Source: https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2011/11/09/2011-29057/suitability
Timestamp: 2015-04-18 03:27:15
Document Index: 440012175

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 731', '§ 731', 'art 731', '§ 731', 'art 752', '§ 731', '§ 731', '§ 731', '§ 731', '§ 731', 'art 731', 'art 731', 'art 731', '§ 731', 'art 752', '§ 731', 'art 315', 'art 359', '§ 731', '§ 731', '§ 731', 'art 315', 'art 359', '§ 731', '§ 731', 'art 732', 'art 731', '§ 731', 'art 732', 'art 731', 'ART 731', 'art 731', 'arts 1', '§ 731', '§ 731', '§ 731', '§ 731', '§ 731', '§ 731']

Federal Register | Suitability
Dates: This rule is effective December 9, 2011.
-69608 (8 pages)
Document Number: 2011-29057
Shorter URL: https://federalregister.gov/a/2011-29057 Related Topics
Suitability 3 actions from November 5th, 2010 to December 2011
Many commenters voiced concerns about the frequency of public trust reinvestigations. One labor organization representative said OPM should withdraw the proposed rule and reissue it after providing the rationale for the reinvestigation, the number of Federal employees affected, the reinvestigation criteria, and a cost estimate for performing such investigations. Another labor organization commented that OPM should reconsider the need for periodic reinvestigations in the first place and, upon reexamination, recommend to the Administration that the Executive Order be rescinded. Other commenters stated that OPM should not issue a reinvestigation cycle requirement without first analyzing the actual need for, and effectiveness of, these investigations, their overall costs to the Government, and whether research exists that suggests 5 years is the most appropriate timeframe. A commenter recommended that reinvestigations be conducted every 10 or 15 years, and opined that it does not appear appropriate to require the same reinvestigation timeframes for public trust positions as for national security positions, considering the potential for harm to the United States. Another commenter recommended a frequency of 10 years, as OPM has not provided data to demonstrate that a more frequent reinvestigation cycle for public trust positions than for national security positions promotes the efficiency of the service. One commenter suggested the frequency be every 7 years as a cost-saving measure. Still another commenter recommended agencies be given additional flexibility so periodic background checks can be extended beyond a 5-year time limit or agencies be granted the flexibility to identify, based on their needs and knowledge of the positions, which ones require reinvestigations every 5 years, rather than imposing a blanket requirement for all positions. During the first comment period, one commenter stated that those positions that truly warrant periodic reinvestigations, such as supervisory and auditor positions, should be reinvestigated no more frequently than once every 5 years. However, during the second comment period, this same commenter stated those positions should be subject to periodic reinvestigations without mentioning a specific timeframe. A labor organization representative stated that, in making certain assumptions about the scope of the investigation, a frequency of every 10 years is sufficient. On the other hand, two commenters suggested that the time period for reinvestigations be lowered from 5 years to a frequency of every 2 or 3 years. Lastly, two commenters stated the policy change is appropriate considering the risk posed by public trust positions in their agency.
During the initial comment period, a commenter suggested that OPM consider allowing additional flexibility following the first 5-year reinvestigation. The commenter suggested widening the window for subsequent reinvestigations to every 5-10 years at the discretion of the agency, depending on the nature of the position and its public trust level. During the second comment period, the same commenter suggested agencies be given discretion to stretch the reinvestigation period to 10 years. We did not adopt these recommendations. E.O. 13488 requires reinvestigations of individuals in public trust positions with a frequency determined by the Director of OPM, not by individual agencies. OPM has decided to require all agencies to follow the same reinvestigation schedule to promote consistency across the Federal Government. Further, 5 CFR 731.104 and 731.202 require reciprocal acceptance of prior suitability investigations and adjudications. A consistent reinvestigation cycle will promote reciprocity by giving gaining agencies confidence that they are accepting prior investigations and adjudications that were recent enough to have identified any serious issues that would have affected eligibility for continued employment.
Because the Executive order requires a reinvestigation of “suitability for continuing employment” and defines “suitability” by reference to 5 CFR part 731, agencies should consider the substantive standards in § 731. 202, when evaluating the results of a public trust reinvestigation. However, a person's employment status will determine the applicable agency authority and procedures to be followed in any action taken based on the results of the reinvestigation. In most situations the subject of a reinvestigation will have been employed by his or her agency for more than 1 year following an appointment subject to investigation, and, in that context, only OPM could take a suitability action under 5 CFR part 731 and only under the limited circumstances described in § 731.105(d). Nonetheless, conduct that surfaces during a reinvestigation could form the basis for an adverse action under 5 CFR part 752. Whether to propose and take an adverse action on the basis of a public trust reinvestigation is a matter within the employing agency's discretion.
One commenter noted that the same resources used to meet new reinvestigation requirements are also used to make initial determinations for suitability and security for new hires. This commenter expressed concern about having sufficient resources to meet these requirements and suggested that the requirements will have an adverse impact on agencies' ability to meet the goals of OPM's Hiring Reform Initiative. As noted above, the re-investigation requirement was imposed by a 2009 Executive Order that requires reinvestigation of public trust positions. Therefore, we do not agree with this commenter's assessment of the impact on hiring reform. The hiring reform initiative is a comprehensive and integrated approach to Federal hiring that addresses workforce planning, recruitment, hiring process, security and suitability, and orientation. Moreover, this initiative assumes there are ongoing reform efforts to align investigative and adjudicative processes and also addresses various challenges throughout the hiring process, including limited resources. Agencies have known about the reinvestigation requirement for some time, now, and can be presumed to have anticipated its implementation.
A commenter suggested delaying implementation of the reinvestigation cycle until OPM implements the tiered investigative model described in section 2.1(a) of E.O. 13467, where each successively higher level of investigation shall build upon, but not duplicate, the ones below it. We did not adopt this recommendation. Although OPM is working on the investigative standards contemplated by E.O. 13467, we do not believe the possibility of future changes to investigative products should affect the need to timely implement E.O. 13488. OPM has added language to this regulation at § 731.106(d)(1) stating that implementing guidance will be issued.
A labor organization representative expressed concern that this regulation will take effect without any prior notice to current Federal employees that informs them they may be subject to reinvestigations. This labor union representative also recommended that current employees be grandfathered under the old rules and the new rules apply only to future employees. This recommendation is not adopted as it does not satisfy the requirements of E.O. 13488, to conduct reinvestigations for all public trust positions. However, we do recognize the commenter's concern and have made revisions to the regulation at § 731.106(d)(3), requiring agencies to notify all current employees impacted by this rule of these new reinvestigation requirements.
In the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking dated November 3, 2009, the proposed language in § 731.106(d)(2) states: “If, prior to the next required reinvestigation, a separate investigation (or reevaluation) is conducted to determine a person's eligibility (or continued eligibility) for access to classified information or as a result of a change in risk level as provided in § 731.106(e), and that investigation is conducted at an equal or higher level than is required for a public trust reinvestigation, a new reinvestigation is not required. * * *” A commenter stated that the meaning of “at an equal or higher level” in § 731.106(d)(2) is unclear. We have reworded this paragraph to clarify that a new investigation is not needed if the previous investigation “meets or exceeds” the criteria required for a public trust reinvestigation.
One commenter recommended that 5 CFR part 731 be revised to provide general authority to take suitability actions, not only for limited situations currently described in part 731. The commenter believed this change would allow the suitability decision to remain with agency officials responsible for security, enhance consistency, and aid reciprocity. Another commenter recommended that OPM revise the regulations to allow agencies to take suitability actions whenever a new suitability investigation is conducted rather than limiting agency suitability actions to 1 year from the date an individual enters on duty. We did not accept these recommendations as they are beyond the scope of the proposed rule. Further, agencies' authority to take suitability actions is delegated by OPM under 5 U.S.C. 1104(a)(2), and cannot exceed the authority that OPM itself possesses. By regulation, OPM's own jurisdiction to take a suitability action against employees who have completed the first year of appointments subject to investigation is limited to those cases where the employee has committed falsification, deception or fraud in an examination or appointment; is disqualified under a statutory or regulatory bar to appointment; or has refused to testify when required to do so by Civil Service Rule V. See 5 CFR 731.103(g), 731.105(d). OPM does not interpret its suitability jurisdiction more broadly. Further, OPM declines to delegate to agencies the authority to take suitability actions against employees in these circumstances, because they are at the core of OPM's responsibility to protect the integrity of the competitive examining system and to impose government-wide debarments when appropriate. Moreover these are circumstances where there may be a conflict between OPM's and the agencies' interests, as recognized by 5 CFR 731.303(b).
A commenter stated that the agency conducting the reinvestigation does not appear to have authority under the proposed rule to take any negative action based upon a negative “assessment”. Another commenter asked what standards will be used to assess an employee's fitness after a reinvestigation. As noted above, since the Executive order requires a reinvestigation of “suitability for continuing employment” and defines “suitability” by reference to 5 CFR part 731, agencies should consider the substantive standards in § 731. 202, when evaluating the results of a public trust reinvestigation. As currently provided at 5 CFR 731.106(f), a person's employment status will determine the applicable agency authority and procedures to be followed in any action taken based on the results of the reinvestigation. If the character or conduct of an employee undermines the efficiency of the service, the agency may take an adverse action under 5 CFR part 752, if warranted. In addition, to provide further clarification as to the types of actions that can be taken against categories of probationary employees, we have modified the language in § 731.106(f) to include a reference to 5 CFR part 315 for appointees or 5 CFR part 359 for SES probationers.
One commenter stated that it is using the National Agency Check with Inquiries (NACI) investigation in lieu of the Modified Background Investigation or Limited Background Investigation for moderate-risk public trust positions where the incumbent has no access to national security classified information. The NACI is not an appropriate level of investigation for Public Trust positions. OPM issued an October 2010 instruction to executive branch agencies regarding the appropriate investigations for moderate-risk public trust positions. The NACLC will be the reinvestigation required for moderate-risk public trust positions because it efficiently provides high-value information necessary to evaluate a person's continued suitability for a moderate-risk position. Future Federal investigative standards may redefine investigation and reinvestigation standards for public trust positions.
A commenter voiced a concern that OPM may propose that reinvestigations for moderate and high-risk positions be different from the continuous evaluation requirements (at the same tier level) approved in Federal Investigative Standards that were issued in December 2008, but never implemented. OPM declines to modify the rule to reference or align with standards that were not implemented. However, as previously noted, we recognize the need for alignment of reinvestigation requirements to the extent possible, and this alignment is reflected both in § 731.106(d)(2) of this final rule, and in proposed 5 CFR 732.203. Also as previously noted, new investigative standards are under development. The new investigative standards are targeted to be implemented in 2013.
Since use of the term “assessment” has not provided clarification as intended, in § 731.106(d)(1) we have changed the term back to “determination,” to reflect the decision-making process associated with ensuring suitability for continuing employment. In the context of this rule, the “determination” is a decision as to whether or not to take a suitability action, adverse action, or probationary action, or to refer a case to OPM for adjudication, as appropriate. An adverse action, if taken, must meet statutory procedural requirements. E.O. 13488 does not require an agency to take an adverse action when it otherwise would not be warranted.
To provide further clarification as to the types of actions that can be taken against categories of employees, we have modified the language in § 731.106(f) to include a reference to 5 CFR part 315 for probationers or 5 CFR part 359 for Senior Executive Service (SES) probationers. We have also changed § 731.106(e) to include appointees as well as employees, as changes in risk levels can occur with respect to both.
Some commenters observed that the proposed rule does not contain language addressing how breaks in service affect investigative requirements. As a result, they recommended that OPM amend the proposed rule to clarify that a break in service of less than 24 months would not require a new investigation. They argued that this would support the goals of reciprocity and alignment between suitability and national security investigations. OPM agrees and has revised § 731.104(a) to clarify that a new investigation is not required when there has been a break in service of less than 24 months.
One agency commenter and a labor organization representative expressed the opinion that implementation of these regulations may require collective bargaining for employees in bargaining units prior to implementation. The commenters made no specific recommendations, so no changes were made to the rule.
One commenter stated that OPM's separate proposal to amend part 732 will, if adopted, have the effect of broadening the categories of position duties that are categorized as “sensitive” and, as a result, OPM should not make references in part 731 to the representative position duties of “public trust” positions. The definition of representative “public trust” position duties in 5 CFR 731.106(b) is not within the text that OPM proposed to amend in the rule, so the comment is outside the scope of the rulemaking. Nonetheless, we note that the commenter appears to assume that national security positions do not also have a public trust risk designation. This assumption is incorrect under § 731.106(b)(2). We also note that the commenter's statement about the possible effect of OPM's proposal to amend part 732 is speculative. As we noted in the Supplementary Information accompanying the notice of proposed rulemaking, the proposed rule contains text intended to address the risk of over-designating national security positions as well as the risk of under-designating such positions.
E.O. 13132, Federalism Back to Top
This action pertains to agency management, personnel and organization and does not substantially affect the rights or obligations of non- agency parties and, accordingly, is not a “rule” as that term is used by the Congressional Review Act (Subtitle E of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA)). Therefore, the reporting requirement of 5 U.S.C. 801 does not apply.
List of Subjects in 5 CFR Part 731 Back to Top
PART 731—SUITABILITY Back to Top
1.The authority citation for part 731 is revised to read as follows: Authority:
5 U.S.C. 1302, 3301, 7301; E.O. 10577, 3 CFR, 1954-1958 Comp., p. 218, as amended; E.O. 13467, 3 CFR, 2009 Comp., p. 198; E.O. 13488, 3 CFR, 2010 Comp., p. 189; 5 CFR, parts 1, 2 and 5.
2.In § 731.104, remove “or” at the end of paragraph (a)(3), replace the period at the end of paragraph (a)(4) with “; or”, and add a new paragraph (a)(5) to read as follows: § 731.104 Appointments subject to investigation.
3.In § 731.106, revise paragraphs (d), (e), and (f) to read as follows: § 731.106 Designation of public trust positions and investigative requirements.
Subpart B—Suitability Determinations and Actions Back to Top
4.Revise § 731.206 to read as follows: § 731.206 Reporting requirements.