered 
by the various offices responsible for the implementation of the rule.
    Comment: A commenter recommended that time frames contained in Part 
708 should be followed.
    Response: The original rule contained time frames for complaint 
processing that were not realistic, and therefore led to 
dissatisfaction with the process. One primary goal of the proposed rule 
is to streamline, and therefore speed up, the complaint process. The 
proposed rule therefore has more realistic time frames, and in some 
cases, processing time frames have been removed where they cannot be 
estimated.
    Comment: A commenter recommended that attorneys should be assigned 
to assist whistleblowers whose cases go to the Office of Hearings and 
Appeals for a hearing due to the limited funds available to 
whistleblowers. Another commenter recommended that

[[Page 379]]

OCEP receive additional staffing and resources in order to improve the 
timeliness of whistleblower complaint processing.
    Response: The Department may not assist whistleblowers in 
processing their cases since this would constitute providing Government 
attorneys to private citizens. It would also be impermissible with 
respect to the requirement that the Department remain neutral in these 
matters. The staffing requirements within the Department are dependent 
on a number of factors, and it is neither possible nor appropriate to 
reflect staffing decisions as part of the rule.
    Comment: A commenter recommended that outcomes of investigations 
under Part 708 should be made public similar to the publication of 
Office of Hearing and Appeals decisions on the World Wide Web.
    Response: The processing of complaints under this rule almost 
always involves highly personal information about the complainant and 
other individuals, including witnesses and co-workers. As a result, 
consideration must be given to the protection of personal privacy of 
individuals involved in the complaints. This comment is not being 
adopted, but comments on this issue may be submitted under this Notice 
of Proposed Rulemaking.
    Comment: A commenter recommended that contractors should be 
required to adhere to agreements made in settlement of whistleblower 
complaints.
    Response: Under the proposed rule, settlement agreements, as well 
as their enforcement, would be between the parties. The language in the 
current rule that ``the Head of the Field Elements or designee shall 
enter into a settlement agreement which terminates the complaint'' has 
been deleted.
    Comment: A commenter recommended that <STRONG>DOE</STRONG> cease paying litigation 
costs to contractors in whistleblower cases.
    Response: This issue has been considered by the Department and is 
the subject of a separate Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.
    Comment: A commenter recommended that any disclosure of official or 
incidental misconduct anywhere in the course of <STRONG>DOE</STRONG> <STRONG>contractor</STRONG> business 
by any person should be protected under Part 708, including disclosures 
of business or scientific fraud, waste of government resources, abuse 
or misuse of staff or resources, and false claims in the course of 
program proposals.
    Response: The coverage of protected disclosures in the proposed 
rule is consistent with those found in almost all whistleblower 
protection statutes, including the Whistleblower Protection Act of 
1989, as amended, which provides protections for Federal <STRONG>employee</STRONG> 
whistleblowers. In Senate Report No. 413, 100th Congress, 2nd Session, 
page 12, it was stated that

    While the Committee is concerned about improving the protection 
of whistleblowers, it is also concerned about the exhaustive 
administrative and judicial remedies . . . that could be used by 
employees who have made disclosures of trivial matters. CSRA [Civil 
Service Reform Act of 1978] specifically established a de minimus 
standard for disclosures affecting the waste of funds by defining 
such disclosures as protected only if they involved ``a gross waste 
of funds.'' Under S.508, the Committee establishes a similar de 
minimus standard for disclosures of mismanagement only if they 
involve ``gross mismanagement.''

    Comment: A commenter recommended that whistleblowers should be 
granted protection against reprisal after bringing charges of reprisal 
under part 708, and investigations should be reopened, regardless of 
initial findings, if a negative personnel action is taken against an 
<STRONG>employee</STRONG> who had filed a complaint under part 708.
    Response: Both the current and proposed rule would protect 
employees from discriminatory acts, including retaliation for having 
previously filed a complaint.
    Comment: A commenter recommended that complainants be required only 
to show that retaliatory consequences followed a protected disclosure, 
and not be required to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, a 
linkage between the disclosure and the negative action.
    Response: Whistleblower protection programs consistently require a 
prima facie showing by a complainant that his or her protected activity 
was a consideration in the alleged discriminatory act taken against 
them. This usually consists of proving, by a preponderance of the 
evidence, that the complainant had engaged in a protected activity; 
that they were subjected to a discriminatory act; that the person 
taking the discriminatory act was aware of the protected activity; and 
that from the circumstances, a reasonable inference can be drawn that 
the protected activity was a consideration in taking the alleged 
discriminatory act. Once a prima facie case is established, the 
<STRONG>contractor</STRONG> must provide by a more difficult burden of proof, i.e., 
clear and convincing evidence, that it would have taken the same action 
absent the protected activity. The proposed rule would not change the 
burdens of proof currently applicable to the parties.
    Comment: A commenter recommended that in order to avoid the need 
for employees to ``blow the whistle,'' a procedure could be followed 
that provides a ``due process'' for resolving ethical conflict and 
dissent. The procedure, which was to be submitted, was published in the 
Professional Ethics Report of the American Association for the 
Advancement of Science and in the Ethics Update by the National 
Institute of Engineering Ethics.
    Response: In some situations, differences of professional opinion 
may not in fact constitute disclosures protected under the rule, but 
are issues that require consideration and resolution between employees 
and contractors. The availability of these and similar procedures aimed 
at resolving differences of professional opinions are encouraged by the 
Department both to deal with important issues that are raised and as a 
means for informally resolving differences.

IV. Public Comments

A. Consideration and Availability of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to participate by submitting data, 
views, or arguments with respect to the proposed modifications to the 
provisions of the <STRONG>DOE</STRONG> <STRONG>Contractor</STRONG> <STRONG>Employee</STRONG> Protection Program, 10 CFR 
Part 708, set forth in this notice. Three copies of written comments 
should be submitted to the address indicated in the ADDRESSES section 
of this notice. All written comments received by the date indicated in 
the DATES section of this notice and all other relevant information in 
the record will be carefully assessed and fully considered prior to 
publication of the final rule. All comments received will be available 
for public inspection in the <STRONG>DOE</STRONG> Reading Room, Room 1E-190, Forrestal 
Building, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20585, between 
the hours of 9 am and 4 pm, Monday through Friday, except Federal 
holidays. Any information considered to be confidential must be so 
identified and submitted in writing, one copy only. <STRONG>DOE</STRONG> reserves the 
right to determine the confidential status of the information and to 
treat it according to our determination (See 10 CFR 1004.11).

B. Public Hearing Determination

    The Department has concluded that this proposed rule does not 
involve a substantial issue of fact or law and that

[[Page 380]]

the proposed rule should not have a substantial impact on the nation's 
economy or a large number of individuals or businesses. Therefore, 
pursuant to Public Law 95-91, the <STRONG>DOE</STRONG> Organization Act, and the 
Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553), the Department does not 
plan to hold a public hearing on the proposed rule. However, should a 
sufficient number of people request a public hearing, the Department 
will reconsider its determination.

V. Procedural Requirements

A. Review Under Executive Order 12866

    Today's regulatory action has been determined not to be ``a 
significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866, 
``Regulatory Planning and Review,'' (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). 
Accordingly, this action was not subject to review under that Executive 
Order by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of the Office 
of Management and Budget (OMB).

B. Review Under Executive Order 12988

    With respect to the review of existing regulations and the 
promulgation of new regulations, section 3(a) of Executive Order 12988, 
``Civil Justice Reform,'' (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996), imposes on 
Federal 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. <STRONG>DOE</STRONG> has completed the 
required review and determined that, to the extent permitted by law, 
the proposed regulations meet the relevant standards of Executive Order 
12988.

C. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

    This proposed rule has been reviewed under the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act of 1980, Public Law 96-354, that requires preparation 
of an initial regulatory flexibility analysis for any rule that is 
likely to have a significant economic impact on substantial numbers of 
small entities. The contracts and employees to which this rulemaking 
would apply are for the most part covered by the current <STRONG>DOE</STRONG> <STRONG>Contractor</STRONG> 
<STRONG>Employee</STRONG> Protection Program, which prohibits discrimination against 
employees who engage in protected activities relating to the disclosure 
of certain types of information or for refusing to engage in unsafe or 
illegal practices. Many of the proposed changes are procedural in 
nature aimed at streamlining the process, and the nature of available 
remedies has not changed. The emphasis on the use of early resolution 
through Alternative Dispute Resolution, primarily mediation, may in 
fact lessen adverse economic impacts.
    Similarly, the expected shortening of the overall processing time 
of complaints may well result in remedies to be less than under the 
current rule where violations are found. Accordingly, <STRONG>DOE</STRONG> certifies 
that this proposed rule, if adopted, would not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, and, 
therefore, no regulatory flexibility analysis has been prepared.

D. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act

    No additional information or record keeping requirements are 
proposed to be imposed by this rulemaking. Accordingly, no OMB 
clearance is required under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

E. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act

    <STRONG>DOE</STRONG> has concluded that promulgation of this proposed rule falls 
into a class of actions which would not individually or cumulatively 
have significant impact on the human environment, as determined by 
<STRONG>DOE</STRONG>'s regulations (10 CFR part 1021, Subpart D) implementing the 
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et 
seq.). Specifically, this proposed rule is an <STRONG>employee</STRONG>-relations 
mechanism and deals only with administrative procedures regarding 
reprisal protection for employees of <STRONG>DOE</STRONG> contractors and 
subcontractors. Accordingly, <STRONG>DOE</STRONG> has determined that this is not a 
major Federal action with significant impact on the quality of the 
human environment and, therefore, the preparation of neither an 
environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is 
required.

F. Review Under Executive Order 12612

    Executive Order 12612 (52 FR 41685, October 30, 1987), requires 
that regulations, rules, legislation, and any other policy actions be 
reviewed for any substantial direct effects on States, on the 
relationship between the Federal government and the States, or in the 
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of 
Government. If there are sufficient substantial direct effects, then 
the Executive Order requires the preparation of a federalism assessment 
to be used in all decisions involved in promulgating and implementing a 
policy action. This proposed rule, when finalized, would only affect 
<STRONG>employee</STRONG>-<STRONG>contractor</STRONG> relations with respect to the operation of the <STRONG>DOE</STRONG> 
<STRONG>Contractor</STRONG> <STRONG>Employee</STRONG> Protection Program. States which contract with <STRONG>DOE</STRONG> 
will be subject to this rule. However, <STRONG>DOE</STRONG> has determined that this 
rule will not have a substantial direct impact on the institutional 
interests or traditional functions of the States.

List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 708

    Administrative Practice and Procedure, Energy, Fraud, Government 
contracts, Health and safety, Whistleblowing.

    Issued in Washington, on December 22, 1997.
Federico Pena,
Secretary of Energy.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, Chapter III of title 10 
of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as set 
forth below:

PART 708--<STRONG>DOE</STRONG> <STRONG>CONTRACTOR</STRONG> <STRONG>EMPLOYEE</STRONG> PROTECTION PROGRAM

    1. The authority citation for part 708 is revised to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 2201(b), 2201(c), 2201(i), and 2201(p); 42 
U.S.C. 5814 and 5815; 42 U.S.C. 7251, 7254 7255, and 7256; and 5 
U.S.C. Appendix 3.

Subpart A--General Provisions

    2. Section 708.1, Purpose, is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 708.1  Purpose.

    This part establishes procedures for timely and effective 
processing of complaints by employees of contractors performing work on 
behalf of the

[[Page 381]]

Department of Energy (<STRONG>DOE</STRONG>), concerning alleged discriminatory actions 
taken by their employers in retaliation for the disclosure of 
information involving danger to health and safety, gross mismanagement, 
and other matters as provided in Sec. 708.5(a), for the participation 
in proceedings before Congress or pursuant to this part, or for the 
refusal to engage in illegal or dangerous activities.
    3. Section 708.2, Scope, is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 708.2  Scope.

    (a) This part is applicable to complaints of reprisal filed after 
[the effective date of the final rule] that stem from disclosures, 
participations, or refusals involving health and safety matters, if the 
underlying procurement contract described in Sec. 708.4 contains a 
clause requiring compliance with all applicable safety and health 
regulations and requirements of 48 CFR (DEAR) 970.5204-2. For all other 
complaints, this part is applicable to acts of reprisal when, after 
[the effective date of the final rule], a clause requiring compliance 
with this part is included in the underlying procurement contract.
    (b) This part is applicable to employees of contractors performing 
work on behalf of <STRONG>DOE</STRONG>, directly related to activities at <STRONG>DOE</STRONG>-owned or -
leased sites, unless the procedures contained in 29 CFR part 24, 
``Procedures for the Handling of Discrimination Complaints under 
Federal <STRONG>Employee</STRONG> Protection Statutes,'' or 48 CFR part 3, ``Federal 
Acquisition Regulation; Whistleblower Protection for <STRONG>Contractor</STRONG> 
Employees (Ethics),'' are applicable. The procedures of this part do 
not apply to complaints of reprisal stemming from, or relating to, 
discrimination by contractors on a basis such as race, color, religion, 
sex, age, national origin, or other similar basis not specifically 
discussed in this part. The protections afforded by this part are not 
applicable to any <STRONG>employee</STRONG> who, acting without direction from his or 
her employer, deliberately causes, or knowingly participates in the 
commission of, any misconduct set forth in Sec. 708.5 that is the 
subject of the disclosure.
    (c) For complaints not covered by Sec. 708.5(a), the Director, for 
good cause shown, may accept a complaint for processing under this 
part. However, in no event will coverage under this part be extended to 
employees of contractors over whom <STRONG>DOE</STRONG> does not exercise enforcement 
authority with respect to the requirements of this part. A 
determination by the Director not to accept a complaint pursuant to 
this section may be appealed to the Secretary.
    4. Section 708.3, Policy, is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 708.3  Policy.

    (a) It is the policy of <STRONG>DOE</STRONG> that employees of contractors 
performing work on behalf of <STRONG>DOE</STRONG> related to activities at <STRONG>DOE</STRONG>-owned or 
-leased sites should be able to:
    (1) Provide information to <STRONG>DOE</STRONG>, to Congress, to other governmental 
officials who have responsibility for the oversight of the conduct of 
operations at <STRONG>DOE</STRONG> sites, or to their contractors, concerning 
substantial violations of law, danger to health and safety, or matters 
involving gross mismanagement, gross waste of funds, or abuse of 
authority;
    (2) Participate in proceedings conducted before Congress or 
pursuant to this part; and
    (3) Refuse to engage in illegal or dangerous activities, without 
fear of <STRONG>contractor</STRONG> reprisal.
    (b) <STRONG>Contractor</STRONG> employees who believe they have been subject to such 
reprisal may submit their complaints to <STRONG>DOE</STRONG> for review and appropriate 
administrative remedy as provided in Secs. 708.6 through 708.11 of this 
part.
    5. Section 708.4, Definitions, is amended by revising the 
definitions for <STRONG>Contractor</STRONG>, Director, <STRONG>Employee</STRONG> or employees, and Head 
of field element; by revising the definition heading Discrimination or 
discriminatory acts to read Discriminatory acts and revising the 
definition; by removing the definition for Work performed on site; and 
by adding definitions for Deputy Inspector General for Inspections, and 
Secretary, in alphabetical order to read as follows:


Sec. 708.4  Definitions.

* * * * *
    <STRONG>Contractor</STRONG> means a seller of goods or services who is a party to a 
procurement contract as follows:
    (1) A Management and Operating Contract or other types of contracts 
with <STRONG>DOE</STRONG> involving responsibility for the conduct of <STRONG>DOE</STRONG> programs or 
the operation of <STRONG>DOE</STRONG>-owned or -leased facilities, or
    (2) Subcontracts under paragraph (1) of this definition; but this 
part shall apply to such subcontracts only with respect to work 
involving responsibility for the conduct of <STRONG>DOE</STRONG> programs or the 
operation of <STRONG>DOE</STRONG>-owned or -leased facilities.
* * * * *
    Deputy Inspector General for Inspections means, unless otherwise 
indicated, the Deputy Inspector General for Inspections, Office of 
Inspector General, or any official to whom the Inspector General 
delegates the functions of the Deputy Inspector General for Inspection 
under this part.
    Director, unless otherwise specified, means the Director of the 
Office of <STRONG>Employee</STRONG> Concerns, or any official to whom the Director of 
the Office of <STRONG>Employee</STRONG> Concerns delegates his or her functions under 
this part.
    Discriminatory act(s) means action(s) taken by a <STRONG>contractor</STRONG> with 
respect to employment, e.g., discharge, demotion, or other actions with 
respect to the <STRONG>employee</STRONG>'s compensation, terms, conditions or privileges 
of employment, or intimidation, threats, restraining, coercing or other 
similar negative action taken against a <STRONG>contractor</STRONG> <STRONG>employee</STRONG> by a 
<STRONG>contractor</STRONG>, as a result of the <STRONG>employee</STRONG>'s disclosure of information, 
participation in proceedings, or refusal to engage in illegal or 
dangerous activities, as set forth in Sec. 708.5(a) of this part.
    <STRONG>Employee</STRONG> or employees mean(s) any person(s) employed by a 
<STRONG>contractor</STRONG> having responsibility for the conduct of <STRONG>DOE</STRONG> programs or the 
operation of <STRONG>DOE</STRONG>-owned or -leased facilities, and any person(s) 
previously employed by a <STRONG>contractor</STRONG> if such prior <STRONG>employee</STRONG>'s complaint 
alleges that employment was terminated in violation of Sec. 708.5.
* * * * *
    Head of Field Element means an individual who is the manager or 
head of a <STRONG>DOE</STRONG> operations office or field office or any official to whom 
the Head of the Field Element delegates his or her functions under this 
part.
* * * * *
    Secretary means the Secretary of Energy or any official to whom the 
Secretary delegates his or her functions under this part.

Subpart B--Procedures

    6. In Sec. 708.5, Prohibition against reprisals, paragraphs (a) 
introductory text, (a)(1) and (a)(3)(iii) are revised to read as 
follows:

Sec. 708.5  Prohibition against reprisals.

    (a) A <STRONG>DOE</STRONG> <STRONG>contractor</STRONG> covered by this part may not engage in 
discriminatory acts as defined in Sec. 708.4 because the <STRONG>employee</STRONG> has--
    (1) Disclosed to an official of <STRONG>DOE</STRONG>, to a member of Congress, to 
other governmental officials who have responsibility for the oversight 
of the conduct of operations at <STRONG>DOE</STRONG> sites, or to the <STRONG>contractor</STRONG> 
(including any higher tier <STRONG>contractor</STRONG>), information that the <STRONG>employee</STRONG> 
reasonably and in good faith believes evidences--

[[Page 382]]

    (i) A substantial violation of any law, rule, or regulation;
    (ii) A substantial and specific danger to employees or public 
health or safety; or
    (iii) Fraud, gross mismanagement, gross waste of funds, or abuse of 
authority;

* * * * *
    (3) * * *
    (iii) The <STRONG>employee</STRONG>, within 30 days following such refusal, 
discloses to an official of <STRONG>DOE</STRONG>, a member of Congress, a government 
official who has responsibility for the oversight of the conduct of 
operations at the <STRONG>DOE</STRONG> site, or the <STRONG>contractor</STRONG>, information regarding 
the violation or dangerous activity, policy, or practice, and 
explaining why he has refused to participate in the activity.
* * * * *
    7. Section 708.6, Filing a complaint, is revised to read as 
follows:

Sec. 708.6  Filing a complaint.

    (a) Who may file a complaint. An <STRONG>employee</STRONG> who believes that he or 
she has been discriminated against in violation of this part, and who 
does not have a statutory right to raise the issue under 29 CFR part 
24, ``Procedures for the Handling of Discrimination Complaints under 
Federal <STRONG>Employee</STRONG> Protection Statutes,'' or 48 CFR part 3, ``Federal 
Acquisition Regulation; Whistleblower Protection for <STRONG>Contractor</STRONG> 
Employees (Ethics),'' or has not, with respect to the same facts, 
pursued a remedy available under State or other applicable law, 
including binding arbitration pursuant to a collective bargaining 
agreement, may file a complaint with <STRONG>DOE</STRONG> through the Head of the Field 
Element at the field organization with jurisdiction over the contract 
under which the complainant was employed or with the Director of the 
Office of <STRONG>Employee</STRONG> Concerns with respect to a contract that is the 
responsibility of a contracting officer located in <STRONG>DOE</STRONG> Headquarters. 
The identity of an <STRONG>employee</STRONG> who files a complaint under this part 
cannot be kept confidential. Two copies of the complaint, with all 
attachments, must be filed. Within 15 days of receipt of a complaint, 
the Director or the Head of a Field Element, shall provide notification 
of the filing of the complaint and a statement of the issues raised in 
the complaint, to the <STRONG>contractor</STRONG> or person named in the complaint.
    (b) Content of complaint. A complaint filed under paragraph (a) of 
this section need not be in any specific form provided it is signed by 
the complainant and contains the following: a statement setting forth 
specifically the nature of the alleged discriminatory act, and the 
disclosure, participation or refusal giving rise to such act; a 
statement that the complainant has not, as described in paragraph (f) 
of this section, pursued a remedy available under State or other 
applicable law; and an affirmation that all facts contained in the 
complaint are true and correct to the best of the complainant's 
knowledge and belief.
    (c) Affirmations required. The complaint must contain a statement 
affirming that:
    (1) All attempts at resolution through an internal company 
grievance procedure have been exhausted; or
    (2) The company grievance procedure is ineffectual or exposes the 
complainant to <STRONG>contractor</STRONG> reprisals; or
    (3) An internal grievance was filed, but a final decision on the 
grievance has not been issued within 120 days of its filing; or
    (4) The company has no such procedure.
    (d) Factual basis for affirmation. The complaint must state the 
factual basis for such affirmation; and, if applicable, the date on 
which internal company grievance procedures were terminated and the 
reasons for termination. A failure to provide this information is a 
basis to dismiss the complaint for lack of jurisdiction under 
708.8(a)(5).
    (e) Time frame for filing a complaint. A complaint filed pursuant 
to paragraph (a) of this section must be filed within 90 days after the 
alleged discriminatory act occurred or within 90 days after the 
complainant knew, or reasonably should have known, of the alleged 
discriminatory act, whichever is later. If a complaint is not filed 
within the 90-day time limit, the complainant will be provided an 
opportunity to show a good reason for the delay. In cases where the 
<STRONG>employee</STRONG> has attempted resolution through internal company grievance 
procedures, the 90-day period for filing a complaint shall be tolled 
during such resolution period and shall not again begin to run until 
the day following termination of such dispute-resolution efforts, or 
120 days after the filing of an internal grievance where a final 
decision on the grievance has not been issued, whichever is sooner.
    (f) Tolling of filing deadline. The limitations period specified in 
paragraph (e) of this section is suspended upon the filing of a 
complaint pursuant to State or other applicable law, and the mere 
filing of a complaint pursuant to State or other applicable law does 
not bar the <STRONG>employee</STRONG> from re-instituting or filing a complaint with <STRONG>DOE</STRONG> 
if the matter cannot be resolved under State or other applicable law 
due to a lack of jurisdiction. For purposes of this part, a complaint 
is deemed to have been pursued under State or other applicable law if 
the <STRONG>employee</STRONG> has, pursuant to proceedings established or mandated by 
State or other applicable law, at any time prior to, or concurrently 
with, the filing of a complaint with <STRONG>DOE</STRONG>, or at any time during the 
processing of a complaint filed with <STRONG>DOE</STRONG>, filed or submitted a timely 
complaint, or other pleading with respect to that same matter. The 
pursuit of a remedy under a negotiated collective bargaining agreement 
is considered to be the pursuit of a remedy through internal company 
grievance procedures and not the pursuit of a remedy under State or 
other applicable law. However, to the extent a decision is rendered in 
binding arbitration, pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement, on 
issues related to alleged reprisal for having made disclosures or 
engaging in protected activities covered by this part, such arbitration 
decision is considered to be a resolution of the matter under 
applicable law.
    8. Section 708.7 is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 708.7  Acceptance of a complaint and informal resolution.

    (a) Jurisdictional determinations. (1) If the Head of Field Element 
has cause to believe the complaint does not meet the requirements of 
this part, or for other good cause does not merit further review, the 
jurisdictional determination will be made by the Director in accordance 
with paragraphs (a)(2) through (5) of this section. Reasons for 
dismissing complaints for good cause would include determinations that 
the facts, as alleged by the complainant, do not present issues for 
which relief can be granted under this part; the complaint or 
disclosure is frivolous, on its face without merit; the issues 
presented have been rendered moot; or the <STRONG>contractor</STRONG> has made a formal 
offer to provide remedial action that the complainant has requested or 
that is equivalent to what could be provided as a remedy under 
Sec. 708.10(c) as an appropriate resolution of the complaint. The 
Director shall have the authority to issue determinations of 
jurisdiction with respect to complaints filed with the Office of 
<STRONG>Employee</STRONG> Concerns.
    (2) The Head of Field Element, within 15 days from the date of 
receipt of the complaint, shall request a determination from the 
Director as to whether attempts at informal resolution should be 
undertaken pursuant to this part, or the complaint should be dismissed 
The

[[Page 383]]

request should include a statement as to the basis for questioning the 
jurisdictional coverage of the complaint.
    (3) If the Director determines to dismiss the complaint summarily, 
the complaint shall be dismissed and the parties notified by certified 
mail of the specific reasons for such dismissal. If the Director 
determines preliminarily that there is jurisdiction, he or she shall, 
within 15 days from the date he or she received the request for a 
jurisdictional determination, so advise the Head of the Field Element 
and return the complaint to the Head of the Field Element who shall 
thereupon have 30 days to attempt informal resolution of the complaint.
    (4) Request for review of dismissal of complaint. If the Director 
dismisses a complaint pursuant to paragraph (a)(3) of this section, the 
administrative process is terminated unless within 10 calendar days of 
receipt of the notice of dismissal the complainant files a written 
request for review by the Secretary. Copies of any request for review 
shall be served by the complainant on all parties by certified mail, 
and the Director shall promptly send a copy to the Secretary.
    (5) If the Secretary determines that the complaint should be 
considered further, the Secretary shall order the Director or Head of 
the Field Element to reinstate the complaint and resume the 
administrative process.
    (b) Informal resolution. (1) If the complaint is within the 
jurisdiction of this part, the Director or the Head of Field Element 
shall have 30 days from the date of receipt of a complaint in which to 
attempt an informal resolution of the complaint. To this end, the 
Director or Head of Field Element may attempt to resolve the complaint 
through various Alternative Dispute Resolution techniques, primarily by 
encouraging the parties to engage in mediation.
    (2) If informal resolution is reached, the Director or the Head of 
Field Element shall obtain a copy of the settlement agreement which 
terminates the complaint, or a written statement from the complainant 
withdrawing the complaint. The agreement or withdrawal of the complaint 
shall be made part of the complaint file, with a copy provided to all 
parties.
    (3) If informal resolution cannot be reached, the Director or Head 
of Field Element shall advise the complainant of his or her right to 
elect to either have a copy of the complaint forwarded to the Deputy 
Inspector General for Inspections for further processing in accordance 
with Sec. 708.8; have a copy of the complaint forwarded to the Director 
of the Office of Hearings and Appeals for processing in accordance with 
Sec. 708.9; or withdraw his or her complaint.
    (4) The complainant, within 10 days of receipt of the notice of a 
right to make an election under paragraph (b)(3) of this section, shall 
indicate his or her election to the Director or the Head of the Field 
Element.
    (c) The Director or the Head of the Field Element shall advise the 
Deputy Inspector General for Inspections or the Director of the Office 
of Hearings and Appeals, of the election within 5 days of receipt of 
the complainant's response, and shall provide a copy of the complaint 
to the appropriate official for further processing. A copy of this 
notification shall also be provided to the complainant and the 
<STRONG>contractor</STRONG> named in the complaint.
    9. Section 708.8 is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 708.8  Acceptance of complaint for inquiry.

    (a)(1) Following receipt of notification from the Director or Head 
of Field Element that attempts at informal resolution under Sec. 708.7 
have been unsuccessful, and that the complainant has elected to have 
the complaint referred in accordance with this section, the Deputy 
Inspector General for Inspections, unless he or she declines to conduct 
an inquiry, may direct the conduct of an inquiry of the complaint.
    (2) If informal resolution is reached while an inquiry is being 
conducted by the Deputy Inspector General for Inspections, the Director 
or the Head of Field Element shall obtain a copy of the settlement 
agreement which terminates the complaint, or a written document from 
the complainant referencing a final settlement and requesting 
withdrawal of the complaint. This document shall be made part of the 
file. The Deputy Inspector General for Inspections shall be advised in 
writing of the withdrawal of the complaint.
    (b)(1) Determination not to conduct an inquiry. If the Deputy 
Inspector General for Inspections declines to process a complaint for 
inquiry, either after an initial review of the complaint or based upon 
information acquired during the inquiry of a complaint, the Deputy 
Inspector General of Inspections shall notify the complainant and 
<STRONG>contractor</STRONG>, by certified mail or by personal service, that an inquiry 
into the complaint will no longer be pursued by that office and that 
the complainant has the right to request a hearing on the complaint in 
accordance with the provisions of Sec. 708.9. A copy of such notice 
declining to pursue an inquiry shall be sent to the Director of the 
Office of Hearings and Appeals, and the Director of the Office of 
<STRONG>Employee</STRONG> Concerns or the Head of Field Element, as appropriate. 
Requests for a hearing under this paragraph must be filed with the 
Director of the Office of Hearings and Appeals within 15 days of the 
receipt of the determination of the Deputy Inspector General for 
Inspections that an inquiry will not be conducted or continued. Copies 
of any request for a hearing shall be served by the complainant on all 
parties by certified mail.
    (2) The authority of the Deputy Inspector General for Inspections 
to make the determination not to pursue an inquiry is wholly 
independent from jurisdictional determinations made by the Director, 
Heads of Field Elements, or the Secretary. Such a determination by the 
Deputy Inspector General for Inspections is not subject to review by 
the Office of Hearings and Appeals or appealable to the Secretary.
    (c) Conducting an inquiry--obtaining information. In conducting an 
inquiry under this part, the inspector, for the purpose of determining 
whether a violation of Sec. 708.5 has occurred, may enter and inspect 
places and records (and make copies thereof), may question persons 
alleged to have been involved in discriminatory acts and other 
employees of the charged <STRONG>contractor</STRONG>, may take sworn statements, as 
deemed necessary, and may require the production of any documentary or 
other evidence deemed necessary. At interviews conducted on behalf of 
the Deputy Inspector General for Inspections under this part, the 
person being interviewed shall have the right to be represented by a 
person of his or her own choosing. Parties to the complaint do not have 
an independent right to be present at such interviews. The <STRONG>contractor</STRONG> 
shall cooperate fully with the inspector in making available employees 
and all pertinent evidence.
    (d) Confidentiality. The identity of a person, other than the 
complainant, requesting confidentiality shall not be released by the 
Office of Inspector General unless the Inspector General determines 
that it is unavoidable. The inspector shall advise the person to whom 
confidentiality is granted that such a grant of confidentiality is 
limited to mean that the Office of Inspector General will not disclose 
his or her identity as the source of information to anyone outside the 
Office of Inspector General, as required by statute, or as determined 
by the Inspector General to be unavoidable.
    (e) Reports of inquiry. Upon completion of an inquiry, the Deputy 
Inspector General for Inspections shall

[[Page 384]]

issue a Report of Inquiry that shall present the findings reached by 
the Deputy Inspector General for Inspections resulting from the conduct 
of the inquiry. The Report of Inquiry may also contain recommendations 
for remedial action, where appropriate, consistent with the remedies 
available under Secs. 708.10(c) and 708.11(c). The Deputy Inspector 
General for Inspections shall provide the Report of Inquiry to the 
parties involved by certified mail, or by personal service, and provide 
a copy to the Director of the Office of Hearings and Appeals.
    (f) If a Report of Inquiry has not been issued within 240 days of 
the date the Deputy Inspector General for Inspections was advised by 
the Director or Head of the Field Element that attempts at informal 
resolution were unsuccessful, the complainant may request a hearing in 
accordance with Sec. 708.9. When a complainant exercises his or her 
right to request a hearing under this section, the Deputy Inspector 
General for Inspections will usually terminate any activities related 
to the inquiry being conducted on that complaint.
    10. Section 708.9, Hearing, is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 708.9  Hearing.

    (a) Request for a hearing. (1) Within 15 days of receipt of 
notification of his or her right to elect to proceed to a hearing if 
informal resolution efforts are not successful, pursuant to 
Sec. 708.7(b)(3), a complainant may, in writing to the director of the 
Office of Hearings and Appeals, request a hearing.
    (2) Within 15 days of receipt of the Report of Inquiry, a party 
may, in writing to the Director of the Office of Hearings and Appeals, 
request a hearing on the complaint. If a request for a hearing is not 
submitted by either party after the Deputy Inspector General for 
Inspections has completed an inquiry, the Director of the Office of 
Hearings and Appeals shall issue an initial agency decision pursuant to 
Sec. 708.10.
    (3) A complainant may, in writing to the Director of the Office of 
Hearings and Appeals, request a hearing on the complaint within 15 days 
of receipt of a notification of a decision by the Deputy Inspector 
General for Inspections not to open or continue an inquiry. If a 
hearing is not requested, the Director of the Office of Hearings and 
Appeals shall dismiss the complaint.
    (4) A complainant may, in writing to the Director of the Office of 
Hearings and Appeals, request a hearing if a Report of Inquiry has not 
been issued within 240 days of the date the Deputy Inspector General 
for Inspections was advised by the Director or Head of the Field 
Element of the complainant's election to request an inquiry, pursuant 
to Sec. 708.7(b)(3), after attempts at informal resolution were 
unsuccessful.
    (b) If a request for a hearing is filed, the Director of the Office 
of Hearings and Appeals shall appoint, as soon as practicable, a 
Hearing Officer to conduct a hearing. Hearings will normally be held at 
or near the appropriate <STRONG>DOE</STRONG> field organization, within 90 days from the 
date the complaint file is received by the Hearing Officer unless the 
Hearing Officer determines that another location would be more 
appropriate, or unless the complaint is earlier settled by the parties. 
The Hearing Officer may, at his or her discretion, recommend to the 
parties that they attempt informal resolution of the complaint, through 
various Alternative Dispute Resolution techniques, including mediation, 
prior to the conduct of the hearing.
    (c)(1) Requests for discovery. Upon the request of a party, the 
Hearing Officer may order discovery based upon a showing that the 
requested discovery is designed to produce evidence that will 
materially advance the proceeding. The parties may engage in reasonable 
discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the 
subject matter of the complaint. Parties may obtain discovery by one or 
more of the following methods: depositions upon oral examination or 
written questions; written interrogatories; production of documents or 
things or permission to enter upon land or other property, for 
inspection and other purposes; and requests for admission.
    (2) Hearing procedures. In all proceedings under this part, the 
parties shall have the right to be represented by a person of their own 
choosing. Formal rules of evidence shall not apply, but shall be used 
as a guide for application of procedures designed to assure production 
of the most probative evidence available. The Hearing Officer may 
exclude evidence which is immaterial, irrelevant, or unduly 
repetitious. The Hearing Officer is specifically prohibited from 
initiating or otherwise engaging in ex parte discussions on a complaint 
matter at any time during the pendency of the complaint proceeding 
under this part.
    (d) Burdens of proof. The complainant shall have the burden of 
establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that there was a 
disclosure, participation, or refusal described under Sec. 708.5, and 
that such act was a contributing factor in the alleged discriminatory 
action(s) taken or intended to be taken against the complainant. Once 
the complainant has met this burden, the burden shall shift to the 
<STRONG>contractor</STRONG> to prove by clear and convincing evidence that it would have 
taken the same action(s) absent the complainant's disclosure, 
participation, or refusal.
    (e) Testimony. Testimony of witnesses shall be given under oath or 
affirmation, and the witnesses shall be subject to cross-examination. 
Witnesses shall be advised of the applicability of 18 U.S.C. 1001 and 
1621, dealing with the criminal penalties associated with false 
statements and perjury.
    (f) Subpoenas. The Hearing Officer may subpoena witnesses to attend 
the Hearing on behalf of either party, or for the production of 
specific documents or other physical evidence, provided a showing of 
the necessity for such witness or evidence has been made to the 
satisfaction of the Hearing Officer.
    (g) Recording of hearings. All hearings shall be mechanically or 
stenographically reported. All evidence upon which the Hearing Officer 
relies for the recommended decision under Sec. 708.10(b) shall be 
contained in the transcript of testimony, either directly or by 
appropriate reference. All exhibits and other pertinent documents or 
records, either in whole or in material part, introduced as evidence, 
shall be marked to identification and incorporated into the record.
    (h) Post-hearing submissions. Any party, upon request, may be 
allowed a reasonable time to file with the Hearing Officer a brief or 
statement of fact or law. A copy of any such brief or statement shall 
be filed with the Hearing Officer and shall be served by the submitting 
party upon each other party. The parties may make oral closing 
arguments, but post-hearing briefs will only be permitted at the 
direction of the Hearing Officer. When permitted, any such brief shall 
be limited to the issue or issues specified by the Hearing Officer and 
shall be due within the time prescribed by the Hearing Officer.
    (i) At the request of any party, the Hearing Officer may, at his or 
her discretion, extend the time for any hearing held pursuant to this 
Sec. 708.9. Additionally, the Hearing Officer may, at the request of 
any party, or on his or her own motion, dismiss a claim, defense, or 
party and make adverse findings--
    (1) Upon the failure without good cause of any party or his or her 
representative to attend a hearing; or
    (2) Upon the failure of any party to comply with a lawful order of 
the Hearing Officer.
    (j) In any case where a dismissal of a claim, defense, or party is 
sought, the Hearing Officer shall take such action as is appropriate to 
rule on the dismissal,

[[Page 385]]

which may include an order dismissing the claim, defense, or party. An 
order dismissing a claim, defense, or party may be appealed to the 
Secretary for reconsideration within 15 days of the dismissal order.
    11. Section 708.10 is revised to read as follows:


708.10 Initial and final agency decision.

    (a) If a hearing is not requested, the Director of the Office of 
Hearings and Appeals, within 60 days of expiration of the time set 
forth in Sec. 708.9(a) for request of a hearing, shall issue an initial 
agency decision based upon the record, which decision shall be served 
upon the parties by certified mail. The initial agency decision shall 
contain appropriate findings, conclusions, and an order, and shall set 
forth the factual basis for each and every finding with respect to each 
alleged discriminatory act. In making such findings, the Director of 
the Office of Hearings and Appeals, may rely upon, but shall not be 
bound by, the findings contained in the Report of Inquiry. The burdens 
of proof set forth in Sec. 708.9(d) are applicable to decisions made 
under this paragraph.
    (b) If a hearing has been held, the Hearing Officer shall issue an 
initial agency decision within 60 days after the receipt of the 
transcript of the hearing or within 60 days after receipt of any post-
hearing briefs or other information permitted under Sec. 708.9(h), 
whichever is later. The initial agency decision shall contain 
appropriate findings, conclusions, and an order, and shall set forth 
the factual basis for each and every finding with respect to each 
alleged discriminatory act. In making such findings, the Hearing 
Officer may rely upon, but shall not be bound by, the findings 
contained in the Report of Inquiry. The Hearing Officer shall promptly 
serve the initial agency decision upon all parties to the proceeding by 
certified mail, and send a copy of the initial agency decision to the 
Deputy Inspector General for Inspections.
    (c) The initial agency decision shall award such relief as is 
necessary to abate the violation, including, but not limited to, an 
award of reinstatement, transfer preference, back pay, and 
reimbursement to the complainant up to the aggregate amount of all 
reasonable costs and expenses (including attorney and expert-witness 
fees) reasonably incurred by the complainant in bringing the complaint 
upon which the decision was issued.
    (1) If the initial agency decision contains a determination that 
the complaint is without merit, it shall also include a notice stating 
that the decision shall become the final decision of <STRONG>DOE</STRONG> denying the 
complaint unless, within 15 days of its receipt, a written request for 
review by the Secretary is filed with the Director of the Office of 
Hearings and Appeals. Copies of any request for review shall be served 
by the requesting party upon all parties.
    (2) If the initial agency decision contains a determination that a 
violation of Sec. 708.5 has occurred, it shall also include an 
appropriate order to the <STRONG>contractor</STRONG> to abate the violation and to 
provide the complainant with relief, as well as notice to the parties 
that the decision shall become the final decision of <STRONG>DOE</STRONG> unless, within 
15 days of its receipt, a written request for review by the Secretary 
is filed with the Director of the Office of Hearings and Appeals. 
Copies of any request for review shall be served by the requesting 
party upon all parties by certified mail.
    (3) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (c)(2) of this 
section, if the agency decision contains a determination that a 
violation of Sec. 708.5 has occurred, it may contain an order requiring 
the <STRONG>contractor</STRONG> to provide the complainant with interim relief, 
including but not limited to reinstatement, pending the outcome of any 
request for review. This paragraph shall not be construed to require 
the payment of any monetary award before the <STRONG>DOE</STRONG> decision is final.
    (d) If a request for review of the initial agency decision is not 
filed pursuant to paragraphs (c)(1) or (2) of this section, the 
Director of the Office of Hearings and Appeals, shall notify the 
parties by certified mail that the initial agency decision is the final 
agency decision. A copy of the notification shall be sent to the 
Director or the Head of the Field Element, as appropriate.
    12. Section 708.11 is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 708.11  Secretarial review and final decision.

    (a) Upon receipt of a request for review of an initial agency 
decision by the Secretary, the Director of the Office of Hearings and 
Appeals shall forward the request, along with the entire record, to the 
Secretary.
    (b) Within 60 days after the Director of the Office of Hearings and 
Appeals has sent the record in a case to the Secretary, the Secretary 
shall either direct further processing of the complaint or, pursuant to 
paragraph (c) or (d) of this section, issue a final decision, based on 
the record, including the Report of Inquiry. The final decision shall 
be forwarded by the Secretary to the Director of the Office of Hearings 
and Appeals who shall serve it upon all parties by certified mail.
    (1) If the Secretary determines that further processing of the 
complaint is necessary, the Secretary will return the case to the 
Director of the Office of Hearings and Appeals for appropriate action.
    (2) Except to the extent prohibited by law, regulation, or 
Executive Order, all parties will be provided copies of any information 
compiled as a result of actions taken under paragraph (b)(1) of this 
section.
    (c) If the Secretary determines that a violation of Sec. 708.5 has 
occurred, the Secretary shall issue a final decision and shall instruct 
the Director of the Office of Hearings and Appeals to take appropriate 
action to implement that decision in accordance with Sec. 708.12. The 
Secretary may provide such relief as is necessary to abate the 
violation, including, but not limited to, an award of reinstatement, 
transfer preference, back pay, and reimbursement to the complainant up 
to the aggregate amount of all reasonable costs and expenses (including 
attorney and expert-witness fees) reasonably incurred by the 
complainant in bringing the complaint upon which the decision was 
issued or such other relief as is deemed necessary to abate the 
violation and provide the complainant with relief.
    (d) If the Secretary determines that the party charged has not 
committed a discriminatory act in violation of Sec. 708.5, the 
Secretary shall so notify the Director of the Office of Hearings and 
Appeals and issue a final decision dismissing the complaint. If the 
Secretary determines that there has been no discrimination, the 
complainant shall not receive reimbursement for the costs and expenses 
provided in paragraph (c) of this section.
    13. Section 708.12, Implementation of decision, is revised to read 
as follows:


Sec. 708.12  Implementation of decision.

    (a) Upon receipt of the final decision of the Secretary under 
Sec. 708.11, or if the initial agency decision becomes the final 
decision pursuant to Sec. 708.10(c) (1) or (2), the Director of the 
Office of Hearings and Appeals shall serve the final decision upon all 
parties by certified mail, and upon the head of the program or field 
office with jurisdiction over the contract under which the complainant 
was employed. The <STRONG>DOE</STRONG> official so served shall take all necessary steps 
to implement the final decision.
    (b) For purposes of sections 6 and 7 of the Contract Disputes Act 
(41 U.S.C. 605 and 606), a decision implemented by <STRONG>DOE</STRONG> pursuant to this 
part shall not be considered a ``claim by the

[[Page 386]]

government against a <STRONG>contractor</STRONG>'' or ``a decision by the contracting 
officer.'' However, a <STRONG>contractor</STRONG>'s disagreement, and refusal to comply, 
with a final decision under this part could result in the contracting 
officer's decision to disallow certain costs or terminate the contract 
for default. In such case, the <STRONG>contractor</STRONG> could file a claim under the 
disputes procedures of the contract.

[FR Doc. 98-80 Filed 1-2-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P


</PRE>
<SCRIPT> window.open=PrxRealOpen; </SCRIPT>
</BODY></HTML>