Source: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2015/06/05/2015-13438/designation-of-national-security-positions-in-the-competitive-service-and-related-matters
Timestamp: 2018-04-26 14:10:04
Document Index: 111661366

Matched Legal Cases: ['§\u2009732', 'art 1400', 'art 732', '§\u20091400', '§\u2009732', '§\u20091400', '§\u2009732', '§\u20091400', '§\u2009732', '§\u20091400', '§\u20091400', '§\u20091400', '§\u20091400', '§\u2009732', '§\u20091400', '§\u20091400', '§\u20091400', '§\u20091400', '§\u20091400', '§\u20091400', '§\u20091400', '§\u2009732', '§\u20091400', '§\u2009732', '§\u20091400', 'art 1400', 'art 1400', 'art 1400', '§\u20091400', '§\u2009732', 'art 732', '§\u20091400', '§\u2009732', '§\u20091400', '§\u20091400', '§\u20091400', 'art 731', 'art 1400', '§\u20091400', '§\u20091400', '§\u20091400', '§\u2009732', '§\u20091400', '§\u2009732', '§\u20091400', '§\u20091400', '§\u20091400', '§\u2009732', '§\u2009732', '§\u20091400', 'art 732', '§\u20091400', '§\u2009732', '§\u20091400', 'art 732', '§\u20091400', '§\u2009732', '§\u2009732', '§\u2009732', '§\u2009732', '§\u20091400', '§\u20091400', '§\u20091400', '§\u20091400', '§\u20091400', '§\u2009732', '§\u20091400', '§\u20091400', '§\u20091400', '§\u20091400', '§\u20091400', '§\u20091400', '§\u20091400', '§\u20091400', '§\u20091400', '§\u20091400', '§\u20091400', 'art 731', 'art 731', '§\u20091400', '§\u20091400', '§\u20091400', '§\u2009731', '§\u2009731', '§\u2009731', '§\u20091400', '§\u20091400', '§\u20091400', '§\u20091400', '§\u20091400', '§\u2009732', '§\u2009731', '§\u20091400', '§\u20091400', '§\u20091400', '§\u20091400', '§\u20091400', '§\u20091400', '§\u20091400', '§\u20091400', '§\u20091400', '§\u20091400', '§\u20091400', '§\u2009731', '§\u20091400', '§\u20091400', '§\u20091400']

Federal Register :: Designation of National Security Positions in the Competitive Service, and Related Matters
A Rule by the Personnel Management Office and the National Intelligence, Office of the National Director on 06/05/2015
32243-32265 (23 pages)
https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2015-13438 https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2015-13438
Office of Personnel Management; Office of the Director of National Intelligence.
Mr. Mike Gilmore by telephone on (202) 606-2429, by fax at (202) 606-4430, by TTY at (202) 418-3134, or by email at Michael.gilmore@opm.gov; Mr. Gary Novotny by telephone at (301) 227-8767, by fax at (301) 227-8259, or by email at Garymn@dni.gov.
In response to the December 14, 2010, proposed rule, OPM received a total of 17 comments. Of these comments, two were from individuals, eight from unions and labor federations, two from public interest organizations, and five from agencies and agency components. These comments along with the comments received for the May 28, 2013, proposed rule, described below, are addressed in this final rule. In a Memorandum dated January 25, 2013, and published in the Federal Register at 78 FR 7253 on January 31, 2013, the President Directed the Director of National Intelligence and the Director of the Office of Personnel Management to jointly propose “the amended regulations contained in the Office of Personnel Management's notice of proposed rulemaking in 75 FR 77783 (Dec. 14, 2010), with such modifications as are necessary to permit their joint publication, without prejudice to the authorities of the Director of National Intelligence and the Director of the Office of Personnel Management under any executive order, and to the extent permitted by law.” On May 28, 2013, OPM and ODNI jointly issued a proposed rule at 78 FR 31847. This proposed rule, with the exception of § 732.401, (1) withdrew the proposed rule issued by OPM on December 14, 2010 (75 FR 77783); and (2) reissued and renumbered the proposed rule in a new chapter IV, part 1400 of title 5, Code of Federal Regulations.
One agency commented that it is unclear why “Part 732 is not intended Start Printed Page 32245to provide an independent authority for agencies to take adverse actions when the retention of an employee is not consistent with the national security,” because it has been an independent authority for such action where the employee loses their eligibility for a sensitive national security position.”
Response: We have rejected this comment as unnecessary, since it is clear from §§ 1400.101(b) and 1400.204 that position designation is conducted on a position-by-position basis.
Response: The regulation does not “expand” the definition of a national security position to include individuals who do not have regular use of or access to classified information, since such positions were already covered by § 732.102(a)(1) of the preexisting regulations, and by section 3(b) of E.O. 10450. Further, we believe that while access to classified information is, in and of itself, a reason to designate a position as a national security position, Start Printed Page 32246positions may have the requisite national security impact independent of whether the incumbent of the position requires eligibility for access to classified information. For example, positions involving protection from terrorism have the potential to bring about a material adverse impact on the national security, especially where the position duties involve protection of borders and ports, critical infrastructure, or key resources. Positions that include responsibilities related to public safety, law enforcement, and the protection of Government information systems could also legitimately be designated as national security positions, where neglect of such responsibilities or malfeasance could bring about adverse effect on the national security. Consequently, we believe that the definition of “national security” positions must include positions where the duties include “protecting the nation, its citizens and residents from acts of terrorism, espionage, or foreign aggression and where the occupants neglect, action or inaction could bring about a material adverse effect on the national security.”
Response: As we stated in the supplementary information accompanying the December 14, 2010 proposed rule, the rule seeks to ensure consistency and uniformity to limit the potential for over or under designating positions by adding content to E.O. 10450's requirement that a national security position is one where the occupant could bring about a “material adverse effect” on the national security. Specifically, § 1400.201(a) requires that at a minimum, the occupant of a position must be able to cause at least “significant or serious damage” to the national security before his or her position may be designated as “noncritical-sensitive,” the very lowest national security position designation. OPM and ODNI recognize the need for standard guidelines agencies can use to assist them in making these determinations. OPM and ODNI will revise the OPM Position Designation Tool and issue detailed guidance on its position designation system.
Three unions and a labor federation recommended that proposed § 732.102 (now § 1400.102) be amended by adding a new subsection (c) at the end, stating that the “designation of a position as a national security position does not by itself mean that an occupant of the position is an “employee engaged in intelligence, counter-intelligence, investigative, or security work which directly affects national security” within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. 7112(b)(6).”
Union commenters also stated that it is well established that a position's designation as a “national security position” does not automatically disqualify that position from inclusion in a collective bargaining unit. The union further stated that, under 5 U.S.C. 7112(b)(6), exclusion from a bargaining unit is not warranted merely because an employee is eligible for or has access to classified information, and cited DoD Fort Belvoir and AFGE, 64 FLRA 217, 221 (2009). The unions then stated that therefore, the regulations should make clear that they will in no way change or affect the status of bargaining unit designations for federal employees, which remain in the jurisdiction of the FLRA. The unions also stated explicit clarification that the regulation is not an interpretation of 5 U.S.C. 7112(b)(6) and Start Printed Page 32247that occupying a “national security position” does not by itself mean that an employee is “engaged in . . . security work which directly affects national security” would be a valuable and important service to users of the regulation.
Another union stated that OPM should discard what the commenter called the “laundry list” of positions in § 732.102(a), as this approach is so broad as to be vague, and could therefore mislead agencies in their application of the standard set out by Executive Order 10450.
Response: OPM and ODNI disagree that the examples given are overly broad and vague. The list of position duties is an illustrative guide in identifying national security positions, and is intended to provide more clarity and consistency in agency decision-making. But to add clarifying context, we have added a new § 1400.201(a)(2)(ii), and redesignated the existing paragraphs, stating that critical-sensitive positions include positions not requiring eligibility for access to classified information where they have “the potential to cause exceptionally grave damage to the national security.” We intend this new section to complement § 1400.201(a)(1)(ii), which states that noncritical-sensitive positions include positions not requiring eligibility for access to classified information where they have “the potential to cause significant or serious damage to the national security.”
Response: As we stated in the supplementary information accompanying the December 14, 2010 proposed rule, the rule seeks to add content to E.O. 10450's requirement that a national security position is one where the occupant could bring about a “material adverse effect” on the national security. Specifically, § 1400.201(a) requires that at a minimum, the occupant of a position must be able to cause at least “significant or serious damage” to the national security before his or her position may be designated as “noncritical-sensitive,” the very lowest national security position designation. OPM and ODNI recognize the need for standard guidelines agencies can use to assist them in making these determinations and § 1400.201(b) authorizes OPM and ODNI to issue detailed guidance on its position designation system. Moreover, we believe agencies are mindful of the costs associated with national security investigations and that cost will act as a constraint on overdesignation. Agencies must also recognize that cost should not be a basis for underdesignation, which could increase risk to national security.
Third, in response to the December 14, 2010 proposed rule, the union, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Cole v. Young, 351 U.S. 536, stated that OPM has erred in extending the definition of national security positions beyond those that are “directly concerned with the protection of the Nation from internal subversion or foreign aggression.” The union noted that previously, the regulations specified that a “national security position” includes (1) positions that require the regular use of or access to classified information, and (2) positions that involve the protection of the nation from foreign aggression or espionage and related activities focused on the preservation of the military strength of the nation. The union asserted that the amended rule extends the definition to encompass civilian-oriented activities such as (1) protecting or controlling access to facilities or information systems; (2) exercising investigative or adjudicative duties related to suitability, fitness, identity credentialing; (3) exercising duties related to criminal justice, public safety or law enforcement; and (4) conducting related investigations or audits. To include, in the definition of national security positions, “those [positions] which contribute to the strength of the Nation Start Printed Page 32248only through their impact on the general welfare” would potentially encompass all activities of the government. Id. at 543-44.
Response: It was not OPM's or ODNI's purpose to broaden the meaning of the term “national security” as used in E.O. 10450 but rather, as stated in the notice of proposed rulemaking, to recognize that there are “positions that may have a material adverse impact on the national security, but that may not seem to fall squarely within the current definition in § 732.102(a) of this chapter,” necessitating clarification. 75 FR 77783. To emphasize the point that we are not changing the meaning of the term national security, we are adding a new definition to § 1400.102(a)(3) of the final rule that states that the term refers to those activities which are directly concerned with the foreign relations of the United States and protection of the nation from internal subversion, foreign aggression, or terrorism. In addition to addressing the commenter's concern, this definition makes express what was implicit in the prior rule: That the national security includes the foreign relations of the United States and protection against terrorism. This brings the rule's definition in line with Executive order 13526, under which the President has defined the “national security,” in the context of classification of national security information, as “the national defense and foreign relations of the United States” including “defense against transnational terrorism.” E.O. 13526, sections 1.1(a)(4), 6.1(cc).
Response: OPM and ODNI disagree that the three types of national security classifications are vague, and that the differences among them are indistinguishable due to the use of overly broad and undefined terms. To the contrary, the three sensitivity levels conform to established, long-standing national security policy. The rule changes further clarify the designation of national security positions. The examples were provided to assist agency personnel in placing positions at the various sensitivity levels once they have been designated as national security positions. The commenter's examples are inapposite in that under § 1400.102(a), before designating a position as Critical-Sensitive, an agency must first determine that the position is such that “the occupant . . . could bring about, by virtue of the nature of the position, a material adverse effect on the national security.”
Fifth, the union was most troubled by the example of a Critical-Sensitive position offered by OPM at 5 CFR 732.201(a)(2)(xvi) (now § 1400.201(a)(2)(xvi)): Positions in which the occupant has unlimited access to and control over unclassified information if the unauthorized disclosure of that information could cause exceptionally grave damage to the national security. The union stated it had previously assumed that any information that could cause “exceptionally grave damage to the national security” would be classified. If unclassified information could cause such damage, the standard is not very demanding, and it is likely that agencies would agree and interpret the standard in a relaxed fashion.
Response: The underlying premise of the comment—that public trust and national security position designations are exclusive of each other—is incorrect. 5 CFR 731.106 clearly states that the two designations are complementary, and § 1400.201(c) and (d) are an effort to streamline the joint designation process. Further, as we stated in the supplementary information accompanying the December 14, 2010 proposed rule, a national security position is one where the occupant could bring about a “material adverse effect” on the national security. Specifically, § 1400.201(a) requires that at a minimum, the occupant of a position must be able to cause at least “significant or serious damage” to the national security before his or her position may be designated as “noncritical-sensitive,” the very lowest national security position designation. As such, some positions may be redesignated from sensitive to nonsensitive as a result. The occupants will still be subject to an appropriate risk-based public trust investigation.
Eighth, the union further stated that it has observed that many agencies are woefully ill-equipped to make position Start Printed Page 32249designation determinations, making the 24-month time frame unrealistic. The commenter proposes replacing the 24-month period with a 36-month period.
Response: We agree, and have revised § 1400.102 definition and applicability to include the statutory definitions for the terms “key resources” and “critical infrastructure.” Namely, under Public Law 107-296 (the Homeland Security Act), dated November 25, 2002, “key resources” are defined as “publicly or privately controlled resources essential to the minimal operations of the economy and government.” 42 U.S.C. 5195c(e) (the Critical Infrastructures Protection Act of 2001, Section 1016 of the USA Patriot Act of 2001) defines “critical infrastructures” as “systems and assets, whether physical or virtual, so vital to the United States that the incapacity or destruction of such systems and assets would have a debilitating impact on security, national economic security, national public health or safety, or any combination of those matters.”
Response: While we disagree with the allegations, we note, as described above, that we have given content to E.O. 10450's term “material adverse effect” by defining the degree of harm to the national security that must be posed by the occupant of a non-critical sensitive position, a critical-sensitive position, or a special-sensitive position. These definitions will deter over-designation. OPM's and ODNI's position designation model issued under § 1400.201(b) will provide agencies with further guidance in making these determinations. The terms neglect, action, or inaction are self-explanatory; thus they do not have to be defined.
Unions commented that the proposed regulations would also add to the definition in § 732.102(a)—now § 1400.102(a)—certain federal employee positions that are not typically considered to be national security related. OPM's regulations provide examples of these positions. They further stated that these examples are overly broad and should be amended to reflect those positions that have an actual adverse impact on national security as intended by the regulations and Executive Order 10450. They therefore recommended that OPM clarify the regulations to ensure that the proposed changes do not have the unintended effect of improperly designating an employee's position as a “national security position” when the occupant does not in fact “have the potential to bring about a material adverse impact on the national security.”
Response: OPM and ODNI do not concur with amending the rule by requiring that only those public safety officer positions where the occupants' routine or daily activity could “bring about a material adverse effect on national security” be designated as national security positions. E.O. 10450 requires the designation of a position as “sensitive” whenever “the occupant . . . could bring about, by virtue of the nature of the position, a material adverse effect on the national security.” There are characteristics of a position other than the frequency or degree of access to classified information that could affect the occupant's ability to bring about a material adverse effect on the national security. However, as stated earlier, while positions that include responsibilities such as law enforcement, public safety, and government information systems could be classified as national security, in each instance the agency head must make a determination of whether the occupant's neglect, action or inaction could bring about a material adverse effect on national security. OPM and ODNI caution that not all positions with these responsibilities must be designated as national security positions. Rather, in each instance Start Printed Page 32250agencies must make an individualized determination. Sensitivity designations are based on the nature of the position, not on the mission of the agency or of its subcomponents.
One union recommended that concerning subsection (b) of § 732.102 (now § 1400.102(b)), rather than extend part 1400 to positions where the incumbent “can” be non-competitively converted to the competitive service, OPM should restrict the application of part 1400 to positions where the incumbent “will” be non-competitively converted to the competitive service upon successful completion of the incumbent's excepted service appointment. The commenter states that this is a more efficient use of resources and is more in line with the intent of part 1400.
Response: The commenter's statement is speculative and fails to recognize that agency heads will have no greater authority under the new rule than under the preexisting rule to designate positions in their agency as sensitive. Start Printed Page 32251Therefore, the concern for an increased risk of abuse is misplaced. Under both the new rule and the preexisting rule, managers are required to adhere to the merit system principles in 5 U.S.C. 2301 and to refrain from prohibited personnel practices described in 5 U.S.C. 2302(b). When OPM conducts merit system oversight under Civil Service Rule V, it is required to report the results of audits to agency heads with instructions for corrective action and, if warranted, refer evidence to the Office of Special Counsel. Additionally, if an employee appeals an adverse personnel action to the Merit Systems Protection Board, and the action was for a reason other than an unfavorable national security adjudication, the employee may raise, as an affirmative defense, that he or she was subjected to a prohibited personnel practice. Finally, the new rule itself provides greater clarity and structure to guide agencies in designating their positions than the current rule, providing less opportunity for the type of abuses feared by the commenter.
The unions further commented that the three types of national security classifications are vague, and that the differences among them are indistinguishable due to the use of “overly broad and undefined terms,” and voiced concern that a Federal agency could improperly designate any position as a national security position. They also commented that in proposing changes to the types of positions requiring “critical-sensitive” designations, as compared to noncritical-sensitive designations under §§ 1400.102(a) and 1400.201(a)(1) and (2), OPM's examples of positions that could constitute “critical sensitive” positions are overly broad and could have the unintended effect of resulting in the redesignation of many positions as “critical-sensitive.” As an example one of the unions cited the rule's reference to “positions in which the occupant has the ability to independently damage health and safety with devastating results.” The commenter opined that it is unclear what the meanings of “independently” or “devastating results” are in this context. They suggested that some agencies may think that a fire fighter or first responder “independently” failing to follow a protocol in responding to a fire or accident that results in injury or death to a victim would meet this definition of “devastating result.” They also felt that some agencies may believe that a fire fighter or first responder failing to follow protocol for providing emergency medical services that inadvertently results in patient illness or death could meet this same definition. The union further stated that under these interpretations, those fire fighters or first responders could inappropriately be deemed as holding national security positions due solely to the risks associated with negligence. Another union cited the rule's reference to “[p]ositions in which the occupant has the ability to independently compromise or exploit the nation's nuclear or chemical weapons designs or systems.” The commenter opined that the meaning of “independently compromise or exploit” is unclear in this context. The commenter suggested that some agencies may think that an engineer who performs maintenance on, or oversees the refueling of Navy ships or nuclear submarines could have his or her position improperly redesignated from “nonsensitive” to “critical-sensitive.”
Response: Again, OPM and ODNI disagree that the examples given are overly broad. The description of the Start Printed Page 32252three sensitivity levels conform to established, long-standing national security policy, and does not refer to specific job positions, but to position duties and responsibilities. Agencies are reminded that sensitivity designations are based on the nature of the position, not on the mission of the agency or its subcomponents. Further, OPM and ODNI do not believe it necessary to provide a more detailed definition of sensitivity level designations in the final rule. Agencies are to use the examples provided as a guide in placing positions at the appropriate sensitivity level once they have been properly designated as national security positions. However, OPM and ODNI plan to provide a revised position designation model to facilitate agency head designations.
One union stated OPM should add a new sub-section (4) following § 732.201(a)(3). This new sub-section (4) should again clarify what is already present in the intent of OPM's proposed changes and in Executive Order 10450; that is, that: “Access or the requirement of eligibility for access to personally identifiable information, financially sensitive information, or other sensitive unclassified information, is not a basis for designating a position as a sensitive national security position under this part absent a finding by the head of the designating agency that the occupant of the position could, by virtue of the nature of the position, bring about a material adverse effect on the national security.” If OPM chooses not to add the suggested sub-section (4) above, the union recommended that OPM should include this language in its prefatory discussion of part 732's scope, given that OPM already cautions that not all positions having security or law enforcement-related duties must be designated as national security positions.
Response: Although the NACI is not an appropriate level of investigation for National Security positions, the comment related to interns is herein addressed for other types of investigations that are appropriate for National Security purposes, such as the Access National Agency Check and Inquiries (ANACI). While there is not a specific exception for interns, based on the commenter's rationale, this type of position is covered by the exception at § 1400.202(b)(1). Each agency will have to request an exception.
One agency felt that no changes should be made to the current § 732.202(a) (renumbered as § 1400.202(a)) concerning waivers of investigative requirements. The commenter expressed concern that the rule will expand the number of “sensitive” positions and that accordingly, the regulation should continue to allow waivers of investigations for noncritical-sensitive positions to be granted without any conditions and limitations. Lastly, the commenter stated that the elimination of the automatic exception is unnecessary.
Response: The condition that a waiver can only be granted in an “emergency” and where retention is “clearly consistent with the interests of the national security” is a requirement of Executive Order that OPM has no authority to vary. Further, under existing guidelines for reciprocity, if the appointee has a current investigation Start Printed Page 32253that meets the investigative and adjudicative requirements for the new position, no new investigation or adjudication is necessary. However, a NACLC is not a satisfactory investigation for civilian employment as it does not meet the requirements of E.O. 10450. We recognize that security clearance reciprocity rules require agencies to accept existing clearances as individuals move between various positions performing work for, or on behalf of, the Government. Accordingly, we have adjusted the language in § 1400.202(a)(2)(iii).
The investigative standards promulgated by OPM and ODNI pursuant to E.O. 13467, when implemented, will ensure alignment using consistent standards, to the extent possible, of security and suitability investigations for employment in covered positions, and to prevent unnecessary duplication of effort when an appointment in a sensitive position requires investigations for multiple purposes (e.g., an investigation for suitability under E.O. 10577, and for eligibility for access to classified information under E.O. 12968).
One union noted that paragraph (b) of 5 CFR 732.203 (now § 1400.203) adds a 5-year reinvestigation requirement for national security positions that do not require eligibility for access to classified information. The union stated the plain language of the authorities relied on by OPM does not mandate periodic reinvestigations for national security positions that do not require eligibility for access to classified information. The union therefore recommended OPM eliminate the reinvestigation requirement for positions that do not require eligibility for access to classified information or, alternatively, decrease the frequency of periodic reinvestigations for positions that do not require eligibility for access to classified information.
Response: OPM and ODNI disagree with the commenter's recommendation to eliminate the reinvestigation requirement for positions that do not require eligibility for access to classified information or, alternatively, decrease the frequency of periodic reinvestigations for positions that do not require eligibility for access to classified information. In order to facilitate the goals of statute and Executive Order to Start Printed Page 32254align investigations of persons working for or on behalf of the Federal Government to achieve consistency, efficiency and reciprocity of background investigations, both public trust positions under part 731 and sensitive positions under part 1400 will undergo reinvestigations on a coordinated cycle to ensure that a single investigative process can be used to address both security and suitability concerns. Accordingly, we have decided to retain the 5 year frequency.
Response: Agencies have 24 months following the publication of this rule to determine whether changes and position sensitivity designations are necessary. We believe this is ample time to budget for cost of the position re-designation and the requisite investigation. However, in response to this comment we have amended § 1400.204 to allow agencies to request an extension of the timeframe for re-designation and initiation of reinvestigation, if justified.
Response: OPM and ODNI believe that the 24 month time frame is enough time to allow agencies ample opportunity to review the positions and determine whether or not they impact national security under the new definition and make the appropriate designation changes. However, in response to this comment we have amended § 1400.204 to allow agencies to request an extension of the timeframe for re-designation, if justified.
Response: OPM and ODNI will issue further detailed guidance in a revised position designation system which will provide the uniformity the commenters are seeking. OPM and ODNI will require agencies to assess all current positions using the definitions of sensitivity level designations provided in § 1400.201 within 24 months of the effective date of the final rule, unless an extension is granted. This is necessary to ensure that all positions are properly designated using the updated definition. Agency heads must make a determination of whether the occupant's neglect, action or inaction could bring about a material adverse effect on national security to ensure proper position designations are applied and correct investigations conducted.
OPM specifically requested comment on its savings provision at § 732.205 (renumbered as § 1400.205). An agency stated it did not have any issues with the addition of a savings provision to avoid any adverse impact to employee procedural rights.
A union suggested that the rule at § 732.205, now § 1400.205, be modified to reflect OPM's stated intent to avoid “any adverse impact” (presumably from redesignations under this rule) to the procedural rights of employees awaiting adjudication of prior investigations.
Response: We agree and have revised the rule to say that the rule may not be applied to “make an adverse inference” in pending administrative proceedings. We have also revised the rule to make clear that after the redesignation of a position a new adjudication may be appropriate.Start Printed Page 32255
Response: The comment does not appear to be directly related to the regulation. Nonetheless, we note that investigative interviews are not conducted in secret. However, they are conducted in private because of the personal information discussed, and there are privacy protections associated with investigation records. The individual being investigated has the right to access the final report of investigation, has the opportunity to rebut any information he or she believes is false or inaccurate as part of the adjudicative process, and has the opportunity to request an amendment of records under the Privacy Act. E.O. 12968, as amended, provides individuals review and appeal rights when an investigation for eligibility for access to classified information results in an unfavorable eligibility determination, and § 1400.301 of the rule also prescribes minimum procedural requirements for unfavorable adjudications generally.
An agency inquired as to whether non-selected individuals will receive the procedural rights in § 1400.301, and stated that clarification is needed.
One agency objected to OPM deleting the reference to adjudicative decisions made “under this part” in § 732.301.
Response: We do not accept this comment. The intent of the revised language in § 732.301, now § 1400.301, is to ensure that agencies understand that this section is not the authority for making an eligibility decision. Rather, an agency makes an eligibility decision for sensitive positions using national security adjudicative guidelines rooted in requirements established in Executive Order 10450 and, if applicable, 12968. Section 1400.301 simply addresses procedures that agencies are to follow in rendering an unfavorable eligibility decision, under the applicable executive order, based on an OPM investigation.
One union noted that OPM's December 14, 2010 document specifically states that “Part 732 is not intended to provide an independent authority for agencies to take adverse actions when the retention of an employee is not consistent with national security.” The union noted that by failing to provide procedural rights to those employees who are adversely affected by an improper agency determination, the regulations do not provide the safeguards necessary to prevent an agency from removing an employee under the guise of national security, when in fact the agency has an independent motive. The union thus requested that OPM include in its final regulations certain procedural safeguards, including, but not limited to, (1) adequate notice to employees that Start Printed Page 32256their position is being reassessed for national security purposes; (2) requirements that the process be transparent; and (3) the ability for employees to appeal agency decisions to unfavorably redesignate national security positions.
One union noted that OPM correctly stated in the supplementary information accompanying the December 14, 2010 proposed rule that, absent a specific grant of statutory authority, OPM may not alter by this rulemaking the jurisdiction granted to a tribunal by statute. The union recommended adding a new paragraph to § 1400.301 to explicitly state that it is not OPM's purpose to affect any tribunal's jurisdiction or scope of review, or to affect unit determinations under 5 U.S.C. 7116.
One union recommended that OPM insert the word “reasonable” before the word “opportunity” in § 732.301(a)(4)(ii), now § 1400.301(c)(1), because a “reasonable opportunity” is surely what is already implied by this sub-paragraph and part 732 as a whole.
A union endorsed the proposed language in the procedural rights section, 5 CFR 732.301 (now § 1400.301), and agreed that agencies should, at a minimum, comply with their own procedural regulations, and that employees should also be notified of any appeal rights. While the union is of the view that the MSPB should also review a determination that an employee is not eligible to hold a sensitive position, it agrees with OPM's comment, in the December 14, 2010 Federal Register document, that this regulation does not have any bearing on the Merit Systems Protection Board's appellate jurisdiction or the scope of the Board's appellate review of an adverse action.
An agency recommended amending § 732.401, concerning reemployment of persons summarily removed on national security grounds, to reprint the language from section 7 of E.O. 10450. A union stated OPM should make clearer in the text of the regulation that the provisions regarding reemployment eligibility for individuals removed for national security reasons do not apply to individuals removed pursuant to chapter 75. In this regard, OPM should remind agencies that, for example, individuals removed pursuant to chapter 75 remain immediately eligible for appointment to non-sensitive positions.
Moreover, another union noted that because the December 14, 2010 proposed rule is withdrawn, there is no proposed rule to finalize. It further commented that § 732.401 should be further amended to clarify that it does not apply to removals under chapter 75 of title 5, United States Code, and that persons removed under chapter 75 are eligible for appointment to nonsensitive positions without the need for prior OPM approval.
Response: We cannot accept these comments because they are outside the scope of the rulemaking. As OPM and ODNI stated in the Federal Register notice accompanying the proposed rule, § 732.401 is not affected by this joint rulemaking, and OPM will revise § 732.401 at a future date.
Response: This rule will be effective 30 days after it is posted in the Federal Register, as required by 5 U.S.C. 553(d).
Conyers concerns the question of whether the Merit Systems Protection Start Printed Page 32257Board may review the merits of a national security determination. In contrast, this rule governs the standards for designating positions as national security sensitive under section 3 of E.O. 10450. The outcome of the referenced litigation does not affect this rule.
Response: The commenter is incorrect. This rule does not address how agencies are to administer their security programs, instituted under section 2 of E.O. 10450, including any adjudications or determinations of eligibility required by such programs. Because this responsibility is committed to agency heads, section 1400.301 specifies only minimum procedural rights. However, with respect to oversight, OPM and ODNI intend for the recordkeeping and reporting requirements in §§ 1400.202, 1400.301, and 1400.302 to enhance their ability to conduct oversight under section 14 of E.O. 10450 and section 2.3 of E.O. 13467, respectively.
Response: On January 25, 2013, the President directed OPM and ODNI to jointly propose the regulations that OPM originally proposed on December 14, 2010, with only “such modifications as are necessary to permit their joint publication.” Further, in the supplementary information accompanying the May 28, 2013 joint proposed rule, OPM and ODNI expressly referenced the prior Federal Register document and advised that persons who already commented need not resubmit comments. Thus the supplementary information accompanying the December 14, 2010 proposed rule, including the two quotations the commenters referenced, are also relevant to the May 28, 2013 proposed rule. To reemphasize our position, the rule's purpose is not to increase or decrease the number of Start Printed Page 32258positions designated as national security positions, but to add clarity and consistency to the position designation process.
Response: The commenter is incorrect. The quoted language appeared in the proposed rule in § 1400.102(b), and OPM and ODNI are now finalizing that section.
Response: We do not agree with this comment. A national security position must meet the materiality thresholds specified in § 1400.201(a).
Response: The proposed change is unnecessary. Section 1400.102(a)(4) already makes the rule applicable to positions requiring eligibility for access to classified information, while § 1400.201 already specifies the level of clearance that results in either a noncritical-sensitive or a critical-sensitive position designation.
An agency commented that § 1400.102(a)(4)(ii), by authorizing the designation of certain positions as “sensitive” even when the occupant does not require access to classified information or eligibility for such access, will create confusion over who has access to classified information.
Response: The preexisting provision, § 732.102(a)(1) authorized the designation of certain positions as “sensitive” even when the occupant does not require access to classified information or eligibility for such access, and it is unclear how retaining this requirement will result in any confusion. Further, even if a person is in a national security position, they must have a need to know before they can have access to classified information. The commenter requested no additional changes.
A union commented that the categories of national security positions in § 1400.102 are vague and overbroad, and will “turn on its head” the requirement of E.O. 10450 for Start Printed Page 32259individualized determinations of position sensitivity. The union specifically expresses concern with § 1400.102(a)(4)(ii)(B) that national security positions include, but are not limited to, those whose duties include “[d]eveloping defense plans or policies.”
Response: OPM and ODNI agree with the commenter that position designations must be on a position-by-position basis. While we disagree that the categories in § 1400.102 will result in a wholesale occupational approach to position designation rather than the position-by-position approach contemplated by E.O. 10450, we agree with the commenter that the specific example it cited is, as drafted, overbroad. We have revised it to read as follows: “Developing plans or policies related to national defense or military operations.”
The same organization commented that the standards for designating positions as noncritical-sensitive or critical-sensitive under § 1400.201(a)—respectively, the potential to cause “significant or serious” damage or “exceptionally grave” damage to national security- are too subjective, and cited a court case in which it believed that an agency applied position designation standards too subjectively.
Finally, the organization commented that certain examples of critical-sensitive positions in § 1400.201(a)(2) are over-inclusive and lack a demonstrable nexus with the national security.
Response: We do not accept this comment. The regulation makes clear that the positions described in paragraph (a)(2) must be “national security” positions under § 1400.102(a), the occupants of which could cause “exceptionally grave” damage to the national security under § 1400.201(a)(2).
A union objected to the use of examples in § 1400.201(a) rather than guiding principles, stating that OPM's and ODNI's approach may result in categorical, rather than individual designations of positions contrary to the intent of E.O. 10450. The commenter singled out paragraph (a)(2)(vi), “[p]ositions involving duty on personnel security boards,” as especially likely to result in a categorical approach to position designation.
Response: OPM and ODNI agree with the commenter that position designation must be on a position-by-position basis; but we disagree with the commenter's assertion that agencies will use the examples in § 1400.201(a) as shortcuts rather than as guideposts. As noted above, we have added a new § 1400.201(a)(2)(ii), stating more generally that critical-sensitive positions include positions not requiring eligibility for access to classified information where the positions have “the potential to cause exceptionally grave damage to the national security.”
An agency expressed concern that under § 1400.201(c) and (d), positions designated as “sensitive” must also have a position risk designation for suitability purposes under 5 CFR 731.106. The commenter asks whether this has the effect of conferring appeal rights to persons in sensitive positions under OPM's suitability regulations (5 CFR part 731). In addition, the commenter observed that a higher level of investigation would be required if a position required access to secret information but was also designated at the high risk level under 5 CFR part 731.
Response: 5 CFR 731.106 requires all positions in the competitive service and other covered positions to have a public trust designation, in addition to a sensitivity designation, if applicable. This is not a new requirement; it has been a requirement of OPM regulation for the past 14 years. What is new is the requirement in § 1400.201(c) and (d) for an automatic assignment of risk level based on position sensitivity. This will make it easier for agencies to manage their existing obligations.
Two unions commented in opposition to § 1400.201(c) and (d), which provide, with certain exceptions, for automatic public trust designations at the high or moderate risk level for all national security positions. The commenter argued that the rule change is inconsistent with 5 CFR 731.106, which makes the designation of a position's public trust risk independent of the designation of a position's national security sensitivity, and which gives agency heads discretion to make public trust risk designations.
Response: We disagree that § 1400.201(c) and (d) are inconsistent with § 731.106. Section 731.106 does not give agencies complete discretion to determine the public trust risk level of each position. Indeed, § 731.106(a) states that position designations are guided by OPM issuances and § 731.106(c) states that national security sensitivity designations are “complementary” to public trust risk designations. Agencies' authority to designate the public trust risk level of a position is a delegated OPM function and as such, is subject to OPM performance standards and oversight under 5 U.S.C. 1104(b).
One of these unions commented that § 1400.201(c) and (d) will have the effect of making public trust position designations unreviewable.
The same union, commenting in opposition to § 1400.201(c) and (d), which provide, with certain exceptions, for automatic public trust designations at the high or moderate risk level for all national security positions, expressed concern that OPM's and ODNI's purpose in making the change is to allow agencies to argue in pending litigation that employees in noncritical-sensitive positions also pose public trust risks, thereby justifying their removal on national security grounds.
Response: Our purpose in making this change, as stated in the May 28, 2013 Federal Register document, is to streamline the existing designation process. We emphasized in that document, however, that “[d]eterminations regarding suitability and determinations regarding eligibility to hold a sensitive position are governed by distinct standards.” The national Start Printed Page 32260security sensitivity of a position has no bearing on whether an individual has the requisite character and conduct for appointment in the competitive service under the suitability standards in 5 CFR 731.202. Accordingly, we reject the comment.
An agency suggested incorporating the Adjudicative Guidelines for Determining Eligibility For Access to Classified Information in the reinvestigation standards in § 1400.203(b). The agency states that there are no standards for adjudicating whether an individual is fit to occupy a national security position in E.O. 10450 following a reinvestigation.
A commenter asked that § 1400.203(b) be written in such a way as to ensure that employees receive an aligned investigation that addresses both suitability and security concerns.
Response: We did not accept this comment. The purpose of § 1400.203, like § 732.203 before it, is to establish a reinvestigation requirement for sensitive positions that do not require eligibility for access to classified information. The only new requirement is to establish a reinvestigation requirement for noncritical sensitive positions that do not have access to classified information. The reinvestigation requirement for these national security positions will occur at a frequency and scope sufficient to satisfy the reinvestigative requirement for both national security and public trust positions. This ensures greater alignment between national security and suitability reinvestigations and prevents duplication of investigations, consistent with E.O. 13467.
Response: The prior regulation, 5 CFR 732.203, already required national security reinvestigations at least every 5 years for the occupants of critical-sensitive positions; and the existing regulations in 5 CFR 731.106 already required suitability reinvestigations at least every 5 years for those occupants of public trust positions who were also designated as noncritical-sensitive under § 731.106(c)(2). This may limit the rule change's financial impact. But in addition, E.O. 10450 expressly requires agency heads to ensure that “retention in employment . . . is clearly consistent with the interests of the national security.” It is difficult to see how agency heads can fulfill this obligation in the absence of a periodic reinvestigation requirement. Moreover, E.O. 13467 directs that investigations for employment in a national security position be “aligned using consistent standards to the extent possible.” Consistent with section 2.1(a) of E.O. 13467, OPM and ODNI chaired an inter-agency working group that developed new Federal investigative standards for national security and suitability investigations approved by the Security and Suitability Executive Agents in December 2012, with a 5-year reinvestigation cycle. This interagency process by its nature took account of agencies' budgetary concerns.
An agency commented that the administrative burden of re-evaluating position designations is unnecessary, Start Printed Page 32261since in its view most positions designated as “sensitive” already require a security clearance.
Response: We believe that the 24-month time frame is sufficient to allow agencies ample opportunity to review positions to determine whether or not they impact national security under the new definition, and make the appropriate designation changes. However, in response to this comment we have amended § 1400.204 to allow agencies to request an extension of the timeframe for re-designation, if justified.
One public interest organization commented that OPM and ODNI should not promulgate this regulation, requiring, in § 1400.204, that agencies determine which positions should be sensitive, until OPM has first determined which positions already are sensitive. The commenter states that without knowledge of the number of such positions, OPM cannot demonstrate the need for an “expansion” of such positions.
Response: OPM and ODNI note that agencies have 24 months following the effective date of this rule to determine whether changes and position sensitivity designations are necessary. We believe this is ample time. However, as previously noted, in response to this comment we have amended § 1400.204 to allow agencies to request an extension of the timeframe for re-designation, if justified.
An agency suggested incorporating the Adjudicative Guidelines for Determining Eligibility For Access to Classified Information as a requirement in § 1400.301.
Response: We reject this comment, since § 1400.301 addresses the minimum procedural and recordkeeping requirements for security determinations, not the substantive standards for making favorable or unfavorable adjudicative decisions.
An agency recommended that OPM clarify that agencies must not compromise national security when applying procedural rights, and the agency suggested amending § 1400.301 to incorporate the specific procedures in E.O. 12968 for withholding material that could compromise national security.
An agency recommended amending § 1400.301 to incorporate the specific procedures, in E.O. 12968, for reconsideration and appeal of preliminary decisions to deny or revoke a security clearance.
One agency expressed concern that § 1400.301 changes the Merit Systems Protection Board's appellate jurisdiction over adverse actions.
An agency recommended that OPM amend its reporting forms and its investigative database to accommodate the reporting requirements prescribed by § 1400.302.
OPM and ODNI did not receive public comments on the text in proposed § 1400.102(b) related to Senior Executive Service positions. The proposed text—in describing the “positions” to which the part applies—referred to “career appointments in the Senior Executive Service in the executive branch.” In the final rule, OPM and ODNI have revised the text to refer to “Senior Executive Service (SES) positions held by career appointees in the SES in the executive branch.” This revision does not substantively change the scope of the rule's coverage.
OPM and ODNI certify that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because the rules pertain only to Federal employees and agencies.Start Printed Page 32262
(H) Conducting investigations or audits related to the functions described in paragraphs (a)(4)(ii)(B) through (G) of this section, where the occupant's neglect, action, or inaction could bring about a material adverse effect on the national security.Start Printed Page 32263
(a) For purposes of this part, the head of each agency must designate, or cause to be designated, a position within the department or agency as a national security position pursuant to § 1400.102(a). National security positions must then be designated, based on the degree of potential damage to the national security, at one of the following three sensitivity levels:
(c) Any position receiving a position sensitivity designation under this part at the critical-sensitive or special-sensitive level shall automatically carry with that designation, without further agency Start Printed Page 32264action, a risk designation under 5 CFR 731.106 at the high level.
(d) Any position receiving a position sensitivity designation at the noncritical-sensitive level shall automatically carry with that designation, without further agency action, a risk designation under 5 CFR 731.106 at the moderate level, unless the agency determines that the position should be designated at the high level. Agencies shall designate the position at the high level where warranted on the basis of criteria set forth in OPM issuances as described in § 731.102(c) of this title.
No provision of the rule in this part may be applied to make an adverse inference in pending administrative proceedings. However, the redesignation of a position may require that the occupant of that position undergo a new adjudication. An administrative proceeding is deemed to be pending from the date of the agency or OPM notice described in § 1400.301(c)(1).
(1) Provide the individual concerned notice of the specific reason(s) for the Start Printed Page 32265decision, an opportunity to respond, and notice of appeal rights, if any; and
§ 1400.302
(c) To comply with process efficiency requirements, additional data may be collected from agencies conducting investigations or taking action under this part. These collections will be identified in separate OPM and ODNI guidance, issued as necessary under § 1400.103.