This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains notices to the public of the proposed

issuance of rules and regulations. The

purpose of these notices is to give interested

persons an opportunity to participate in the

rule making prior to the adoption of the final

rules.

Proposed Rules Federal Register

38442

Vol. 65, No. 120

Wednesday, June 21, 2000

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL

MANAGEMENT

5 CFR Part 430

RIN 3206–AI57

Managing Senior Executive

Performance

AGENCY: U.S. Office of Personnel

Management.

ACTION: Proposed rule with request for

comment.

SUMMARY: The Office of Personnel

Management (OPM) proposes to amend

its regulations governing performance

appraisal in the Senior Executive

Service (SES). The proposed regulations

will help agencies hold senior

executives accountable by: reinforcing

the link between performance

management and strategic planning;

requiring agencies to use balanced

measures in evaluating executive

performance; and increasing agency

flexibility to tailor performance

management systems to their unique

mission requirements and

organizational climate.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on

or before August 21, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Send or deliver written

comments to Joyce Edwards, Director,

Office of Executive Resources

Management, U.S. Office of Personnel

Management, 1900 E Street NW, Room

6484, Washington, DC 20415.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Anne Kirby, (202) 606–1610, or email to

SESmgmt@opm.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 7,000

members of the Senior Executive

Service (SES) are dedicated, hardworking public servants. Individually

and through the organizations they lead,

these senior executives strive to deliver

value to Americans.

This results-orientation was central to

the original vision for the SES. As

envisioned by the Civil Service Reform

Act (CSRA) of 1978, SES performance

management systems should:

• ‘‘Ensure accountability for honest,

economical, and efficient Government;’’

• ‘‘Assure that senior executives are

accountable and responsible for the

effectiveness and productivity of

employees under them;’’

• ‘‘Ensure that compensation,

retention, and tenure are contingent on

executive success which is measured on

the basis of individual and

organizational performance;’’

• ‘‘Recognize exceptional

accomplishment.’’

The Government Performance and

Results Act (GPRA) of 1993 and the

National Partnership for Reinventing

Government (NPR) validated the CSRA’s

original vision and challenged

Government to shift its focus from

internal processes and outputs to results

that are aligned with customer

expectations.

In the discussions triggered by OPM’s

1998 Draft Framework for Improving the

Senior Executive Service, executives

and other stakeholders indicated that

our current regulations discourage

results-oriented performance

management. In addition, stakeholders

told us that agency leaders must drive

the effort to strengthen their SES

performance management systems.

Respondents to the 1999 Survey of the

Senior Executive Service reinforced

these findings:

• Only 72% believe their

performance rating represents a fair and

accurate picture of their performance;

• Only 48% believe SES bonus

determinations are based on merit; and

• 57% do not think poor performing

executives are removed from their

positions.

Survey findings are available on

OPM’s website (www.opm.gov/SES).

The proposed SES performance

management regulations give agencies

flexibility to reinvigorate their SES

performance management systems—to

focus on results over process. They also

reinforce the agencies—responsibility to

communicate performance expectations

and to use the results of the

performance management process as a

basis for performance awards and other

personnel decisions.

The proposed regulations also require

SES performance management systems

to balance organizational results with

the needs and perspectives of customers

and employees. Introduction of the

balanced scorecard concept in 1992 by

Robert Kaplan and David Norton of the

Harvard Business School as well as

recent studies by the National

Partnership for Reinventing Government

and others have shown that both the

public and private sectors are

increasingly and successfully using

balanced measurement to help create

high-performing organizations. They

indicate that an approach to

performance planning, management,

and measurement that balances the

needs and perspectives of customers,

stakeholders, employees, or others with

the achievement of the organization’s

business or operational results is critical

to successful improvement efforts.

By institutionalizing the use of

balanced measures, the Government

acknowledges what its best executives

have always known: leading people and

building customer coalitions are the

foundation of organizational success. In

the 1999 SES survey, career executives

reported that ‘‘leading people’’ and

‘‘building coalitions’’ are the most

important contributors to executive

success now, and they will be even

more important in the future.

Overall Approach

Subpart C is totally revised to

organize the material more logically and

to use plain language, as directed by the

President in June 1998.

The purpose statement is revised to

stress:

• Expecting excellence in senior

executive performance;

• Holding executives accountable for

results;

• Communicating regularly about

goals and expectations;

• Appraising senior executive

performance using measures that

balance organizational results with

customer, employee, or other

perspectives; and

• Making performance the basis for

pay, awards, and other personnel

decisions.

This emphasis is fundamental to the

key changes in the subpart.

The proposals broaden the focus from

the annual summary rating aspects of

performance appraisal to managing

performance on an ongoing basis and

shift the emphasis from process to

results. The subpart is restructured to

establish separate sections on the key

components of performance

management: planning and

communicating, monitoring, appraising,

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 120 / Wednesday, June 21, 2000 / Proposed Rules 38443

and rating performance and using

performance results.

The proposals pare many of the

current regulatory requirements back to

the statutory requirements and remove

others to give agencies more flexibility

to design performance management

approaches that better fit their unique

and changing mission needs and

organizational climate. We have

eliminated requirements that are

unnecessarily constraining and

burdensome to agencies or are processbound. The changes balance the

agencies’ desire for maximum flexibility

with the need for a corporate approach

that safeguards merit principles and

contributes to a better, results-oriented

Government. This approach is also

consistent with OPM’s earlier initiative

to provide more flexibility in how

agencies implement performance

management for the general workforce

(August 23, 1995 Federal Register, 60

FR 43936).

Key Changes in Current Requirements

System requirements are modified to

prescribe a framework for agency

systems that identifies key system

components, without specifying how

these components will be implemented.

Within this framework, agencies can

design performance management

systems to meet their unique mission

requirements and organizational

climate.

Minimum appraisal period is

modified to permit agencies to establish

minimum appraisal periods that are

longer than 120 days. The minimum

appraisal period must be at least 90

days, as currently required, provided

there is enough information on which to

base a rating.

Performance standards are now called

performance requirements to reflect the

term used in statute. Performance

requirements will be established for

critical elements and any other

performance elements that will be used

to appraise performance and derive the

annual summary rating. The term

noncritical element is no longer

required.

Appraisal criteria are amended to

require balanced measurement.

Rating level requirements are

modified to remove the requirement to

establish three rating levels for each

critical element. The performance of

each critical element and any other

performance elements must be

appraised.

Summary rating level requirements

are modified to the minimum three

summary rating levels prescribed in

statute (i.e., fully successful, minimally

satisfactory, and unsatisfactory). The

current maximum of five levels (i.e., no

more than two levels above fully

successful) is removed.

Rating terms are revised to reflect the

statutory requirement for an annual

summary rating. There are now only

two rating terms: the initial rating

becomes initial summary rating and the

final rating becomes the annual

summary rating. References to other

types of ratings are removed.

Method for deriving summary ratings

is modified to remove the current

requirement to give critical elements

more weight than non-critical elements

in determining a summary rating.

Additional Guidance

OPM will issue additional guidance

in various formats to help agencies

implement the changes, including

model performance management

systems and examples of ways to use

the various flexibilities provided under

these regulations. This guidance will

address how agencies are to obtain OPM

approval of revised performance

management systems, in accordance

with 5 U.S.C. 4312. We will also share

information about how public and

private sector organizations are using

balanced measurement to evaluate

senior executive performance.

Table of Changes

The following table lists all of the

proposed changes to the current

regulations. The ‘‘current rule’’ column

lists the regulations in the current

subpart C that are affected by the

proposed regulations. The ‘‘proposed

rule’’ column shows the disposition of

the current rules. The third column

explains each change.

Current rule Proposed rule Explanation of change

430.301(a) ............................ 430.301(a) .......................... Plain language edits.

430.301(b) ............................ 430.301(b) .......................... Revises purpose to emphasize expecting excellence, holding senior executives accountable for results, communicating goals and expectations, factoring balanced

measurement into performance appraisal, and making performance the basis for

personnel decisions.

430.302(a) ............................ 430.302(a) .......................... Plain language edits.

430.302(b) ............................ 430.302(b) .......................... Plain language edits.

430.303 ................................ 430.303 .............................. Revises definitions as follows:

Annual summary rating replaces the term summary rating to reflect the statutory

terminology and means the overall rating level the appointing authority assigns at

the end of the appraisal period after considering PRB recommendations.

Appointing authority is revised to clarify that this individual must be authorized to

make SES appointments.

Appraisal is replaced with performance appraisal and edited for plain language.

Appraisal period reflects plain language edits.

Appraisal system is replaced with the term performance management system to

broaden the focus from the annual appraisal to managing performance on an ongoing basis.

Balanced measures is added because the regulations require agencies to use

balanced measurement to evaluate senior executive performance.

Critical element is broadened to cover the senior executive’s work, which may include more than the duties of the position, and focus on organizational results.

Final rating is replaced with the term used in statute, annual summary rating, and

edited for plain language.

Initial rating is replaced with initial summary rating and revised for clarity.

Non-critical elements is replaced with the broader term, other performance elements, which refers to components of an executive’s work that are not critical but

may be important enough to factor into the executive’s appraisal.

38444 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 120 / Wednesday, June 21, 2000 / Proposed Rules

Current rule Proposed rule Explanation of change

Performance is broadened from the focus on critical and non-critical elements of

the position to the accomplishment of work described in the senior executive’s performance plan.

Performance appraisal is added to replace appraisal and edited for plain language.

Performance Appraisal System is replaced with the term performance management system, which refers to a framework of policies and practices for planning,

monitoring, developing, evaluating, and rewarding individual and organizational performance and for using performance information as a basis for personnel decisions.

Performance management plan is deleted.

The concepts are covered under performance management systems.

Performance plan is replaced with the term senior executive performance plan

which is expanded to address work the senior executive is expected to accomplish

and the requirements against which performance will be evaluated.

Performance standard is replaced by the term performance requirement used in

statute and reflects plain language edits.

Progress review reflects plain language edits.

Rating of record is deleted.

Summary rating is replaced with annual summary rating.

Strategic planning initiatives is added because of new requirements for aligning

performance plans with strategic planning.

430.304 ................................ 430.304 .............................. Retitles section as SES Performance Management Systems; edits substantially and

restructures it to include the key components of agency systems. Moves other

requirements to other sections in the subpart.

430.304(a) ............................ 430.304(a) .......................... Plain language edits.

430.304(b) ............................ 430.305(b) .......................... Moves critical element requirements to Planning and Communicating Performance.

Replaces reference to non-critical elements with the broader other performance

elements.

430.307(a) .......................... Moves appraisal requirements to Appraising Performance; revises them to reflect

deletion of term non-critical elements.

430.308(d) .......................... Moves summary rating requirements to Rating Performance.

430.304(c) ............................ 430.304(b) .......................... Planning performance becomes a key component of performance management

systems.

430.305(a) .......................... Moves requirements for individual senior executive performance plans to Planning

and Communicating Performance.

430.304(d)(1) ....................... 430.304(b) .......................... Replaces performance standards with the statutory term performance requirements;

some provisions are included in performance management system requirements.

430.305 .............................. Moves establishing and communicating critical elements and requirements to Planning and Communicating Performance.

430.307(a) .......................... Moves annual appraisal requirements to Appraising Performance.

430.304(d)(2) ....................... 430.304(b)(1) ......................

430.305 ..............................

Includes accomplishing organizational objectives in requirements to address organizational performance and to link performance management with GPRA goals and

with strategic planning initiatives.

430.304(e) ............................ 430.305(b) .......................... Revises section to eliminate the requirement to establish three rating levels for

each critical element. Replaces performance standards with performance requirements and moves it to senior executive plan requirements under Planning and

Communicating Performance.

430.304(f) ............................. 430.304(c)(3) ...................... Edits derivation method requirements to remove references to noncritical elements

and moves it to system requirements. New section incorporates restriction on rating level distribution.

430.304(g) ............................ 430.304(c)(2) ...................... Modifies summary rating level requirements to reflect the statutory requirement for

a minimum of three levels. Removes the 5-level maximum and rating level numbers.

430.304(h) ............................ 430.306(c) .......................... Broadens requirement for performance assistance to require agencies to help senior executives improve their performance, not just those who are rated less than

fully successful, to reflect the emphasis on overall performance improvement.

430.304(i) ............................. 430.309(c) .......................... Edits requirements for action on less than successful performance ratings and

moves them to the new section, Using Performance Results. This section is

added to focus on basing personnel decisions on performance.

430.305 .............................. Adds two new sections on Planning and Communicating Performance and Monitoring Performance, which are key components of performance management

systems. Consolidates senior executive plan requirements under Planning and

Communicating Performance.

430.306 .............................. Consolidates progress review and performance improvement requirements under

monitoring performance.

430.305 ................................ 430.307 .............................. Retitles heading as Appraising Performance, a key component of personnel management systems.

430.305(a)(1) ....................... 430.304(c)(1) ...................... Moves appraisal period requirements to System Requirements.

430.307(b) .......................... Moves rating performance on details and temporary assignments to Appraising

Performance. Replaces summary rating requirement with requirement to appraise

performance and factor appraisal into initial summary rating.

430.305(a)(2) ....................... 430.304(c)(1)(ii) .................. Edits provisions for terminating the appraisal period and moves them to System

Requirements.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 120 / Wednesday, June 21, 2000 / Proposed Rules 38445

Current rule Proposed rule Explanation of change

430.305(a)(3) ....................... 430.304(c)(1)(iii) ................. Edits restriction on appraisals and ratings during Presidential election periods and

moves it to System Requirements.

430.305(b) ............................ 430.304(c)(1)(i) ................... Revises minimum appraisal period to eliminate the 120-day maximum and moves it

to System Requirements.

430.305(c) ............................ 430.307(a)(1) ...................... Revises requirement to require appraisal on critical elements only ‘‘ appraising

other elements is optional.

430.305(d)(1) and

430.305(d)(2).

430.307(b)(1),

430.307(b)(2), and

430.307(b)(3).

Substantially edits requirements for appraising performance on details and temporary assignments. Modifies the current requirement for a rating on critical elements to appraising performance and factoring that appraisal into the initial summary rating.

430.305(e) ............................ 430.306(b) .......................... Edits progress review requirements and moves them to Monitoring Performance.

430.306 ................................ 430.308 .............................. Retitles heading as Rating Performance, a key component of personnel management systems.

430.306(a)(1) ....................... 430.308(a) .......................... Plain language edits.

430.306(a)(2) ....................... 430.308(a) .......................... Plain language edits.

430.306(a)(3) ....................... 430.308(b) .......................... Plain language edits.

430.306(a)(4) ....................... 430.308(b), 430.308(c) ....... Plain language edits.

430.306(a)(5) ....................... 430.308(b) .......................... Removes specific section; provisions are inherent in higher level review requirements.

430.306(b) ............................ 430.308(b) .......................... Adds requirement that higher level reviewer may not change initial summary rating,

but can recommend a different rating to PRB and appointing authority. Plain language edits.

430.308(c) .......................... Adds new section in Rating Performance on PRB review for clarity.

430.306(c) ............................ 430.308(d) .......................... Changes term final rating to annual summary rating for consistency with statutory

language and edits for plain language.

430.306(d) ............................ 430.304(c)(3) ...................... Includes requirement in derivation methods under System Requirements and edits

for plain language.

430.306(e) ............................ 430.308(e) .......................... Includes under new section, extending the rating period; edits for plain language.

430.308(f) ........................... States statutory language regarding appealability of appraisals and ratings.

430.306(f) ............................. 430.307(b) .......................... Modifies requirement for summary rating on transfer to a written appraisal which

the gaining supervisor must factor into the annual summary rating. Plain language edits.

430.306(g) ............................ 430.308(a) ..........................

430.308(b)

Deletes section; incorporates requirements for executive notification in relevant sections.

430.311(c) .......................... Edits documentation maintenance and moves them to Training and Evaluation.

430.307 ................................ 430.310 .............................. Plain language edits.

430.307(a) ............................ 430.310(a)(1) ...................... Plain language edits.

430.307(b) ............................ 430.310(a)(4) ...................... Plain language edits.

430.307(c) ............................ 430.310(a)(2) ...................... Plain language edits.

430.307(d) ............................ 430.310(a)(3) ...................... Deletes reference to OPM authority to waive requirement for career majority on

PRBs. Authority is stated in statute.

430.307(e) ............................ 430.310(b)(1) ...................... Plain language edits.

430.307(f) ............................. 430.310(b)(3) ...................... Plain language edits.

430.307(g) ............................ 430.301(b)(2) ...................... Plain language edits.

430.308 ................................ 430.311(a) 430.311(b) ....... Plain language edits.

430.309(a) ............................ 430.312(b) .......................... Plain language edits.

430.309(b) ............................ 430.312(c) .......................... Plain language edits.

430.310 ................................ 430.312(a) .......................... Moves requirement to section on OPM review of agency systems and edits for

plain language.

E.O. 12866, Regulatory Review

This proposed rule has been reviewed

by the Office of Management and

Budget in accordance with Executive

Order 12866.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

I certify that these regulations will not

have a significant economic impact on

a substantial number of small entities

because the regulations pertain only to

Federal employees and agencies.

List of Subjects in 5 CFR Part 430

Government employees, Performance

management.

Office of Personnel Management.

Janice R. Lachance,

Director.

Accordingly, OPM proposes to amend

5 CFR Part 430 as follows:

PART 430—PERFORMANCE

MANAGEMENT

1. The authority citation for part 430

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 5 U.S.C. chapter 43.

2. Subpart C is revised to read as

follows:

Subpart C—Managing Senior

Executive Performance

Sec.

430.301 General.

430.302 Coverage.

430.303 Definitions.

430.304 SES performance management

systems.

430.305 Planning and communicating

performance.

430.306 Monitoring performance.

430.307 Appraising performance.

430.308 Rating performance.

430.309 Using performance results.

430.310 Performance Review Boards (PRBs)

430.311 Training and evaluation.

430.312 OPM review of agency systems.

Subpart C—Managing Senior

Executive Performance

§ 430.301 General.

(a) Statutory authority. Chapter 43 of

title 5, United States Code, provides for

performance management for the Senior

38446 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 120 / Wednesday, June 21, 2000 / Proposed Rules

Executive Service (SES), the

establishment of SES performance

appraisal systems, and appraisal of

senior executive performance. This

subpart prescribes regulations for

managing SES performance to

implement the statutory provisions at 5

U.S.C. 4311–4315.

(b) Purpose. The regulations in this

subpart require agencies to establish

performance management systems that

hold senior executives accountable for

their individual and organizational

performance in order to improve the

overall performance of Government

by—

(1) Expecting excellence in senior

executive performance;

(2) Linking performance management

with the results-oriented goals of the

Government Performance and Results

Act of 1993;

(3) Setting and communicating

individual and organizational goals and

expectations;

(4) Systematically appraising senior

executive performance using measures

that balance organizational results with

customer, employee, or other

perspectives; and

(5) Using performance results as a

basis for pay, awards, development,

retention, removal, and other personnel

decisions.

§ 430.302 Coverage.

(a) This subpart applies to all senior

executives covered by subchapter II of

chapter 31 of title 5, United States Code.

(b) This subpart applies to agencies

identified in section 3132(a)(1) of title 5,

United States Code.

§ 430.303 Definitions.

Terms used in this subpart are

defined as follows:

Appointing authority means the

department or agency head, or other

official with authority to make

appointments in the Senior Executive

Service.

Appraisal period means the

established period of time for which a

senior executive’s performance will be

appraised and rated.

Balanced measures means an

approach to performance measurement

that balances organizational results with

the perspectives of distinct groups,

including customers and employees.

Critical element means a key

component of an executive’s work that

contributes to organizational goals and

results and is so important that

unsatisfactory performance of the

element would make the executive’s

overall job performance unsatisfactory.

Other performance elements means

components of an executive’s work that

do not meet the definition of a critical

element, but may be important enough

to factor into the executive’s

performance appraisal.

Performance means the

accomplishment of the work described

in the senior executive’s performance

plan.

Performance appraisal means the

review and evaluation of a senior

executive’s performance against

performance elements and

requirements.

Performance management system

means the framework of policies and

practices that an agency establishes

under subchapter II of chapter 43 of title

5, United States Code, and this subpart,

for planning, monitoring, developing,

evaluating, and rewarding both

individual and organizational

performance and for using resulting

performance information in making

personnel decisions.

Performance requirement means a

statement of the performance expected

for a critical element.

Progress review means a review of the

senior executive’s progress in meeting

the performance requirements. A

progress review is not a performance

rating.

Ratings:

(1) Initial summary rating means an

overall rating level the supervisor

derives from appraising the senior

executive’s performance during the

appraisal period and forwards to the

Performance Review Board.

(2) Annual summary rating means the

overall rating level that an appointing

authority assigns at the end of the

appraisal period after considering a

Performance Review Board’s

recommendations. This is the official

rating.

Senior executive performance plan

means the written summary of work the

senior executive is expected to

accomplish during the appraisal period

and the requirements against which

performance will be evaluated. The plan

addresses all critical elements and any

other performance elements established

for the senior executive.

Strategic planning initiatives means

agency strategic plans, annual

performance plans, organizational

workplans, and other related initiatives.

§ 430.304 SES performance management

systems.

(a) To encourage excellence in senior

executive performance, each agency

must develop and administer one or

more performance management systems

for its senior executives.

(b) Performance management systems

must provide for:

(1) Planning and communicating

performance elements and requirements

that are linked with strategic planning

initiatives;

(2) Consulting with senior executives

on the development of performance

elements and requirements;

(3) Monitoring progress in

accomplishing elements and

requirements;

(4) At least annually, appraising each

senior executive’s performance against

requirements using measures that

balance organizational results with

customer and employee perspectives;

and

(5) Using performance information to

adjust pay, reward, reassign, develop,

and remove senior executives or make

other personnel decisions.

(c) Additional system requirements.

(1) Appraisal period. Each agency

must establish an official performance

appraisal period for which an annual

summary rating must be prepared.

(i) There must be a minimum

appraisal period of at least 90 days.

(ii) An agency may end the appraisal

period any time after the minimum

appraisal period is completed, if there is

an adequate basis on which to appraise

and rate the senior executive’s

performance.

(iii) An agency may not appraise and

rate a career appointee’s performance

within 120 days after the beginning of

a new President’s term of office.

(2) Summary performance levels.

Each performance management system

must have at least three summary

performance levels: one or more fully

successful levels, a minimally

satisfactory level, and an unsatisfactory

level.

(3) Method for deriving summary

ratings. Agencies must develop a

method for deriving summary ratings

from appraisals of performance against

performance requirements. The method

must ensure that only those employees

whose performance exceeds normal

expectations are rated at levels above

fully successful. An agency may not

prescribe a forced distribution of rating

levels for senior executives.

§ 430.305 Planning and communicating

performance.

(a) Each senior executive must have a

performance plan that describes the

individual and organizational

expectations for the appraisal period

and sets the requirements against which

performance will be evaluated.

Supervisors must develop performance

plans in consultation with senior

executives and communicate the plans

to them on or before the beginning of

the appraisal period.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 120 / Wednesday, June 21, 2000 / Proposed Rules 38447

(b) Performance plan requirements:

(1) Critical elements. At a minimum,

plans must describe the critical

elements of the senior executive’s work

and any other relevant performance

elements. Elements must reflect

individual and organizational

performance.

(2) Performance requirements. At a

minimum, plans must describe the level

of performance expected for fully

successful performance of the

executive’s work. These are the

standards against which the senior

executive’s performance will be

appraised.

(3) Link with strategic planning

initiatives. Critical elements and

performance requirements for each

senior executive must be consistent

with the goals and performance

expectations in the agency’s strategic

planning initiatives.

§ 430.306 Monitoring performance.

(a) Supervisors must monitor each

senior executive’s performance during

the appraisal period and provide

feedback to the senior executive on

progress in accomplishing the

performance elements and requirements

described in the performance plan.

Supervisors must provide advice and

assistance to senior executives on how

to improve their performance.

(b) Supervisors must hold a progress

review for each senior executive at least

once during the appraisal period. At a

minimum, senior executives must be

informed about how well they are

performing against performance

requirements.

§ 430.307 Appraising performance.

(a) Annual appraisals. Agencies must

appraise each senior executive’s

performance in writing and assign an

annual summary rating at the end of the

appraisal period.

(1) At a minimum, a senior executive

must be appraised on the performance

of the critical elements in the

performance plan.

(2) Appraisals of senior executive

performance must be based on both

individual and organizational

performance, taking into account such

factors as—

(i) Results achieved in accordance

with the goals of the Government

Performance and Results Act of 1993;

(ii) Customer satisfaction;

(iii) Employee perspectives;

(iv) The effectiveness, productivity,

and performance quality of the

employees for whom the senior

executive is responsible; and

(v) Meeting affirmative action, equal

employment opportunity, and diversity

goals and complying with the merit

system principles set forth under

section 2301 of title 5, United States

Code.

(b) Details and job changes. (1) When

a senior executive is detailed or

temporarily reassigned for 120 days or

longer, the gaining organization must set

performance goals and requirements for

the detail or temporary assignment. The

gaining organization must appraise the

senior executive’s performance

appraised in writing, and this appraisal

must be factored into the initial

summary rating.

(2) When a senior executive changes

jobs or transfers to another agency after

completing the minimum appraisal

period, the supervisor must appraise the

executive’s performance in writing

before the executive leaves.

(3) The annual summary rating and

any subsequent appraisals must be

transferred to the gaining agency. The

gaining supervisor must consider the

rating and appraisals when developing

the initial summary rating at the end of

the appraisal period.

§ 430.308 Rating performance.

(a) Initial summary rating. The

supervisor must develop an initial

summary rating of the senior executive’s

performance, in writing, and share that

rating with the senior executive. The

senior executive may respond in

writing.

(b) Higher level review. The senior

executive may ask a higher level official

to review the initial summary rating

before the rating is given to the

Performance Review Board (PRB). The

senior executive is entitled to one

higher level review, unless the agency

provides for more than one review level.

The higher level official cannot change

the supervisor’s initial summary rating,

but may recommend a different rating to

the PRB and the appointing authority.

Copies of the reviewer’s findings and

recommendations must be given to the

senior executive, the supervisor, and the

PRB.

(c) PRB review. The initial summary

rating, the senior executive’s response to

the initial rating, and the higher level

official’s comments must be given to the

PRB. The PRB must review the rating

and comments from the senior executive

and the higher level official, and make

recommendations to the appointing

authority, as provided in § 430.310.

(d) Annual summary rating. The

appointing authority must assign the

annual summary rating of the senior

executive’s performance, in writing,

after considering any PRB

recommendations. This rating is the

official rating.

(e) Extending the rating period. When

an agency cannot prepare an annual

summary rating at the end of the

appraisal period because the senior

executive has not completed the

minimum appraisal period or for other

reasons, the agency must extend the

executive’s appraisal period. The agency

will then prepare the annual summary

rating.

(f) Appeals. Senior executive

performance appraisals and ratings are

not appealable.

§ 430.309 Using performance results.

(a) Agencies will use the results of

performance appraisals and ratings as a

basis for adjusting pay, granting awards,

and making other personnel decisions.

Performance information will also be a

factor in assessing a senior executive’s

continuing development needs.

(b) A career executive whose annual

summary rating is at least fully

successful may be given a performance

award under part 534, subpart D, of this

chapter.

(c) An executive may be removed

from the SES for performance reasons,

subject to the provisions of part 359,

subpart E, of this chapter.

(1) An executive who receives an

unsatisfactory annual summary rating

must be reassigned or transferred within

the Senior Executive Service, or

removed from the Senior Executive

Service;

(2) An executive who receives two

unsatisfactory annual summary ratings

in any 5-year period must be removed

from the Senior Executive Service; and

(3) An executive who receives less

than a fully successful annual summary

rating twice in any 3-year period must

be removed from the Senior Executive

Service.

§ 430.310 Performance Review Boards

(PRBs).

Each agency must establish one or

more PRBs to make recommendations to

the appointing authority on the

performance of its senior executives.

(a) Membership. (1) Each PRB must

have three or more members who are

appointed by the agency head, or by

another official or group acting on

behalf of the agency head. Agency heads

are encouraged to include women,

minorities, and people with disabilities

on PRBs.

(2) PRB members must be appointed

in a way that assures consistency,

stability, and objectivity in SES

performance appraisal.

(3) When appraising a career

appointee’s performance or

recommending a career appointee for a

performance award, more than one-half

38448 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 120 / Wednesday, June 21, 2000 / Proposed Rules

of the PRB’s members must be SES

career appointees.

(4) The agency must publish notice of

PRB appointments in the Federal

Register before service begins.

(b) Functions. (1) Each PRB must

review and evaluate the initial summary

rating, the senior executive’s response,

and the higher level official’s comments

on the initial summary rating, and

conduct any further review needed to

make its recommendations.

(2) The PRB must make a written

recommendation to the appointing

authority about each senior executive’s

annual summary rating.

(3) PRB members may not take part in

any PRB deliberations involving their

own appraisals.

§ 430.311 Training and evaluation.

(a) To assure that agency performance

management systems are effectively

implemented, agencies must provide

appropriate information and training to

supervisors and senior executives on

performance management, including

planning and appraising performance.

(b) Agencies must periodically

evaluate the effectiveness of their

performance management system(s) and

implement improvements as needed.

(c) Agencies must maintain all

performance-related records for no less

than 5 years from the date the annual

summary rating is issued, as required in

§ 293.404(b)(1) of this chapter.

§ 430.312 OPM review of agency systems.

(a) Agencies must submit proposed

SES performance management systems

to OPM for approval.

(b) OPM will review agency systems

for compliance with the requirements of

law, OPM regulations, and OPM

performance management policy.

(c) If OPM finds that an agency system

does not meet the requirements and

intent of subchapter II of chapter 43 of

title 5, United States Code, or of this

subpart, it will direct the agency to take

corrective action, and the agency must

comply.

[FR Doc. 00–15641 Filed 6–20–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6325–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 99–CE–66–AD]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Cessna

Aircraft Company Model 402C

Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM).

SUMMARY: This document proposes to

supersede Airworthiness Directive (AD)

99–11–13, which currently requires

inspecting (one-time) the forward, aft,

and auxiliary wing spars for cracks on

certain Cessna Aircraft Company

(Cessna) Model 402C airplanes, and

repairing any cracks found. AD 99–11–

13 also required reporting the results of

the inspection to the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA) to provide data to

help FAA determine whether the

inspection should be repetitive. After reevaluating the fatigue analysis for the

wing spars on the affected airplanes,

FAA has determined that spar cap

cracking is not an isolated condition

and could continue to develop over the

life of the affected airplanes. Therefore,

the proposed AD would retain the

inspection required in AD 99–11–13,

and would make the inspection

repetitive. The actions specified by the

proposed AD are intended to continue

to detect and correct any cracks in the

forward, aft, and auxiliary wing spars,

which could result in reduced or loss of

control of the airplane.

DATES: The FAA must receive any

comments on this rule on or before

August 24, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in

triplicate to FAA, Central Region, Office

of the Regional Counsel, Attention:

Rules Docket No. 99–CE–66–AD, 901

Locust, Room 506, Kansas City,

Missouri 64106.

You may get the service information

referenced in the proposed AD from the

Cessna Aircraft Company, P.O. Box

7706, Wichita, Kansas 67277; telephone:

(316) 941–7550, facsimile: (316) 942–

9008. You may examine this

information at the Rules Docket at the

address above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

Eual Conditt, Aerospace Engineer, FAA,

Wichita Aircraft Certification Office,

1801 Airport Road, Room 100, MidContinent Airport, Wichita, Kansas

67209, telephone: (316) 946–4128;

facsimile: (316) 946–4407.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

The FAA invites comments on the

proposed rule.

You may submit whatever written

data, views, or arguments you choose.

You need to include the rule’s docket

number and submit your comments in

triplicate to the address specified under

the caption ADDRESSES. The FAA will

consider all comments received on or

before the closing date specified above,

before taking action on the proposed

rule. We may change the proposals

contained in this notice in light of the

comments received.

The FAA is re-examining the writing

style we currently use in regulatory

documents, in response to the

Presidential memorandum of June 1,

1998. That memorandum requires

federal agencies to communicate more

clearly with the public. We are

interested in your comments on whether

the style of this document is clearer, and

any other suggestions you might have to

improve the clarity of FAA

communications that affect you. You

can get more information about the

Presidential memorandum and the plain

language initiative at http://

www.plainlanguage.gov.

The FAA specifically invites

comments on the overall regulatory,

economic, environmental, and energy

aspects of the proposed rule that might

necessitate a need to modify the

proposed rule. You may examine all

comments we receive before and after

the closing date for comments in the

Rules Docket. We will file a report in

the Rules Docket that summarizes each

FAA contact with the public that

concerns the substantive parts of this

proposal.

If you want us to acknowledge the

receipt of your comments, you must

include a self-addressed, stamped

postcard. On the postcard, write

‘‘Comments to Docket No. 99–CE–66-

AD.’’ We will date stamp and mail the

postcard back to you.

Availability of NPRMs

You may obtain a copy of this NPRM

by submitting a written request to FAA,

Central Region, Office of the Regional

Counsel, Attention: Rules Docket No.

99–CE–66–AD, 901 Locust, Room 506,

Kansas City, Missouri 64106.

Discussion

Has FAA taken any action to this

point? The FAA issued AD 99–11–13,

Amendment 39–11184 (64 FR 29781,

June 3, 1999), in order to detect and