DoD Investigative and Adjudicative Guidance for Issuing the Common Access Card (CAC), 55622-55633 [2014-22034]
Download as PDF
55622
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 180 / Wednesday, September 17, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
not received, within the said applicable
time, the buyer’s consent to any further
delay;
(4) The seller has notified the buyer
of its inability to make shipment and
has indicated its decision not to ship the
merchandise;
(5) The seller fails to offer the option
prescribed in paragraph (b)(1) of this
section and has not shipped the
merchandise within the applicable time
set forth in paragraph (a)(1) of this
section.
(d) In any action brought by the
Federal Trade Commission, alleging a
violation of this part, the failure of a
respondent-seller to have records or
other documentary proof establishing its
use of systems and procedures which
assure compliance, in the ordinary
course of business, with any
requirement of paragraph (b) or (c) of
this section will create a rebuttable
presumption that the seller failed to
comply with said requirement.
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
§ 435.3
Limited applicability.
16:27 Sep 16, 2014
By direction of the Commission.
Donald S. Clark,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014–22092 Filed 9–16–14; 8:45 am]
(a) This part shall not apply to:
(1) Subscriptions, such as magazine
sales, ordered for serial delivery, after
the initial shipment is made in
compliance with this part;
(2) Orders of seeds and growing
plants;
(3) Orders made on a collect-ondelivery (C.O.D.) basis;
(4) Transactions governed by the
Federal Trade Commission‘s Trade
Regulation Rule entitled ‘‘Use of
Prenotification Negative Option Plans,’’
16 CFR Part 425.
(b) By taking action in this area:
(1) The Federal Trade Commission
does not intend to preempt action in the
same area, which is not inconsistent
with this part, by any State, municipal,
or other local government. This part
does not annul or diminish any rights or
remedies provided to consumers by any
State law, municipal ordinance, or other
local regulation, insofar as those rights
or remedies are equal to or greater than
those provided by this part. In addition,
this part does not supersede those
provisions of any State law, municipal
ordinance, or other local regulation
which impose obligations or liabilities
upon sellers, when sellers subject to this
part are not in compliance therewith.
(2) This part does supersede those
provisions of any State law, municipal
ordinance, or other local regulation
which are inconsistent with this part to
the extent that those provisions do not
provide a buyer with rights which are
equal to or greater than those rights
granted a buyer by this part. This part
also supersedes those provisions of any
State law, municipal ordinance, or other
VerDate Sep<11>2014
local regulation requiring that a buyer
be notified of a right which is the same
as a right provided by this part but
requiring that a buyer be given notice of
this right in a language, form, or manner
which is different in any way from that
required by this part. In those instances
where any State law, municipal
ordinance, or other local regulation
contains provisions, some but not all of
which are partially or completely
superseded by this part, the provisions
or portions of those provisions which
have not been superseded retain their
full force and effect.
(c) If any provision of this part, or its
application to any person, partnership,
corporation, act or practice is held
invalid, the remainder of this part or the
application of the provision to any other
person, partnership, corporation, act or
practice shall not be affected thereby.
Jkt 232001
BILLING CODE 6750–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Office of the Secretary
32 CFR Part 157
[Docket ID: DOD–2012–OS–0167]
RIN 0790–AI97
DoD Investigative and Adjudicative
Guidance for Issuing the Common
Access Card (CAC)
Under Secretary of Defense for
Intelligence, DoD.
ACTION: Interim final rule.
AGENCY:
This interim final rule
establishes policy, assigns
responsibilities, and prescribes
procedures for investigating and
adjudicating eligibility to hold the DoD
Common Access Card (CAC). The CAC
is the DoD personal identity verification
(PIV) credential. Individuals
appropriately sponsored for a DoD CAC
must be investigated and adjudicated in
accordance with this part.
Prior to this rule, DoD components
have been implementing investigative
and adjudicative requirements for
Homeland Security Presidential
Directive—12 (HSPD–12) based solely
on broad guidance issued by the U.S.
Office of Personnel Management (OPM).
This interim final rule elaborates on
OPM guidance for component
adjudicators who determine, based on
review of investigative case files,
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
whether to grant CAC eligibility to
individuals who require: Physical
access to DoD facilities or non-DoD
facilities on behalf of DoD; logical
access to information systems (whether
on site or remotely); or remote access to
DoD networks that use only the CAC
logon for user authentication.
The adjudicator’s role is discussed
further in the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION. The interim final rule
provides the adjudicator with
conditions that may be disqualifying
and circumstances relevant to the
determination of whether there is a
reasonable basis to believe there is an
unacceptable risk.
DATES: Effective Date: This rule is
effective September 17, 2014. Comments
must be received by November 17, 2014.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments,
identified by docket number and/or RIN
number and title, by any of the
following methods:
• Federal Rulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
• Mail: Federal Docket Management
System Office, 4800 Mark Center Drive,
East Tower, Suite 02G09, Alexandria
VA 22350–3100.
Instructions: All submissions received
must include the agency name and
docket number or Regulatory
Information Number (RIN) for this
Federal Register document. The general
policy for comments and other
submissions from members of the public
is to make these submissions available
for public viewing on the Internet at
https://www.regulations.gov as they are
received without change, including any
personal identifiers or contact
information.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr.
Kelly Buck, 703–604–1130.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The adjudicator’s role is to ensure a
CAC is not issued to individuals if: (a)
The individual is known to be or
reasonably suspected of being a
terrorist, (b) the employer is unable to
verify the individual’s claimed identity,
(c) there is a reasonable basis to believe
the individual has submitted fraudulent
information concerning his or her
identity, (d) there is a reasonable basis
to believe the individual will attempt to
gain unauthorized access to classified
documents, information protected by
the Privacy Act, information that is
proprietary in nature, or other sensitive
or protected information, (e) there is a
reasonable basis to believe the
individual will use an identity
credential outside the workplace
E:\FR\FM\17SER1.SGM
17SER1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 180 / Wednesday, September 17, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
unlawfully or inappropriately, (f) there
is a reasonable basis to believe the
individual will use Federally-controlled
information systems unlawfully, make
unauthorized modifications to such
systems, corrupt or destroy such
systems, or engage in inappropriate uses
of such systems, (g) there is a reasonable
basis to believe, based on the
individual’s misconduct or negligence
in employment, that issuance of a CAC
poses an unacceptable risk, (h) there is
a reasonable basis to believe, based on
the individual’s criminal or dishonest
conduct, that issuance of a CAC poses
an unacceptable risk, (i) there is a
reasonable basis to believe, based on the
individual’s material, intentional false
statement, deception, or fraud in
connection with Federal or contract
employment, that issuance of a CAC
poses an unacceptable risk, (j) there is
a reasonable basis to believe, based on
the nature or duration of the
individual’s alcohol abuse without
evidence of substantial rehabilitation,
that issuance of a CAC poses an
unacceptable risk, (k) there is a
reasonable basis to believe, based on the
nature or duration of the individual’s
illegal use of narcotics, drugs, or other
controlled substances without evidence
of substantial rehabilitation, that
issuance of a CAC poses an
unacceptable risk, (l) a statutory or
regulatory bar prevents the individual’s
contract employment; or would prevent
Federal employment under
circumstances that furnish a reasonable
basis to believe that issuance of a CAC
poses an unacceptable risk; or (m) the
individual has knowingly and willfully
engaged in acts or activities designed to
overthrow the U.S. Government by
force.
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
I. Purpose
a. The Need for the Regulatory Action
and How the Action Will Meet That
Need
This interim final rule establishes
policy, assigns responsibilities, and
prescribes procedures for investigating
and adjudicating eligibility to hold the
DoD CAC. The CAC is the DoD personal
identity verification (PIV) credential.
On August 27, 2004, the President
issued Homeland Security Policy
Directive 12, ‘‘Policy for a Common
Identification Standard for Federal
Employees and Contractors, which
mandated a requirement for a common
identification standard for secure and
reliable forms of identification for
federal employees and contractors.
Pursuant to section 2.3(b) of Executive
Order 13467, on July 31, 2008, the U.S.
Office of Personnel Management OPM
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:27 Sep 16, 2014
Jkt 232001
issued its final government-wide
credentialing standards and mandated
that all Federal departments and
agencies use them in determining
whether to issue or revoke PIV cards to
their employees and contractor
personnel, including those who are nonUnited States citizens.
Pending the issuance of this interim
final rule, the DoD promulgated two
Directive-type memoranda: DTM 08–
006, ‘‘DoD Implementation of Homeland
Security Presidential Directive—12
(HSPD–12), issued on November 26,
2008, established DoD policy for
implementation of HSPD–12. Pursuant
to DTM 08–006, DTM 08–003, ‘‘Next
Generation Common Access Card (CAC)
Implementation Guidance,’’ December
1, 2008, was issued to provide interim
implementation guidance governing the
CAC. DTM 08–006 was subsequently
cancelled with issuance of DoDI
1000.13, ‘‘Identification (ID) Cards for
members of the Uniformed Services,
Their Dependents, and Other Eligible
Individuals,’’ January 23, 2014. DTM
08–003 was subsequently cancelled
with issuance of DoD Manual 1000.13,
Volume 1, ‘‘DoD Identification (ID)
Cards: ID Card Life-Cycle,’’ January 23,
2014. This interim final rule
implements HSPD–12 for the DoD by
establishing policy and assigning
responsibilities for investigating and
adjudicating eligibility to hold a CAC,
procedures upon revocation of a CAC,
and processing of appeals.
b. Legal Authority for the Regulatory
Action
Homeland Security Presidential
Directive-12, ‘‘Policy for a Common
Identification Standard for Federal
Employees and Contractors,’’ August 27,
2014, requires the government-wide
standard for secure and reliable forms of
identification for Federal employees and
contractors. The Department of
Commerce issued Federal Information
Processing Standard 201–2 as the
standard. Executive Order 13467 of June
30, 2008, ‘‘Reforming Processes Related
to Suitability for Government
Employment, Fitness for Contractor
Employees, and Eligibility for Access to
Classified National Security
Information’’ established the Office of
Personnel Management (OPM) to serve
as the Suitability Executive Agent
regarding suitability and eligibility for
logical and physical access. As such,
OPM issued the ‘‘Final Credentialing
Standards for Issuing Personal Identity
Verification Cards Under HSPD–12’’ on
July 31, 2008.
II. Summary of the Major Provisions
This rule:
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
55623
a. Provides investigative requirements
and credentialing standards for issuing,
denying, or revoking a CAC.
b. Provides guidance for applying
credentialing standards during
adjudication.
c. Provides for an appeal process.
d. Establishes procedures upon
revocation of a CAC.
III. Costs and Benefits
The interim final rule does not
impose direct costs onto the public
because costs associated with the
implementation of the investigation and
adjudicative standards will be borne by
the Department. However, the HSPD–12
mandate will increase overall costs for
the DoD to investigate and adjudicate
individuals covered by the Instruction
who would not otherwise undergo an
adjudication to determine suitability for
the competitive service, eligibility for a
national security sensitive position, or
fitness for appointment to the excepted
service or to perform work under a
Government contract. The costs to the
Department are not driven by the policy
contained in this interim final rule, but
rather HSPD–12 and the U.S.
Department of Commerce’s National
institute of Standards and Technology’s
Federal Information Processing
Standards Publication 201–2 (FIPS 201–
2), August 2013, mandate for
investigating and adjudicating eligibility
to hold a CAC.
This interim final rule provides for
protections against unauthorized access
to federal facilities and federally
controlled information systems and
other sensitive or protected information.
This policy manages risk and creates
efficiencies by ensuring persons are
vetted to uniform national standards.
Standardized investigative and
adjudicative guidance will eliminate
inter-agency variations that have existed
in the quality and security of
identification used to gain access to
secure facilities where there is potential
for terrorist attacks. Establishing a
mandatory, Department-wide standard
for secure and reliable forms of
identification that the Department
issues to its employees and contractors
enhances security, increases
Government efficiency, reduces identity
fraud, and protects personal privacy.
Implementing policies and
procedures that apply across the
Department will also result in
significant intra-agency efficiencies.
Absent this Department-wide
guidance—which leverages already
established processes and capabilities—
the individual components may handle
HSPD–12 compliance in multiple ways,
duplicating effort and expending
E:\FR\FM\17SER1.SGM
17SER1
55624
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 180 / Wednesday, September 17, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
valuable resources. Thus the cost of
complying with the HSPD–12 mandate
will be even greater in the absence of
DoD-wide policy and procedures.
Interim Final Rule Justification
This rule is being published as an
interim final rule as DoD’s current
efforts to comply with HSPD–12 need
extensive procedural guidance to ensure
consistency of implementation of 32
CFR part 156 and DoD Instruction
5200.02. This interim final rule provides
DoD components and Component Heads
with detailed policy and procedures
specific to the DoD regarding
investigation, adjudication, and appeals
for DoD CAC issuance. This rule
consolidates, clarifies, and elaborates
DoD CAC policy as appropriate to
ensure that Components’ policies and
procedures for CAC applications,
investigations, adjudications,
management, oversight, and appeals are
aligned across the Department using
consistent standards and practices in
cost-effective, timely, and efficient
ways.
If this rule is not published as an
interim final rule, it will prolong the
vulnerability of DoD’s personnel,
information, and facilities to risks that
are created by a current lack of
uniformity in how DoD Components
define and implement roles,
responsibilities and requirements
associated with DoD CAC-issuance. As
one example, circumstances
surrounding the shooting at the
Washington Navy Yard highlight the
importance of consistent and specific
requirements for revocation and
retrieval of credentials for personnel
who have been identified as posing
unacceptable risks. As such, this policy
mandates revocation and retrieval of
credentials and timely updates to
physical and logical accesses, when
appropriate, to prevent use of
invalidated credentials.
Additionally, to better consistently
protect DoD’s personnel, systems, and
facilities, the DoD Components’
concurred with applying both basic and
supplemental credentialing standards
and this policy helps codify that
agreement. As such, the DoD ensures
that all behaviors that suggest
unacceptable risks to life, safety, or
health of DoD personnel, information, or
property are uniformly considered in all
adjudications for credentials.
To ensure that all individuals are
consistently afforded opportunity to
respond to any official decision that
they are not acceptable risks for
issuance of a CAC, this interim rule
provides standard procedures for use
across the DoD by individuals who wish
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:27 Sep 16, 2014
Jkt 232001
to appeal denials or revocations of
CACs.
This rule is subject to update
whenever additional policy guidance is
provided by the Office of Management
and Budget or the U.S. Office of
Personnel Management. Further, DoD
will consider public comments received
in response to this interim rule in the
formation of the Department’s final rule.
Executive Order 12866, ‘‘Regulatory
Planning and Review’’ and Executive
Order 13563, ‘‘Improving Regulation
and Regulatory Review’’
We have consulted with the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) and
determined this interim final rule meets
the criteria for a significant regulatory
action under Executive Order 12866, as
supplemented by Executive Order
13563, and was subject to OMB review.
Sec. 202, Public Law 104–4, ‘‘Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act’’
Section 202 of the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA)
(Pub. L. 104–4) requires agencies assess
anticipated costs and benefits before
issuing any rule whose mandates
require spending in any 1 year of $100
million in 1995 dollars, updated
annually for inflation. In 2014, that
threshold is approximately $141
million. This document will not
mandate any requirements for State,
local, or tribal governments, nor will it
affect private sector costs.
Public Law 96–354, ‘‘Regulatory
Flexibility Act’’ (5 U.S.C. 601)
It has been certified that 32 CFR part
157 is not subject to the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601) because it
would not, if promulgated, have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
Public Law 96–511, ‘‘Paperwork
Reduction Act’’ (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35)
This rule does impose reporting or
recordkeeping requirements under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This
collection has been approved by the
Office of Management and Budget under
OMB Control Number 0704–0415 titled
‘‘Application for Department of Defense
Common Access Card—DEERS
Enrollment’’.
Executive Order 13132, ‘‘Federalism’’
Executive Order 13132 establishes
certain requirements that an agency
must meet when it promulgates a
proposed rule (and subsequent final
rule) that imposes substantial direct
requirement costs on State and local
governments, preempts State law, or
otherwise has Federalism implications.
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
This document will not have a
substantial effect on State and local
governments.
List of Subjects in 32 CFR Part 157
Common Access Card (CAC),
Contractors; Federal employees, Federal
facilities, Federally-controlled
information systems, HSPD–12
credentialing standards, Identity
verification, Personal identity
verification (PIV) card, Sensitive or
protected information, Terrorist;
Unauthorized access.
Accordingly 32 CFR part 157 is added
to read as follows:
PART 157—DOD INVESTIGATIVE AND
ADJUDICATIVE GUIDANCE FOR
ISSUING THE COMMON ACCESS
CARD (CAC)
Sec.
157.1
157.2
157.3
157.4
157.5
157.6
Purpose.
Applicability.
Definitions.
Policy.
Responsibilities.
Procedures.
Authority: HSPD–12, E.O 13467, E.O.
13488, FIPS 201–2, and OPM Memorandum.
§ 157.1
Purpose.
This part establishes policy, assigns
responsibilities, and prescribes
procedures for investigating and
adjudicating eligibility to hold a
Common Access Card (CAC). The CAC
is the DoD personal identity verification
(PIV) credential.
§ 157.2
Applicability.
This part applies to:
(a) the Office of the Secretary of
Defense, the Military Departments
(including the Coast Guard at all times,
including when it is a Service in the
Department of Homeland Security by
agreement with that Department), the
Office of the Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff and the Joint Staff, the
Combatant Commands, the Office of the
Inspector General of the Department of
Defense, the Defense Agencies, the DoD
Field Activities, and all other
organizational entities within the DoD
(hereinafter referred to collectively as
the ‘‘DoD Components’’).
(b) The Commissioned Corps of the
U.S. Public Health Service (USPHS),
under agreement with the Department of
Health and Human Services, and the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA), under
agreement with the Department of
Commerce.
§ 157.3
Definitions.
These terms and their definitions are
for the purpose of this part.
E:\FR\FM\17SER1.SGM
17SER1
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 180 / Wednesday, September 17, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
Actionable information. Information
that potentially justifies an unfavorable
credentialing determination.
CAC. The DoD Federal PIV card.
Contractor. Defined in Executive
Order 13467, ‘‘Reforming Processes
Related to Sustainability for
Government Employment, Fitness for
Contractor Employees, and Eligibility
for Access to Classified National
Security Information’’.
Contractor employee fitness. Defined
in E.O. 13467.
Debarment. A prohibition from taking
a competitive service examination or
from being hired (or retained in) a
covered position for a specific time
period..
Drugs. Mood and behavior-altering
substances, including drugs, materials,
and other chemical compounds
identified and listed in 21 U.S.C. 801–
830 (also known as ‘‘The Controlled
Substances Act of 1970, as amended’’)
(e.g., marijuana or cannabis,
depressants, narcotics, stimulants,
hallucinogens), and inhalants and other
similar substances.
Drug abuse. The illegal use of a drug
or use of a legal drug in a manner that
deviates from approved medical
direction.
Employee. Defined in E.O. 12968,
‘‘Access to Classified Information’’.
Fitness. Defined in E.O. 13488,
‘‘Granting Reciprocity on Excepted
Service and Federal Contractor
Employee Fitness and Reinvestigating
Individuals in Positions of Public
Trust’’.
Fitness determination. Defined in E.O.
13488.
Logical and physical access. Defined
in E.O. 13467.
Material. Defined in 5 CFR part 731.
Reasonable basis. A reasonable basis
to believe occurs when a disinterested
observer, with knowledge of the same
facts and circumstances, would
reasonably reach the same conclusion.
Terrorism. Defined in 19 U.S.C. 2331.
Unacceptable risk. A threat to the life,
safety, or health of employees,
contractors, vendors, or visitors; to the
U.S. Government physical assets or
information systems; to personal
property; to records, including
classified, privileged, proprietary,
financial, and medical records; or to the
privacy rights established by The
Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, or
other law that is deemed unacceptable
when making risk management
determinations.
U.S. National. Defined in U.S. OPM
Memorandum, ‘‘Final Credentialing
Standards for Issuing Personal Identity
Verification Cards Under HSPD–12’’
(available at https://www.opm.gov/
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:27 Sep 16, 2014
Jkt 232001
investigate/resources/final_
credentialing_standards.pdf).
§ 157.4
Policy.
It is DoD policy that:
(a) Individuals appropriately
sponsored for a CAC consistent with
DoD Manual 1000.13, Volume 1, ‘‘DoD
Identification Cards: ID Card LifeCycle,’’ January 23, 2014, (available at
https://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/
corres/pdf/100013_vol1.pdf) must be
investigated and adjudicated in
accordance with this part. Individuals
not CAC eligible may be processed for
local or regional base passes in
accordance with Under Secretary of
Defense for Intelligence (USD(I)) policy
guidance for DoD physical access
control consistent with DoD Regulation
5200.08–R, ‘‘Physical Security Program’’
(available at https://www.dtic.mil/whs/
directives/corres/pdf/520008r.pdf) and
local installation security policies and
procedures.
(b) A favorably adjudicated National
Agency Check with Inquiries (NACI) or
equivalent in accordance with revised
Federal investigative standards is the
minimum investigation required for a
final credentialing determination for a
CAC.
(c) Individuals requiring a CAC must
meet the credentialing standards in
accordance with the U.S. Office of
Personnel Management (OPM)
Memorandum, ‘‘Final Credentialing
Standards for Issuing Personal Identity
Verification Cards Under HSPD–12’’;
and U.S. Office of Personnel
Management Memorandum,
‘‘Introduction of Credentialing,
Suitability, and Security Clearance
Decision-Making Guide (available at
https://www.opm.gov/investigate/
resources/decision_making_guide.pdf)
and this part.
(d) A CAC may be issued on an
interim basis based on a favorable
National Agency Check or a Federal
Bureau of Investigation (FBI) National
Criminal History Check (fingerprint
check) adjudicated by appropriate
approved automated procedures or by a
trained security or human resource (HR)
specialist and successful submission to
the investigative service provider (ISP)
of a NACI, or a personnel security
investigation (PSI) equal to or greater in
scope than a NACI. Additionally, the
CAC applicant must present two
identity source documents, at least one
of which is a valid Federal or State
government-issued picture
identification.
(e) The subsequent final credentialing
determination will be made upon
receipt of the completed investigation
from the ISP.
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
55625
(f) Discretionary judgments used to
render an adjudicative determination for
issuing the CAC are inherently
governmental functions and must only
be performed by trained U.S.
Government personnel who have
successfully completed required
training and possess a minimum level of
investigation (NACI or equivalent in
accordance with revised Federal
investigative standards). Established
administrative processes in 32 CFR part
156 and DoD Directive 5220.6, ‘‘Defense
Industrial Personnel Security Clearance
Review Program’’ (available at https://
www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/
522006p.pdf) must be applied.
(g) Adjudications rendered for
eligibility for access to classified
information, eligibility to hold a
sensitive position, suitability, or fitness
for Federal employment based on a
NACI or higher level investigation may
result in a concurrent CAC decision for
that position.
(h) Favorable credentialing
adjudications from another Federal
department or agency will be
reciprocally accepted in accordance
with conditions stated in the procedural
guidance in this part. Reciprocity must
be based on final favorable adjudication
only.
(i) CAC applicants or holders may
appeal CAC denial or revocation in
accordance with the conditions stated in
the procedural guidance in this part.
Appeals must be processed as indicated
in the procedural guidance in this part.
(j) Non-U.S. nationals at foreign
locations are not eligible to receive a
CAC on an interim basis. Special
considerations for conducting
background investigations of non-U.S.
nationals are addressed in U.S. OPM
Memorandum, ‘‘Final Credentialing
Standards for Issuing Personal Identity
Verification Cards Under HSPD–12.’’ An
interim CAC may be issued to non-U.S.
nationals in the U.S. or U.S. territories
if they have resided in the U.S. or U.S.
territory for at least 3 years, and they
satisfy the requirements of paragraph (e)
of this section and paragraph
(a)(4)(ii)(A) of § 157.6.
(k) Individuals who have been denied
a CAC or have had a CAC revoked due
to an unfavorable credentialing
determination are eligible to reapply for
a credential 1 year after the date of final
adjudicative denial or revocation.
(l) Individuals with a statutory or
regulatory bar are not eligible for
reconsideration while under debarment,
see paragraph (d)(6) of § 157.6.
(m) The Deputy Secretary of Defense
directed all reports of investigations
conducted as required for compliance
with Homeland Security Presidential
E:\FR\FM\17SER1.SGM
17SER1
55626
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 180 / Wednesday, September 17, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
Directive-12, ‘‘Policy for a Common
Identification Standard for Federal
Employees and Contractors’’ (available
at https://www.dhs.gov/homelandsecurity-presidential-directive-12) to be
sent to the consolidated DoD Central
Adjudications Facility.
(n) When eligibility is denied or
revoked, CACs shall be recovered
whenever practicable, and shall
immediately be rendered inoperable. In
addition, agencies’ physical and logical
access systems shall be immediately
updated to eliminate the use of a CAC
for access.
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
§ 157.5
Responsibilities.
(a) The USD(I) must:
(1) In coordination with the Under
Secretary of Defense for Personnel and
Readiness (USD(P&R)) and the General
Counsel of the Department of Defense
(GC, DoD), establish adjudication
procedures to support CAC
credentialing decisions in accordance
with DoD Manual 1000.13, Volume 1,
‘‘DoD Identification (ID) Cards; ID Card
Life-Cycle’’; U.S. Office of Personnel
Management Memorandum, ‘‘Final
Credentialing Standards for Issuing
Personal Identity Verification Cards
Under HSPD–12’’; U.S. Office of
Personnel Management Memorandum,
‘‘Introduction of Credentialing,
Suitability, and Security Clearance
Decision-Making Guide; Office of
Management and Budget Memorandum
M–05–24, ‘‘Implementation of
Homeland Security Presidential
Directive (HSPD) 12—Policy for a
Common Identification Standard for
Federal Employees and Contractors’’
(available at https://
www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/
omb/memoranda/fy2005/m05-24.pdf);
U.S. Office of Personnel Management
Federal Investigations Notice Number
06–04, ‘‘HSPD 12—Advanced
Fingerprint Results’’ (available at
https://www.opm.gov/extra/investigate/
FIN06_04.pdf); Homeland Security
Presidential Directive-12, ‘‘Policy for a
Common Identification Standard for
Federal Employees and Contractors’’; 5
U.S.C. 552, 552a and 7313; Federal
Information Processing Standards
Publication 201–2, ‘‘Personal Identity
Verification (PIV) of Federal Employees
and Contractors’’ (available at https://
csrc.nist.gov/publications/
PubsFIPS.html); Executive Order 13467,
‘‘Reforming Processes Related to
Suitability for Government
Employment, Fitness for Contractor
Employees, and Eligibility for Access to
Classified National Security
Information’’; Executive Order 13488,
‘‘Granting Reciprocity on Excepted
Service and Federal Contractor
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:27 Sep 16, 2014
Jkt 232001
Employee Fitness and Reinvestigating
Individuals in Positions of Public
Trust’’; 15 U.S.C. 278g–3; 40 U.S.C.
11331; and U.S. Office of Personnel
Management Federal Investigations
Notice Number 10–05, ‘‘Reminder to
Agencies of the Standards for Issuing
Identity Credentials Under HSPD–12’’
(available at https://www.opm.gov/
investigate/fins/2010/fin10-05.pdf) for
issuing a CAC to Service members and
DoD civilian personnel.
(2) In coordination with the Under
Secretary of Defense for Acquisition,
Technology, and Logistics (USD(AT&L))
and the GC, DoD, establish adjudication
procedures to support a CAC
credentialing decision for contractors in
accordance with the terms of applicable
contracts and the references cited in
paragraph (a)(1) of this section, the
Federal Acquisition Regulation
(available at https://
www.acquisition.gov/far/current/pdf/
FAR.pdf), and the Defense Federal
Acquisition Regulation Supplement
(available at https://www.acq.osd.mil/
dpap/dars/dfarspgi/current/
index.html).
(3) Issue, interpret, and clarify CAC
investigative and adjudicative guidance
in coordination with the Suitability
Executive Agent as necessary.
(b) The USD(P&R) must, in
coordination with the GC, DoD,
implement CAC PSI and adjudication
procedures established herein as
necessary to support issuance of a CAC
to Service members and DoD civilian
personnel in accordance with the
references cited in paragraph (a)(1) of
this section.
(c) The USD(AT&L) must, in
coordination with the GC, DoD,
implement CAC PSI and adjudication
procedures established by the USD(I) for
contractors in accordance with the
terms of applicable contracts and the
references cited in paragraph (a)(1) of
this section, Federal Acquisition
Regulation, current edition; and Defense
Federal Acquisition Regulation
Supplement, current edition.
(d) The GC, DoD must:
(1) Provide advice and guidance as to
the legal sufficiency of procedures and
standards involved in adjudicating CAC
investigations.
(2) Perform functions relating to the
DoD Homeland Security Presidential
Directive (HSPD)–12 Program in
accordance with DoD Directive 5220.6,
‘‘Defense Industrial Personnel Security
Clearance Review Program’’ (available at
https://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/
corres/pdf/522006p.pdf) and DoD
Directive 5145.01, ‘‘General Counsel of
the Department of Defense’’ (available at
https://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
corres/pdf/514501p.pdf) including
maintenance and oversight of the
Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals
(DOHA) and its involvement in
contractor CAC revocations as specified
in paragraph (b)(6)(i)(B) of § 157.6 of
this part.
(3) Coordinate on USD(P&R)
implementation of CAC PSI and
adjudication procedures, in accordance
with the references cited in paragraph
(a)(1) of this section, for Service
members and DoD civilian personnel,
and USD(AT&L) implementation of
USD(I) procedures for CAC PSI and
adjudication in accordance with the
terms of applicable contracts and the
references cited in paragraph (a)(1) of
this section, Federal Acquisition
Regulation and Defense Federal
Acquisition Regulation Supplement.
(e) The Heads of the DoD Components
must:
(1) Comply with and implement this
part.
(2) Provide resources for PSIs,
adjudication, appeals, and recording of
final adjudicative results in a
centralized database.
(3) Require individuals sponsored for
a CAC to meet eligibility requirements
stated in DTM 08–003.
(4) Provide appeals boards for those
individuals appealing CAC denial or
revocation as specified in paragraph
(b)(6)(i)(A) of § 157.6.
(5) Enforce requirements for reporting
of derogatory information, unfavorable
administrative actions, and adverse
actions to personnel security, HR, and
counterintelligence official(s), as
appropriate.
(6) Require all PSIs submitted for nonDoD personnel to be supported by and
comply with DoD PIV procedures in
contracts that implement requirements
of paragraphs 4.1303 and 52.204–9 of
Federal Acquisition Regulation, current
edition.
(7) Require all investigations and
adjudications required for non-DoD
personnel to be in response to a current,
active contract or agreement and that
the number of personnel submitted for
investigation and adjudication does not
exceed the specific requirements of that
contract or agreement while ensuring
compliance with HSPD–12.
§ 157.6
Procedures.
(a) CAC Investigative Procedures— (1)
Investigative Requirements. (i) A
personnel security investigation (NACI
or greater) completed by an authorized
ISP is required to support a CAC
credentialing determination based on
the established credentialing standards
promulgated by OPM Memorandum,
‘‘Final Credentialing Standards for
E:\FR\FM\17SER1.SGM
17SER1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 180 / Wednesday, September 17, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
Issuing Personal Identity Verification
Cards Under HSPD–12’’.
(ii) Individuals identified as having a
favorably adjudicated investigation on
record, equivalent to or greater than the
NACI, do not require an additional
investigation for CAC issuance.
(iii) There is no requirement to
reinvestigate CAC holders unless they
are subject to reinvestigation for
national security or suitability reasons
as specified in applicable DoD
issuances.
(2) Submission of Investigations.
Investigative packages must be
submitted promptly by HR or security
personnel to the authorized ISP.
Fingerprints for CAC applicants must be
taken by HR or security personnel. DoD
Components using the OPM as the ISP
may request advanced fingerprint check
results in accordance with OPM Federal
Investigations Notice Number 06–04.
(3) Reciprocity. (i) The sponsoring
Component must not re-adjudicate CAC
determinations for individuals
transferring from another Federal
department or agency, provided:
(A) The individual’s former
department or agency verifies
possession of a valid PIV.
(B) The individual has undergone the
required NACI or other equivalent (or
greater) suitability or national security
investigation and received favorable
adjudication from the former
department or agency.
(C) There is no break in service 2
years or more and the individual has no
actionable information since the date of
the last completed investigation.
(ii) Interim CAC determinations are
not eligible to be transferred or
reciprocally accepted. Reciprocity must
be based on final favorable adjudication
only.
(4) Foreign (Non-U.S.) Nationals. DoD
Components must apply the
credentialing process and standards in
this part to non-U.S. nationals who
work as employees or contractor
employees for the DoD. However,
special considerations apply to non-U.S.
nationals.
(i) At Foreign Locations. (A) DoD
Components must initiate and ensure
completion of a background
investigation before applying the
credentialing standards to a non-U.S.
national at a foreign location. The
background investigation must be
favorably adjudicated before a CAC can
be issued to a non-U.S. national at a
foreign location. The type of background
investigation may vary based on
standing reciprocity treaties concerning
identity assurance and information
exchanges that exist between the U.S.
and its allies or agency agreements with
the host country.
(B) The investigation of a non-U.S.
national at a foreign location must be
consistent with a NACI, to the extent
possible, and include a fingerprint
check against the FBI criminal history
database, an FBI investigations files
(name check) search, and a name check
against the terrorist screening database.
(ii) At U.S.-Based Locations and in
U.S. Territories (Other than American
Samoa and Commonwealth of the
Northern Mariana Islands). (A)
Individuals who are non-U.S. nationals
in the United States or U.S. territory for
3 years or more must have a NACI or
equivalent investigation initiated after
55627
employment authorization is
appropriately verified.
(B) Non-U.S. nationals who have been
in the United States or U.S. territory for
less than 3 years do not meet the
investigative requirements for CAC
issuance. DoD Components may delay
the background investigation of a NonU.S. national who has been in the U.S.
or U.S. territory for less than 3 years
until the individual has been in the
United States or U.S. territory for at
least 3 years. In the event of such a
delay, an alternative facility access
identity credential may be issued at the
discretion of the relevant DoD
Component official, as appropriate
based on a risk determination in
accordance with DoD 5200.08–R,
‘‘Physical Security Program’’ (available
at https://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/
corres/pdf/520008r.pdf) and U.S. Office
of Personnel Management
Memorandum, ‘‘Final Credentialing
Standards for Issuing Personal Identity
Verification Cards Under HSPD–12.’’
(C) The U.S. territories of American
Samoa and the Commonwealth of the
Northern Mariana Islands are not
included in the ‘‘United States’’ as
defined by the Immigration and
Nationality Act of 1952, as amended
(Pub. L. 82–414).
(5) Investigations Acceptable for CAC
Adjudication. A list of investigations
acceptable for CAC adjudication is
located in the Table. These
investigations are equivalent to or
greater than a NACI. This list will be
updated by the USD(I) as revisions to
the Federal investigative standards are
implemented.
TABLE—FAVORABLY ADJUDICATED INVESTIGATIONS ACCEPTABLE FOR CAC ADJUDICATION
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Investigation
Description
ANACI ........................
BGI–0112 ..................
BGI–1336 ..................
BGI–3760 ..................
BI ...............................
BIPN ..........................
BIPR ..........................
BITN ..........................
CNCI ..........................
IBI ..............................
LBI .............................
LBIP ...........................
LBIX ...........................
MBI ............................
MBIP ..........................
MBIX ..........................
NACB .........................
Access National Agency Check and Inquires.
Upgrade Background Investigation (1–12 months from LBI).
Upgrade Background Investigation (13–36 months from LBI).
Upgrade Background Investigation (37–60 months from LBI).
Background Investigation.
Background Investigation plus Current National Agency Check.
Periodic Reinvestigation of Background Investigation.
Background Investigation (10 year scope).
Child Care National Agency Check plus Written Inquires and Credit.
Interview Oriented Background Investigation.
Limited Background Investigation.
Limited Background Investigation plus Current National Agency Check.
Limited Background Investigation—Expanded.
Moderate Risk Background Investigation.
Moderate Risk Background Investigation plus Current National Agency Check.
Moderate Risk Background Investigation—Expanded.
National Agency Check/National Agency Check plus Written Inquires and Credit Check plus Background Investigation
Requested.
National Agency Check and Inquires.
National Agency Check with Law and Credit.
National Agency Check/National Agency Check plus Written Inquires and Credit Check plus Single Scope B.I. Requested.
National Agency Check plus Written Inquires and Credit.
NACI ..........................
NACLC ......................
NACS .........................
NACW ........................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:27 Sep 16, 2014
Jkt 232001
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\17SER1.SGM
17SER1
55628
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 180 / Wednesday, September 17, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE—FAVORABLY ADJUDICATED INVESTIGATIONS ACCEPTABLE FOR CAC ADJUDICATION—Continued
Investigation
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
NACZ .........................
NLC ...........................
NNAC ........................
NSI .............................
PRI .............................
PRS ...........................
PRSC .........................
PPR ...........................
SPR ...........................
SSBI ..........................
SSBI–PR ...................
Description
National Agency Check plus Written Inquires and Credit plus Special Investigative Inquiry.
National Agency Check, Local Agency Check and Credit.
National Agency Check plus Written Inquires and Credit Plus Current National Agency Check.
NSI—NACI/Suitability Determination.
Periodic Reinvestigation.
Periodic Reinvestigation Secret.
Periodic Reinvestigation Secret or Confidential.
Phased Periodic Reinvestigation.
Secret Periodic Reinvestigation.
Single Scope Background Investigation.
Periodic Reinvestigation for SSBI.
(b) CAC Adjudicative Procedures.—(1)
Guidance for Applying Credentialing
Standards During Adjudication. (i) As
established in Homeland Security
Presidential Directive–12, credentialing
adjudication considers whether or not
an individual is eligible for long-term
access to Federally controlled facilities
and/or information systems. The
ultimate determination to authorize,
deny, or revoke the CAC based on a
credentialing determination of the PSI
must be made after consideration of
applicable credentialing standards in
OPM Memorandum, ‘‘Final
Credentialing Standards for Issuing
Personal Identity Verification Cards
Under HSPD–12.’’
(ii) Each case is unique. Adjudicators
must examine conditions that raise an
adjudicative concern, the overriding
factor for all of these conditions is
unacceptable risk. Factors to be applied
consistently to all information available
to the adjudicator are:
(A) The nature and seriousness of the
conduct. The more serious the conduct,
the greater the potential for an adverse
CAC determination.
(B) The circumstances surrounding
the conduct. Sufficient information
concerning the circumstances of the
conduct must be obtained to determine
whether there is a reasonable basis to
believe the conduct poses a risk to
people, property or information
systems.
(C) The recency and frequency of the
conduct. More recent or more frequent
conduct is of greater concern.
(D) The individual’s age and maturity
at the time of the conduct. Offenses
committed as a minor are usually
treated as less serious than the same
offenses committed as an adult, unless
the offense is very recent, part of a
pattern, or particularly heinous.
(E) Contributing external conditions.
Economic and cultural conditions may
be relevant to the determination of
whether there is a reasonable basis to
believe there is an unacceptable risk if
the conditions are currently removed or
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:27 Sep 16, 2014
Jkt 232001
countered (generally considered in cases
with relatively minor issues).
(F) The absence or presence of efforts
toward rehabilitation, if relevant, to
address conduct adverse to CAC
determinations.
(1) Clear, affirmative evidence of
rehabilitation is required for a favorable
adjudication (e.g., seeking assistance
and following professional guidance,
where appropriate; demonstrating
positive changes in behavior and
employment).
(2) Rehabilitation may be a
consideration for most conduct, not just
alcohol and drug abuse. While formal
counseling or treatment may be a
consideration, other factors (such as the
individual’s employment record) may
also be indications of rehabilitation.
(iii) CAC adjudicators must
successfully complete formal training
through a DoD CAC adjudicator course
from the Defense Security Service
Center for Development of Security
Excellence or a course approved by the
Suitability Executive Agent.
(2) Credentialing Standards. HSPD–12
credentialing standards contained in
OPM Memorandum, ‘‘Final
Credentialing Standards for Issuing
Personal Identity Verification Cards
Under HSPD–12’’ must be used to
render a final determination whether to
issue or revoke a CAC based on results
of a qualifying PSI.
(i) Basic Standards. CAC
credentialing standards and the
adjudicative guidelines described in
paragraph (c) of this section are
designed to guide the adjudicator who
must determine, based on results of a
qualifying PSI, whether CAC issuance is
consistent with the basic standards,
would create an unacceptable risk for
the U.S. Government, or would provide
an avenue for terrorism.
(ii) Supplemental Standards. The
supplemental standards are intended to
ensure that the issuance of a CAC to an
individual does not create unacceptable
risk. The supplemental credentialing
standards must be applied, in addition
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
to the basic credentialing standards. In
this context, an unacceptable risk refers
to an unacceptable risk to the life,
safety, or health of employees,
contractors, vendors, or visitors; to the
Government’s physical assets or
information systems; to personal
property; to records, including
classified, privileged, proprietary,
financial, or medical records; or to the
privacy of data subjects.
The supplemental credentialing
standards, in addition to the basic
credentialing standards, must be used
for CAC adjudication of individuals
who are not also subject to the following
types of adjudication:
(A) Eligibility to hold a sensitive
position or for access to classified
information,
(B) Suitability for Federal
employment in the competitive service,
or
(C) Qualification for Federal
employment in the excepted service.
(3) Application of the Standards. (i)
CAC credentialing standards shall be
applied to all DoD civilian employees,
Service members, and contractors who
are CAC eligible, have been sponsored
by a DoD entity, and require: (a)
Physical access to DoD facilities or nonDoD facilities on behalf of DoD; (b)
logical access to information systems
(whether on site or remotely); or (c)
remote access to DoD networks that use
only the CAC logon for user
authentication.
(ii) If an individual is found
unsuitable for competitive civil service
consistent with 5 CFR part 731,
ineligible for access to classified
information pursuant to E.O. 12968, or
disqualified from appointment in the
excepted service or from working on a
contract, the unfavorable decision may
be sufficient basis for non-issuance or
revocation of a CAC, but does not
necessarily mandate this result.
(4) Adjudication. The CAC
adjudicators will consider the
information provided by the CAC PSI in
rendering a CAC credentialing
E:\FR\FM\17SER1.SGM
17SER1
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 180 / Wednesday, September 17, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
determination. The determination will
be unfavorable if there is a reasonable
basis to conclude that a disqualifying
factor in accordance with the basic CAC
credentialing standards is substantiated,
or when there is a reasonable basis to
conclude that derogatory information or
conduct relating to supplemental CAC
credentialing standards presents an
unacceptable risk for the U.S.
Government.
(i) If a DoD Component or DOHA
proposes to deny or revoke a CAC under
conditions other than those cited in
paragraph (b)(3)(ii) of this section, the
DoD Component or DOHA, as
appropriate in accordance with
paragraph (b)(6)(i) of this section, must
issue the individual a written statement
(also known as a letter of denial (LOD)
or revocation (LOR)) identifying the
disqualifying condition(s). The
statement must contain a summary of
the concerns and supporting adverse
information, instructions for
responding, and copies of the relevant
CAC credentialing standards and
adjudicative guidelines from this
section. The written LOD or LOR must
be as comprehensive and detailed as
permitted by the requirements of
national security and to protect sources
that were granted confidentiality, and as
allowed pursuant to provisions of 5
U.S.C. 552 and 552a. (Section 552a is
also known and hereinafter referred to
as ‘‘The Privacy Act of 1974, as
amended.’’)
(ii) The individual may elect to
respond in writing to the DoD
Component or DOHA, as appropriate,
within 30 calendar days from the date
of the LOD or LOR. Failure to respond
to the LOD or LOR will result in
automatic CAC denial or revocation.
(iii) When, subsequent to issuance of
an interim or final CAC, the U.S.
Government receives credible
information that raises questions as to
whether a current CAC holder continues
to meet the applicable credentialing
standards, the DoD Component may
reconsider the credentialing
determination using the procedures in
this part.
(5) Denial or Revocation. (i) DoD
Components must deny or revoke a CAC
if the individual fails to respond to the
LOD or LOR within the specified timeframe or the response to the written
statement has not provided a basis to
reverse the decision.
(ii) Denial or revocation of a CAC
must comply with applicable governing
laws and regulations:
(A) The U.S. Coast Guard shall afford
individuals appeal rights as established
in applicable Department of Homeland
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:27 Sep 16, 2014
Jkt 232001
Security and U.S. Coast Guard
Issuances.
(B) CAC provides Service members
with Geneva Convention protection in
accordance with DoD Instruction
1000.1, ‘‘Identification (ID) Cards
Required by the Geneva Conventions’’
(available at https://www.dtic.mil/whs/
directives/corres/pdf/100001p.pdf), and
authorized benefits (e.g. medical) and
must not be revoked or denied pursuant
to the provisions of this part. CAC for
Military Service members will be
surrendered only upon separation,
discharge, or retirement.
(C) In certain instances a CAC
provides other benefits or specific
privileges to civilian employees (e.g.
medical, post exchange and
commissary) when assigned overseas
long-term; or protected status to civilian
employees and contractors who are
accompanying U.S. forces during
overseas deployments in accordance
with DoD Instruction 1000.1. CAC for
DoD civilians or contractors in this
circumstance will not be revoked
pursuant to the provisions of this part,
but may be surrendered as part of other
adverse employment or contracting
actions or procedures.
(iii) When eligibility is denied or
revoked, the CAC shall be recovered
whenever practicable, and shall
immediately be rendered inoperable. In
addition, agency’s physical and logical
access systems shall immediately be
updated to eliminate the use of the CAC
for access.
(6) Appeals. (i) Individuals who have
been denied a CAC or have had a CAC
revoked due to an unfavorable
credentialing determination must be
entitled to appeal the determination in
accordance with the following
procedures:
(A) Except as stated in paragraph
(b)(6)(ii) of this section, new civilian
and contractor applicants who have
been denied a CAC may elect to appeal
to a three member board composed of
not more than one security
representative and one human resources
representative.
(B) Contractor employees who have
had their CAC revoked may appeal the
unfavorable determination to the DOHA
in accordance with the established
administrative process set out in DoD
Directive 5220.6.
(ii) This appeal process does not
apply when a CAC is denied or revoked
as a result of either an unfavorable
suitability determination consistent
with 5 CFR part 731 or a decision to
deny or revoke eligibility for access to
classified information or eligibility for a
sensitive national security position,
since the person is already entitled to
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
55629
seek review in accordance with
applicable suitability or national
security procedures. Likewise, there is
no right to appeal when the decision to
deny the CAC is based on the results of
a separate determination to disqualify
the person from an appointment in the
excepted service or to bar the person
from working for or on behalf of a
Federal department or agency.
(iii) The DoD Component will notify
the individual in writing of the final
determination and provide a statement
that this determination is not subject to
further appeal.
(7) Recording Final Determination.
Immediately following final
adjudication, the sponsoring activity
must record the final eligibility
determination (e.g., active, revoked,
denied) in the OPM Central Verification
System as directed by OPM
Memorandum, ‘‘Final Credentialing
Standards for Issuing Personal Identity
Verification Cards Under HSPD–12.’’
DoD Component records will document
the adjudicative rationale. Adjudicative
records shall be made available to
authorized recipients as required for
appeal purposes.
(c) Basic Adjudicative Standards. (1)
A CAC will not be issued to a person if
the individual is known to be or
reasonably suspected of being a
terrorist.
(i) A CAC must not be issued to a
person if the individual is known to be
or reasonably suspected of being a
terrorist. Individuals entrusted with
access to Federal property and
information systems must not put the
U.S. Government at risk or provide an
avenue for terrorism.
(ii) Therefore, conditions that may be
disqualifying include evidence that the
individual has knowingly and willfully
been involved with reportable domestic
or international terrorist contacts or
foreign intelligence entities,
counterintelligence activities,
indicators, or other behaviors described
in DoD Directive 5240.06,
‘‘Counterintelligence Awareness and
Reporting (CIAR)’’ (available at https://
www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/
524006p.pdf).
(2) A CAC will not be issued to a
person if the employer is unable to
verify the individual’s claimed identity.
(i) A CAC must not be issued to a
person if the DoD component is unable
to verify the individual’s claimed
identity. To be considered eligible for a
CAC, the individual’s identity must be
clearly authenticated. The CAC must
not be issued when identity cannot be
authenticated.
(ii) Therefore, conditions that may be
disqualifying include:
E:\FR\FM\17SER1.SGM
17SER1
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
55630
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 180 / Wednesday, September 17, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
(A) The individual claimed it was not
possible to provide two identity source
documents from the list of acceptable
documents in Form I–9, Office of
Management and Budget No. 1115–
0136, ‘‘Employment Eligibility
Verification,’’(available at https://
www.uscis.gov/files/form/i-9.pdf) or
provided only one identity source
document from the list of acceptable
documents.
(B) The individual did not appear in
person as required by Federal
Information Processing Standards
Publication 201–2.
(C) The individual refused to
cooperate with the documentation and
investigative requirements to validate
his or her identity.
(D) The investigation failed to confirm
the individual’s claimed identity.
(iii) No conditions can mitigate
inability to verify the applicant’s
identity.
(3) A CAC will not be issued to a
person if there is a reasonable basis to
believe the individual has submitted
fraudulent information concerning his
or her identity.
(i) A CAC must not be issued to a
person if there is a reasonable basis to
believe the individual has submitted
fraudulent information concerning his
or her identity in an attempt to obtain
the current credential.
(A) Substitution occurred in the
identity proofing process; the individual
who appeared on one occasion was not
the same person that appeared on
another occasion.
(B) The fingerprints associated with
the identity do not belong to the person
attempting to obtain a CAC.
(ii) No conditions can mitigate
submission of fraudulent information in
an attempt to obtain a current
credential.
(4) A CAC will not be issued to a
person if there is a reasonable basis to
believe the individual will attempt to
gain unauthorized access to classified
documents, information protected by
the Privacy Act, information that is
proprietary in nature, or other sensitive
or protected information.
(i) Individuals must comply with
information-handling regulations and
rules. Individuals must properly handle
classified and protected information
such as sensitive or proprietary
information.
(ii) Individuals should not attempt to
gain unauthorized access to classified
documents or other sensitive or
protected information. Unauthorized
access to U.S. Government information
or improper use of U.S. Government
information once access is granted may
pose a significant risk to national
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:27 Sep 16, 2014
Jkt 232001
security, may compromise individual
privacy, and may make public
information that is proprietary in
nature, thus compromising the
operations and missions of Federal
agencies.
(iii) A CAC must not be issued if there
is a reasonable basis to believe the
individual will attempt to gain
unauthorized access to classified
documents, information protected by
the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended,
information that is proprietary in
nature, or other sensitive or protected
information.
(iv) Therefore, conditions that may be
disqualifying include any attempt to
gain unauthorized access to classified,
sensitive, proprietary or other protected
information.
(v) Circumstances relevant to the
determination of whether there is a
reasonable basis to believe there is an
unacceptable risk include:
(A) Since the time of the last act or
activities, the person has demonstrated
a favorable change in behavior.
(B) The behavior happened so long
ago, was minor, or happened under
such unusual circumstances that it is
unlikely to recur and does not cast
doubt on the individual’s ability to
safeguard protected information.
(5) A CAC will not be issued to a
person if there is a reasonable basis to
believe the individual will use an
identity credential outside the
workplace unlawfully or
inappropriately.
(i) A CAC must not be issued to a
person if there is a reasonable basis to
believe the individual will use an
identity credential outside the
workplace unlawfully or
inappropriately.
(ii) Therefore, conditions that may be
disqualifying include:
(A) Documented history of fraudulent
requests for credentials or other official
documentation.
(B) Previous incidents in which the
individual used credentials or other
official documentation to circumvent
rules or regulations.
(C) A history of incidents involving
misuse of credentials that put physical
assets or personal property at risk.
(iii) Circumstances relevant to the
determination of whether there is a
reasonable basis to believe there is an
unacceptable risk include:
(A) The behavior happened so long
ago, was minor, or happened under
such unusual circumstances that it is
unlikely to recur and does not cast
doubt on the individual’s ability and
willingness to use credentials lawfully
and appropriately.
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
(6) A CAC will not be issued to a
person if there is a reasonable basis to
believe the individual will use
Federally-controlled information
systems unlawfully, make unauthorized
modifications to such systems, corrupt
or destroy such systems, or engage in
inappropriate uses of such systems.
(i) Individuals must comply with
rules, procedures, guidelines, or
regulations pertaining to information
technology systems and properly protect
sensitive systems, networks, and
information. The individual should not
attempt to use federally-controlled
information systems unlawfully, make
unauthorized modifications, corrupt or
destroy, or engage in inappropriate uses
of such systems. A CAC must not be
issued to a person if there is a
reasonable basis to believe the
individual will do so or has done so in
the past.
(ii) Therefore, conditions that may be
disqualifying include:
(A) Illegal, unauthorized, or
inappropriate use of an information
technology system or component.
(B) Unauthorized modification,
destruction, manipulation of
information, software, firmware, or
hardware to corrupt or destroy
information technology systems or data.
(iii) Circumstances relevant to the
determination of whether there is a
reasonable basis to believe there is an
unacceptable risk include:
(A) The behavior happened so long
ago, was minor, or happened under
such unusual circumstances that it is
unlikely to recur and does not cast
doubt on the individual’s ability and
willingness to conform to rules and
regulations for use of information
technology systems.
(d) Supplemental Adjudicative
Standards. (1) A CAC will not be issued
to a person if there is a reasonable basis
to believe, based on the individual’s
misconduct or negligence in
employment, that issuance of a CAC
poses an unacceptable risk.
(i) An individual’s employment
misconduct or negligence may put
people, property, or information
systems at risk.
(ii) Therefore, conditions that may be
disqualifying include:
(A) A previous history of intentional
wrongdoing on the job, disruptive,
violent, or other acts that may pose an
unacceptable risk to people, property, or
information systems.
(B) A pattern of dishonesty or rule
violations in the workplace which put
people, property or information at risk.
(C) A documented history of misusing
workplace information systems to view,
download, or distribute pornography.
E:\FR\FM\17SER1.SGM
17SER1
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 180 / Wednesday, September 17, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
(D) Violation of written or recorded
commitments to protect information
made to an employer, such as breach(es)
of confidentiality or the release of
proprietary or other information.
(E) Failure to comply with rules or
regulations for the safeguarding of
classified, sensitive, or other protected
information.
(iii) Circumstances relevant to the
determination of whether there is a
reasonable basis to believe there is an
unacceptable risk include:
(A) The behavior happened so long
ago, was minor, or happened under
such unusual circumstances that it is
unlikely to recur and does not cast
doubt on the individual’s current
trustworthiness or good judgment
relating to the safety of people and
proper safeguarding of property and
information systems.
(B) The individual was not adequately
warned that the conduct was
unacceptable and could not reasonably
be expected to know that the conduct
was wrong.
(C) The individual made prompt,
good-faith efforts to correct the
behavior.
(D) The individual responded
favorably to counseling or remedial
training and has since demonstrated a
positive attitude toward the discharge of
information-handling or security
responsibilities.
(2) A CAC will not be issued to a
person if there is a reasonable basis to
believe, based on the individual’s
criminal or dishonest conduct, that
issuance of a CAC poses an
unacceptable risk.
(i) An individual’s conduct involving
questionable judgment, lack of candor,
dishonesty, or unwillingness to comply
with rules and regulations can raise
questions about his or her reliability or
trustworthiness and may put people,
property, or information systems at risk.
An individual’s past criminal or
dishonest conduct may put people,
property, or information systems at risk.
(ii) Therefore, conditions that may be
disqualifying include:
(A) A single serious crime or multiple
lesser offenses which put the safety of
people at risk or threaten the protection
of property or information. A person’s
convictions for burglary may indicate
that granting a CAC poses an
unacceptable risk to the U.S.
Government’s physical assets and to
employees’ personal property on a U.S.
Government facility.
(B) Charges or admission of criminal
conduct relating to the safety of people
and proper protection of property or
information systems, regardless of
whether the person was formally
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:27 Sep 16, 2014
Jkt 232001
charged, formally prosecuted, or
convicted.
(C) Dishonest acts (e.g., theft,
accepting bribes, falsifying claims,
perjury, forgery, or attempting to obtain
identity documentation without proper
authorization).
(D) Deceptive or illegal financial
practices such as embezzlement,
employee theft, check fraud, income tax
evasion, expense account fraud, filing
deceptive loan statements, or other
intentional financial breaches of trust.
(E) Actions involving violence or
sexual behavior of a criminal nature that
poses an unacceptable risk if access is
granted to federally-controlled facilities
or federally-controlled information
systems. For example, convictions for
sexual assault may indicate that
granting a CAC poses an unacceptable
risk to the life and safety of persons on
U.S. Government facilities.
(F) Financial irresponsibility may
raise questions about the individual’s
honesty and put people, property or
information systems at risk, although
financial debt should not in and of itself
be cause for denial.
(G) Deliberate omission, concealment,
or falsification of relevant facts or
deliberately providing false or
misleading information to an employer,
investigator, security official, competent
medical authority, or other official U.S.
Government representative, particularly
when doing so results in personal
benefit or which results in a risk to the
safety of people and proper safeguarding
of property and information systems.
(iii) Circumstances relevant to the
determination of whether there is a
reasonable basis to believe there is an
unacceptable risk include:
(A) The behavior happened so long
ago, was minor in nature, or happened
under such unusual circumstances that
it is unlikely to recur.
(B) Charges were dismissed or
evidence was provided that the person
did not commit the offense and details
and reasons support his or her
innocence.
(C) Improper or inadequate advice
from authorized personnel or legal
counsel significantly contributed to the
individual’s omission, of information.
When confronted, the individual
provided an accurate explanation and
made prompt, good-faith effort to
correct the situation.
(D) Evidence has been supplied of
successful rehabilitation, including but
not limited to remorse or restitution, job
training or higher education, good
employment record, constructive
community involvement, or passage of
time without recurrence.
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
55631
(3) A CAC will not be issued to a
person if there is a reasonable basis to
believe, based on the individual’s
material, intentional false statement,
deception, or fraud in connection with
Federal or contract employment, that
issuance of a CAC poses an
unacceptable risk.
(i) The individual’s conduct involving
questionable judgment, lack of candor,
or unwillingness to comply with rules
and regulations can raise questions
about an individual’s honesty,
reliability, trustworthiness, and put
people, property, or information
systems at risk.
(ii) Therefore, conditions that may be
disqualifying include material,
intentional falsification, deception or
fraud related to answers or information
provided during the employment
process for the current or a prior Federal
or contract employment (e.g., on the
employment application or other
employment, appointment or
investigative documents, or during
interviews.)
(iii) Circumstances relevant to the
determination of whether there is a
reasonable basis to believe there is an
unacceptable risk include:
(A) The misstated or omitted
information was so long ago, was minor,
or happened under such unusual
circumstances that it is unlikely to
recur.
(B) The misstatement or omission was
unintentional or inadvertent and was
followed by a prompt, good-faith effort
to correct the situation.
(4) A CAC will not be issued to a
person if there is a reasonable basis to
believe, based on the nature or duration
of the individual’s alcohol abuse
without evidence of substantial
rehabilitation, that issuance of a CAC
poses an unacceptable risk.
(i) An individual’s abuse of alcohol
may put people, property, or
information systems at risk. Alcohol
abuse can lead to the exercise of
questionable judgment or failure to
control impulses, and may put people,
property, or information systems at risk,
regardless of whether he or she is
diagnosed as an abuser of alcohol or
alcohol dependent. A person’s longterm abuse of alcohol without evidence
of substantial rehabilitation may
indicate that granting a CAC poses an
unacceptable safety risk in a U.S.
Government facility.
(ii) Therefore, conditions that may be
disqualifying include:
(A) A pattern of alcohol-related
arrests.
(B) Alcohol-related incidents at work,
such as reporting for work or duty in an
E:\FR\FM\17SER1.SGM
17SER1
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
55632
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 180 / Wednesday, September 17, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
intoxicated or impaired condition, or
drinking on the job.
(C) Current continuing abuse of
alcohol.
(D) Failure to follow any court order
regarding alcohol education, evaluation,
treatment, or abstinence.
(iii) Circumstances relevant to the
determination of whether there is a
reasonable basis to believe there is an
unacceptable risk include:
(A) The individual acknowledges his
or her alcoholism or issues of alcohol
abuse, provides evidence of actions
taken to overcome this problem, and has
established a pattern of abstinence (if
alcohol dependent) or responsible use
(if an abuser of alcohol).
(B) The individual is participating in
counseling or treatment programs, has
no history of previous treatment or
relapse, and is making satisfactory
progress.
(C) The individual has successfully
completed inpatient or outpatient
counseling or rehabilitation along with
any required aftercare. He or she has
demonstrated a clear and established
pattern of modified consumption or
abstinence in accordance with treatment
recommendations, such as participation
in an alcohol treatment program. The
individual has received a favorable
prognosis by a duly qualified medical
professional or a licensed clinical social
worker who is a staff member of a
recognized alcohol treatment program.
(5) A CAC will not be issued to a
person if there is a reasonable basis to
believe, based on the nature or duration
of the individual’s illegal use of
narcotics, drugs, or other controlled
substances without evidence of
substantial rehabilitation, that issuance
of a CAC poses an unacceptable risk.
(i) An individual’s abuse of drugs may
put people, property, or information
systems at risk. Illegal use of narcotics,
drugs, or other controlled substances, to
include abuse of prescription or overthe-counter drugs, can raise questions
about his or her trustworthiness, or
ability or willingness to comply with
laws, rules, and regulations. For
example, a person’s long-term illegal
use of narcotics without evidence of
substantial rehabilitation may indicate
that granting a CAC poses an
unacceptable safety risk in a U.S.
Government facility.
(ii) Therefore, conditions that may be
disqualifying include:
(A) Current or recent illegal drug use,
serious narcotic, or other controlled
substance offense.
(B) A pattern of drug-related arrests or
problems in employment.
(C) Illegal drug possession, including
cultivation, processing, manufacture,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:27 Sep 16, 2014
Jkt 232001
purchase, sale, or distribution of illegal
drugs, or possession of drug
paraphernalia.
(D) Diagnosis by a duly qualified
medical professional (e.g., physician,
clinical psychologist, or psychiatrist) of
drug abuse or drug dependence.
(E) Evaluation of drug abuse or drug
dependence by a licensed clinical social
worker who is a staff member of a
recognized drug treatment program.
(F) Failure to successfully complete a
drug treatment program prescribed by a
duly qualified medical professional.
(G) Any illegal drug use after formally
agreeing to comply with rules or
regulations prohibiting drug use.
(H) Any illegal use or abuse of
prescription or over-the-counter drugs.
(iii) Circumstances relevant to the
determination of whether there is a
reasonable basis to believe there is an
unacceptable risk include:
(A) The behavior happened so long
ago, was so infrequent, or happened
under such circumstances that it is
unlikely to recur (e.g., clear, lengthy
break since last use; strong evidence the
use will not occur again).
(B) A demonstrated intent not to
abuse any drugs in the future, such as:
(1) Abstaining from drug use.
(2) Disassociating from drug-using
associates and contacts.
(3) Changing or avoiding the
environment where drugs were used.
(C) Abuse of prescription drugs
followed a severe or prolonged illness
during which these drugs were
prescribed and abuse has since ended.
(D) Satisfactory completion of a
prescribed drug treatment program,
including but not limited to
rehabilitation and aftercare
requirements without recurrence of
abuse, and a favorable prognosis by a
duly qualified medical professional.
(6) A CAC will not be issued to a
person if a statutory or regulatory bar
prevents the individual’s contract
employment; or would prevent Federal
employment under circumstances that
furnish a reasonable basis to believe that
issuance of a CAC poses an
unacceptable risk.
(i) The purpose of this standard is to
verify whether there is a bar on contract
employment, and whether the contract
employee is subject to a Federal
employment debarment for reasons that
also pose an unacceptable risk in the
contracting context. For example, a
person’s 5-year bar on Federal
employment based on a felony
conviction related to inciting a riot or
civil disorder, as specified in 5 U.S.C.
7313, may indicate that granting a CAC
poses an unacceptable risk to persons,
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
property, and assets in U.S. Government
facilities.
(ii) Therefore, conditions that may be
disqualifying include:
(A) A debarment was imposed by
OPM, DoD, or other Federal agencies
when the conduct poses an
unacceptable risk to people, property, or
information systems.
(B) The suitability debarment was
based on the presence of serious
suitability issues when the conduct
poses an unacceptable risk to people,
property, or information systems.
(iii) Circumstances relevant to the
determination of whether there is a
reasonable basis to believe there is an
unacceptable risk include:
(A) Applicant proves the reason(s) for
the debarment no longer exists.
(B) The debarment is job or positionspecific and is not applicable to the job
currently under consideration.
(7) A CAC will not be issued to a
person if the individual has knowingly
and willfully engaged in acts or
activities designed to overthrow the U.S.
Government by force.
(i) Individuals entrusted with access
to U.S. Government property and
information systems must not put the
U.S. Government at risk.
(ii) Therefore, conditions that may be
disqualifying include:
(A) Illegal involvement in, support of,
training to commit, or advocacy of any
act of sabotage, espionage, treason or
sedition against the United States of
America.
(B) Association or agreement with
persons who attempt to or commit any
of the acts in paragraph (d)(7)(ii)(A) of
this section with the specific intent to
further those unlawful aims.
(C) Association or agreement with
persons or organizations that advocate,
threaten, or use force or violence, or use
any other illegal or unconstitutional
means in an effort to overthrow or
influence the U.S. Government.
(iii) Circumstances relevant to the
determination of whether there is a
reasonable basis to believe there is an
unacceptable risk include:
(A) The behavior happened so long
ago, was minor, or happened under
such unusual circumstances that it is
unlikely to recur and does not cast
doubt on the individual’s current
trustworthiness.
(B) The person was not aware of the
person’s or organization’s dedication to
illegal, treasonous, or seditious
activities or did not have the specific
intent to further the illegal, treasonous,
or seditious ends of the person or
organization.
(C) The individual did not have the
specific intent to incite others to
E:\FR\FM\17SER1.SGM
17SER1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 180 / Wednesday, September 17, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
advocate, threaten, or use force or
violence, or use any other illegal or
unconstitutional means to engage in
illegal, treasonous, or seditious
activities.
(D) The individual’s involvement in
the activities was for an official purpose.
Dated: September 11, 2014.
Aaron Siegel,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison
Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 2014–22034 Filed 9–16–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001–06–P
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS
U.S. Copyright Office
37 CFR Part 201
[Docket No. 2014–04]
Changes to Recordation Practices
U.S. Copyright Office, Library
of Congress.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
The U.S. Copyright Office is
amending its regulations for the
recordation of copyright transfers and
other documents. The rule is intended
to reduce the amount of time the Office
requires to process certain types of
documents submitted for recordation
and help to alleviate remitter concerns
regarding the receipt of documents for
processing. To these ends, the revised
regulations encourage remitters to
include a cover sheet with the
documents they submit for processing;
allow remitters to submit long title lists
in electronic format; and provide
remitters with the option to request
return receipts that acknowledge that
the Office has received a submission.
DATES: Effective October 17, 2014.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Jacqueline C. Charlesworth, General
Counsel and Associate Register of
Copyrights, by email at jcharlesworth@
loc.gov or by telephone at 202–707–
8350; or Sarang V. Damle, Special
Advisor to the General Counsel, by
email at sdam@loc.gov or by telephone
at 202–707–8350.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
SUMMARY:
I. Background
On July 16, 2014, the Copyright Office
published a Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (‘‘NPRM’’) setting forth
proposed regulatory amendments
designed to speed processing of
documents submitted for recordation
under section 205 of title 17 of the
United States Code. See 79 FR 41470.
The NPRM encompassed three
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:27 Sep 16, 2014
Jkt 232001
recommended changes to the Office’s
recordation regulations. First, the NPRM
proposed amending the regulations to
reflect the fact that the Office has
created a Recordation Document Cover
Sheet (Form DCS) to assist with the
processing of documents submitted for
recordation under section 205. As the
NPRM explained, remitters are not
required to use Form DCS unless they
are requesting a return receipt, but use
of the form is encouraged to facilitate
better recordkeeping and
communication between the Office and
remitters. Id. at 41471. Second, the
NPRM proposed a rule to permit (but
not require) the submission of electronic
lists of titles of copyrighted works
associated with remitted documents,
where such lists include 100 or more
titles. Id. at 41471–72. The NPRM noted
that submission of lengthy title lists in
electronic format would speed
processing of documents by eliminating
the need for manual transcription of
titles into the Office’s Public Catalog. Id.
at 41471. Third, the NPRM specified a
procedure by which a remitter could
receive a return receipt indicating that
the Office had received a document
submitted for recordation. Id. at 41472.
Five comments were received in
response to the NPRM.1 The Motion
Picture Association of America, Inc.
(‘‘MPAA’’) and Barbara Jones-Binns
endorsed the proposed amendments in
full, and had no further suggestions.2
Author Services, Inc., also supported
the proposed rule, but stated it would be
interested if, as a ‘‘next step,’’ the Office
would ‘‘move towards being able to
submit the titles of documents
electronically for less than 100 titles.’’ 3
Finally, the Recording Industry
Association of America, Inc. (‘‘RIAA’’)
submitted comments that were largely
supportive of the proposed rule, but
contained three substantive concerns
that are addressed in more detail
below.4
1 All comments received in response to the NPRM
can be found on the Copyright Office’s Web site at
https://copyright.gov/rulemaking/recordationpractices/docket2014-4/comments/.
2 See Motion Picture Ass’n of Am., Inc.,
Comments Submitted in Response to U.S. Copyright
Office’s July 16, 2014 Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (Aug. 15, 2014) (‘‘MPAA Comments’’);
Barbara Jones-Binns, Comments Submitted in
Response to U.S. Copyright Office’s July 16, 2014
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Aug. 15, 2014).
3 Author Services, Inc., Comments Submitted in
Response to U.S. Copyright Office’s July 16, 2014
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Aug. 11, 2014).
4 Recording Industry Ass’n of Am., Inc.,
Comments Submitted in Response to U.S. Copyright
Office’s July 16, 2014 Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (Aug. 15, 2014) (‘‘RIAA Comments’’).
The Office received an additional comment
regarding return receipts for electronic deposits
submitted as part of registration, an issue that is
outside the scope of this rulemaking.
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
55633
II. Final Rule
No commenter opposed the
provisions of the proposed rule relating
to Form DCS (section 201.4(b)) or the
procedures for obtaining a return receipt
(section 201.4(f)). Accordingly, those
provisions of the proposed rule are
adopted in the final rule without
alteration.
With respect to the proposed rule for
submission of electronic title lists,
commenters universally endorsed the
basic approach of allowing remitters to
file electronic lists of 100 or more titles,
and expressed no concerns regarding
the format or submission requirements
for electronic title lists. For example, the
RIAA ‘‘commend[ed] the Office for its
proposal’’ and ‘‘agree[d] that [it] should
relieve the Office of some of the burden
of cataloging recordations of copyright
documents involving large numbers of
titles and expedite the processing of
such documents.’’ RIAA Comments at 2.
With respect to the suggestion of
Author Services, Inc. that the Office
consider allowing submission of
electronic title lists containing fewer
than 100 titles as a ‘‘next step,’’ at this
time the Office finds that ‘‘electronic
submission will prove more efficient
only when indexing 100 or more titles,’’
79 FR at 41472. This view is based on
the fact that, when a document pertains
to 100 or fewer titles, the Office can
create the basic record of the document
and manually transcribe all of the titles
in a single sitting, and make the record
immediately available in the Public
Catalog. As a result, while use of an
electronic title list is expected to result
in a much shorter turnaround time than
manual processing of documents
pertaining to 100 or more titles, the
same cannot be said with respect to
documents pertaining to fewer than 100
titles.
The RIAA offered three substantive
comments on the proposed rule for
submission of electronic title lists. First,
it expressed concern with the rule’s
specification that remitters would be
legally responsible for errors in the
electronic title lists. RIAA Comments at
2–5. Second, it urged the Office to
implement a process of quality control
checks for electronic title lists. Id. at 2.
Third, and finally, it suggested that the
Office specify a mechanism for
correction of errors in electronic title
lists. Id. at 5. We address each comment
in turn.
1. Remitter Responsibility for
Inaccuracies in Electronic Title Lists
The RIAA disagreed with the
proposed rule’s specification that
remitters would bear the legal
E:\FR\FM\17SER1.SGM
17SER1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 180 (Wednesday, September 17, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 55622-55633]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-22034]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Office of the Secretary
32 CFR Part 157
[Docket ID: DOD-2012-OS-0167]
RIN 0790-AI97
DoD Investigative and Adjudicative Guidance for Issuing the
Common Access Card (CAC)
AGENCY: Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence, DoD.
ACTION: Interim final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This interim final rule establishes policy, assigns
responsibilities, and prescribes procedures for investigating and
adjudicating eligibility to hold the DoD Common Access Card (CAC). The
CAC is the DoD personal identity verification (PIV) credential.
Individuals appropriately sponsored for a DoD CAC must be investigated
and adjudicated in accordance with this part.
Prior to this rule, DoD components have been implementing
investigative and adjudicative requirements for Homeland Security
Presidential Directive--12 (HSPD-12) based solely on broad guidance
issued by the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM). This interim
final rule elaborates on OPM guidance for component adjudicators who
determine, based on review of investigative case files, whether to
grant CAC eligibility to individuals who require: Physical access to
DoD facilities or non-DoD facilities on behalf of DoD; logical access
to information systems (whether on site or remotely); or remote access
to DoD networks that use only the CAC logon for user authentication.
The adjudicator's role is discussed further in the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION. The interim final rule provides the adjudicator with
conditions that may be disqualifying and circumstances relevant to the
determination of whether there is a reasonable basis to believe there
is an unacceptable risk.
DATES: Effective Date: This rule is effective September 17, 2014.
Comments must be received by November 17, 2014.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by docket number and/or
RIN number and title, by any of the following methods:
Federal Rulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
Mail: Federal Docket Management System Office, 4800 Mark
Center Drive, East Tower, Suite 02G09, Alexandria VA 22350-3100.
Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name
and docket number or Regulatory Information Number (RIN) for this
Federal Register document. The general policy for comments and other
submissions from members of the public is to make these submissions
available for public viewing on the Internet at https://www.regulations.gov as they are received without change, including any
personal identifiers or contact information.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Kelly Buck, 703-604-1130.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The adjudicator's role is to ensure a CAC is not issued to
individuals if: (a) The individual is known to be or reasonably
suspected of being a terrorist, (b) the employer is unable to verify
the individual's claimed identity, (c) there is a reasonable basis to
believe the individual has submitted fraudulent information concerning
his or her identity, (d) there is a reasonable basis to believe the
individual will attempt to gain unauthorized access to classified
documents, information protected by the Privacy Act, information that
is proprietary in nature, or other sensitive or protected information,
(e) there is a reasonable basis to believe the individual will use an
identity credential outside the workplace
[[Page 55623]]
unlawfully or inappropriately, (f) there is a reasonable basis to
believe the individual will use Federally-controlled information
systems unlawfully, make unauthorized modifications to such systems,
corrupt or destroy such systems, or engage in inappropriate uses of
such systems, (g) there is a reasonable basis to believe, based on the
individual's misconduct or negligence in employment, that issuance of a
CAC poses an unacceptable risk, (h) there is a reasonable basis to
believe, based on the individual's criminal or dishonest conduct, that
issuance of a CAC poses an unacceptable risk, (i) there is a reasonable
basis to believe, based on the individual's material, intentional false
statement, deception, or fraud in connection with Federal or contract
employment, that issuance of a CAC poses an unacceptable risk, (j)
there is a reasonable basis to believe, based on the nature or duration
of the individual's alcohol abuse without evidence of substantial
rehabilitation, that issuance of a CAC poses an unacceptable risk, (k)
there is a reasonable basis to believe, based on the nature or duration
of the individual's illegal use of narcotics, drugs, or other
controlled substances without evidence of substantial rehabilitation,
that issuance of a CAC poses an unacceptable risk, (l) a statutory or
regulatory bar prevents the individual's contract employment; or would
prevent Federal employment under circumstances that furnish a
reasonable basis to believe that issuance of a CAC poses an
unacceptable risk; or (m) the individual has knowingly and willfully
engaged in acts or activities designed to overthrow the U.S. Government
by force.
I. Purpose
a. The Need for the Regulatory Action and How the Action Will Meet That
Need
This interim final rule establishes policy, assigns
responsibilities, and prescribes procedures for investigating and
adjudicating eligibility to hold the DoD CAC. The CAC is the DoD
personal identity verification (PIV) credential.
On August 27, 2004, the President issued Homeland Security Policy
Directive 12, ``Policy for a Common Identification Standard for Federal
Employees and Contractors, which mandated a requirement for a common
identification standard for secure and reliable forms of identification
for federal employees and contractors. Pursuant to section 2.3(b) of
Executive Order 13467, on July 31, 2008, the U.S. Office of Personnel
Management OPM issued its final government-wide credentialing standards
and mandated that all Federal departments and agencies use them in
determining whether to issue or revoke PIV cards to their employees and
contractor personnel, including those who are non-United States
citizens.
Pending the issuance of this interim final rule, the DoD
promulgated two Directive-type memoranda: DTM 08-006, ``DoD
Implementation of Homeland Security Presidential Directive--12 (HSPD-
12), issued on November 26, 2008, established DoD policy for
implementation of HSPD-12. Pursuant to DTM 08-006, DTM 08-003, ``Next
Generation Common Access Card (CAC) Implementation Guidance,'' December
1, 2008, was issued to provide interim implementation guidance
governing the CAC. DTM 08-006 was subsequently cancelled with issuance
of DoDI 1000.13, ``Identification (ID) Cards for members of the
Uniformed Services, Their Dependents, and Other Eligible Individuals,''
January 23, 2014. DTM 08-003 was subsequently cancelled with issuance
of DoD Manual 1000.13, Volume 1, ``DoD Identification (ID) Cards: ID
Card Life-Cycle,'' January 23, 2014. This interim final rule implements
HSPD-12 for the DoD by establishing policy and assigning
responsibilities for investigating and adjudicating eligibility to hold
a CAC, procedures upon revocation of a CAC, and processing of appeals.
b. Legal Authority for the Regulatory Action
Homeland Security Presidential Directive-12, ``Policy for a Common
Identification Standard for Federal Employees and Contractors,'' August
27, 2014, requires the government-wide standard for secure and reliable
forms of identification for Federal employees and contractors. The
Department of Commerce issued Federal Information Processing Standard
201-2 as the standard. Executive Order 13467 of June 30, 2008,
``Reforming Processes Related to Suitability for Government Employment,
Fitness for Contractor Employees, and Eligibility for Access to
Classified National Security Information'' established the Office of
Personnel Management (OPM) to serve as the Suitability Executive Agent
regarding suitability and eligibility for logical and physical access.
As such, OPM issued the ``Final Credentialing Standards for Issuing
Personal Identity Verification Cards Under HSPD-12'' on July 31, 2008.
II. Summary of the Major Provisions
This rule:
a. Provides investigative requirements and credentialing standards
for issuing, denying, or revoking a CAC.
b. Provides guidance for applying credentialing standards during
adjudication.
c. Provides for an appeal process.
d. Establishes procedures upon revocation of a CAC.
III. Costs and Benefits
The interim final rule does not impose direct costs onto the public
because costs associated with the implementation of the investigation
and adjudicative standards will be borne by the Department. However,
the HSPD-12 mandate will increase overall costs for the DoD to
investigate and adjudicate individuals covered by the Instruction who
would not otherwise undergo an adjudication to determine suitability
for the competitive service, eligibility for a national security
sensitive position, or fitness for appointment to the excepted service
or to perform work under a Government contract. The costs to the
Department are not driven by the policy contained in this interim final
rule, but rather HSPD-12 and the U.S. Department of Commerce's National
institute of Standards and Technology's Federal Information Processing
Standards Publication 201-2 (FIPS 201-2), August 2013, mandate for
investigating and adjudicating eligibility to hold a CAC.
This interim final rule provides for protections against
unauthorized access to federal facilities and federally controlled
information systems and other sensitive or protected information. This
policy manages risk and creates efficiencies by ensuring persons are
vetted to uniform national standards. Standardized investigative and
adjudicative guidance will eliminate inter-agency variations that have
existed in the quality and security of identification used to gain
access to secure facilities where there is potential for terrorist
attacks. Establishing a mandatory, Department-wide standard for secure
and reliable forms of identification that the Department issues to its
employees and contractors enhances security, increases Government
efficiency, reduces identity fraud, and protects personal privacy.
Implementing policies and procedures that apply across the
Department will also result in significant intra-agency efficiencies.
Absent this Department-wide guidance--which leverages already
established processes and capabilities--the individual components may
handle HSPD-12 compliance in multiple ways, duplicating effort and
expending
[[Page 55624]]
valuable resources. Thus the cost of complying with the HSPD-12 mandate
will be even greater in the absence of DoD-wide policy and procedures.
Interim Final Rule Justification
This rule is being published as an interim final rule as DoD's
current efforts to comply with HSPD-12 need extensive procedural
guidance to ensure consistency of implementation of 32 CFR part 156 and
DoD Instruction 5200.02. This interim final rule provides DoD
components and Component Heads with detailed policy and procedures
specific to the DoD regarding investigation, adjudication, and appeals
for DoD CAC issuance. This rule consolidates, clarifies, and elaborates
DoD CAC policy as appropriate to ensure that Components' policies and
procedures for CAC applications, investigations, adjudications,
management, oversight, and appeals are aligned across the Department
using consistent standards and practices in cost-effective, timely, and
efficient ways.
If this rule is not published as an interim final rule, it will
prolong the vulnerability of DoD's personnel, information, and
facilities to risks that are created by a current lack of uniformity in
how DoD Components define and implement roles, responsibilities and
requirements associated with DoD CAC-issuance. As one example,
circumstances surrounding the shooting at the Washington Navy Yard
highlight the importance of consistent and specific requirements for
revocation and retrieval of credentials for personnel who have been
identified as posing unacceptable risks. As such, this policy mandates
revocation and retrieval of credentials and timely updates to physical
and logical accesses, when appropriate, to prevent use of invalidated
credentials.
Additionally, to better consistently protect DoD's personnel,
systems, and facilities, the DoD Components' concurred with applying
both basic and supplemental credentialing standards and this policy
helps codify that agreement. As such, the DoD ensures that all
behaviors that suggest unacceptable risks to life, safety, or health of
DoD personnel, information, or property are uniformly considered in all
adjudications for credentials.
To ensure that all individuals are consistently afforded
opportunity to respond to any official decision that they are not
acceptable risks for issuance of a CAC, this interim rule provides
standard procedures for use across the DoD by individuals who wish to
appeal denials or revocations of CACs.
This rule is subject to update whenever additional policy guidance
is provided by the Office of Management and Budget or the U.S. Office
of Personnel Management. Further, DoD will consider public comments
received in response to this interim rule in the formation of the
Department's final rule.
Executive Order 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review'' and Executive
Order 13563, ``Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review''
We have consulted with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
and determined this interim final rule meets the criteria for a
significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866, as
supplemented by Executive Order 13563, and was subject to OMB review.
Sec. 202, Public Law 104-4, ``Unfunded Mandates Reform Act''
Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA)
(Pub. L. 104-4) requires agencies assess anticipated costs and benefits
before issuing any rule whose mandates require spending in any 1 year
of $100 million in 1995 dollars, updated annually for inflation. In
2014, that threshold is approximately $141 million. This document will
not mandate any requirements for State, local, or tribal governments,
nor will it affect private sector costs.
Public Law 96-354, ``Regulatory Flexibility Act'' (5 U.S.C. 601)
It has been certified that 32 CFR part 157 is not subject to the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601) because it would not, if
promulgated, have a significant economic impact on a substantial number
of small entities.
Public Law 96-511, ``Paperwork Reduction Act'' (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35)
This rule does impose reporting or recordkeeping requirements under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This collection has been approved
by the Office of Management and Budget under OMB Control Number 0704-
0415 titled ``Application for Department of Defense Common Access
Card--DEERS Enrollment''.
Executive Order 13132, ``Federalism''
Executive Order 13132 establishes certain requirements that an
agency must meet when it promulgates a proposed rule (and subsequent
final rule) that imposes substantial direct requirement costs on State
and local governments, preempts State law, or otherwise has Federalism
implications. This document will not have a substantial effect on State
and local governments.
List of Subjects in 32 CFR Part 157
Common Access Card (CAC), Contractors; Federal employees, Federal
facilities, Federally-controlled information systems, HSPD-12
credentialing standards, Identity verification, Personal identity
verification (PIV) card, Sensitive or protected information, Terrorist;
Unauthorized access.
Accordingly 32 CFR part 157 is added to read as follows:
PART 157--DOD INVESTIGATIVE AND ADJUDICATIVE GUIDANCE FOR ISSUING
THE COMMON ACCESS CARD (CAC)
Sec.
157.1 Purpose.
157.2 Applicability.
157.3 Definitions.
157.4 Policy.
157.5 Responsibilities.
157.6 Procedures.
Authority: HSPD-12, E.O 13467, E.O. 13488, FIPS 201-2, and OPM
Memorandum.
Sec. 157.1 Purpose.
This part establishes policy, assigns responsibilities, and
prescribes procedures for investigating and adjudicating eligibility to
hold a Common Access Card (CAC). The CAC is the DoD personal identity
verification (PIV) credential.
Sec. 157.2 Applicability.
This part applies to:
(a) the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Military
Departments (including the Coast Guard at all times, including when it
is a Service in the Department of Homeland Security by agreement with
that Department), the Office of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff and the Joint Staff, the Combatant Commands, the Office of the
Inspector General of the Department of Defense, the Defense Agencies,
the DoD Field Activities, and all other organizational entities within
the DoD (hereinafter referred to collectively as the ``DoD
Components'').
(b) The Commissioned Corps of the U.S. Public Health Service
(USPHS), under agreement with the Department of Health and Human
Services, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA), under agreement with the Department of Commerce.
Sec. 157.3 Definitions.
These terms and their definitions are for the purpose of this part.
[[Page 55625]]
Actionable information. Information that potentially justifies an
unfavorable credentialing determination.
CAC. The DoD Federal PIV card.
Contractor. Defined in Executive Order 13467, ``Reforming Processes
Related to Sustainability for Government Employment, Fitness for
Contractor Employees, and Eligibility for Access to Classified National
Security Information''.
Contractor employee fitness. Defined in E.O. 13467.
Debarment. A prohibition from taking a competitive service
examination or from being hired (or retained in) a covered position for
a specific time period..
Drugs. Mood and behavior-altering substances, including drugs,
materials, and other chemical compounds identified and listed in 21
U.S.C. 801-830 (also known as ``The Controlled Substances Act of 1970,
as amended'') (e.g., marijuana or cannabis, depressants, narcotics,
stimulants, hallucinogens), and inhalants and other similar substances.
Drug abuse. The illegal use of a drug or use of a legal drug in a
manner that deviates from approved medical direction.
Employee. Defined in E.O. 12968, ``Access to Classified
Information''.
Fitness. Defined in E.O. 13488, ``Granting Reciprocity on Excepted
Service and Federal Contractor Employee Fitness and Reinvestigating
Individuals in Positions of Public Trust''.
Fitness determination. Defined in E.O. 13488.
Logical and physical access. Defined in E.O. 13467.
Material. Defined in 5 CFR part 731.
Reasonable basis. A reasonable basis to believe occurs when a
disinterested observer, with knowledge of the same facts and
circumstances, would reasonably reach the same conclusion.
Terrorism. Defined in 19 U.S.C. 2331.
Unacceptable risk. A threat to the life, safety, or health of
employees, contractors, vendors, or visitors; to the U.S. Government
physical assets or information systems; to personal property; to
records, including classified, privileged, proprietary, financial, and
medical records; or to the privacy rights established by The Privacy
Act of 1974, as amended, or other law that is deemed unacceptable when
making risk management determinations.
U.S. National. Defined in U.S. OPM Memorandum, ``Final
Credentialing Standards for Issuing Personal Identity Verification
Cards Under HSPD-12'' (available at https://www.opm.gov/investigate/
resources/finalcredentialingstandards.pdf).
Sec. 157.4 Policy.
It is DoD policy that:
(a) Individuals appropriately sponsored for a CAC consistent with
DoD Manual 1000.13, Volume 1, ``DoD Identification Cards: ID Card Life-
Cycle,'' January 23, 2014, (available at https://www.dtic.mil/whs/
directives/corres/pdf/100013vol1.pdf) must be investigated and
adjudicated in accordance with this part. Individuals not CAC eligible
may be processed for local or regional base passes in accordance with
Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence (USD(I)) policy guidance
for DoD physical access control consistent with DoD Regulation 5200.08-
R, ``Physical Security Program'' (available at https://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/520008r.pdf) and local installation security
policies and procedures.
(b) A favorably adjudicated National Agency Check with Inquiries
(NACI) or equivalent in accordance with revised Federal investigative
standards is the minimum investigation required for a final
credentialing determination for a CAC.
(c) Individuals requiring a CAC must meet the credentialing
standards in accordance with the U.S. Office of Personnel Management
(OPM) Memorandum, ``Final Credentialing Standards for Issuing Personal
Identity Verification Cards Under HSPD-12''; and U.S. Office of
Personnel Management Memorandum, ``Introduction of Credentialing,
Suitability, and Security Clearance Decision-Making Guide (available at
https://www.opm.gov/investigate/resources/
decisionmakingguide.pdf) and this part.
(d) A CAC may be issued on an interim basis based on a favorable
National Agency Check or a Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)
National Criminal History Check (fingerprint check) adjudicated by
appropriate approved automated procedures or by a trained security or
human resource (HR) specialist and successful submission to the
investigative service provider (ISP) of a NACI, or a personnel security
investigation (PSI) equal to or greater in scope than a NACI.
Additionally, the CAC applicant must present two identity source
documents, at least one of which is a valid Federal or State
government-issued picture identification.
(e) The subsequent final credentialing determination will be made
upon receipt of the completed investigation from the ISP.
(f) Discretionary judgments used to render an adjudicative
determination for issuing the CAC are inherently governmental functions
and must only be performed by trained U.S. Government personnel who
have successfully completed required training and possess a minimum
level of investigation (NACI or equivalent in accordance with revised
Federal investigative standards). Established administrative processes
in 32 CFR part 156 and DoD Directive 5220.6, ``Defense Industrial
Personnel Security Clearance Review Program'' (available at https://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/522006p.pdf) must be applied.
(g) Adjudications rendered for eligibility for access to classified
information, eligibility to hold a sensitive position, suitability, or
fitness for Federal employment based on a NACI or higher level
investigation may result in a concurrent CAC decision for that
position.
(h) Favorable credentialing adjudications from another Federal
department or agency will be reciprocally accepted in accordance with
conditions stated in the procedural guidance in this part. Reciprocity
must be based on final favorable adjudication only.
(i) CAC applicants or holders may appeal CAC denial or revocation
in accordance with the conditions stated in the procedural guidance in
this part. Appeals must be processed as indicated in the procedural
guidance in this part.
(j) Non-U.S. nationals at foreign locations are not eligible to
receive a CAC on an interim basis. Special considerations for
conducting background investigations of non-U.S. nationals are
addressed in U.S. OPM Memorandum, ``Final Credentialing Standards for
Issuing Personal Identity Verification Cards Under HSPD-12.'' An
interim CAC may be issued to non-U.S. nationals in the U.S. or U.S.
territories if they have resided in the U.S. or U.S. territory for at
least 3 years, and they satisfy the requirements of paragraph (e) of
this section and paragraph (a)(4)(ii)(A) of Sec. 157.6.
(k) Individuals who have been denied a CAC or have had a CAC
revoked due to an unfavorable credentialing determination are eligible
to reapply for a credential 1 year after the date of final adjudicative
denial or revocation.
(l) Individuals with a statutory or regulatory bar are not eligible
for reconsideration while under debarment, see paragraph (d)(6) of
Sec. 157.6.
(m) The Deputy Secretary of Defense directed all reports of
investigations conducted as required for compliance with Homeland
Security Presidential
[[Page 55626]]
Directive-12, ``Policy for a Common Identification Standard for Federal
Employees and Contractors'' (available at https://www.dhs.gov/homeland-security-presidential-directive-12) to be sent to the consolidated DoD
Central Adjudications Facility.
(n) When eligibility is denied or revoked, CACs shall be recovered
whenever practicable, and shall immediately be rendered inoperable. In
addition, agencies' physical and logical access systems shall be
immediately updated to eliminate the use of a CAC for access.
Sec. 157.5 Responsibilities.
(a) The USD(I) must:
(1) In coordination with the Under Secretary of Defense for
Personnel and Readiness (USD(P&R)) and the General Counsel of the
Department of Defense (GC, DoD), establish adjudication procedures to
support CAC credentialing decisions in accordance with DoD Manual
1000.13, Volume 1, ``DoD Identification (ID) Cards; ID Card Life-
Cycle''; U.S. Office of Personnel Management Memorandum, ``Final
Credentialing Standards for Issuing Personal Identity Verification
Cards Under HSPD-12''; U.S. Office of Personnel Management Memorandum,
``Introduction of Credentialing, Suitability, and Security Clearance
Decision-Making Guide; Office of Management and Budget Memorandum M-05-
24, ``Implementation of Homeland Security Presidential Directive (HSPD)
12--Policy for a Common Identification Standard for Federal Employees
and Contractors'' (available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/memoranda/fy2005/m05-24.pdf); U.S. Office of
Personnel Management Federal Investigations Notice Number 06-04, ``HSPD
12--Advanced Fingerprint Results'' (available at https://www.opm.gov/
extra/investigate/FIN0604.pdf); Homeland Security Presidential
Directive-12, ``Policy for a Common Identification Standard for Federal
Employees and Contractors''; 5 U.S.C. 552, 552a and 7313; Federal
Information Processing Standards Publication 201-2, ``Personal Identity
Verification (PIV) of Federal Employees and Contractors'' (available at
https://csrc.nist.gov/publications/PubsFIPS.html); Executive Order
13467, ``Reforming Processes Related to Suitability for Government
Employment, Fitness for Contractor Employees, and Eligibility for
Access to Classified National Security Information''; Executive Order
13488, ``Granting Reciprocity on Excepted Service and Federal
Contractor Employee Fitness and Reinvestigating Individuals in
Positions of Public Trust''; 15 U.S.C. 278g-3; 40 U.S.C. 11331; and
U.S. Office of Personnel Management Federal Investigations Notice
Number 10-05, ``Reminder to Agencies of the Standards for Issuing
Identity Credentials Under HSPD-12'' (available at https://www.opm.gov/investigate/fins/2010/fin10-05.pdf) for issuing a CAC to Service
members and DoD civilian personnel.
(2) In coordination with the Under Secretary of Defense for
Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics (USD(AT&L)) and the GC, DoD,
establish adjudication procedures to support a CAC credentialing
decision for contractors in accordance with the terms of applicable
contracts and the references cited in paragraph (a)(1) of this section,
the Federal Acquisition Regulation (available at https://www.acquisition.gov/far/current/pdf/FAR.pdf), and the Defense Federal
Acquisition Regulation Supplement (available at https://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/dars/dfarspgi/current/).
(3) Issue, interpret, and clarify CAC investigative and
adjudicative guidance in coordination with the Suitability Executive
Agent as necessary.
(b) The USD(P&R) must, in coordination with the GC, DoD, implement
CAC PSI and adjudication procedures established herein as necessary to
support issuance of a CAC to Service members and DoD civilian personnel
in accordance with the references cited in paragraph (a)(1) of this
section.
(c) The USD(AT&L) must, in coordination with the GC, DoD, implement
CAC PSI and adjudication procedures established by the USD(I) for
contractors in accordance with the terms of applicable contracts and
the references cited in paragraph (a)(1) of this section, Federal
Acquisition Regulation, current edition; and Defense Federal
Acquisition Regulation Supplement, current edition.
(d) The GC, DoD must:
(1) Provide advice and guidance as to the legal sufficiency of
procedures and standards involved in adjudicating CAC investigations.
(2) Perform functions relating to the DoD Homeland Security
Presidential Directive (HSPD)-12 Program in accordance with DoD
Directive 5220.6, ``Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance
Review Program'' (available at https://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/522006p.pdf) and DoD Directive 5145.01, ``General Counsel of
the Department of Defense'' (available at https://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/514501p.pdf) including maintenance and oversight
of the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) and its
involvement in contractor CAC revocations as specified in paragraph
(b)(6)(i)(B) of Sec. 157.6 of this part.
(3) Coordinate on USD(P&R) implementation of CAC PSI and
adjudication procedures, in accordance with the references cited in
paragraph (a)(1) of this section, for Service members and DoD civilian
personnel, and USD(AT&L) implementation of USD(I) procedures for CAC
PSI and adjudication in accordance with the terms of applicable
contracts and the references cited in paragraph (a)(1) of this section,
Federal Acquisition Regulation and Defense Federal Acquisition
Regulation Supplement.
(e) The Heads of the DoD Components must:
(1) Comply with and implement this part.
(2) Provide resources for PSIs, adjudication, appeals, and
recording of final adjudicative results in a centralized database.
(3) Require individuals sponsored for a CAC to meet eligibility
requirements stated in DTM 08-003.
(4) Provide appeals boards for those individuals appealing CAC
denial or revocation as specified in paragraph (b)(6)(i)(A) of Sec.
157.6.
(5) Enforce requirements for reporting of derogatory information,
unfavorable administrative actions, and adverse actions to personnel
security, HR, and counterintelligence official(s), as appropriate.
(6) Require all PSIs submitted for non-DoD personnel to be
supported by and comply with DoD PIV procedures in contracts that
implement requirements of paragraphs 4.1303 and 52.204-9 of Federal
Acquisition Regulation, current edition.
(7) Require all investigations and adjudications required for non-
DoD personnel to be in response to a current, active contract or
agreement and that the number of personnel submitted for investigation
and adjudication does not exceed the specific requirements of that
contract or agreement while ensuring compliance with HSPD-12.
Sec. 157.6 Procedures.
(a) CAC Investigative Procedures-- (1) Investigative Requirements.
(i) A personnel security investigation (NACI or greater) completed by
an authorized ISP is required to support a CAC credentialing
determination based on the established credentialing standards
promulgated by OPM Memorandum, ``Final Credentialing Standards for
[[Page 55627]]
Issuing Personal Identity Verification Cards Under HSPD-12''.
(ii) Individuals identified as having a favorably adjudicated
investigation on record, equivalent to or greater than the NACI, do not
require an additional investigation for CAC issuance.
(iii) There is no requirement to reinvestigate CAC holders unless
they are subject to reinvestigation for national security or
suitability reasons as specified in applicable DoD issuances.
(2) Submission of Investigations. Investigative packages must be
submitted promptly by HR or security personnel to the authorized ISP.
Fingerprints for CAC applicants must be taken by HR or security
personnel. DoD Components using the OPM as the ISP may request advanced
fingerprint check results in accordance with OPM Federal Investigations
Notice Number 06-04.
(3) Reciprocity. (i) The sponsoring Component must not re-
adjudicate CAC determinations for individuals transferring from another
Federal department or agency, provided:
(A) The individual's former department or agency verifies
possession of a valid PIV.
(B) The individual has undergone the required NACI or other
equivalent (or greater) suitability or national security investigation
and received favorable adjudication from the former department or
agency.
(C) There is no break in service 2 years or more and the individual
has no actionable information since the date of the last completed
investigation.
(ii) Interim CAC determinations are not eligible to be transferred
or reciprocally accepted. Reciprocity must be based on final favorable
adjudication only.
(4) Foreign (Non-U.S.) Nationals. DoD Components must apply the
credentialing process and standards in this part to non-U.S. nationals
who work as employees or contractor employees for the DoD. However,
special considerations apply to non-U.S. nationals.
(i) At Foreign Locations. (A) DoD Components must initiate and
ensure completion of a background investigation before applying the
credentialing standards to a non-U.S. national at a foreign location.
The background investigation must be favorably adjudicated before a CAC
can be issued to a non-U.S. national at a foreign location. The type of
background investigation may vary based on standing reciprocity
treaties concerning identity assurance and information exchanges that
exist between the U.S. and its allies or agency agreements with the
host country.
(B) The investigation of a non-U.S. national at a foreign location
must be consistent with a NACI, to the extent possible, and include a
fingerprint check against the FBI criminal history database, an FBI
investigations files (name check) search, and a name check against the
terrorist screening database.
(ii) At U.S.-Based Locations and in U.S. Territories (Other than
American Samoa and Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands). (A)
Individuals who are non-U.S. nationals in the United States or U.S.
territory for 3 years or more must have a NACI or equivalent
investigation initiated after employment authorization is appropriately
verified.
(B) Non-U.S. nationals who have been in the United States or U.S.
territory for less than 3 years do not meet the investigative
requirements for CAC issuance. DoD Components may delay the background
investigation of a Non-U.S. national who has been in the U.S. or U.S.
territory for less than 3 years until the individual has been in the
United States or U.S. territory for at least 3 years. In the event of
such a delay, an alternative facility access identity credential may be
issued at the discretion of the relevant DoD Component official, as
appropriate based on a risk determination in accordance with DoD
5200.08-R, ``Physical Security Program'' (available at https://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/520008r.pdf) and U.S. Office of
Personnel Management Memorandum, ``Final Credentialing Standards for
Issuing Personal Identity Verification Cards Under HSPD-12.''
(C) The U.S. territories of American Samoa and the Commonwealth of
the Northern Mariana Islands are not included in the ``United States''
as defined by the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, as amended
(Pub. L. 82-414).
(5) Investigations Acceptable for CAC Adjudication. A list of
investigations acceptable for CAC adjudication is located in the Table.
These investigations are equivalent to or greater than a NACI. This
list will be updated by the USD(I) as revisions to the Federal
investigative standards are implemented.
Table--Favorably Adjudicated Investigations Acceptable for CAC
Adjudication
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Investigation Description
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANACI............................ Access National Agency Check and
Inquires.
BGI-0112......................... Upgrade Background Investigation (1-
12 months from LBI).
BGI-1336......................... Upgrade Background Investigation (13-
36 months from LBI).
BGI-3760......................... Upgrade Background Investigation (37-
60 months from LBI).
BI............................... Background Investigation.
BIPN............................. Background Investigation plus Current
National Agency Check.
BIPR............................. Periodic Reinvestigation of
Background Investigation.
BITN............................. Background Investigation (10 year
scope).
CNCI............................. Child Care National Agency Check plus
Written Inquires and Credit.
IBI.............................. Interview Oriented Background
Investigation.
LBI.............................. Limited Background Investigation.
LBIP............................. Limited Background Investigation plus
Current National Agency Check.
LBIX............................. Limited Background Investigation--
Expanded.
MBI.............................. Moderate Risk Background
Investigation.
MBIP............................. Moderate Risk Background
Investigation plus Current National
Agency Check.
MBIX............................. Moderate Risk Background
Investigation--Expanded.
NACB............................. National Agency Check/National Agency
Check plus Written Inquires and
Credit Check plus Background
Investigation Requested.
NACI............................. National Agency Check and Inquires.
NACLC............................ National Agency Check with Law and
Credit.
NACS............................. National Agency Check/National Agency
Check plus Written Inquires and
Credit Check plus Single Scope B.I.
Requested.
NACW............................. National Agency Check plus Written
Inquires and Credit.
[[Page 55628]]
NACZ............................. National Agency Check plus Written
Inquires and Credit plus Special
Investigative Inquiry.
NLC.............................. National Agency Check, Local Agency
Check and Credit.
NNAC............................. National Agency Check plus Written
Inquires and Credit Plus Current
National Agency Check.
NSI.............................. NSI--NACI/Suitability Determination.
PRI.............................. Periodic Reinvestigation.
PRS.............................. Periodic Reinvestigation Secret.
PRSC............................. Periodic Reinvestigation Secret or
Confidential.
PPR.............................. Phased Periodic Reinvestigation.
SPR.............................. Secret Periodic Reinvestigation.
SSBI............................. Single Scope Background
Investigation.
SSBI-PR.......................... Periodic Reinvestigation for SSBI.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(b) CAC Adjudicative Procedures.--(1) Guidance for Applying
Credentialing Standards During Adjudication. (i) As established in
Homeland Security Presidential Directive-12, credentialing adjudication
considers whether or not an individual is eligible for long-term access
to Federally controlled facilities and/or information systems. The
ultimate determination to authorize, deny, or revoke the CAC based on a
credentialing determination of the PSI must be made after consideration
of applicable credentialing standards in OPM Memorandum, ``Final
Credentialing Standards for Issuing Personal Identity Verification
Cards Under HSPD-12.''
(ii) Each case is unique. Adjudicators must examine conditions that
raise an adjudicative concern, the overriding factor for all of these
conditions is unacceptable risk. Factors to be applied consistently to
all information available to the adjudicator are:
(A) The nature and seriousness of the conduct. The more serious the
conduct, the greater the potential for an adverse CAC determination.
(B) The circumstances surrounding the conduct. Sufficient
information concerning the circumstances of the conduct must be
obtained to determine whether there is a reasonable basis to believe
the conduct poses a risk to people, property or information systems.
(C) The recency and frequency of the conduct. More recent or more
frequent conduct is of greater concern.
(D) The individual's age and maturity at the time of the conduct.
Offenses committed as a minor are usually treated as less serious than
the same offenses committed as an adult, unless the offense is very
recent, part of a pattern, or particularly heinous.
(E) Contributing external conditions. Economic and cultural
conditions may be relevant to the determination of whether there is a
reasonable basis to believe there is an unacceptable risk if the
conditions are currently removed or countered (generally considered in
cases with relatively minor issues).
(F) The absence or presence of efforts toward rehabilitation, if
relevant, to address conduct adverse to CAC determinations.
(1) Clear, affirmative evidence of rehabilitation is required for a
favorable adjudication (e.g., seeking assistance and following
professional guidance, where appropriate; demonstrating positive
changes in behavior and employment).
(2) Rehabilitation may be a consideration for most conduct, not
just alcohol and drug abuse. While formal counseling or treatment may
be a consideration, other factors (such as the individual's employment
record) may also be indications of rehabilitation.
(iii) CAC adjudicators must successfully complete formal training
through a DoD CAC adjudicator course from the Defense Security Service
Center for Development of Security Excellence or a course approved by
the Suitability Executive Agent.
(2) Credentialing Standards. HSPD-12 credentialing standards
contained in OPM Memorandum, ``Final Credentialing Standards for
Issuing Personal Identity Verification Cards Under HSPD-12'' must be
used to render a final determination whether to issue or revoke a CAC
based on results of a qualifying PSI.
(i) Basic Standards. CAC credentialing standards and the
adjudicative guidelines described in paragraph (c) of this section are
designed to guide the adjudicator who must determine, based on results
of a qualifying PSI, whether CAC issuance is consistent with the basic
standards, would create an unacceptable risk for the U.S. Government,
or would provide an avenue for terrorism.
(ii) Supplemental Standards. The supplemental standards are
intended to ensure that the issuance of a CAC to an individual does not
create unacceptable risk. The supplemental credentialing standards must
be applied, in addition to the basic credentialing standards. In this
context, an unacceptable risk refers to an unacceptable risk to the
life, safety, or health of employees, contractors, vendors, or
visitors; to the Government's physical assets or information systems;
to personal property; to records, including classified, privileged,
proprietary, financial, or medical records; or to the privacy of data
subjects.
The supplemental credentialing standards, in addition to the basic
credentialing standards, must be used for CAC adjudication of
individuals who are not also subject to the following types of
adjudication:
(A) Eligibility to hold a sensitive position or for access to
classified information,
(B) Suitability for Federal employment in the competitive service,
or
(C) Qualification for Federal employment in the excepted service.
(3) Application of the Standards. (i) CAC credentialing standards
shall be applied to all DoD civilian employees, Service members, and
contractors who are CAC eligible, have been sponsored by a DoD entity,
and require: (a) Physical access to DoD facilities or non-DoD
facilities on behalf of DoD; (b) logical access to information systems
(whether on site or remotely); or (c) remote access to DoD networks
that use only the CAC logon for user authentication.
(ii) If an individual is found unsuitable for competitive civil
service consistent with 5 CFR part 731, ineligible for access to
classified information pursuant to E.O. 12968, or disqualified from
appointment in the excepted service or from working on a contract, the
unfavorable decision may be sufficient basis for non-issuance or
revocation of a CAC, but does not necessarily mandate this result.
(4) Adjudication. The CAC adjudicators will consider the
information provided by the CAC PSI in rendering a CAC credentialing
[[Page 55629]]
determination. The determination will be unfavorable if there is a
reasonable basis to conclude that a disqualifying factor in accordance
with the basic CAC credentialing standards is substantiated, or when
there is a reasonable basis to conclude that derogatory information or
conduct relating to supplemental CAC credentialing standards presents
an unacceptable risk for the U.S. Government.
(i) If a DoD Component or DOHA proposes to deny or revoke a CAC
under conditions other than those cited in paragraph (b)(3)(ii) of this
section, the DoD Component or DOHA, as appropriate in accordance with
paragraph (b)(6)(i) of this section, must issue the individual a
written statement (also known as a letter of denial (LOD) or revocation
(LOR)) identifying the disqualifying condition(s). The statement must
contain a summary of the concerns and supporting adverse information,
instructions for responding, and copies of the relevant CAC
credentialing standards and adjudicative guidelines from this section.
The written LOD or LOR must be as comprehensive and detailed as
permitted by the requirements of national security and to protect
sources that were granted confidentiality, and as allowed pursuant to
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552 and 552a. (Section 552a is also known and
hereinafter referred to as ``The Privacy Act of 1974, as amended.'')
(ii) The individual may elect to respond in writing to the DoD
Component or DOHA, as appropriate, within 30 calendar days from the
date of the LOD or LOR. Failure to respond to the LOD or LOR will
result in automatic CAC denial or revocation.
(iii) When, subsequent to issuance of an interim or final CAC, the
U.S. Government receives credible information that raises questions as
to whether a current CAC holder continues to meet the applicable
credentialing standards, the DoD Component may reconsider the
credentialing determination using the procedures in this part.
(5) Denial or Revocation. (i) DoD Components must deny or revoke a
CAC if the individual fails to respond to the LOD or LOR within the
specified time-frame or the response to the written statement has not
provided a basis to reverse the decision.
(ii) Denial or revocation of a CAC must comply with applicable
governing laws and regulations:
(A) The U.S. Coast Guard shall afford individuals appeal rights as
established in applicable Department of Homeland Security and U.S.
Coast Guard Issuances.
(B) CAC provides Service members with Geneva Convention protection
in accordance with DoD Instruction 1000.1, ``Identification (ID) Cards
Required by the Geneva Conventions'' (available at https://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/100001p.pdf), and authorized benefits (e.g.
medical) and must not be revoked or denied pursuant to the provisions
of this part. CAC for Military Service members will be surrendered only
upon separation, discharge, or retirement.
(C) In certain instances a CAC provides other benefits or specific
privileges to civilian employees (e.g. medical, post exchange and
commissary) when assigned overseas long-term; or protected status to
civilian employees and contractors who are accompanying U.S. forces
during overseas deployments in accordance with DoD Instruction 1000.1.
CAC for DoD civilians or contractors in this circumstance will not be
revoked pursuant to the provisions of this part, but may be surrendered
as part of other adverse employment or contracting actions or
procedures.
(iii) When eligibility is denied or revoked, the CAC shall be
recovered whenever practicable, and shall immediately be rendered
inoperable. In addition, agency's physical and logical access systems
shall immediately be updated to eliminate the use of the CAC for
access.
(6) Appeals. (i) Individuals who have been denied a CAC or have had
a CAC revoked due to an unfavorable credentialing determination must be
entitled to appeal the determination in accordance with the following
procedures:
(A) Except as stated in paragraph (b)(6)(ii) of this section, new
civilian and contractor applicants who have been denied a CAC may elect
to appeal to a three member board composed of not more than one
security representative and one human resources representative.
(B) Contractor employees who have had their CAC revoked may appeal
the unfavorable determination to the DOHA in accordance with the
established administrative process set out in DoD Directive 5220.6.
(ii) This appeal process does not apply when a CAC is denied or
revoked as a result of either an unfavorable suitability determination
consistent with 5 CFR part 731 or a decision to deny or revoke
eligibility for access to classified information or eligibility for a
sensitive national security position, since the person is already
entitled to seek review in accordance with applicable suitability or
national security procedures. Likewise, there is no right to appeal
when the decision to deny the CAC is based on the results of a separate
determination to disqualify the person from an appointment in the
excepted service or to bar the person from working for or on behalf of
a Federal department or agency.
(iii) The DoD Component will notify the individual in writing of
the final determination and provide a statement that this determination
is not subject to further appeal.
(7) Recording Final Determination. Immediately following final
adjudication, the sponsoring activity must record the final eligibility
determination (e.g., active, revoked, denied) in the OPM Central
Verification System as directed by OPM Memorandum, ``Final
Credentialing Standards for Issuing Personal Identity Verification
Cards Under HSPD-12.'' DoD Component records will document the
adjudicative rationale. Adjudicative records shall be made available to
authorized recipients as required for appeal purposes.
(c) Basic Adjudicative Standards. (1) A CAC will not be issued to a
person if the individual is known to be or reasonably suspected of
being a terrorist.
(i) A CAC must not be issued to a person if the individual is known
to be or reasonably suspected of being a terrorist. Individuals
entrusted with access to Federal property and information systems must
not put the U.S. Government at risk or provide an avenue for terrorism.
(ii) Therefore, conditions that may be disqualifying include
evidence that the individual has knowingly and willfully been involved
with reportable domestic or international terrorist contacts or foreign
intelligence entities, counterintelligence activities, indicators, or
other behaviors described in DoD Directive 5240.06,
``Counterintelligence Awareness and Reporting (CIAR)'' (available at
https://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/524006p.pdf).
(2) A CAC will not be issued to a person if the employer is unable
to verify the individual's claimed identity.
(i) A CAC must not be issued to a person if the DoD component is
unable to verify the individual's claimed identity. To be considered
eligible for a CAC, the individual's identity must be clearly
authenticated. The CAC must not be issued when identity cannot be
authenticated.
(ii) Therefore, conditions that may be disqualifying include:
[[Page 55630]]
(A) The individual claimed it was not possible to provide two
identity source documents from the list of acceptable documents in Form
I-9, Office of Management and Budget No. 1115-0136, ``Employment
Eligibility Verification,''(available at https://www.uscis.gov/files/form/i-9.pdf) or provided only one identity source document from the
list of acceptable documents.
(B) The individual did not appear in person as required by Federal
Information Processing Standards Publication 201-2.
(C) The individual refused to cooperate with the documentation and
investigative requirements to validate his or her identity.
(D) The investigation failed to confirm the individual's claimed
identity.
(iii) No conditions can mitigate inability to verify the
applicant's identity.
(3) A CAC will not be issued to a person if there is a reasonable
basis to believe the individual has submitted fraudulent information
concerning his or her identity.
(i) A CAC must not be issued to a person if there is a reasonable
basis to believe the individual has submitted fraudulent information
concerning his or her identity in an attempt to obtain the current
credential.
(A) Substitution occurred in the identity proofing process; the
individual who appeared on one occasion was not the same person that
appeared on another occasion.
(B) The fingerprints associated with the identity do not belong to
the person attempting to obtain a CAC.
(ii) No conditions can mitigate submission of fraudulent
information in an attempt to obtain a current credential.
(4) A CAC will not be issued to a person if there is a reasonable
basis to believe the individual will attempt to gain unauthorized
access to classified documents, information protected by the Privacy
Act, information that is proprietary in nature, or other sensitive or
protected information.
(i) Individuals must comply with information-handling regulations
and rules. Individuals must properly handle classified and protected
information such as sensitive or proprietary information.
(ii) Individuals should not attempt to gain unauthorized access to
classified documents or other sensitive or protected information.
Unauthorized access to U.S. Government information or improper use of
U.S. Government information once access is granted may pose a
significant risk to national security, may compromise individual
privacy, and may make public information that is proprietary in nature,
thus compromising the operations and missions of Federal agencies.
(iii) A CAC must not be issued if there is a reasonable basis to
believe the individual will attempt to gain unauthorized access to
classified documents, information protected by the Privacy Act of 1974,
as amended, information that is proprietary in nature, or other
sensitive or protected information.
(iv) Therefore, conditions that may be disqualifying include any
attempt to gain unauthorized access to classified, sensitive,
proprietary or other protected information.
(v) Circumstances relevant to the determination of whether there is
a reasonable basis to believe there is an unacceptable risk include:
(A) Since the time of the last act or activities, the person has
demonstrated a favorable change in behavior.
(B) The behavior happened so long ago, was minor, or happened under
such unusual circumstances that it is unlikely to recur and does not
cast doubt on the individual's ability to safeguard protected
information.
(5) A CAC will not be issued to a person if there is a reasonable
basis to believe the individual will use an identity credential outside
the workplace unlawfully or inappropriately.
(i) A CAC must not be issued to a person if there is a reasonable
basis to believe the individual will use an identity credential outside
the workplace unlawfully or inappropriately.
(ii) Therefore, conditions that may be disqualifying include:
(A) Documented history of fraudulent requests for credentials or
other official documentation.
(B) Previous incidents in which the individual used credentials or
other official documentation to circumvent rules or regulations.
(C) A history of incidents involving misuse of credentials that put
physical assets or personal property at risk.
(iii) Circumstances relevant to the determination of whether there
is a reasonable basis to believe there is an unacceptable risk include:
(A) The behavior happened so long ago, was minor, or happened under
such unusual circumstances that it is unlikely to recur and does not
cast doubt on the individual's ability and willingness to use
credentials lawfully and appropriately.
(6) A CAC will not be issued to a person if there is a reasonable
basis to believe the individual will use Federally-controlled
information systems unlawfully, make unauthorized modifications to such
systems, corrupt or destroy such systems, or engage in inappropriate
uses of such systems.
(i) Individuals must comply with rules, procedures, guidelines, or
regulations pertaining to information technology systems and properly
protect sensitive systems, networks, and information. The individual
should not attempt to use federally-controlled information systems
unlawfully, make unauthorized modifications, corrupt or destroy, or
engage in inappropriate uses of such systems. A CAC must not be issued
to a person if there is a reasonable basis to believe the individual
will do so or has done so in the past.
(ii) Therefore, conditions that may be disqualifying include:
(A) Illegal, unauthorized, or inappropriate use of an information
technology system or component.
(B) Unauthorized modification, destruction, manipulation of
information, software, firmware, or hardware to corrupt or destroy
information technology systems or data.
(iii) Circumstances relevant to the determination of whether there
is a reasonable basis to believe there is an unacceptable risk include:
(A) The behavior happened so long ago, was minor, or happened under
such unusual circumstances that it is unlikely to recur and does not
cast doubt on the individual's ability and willingness to conform to
rules and regulations for use of information technology systems.
(d) Supplemental Adjudicative Standards. (1) A CAC will not be
issued to a person if there is a reasonable basis to believe, based on
the individual's misconduct or negligence in employment, that issuance
of a CAC poses an unacceptable risk.
(i) An individual's employment misconduct or negligence may put
people, property, or information systems at risk.
(ii) Therefore, conditions that may be disqualifying include:
(A) A previous history of intentional wrongdoing on the job,
disruptive, violent, or other acts that may pose an unacceptable risk
to people, property, or information systems.
(B) A pattern of dishonesty or rule violations in the workplace
which put people, property or information at risk.
(C) A documented history of misusing workplace information systems
to view, download, or distribute pornography.
[[Page 55631]]
(D) Violation of written or recorded commitments to protect
information made to an employer, such as breach(es) of confidentiality
or the release of proprietary or other information.
(E) Failure to comply with rules or regulations for the
safeguarding of classified, sensitive, or other protected information.
(iii) Circumstances relevant to the determination of whether there
is a reasonable basis to believe there is an unacceptable risk include:
(A) The behavior happened so long ago, was minor, or happened under
such unusual circumstances that it is unlikely to recur and does not
cast doubt on the individual's current trustworthiness or good judgment
relating to the safety of people and proper safeguarding of property
and information systems.
(B) The individual was not adequately warned that the conduct was
unacceptable and could not reasonably be expected to know that the
conduct was wrong.
(C) The individual made prompt, good-faith efforts to correct the
behavior.
(D) The individual responded favorably to counseling or remedial
training and has since demonstrated a positive attitude toward the
discharge of information-handling or security responsibilities.
(2) A CAC will not be issued to a person if there is a reasonable
basis to believe, based on the individual's criminal or dishonest
conduct, that issuance of a CAC poses an unacceptable risk.
(i) An individual's conduct involving questionable judgment, lack
of candor, dishonesty, or unwillingness to comply with rules and
regulations can raise questions about his or her reliability or
trustworthiness and may put people, property, or information systems at
risk. An individual's past criminal or dishonest conduct may put
people, property, or information systems at risk.
(ii) Therefore, conditions that may be disqualifying include:
(A) A single serious crime or multiple lesser offenses which put
the safety of people at risk or threaten the protection of property or
information. A person's convictions for burglary may indicate that
granting a CAC poses an unacceptable risk to the U.S. Government's
physical assets and to employees' personal property on a U.S.
Government facility.
(B) Charges or admission of criminal conduct relating to the safety
of people and proper protection of property or information systems,
regardless of whether the person was formally charged, formally
prosecuted, or convicted.
(C) Dishonest acts (e.g., theft, accepting bribes, falsifying
claims, perjury, forgery, or attempting to obtain identity
documentation without proper authorization).
(D) Deceptive or illegal financial practices such as embezzlement,
employee theft, check fraud, income tax evasion, expense account fraud,
filing deceptive loan statements, or other intentional financial
breaches of trust.
(E) Actions involving violence or sexual behavior of a criminal
nature that poses an unacceptable risk if access is granted to
federally-controlled facilities or federally-controlled information
systems. For example, convictions for sexual assault may indicate that
granting a CAC poses an unacceptable risk to the life and safety of
persons on U.S. Government facilities.
(F) Financial irresponsibility may raise questions about the
individual's honesty and put people, property or information systems at
risk, although financial debt should not in and of itself be cause for
denial.
(G) Deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification of relevant
facts or deliberately providing false or misleading information to an
employer, investigator, security official, competent medical authority,
or other official U.S. Government representative, particularly when
doing so results in personal benefit or which results in a risk to the
safety of people and proper safeguarding of property and information
systems.
(iii) Circumstances relevant to the determination of whether there
is a reasonable basis to believe there is an unacceptable risk include:
(A) The behavior happened so long ago, was minor in nature, or
happened under such unusual circumstances that it is unlikely to recur.
(B) Charges were dismissed or evidence was provided that the person
did not commit the offense and details and reasons support his or her
innocence.
(C) Improper or inadequate advice from authorized personnel or
legal counsel significantly contributed to the individual's omission,
of information. When confronted, the individual provided an accurate
explanation and made prompt, good-faith effort to correct the
situation.
(D) Evidence has been supplied of successful rehabilitation,
including but not limited to remorse or restitution, job training or
higher education, good employment record, constructive community
involvement, or passage of time without recurrence.
(3) A CAC will not be issued to a person if there is a reasonable
basis to believe, based on the individual's material, intentional false
statement, deception, or fraud in connection with Federal or contract
employment, that issuance of a CAC poses an unacceptable risk.
(i) The individual's conduct involving questionable judgment, lack
of candor, or unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations can
raise questions about an individual's honesty, reliability,
trustworthiness, and put people, property, or information systems at
risk.
(ii) Therefore, conditions that may be disqualifying include
material, intentional falsification, deception or fraud related to
answers or information provided during the employment process for the
current or a prior Federal or contract employment (e.g., on the
employment application or other employment, appointment or
investigative documents, or during interviews.)
(iii) Circumstances relevant to the determination of whether there
is a reasonable basis to believe there is an unacceptable risk include:
(A) The misstated or omitted information was so long ago, was
minor, or happened under such unusual circumstances that it is unlikely
to recur.
(B) The misstatement or omission was unintentional or inadvertent
and was followed by a prompt, good-faith effort to correct the
situation.
(4) A CAC will not be issued to a person if there is a reasonable
basis to believe, based on the nature or duration of the individual's
alcohol abuse without evidence of substantial rehabilitation, that
issuance of a CAC poses an unacceptable risk.
(i) An individual's abuse of alcohol may put people, property, or
information systems at risk. Alcohol abuse can lead to the exercise of
questionable judgment or failure to control impulses, and may put
people, property, or information systems at risk, regardless of whether
he or she is diagnosed as an abuser of alcohol or alcohol dependent. A
person's long-term abuse of alcohol without evidence of substantial
rehabilitation may indicate that granting a CAC poses an unacceptable
safety risk in a U.S. Government facility.
(ii) Therefore, conditions that may be disqualifying include:
(A) A pattern of alcohol-related arrests.
(B) Alcohol-related incidents at work, such as reporting for work
or duty in an
[[Page 55632]]
intoxicated or impaired condition, or drinking on the job.
(C) Current continuing abuse of alcohol.
(D) Failure to follow any court order regarding alcohol education,
evaluation, treatment, or abstinence.
(iii) Circumstances relevant to the determination of whether there
is a reasonable basis to believe there is an unacceptable risk include:
(A) The individual acknowledges his or her alcoholism or issues of
alcohol abuse, provides evidence of actions taken to overcome this
problem, and has established a pattern of abstinence (if alcohol
dependent) or responsible use (if an abuser of alcohol).
(B) The individual is participating in counseling or treatment
programs, has no history of previous treatment or relapse, and is
making satisfactory progress.
(C) The individual has successfully completed inpatient or
outpatient counseling or rehabilitation along with any required
aftercare. He or she has demonstrated a clear and established pattern
of modified consumption or abstinence in accordance with treatment
recommendations, such as participation in an alcohol treatment program.
The individual has received a favorable prognosis by a duly qualified
medical professional or a licensed clinical social worker who is a
staff member of a recognized alcohol treatment program.
(5) A CAC will not be issued to a person if there is a reasonable
basis to believe, based on the nature or duration of the individual's
illegal use of narcotics, drugs, or other controlled substances without
evidence of substantial rehabilitation, that issuance of a CAC poses an
unacceptable risk.
(i) An individual's abuse of drugs may put people, property, or
information systems at risk. Illegal use of narcotics, drugs, or other
controlled substances, to include abuse of prescription or over-the-
counter drugs, can raise questions about his or her trustworthiness, or
ability or willingness to comply with laws, rules, and regulations. For
example, a person's long-term illegal use of narcotics without evidence
of substantial rehabilitation may indicate that granting a CAC poses an
unacceptable safety risk in a U.S. Government facility.
(ii) Therefore, conditions that may be disqualifying include:
(A) Current or recent illegal drug use, serious narcotic, or other
controlled substance offense.
(B) A pattern of drug-related arrests or problems in employment.
(C) Illegal drug possession, including cultivation, processing,
manufacture, purchase, sale, or distribution of illegal drugs, or
possession of drug paraphernalia.
(D) Diagnosis by a duly qualified medical professional (e.g.,
physician, clinical psychologist, or psychiatrist) of drug abuse or
drug dependence.
(E) Evaluation of drug abuse or drug dependence by a licensed
clinical social worker who is a staff member of a recognized drug
treatment program.
(F) Failure to successfully complete a drug treatment program
prescribed by a duly qualified medical professional.
(G) Any illegal drug use after formally agreeing to comply with
rules or regulations prohibiting drug use.
(H) Any illegal use or abuse of prescription or over-the-counter
drugs.
(iii) Circumstances relevant to the determination of whether there
is a reasonable basis to believe there is an unacceptable risk include:
(A) The behavior happened so long ago, was so infrequent, or
happened under such circumstances that it is unlikely to recur (e.g.,
clear, lengthy break since last use; strong evidence the use will not
occur again).
(B) A demonstrated intent not to abuse any drugs in the future,
such as:
(1) Abstaining from drug use.
(2) Disassociating from drug-using associates and contacts.
(3) Changing or avoiding the environment where drugs were used.
(C) Abuse of prescription drugs followed a severe or prolonged
illness during which these drugs were prescribed and abuse has since
ended.
(D) Satisfactory completion of a prescribed drug treatment program,
including but not limited to rehabilitation and aftercare requirements
without recurrence of abuse, and a favorable prognosis by a duly
qualified medical professional.
(6) A CAC will not be issued to a person if a statutory or
regulatory bar prevents the individual's contract employment; or would
prevent Federal employment under circumstances that furnish a
reasonable basis to believe that issuance of a CAC poses an
unacceptable risk.
(i) The purpose of this standard is to verify whether there is a
bar on contract employment, and whether the contract employee is
subject to a Federal employment debarment for reasons that also pose an
unacceptable risk in the contracting context. For example, a person's
5-year bar on Federal employment based on a felony conviction related
to inciting a riot or civil disorder, as specified in 5 U.S.C. 7313,
may indicate that granting a CAC poses an unacceptable risk to persons,
property, and assets in U.S. Government facilities.
(ii) Therefore, conditions that may be disqualifying include:
(A) A debarment was imposed by OPM, DoD, or other Federal agencies
when the conduct poses an unacceptable risk to people, property, or
information systems.
(B) The suitability debarment was based on the presence of serious
suitability issues when the conduct poses an unacceptable risk to
people, property, or information systems.
(iii) Circumstances relevant to the determination of whether there
is a reasonable basis to believe there is an unacceptable risk include:
(A) Applicant proves the reason(s) for the debarment no longer
exists.
(B) The debarment is job or position-specific and is not applicable
to the job currently under consideration.
(7) A CAC will not be issued to a person if the individual has
knowingly and willfully engaged in acts or activities designed to
overthrow the U.S. Government by force.
(i) Individuals entrusted with access to U.S. Government property
and information systems must not put the U.S. Government at risk.
(ii) Therefore, conditions that may be disqualifying include:
(A) Illegal involvement in, support of, training to commit, or
advocacy of any act of sabotage, espionage, treason or sedition against
the United States of America.
(B) Association or agreement with persons who attempt to or commit
any of the acts in paragraph (d)(7)(ii)(A) of this section with the
specific intent to further those unlawful aims.
(C) Association or agreement with persons or organizations that
advocate, threaten, or use force or violence, or use any other illegal
or unconstitutional means in an effort to overthrow or influence the
U.S. Government.
(iii) Circumstances relevant to the determination of whether there
is a reasonable basis to believe there is an unacceptable risk include:
(A) The behavior happened so long ago, was minor, or happened under
such unusual circumstances that it is unlikely to recur and does not
cast doubt on the individual's current trustworthiness.
(B) The person was not aware of the person's or organization's
dedication to illegal, treasonous, or seditious activities or did not
have the specific intent to further the illegal, treasonous, or
seditious ends of the person or organization.
(C) The individual did not have the specific intent to incite
others to
[[Page 55633]]
advocate, threaten, or use force or violence, or use any other illegal
or unconstitutional means to engage in illegal, treasonous, or
seditious activities.
(D) The individual's involvement in the activities was for an
official purpose.
Dated: September 11, 2014.
Aaron Siegel,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 2014-22034 Filed 9-16-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-P