Submission for Renewal: Information Collection; Questionnaire for National Security Positions, Standard Form 86 (SF 86), 42983-42986 [2013-17240]

Agencies

• Office of Personnel Management

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 138 (Thursday, July 18, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 42983-42986]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-17240]


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

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT


Submission for Renewal: Information Collection; Questionnaire for 
National Security Positions, Standard Form 86 (SF 86)

AGENCY: U.S. Office of Personnel Management.

ACTION: 30-Day Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: Federal Investigative Services (FIS), U.S. Office of Personnel 
Management (OPM) offers the general public and other Federal agencies 
the opportunity to comment on an information collection request (ICR), 
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Control No. 3206-0005, for 
Questionnaire for National Security Positions, Standard Form 86 (SF 
86). As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, (Pub. L. 104-
13, 44 U.S.C. chapter 35) as amended by the Clinger-Cohen Act (Pub. L. 
104-106), OPM is soliciting comments for this collection. The Office of 
Management and Budget is particularly interested in comments that:
    1. Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is 
necessary for the proper performance of the functions of OPM, including 
whether the information will have practical utility;
    2. Evaluate the accuracy of OPM's estimate of the burden of the 
proposed collection of information, including the validity of the 
methodology and assumptions used;
    3. Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to 
be collected; and
    4. Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those 
who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, 
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or 
other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic 
submissions of responses.

DATES: Comments are encouraged and will be accepted until August 19, 
2013. This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.1.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on 
the proposed information collection to the Office of Information and 
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street 
NW., Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Jasmeet K. Seehra, 
OMB Desk Officer or sent via email to oira_submission@omb.eop.gov or 
faxed to (202) 395-6974; and Federal Investigative Services, U.S. 
Office of Personnel Management, 1900 E Street NW., Washington, DC 
20415, Attention: Donna McLeod or sent by email to 
FISFormsComments@opm.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A copy of this ICR, with applicable 
supporting documentation, may be obtained by contacting the Federal 
Investigative Services, U.S. Office of Personnel Management, 1900 E 
Street NW., Washington, DC 20415, Attention: Donna McLeod or sent by 
email to FISFormsComments@opm.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This notice announces that OPM submitted to 
OMB a request for review and clearance of the revised information 
collection of information, Questionnaire for National Security 
Positions, SF 86, which is housed in a system named e-QIP (Electronic 
Questionnaires for Investigative Processing) and is an information 
collection completed by

[[Page 42984]]

applicants for, or incumbents of, Federal Government civilian or 
military positions, or positions in private entities performing work 
for the Federal Government under contract. The collection is used as 
the basis of information by the Federal Government in conducting 
background investigations, reinvestigations, and continuous 
evaluations, as appropriate, of persons under consideration for or 
retention in national security sensitive positions as defined in 
Executive Order 10450 and 5 CFR part 732, for positions requiring 
eligibility for access to classified information under Executive Order 
12968, and by agencies in determining whether a person performing work 
for or on behalf of the Federal Government under a contract should be 
deemed eligible for logical or physical access when the nature of the 
work is sensitive and could bring about a material adverse effect on 
national security. The SF 86 is completed by civilian employees of the 
Federal Government, military personnel, and non-Federal employees, 
including Federal contractors and individuals otherwise not directly 
employed by the Federal Government but who perform work for or on 
behalf of the Federal Government. For applicants for civilian Federal 
employment, the SF 86 is to be used only after a conditional offer of 
employment has been made.
    OPM seeks approval for the use of a common form to be used by all 
Federal agencies. It is estimated that 263,566 non-Federal individuals 
will complete the SF 86 annually for investigations conducted by OPM. 
The SF 86 takes approximately 150 minutes to complete. The estimated 
annual burden for this form, when used in OPM investigations, is 
658,915 hours. The web-based system application that houses the SF 86 
is e-QIP (Electronic Questionnaires for Investigations Processing) is 
a. This electronic data collection tool provides immediate data 
validation to ensure accuracy of the respondent's personal information. 
The e-Government initiative mandates that agencies utilize e-QIP for 
all investigations and reinvestigations. A variable in assessing burden 
hours is the nature of the electronic application. The electronic 
application includes branching questions and instructions which provide 
for a tailored collection from the respondent based on varying factors 
in the respondent's personal history. The burden on the respondent is 
reduced when the respondent's personal history is not relevant to a 
particular question, since the question branches, or expands for 
additional details, only for those persons who have pertinent 
information to provide regarding that line of questioning. For that 
reason, the burden on the respondent will vary depending on whether the 
information collection relates to the respondent's personal history. 
Additionally, once entered, a respondent's complete and certified 
investigative data remains secured in the e-QIP system until the next 
time the respondent is sponsored by an agency to complete a new 
investigative form. Upon initiation, the respondent's previously 
entered data (except ``yes/no'' questions) will populate a new 
investigative request, and the respondent will be allowed to update 
information and certify that data. In this instance, time to complete 
the form is reduced significantly.
    Once OMB approves the use of this common form, all Federal agencies 
using the form not in connection with an OPM investigation may request 
the use of this common form without additional 60- or 30-day notice and 
comment requirements. At that point, each such agency will account for 
its number of respondents and the burden associated with the agency's 
use.
    The 60-day notice of the proposed information collection was 
published in the Federal Register on March 12, 2013 (Federal Register 
Notices/Volume 78, Number 48, page 15755-15756), as required by 5 CFR 
Part 1320, affording the public an opportunity to comment on the form. 
Comments were received from the Department of Energy-Idaho National 
Laboratory (DOE-INL), the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), the 
United States Air Force (USAF), Health and Human Services (HHS-CMS), 
Department of Homeland Security-Immigration and Customs Enforcement 
(DHS-ICE), the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD-CPMS), Federal 
Aviation Administration (FAA), and commenters from the public and OPM. 
Five advocacy groups, the Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law, Mental 
Health America, Consortium of Citizens with Disabilities (CCD), Family 
Equality Council, and Department of Justice (DOJ) Pride, submitted 
comments.
    Family Equality Council commented that OPM should add ``legally 
recognized civil union/domestic partner'' throughout the form where the 
word ``spouse'' is used. OPM accepted this recommendation and will 
include consistent language throughout the form to more accurately 
collect information regarding legally recognized relationships.
    A commenter from the public recommended updating regulations cited 
under the ``Authority to Request this Information'' section and amend 
to show that EO 9397 was amended by EO 13748. This recommendation was 
accepted.
    A commenter from the USAF recommended administrative edits 
explaining the use of ``IO'' for initial only, and ``NMN'' for no 
middle name. This recommendation was not accepted because current 
instructions in the electronic application provide explanations for 
each acronym.
    Commenters from USAF also provided recommendations to remove ``not 
applicable'' for Social Security number in section 4 (SSN) and to 
remove the requirement to list three possible contact numbers as 
directed in section 7 (Your Contact Information). The recommendation 
for removal of the ``not applicable'' option for the Social Security 
Number was not accepted. Not all respondents completing the 
questionnaire possess Social Security numbers, and therefore inclusion 
of the ``not applicable'' option is appropriate. The recommendation to 
remove the requirement to list three possible contact numbers was 
accepted, in part. Having access to multiple telephone numbers improves 
the opportunity for investigators to contact applicants as necessary 
throughout the investigation process. Revised guidance will be provided 
in section 7 to clarify that only one telephone number is required, but 
the other two numbers will facilitate completion of the background 
investigation.
    Recommendations from the public and an OPM commenter included 
changes to section 9 (Citizenship), section 17 (Marital Status), and 
section 18 (Relatives) regarding the collection of information in 
instances of derivative U.S citizenship, and changes to the branching 
questions to display supporting documentation options to match claimed 
citizenship status. The recommendations were accepted in order to 
improve the accuracy of responses in these areas.
    Comments were received from HHS-CMS and USAF regarding information 
collected in section 11 (Residence). The HHS-CMS commenter recommended 
adding an option to include ``other periods of activity'' instead of 
entering addresses multiple times. The commenter from USAF recommended 
adding instructions to this section for applicants not to list the same 
person more than one time as a reference. These recommendations were 
not accepted. Branching logic in e-QIP assists in the reporting of 
multiple periods of activity at the same location. The recommendation 
to limit references identified in this section may cause additional 
burden on applicants in the

[[Page 42985]]

event that they may have limited acquaintances/references to provide 
who can verify the period of residence.
    Commenters from OPM submitted recommendations to collect additional 
information in two sections of the form to assist investigators in 
contacting required references. One recommendation is to collect 
landlord information for rental property reported in section 11 
(Residence). The other recommendation is to collect the telephone 
number of former spouse(s) reported in section 17 (Marital Status). 
These comments were accepted. In addition, OPM intends to provide ``I 
don't know'' as an option for these questions.
    Commenters from USAF and OPM submitted recommendations to change 
the instructions provided in section 12 (Education). Recommendations 
included modifying the requirement to list all schools to include high 
school, clarifying instructions to list multiple degrees/diplomas, and 
rewording instructions to have the applicant provide ``name of person 
who can verify/validate your attendance while at the school.'' These 
recommendations were not accepted. The need to provide all educational 
activity is not supported by investigative standards associated with 
the use of the form and would result in applicants providing more 
information than necessary. Branching questions in e-QIP provide 
guidance for applicants to list multiple degrees/diplomas as 
appropriate. In regard to the need to provide additional guidance for 
listing educational references, instructions in the current form are 
sufficient as they indicate that applicants should ``list a person who 
knew you at the school (instructor, student, etc.).''
    A commenter from USAF recommended the elimination of the block in 
section 15 (Military History) for Service Number or the inclusion of 
more instructions regarding what information is to be reported in that 
block. OPM did not accept this recommendation at this time. Additional 
research is needed to determine the usefulness of information found in 
this field.
    Recommendations were received from USAF and OPM commenters to 
provide additional instructions for section 16 (People Who Know You 
Well). The recommendations were to add verbiage instructing applicants 
not to list references already used as a reference elsewhere, and to 
provide instructions that all references should be people with whom 
Subject has had social contact in the last 7 years. These 
recommendations were not accepted as current guidance already addresses 
both recommendations.
    Commenters from USAF submitted recommendations regarding section 18 
(Relatives). Recommendations included requests to limit the collection 
of information pertaining to deceased family members who were foreign 
nationals, to add step in-laws as relatives, and to provide clarifying 
guidance that children are to be listed no matter their age and 
regardless of whether they are living at home. These recommendations 
were not accepted. Current branching logic with the electronic form 
collects only limited information pertaining to deceased relatives. The 
relative list as shown is section 18 provides support for investigative 
coverage requirements. The list may not identify all relatives that an 
applicant would like to list on the form. For this reason applicants 
are provided an additional comment field to list other relatives beyond 
the standard requirement.
    Family Equality Council commented that asking applicants to list 
their mothers' maiden name is duplicative and unnecessary and 
recommends removal of the ``mothers' maiden name'' field in section 18 
(Relatives). This comment was not accepted because the mother's maiden 
name is needed to conduct certain checks associated with the subject of 
the investigation. In addition, the reporting is not duplicative 
because there is an option to indicate that the name is the same as 
previously listed in this section.
    A commenter from USAF questioned why foreign contacts related to 
official U.S Government business are not required to be reported, as 
shown in section 20B (Foreign Business, Professional Activities, and 
Foreign Government Contacts). This comment was not accepted because the 
requirement to collect contacts in relation to U.S Government business 
may create duplication of reporting requirements by applicants in 
connection to work-related Government travel. In addition, information 
regarding U.S Government travel can be validated through other portions 
of the investigative process.
    Several comments were received regarding proposed changes to 
section 21 (Psychological and Emotional Health). Bazelon Center for 
Mental Health Law, Mental Health America, and Consortium of Citizens 
with Disabilities (CCD) recommend that OPM eliminate language 
suggesting that mental health treatment is relevant to a person's 
eligibility for a security clearance, eliminate inquiry about failure 
to follow treatment advice related to a mental health condition, and 
modify the inquiry about mental health conditions to inquire instead 
about concerning behaviors. These comments were not accepted because 
the text at issue is needed under the adjudicative guidelines for 
eligibility for access to classified information prescribed under E.O. 
12968. The same commenters also recommended that OPM not include any 
language in question 21 suggesting that mental health treatment could 
be evidence of impaired judgment, reliability, or trustworthiness. The 
current proposal is already consistent with the thrust of this comment, 
however. The revised question already states that seeking mental health 
counseling will not prevent the respondent from obtaining or retaining 
a national security position, and that seeking wellness and recovery 
may favorably impact eligibility.
    A commenter from OSD-CPMS asked for a description of the specific 
changes expected for this question. The proposed revision to section 21 
will inquire as to whether the respondent has, in the last 7 years, had 
a mental health condition that adversely affected his or her judgment, 
reliability, or trustworthiness; whether the respondent has been 
hospitalized for any reason related to a mental health condition; 
whether, in the last 7 years, the respondent has chosen not to follow a 
prescribed course of mental health treatment; and whether a court or 
administrative agency has ever declared the respondent mentally 
incompetent. Branching questions collect information about treatment 
arising from circumstances that require affirmative responses, as 
appropriate.
    Regarding section 22 (Police Record), a commenter from FAA 
recommended changing language found in the ``have you ever'' questions 
to specifically require the applicant to include all arrests. The 
commenter claimed that the phrasing of certain questions involving 
section 22 leaves room for interpretation. The comment was not accepted 
because the change suggested is overly broad and would require the 
applicant to provide information outside of the investigative 
requirements.
    A commenter from DHS recommended that the clarifying language 
proposed for section 23 (Illegal Use of Drugs) is best served in the 
general instructions for the form. This comment was not accepted as the 
proposed clarifying instruction at the section is sufficient to inform 
applicants of the requirement to list illegal drug use consistent with 
Federal laws.

[[Page 42986]]

    Comments were received from DOE-INL, HHS-CMS, OPM, and the public 
related to the functionality of the e-QIP application. The 
recommendations were not accepted because the comments do not pertain 
to content of the questionnaire but focus on the application. 
Recommendations included the need to provide additional support for the 
``agency reviewer'' role in e-QIP, the rejection process, receipt of 
error messages, the ability to print a compact version of the 
questionnaire, support for digitally signing signature release forms, 
the ability to save partial data, and expanding characters used in 
certain fields. The recommendations were referred to the appropriate 
OPM personnel who have responsibility for the functionality of the e-
QIP application.
    A commenter with the USAF questioned the requirement for the 
respondent to provide information regarding a spouse or cohabitant 
without that person's written consent. OPM did not accept this comment. 
Information collected for the spouse/co-habitant is necessary to 
fulfill requirements for the level of background investigation 
requested on the respondent, which may include a spouse/cohabitant 
national agency check. Because the spouse/cohabitant is neither the 
subject of the investigation nor the subject of the resulting report of 
investigation, his or her written consent is not required by the 
Privacy Act or by 5 U.S.C. 9101.
    A commenter with USAF requested publication of a policy that 
strictly prohibits the use of the SF 86 applications and information 
for any purposes outside of the official security clearance process. In 
response, OPM notes that written guidance is provided under the 
following sections of the instructional portion of the form: Purpose of 
the Form, Disclosure Information, and Privacy Act Routine Uses. The 
collection, maintenance, and disclosure of background investigative 
information are governed by the Privacy Act. Disclosure is also 
controlled under 5 CFR part 736 and E.O. 10450.

U.S. Office of Personnel Management.
Elaine Kaplan,
Acting Director.
[FR Doc. 2013-17240 Filed 7-17-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6325-53-P