U. S. NUCLEAR REGULA TORY COMMISSION

El W f

TN: DT-93-31

To:

Subject

Purpose.

Office of Origin:

Contact:

Date Approved:

Volume:

Part:

Directive:

Availability:

NRC Management Directives Custodians

MJansmittal of Management Directive 10.148, "Senior Level

Performance Appraisal System"

Directive and Handbook 10.148 are being issued to provide the

policy and procedures for a new performance appraisal system for

Senior Level System (SLS) employees. This appraisal system

parallels the three-rating-level system now in use for the Senior

Executive Service.

Office of Personnel

Benita R. Morris, 492-8112

October 4, 1993

10 Personnel Management

6 Senior Executive Service, Senior Level Positions, and Judges

10.148, "Senior Level Performance Appraisal System"

Distribution Unit, 49-27333

OFFICE OF A DMINIS TRA TION
Senior Level Performance

Appraisal System

Directive

10 148
Volume 10, Part 6 - Senior Executive Service, Senior Level

Positions and Judges

Senior Level Performance Appraisal System

Directive 10.148

Contents

Policy . . ..... .. 1

Objectives ..................................... 1...............

Organizational Responsibilities and Delegations of Authority. 2

Ile Chairman. 2

The Commissioners. 2

The Executive Director for Operations (EDO). 2

Tbhe Ispector General (IG). 3

The Director, Office of Personnel (OP). 3

Office Directors and Regional Administrators .4

Applicability . .................................. ................. 4

Handbook ... . .. ................................................ 4

References ..................................................... 4

Approved: October 4, 1993 i
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

; ,Volume: 10 Personnel Management

.p Part: 6 Senior Executive Service, Senior Level

Positions, and Judges OP

Senior Level Performance

Appraisal System

Directive 10.148

Policy

(10.148-01)

It is the policy of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)

to implement and maintain a performance appraisal system for its

Senior Level System (SLS) employees, excluding administrative

judges, that provides a record of management expectations and

individual job accomplishments, combines both NRC and

organizational project requirements into meaningful operational objectives, provides the broad NRC generic framework into which

the SLS employee's annual work plan can be placed and measured, and forms the basis for other SLS personnel activities. (011)

* Authority from the Office of Personnel Management for the NRC

Senior Level Performance Appraisal System is contained in

Exhibit 1 of Handbook 10.148. (012)

Objectives

(10.148-02)

l* 1b communicate and clarify agency and organizational project plans, objectives, and requirements. (021)

* T identify individual accountability for accomplishing goals and

objectives as expressed in the critical elements of SLS performance appraisals. (022)

* 'lb evaluate and improve individual accomplishments of SLS

employees. (023)

* lb use the results of performance appraisals as a basis for adjusting base pay and for training, rewarding, reassigning, retaining, and

removing SLS employees. (024)

Approved: October 4, 1993 1
Volume 10, Part 6 - Senior Executive Service, Senior Level

Positions, and Judges

Senior Level Performance Appraisal System

Directive 10.148

Organizational Responsibilities and

Delegations of Authority (10.148-03)

The Chairman

(031)

* Approves performance appraisals for members of his immediate

staff and for SIS members in the Office of Public Affairs and the

Office of Congressional Affairs. (a)

* Approves performance-based increases to base pay and

performance awards for members of his immediate staff and for

SLS members in Commission-level offices. (b)

* Approves exceptions to performance award scales but awards are

not to exceed 15 percent of base salary: (1) awards are not to

exceed $10,000 for all SLS employees in Commission-level offices

and (2) awards may be above $7,500 but are not to exceed $10,000 for all other SLS employees. (c)

* Submits award recommendations in excess of $10,000 up to

$25,000 for SLS employees to the Office of Personnel

Management (OPM) for review and approval. (d)

The Commissioners

(032)

Approve performance appraisals, performance-based increases to

base pay, and performance awards (not to exceed $10,000 or

10 percent of base pay) for members of their immediate staff.

The Executive Director for

Operations (EDO)

(033)

* Directs the administration of the NRC Senior Level Performance

Appraisal System. (a)

* Approves performance appraisals, performance-based increases

to base pay, and performance awards for SIS members in EDO

staff offices. (b)

2 Approved: October 4, 1993
Volume 10, Part 6 - Senior Executive Service, Senior Level

Positions, and Judges

Senior Level Performance Appraisal System

Directive 10.148

The Executive Director for

Operations (EDO) (continued) (033)

* Reviews the periodic evaluations of the system and

recommendations for changes and takes appropriate action to

modify the system, as warranted. (c)

* Approves exceptions to performance award scales (not to exceed

15 percent of base salary) for SLS members in EDO staff offices for

awards that are not to exceed $7,500. (d)

* Appoints the Chair and members of the Senior Level ReviewPanel

in consultation with the Chairman. (e)

The Inspector General (IG) (034)

Approves performance appraisals, performance-based increases to

base pay, and performance awards up to $10,000 for SLS members in

the Office of the Inspector General. Awards in excess of $10,000 will

be submitted to OPM for review and approval.

The Director, Office of

Personnel (OP)

(035)

* Administers the NRC Senior Level Performance Appraisal System

on a day-to-day basis. (a)

* Maintains an Employee Performance File (EPF) for each SLS

member. (b)

* Periodically evaluates the effectiveness of the system and reports the results to the EDO. (c)

* Provides necessary training on implementation of the system and

on any significant changes that may occur. (d)

Approved: October 4, 1993 3
Volume 10, Part 6 - Senior Executive Service, Senior Level

Positions, and Judges

Senior Level Performance Appraisal System

Directive 10.148

Office Directors and

Regional Administrators

(036)

* Serve as supervising official, reviewing official, or approving authority, as indicated in "Approval and Awarding Authorities for

the NRC Senior Level Performance Appraisal System," Exhibit 3

of Handbook 10.148. (a)

* Ensure that rating officials under their jurisdiction serve in their

appropriate supervisory roles. (b)

* Certify in writing to the Office of Personnel by August 1 of each

year that performance plans are in place for all SLS members. In

instances in which delays in establishing performance plans occur,

the certification must indicate the reason for the delay and the date

that performance plans will be put in place. (c)

Applicability

(10.148-04)

This directive and handbook apply to and must be followed by all

NRC SLS members with the exception of administrative judges, who are covered in Management Directive 10.153, "Administrative

Judges - Compensation and Staffing."

Handbook

(10.148-05)

Handbook 10.148 contains specific procedures and detailed

guidelines for establishing performance plans and appraising SLS

members covered under these plans.

References

(10.148-06)

1. The Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2011

et seq.).

2. The Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended

(42 U.S.C. 5801 et seq.).

4 Approved: October 4, 1993
Volume 10, Part 6 - Senior Executive Service, Senior Level

Positions, and Judges

Senior Level Performance Appraisal System

Directive 10.148

References

(10.148-06) (continued)

3. Office of Personnel Management, Federal Personnel Manual

Bulletin No. 430-33, "Variation to Allow Different

Summary Rating Levels," August 9, 1993 (see Exhibit 1 of

Handbook 10.148).

4. "Performance Appraisal," 5 U.S.C. Chapter 43, Subchapter I.

5. "Performance Appraisal for General Schedule, Prevailing Rate,

and Certain Other Employees," 5 CFR Part 430, Subpart B.

6. "Personnel Records," 5 CFR Part 293.

7. "Incentive Awards," 5 CFR Part 451.

8. NRC Management Directive 10.72, "Incentive Awards" (formerly MC 4154).

9. NRC Management Directive 10.103, "Non-SES Reduction in

Force" (formerly MC 4170).

10. NRC Management Directive 10.145, "Senior Level System."

11. NRC Management Directive 10.73, "Time Off From Duty as an

Incentive Award."

12. NRC Management Directive 10.101, "Employee Grievances"

(formerly MC 4157).

13. NRC Management Directive 10.122, "Employee Health Services

Program" (formerly MC 4161).

14. NRC Management Directive 10.99, "Discipline, Adverse Actions,

and Separations" (formerly MC 4171).

15. NRC Management Directive 10.1, "Appointments, General

Employment, Details, and Position Changes" (formerly MC 4108,

Parts IV and VI).

16. Pub. L 101-376, "Civil Service Due Process Amendments Act."

17. "Privacy Act Regulations," 10 CFR Part 9, Subpart B.

Approved: October 4, 1993 5
Senior Level Performance

Appraisal System

Handbook

10. 148
Volume 10, Part 6 - Senior Executive Service, Senior Level

Positions, and Judges

Senior Level Performance Appraisal System

Handbook 10.148 Parts I - VI

Contents

Part I

Overview of the Senior Level System (SLS) Performance

Appraisal Process .................................................. 1

Purpose of This Handbook (A) . ................................... . 1

Purpose of the Senior Level Performance Appraisal System (B) . .1........... 1

Applicability (C) ... 2.....................

2

Key - Comrponents Keyomponnts (~ () .. 2 ........................................................ 2

Training and Evaluation (E) . ......................................... 4

Part II

Performance Planning .... ............................................ 5

Prelixinary Planning (A) .......................-. 5

TIimning limngoB)...................................................... (B) . ........ 5

Developing Performance Plans (C) .. ................................... 6

Critical Elements (D) ... 6............ 6

Subelements (E) .................................................. . 7

Performance Standards (F) ............... 7

Review of Performance Planning (G) .......... .................. .. 8

Midyear Progress Review (H) . . .................... 9

Documenting ghanges ........................................... (I) . 10

Part III

Performance Appraisal . . ............. . . 11

Annual Appraisal Period (A) .. ........................ ... 11

Exceptions to the Annual Appraisal Period (B) .... ...................... 12

New SLS Members (1) .............. 12

Terminating the Appraisal Period (2) ............................... 12

Other R atings (C) .............................. ...... ................. 12

Changes in Positions During the Rating Period (1) ...... ............. 12

NRC Details and Temporary Reassignments (2) ....................... 13

Details Outside NRC (3) ................ 13

Supervisor's Departure (4) .............. ......................... 13

Absences (5) .................................................. 14

Approved: October 4, 1993 ;
Volume 10, Part 6 - Senior Executive Service, Senior Level

Positions, and Judges

Senior Level Performance Appraisal System

Handbook 10.148 Parts I - VI

Contents (continued)

Part III (continued)

Transfer of Rating (6) ...........................................

Appraising Disabled Veterans (7) .................................

Distribution of Ratings (D) ..........................................

Evaluation by the Supervising Official (E) ..............................

NRC Form 533 (1) .............................................

Rating Subordinates (2) .........................................

Performance Plan and Elements and Standards (3) .................. Rating Subelements (4) ..........................................

Rating Critical Elements (5) .....................................

Summary Performance Appraisal Rating (6) ........................ Reviewing Official's Examination of Ratings of Record (F) ................

Senior Level Review Panel Procedures (G) .............................

Assignment of the Final Rating by the Approving Authority (H) ............

Decisions by the Awarding Authority (I)

Informing the SLS Member (J) .......

Objectives (1) ..................

Appraisal Discussion (2) .........

Comments by the SLS Member (3)

Employee's Signature (4) ........

Retention and Validity of Ratings (e

Effects of the Rating (K) ............

General (1) ....................

Base Pay Increases (2) ..........

Pay Band Changes (3) ...........

Performance Awards (4) .........

Other Awards (5) ...............

Assistance to Improve Performance

................................

................................

................................

................................

................................

................................

S)..............................

................................

................................

................................

................................

................................

................................

(6) .............................

14

14

14

14

14

15

15

15

16

18

21

21

23

23

24

24

25

25

25

26

26

26

27

27

28

29

29

Part IV

Grievances and Less Than Fully Successful Performance ..............

Grievances (A) ....................................................

Minimally Satisfactory Performance (B) ................................

30

30

30

.. Approved: October 4, 1993
Volume 10, Part 6 - Senior Executive Service, Senior Level

Positions, and Judges Senior Level Performance Appraisal System

Handbook 10.148 Parts I - VI

Contents (continued)

Part IV (continued)

SLS Member Counseling (1) i . ................................... 30

Training (2) ....... 31

Unsatisfactory Performance (C) . ...................................... 31

Performance Improvement Requirement Memorandum (PIRM) (1) ..... 32

Use of NRC Form 533 (2) ....................... ......... ....... 33

Determination at the Conclusion of the Performance Improvement Period (D) .................................................. 33

Part V

Reduction in Force (RIF) and Performance-Based Reassignments, Reductions in Pay Band, and Removals ............. ................. 34

Reduction in Force (RIF) (A) ............................ 34

Reassigiinent (B) .................................................. 35

Reduction in Pay Band and Removal From the SLS (C) .................. . 35

General (1) ................................................. 35

Advance Written Notice of Reduction in Pay Band or Removal From

the SLS After the Performance Improvement Period (2) .... ....... 36

Agency Disallowance of a Representative of the SLS Member (3) ...... 38

Extension of the Advance Written Notice of Reduction in Pay Band

or Removal From the SLS (4) ............... .................. 38

Deciding Official (5) ............................................ 39

Consideration of the Reply (6) .................................... 39

Decision (7) ................................................. 39

Purging Records (8) .............................................. 40

Appeals (9) ................................................. 40

Part VI

Records............................................................. 41

Employee Performance File (EPF) (A) ... 41

Contents (B) ................................................. 41

Maintenance (C) .................................................. 41

Retention (D) ................................................. 41

Approved: October 4, 1993 iii
Volume 10, Part 6 - Senior Executive Service, Senior Level

Positions, and Judges

Senior Level Performance Appraisal System

Handbook 10.148 Parts I - VI

Contents (continued)

Part VI (continued)

Disposition of Records (E) .............. ............................. 42

Access (F) ........................................................ 42

Exhibits

1. Authority From the Office of Personnel Management for the NRC Senior

Level Performance Appraisal System ............................... 43

2. NRC Form 533, "Senior Level System (SLS) Performance Plan and Apppraisal"................... . ................................. . 46

3. Approval and Awarding Authorities for the NRC Senior Level

Performance Appraisal System .................................... 53

4. NRC Form 365, "Nomination and Authorization for Cash Award" ........ 54

iv Approved: October 4, 1993
Volume 10, Part 6 - Senior Executive Service, Senior Level

Positions, and Judges Senior Level Performance Appraisal System

Handbook 10.148 Part I

Part I

Overview of the Senior! Level System (SLS) Performance Appraisal Process

Purpose of This Handbook (A)

This handbook contains the program requirements and procedures for administering the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC's) Senior Level Performance Appraisal System. This handbook clarifies the basic parameters of the system, establishes generic performance critical elements, and provides assistance to SLS members and supervising officials in carrying out their responsibilities regarding performance planning and appraisal. (1)

Authority from the Office of Personnel Management for the NRC Senior Level Performance Appraisal System is contained in

Exhibit 1. (2)

Purpose of the Senior Level

Performance Appraisal System (B)

The purpose of the Senior Level Performance Appraisal System is to

provide a record of management expectations and individual job accomplishments that, in addition to establishing standards and communicating supervisory appraisals of performance, will ultimately

serve as the basis for a variety of performance-based actions, including within-band performance-based payincreases, possible identification

of changes in professional stature, removal, reassignment, awards, and training. (1)

The Senior Level Performance Appraisal System provides a comprehensive methodology-(2)

Approved: October 4, 1993 1
Volume 10, Part 6- Senior Executive Service, Senior Level

Positions, and Judges

Senior Level Performance Appraisal System

Handbook 10.148 Part I

Purpose of the Senior Level

Performance Appraisal

System (B) (continued)

* To communicate and clarify NRC and office, region, or division

organizational goals and objectives. (a)

* lb identify individual accountability for the accomplishment of

relevant portions of these goals and objectives through establishing written performance elements and standards. (b)

* lb evaluate and improve individual accomplishments through performance monitoring and feedback during the appraisal period. (c)

* To use the results of performance appraisals as a basis for making decisions that are related to performance, such as those involving

performance awards and retention in the SLS. (d)

Applicability (c)

All incumbent NRC SLS members, including distinguished engineers and scientists and visiting fellows serving on appointments of 1-year

or more, are subject to the Senior Level Performance Appraisal System, with the exceptions noted below.

* SLS members serving on Limited Appointments who are

Commissioner Assistants are not subject to review by the Senior

Level Review Panel for purposes of awards, ratings, or

performance-based within-band pay increases. (1)

* NRC administrative judges serving under the NRC Administrative

Judge System are not covered by the Senior Level Performance

Appraisal System. (2)

Key Components (D)

The SLS performance appraisal process includes two distinct phases: performance planning and performance appraisal. Although distinct,

each phase is part of an ongoing process linked to the other phase. (1)

The appraisal process provides for the following (2)

2 Approved: October 4, 1993
Volume 10, Part 6 - Senior Executive Service, Senior Level

Positions, and Judges

Senior Level Performance Appraisal System

'._Handbook 10.148 Part I

Key Components (D) (continued)

* One or more performance planning sessions in which the

supervising official and the SLS member consult to prepare a

performance plan for the upcoming rating period. During these

planning sessions, the subelements and their respective performance standards are established for the three generic critical elements described on NRC Form 533, "Senior Level

System (SLS) Performance Plan and Appraisal" (Exhibit 2), and in

Part II of this handbook. These sessions may include a discussion

of training or other developmental or mentoring activities, as well

as activities that enhance or recognize professional stature. This

plan is generally approved by the second-level supervisor, normally the office director or the regional administrator, or his or

her designee. (a)

* A midyear progress review of the SLS member's progress toward

achieving the elements and performance standards. This review

also provides an opportunity to modify the performance plan as a

result of changes in position requirements or resources, or project adjustments. The progress review is documented on NRC

Form 533. (b)

* An initial discussion and appraisal of each critical element and

subelement and initial rating and pay band and award

recommendation, if appropriate, by the supervising official as

described in Exhibit 3. (c)

* A review and recommendation by the second-level supervisor, normally the office director or the regional administrator, as

described in Exhibit 3. (d)

* Areviewofperformance appraisal information bythe NRC Senior

Level Review Panel, or the IG Senior Level Review Panel, as

appropriate. The panel may conduct any necessary additional

review. (e)

* A recommendation by the panel to the approving authority on

ratings, pay band changes, reassignments and removals, and to the

awarding authority on performance-based pay increases and

performance awards. ()

* A final rating of record by the approving authority after

consideration of all available information and the panel recommendations. (g)

Approved: October 4, 1993 3
Volume 10, Part 6 - Senior Executive Service, Senior Level

Positions, and Judges

Senior Level Performance Appraisal System

Handbook 10.148 Part I

Key Components (D) (continued)

* Base pay increase and award determinations by the awarding authority after consideration of all available information and the

recommendations of the panel. (h)

* Referral to the supervising official for initiation of appropriate action related to any final rating of minimally satisfactory or

unsatisfactory. (i}

raining and Evaluation (E)

The NRC will provide appropriate training on the policy, procedures,

or application of the Senior Level Performance Appraisal System to

SLS Members and their supervisors. (1)

lb improve the Senior Level Performance Appraisal System, NRC will

periodically evaluate its effectiveness, as appropriate. (2)

4 4Approved: October 4, 1993
Volume 10, Part 6 - Senior Executive Service, Senior Level

Positions, and Judges

Senior Level Performance Appraisal System

Handbook 10.148 Part f

Part II

Performance Planning

Preliminary Planning (A)

At or before the beginning of a rating period, the supervising official

and the SLS member will discuss what is expected of the SLS member

during the upcoming rating period, based on the requirements of the

SLS member's position. The discussion should be structured so that

there is a clear, mutual understanding of the project assignments, responsibilities, and performance objectives. (1)

The SLS member to be rated should actively participate in setting goals, understanding the critical elements, and defining the

subelements and performance standards for the rating period. The

supervising official's opinion will prevail, however, in any preliminary "planning-discussion with the SIS member on critical elements, subelements, and performance standards. (2)

The supervising official must ensure that the position description reflects the duties and responsibilities assigned to the SLS member. (3)

Timing (B)

Elements and standards must be~ communicated at or before the

beginning of each appraisal or rating period. A written performance plan should be provided to the SLS member within 30 calendar days after the beginning of the ratingperiod orwithin 30 calendar days after

the effective date of the SLS member's entry into the position (including appointment, band change action, and reassignment). (1)

A written performance plan must also be provided within 30 calendar

days after the beginning of an NRC detail or temporary assignment expected to last 120 days or more. (2)

Approved: October 4, 1993 5
Volume 10, Part 6 - Senior Executive Service, Senior Level

Positions, and Judges

Senior Level Performance Appraisal System

Handbook 10.148 Part I

Developing Performance Plans (c)

Performance plans must be based on the requirements of the

employee's position. However, this does not preclude establishing performance criteria from sources other than the position description. When an employee is detailed or temporarily reassigned to another set

of duties for 120 calendar days or more, a new performance plan must

be established. This new plan may or may not have direct relationship

to the SLS member's primary position description of record. (1)

Principal duties and responsibilities may be derived from a variety of

sources, including office planning documents, statements of

organization and functions, Commission papers, decisions,

assignments, the NRC budget, NRC policy and planning guidance, and

so forth. (2)

After identifying performance subelements applicable to the generic critical element categories through job analysis or other sources, the

position description should be revised and updated as appropriate. (3)

Critical Elements (D)

Three mandatory generic critical elements are applicable to all SLS

members in the NRC. These three elements will be used to measure

the SLS member's performance during the rating period and are

preprinted on NRC Form 533. See Exhibit 2. No other elements are

required or permitted. (1)

The three mandatory generic critical elements are-(2)

* Critical Element I-"Achievement of Project Assignments." Achieves the project (critical) assignments specified in the

subelements in accordance with Commissioner objectives, the

NRC Five-Year Plan, or the Office Operating Plan. The project assignments tie the requirements of the position to

organizational and agency-wide objectives. (a)

* Critical Element l-"Provides Advice and Guidance."

Provides advice and guidance, including monitoring and

collegial activities, commensurate with the professional stature

expected of an SLS member in this position and at this pay band level. (b)

6 Approved: October 4, 1993
Volume 10, Part 6 - Senior Executive Service, Senior Level

Positions, and Judges

Senior Level Performance Appraisal System

-,.Handbook 10.148 Part II

Critical Elements (D) (continued)

* Critical Element m-This element is to be described by the

supervising official, and is to define a third area of

responsibility unique to the position expectations associated

with the SILS member. (c)

Subelements (E)

Each critical element provides for no less than one or more than three

subelements. Because of the unique characteristics associated with the

responsibilities assigned to individual SLS members, generic subelements and standards are not provided. (1)

Descriptions of subelements should be concise and reflective of the

taskings critical to the performance of the position as defined by the

critical elements. They should be described within the space provided

on NRC Form 533. See Exhibit 2. (2)

Subelements should relate to both assignments and the professional

stature appropriate to the position and its incumbent. (3)

Subelements may relate to either or both individual or ongoing projects, assignments, and activities. (4)

Performance Standards e

Performance standards for each of the subelements should describe

only the "fully successful" level of performance. (1)

The development of standards for subelements must be based to a

large extent on the NRC's fiscal year program and reflect the priorities of the Commission and NRC offices. (2)

Each'supervising official, in consultation with the SLS member, will

identify the performance standards of the'position and the results

needed to accomplish the job in a fully successful manner. (3)

Performance standards should be as objective as possible and stated in

clear, quantifiable terms that are both observable and measurable

over a range of performance and related to the accomplishment of the

mission. The standards may include, but are not limited to, quality and

quantity of work, cost efficiency, and manner and timeliness of

performance. (4)

Approved: October 4, 1993 7
Volume 10, Part 6 - Senior Executive Service, Senior Level

Positions, and Judges

Senior Level Performance Appraisal System

Handbook 10.148 Part II

Performance Standards (F) (continued)

SLS members should be held accountable only for performance results that are under their control. (5)

General traits of behavior and personal characteristics such as

"intelligence," "dependability," or "cooperativeness," and undefined

levels of skill or knowledge such as "oral expression" do not provide an

adequate basis for making an objective appraisal of the employee's performance. (6)

The standards for subelements should be concise and described within

the space provided on NRC Form 533. (7)

Review of Performance

Planning (G)

The supervising official will transmit the performance plan to the

reviewing official, normally the office director or the regional administrator, for review and approval. (1)

In the case of Commissioner Assistants serving in NRC limited

appointments, the supervising official and the reviewing official are

the same. After the plan is discussed by the Commissioner and the

Commissioner Assistant, the plan will be signed and dated by both and

will be considered an approved plan. (2)

Reviewing officials are not required for employees in positions reporting directly to the Commissioners, as noted above, and for other

specific positions approved by the Director, Office of Personnel. (3)

Before the plan is forwarded to the reviewing official, the supervisor will give a copy of it to the employee for his or her comment. Normally, the employee will be given 5 workdays from date of receipt to provide comments to the supervisor, who will consider the employee's

comments. (4)

If the reviewing official does not agree with the plan, he or she should

discuss it with the supervising official. In cases of differences between

the supervising and reviewing officials, reviewing officials have

authority to make final decisions and direct that changes be made. (5)

8 Approved: October 4, 1993
Volume 10, Part 6 - Senior Executive Service, Senior Level

Positions, and Judges

Senior Level Performance Appraisal System

. . andbook 10.148 Part II

Review of Performance

Planning (G) (continued)

Review of the performance plans will ensure that all critical elements, subelements, and standards are clearly understood, concisely stated, and consistent with mission requirements as specified in

Commissioner objectives or the NRC Five-Year Plan and with

planned resource allocations. (6)

After any differences are resolved, the supervising official and the

reviewing official will sign Part I-1 of NRC Form 533. See

Exhibit 2. (7)

Following review and approval by the reviewing official, the

supervising official will furnish the original of NRC Form 533 to the

SLS member for signature. The supervisor will discuss with and

explain to the SLS member any changes directed by the reviewing official and request the SLS member to sign the form. (8)

The SLS member's signature only acknowledges receipt of the

performance plan. The plan is effective when the employee receives

the document. (9)

If an SLS member refuses to sign a completed NRC Form 533

acknowledging receipt of the performance plan, the supervising official should ask a third party to witness that the completed form is

given to the employee. A brief statement to this effect should be made

on the line that the employee would otherwise have signed, and both

the third party and the supervising official should sign and date the

statement. The supervising official will keep the original and provide the SLS member with a copy of the form. (10)

A1f1: lVJUyz4al riLuglivub JXVeVt:W (H)

During the rating period, the supervising official will conduct one

midyear progress review and counseling session with the SLS member.

This review will be conducted at the midpoint of, but no less than

120 days before the end of, the rating period and will be documented

on Part 14 of NRC Form 533. See Exhibit 2. (1)

Approved: October 4, 1993 9
Volume 10, Part 6 - Senior Executive Service, Senior Level

Positions, and Judges

Senior Level Performance Appraisal System

Handbook 10.148 Part II

Midyear Progress Review (H) (continued)

As a minimum, SLS members will be informed of their performance through a comparison of their performance with the elements and

standards established for their positions. This review may be used to

improve communications, provide guidance, improve performance, and avoid misunderstandings at the end of the rating period. The

progress review may also be used as an opportunity to modify subelements and standards to- reflect recent changes in the SLS

member's position. (2)

Additional informal progress reviews may be conducted on the basis

of need as determined by the supervising official or as requested by the

SLS member. These additional reviews are not documented on NRC

Form 533 unless they involve a change in any of the subelements and

standards. (3)

By August 1 of each year, each office director and regional administrator who has SLS members or their staff will certify in

writing to the Director, Office of Personnel, that performance plans

are in place for all SLS members. In instances of delays in establishing performance plans, the certification will provide the date performance plans will be put in place. Certifications will include the names of SLS

members for whom performance plans have not been established and

a brief explanation of why a performance plan is not in place. (4)

Documenting Changes (i)

Any significant changes to the approved performance plan resulting from the midyear progress review, informal reviews, or any significant changes in the mission, structure, or resource allocations affecting the

SLS member's position, or any changes to the performance plan resulting from a reasonable request by the SLS member must be

recorded on the approved performance plan, reviewed by the

reviewing official, when appropriate, and must receive the same

distribution as the previous plan. (1)

The role of the SLS member in this modification procedure parallels his or her role when the plan was originally established. (2)

Changes become effective at the time the revisions are approved. (3)

Notwithstanding the preceding requirements, performance plans should not be revised within 120 calendar days of the end of the rating period. (4) <2

10 Approved: October 4, 1993
Volume 10, Part 6 - Senior Executive Service, Senior Level

Positions, and Judges

Senior Level Perfominance Appraisal System

Handbook 10.148 Part m

Part III

Performance Appraisal

Annual Appraisal Period (A)

The NRC rating period for SLS employees begins annually on July 1

and ends the following June 30. Each incumbent of an NRC SLS

position must be appraised and rated on performance in accordance

with the time schedules established by the Senior Level Review Panel,

or the Commissioner in the case of a Commissioner Assistant, if the

SLS member has served in an NRC SLS position for at least 120 days before the end of the rating period. (1)

Performance appraisal periods lasting longer than 1 year may be

established or extended for individual SLS members in unusual

situations, such as-(2)

* SLS members who are engaged in long-term scientific projects (a)

* SLS members who are ill or on extended leave (b)

* SLS members who are under a specific notice of reduction in force

(RIF) (c)

* SLS members who are involved in pending determinations or

appeals under any procedure, including an opportunity period under a Performance Improvement Requirement Memorandum

(PIRM) (d)

Under these and other extraordinary conditions, office directors or

regional administrators may request prior approval from the Director, Office of Personnel (OP), to establish an extended rating period for SLS members, specifying the reason for the extension. SLS members

should be informed promptly about any deferred appraisal period applicable to them and any impact in terms of eligibility for

performance-based pay increases or cash awards. (3)

Approved: October 4, 1993 11
Volume 10, Part 6 - Senior Executive Service, Senior Level

Positions, and Judges

Senior Level Performance Appraisal System

Handbook 10.148 Part El[

Exceptions to the Annual

Appraisal Period (B)

Two primary exceptions to the annual appraisal period are as follows:

New SLS Members (1)

If an SLS member has not served in an NRC SLS position for the

required 120 calendar days before the end of the rating period, the

appraisal period must be extended for the amount of time necessary to

equal 120 calendar days. At that time, a rating of record must be

prepared and submitted through appraisal channels to the Chair,

Senior Level Review Panel.

Terminating the Appraisal Period (2)

A performance appraisal period may be terminated before the end of

the rating period if it is determined that an adequate basis exists for

appraising and rating an SLS member. The Chair, Senior Level

Review Panel, will make decisions on a case-by-case basis, as required,

on the need for these ratings.

Other Ratings (c)

Other ratings are required under the following conditions. Appraisals should be sent immediately through appraisal channels directly to the

Chair, Senior Level Review Panel.

Changes in Positions During the Rating Period (1)

A summary rating will be prepared on NRC Form 533 within 30 days after an SLS member changes positions (including moving to a

position at a different pay band level) during the rating period if the

SLS member has served at least 120 calendar days in the former

position. This summary rating will not be considered an initial rating but must be given due weight by the supervisor of the new position to

which the SLS member is assigned when an initial rating is assigned and when the rating of record is derived. (a)

Due weight includes consideration of the portion of the rating period covered by the appraisal, the relevance of the critical element

subelements of the prior position to the new position, and any other

reasonable considerations. (b) <2

12 Approved: October 4, 1993
Volume 10, Part 6.- Senior Executive Service, Senior Level

Positions, and Judges

Senior Level Performance Appraisal System

landbook 10.148 Part m

Other Ratings (C) (continued)

Changes in Positions During the Rating Period (1) (continued)

The supervising official will document in the narrative for the ratings

on Part E11-2(b) of NRC Form 533 how the summary rating was

factored into the annual rating of record. See Exhibit 2. (c)

NRC Details and iemporary Reassignments (2)

Ratings on critical elements and subelements will be prepared on NRC

Form 533 when SLS members are detailed or temporarily reassigned within NRC and when the detail or temporary reassignment lasts 120

calendar days or more. These ratings will be considered in deriving the

-SLS member's next rating of record and will be documented as

described above.

Details Outside NRC (3)

When SLS members are detailed outside the agency, NRC will make

reasonable efforts to obtain appraisal information from the outside

organization. This information will be considered when deriving the

SLS member's next rating of record and will be documented as

described above. (a)

If the employee has not served in the NRC for the required 120 days during the appraisal period but has served 120 calendar days or more

in another agency, a reasonable effort must be made to prepare an

annual rating of record based on the performance plan and appraisal information obtained from that agency. (b)

Supervisor's Departure (4)

A summary rating will be prepared on NRC Form 533 immediately before separation or transfer of the SLS member's supervising official, when feasible, if the supervising official leaves within the last 120 days of the rating period and has supervised the SLS member for at least

120 calendar days. This rating may serve as the initial rating and will

be submitted through appraisal channels to the Chair, Senior Level

Review Panel.

Approved: October 4, 1993 13
Volume 10, Part 6- Senior Executive Service, Senior Level

Positions, and Judges

Senior Level Performance Appraisal System

Handbook 10.148 Part m1

-/

Other Ratings (C) (continued)

Absences (5)

A summary rating will be prepared by the supervising official

immediately before an extended period of absence of the SLS

member, such as for training or leave, when the SLS member has

performed in the position for at least 120 calendar days and is not

expected to return before the end of the rating period. The rating will

be submitted through appraisal channels to the Chair, Senior Level

Review Panel.

Mransfer of Rating (6)

If an SLS member moves to another agency, the current performance rating of record must be transferred in accordance with the rules

governing disposition of records. In addition, a summary rating must

be prepared, provided the SLS member has performed in the position for at least 120 calendar days.

Appraising Disabled Veterans (7)

The performance appraisal and resulting rating of a disabled veteran

may not be lowered because the veteran has been absent from work to

seek medical treatment.

Distribution of Ratings (D)

By regulation, NRC may not prescribe a distribution of levels of

ratings that interferes with the appraisal of actual performance against performance standards for SLS members covered by this performance appraisal system. Procedures for monitoring standards and ratings are

discussed in Part II of this handbook.

Evaluation by the Supervising

Official (E)

NRC Form 533 (1)

The supervising official of each SLS member will appraise the

performance of the SLS member on NRC Form 533, as shown in

Exhibit 2 of this handbook. Completion of Part TI-A and Part m of this

form constitutes the written initial rating.

14 1Approved: October 4, 1993
Volume 10, Part 6 - Senior Executive Service, Senior Level

Positions, and Judges Senior Level Performance Appraisal System

Handbook 10.148 Part m

Evaluation by the Supervising

Official (E) (continued)

Rating Subordinates (2)

An appraisal for a particular period will be deemed to be the act of the

supervisor during that period so that the supervising official can be

evaluated by his or her supervisor on how he or she rates the

performance of subordinates in the same period.

Performance Plan and Elements and Standards (3)

In preparing the evaluation, the supervising official will use the

currently approved performance plan and performance elements and

standards previously agreed to by the SLS member, the supervising official, and the reviewing official.

Rating Subelements (4)

Part m of NRC Form 533 is used for recording the ratings for the

critical element subelements. (a)

-Subelements are rated at one of the three levels of performance described below: (b)

* Meets. This rating describes performance in the subelement that

meets the fully successful performance level. (i)

* Exceeds. This rating indicates an exceptional performance in the

subelement that substantially exceeds the midpoint of the fully successful performance range. This rating is generally assigned to

only those SLS members who clearly demonstrate a combination

of work achievements and professional stature in the upper range of fully successful performance. (ii)

Does Not Meet. This rating describes performance in the

subelement that does not meet the fully successful performance level described in the performance standard. This rating is assigned

to those SLS members in the minimally successful through unsatisfactory performance range. (iii)

Approved: October 4, 1993 15
Volume 10, Part 6 - Senior Executive Service, Senior Level

Positions, and Judges

Senior Level Performance Appraisal System

Handbook 10.148 Part ER

Evaluation by the Supervising

Official (E) (continued)

Rating Subelements (4) (continued)

The supervising official rates the performance of the SLS member in

each subelement against the performance standard described and

completes the appropriate subelement rating level box on NRC

Form 533. (c)

Subelements rated "exceeds" or "does not meet" must be fully justified in the critical element narrative in Part E-2(b) on NRC

Form 533. Ratings at either of these levels are used only for those SLS

members whose performance clearly exceeds or does not meet

expectations. The justification must specifically address performance in relation to exceeding or not meeting the described standard

criteria. (d)

There is no agency-wide predetermined weighting of subelements.

Subelements will be presumed to be weighted equally, unless a

different weight was assigned when the performance plan was

prepared and approved. Any variation in weighting must be clearly identified in writing in the performance plan. (e)

If expected work was not assigned or no opportunity existed in which

to perform assignments required to meet the fully successful level of

performance for a particular subelement, the supervising official may mark "NA" (not applicable) and explain the circumstances briefly in

the narrative justification. Normally, these situations should be

identified and the performance plan adjusted during the midyear

progress review or a special review. The lack of a subelement rating in

these cases will not be considered either for or against the SLS

member in determining the critical element rating. (f)

Rating Critical Elements (5)

As indicated in Part II of this handbook, three critical elements apply

to each SLS member. (a)

The critical element ratings will be derived from the subelement

ratings. (b)

* Any combination of "meets" and "exceeds" subelement ratings will result in a critical element rating of fully successful. (i)

16 Approved: October 4, 1993
Volume 10, Part 6 - Senior Executive Service, Senior Level

Positions, and Judges Senior Level Performance Appraisal System

Handbook 10.148 Part m

Evaluation by the Supervising

Official (E) (continued)

Rating Critical Elements (5) (continued)

A majority of "does not meet" subelement ratings (one of one, or

two of three) will generally result in a rating below the fully successful level. In cases in which only two subelements are used

and ratings are divided between "does not meet" and either

"meets" or "exceeds," the supervising official uses judgment in

determining the rating for the critical element. The supervising official also uses judgment, documented in the narrative justification, in determining whether the "does not meet"

subelement-rating(s) translates into a critical element rating of

minimally satisfactory or unsatisfactory. (ii)

* Any variation in subelement weighting that was communicated to

and documented in the approved performance plan must be taken

into consideration in reaching a final decision on the critical

element rating. (iii)

* The rating for each critical element is marked in the appropriate box at the end of each critical element section in Part En-l, "Critical Element Evaluation," on NRC Form 533. See

Exhibit 2. (iv)

The critical element ratings and the summary performance rating are

based on three levels of performance, as defined below-. (c)

* Fully Successful (FS). Job performance ranges from "consistently meets" to "exceeds that expected" as described in the performance standards at the fully successful level. Exceptional performance within this range is documented through subelement ratings at the

"exceeds" level. For the summary rating, the SLS member

performed at an overall fully successful level. (i)

I Minimally Satisfactory (M). Job performance occasionally was

less than that expected in the performance standards. For the

summary rating, the SLS member performed at a minimally satisfactory level if he or she was rated minimally satisfactory in at least one critical element and received no lower rating in any other

critical element. (ii)

Approved: October 4, 1993 17
Volume 10, Part 6 - Senior Executive Service, Senior Level

Positions, and Judges

Senior Level Performance Appraisal System

Handbook 10.148 Part M

Evaluation by the Supervising

Official (E) (continued)

Rating Critical Elements (5) (continued)

* Unsatisfactory (U). Job performance was normally below that

expected in the performance standards. For the summary rating, the SLS member performed at an unsatisfactory level if he or she

was rated unsatisfactory in one or more critical elements. (iii)

Summary Performance Appraisal Rating (6)

The summary performance appraisal rating and supporting narrative

justifications are documented in Part III, Sections 2 and 3, of NRC

Form 533. See Exhibit 2. (a)

Section 2(a) of Part HI summarizes the ratings for each of the critical

elements. The summary rating for each of the critical elements noted

in Part rn-i should be transferred to the appropriate block in

Section 2(a). (b)

In Section 2(b) of Part m, a narrative justification must be provided for each of the critical element ratings. This justification should

address achievements in meeting or exceeding the stated performance expectations for the appraisal period and should identify areas for

improvement. The justification must also specifically explain any ratings of either "exceeds" or "does not meet" involving these

achievements or areas for improvement. The justification must also

indicate the impact any individual subelement rating of "exceeds" or

"does not meet" had on the summary critical element rating. (c)

As the "exceeds" or "does not meet" subelement ratings are used only in cases in which the SLS member has shown truly exceptional performance or has clearly demonstrated poor performance, the

written justification must provide ample support for the assigned subelement ratings to succeeding levels of review. In these cases,

additional documentation may be attached to NRC Form 533. (d)

Summary critical element ratings of minimally satisfactory or

unsatisfactory must be fully documented. The narrative must

specifically explain performance that "does not meet" the described

fully successful standards in terms of the extent of the deficiencies and

18 Approved: October 4, 1993
Volume 10, Part 6 - Senior Executive Service, Senior Level

Positions, and Judges Senior Level Performance Appraisal System

-Handbook 10.148 Part m

Evaluation by the Supervising

Official (E) (continued)

Summary Performance Appraisal Rating (6) (continued)

the level of performance that resulted in assignment of either the minimally satisfactory or unsatisfactory rating. Additional

documentation or attachments to NRC Form 533 that clearly support the critical element rating may be attached. (e)

Ratings of "meets" in all or most subelements and of "fully successful"

in the critical elements normally should not have narrative

justifications that exceed the space provided on the form. (f)

Both achievements and areas for improvement should be described

for each critical element, regardless of the summary element or

subelement ratings assigned. Achievements would highlight the SLS

member's most notable accomplishments during the rating period. Areas for improvement would highlight those procedures, skills, or practices assessed during the rating period that would benefit by improvement. (g)

When the subelement ratings and narrative justifications are recorded

on NRC Form 553, in Part m, 2(a) and 2(b), the supervising official

will then assign the final summary rating for the critical elements in

Part m-3. This rating constitutes the initial performance appraisal rating. (h)

lb receive an initial summary rating of "fully successful," all critical elements must have been rated as fully successful, although individual

subelements may have been rated as "does not meet." (i)

lb receive an initial summary rating of "minimally satisfactory," at

least one critical element must have been rated minimally satisfactory and no other critical element rated any lower. 0)

To receive an initial summary rating of "unsatisfactory," one or more

critical elements must have been rated unsatisfactory. (k)

Once Part mH-3 of NRC Form 553 is completed, the initial summary rating should be transferred to Part II-A. The supervising official

should then record any incentive pay and/or award recommendation.

Approved: October 4, 1993 19
Volume 10, Part 6 - Senior Executive Service, Senior Level

Positions, and Judges

Senior Level Performance Appraisal System

Handbook 10.148 Part Em[

Evaluation by the Supervising

Official (E) (continued)

Summary Performance Appraisal Rating (6) (continued)

Any pay band change that is being recommended for the panel's review should also be recorded in Part II-A at this time. Pay band

changes should only be recommended if the position has changed in

nature sufficiently to meet the benchmark criteria for the next

band. ()

The supervising official may discuss with the SLS member the

member's accomplishments, areas for improvement, and performance

as they relate to the SLS member's critical elements before assigning the recommended initial summary rating and sending it to the

reviewing official. During this discussion with the SLS member, the

supervising official should not make any commitments as to how

individual elements will be rated or discuss or show the summary rating to the SLS member. (m)

When the supervising (rating) official has assigned an initial rating, he

or she will sign and date the form in the space provided in Part Il-A and

forward the form and any additional documentation to support the

rating to the reviewing official. (n)

Summary ratings that are not ratings of record do not require a

reviewing official's approval or signature. (o)

Appraisals for Commissioner Assistants should be forwarded directly

to the Director, OP, for consultation and advice regarding conformance with any applicable technical and regulatory requirements, policies, or practices. Upon completion of the

consultation process, the Commissioner should complete Parts II, D

and E. The Commissioner should sign and date only Part II-E. This

signature will serve for both the approving and awarding authority final decisions. After discussion with the employee, and signature by the employee, forward NRC Form 533 to the Director, OP, for

implementation. (p)

20 Approved: October 4, 1993
Volume 10, Part 6 - Senior Executive Service, Senior Level

Positions, and Judges

Senior Level Performance Appraisal System

.)Iandbook 10.148 Part m

Reviewing Official's Examination of

Ratings of Record A*

The reviewing official is responsible for ensuring that all subordinate

supervisors of SLS members produce consistent and equitable appraisals. If, upon review, the reviewing official determines that a

rating is poorly prepared, shows inconsistencies, or otherwise fails to

provide an accurate rating of the SLS member, the reviewing official

will discuss and resolve these issues with the supervisor. (1)

The reviewing official cannot change the initial rating assigned by the

supervising official but must record any areas of disagreement with the

supervising official's recommendations in the comments portion of

Part Hl-G of NRC Form 553, as well as his or her summary rating recommendations. The reasons for the disagreements must be based

on an assessment of performance against the standards of the

approved performance plan as documented on NRC Form 533. (2)

Following the examination of the rating, the reviewing official should

complete Part II-B of NRC Form 533, including recommendations

relating to base pay increases, awards, and pay band changes, sign and

date the form, and forward it to the Chair, Senior Level Review Panel, via the Director, OP. (3)

Senior Level Review Panel

Procedures (G)*

The Senior Level Review Panel reviews and evaluates the entire

performance appraisal package for each SLS member to ensure

subelements and standards are specific, rigorous, and fully reflective

of the technical and professional responsibilities and stature expected of an SLS member. (1)

In consideration of a case, the panel may obtain additional records and

statements and make any other necessary personal contacts with the

supervising and reviewing officials or others to clarify existing information or to obtain additional data. (2)

The panel must specifically indicate on the NRC Form 533 whether or

not it agrees with the summary rating in Part II-C(1). Any comments

should be noted in Part H1-G. (3)

IThis section is not applicable to performance reviews for Commissioner Assistants.

Approved: October 4, 1993 21
Volume 10, Part 6 - Senior Executive Service, Senior Level

Positions, and Judges

Senior Level Performance Appraisal System Handbook 10.148 Put m

Senior Level Review Panel

Procedures (G)* (continued)

Recommendations to increase base pay within the pay band should

normally be within the 3- to 5-percent range and cannot exceed the top of the pay band to which the position occupied by the SLS member is

assigned. In Part II-C(2), the panel should indicate whether or not such

an increase would exceed the top of the pay band. (4)

In Part ll-C(2), the panel must indicate its recommendations for

performance recognition. The options are-(5)

* Increase to base pay (a)

* Performance cash award (b)

* Combination of base pay increase and cash award (c)

* Nonmonetary form of recognition (d)

* No recognition (e)

Any recommendation to adjust base pay either above or below the

normal 3- to 5-percent range must be clearly documented to explain

any variances. (6)

Any recommendation to combine a base pay increase with a cash

award should also include a description of the basis for the

combination. (7)

Any recommendation for a nonmonetary form of recognition should

include the document for appropriate review and signature, if

approved, by the deciding official. (8)

Performance-based cash awards should be submitted on NRC

Form 365, "Nomination and Authorization for Cash Award." See

Exhibit 4. If the supervising official or the reviewing official have not

included the form, the panel should include it. If the supervising official or the reviewing official have included the form, the panel should annotate it indicating endorsement, endorsement with changes noted, or recommendation of nonsupport. (9)

'This section is not applicable to performance reviews for Commissioner Assistants.

22 Approved: October 4, 1993
Volume 10, Part 6 - Senior Executive Service, Senior Level

Positions, and Judges

Senior Level Performance Appraisal System

Handbook 10.148 Part m

Senior Level Review Panel

Procedures (G)* (continued)

If a position pay band change has been recommended by the

supervising official or the reviewing official based on the impact of

performance on the scope and complexity of duties and professional stature, the panel should review the proposed position description reflecting these duties to ensure they meet the level of the benchmark

for the new band. Results of the panel's review should be recorded in

Part II-C(2) of NRC Form 533. A recommendation to disapprove should be described in the Part ll-G comments. (10)

When all recommendations have been described in Part II-C(2) and

Part ll-G, as appropriate, the form should be completed, signed, and

dated by the panel Chair and forwarded for final action to the approving and awarding authorities via the Director, OP. (11)

Assignment of the Final Rating by the Approving Authority (H)

The approving authority will make a final determination on NRC

Form 533, Part II-D, of the SLS member's summary rating (rating of

record) after considering the recommendations of the Senior Level

Review Panel. (1)

Information relating to any disagreement with the panel's recommendation will be recorded in the "Comments" section of

Part IH-G. (2)

The final decision concerning position pay band increases will also be

recorded in Part II-D. (3)

Any decision resulting in a final summary rating of minimally satisfactory or unsatisfactory will be referred back to the supervising official for appropriate action under the provisions of Part IV and/or

Part V of this directive. (4)

Decisions by the Awarding Authority @ ) --

After considering the recommendations of the panel, the awarding authority will make the final decisions about base pay increases and

awards. (1)

This section is not applicable to performance reviews for Commissioner Assistants.

Approved: October 4, 1993 23
Volume 10, Part 6 - Senior Executive Service, Senior Level

Positions, and Judges

Senior Level Performance Appraisal System

Handbook 10.148 Part m

Decisions by the Awarding

Authority (@) (continued)

Part II-E of NRC Form 533 is used to record the final base pay and

award decisions. (2)

Information relating to any decision that changes the

recommendations of the panel should be recorded in the "Comments"

section of Part II-G. (3)

There is a 1-year waiting period to effect base pay changes based on

performance. (4)

The Director, OP. will coordinate any cash award decisions requiring approval by the Office of Personnel Management. (5)

Informing the SLS Member (J)

After the NRC Form 533 is reviewed and final decisions from the

approving and awarding authorities are recorded, the Director, OPA

will forward the forms to the supervising officials so that they may meet

with their SLS members and discuss their annual performance appraisal and rating.

Objectives (1)

The purpose of the annual performance appraisal discussions are-

* To advise the SLS member of the supervisor's overall assessment of

performance during the appraisal period, as well as the

assessments of the reviewing official, the Senior Level Review

Panel, and approving and awarding authorities. (a)

* To inform the SLS member of how the rating may be used as a basis

for personnel decisions. (b)

* 'lb identify areas of achievement and to recognize and reinforce

the positive contributions of the SLS member. (c)

* To identify areas of performance in need of improvement, to

identify methods to facilitate that improvement, and to provide assistance, if needed. (d)

24 2Approved: October 4, 1993
Volume 10, Part 6 - Senior Executive Service, Senior Level

Positions, and Judges Senior Level Performance Appraisal System Handbook 10.148 Part M

Informing the SLS Member (J) (continued)

Appraisal Discussion (2)

The supervisor will meet with the SLS member and discuss each

individual element rating and the narrative justifications, the summary rating and overall narrative assessment, the decisions of the approving and awarding authorities regarding any applicable pay band changes, base pay increases, and awards, and any recommendations for training

or professional development or other actions, as appropriate. (a)

The supervisor will also advise the SLS member of any personnel actions which may be initiated as a result of receiving a summary rating of less than fully successful. (b)

The annual review session should cover not only the supervisor's appraisal of the SLS member's performance and recognition, but also

the member's concerns and suggestions. (c)

The review session is the supervisor's opportunity to help the SLS

member recognize areas for improvement, to plan the member's

future career development, to enlist the member's help in achieving organizational goals, and to obtain important feedback from the

member. (d)

Comments by the SLS Member (3)

Space is provided in Part Il-F for comments by the SLS member. These

comments are optional and should be furnished to the supervisor by the fifth workday after the SLS member receives the appraisal. (a)

If the employee makes comments that reflect, in the supervisor's opinion, significant information and facts that change the supervisor's original assessment of the employee's performance, the supervisor must prepare a revised NRC Form 533 that reflects the changes and

resubmit it through the appraisal review and approval channels. (b)

Employee's Signature (4)

After discussion with the supervisor, the employee is requested to sign and date the NRC Form 533. The employee's signature acknowledges receipt of the rating and indicates that the employee has been

provided the opportunity to meet with the supervisor to discuss the

Approved: October 4, 1993 25
Volume 10, Part 6 - Senior Executive Service, Senior Level

Positions, and Judges

Senior Level Performance Appraisal System

Handbook 10.148 Part m

Informing the SLS Member (J) (continued)

Employees Signature (4) (continued)

contents of the appraisal. The SLS member's signature carries no

implication that the SLS member concurs in the appraisal or in the

supervisor's comments. (a)

An annual performance rating is not final until all necessary reviews

and signatures are secured. However, if the SLS member refuses to

sign the NRC Form 533, it will become effective on the fifth workday after the appraisal is received by the SLS member. (b)

In the event an SLS member refuses to sign his or her appraisal, the

supervisor will ask a third party to witness that the completed appraisal has been given to the SLS member. A brief statement to this effect

should be made on the form in the "Comments" section in Part 11-F

that the SLS member would otherwise have used. Both the third party and the supervisor should sign and date the statement. (c)

Retention and Validity of Ratings (5)

A copy of the completed and approved NRC Form 533 should be

given to each SLS member as soon as practical after the end of the

appraisal period. The original will be forwarded to the Director, OP, with all other appropriate supporting documentation for retention in

the Employee Performance File (EPF). (a)

The SLS member's most current rating of record is considered the

valid rating of record for official purposes, and it constitutes the basis

for personnel actions. (b)

NRC must comply with Office of Personnel Management (OPM) regulations, where applicable, governing ratings of record to be used

for purposes of a reduction in force (RIF). (c)

Effects of the Rating (K)

General (1)

A summary rating of "fully successful" will provide the basis for the

SLS member's retention in the SLS and will establish the SLS

member's eligibility for consideration for performance-based pay increases and awards. (a)

26 2Approved: October 4, 1993
Volume 10, Part 6 - Senior Executive Service, Senior Level

Positions, and Judges

Senior Level Performance Appraisal System

Handbook 10.148 Part m

Effects of the Rating (K) (continued)

General (1) (continued)

A rating of "exceeds" in every subelement indicates that the SLS

member is among the very few whose performance far surpasses the

high quality of performance normally expected of all NRC SLS

members. Relatively few NRC SLS members would be expected to

receive these subelement ratings. (b)

Base Pay Increases (2)

SLS members may be considered for a within-band pay increase based

on performance if they have been in their position and have

performance elements and standards approved for at least 120 days

before the end of the appraisal period. Base pay adjustments are

discussed in Management Directive (MD) 10.145, "Senior Level

System." (a)

Performance-based adjustments, not including awards, are normally

within a 3- to 5-percent range but cannot exceed the top of the pay

band assigned to the position occupied by the SLS member. (b)

NRC Form 533 provides for recommendations for increases to base

pay by the supervising official, the reviewing official, the Senior Level

Review Panel, and final decisions by the awarding official. (c)

SLS members are limited to one performance-based pay adjustment

during each 12-month appraisal period (July 1 through June 30) as.

described in MD 10.145. (d)

SLS members are not automatically entitled to performance-based

pay increases. (e)

Pay Band Changes (3)

An SLS member must have received a summary rating of "fully

successful" to be considered for a noncompetitive move from one SLS

pay band to a higher one. (a)

When the level of performance is established, procedures for pay band

changes will follow those described in MD 10.145. (b)

Approved: October 4, 1993

(Revised: June 14, 1995) 27
Volume 10, Part 6 - Senior Executive Service, Senior Level

Positions, and Judges

Senior Level Performance Appraisal System

Handbook 10.148 Part E

Effects of the Rating (K) (continued)

Performance Awards (4)

Performance awards are lump-sum payments based on the SLS

member's performance for the current appraisal period. (a)

An SLS member may receive a performance award in addition to or in

lieu of a performance-based pay increase. (b)

NRC Form 533 provides space for award recommendations by the

supervising official, the reviewing official, the Senior Level Review

Panel, and a final decision by the awarding official. (c)

NRC Form 365, "Nomination and Authorization for Cash Award,"

will accompany the NRC Form 533 if a cash award is proposed. See

Exhibit 4. (d)

The approving official for performance cash awards for SLS members

is the awarding authority described in the table entitled "Approval and

Awarding Authorities for the NRC Senior Level Performance

Appraisal System" (see Exhibit 3). (e)

The amount of the award may be up to 15 percent of base salary.

However, for dollar amounts exceeding $2,000, detailed justification

must be provided. Any agency cash award exceeding $10,000 requires

the approval of the Office of Personnel Management. (f)

No employee is automatically entitled to a cash award. (g)

The full amount of a performance award may be granted only once in

the 52-week period July 1 through June 30. (h)

The Senior Level Review Panel is responsible for recommending

awards that take into account equity across agency organizations and

ensuring that comparable recognition is made for achievements of

similar complexity and impact. (i)

Performance awards must be documented in the Official Personnel

Folder (OPF) to reflect the nature of the award, including the amount

of the award. (j)

28 Approved: October 4, 1993
Volume 10, Part 6 - Senior Executive Service, Senior Level

Positions, and Judges

Senior Level Performance Appraisal System

Handbook 10.148 Part m

Effects of the Rating (K) (continued)

Other Awards (5)

SLS members are also eligible for other performance-related awards

such as a special act or service or a time-off award for superior 3

performance. (a)

Although special act awards do require review and recommendation

by the Senior Level Review Panel before a final decision by the

awarding authority, they do not have to be submitted for review during

the annual performance review. Time-off awards do not have to be

reviewed by the Senior Level Review Panel. (b)

Total compensation, including pay awards, is subject to the I

aggregate pay limitations set at Executive Level I in effect for the f

calendar year. (c)

Assistance to Improve Performance (6)

Any SLS member with a rating of less than "fully successful" will be

provided assistance to improve performance. This assistance may

include, but is not limited to, formal training, counseling, and closer

supervision. (a)

More specific information dealing with performance below the fully

successful level is described in Part IV, "Grievances and Less Than

Fully Successful Performance." (b)

Approved: October 4, 1993

(Revised: June 14, 1995) 29
Volume 10, Part 6 - Senior Executive Service, Senior Level

Positions, and Judges

Senior Level Performance Appraisal System

Handbook 10.148 Part IV

Part IV

Grievances and Less Than Fully Successful

Performance

Grievances (A)

Supervising officials have the authority to assign duties and

responsibilities to SLS members and to set standards for their

performance. Therefore, performance plans are not subject to formal

appeal or to the agency grievance procedure under Management

Directive (MD) 10.101, "Employee Grievances." However, an SLS

member who disagrees with the supervising official's summary rating

or rating of record may grieve it to the extent provided in

MD 10.101. (1)

When a rating is changed as a result of a grievance, the revised rating

must be placed in the Employee Performance File (EPF) in lieu of the

contested rating and becomes the rating of record. (2)

Minimally Satisfactory

Performance (B)

Supervising officials are required to take the following actions

whenever an SLS member's performance is rated as "minimally

satisfactory." Supervising officials should consult with the Chief,

Policy and Labor Relations, OP, for guidance.

SLS Member Counseling (1)

Supervising officials should counsel SLS members whose performance

is rated as "minimally satisfactory." The counseling should address in

specific terms the ways in which the SLS member's performance is less

than fully satisfactory. (a)

30 Approved: October 4, 1993
Volume 10, Part 6 - Senior Executive Service, Senior Level

Positions, and Judges Senior Level Performance Appraisal System .Handbook 10.148 Part IV

Minimally Satisfactory Performance (B) (continued)

SLS Member Counseling (1) (continued)

Supervising officials should counsel SLS members during the midyear

progress review to make them aware of progress measured against performance standards. Counseling may consist of a comment, a short

conversation, or several discussions focusing on work products and

professional stature in relation to assigned projects. (b)

SLS members should be encouraged to discuss 'any reasons for

performance problems. Generally, the responsibility for raising any medical condition lies with the SLS member. However, if the

supervising official recognizes the possible existence of alcoholism,

drug abuse, or emotional or personal problems, the supervising official should discuss the situation with Policy and Labor Relations,

the appropriate agency counselor, and, if necessary, refer the SLS

member for counseling. (c)

If an SIS member claims his or her poor performance is due to the

-excessive use of medication or alcohol, the supervising official should

refer the employee for counseling. At that time, the supervising official

should give the SLS member a choice between successful

rehabilitation or future performance-based action if the SLS member

refuses rehabilitation or if problems persist following treatment or

rehabilitation. See MD 10.122, "Employee Health Services

Program." (d)

ainm g (2)

* Supervising 'officials should discuss with SLS members any training or

professional development that might upgrade the SLS member's

performance to fully successful performance. This development may include greater participation in peer group professional associations

or increasing state-of-the-art skills and knowledge.

Unsatisfactory Performance (c)

In addition to the actions described above, supervising officials are

required to provide SLS members an opportunity period in which to

demonstrate acceptable performance whenever an SLS member's

Approved: October 4, 1993 - 31
Volume 10, Part6 -: Senior Executive Service, Senior Level

Positions, andiJlzdges

Senior Level Performance Appraisal System

Handbook 10.148 Part IV

Unsatisfactory Performance (C) (continued)

performance is deemed unsatisfactory in one or more critical

elements.

Performance Improvement Requirement Memorandum (PIRM) (1)

At any time that the SLS member's performance is deemed

unsatisfactory, the supervising official must take action. The law

provides that employees, including SIS members, be given an

opportunity to demonstrate acceptable performance. The supervising official will coordinate with Policy and Labor Relations, OP, and will

provide the SLS member a performance improvement period of at

least 60 calendar days in which to bring his or her performance up to at

least the minimally satisfactory level. (a)

The supervising official will prepare a PIRM that-(b)

* Identifies the critical element in which the SLS member's

performance was unsatisfactory. (i)

* Details the way in which the SLS member's performance is not

meeting the standards of the current performance plan. (ii)

* Communicates new performance standards at the minimally satisfactory level for critical elements in which performance has

been found to be unacceptable. These standards must be reviewed, approved, and documented on the SLS member's performance plan (NRC Form 533) as an addendum to that plan in accordance

with Part II of this handbook. See Exhibit 2. (iii)

* Describes the ways in which the supervising official will assist the

SLS member to improve performance. (iv)

* Informs the SLS member of the amount of time he or she will be

allowed to bring performance up to at least the minimally satisfactory level. (v)

* States that failure to improve performance to the minimally successful level will result in the initiation of action to reassign, reduce the pay band level, or remove the SLS member from the

SLS. (vi)

32 3Approved: October 4, 1993
Volume 10, Part 6 - Senior Executive Service, Senior Level

Positions, and Judges

Senior Level Performance Appraisal System

Handbook 10.148 Part IV

Unsatisfactory Performance (C) (continued)

Performance Improvement Requirement Memorandum (PIRM) (1)

(continued)

* States that if the SLS member fails to sustain acceptable performance for 1 year from the beginning of the opportunityto-improve period, the pay band for the SLS member can be

reduced or the SLS member can be removed from the SLS without

being given another chance to improve. (vii)

Use of NRC Form 533 (2)

The supervising official is required to complete an NRC Form 533 and

issue a rating of record only when the opportunity period established

by the PIRM concludes at the end of the appraisal period, when the

rating of record is normally due, or other provisions of this handbook

so dictate. See Exhibit 2.

Determination at the Conclusion of the

<* Performance Improvement Period (D)

When the expiration of a performance improvement period does not

coincide with the end of the appraisal period, the supervising official

will determine whether the SLS member's performance has improved

or remains unsatisfactory. (1)

If the SLS member's performance is "fully successful," the supervising official will issue a memorandum to so inform the SLS member. (2)

If the employee's performance is "minimally satisfactory," the

supervising official, with the advice of Policy and Labor Relations, OP,

will issue a memorandum to so inform the SLS member. (3)

If the SLS member's performance remains "unsatisfactory," the

supervising official, with the advice of Policy and Labor Relations, OP,

will initiate action to remove the SLS member from his 'or her position by reassignment, reduce his or her pay band level, or remove the SLS

member from the SLS. (4)

If sufficient information is unavailable at the end of the PIRM period

to adequately and fairly rate the SLS member's performance, the

PIRM period may be extended. (5)

Approved: October 4, 1993 33
Volume 10, Part 6 - Senior Executive Service, Senior Level

Positions, and Judges

Senior Level Performance Appraisal System

Handbook 10.148 Part V

Part V

Reduction in Force (RIF) and PerformanceBased Reassignments, Reductions in Pay Band, and Removals

Reduction in Force (RIF) (A)

No new ratings of record will be prepared for employees who have

received a specific RIF notice until after the effective date of the

RIF. (1)

Bumping and retreat rights are not applicable to NRC RIF procedures. (2)

Because of its unique expert status, each SLS position is considered to be in a separate competitive level. Therefore, performance ratings do

not influence retention during a RIF. (3)

SLS members subject to a RIF may be considered for, but have no

absolute right to, current vacant SLS positions for which they may qualify. (4)

SLS members may be considered noncompetitively for a position for

which they qualify in the Senior Executive Service (SES) only if they have reinstatement eligibility to the SES. (5)

SLS members subject to a RIF are entitled to placement in a

nonsupervisory GG-15 position in the NRC. This placement cannot

displace a nonsupervisory GG-15 employee from the position. If

placed in a nonsupervisory GG-15 position, the former SLS member

would be entitled to retained pay in accordance with applicable NRC regulations. (6)

34 Approved: October 4, 1993
Volume 10, Part 6 - Senior Executive Service, Senior Level

Positions, and Judges

Senior Level Performance Appraisal System

Handbook 10.148 Part V

Reduction in Force (RIF) (A) (continued)

With the above noted provisions, an SLS REF should be conducted

using the procedures and practices described in Management Directive (MD) 10.103, "Non-SES Reduction in Force." (7)

Reassignment (B)

NRC management retains the right to reassign SLS members on the

basis of agency needs. (1)

Reassignment to another SLS position in the same pay band would not

normally be the appropriate action in a case in which the SLS

member's performance continues to be "minimally successful' or

"unsatisfactory," except under limited circumstances. Reassignment to

a comparable position for which the SLS member would still meet the

expert and professional stature requirements may provide the SLS

member with a change in work environment or in the specific type of

work projects being performed sufficient to improve his or her level of

performance. (2)

The Office of Personnel may be consulted about the SLS member's

eligibility for other positions and the availability of SLS vacancies in

the NRC. (3)

The supervising official for the new position must inform the SLS

member in writing of the critical elements and performance standards

of the new position within 30 calendar days of the reassignment. (4)

Reduction in Pay Band and

Removal From the SLS (C)

General (1)

Reduction in SLS pay band or removal from the SIS may be the

appropriate action in a case in which the SLS member's performance in one or more critical elements continues to be unacceptable by the

end of the performance improvement period. (a)

Approved: October 4, 1993 35
Volume 10, Part 6 - Senior Executive Service, Senior Level

Positions, and Judges

Senior Level Performance Appraisal System

Handbook 10.148 Part V

Reduction in Pay Band and

Removal From the SLS (C) (continued)

General (1) (continued)

Reductions in pay band and removal from the SLS based on

unacceptable performance in one or more critical elements will be

accomplished in accordance with Office of Personnel Management (OPM) regulations contained in 5 CFR Part 432 and as supplemented by these instructions. For reduction in pay band or removal from the

SLS based on unsatisfactory performance when it is found together with misconduct, see also MD 10.99, "Discipline, Adverse Actions, and Separations." (b)

These instructions do not apply to-(c)

* An SLS member's trial period; see MD 10.14, "Mial Period." (i)

* A reduction-in-force action; see MD 10.103, "Non-SES Reduction

in Force." (ii)

* Termination of a temporary promotion; see MD 10.1. (iii)

* SLS members on' limited appointments as Commissioner

Assistants who serve at the pleasure of the Commissioner for

whom they work. (iv)

If an SIS member's performance on the critical element remains at the

unsatisfactory level during the performance improvement period, the

supervising official must decide whether to initiate action to reduce

the SLS member's pay band or to remove the SLS member from the

SLS. (d)

Reduction in pay band may be appropriate if the SLS member is

currently in either Band SL-2 or SL-3 and the member's demonstrated

performance in his or her current position would appear to meet an

acceptable level for performance and professional stature at the lower

pay band. In addition, the supervising official must be satisfied that the

SLS member's level of performance at the lower band level will still

permit the organization to function effectively. (e)

Advance Written Notice of Reduction in Pay Band or Removal From

the SLS After the Performance Improvement Period (2)

Under 5 U.S.C. Chapter 43 and OPM regulations, advance written

notice must be given the SLS member regarding any action to reduce

36 Approved: October 4, 1993
Volume 10, Part 6 - Senior Executive Service, Senior Level

Positions, and Judges

Senior Level Performance Appraisal System

Handbook 10.148 Part V

Reduction in Pay Band and

Removal From the SLS (C) (continued)

Advance Written Notice of Reduction in Pay Band or Removal From

the SLS After the Performance Improvement Period (2) (continued)

the pay band or to remove him or her for unsatisfactory performance. (a)

The advance written notice will be prepared and signed by the

proposing official. (b)

An 'Advance Written Notice of Reduction in Pay Band or Removal

From the SLS" may not be issued until it has been reviewed' and

concurred in by the Director, OP, and the Office of the General

Counsel. (c)

The notice must-(d)

* Provide 30 calendar days advance written notice of the proposed action. (i)

* Identify specific instances of the unsatisfactory performance on

which the proposed action is based that occurred during the 1-year period immediately preceding the date of the advance written

notice. (ii)

* Identify the relevant critical element of the SLS member's position in each instance of unsatisfactory performance. (iii)

* Inform the SLS member of his or her right to be represented by an

attorney or other representative and of the SLS member's

obligation to notify the deciding official of the name of the

representative, if any, within a reasonable period before any verbal

reply. (iv)

* Inform the SLS member of the amount of time allowed for him or

her to answer either verbally and/or in writing, and further inform

the SLS member that-(v)

- The SLS member must be provided with a reasonable amount

of official time in which to prepare a verbal and/or written reply

to the advance written notice. (a)

Approved: October 4, 1993 37
Volume 10, Part 6 - Senior Executive Service, Senior Level

Positions, and Judges

Senior Level Performance Appraisal System

Handbook 10.148 Part V

Reduction in Pay Band and

Removal From the SLS (C) (continued)

Advance Written Notice of Reduction in Pay Band or Removal From

the SLS After the Performance Improvement Period (2) (continued)

- The SLS member will provide his or her verbal and/or written

reply to the deciding official within 14 calendar days from the

receipt of the advance written notice; and that extensions of

time may be granted if reasonable grounds exist. (b)

- If a verbal reply is to be made, a date, time, and place will be

agreed upon. (c)

- A verbal reply will be heard by the deciding official. If the reply is a written reply, it will be sent to the deciding official. (d)

* Specify that the SLS member should address his or her response to

the deciding official designated in the advance written notice. (vi)

* For proposals to remove the member from the SLS, specify that the

member is entitled to placement in a GG- 15 position with retained

pay. The placement of an SLS member under this provision must

not cause the separation or reduction in grade of any other

employee. (vii)

Agency Disallowance of a Representative of the SLS Member (3)

The Director, OP, or his or her designee, after consultation with the

proposing official of any advance written notice, may disallow as an

SLS member's representative any individual whose activities as a

representative would cause a conflict of interest or. position. The

decision of the Director, OP, in this regard is final.

Extension of the Advance Written Notice of Reduction in Pay Band or

Removal From the SLS (4)

The deciding official for the advance written notice may extend the

notice for a period not to exceed 30 calendar days and may further

extend the notice period with prior approval from the Office of

Personnel Management (OPM). (a)

38 3Approved: October 4, 1993
Volume 10, Part 6- Senior Executive Service, Senior Level

Positions, and Judges Senior Level Performance Appraisal System

Handbook 10.148 Part V

Reduction in Pay Band and

Removal From the SLS (C) (continued)

Extension of the Advance Written Notice of Reduction in Pay Band or

Removal From the SLS (4) (continued)

This extension must be in writing and must be reviewed by the

Director, OP or his or her designee. (b)

Deciding Official (5)

Unless the action was proposed by the head of the agency such as the

Chairman or the EDO, as appropriate, the decision must be concurred

in by an official at a higher level than the proposing official.

Consideration of the Reply (6)

The record of the action must show that the SLS member's verbal

and/or written reply to the notice was considered by the deciding official before the deciding official made a decision on the proposal. NRC management may require a verbatim transcript of any verbal

reply.

Decision (7)

The deciding official must provide the employee with a written

decision to retain the pay band, reduce the pay band, or remove the

SLS member from the SLS within 30 calendar days after the expiration of the notice period. The decision to reduce the SLS member's pay band or to remove the SIS member from the SLS may be based only

on those instances of unsatisfactory performance cited in the advance

written notice. (a)

This written decision, if adverse to the SLS member, must-(b)

* Specify those instances of unsatisfactory performance by the SLS

member cited in the advance written notice on which the reduction

in pay band or the removal from the SLS is based. (i)

* State the effective date of the reduction in pay band or removal

from the SLS. (ii)

0 In the case of removal, state the GG-15 position in which the

member will be placed or advise the member that he or she will be

Approved: October 4, 1993 39
Volume 10, Part 6 - Senior Executive Service, Senior Level

Positions, and Judges

Senior Level Performance Appraisal System

Handbook 10.148 Part V

Reduction in Pay Band and

Removal From the SLS (C) (continued)

Decision (7) (continued)

notified of the specific position, in writing, no later than

10 calendar days before the effective date of his or her removal

from the SLS. (iii)

* State the individual's appeal rights. (iv)

Purging Records (8)

If the employee's pay band is not reduced or the employee is not

removed from the SLS because his or her performance improved to at

least the minimally satisfactory level during the advance written notice

period, and the SLS member's performance continues to be at least

minimally satisfactory for 1 year from the date of the advance written

notice, any entry or other notation of the unsatisfactory performance for which the action was proposed must be removed from all NRC

records. The Director, OP, will ensure these records are removed from

the EPF.

Appeals (9)

SLS members with a veteran's preference who have completed 1 year of current continuous employment in the same or a similar position

may either appeal to the Merit System Protection Board (MSPB) or

use the NRC appeals process described in MD 10.100, "Appeals From

Adverse Actions." (a)

However, if the MSPB accepts an SLS member's appeal on an action,

an issue, or a charge, then an appeal concerning the same action, issue,

or charge will not be accepted by NRC; or if previously accepted, processing will not be continued by NRC. (b)

SLS members who are not eligible for a veteran's preference but who

have completed 2 years of current continuous service in the same or

similar positions in an executive branch agency under other than a

temporary appointment limited to 2 years or less, and who are not

excluded by Public Law 101-376, "Civil Service Due Process

Amendments Act," may either appeal to the MSPB or use the NRC

appeals process described in MD 10.99. (c)

40 Approved: October 4, 1993
Volume 10, Part 6 - Senior Executive Service, Senior Level

Positions, and Judges

Senior Level Performance Appraisal System

Handbook 10.148 Part VI

Part VI

Records

Employee Performance File (EPF) (A)

The records of the NRC Senior Level Performance Appraisal System

are maintained in the EPF.

Contents (B)

The EPF will contain documents such as the original appraisal on the

NRC Form 533, the original of any Performance Improvement Requirement Memorandum (PIRM) issued, and other official

performance-related documents.

Maintenance (c)

The Director, OP, will maintain and purge, as appropriate, an EPF for

each SLS member given an appraisal under the Senior Level

Performance Appraisal System. The files will be maintained in

accordance with the provisions of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended,

and NRC Privacy Act System of Records Notice NRC-22, "Personnel

Performance Appraisals-NRC." The files will be maintained

separately from the Official Personnel Folder (OPF) and will not

contain amy duplicate OPF material.

Retention (D)

Each document in the EPF will be retained by NRC for 4 years from its

effective date, except when earlier removal is required by this

handbook or by administrative or judicial proceedings. Normally, each document will be destroyed at the end of 4 years.

Approved: October 4, 1993 41
Volume 10, Part 6 - Senior Executive Service, Senior Level

Positions, and Judges

Senior Level Performance Appraisal System

Handbook 10.148 Part V

Disposition of Records (E)

When the OPF of an SLS member is sent to another agency or to the

National Personnel Records Center, the Office of Personnel will

include in the OPF all performance ratings of record for the previous 4 years, including the performance plan on which the most recent

rating of record was based and any summary rating that resulted from a

position change.

Access (

Access to EPF records is governed by the provisions of the Privacy Act

of 1974 and NRC regulations specified in 10 CFR Part 9, Subpart B, "Privacy Act Regulations."

42 4Approved: October 4, 1993
Volume 10, Part 6 - Senior Executive Service, Senior Level

Positions, and Judges

Senior Level Performance Appraisal System

Handbook 10.148 Exhibits

Exhibit 1

Authority From the Office of Personnel Management for

the NRC Senior Level -Performance Appraisal System

United States

Office of

Personnel Management Wwsb nD.C. 20415

A3II | | 3 3Sppy or te: Tout Rebus:

Mr. Paul E. Bird

Director of Personnel

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Washington, D.C. 20555-0001

Dear Mr. Bird:

This letter responds to your February 16, 1993, request for

approval of a change in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC)

plan that allows the establishment of a performance planning and

appraisal system for Senior Level employees that would parallel

the system used for Senior Executive Service (SES) employees.

The modifications to the rating levels of Senior Level employees

required a rule V variation. This variation was approved by

Director King and published in the FPM Bulletin 430-33 on August 9, 1993 (see enclosure). This change permits the NRC to use the three summary rating levels mandated by law for the SES,

unsatisfactory, minimally satisfactory, and fully successful, for

rating Senior Level employees.

Please send us for approval any future changes which would impact

legal or regulatory requirements. Also, we would appreciate

receiving copies of other changes to your plan so that we may

keep our files current.

Sincerely, . -

Margaret M. igginstief

Performance Management

Operations Branch

Office of Labor Relations and

Workforce Performance

EnclosureApproved: October 4, 1993 43
Volume 10, Part 6 - Senior Executive Service, Senior Level

Positions, and Judges

Senior Level Performance Appraisal System

Handbook 10.148 Exhibits

Exhibit 1 (continued)

Office of Personnel Munagement FPM tulletin 430-33

Federal Personnel Manual System FPM Bulletin

Buletn No. 430-33 Washlngon. DC 20415

SUBJECT: Variation to Allow Different August 9, 1993

Summary Rating Levels

Heads of Departments and Independme Establishment,:

1. Section 5.1 of civil service rule V requires the office of

:Personnel Xanagement to infors agencies about variations which it

grants under t)bat rule. This bulletin describes a variation that

will allow thu Nuclear Regulatory commission (NRc) to adopt a performance management system for its senior level employees that

uses the same summary rating levels mandated by law for the

Senior Executive Servise (DES).

2. This variation applies to approximately 40 NRC excepted service employees in its Senior Level Service, positions formerly

at GO-16, 17, and 18. The NRC oonsidera its senior level

employees to be the technical career path equivalent of its sES

members. Therefore, the agency wants to hold these employees to

the same level of accountability and use the same type of

appraisal system to evaluate them. The NRC appraisal systems would use the three summary rating levels mandated by law for the

SES, unsatisfactory, minimally satisfactory, and fully successful, for both groups. Senior level employee are covered

by the Performance Management System, whilch under OPM regulations allow the use of at least three summary rating levels, but not

the same three the DES uses.

3. Variation is appropriate when It will avoid unnecessary hardships and practical difficulties, it is vithin the spirit of

the regulation, and It protects and promotes the efficiency of

the Government and the integrity of the competitive service.

Those requirements are met in this case. The variation will

allow the NRC to avoid the practical ditticulties associated with

using different appraisal systems for two grouys of employees

that the agency considers to be nearly equivalent. The spirit of

Inquiries: Perforanca Xanagemant and Incentive Awards Division, Office

of Labor RulatJon and Worckforce Pezfozmance, Persoann*

Systems and Oversight aroup, (202) 606-2720

Code: 430, lmrformance Management

Distkbutton: Basic DPM

Bullatn Explres: July 20,1994 oPM Fornm S4-A(WPI S1S2

yrj fi aRn Ppw

44 4Approved: October 4, 1993
.Volume 10, Part 6 - Senior Executive Service, Senior Level

Positions, and Judges

Senior Level Performance Appraisal System

Handbook 10.148 Exhibits

Exhibit 1 (continued)

FPM Mulletin No. 430- 33 (2)

regulation 430.204(h) is supported In that the agency Is

exercising the flexibility to use at least three aumary rating levels. Competitive principles are not at issue here since this affects an excepted service agency. The efficiency of the Government is protected ahd promoted by permitting the NRC to design and implezent a performance appraisal systet that meet - its individual culture and needs.

4. Section 6.1 of civil service-rule V requires that like

variations be granted In like circumstances. Therefore, If an

agency believes It has a case which parallels the one described

in this bulletin, a variation may be requested. Agencies are

remLnded, however, that variation is appropriate only when no

other authority exist -to remedy the hardship or practical difficulty. all request. for variation must be sent through the

headquarters of the agency or department involved and must be transmitted to the Office of Personnel Management for final

action. Agencies do not have authority to approve variations.

.- 1 Z I/

Approved: October 4, 1993 4.5
Volume 10, Part 6 - Senior Executive Service, Senior Level

Positions, and Judges

Senior Level Performance Appraisal System

Handbook 10.148 Exhibits

Exhibit 2

NRC Form 533, "Senior Level System (SLS) Performance

Plan and Appraisal"

NRC FORM 3SU U. S. NUXCLAR REGtLATORY COMMISSION

O1- PA:TNO PERM ,aCaUD1.14a

SENIOR LEVEL SYSTEM (SLS) FR TO

PERFORMANCE PLAN AND APPRAISAL

KS keMBER - TYPD NAMA (A8T, FIRST. HODLE WTIAO ORGANMAON MA

TITLE SLS LVJ

PART I - PERFORMANCE PILNNING

Esiablish/communicate perfonmance plan elements and standards to the SLS member at the beginning of the appraisal period. Provide Part I Information. Establish and review Part IIl elementsfsubelements and standards - no more than

three elements should be established. All elements are considered critical performance elements

1. APPROVALS FOR PERFOMANCE PLAN-ELEMETS AOSTANDARDS

(Tio be oomtrshbO~ F b.im oVU rag.E

5UP IJoG OFFCAL - TYPMED HAAW. Tmu. AM OROANMATION SMATURZ DAT

2. REVIEWIAPPROVALOF PERFORMANCE PLAN (OFFICE DIRECTORIREGIONALADMINISTRATOR OR DESIGNEE)

jJota pplcatb for Con nsvAssW&nft)

RZVMWW OFFICIAL (INMURY Sfvand4mW SWO*180I 3IOAIM DATE TYPED NME. muLE. A ORGAMATION I

3 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF PERFORMANCE PLAN BY SENIOR LEVEL SYSTEM MEMBER

SLS MEN1ER - TYPD NAM AND MTLE SIGNATURE DATE rA0VXVW95 PrEEPT OF DE PL4N

4 PDYEAR PROGRESS REVIEW

(TO E COMP.ETEDAFTER TM REVZW

SIONATURE - SWPERWOR T

SGMoTURE - EMLOYZEE DATE

NR FORM 533 4124= RINIh 0j RK>D PA -AG 1

46 Approved: October 4, 1993
Volume 10, Part 6 - Senior Executive Service, Senior Level

Positions, and Judges

Senior Level Performance Appraisal System

Handbook 10.148 Exhibits

Exhibit 2 (continued)

PART 11- PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL SUMMARY

WSTRUCTIONS

super"M~n OtTicil -ReVIew elements and standards dsscribwd In Part 31. Provide Swu mary element raftns In fth appropriate beas m inll-i. smmrellve

evabetlonaof perfomnnnoskm11-Z.ard thesunwyewrat rating in 3. lTsnforw Ba mnary rtn m 1114 b3tAbelw aid Ioatethoppropuatsbase

pay and award recommendalSions

A fl riaran pIMaticson Is requird for reomrmendationsb aDuad be pay and for any uwmmy usn meoninendW below It *Fuly Successiur lvel .

If peartmanoafthenges In oessional stature hae alrnlicardy chaned IIh* naue of ft U52 member' position beyond Ohe current S2 Pay baend lvel, note tI n A below under Ihe PcaltonPay Band Clhaned secion and atch a copy of lh proposed now position description.

PERFORMANCE RAINO DeCINITIONS

FVILLYSUCCES5FLX UPSI

Job pertama nrang fom conslata ftiysmedsmaepotedasdesabad In . peformnce tndards atte flly SuccessUl vel. Forth

summany rain the 52. member performed at an aerll Fully lhosafid leval eanTselements w red t a Fully SuccesfL Exceptional performanc_ wUin this rig IS docmane Vvh eubenenit rtn evelusted at tIe Excsda bal.

M/lIMMALLYBATISFACTORY ffM

Job perfomma accaslona was less Ga sW in he perfomence Standards. Fort Summawy raV, tn SLS member Performed at a nimaly Satisfactory 1vsf has been rated aR*naly salsafctoy inh t best oan lment with no eweelent of a br usrnO.

UNSATISFACTOR

Job perance was bowaexpeoatd i Ihe peoafwmsoe s ds. Fort. mm y n. the SLS memb perfmod r a an ataoy kvel rad urndastaoy hI ene or morn elements.

NOTEh IF REVIEWING OFFICIAL AND APPROVING AUTHORITY ARE THE SAME. DO NOT COMPLETE SECTION S.

SECTION B IS NOT APPLICABLE FOR COLVUSSIONER ASSISTANTS.

RI A PAY |CAS AY|D POU AY M ._ _______ _ GEDTO MOERUeOM

PS dNO _VzW NONRAS V= NO Vas PA WOF19CL4L

Ju OOUNT rrAMOUN

_Uvewt SAM PAY OKMASE AWARD I.OT$WAY SAND aNi AM

[u NGOFFPAL. REVE 

3. M aU ES

_u - Poir wD ~ . --.

C. SENIOR LEVEL REVIEW PANEL REVIEW AND RECOM MENDATIONS 1JWotspJebb te Conwssnerisisrsean)

(1) THE SENIOR LEVEL REVIEW PANEL HAS REVIEWED THE DOCUMENTATION SUBMITTED. AND

C_ AGREES

_ I WITH THE EVALUATION OF THE SUMMARY RATINO. IIDISA3REE9

9.55) EDYMTON1ERU1[VQ1

Fs N rmso N No PANE. 03AR

Ii U Us wa vita w

MUTAMUNTM PC XffAac"

.

-4

Approved: October 4, 1993 47
Volume 10, Part 6 - Senior Executive Service, Senior Level

Positions, and Judges

Senior Level Performance Appraisal System

Handbook 10.148 Exhibits

Exhibit 2 (continued)

PART n - PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL SUMMARY (Continued)

D. APPROVING AUTHORITY FINAL RATING AND POSITION ACTION DECISION

SUMMAW ~~POUTIOtVAY BAND3"UR1DT -~ _______________ COANOW TO0 IGHER L&ILV.DI

Fs APPR0Ve AUTMOffRY

u PC AITAaHE

Anyd n m i U~~ or U VMb mor back to Mie Superwaing 0=4sl~ for appropriats actioni under t1r lDAisoni of Part IV ;WCarOut ol enagmer D~k "1hn0. fA1

E. AWARDING AUThORITY FINAL DECISION

8AMsPAYNSCREAlS AWiARD bKAJ AlII

AO IS CEs WAO UHW

F. SENIOR LEVEL SYSTEM MEMB!R

In rating hne been discussd wilh me by my supwviasr (the Rak Offtil). My uignature does not hIply tal I a" with the appraleal, radh or award decisdons. Any comments I wish to malc awe lated below. When completed. rem the oWgkilt to yow railng Ofilcal A copy of the paWtd appraia w~th al soudures wE be provided to yoLI

COMMENTS-SLSMEMBER IOptbna (AcOohnipa sg m may be ftcheda-qun

5VWlV- I DATE

t

0. GENERAL COMMENTS (W1'sppkacle For use by VW Rs" C A RNvsMM Offic Seno Level Revie Pa. Apprwvng Alwdty. andftr AwardagAUtiosty. desrsd~ C~ddyocaipegeemaybe aftachedaaruqzfud)4

NIc FORM se 1124M l - PAGS I

48 Approved: October 4, 1993
Volume 10, Part 6 - Senior Executive Service, Senior Level

Positions, and Judges Senior Level Performance Appraisal System

Handbook 10.148 Exhibits

Exhibit 2 (continued)

PART III - ELEMENTS AND STANDARDS

1. CRQ CAL ELEMENT EVALUATIoN

ISTRUCTIONS: The Superv Ocial housa n SLS mntern m ebe mertu delements end eubetemenis descibed agkst the tad

pweemue standards. Foe each erfa dement In *I-t. doemine te hel of achbeverent (Mxeds, Meets. Does Ndt Meet) for each tibelement

ProvIde a swanmwy ing brthe lemntom bcydn y he eppropriate box. Tmsfrd the 1I-1 .nmuy ratings for each erkica? 6lemntr to Un dwwnlry uo b h I Man asessn nd prwaan elaion u brth eummaryealuation sf erta elents h 1112). Baed en tn evkton sl'haertice! elemenh,. make your fnl sWnsiyatng borthe SLI mebrs perloac during th eatng period by 6ehecdng th eppropdett box in I4 We ompleted, essgn aswmmry WMg In Prt 1114 end braaer #h raft lo Prt N-A.

CRITICAL ELEMENT I -ACHIEVEMENT OF PROJECT ASSIONMENM

Achievs prefect cd. wok) assignmerts, as Wad below. In *ccardane wih Commesloner O0jectves, tfie NRC Fka-Year PIn. or to Omce Operaft Pln uppcable oi SLS memes poelton. Xlf tn more len teeazbrmentz)

SUBELEMENTA - (ATeNG eR.t nc e pecSc rpeno ere SLS meberssocd ath 1hMg eme SFRUDELEUENTA

|EXCEEDS

. _ IHEETS

DOES NOT MEET

FULLY BUCCESSFUYL PERFORMANCE STANDARDo

SUBEL.EMENT S - U*ofly descrie Me spedWeo wponobos offhe SLS memr eted Mis eent.) RTNG tU8 FOR 3ELEMENT

T DOES NOT MEET

FULY tucCES FL PER FoR MANeCE tADR

SeuBELEMENT C - Uoscfte 5defty Cme jc IesponspEes sei#e SLS member oedated lh M Wmernot RTING FOR SUBELEMENT C

. - _EXCEEDS

,..MEET&

. DOES NOT MEET

FULLY SUOCESSFUL PERFORMANCE FUT UADFA

RATWNGFOR CRileCAL ELEMEN'll | |FUULY UCCUgSFUL I | |MINIMALLY ZATSFACTCRY I 11JUSATISFAeTORY

-"- wI., rpNWTEU ON .ECYUEL= PAPER MAE 4

Approved: October 4, 1993 49
Volume 10, Part 6 - Senior Executive Service, Senior Level

Positions, and Judges

Senior Level Performance Appraisal System

Handbook 10.148 Exhibits

Exhibit 2 (continued)

PART III - ELEMENTS AND STANDARDS (Continued)

1. CRITICAL ELEMENT EVALUATION (Confinued

CRITICAL ELEMENT - PROVIDES ADVICE AND GUIDANCE

PwMae ad4c mids undmca, xcL*dIng mnltoi w coghl eces, - bld bdow, cwnwinuea wlth ft OeINalPd sbha ewpeded of an 31.3 met In ti poito 4m a mts 0 D subem

SUBELCMENT d ah e spon old D1.LS eted - _ "lN b A-TIG memb FOR SUBELEMENT A

. _ EXCEEDS

NMETS

DOES NOT MEET

FULLY SUCCESSFUL PERFORMANCE STANtARJ2

1U *bt e Wbr was W> b"O TN

EXCEEDS

_MEETS

DOES NOT MEET

FULLY SUCCESSFUL PERFORMANCE STANDARD_

SUEIELEMWNTC-(Bdsi jdowx X saofcxvmstspoi"d~ SLSmw ss" 0 dQ |fwFnt RATNGFOR SUBELEMENT C

_EXCEEDS

_ME£TS

_DOES NOT MEET

FULLY SUCCESSFU PRORMANC E &TANDAR

RAT- FOR CRITICAL ELEMEN I FULLY SUCCESSFUL I MINIMALLY SATISFACTORY UNSATISFACTORY

rl PAPER PAfE A

50 5Approved: October 4, 1993
Volume 10, Part 6 - Senior Executive Service, Senior Level

Positions, and Judges

Senior Level Performance Appraisal System

Handbook 10.148 Exhibits

Exhibit 2 (continued)

PART III-ELEMENTS AND STANDARDS (Continued)

1. CRITICAL ELEMENT EVALUATION (Cortimied)

CRITICAL ELEMENT -t(TO 1EADDED 8Y SLERVISWNG OFFUICAL3 MANDATORY

U no nwm ftn flth wbilmefls.)

SUBELEMENT A-#b 4O*lcy d c * # spos sot SLS srrW oc tw Ils U4mnt. RAINGFOR SUBELEMENTA

. . . _EXCEEDS

_MEETS

.DOES NOT MEET

FULLY SUCCESSFUL PERFORMANCE STANDARD

SLBELEMENT B- s por is elMh SLS nad cm R Rt1.il ATINC FOR SUSELEMENT C

EXCEEDS

MEETS

DOES NOT MEET

FULLYSUCCESSFUL PERFORMANCE STANDARD

A

SUBBwlINT -§>a Osc~b th clfc~ dlb 8L crssorbOlh ntJRATINGtOR SUBDELEMENT C

. | EXCEEDS

|MEET6

|DOES NOT MEET

FULLY SUCCFSSFUL PERFORMANCE STANDARD

RATINO FOR CR3TICAL ELEMENT: FULLY SUCCESSFUL | |uMMALLY tATISFACTORY ||UNSA17SFACTORY

mkcr~ is) N-  0

Approved: October 4, 1993 51
Volume 10, Part 6 - Senior Executive Service, Senior Level

Positions, and Judges

Senior Level Performance Appraisal System

Handbook 10.148 Exhibits

Exhibit 2 (continued)

PART II - ELEMENTS AND STANDARDS 1&onnflniainl

2() SUMMARY EVALUATION __im" Justffefo. bh 20 below

ELEMENT FULLY SUCCESSFUL MINIMALLY SATISFACTORY UNSATISFACTORY

PROJECT ASSIGNMENTS

CONTACTS AND COMMITMENTS

(TO BE ADDED BY SUPERVISING OFFICIAL)

2(b) NARRATIVE JUSTIFICATIONS v nd ¢ *rhwevenfdw each od e VW"i wrcb elomen nJ (Ad:Jandpaga may be afached as ,squftd =

I

_ APICAL MA I PUR IMI^ItW=M=NX;

3. SUMMARY RATING FOR CRITICAL ELEMENTS

Refertl rarig deftiam a the begWift of Pert I before aegnW"b Om memry ndrq'

| FULY SUCCESSFUL |I| IMIILY SATISFACTORY I |UNSATISFACTORy i4N FORNM m 34M VM067M Y - .W rg 7

52 Approved: October 4, 1993
( I C IC

08

S.

To04

426

TO0

Zs

Recommending Reviewing Approving Awarding SLS Category Official Official Panel Review Authority Authority _ ~~. . _*

Afu t r- I !

Assistants

SLS in OPA,

OCA

SLS in Otherd

CommissionLevel Offices

SLS in OIG

SIS in EDO

Staff Offices

'. luneuriluIuuw

Immediate

Supervisor

Immediate

Supervisor

Immediate

Supervisor

Immediate

Supervisor

Director, OP

Office

Director

Office

Director

IG

Office

Director

ANOpi

Applicable

Applicable

Applicable;

A licable1G Panel

Applicable

Commissioner

Chairman

Office

Director

IG

EDO

' :

Commissioner >.

,Chairman* >

i~ M

Chairman* so 0

IG* r co

EDO* ;-

-Z

Award Limitations

Chairman approves

- All performance-based pay increases for SLS members in Commission-level offices and his immediate staff - Performance awards up to $10,000 for immediate staff and SLS members in Commission-level offices - Performance awards above $7,500 but not to exceed $10,000 for SLS employees in EDO staff offices

Commissioners approve all performance-based increases and awards up to $10,000, but not to exceed 10 percent of base

pay, for their immediate staff

IG approves all performance-based increases and awards up to $10,000 for SLS members in OIG

EDO approves

- All performance-based pay increases for SLS members in EDO staff offices - All awards not to exceed $7,500 for SLS members in EDO staff offices

OPM approves

- All awards exceeding $10,000

Performance awards cannot exceed 15 percent of base salamy

Performance-based pay increases are normally in the 3 to 5 percent range except for Commissioner Assistants who are

eligible for 6 percent increases. Pay increases cannot exceed the top of the pay band.

Abbreviations:

EDO - Executive Director for Operations

OCA - Office of Congressional Affairs

OIG - Office of the Inspector General

OP - Office of Personnel

OPA - Office of Public Affairs

SLS - Senior Level System

=_

-UQ

>-

2 I

0

M

~9w

32 a

rU,r

'D C

n

,.'

z

0

m* I

B. -- ffi o M

i o

O W

WB a

V P D

M t 9 cm
Volume 10, Part 6 - Senior Executive Service, Senior Level

Positions, and Judges

Senior Level Performance Appraisal System Handbook 10.148 Exhibits

Exhibit 4

NRC Form 365, "Nomination and Authorization for Cash

Award"

NRC FORM 363 U.S.NUCLZAR REUATORY COMMSSON I DAI O sNOMNAnON It5D tcW I

cxttz NOMINATION AND AUTHORIZATION

FOR CASH AWARD a. 50dM. sacury em

_______________________ . CASH AWAMDNOMINEES

P. NAME OF eMPLOY= p IL PoaflCl r= CAWAJMA iAN

4. KINDF SiOG |L nM MA WVEINU PeciAg A } OR SERIC1 -- CONTRIBUTION e ? tA~ ICW4 IL7APPVSJ ___

S BEN EFITS FROM SUGGESTIONS OR SPECIAL ACT sconf=

A. INTANGIBLE (1) VALUE: I MODERATE SUBSTANTIAL HIGH EXCEPTIONAL APPUCATION _ L D E XEN0D BRAD GENERAL S, TANGIBLE FORMER METHOD IMPROVED METHOD SAVINGS (Show cast ID IMP O _ __ _ flW 

ww" as anan I:__2_ _ _ __ _ _ basis) A se S

L. RECOMMENDED AMOUNT oF CAS AWA__________ f ____d__ __________ _____ o i t TANGIBLE BENEFIT INTANGIBLE BENERTS TOTAL A. INDIYIDUAL T i B

B. GROUP S S 7. U.STIFICATIONa r A2 I E UIAS . . -wM.obh F b ~m.sie SMomawoMAinIP..Vmw..j cg 

K)1'

S. PERFORMANICE AWARD A - M-.- ~b mi~~~ - - - - - - ---

A. PRCN4W.S APPRAISAL PEOIRM4HM SUMMARY I W D eD AMIUPIr OF AWARD ea esel. eb .e mle 0mdbmeS w aem ilu of s O -. eis of Peftme..W4 PW%

OTTNIG 3RECOLVAENs POESCIfAGE OP SASS AMOLHVOP 0AMAWARD, 7he avatsaffy of &wards I

JEXCELLENT -% X SASE PAY_ -~tom~goaa $ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____II__ O A PERFORMAJCS 0MM AWAROI

SLRP RECOMMEDD Saw RECOMMENO PW&CmANC AP POWSFRMVANCAWARD CITIC. DirectorfReglaial Admirdstmtow 5.5 cash ward nanrhuma RAT0 OF 1M.__ nust be attachad FOPYSOCSSFU. 34I AOIU41QNT RIMOUUE14011 PotICW4AoS OP "MSI AMDU OF ASH AWARD The avaiabIyofawa I

YE No AN SICEASS IN SAMS PRAY sx. SAS PAY 2 ~ ebeft migontht

S. RECOMMENDATION AND cERTiFicJ 1 ON A. WSIATRIRU- SUSkmTTW0OOFICIAI LmsAgSwM*RswedsP*S e5hmb *erA*.ng jDT

L I were* to ,SwSwnded mesA eweS.m toe OmM wvse*~~ inC mw 0 beIPA fi"QATU6- APPROVMGOFFKAM. Dfbd* ldAdebT D Ese~e~ndw~e'e

SIONATURE - CESWnYMa OPACIAL 40MVS.ofPgoVMOATS

NRC FCRM 3ft *454

54 Approved: October 4, 1993
Volume 10, Part 6 - Senior Executive Service, Senior Level

Positions, and Judges Senior Level Performance Appraisal System

Handbook 10.148 Exhibits

Exhibit 4 (continued)

l

0 E I IWI- F4-lumul APIDULLTTCR TOWMInCHYOU ARE PROVIDING ADDITONAL INFCORMATION

I Mae 3MU~ ID- ON I PAPER

Approved: October 4, 1993 55