Human Reliability Program, 28412-28426 [2017-12810]
Download as PDF
28412
Proposed Rules
Federal Register
Vol. 82, No. 119
Thursday, June 22, 2017
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER
contains notices to the public of the proposed
issuance of rules and regulations. The
purpose of these notices is to give interested
persons an opportunity to participate in the
rule making prior to the adoption of the final
rules.
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
10 CFR Part 712
RIN 1992–AA44
Human Reliability Program
Department of Energy.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
DOE proposes to amend its
regulation concerning the Human
Reliability Program (HRP). This
regulation provides the policies and
procedures to ensure that individuals
who occupy positions affording
unescorted access to certain nuclear
materials, nuclear explosive devices,
facilities and programs meet the highest
standards of reliability and physical and
mental suitability. The proposed
revisions include some clarification of
the procedures and burden of proof
applicable in certification review
hearings, the addition and modification
of certain definitions, and a clear
statement that a security concern can be
reviewed pursuant to DOE regulations
for determining eligibility for access to
classified matter or special nuclear
material and/or the HRP regulation.
These proposed revisions are intended
to provide better guidance to HRPcertified individuals and to ensure
consistency in HRP decision making.
DATES: Written comments must be
postmarked on or before July 24, 2017
to ensure consideration.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments,
identified by RIN 1992–AA44, by any of
the following methods:
1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
Instructions for submitting comments.
2. Email: HRPComments@
HQ.DOE.GOV. Include RIN 1992–AA44
in the subject line of the message.
3. Mail: U.S. Department of Energy,
Office of Corporate Security Strategy,
Analysis and Special Operations, AU–
1.2, 1000 Independence Avenue SW.,
Washington, DC 20585.
Due to potential delays in DOE’s
receipt and processing of mail sent
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:48 Jun 21, 2017
Jkt 241001
through the U.S. Postal Service, DOE
encourages responders to submit
comments electronically to ensure
timely receipt.
All submissions must include the RIN
for this rulemaking, RIN 1992–AA44.
For detailed instructions on submitting
comments and additional information
on the rulemaking process, see the
‘‘Public Comment Procedures’’ heading
of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
section of this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gina
Cano, Office of Corporate Security
Strategy, Analysis and Special
Operations, (202) 586–7079,
regina.cano@hq.doe.gov; Pamela AriasOrtega, National Nuclear Security
Administration, Office of the General
Counsel, (505) 845–4441, pamela.ariasortega@nnsa.doe.gov; or Christina Pak
or Matt Rotman, Office of the General
Counsel, (202) 586–4114,
christina.pak@hq.doe.gov (Ms. Pak) or
(202) 586–4753, matthew.rotman@
hq.doe.gov (Mr. Rotman).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
II. Description of Proposed Changes
III. Regulatory Review and Procedural
Requirements
A. Review Under Executive Order 12866
B. Review Under the National
Environmental Policy Act
C. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility
Act
D. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction
Act
E. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995
F. Review Under the Treasury and
Government Appropriations Act, 1995
G. Review Under Executive Order 13132
H. Review Under Executive Order 12988
I. Review Under the Treasury and General
Government Appropriations Act, 2001
J. Review Under Executive Order 13211
IV. Approval by the Office of the Secretary
I. Background
Pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act of
1954, as amended, (the AEA), the DOE
owns and leases defense nuclear and
other facilities in various locations in
the United States. These facilities are
operated by contractors with DOE
oversight or are operated by DOE. These
facilities are involved in (among other
activities) researching, testing,
producing, disassembling, or
transporting nuclear materials.
Compromise of these DOE facilities
could severely damage national
security. To guard against such
PO 00000
Frm 00001
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
compromise, DOE established the
Human Reliability Program (HRP). The
HRP is designed to ensure that
individuals who occupy positions
affording unescorted access to certain
nuclear materials, facilities and
programs meet the highest standards of
reliability as well as physical and
mental suitability, through a system of
continuous evaluation of those
individuals. The purpose of this
continuous evaluation is to identify in
a timely manner individuals whose
judgment may be impaired by physical
or mental/personality disorders; the use
of illegal drugs or the abuse of legal
drugs or other substances; the abuse of
alcohol; or any other condition or
circumstance that may represent a
reliability, safety or security concern. If
any of these conditions or
circumstances is identified, the HRP
provides for an administrative process,
including the opportunity for a
certification review hearing that results
in either the revocation or reinstatement
of the individual’s HRP certification.
The part 712 regulation has not been
comprehensively updated since it was
promulgated in 2004. Two technical
amendments to the regulation were
made in 2011 and 2013. In 2011, the
part 712 regulation was amended to
designate the appropriate
Undersecretary as the person with the
authority to issue a final written
decision to recertify or revoke the
certification of an individual in the
HRP. 76 FR 12271 (Mar. 7, 2011). In
2013, the part 712 regulation was
amended to eliminate references to
obsolete provisions and to reflect
organizational changes within the DOE.
78 FR 56132 (Sep. 12, 2013).
In the 12 years since the HRP
regulation was first promulgated, it has
become apparent that certain additional
updates are necessary in the sections
pertaining to security concerns and the
process related to certification review
hearings.
A. Security Concerns
The paramount intent of the HRP is to
protect national security via the
identification of individuals whose
judgment and reliability may be
impaired by any condition or
circumstance that raises safety and/or
security concerns. The existing
regulation contains language that could
be erroneously interpreted to mean that
E:\FR\FM\22JNP1.SGM
22JNP1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 119 / Thursday, June 22, 2017 / Proposed Rules
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
security concerns fall solely under the
purview of 10 CFR part 710, which is
the DOE regulation pertaining to
personnel security clearances. The part
710 regulations contain procedures that
are intended to identify and mitigate
security concerns as they pertain to
individuals who hold security
clearances. However, compliance with
the part 710 does not equate to being
certified in the HRP, and in fact, the
parts 710 and 712 regulations represent
two distinct programs. While an
employee can have a security clearance
without being certified in the HRP, no
employee can participate in the HRP
without a security clearance. A general
requirement in the existing HRP
regulation, which remains in the
proposed revision, is that an employee
must maintain a security clearance and
specifically a ‘‘Q’’ clearance. See 10 CFR
712.11(a)(1).
Because the HRP-certified individuals
must meet the highest standards of
reliability and physical and mental
suitability, the procedures for
considering security concerns under
part 710 are not adequate to address all
security and safety concerns in the
context of the HRP. For example, under
part 710, the DOE personnel who
adjudicate security clearances are not
permitted to review the requirements of
the individual’s job when considering
whether to grant, suspend, and/or
revoke his security clearance. However,
in determining whether to grant HRP
certification under part 712, the
individual’s job and duties are
important factors to be considered. In
addition, the denial or revocation of
HRP certification under part 712 may be
based on safety issues that are not
relevant to adjudication under 10 CFR
part 710, even if the same underlying
facts raised security concerns that were
fully resolved and/or mitigated for
security clearance purposes. As such,
we are proposing to revise the part 712
regulation to clarify that security
concerns are not to be reviewed solely
under the part 710 regulations, but
rather can also be reviewed under part
712, utilizing the predictive judgments
of the HRP personnel with specific
expertise in assessing both safety and
security risks.
B. Certification Review Hearings
The proposed part 712 revisions fill a
void in the existing regulation by setting
forth the evidentiary burden that an
individual must meet at a certification
review hearing. In addition, in order to
provide greater structure to the hearing
process, the proposed regulation adopts
some of the procedures that are
currently applied in the context of
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:48 Jun 21, 2017
Jkt 241001
administrative review hearings under
part 710. Although the content of part
710 hearings is somewhat different from
that of part 712 hearings, the process for
conducting both types of hearings is
similar, which is reflected in the
procedures we propose to adopt.
Finally, the proposed revisions provide
that the Administrative Judge who
presides over the certification review
hearing must prepare a written decision,
rather than a written recommendation,
to be provided to the individual and the
Manager and which may be appealed by
either party.
II. Description of Proposed Changes
DOE is publishing this notice of
proposed rulemaking (NOPR) to update
and clarify the policies and procedures,
to include the definition of terms used,
that apply to HRP certification. The
proposed revisions would update and
add to some of the definitions.
Additionally, the proposed rule would:
(1) Identify the evidentiary burden
applicable to an individual requesting a
certification review hearing; (2) clarify
that a security concern is reviewable
under HRP separate from a review
pursuant to 10 CFR part 710; (3)
eliminate obsolete references; and (4)
clarify the processes and procedures
during the removal, revocation, hearing,
and appeal stages.
The proposed changes to part 712 are
summarized below in the order in
which they appear:
1. The proposed changes to § 712.2
‘‘Applicability’’ would add the National
Nuclear Security Administration
(NNSA) to clarify that part 712 applies
to both the DOE and the NNSA and
delete the last sentence regarding the
grandfathering of positions. The last
sentence of this section is obsolete
because it is no longer necessary to
grandfather individuals in from the
Personnel Assurance Program (PAP) or
the Personnel Security Assurance
Program (PSAP). When part 712 was
enacted in 2004, it was necessary to
include such language since the HRP
combined both the PAP and PSAP.
2. In proposed § 712.3 ‘‘Definitions,’’
three new definitions are proposed, a
number of current definitions are
modified, and one definition is deleted.
The proposed rule would add the new
definitions: ‘‘Case Chronology,’’
‘‘Evaluative Report,’’ and ‘‘Restoration.’’
The proposed new definitions ‘‘Case
Chronology’’ and ‘‘Evaluative Report’’
relate to new provisions in proposed
§ 712.19 that are intended to provide
clarity and consistency among the
programmatic elements administering
the HRP. The proposed new definition
‘‘Restoration’’ would provide clarity as
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
28413
to the specific actions that must be
taken to return an individual to HRP
duties after a cognizant Under Secretary
or his/her designee restores an
individual’s HRP certification. The
proposed rule would modify the
definitions: ‘‘Contractors,’’ ‘‘Designated
Physician,’’ ‘‘Designated Psychologist,’’
‘‘Recertification,’’ ‘‘Reinstatement,’’
‘‘Safety concern,’’ ‘‘Security concern,’’
and ‘‘Site Occupational Medical
Director (SOMD).’’ The title ‘‘Director,
Office of Health and Safety’’ is changed
to ‘‘Associate Under Secretary for
Environment, Health, Safety and
Security.’’
3. In proposed § 712.10 ‘‘Designation
of HRP positions,’’ current § 712.10(b) is
modified to replace the title ‘‘Chief
Health, Safety and Security Officer’’
with ‘‘Associate Under Secretary for
Environment, Health, Safety and
Security.’’
4. In proposed § 712.11 ‘‘General
requirements for HRP certification,’’
current § 712.11(a) is modified to delete
the word ‘‘certification’’ since it is clear
that the requirements set forth in this
section relate to requirements for HRP
certification or recertification. Current
§ 712.11(a)(1) is modified to delete the
language ‘‘based on a background
investigation’’ because it is unnecessary
to specify the basis for an access
authorization and may preclude other
authorized means for DOE to grant an
access authorization. Current
§ 712.11(a)(2) is deleted, as the
requirement for an annual security
review is already set forth in proposed
§ 712.11(a)(4), current § 712.11(a)(5).
Current § 712.11(a)(5)(i), (ii), and (iii)
are deleted and relocated, in substance,
to proposed § 712.16(e) and (b), because
they fall more logically under the
section that describes the personnel
security review. Current § 712.11(a)(7) is
deleted in the entirety because the
requirement for a psychological
examination is already captured by the
requirement for a medical assessment
described in proposed § 712.11(a)(4),
current § 712.11(a)(5). The
psychological examination is a
necessary part of the medical
assessment, as is described in proposed
§ 712.14(f). Proposed § 712.11(a)(6),
currently § 712.11(a)(8), deletes the
language ‘‘in accordance with DOE
policies implementing Executive Order
12564 or the relevant provisions of 10
CFR part 707 for DOE contractors, and
DOE Order 3792.3, ‘Drug-Free Federal
Workplace Testing Implementation
Program,’ for DOE employees,’’ as this is
already addressed in proposed
§ 712.15(b), the subsection that deals
with drug testing. Proposed
§ 712.11(a)(7), currently § 712.11(a)(9),
E:\FR\FM\22JNP1.SGM
22JNP1
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
28414
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 119 / Thursday, June 22, 2017 / Proposed Rules
deletes the language ‘‘using an
evidential-grade breath alcohol device,
as listed without asterisks on the
Conforming Products List of Evidential
Breath Measurement Devices published
by the NHTSA (49 CFR part 40),’’ as this
is already addressed in proposed
§ 712.15(c), the subsection that deals
with alcohol testing. Current
§ 712.11(b)(1) and (2) are merged and
redesignated as proposed § 712.11(c), as
these paragraphs both concern the
requirements applicable to an
individual whose position becomes an
HRP position after he or she has already
begun employment. Current § 712.11(c)
and (d) are redesignated as proposed
§ 712.11(d) and (e), respectively. Current
§ 712.11(e) is deleted in the entirety as
its content concerning drug and alcohol
testing is already addressed in proposed
§ 712.15. Proposed § 712.11(f) is added
to emphasize that national security and
safety are the paramount concerns of the
HRP. This mirrors a similar provision
under DOE’s security clearance
regulations at 10 CFR part 710.
5. In proposed § 712.12 ‘‘HRP
implementation,’’ the deadlines for HRP
implementation specified in § 712.12(a)
and (b)(1) are deleted, since they
occurred over a decade ago and are now
obsolete. Current § 712.12(b)(2) is
deleted in the entirety, as the HRP
management official’s responsibilities
with respect to temporary removal and
reinstatement are already addressed in
proposed § 712.19. Current
§ 712.12(c)(1) is modified to replace the
title ‘‘Chief Health, Safety and Security
Officer’’ with ‘‘Associate Under
Secretary for Environment, Health,
Safety and Security.’’ Current
§ 712.12(d) is deleted in the entirety as
the role of the cognizant Under
Secretary with respect to final decisions
is already addressed in proposed
§ 712.24. Current § 712.12(e), (f), (g), and
(h) are redesignated as proposed
§ 712.12(d), (e), (f), and (g), respectively.
Current § 712.12(e), and proposed as
§ 712.12(d), is modified to replace the
title ‘‘Director, Office of Security’’ with
‘‘Associate Under Secretary for
Environment, Health, Safety and
Security.’’ Current § 712.12(f)(1), and
proposed as § 712.12(e)(1), is modified
to replace the title ‘‘Director, Office of
Security’’ with ‘‘Director, Office of
Corporate Security, Strategy Analysis
and Special Operations.’’ Current
§ 712.12(h)(3) is relocated to proposed
§ 712.25(a), as it fits more logically
under the section that describes the
individual’s responsibility to cooperate.
6. In proposed § 712.13 ‘‘Supervisory
review,’’ proposed § 712.13(b) is
modified to clarify that the annual
reviews and evaluations by supervisors
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:48 Jun 21, 2017
Jkt 241001
of HRP-certified individuals are based
on any and all information within the
supervisor’s personal knowledge related
to the individual that he or she
supervises. Current § 712.13(c) is
modified to include an additional type
of behavior and/or concern that would
indicate a concern for HRP certification.
The new proposed language would
cover any unusual conduct or
circumstance that would tend to show
the individual is not reliable. The
provisions in current § 712.13(d) that
deal with temporary removal are
deleted, as those procedures are already
addressed in proposed §§ 712.14 and
712.19. The provisions of current
§ 712.13(d) concerning immediate
removal are replaced with the substance
of current § 712.19(a) and § 712.13(e),
which identify the circumstances under
which immediate removal is required.
The provisions of current § 712.13(e)
that identifies the circumstance under
which immediate removal is required
are relocated to proposed § 712.13(d),
with the clarification that the
requirement to immediately remove
applies to all individuals and not just
Federal employees. Additionally,
proposed § 712.13(e) deletes language
mandating a certain personnel action,
such as a temporary reassignment, when
an individual is immediately removed.
Current § 712.13(f) is deleted in its
entirety and its substance is relocated
and merged with current § 712.15(c), the
paragraph that deals with alcohol
testing. Proposed § 712.13(f) is added to
specify the actions to be taken in
connection with an immediate removal.
This language, which can be found at
current § 712.19(a), fits more logically in
§ 712.13, which addresses the role of the
supervisor. Proposed § 712.13(f) is
modified from the language in current
§ 712.19(a) to eliminate the requirement
by the supervisor to notify the
individual of the immediate removal.
Instead, notification to the individual is
to be provided by the management
official upon temporary removal
consistent with proposed § 712.19.
7. In proposed § 712.14 ‘‘Medical
assessment,’’ the last sentence of current
§ 712.14(c) describing the
responsibilities of the Designated
Physician or SOMD when a security
concern is identified is deleted, as these
responsibilities are already addressed in
proposed § 712.19. Current § 712.14(f)(1)
and (f)(3) are modified to replace the
titles ‘‘Director, Office of Health and
Safety’’ with ‘‘Associate Under
Secretary for Environment, Health,
Safety and Security.’’ Current
§ 712.14(h) is modified to delete ‘‘for
concurrence’’ in the second to last
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
sentence as the responsibilities of the
Designated Physician, Designated
Psychologist, and the SOMD to make a
written recommendation as to
reinstating or removing a medical
restriction are already set forth clearly
and the terms ‘‘for concurrence’’ is not
necessary. Additionally, current
§ 712.14(j) would delete ‘‘required’’ and
add in its place ‘‘recommended’’ to
clarify that the determination to
temporarily remove an individual from
HRP duties would be made by the
management official upon the
recommendation of the Designated
Physician, Designated Psychologist, or
the SOMD.
8. In proposed § 712.15 ‘‘Management
evaluation,’’ proposed § 712.15(a) is
modified to clarify that the HRP
management official must act in
accordance with the procedures for
temporary removal, set forth in
proposed § 712.19, upon the
identification of a safety or a security
concern with respect to an HRP-certified
individual. Additionally, proposed
§ 712.15(a) is modified to delete any
requirement that the supervisor
temporarily reassign an individual to
non-HRP duties upon immediate
removal. Proposed § 712.15(b) is
modified to clarify that if an HRPcertified individual refuses to submit to
a drug test, or if the individual submits
to the test but the results are not
favorable, the supervisor must
immediately remove the individual
from HRP and take the actions specified
in proposed § 712.13(f). Proposed
§ 712.15(c) is modified to incorporate
the substance of current § 712.13(f),
which deals with alcohol testing, as
discussed in this preamble and to clarify
that if an HRP-certified individual’s test
result is at or above a certain level, then
the supervisor should take actions
consistent with § 712.13(f).
9. The title of proposed § 712.16 is
changed from ‘‘DOE security review’’ to
‘‘Security review.’’ Proposed § 712.16(a)
is modified to eliminate the requirement
that the security review be initiated only
after the medical assessment and
management evaluations are completed.
Proposed § 712.16(b) is modified to
incorporate the content of current
§ 712.11(a)(5)(ii) and (iii), with the
exception of the last clause of paragraph
(a)(5)(iii) which is deleted. Additionally
proposed § 712.16(b) is modified to
delete the reference to the 10 CFR part
710 criteria since the criteria were
eliminated in a recent proposed
amendment to 10 CFR part 710. The last
sentence of current § 712.16(b) is
deleted to clarify that security concerns
may be addressed by HRP officials in
accordance with HRP reliability
E:\FR\FM\22JNP1.SGM
22JNP1
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 119 / Thursday, June 22, 2017 / Proposed Rules
standards, in addition to security
clearance adjudicators under 10 CFR
part 710. Proposed § 712.16(c) is added
to clarify that HRP determinations are to
be made independently of security
clearance determinations under 10 CFR
part 710. Current § 712.16(c) is
redesignated as proposed § 712.16(d)
and modified to clarify that medical
personnel may share information from
the personnel security file only as
permitted by the Privacy Act of 1974.
Proposed § 712.16(e) incorporates the
content of current § 712.11(a)(5)(i), as
described in this preamble, and is
modified to clarify that when the DOE
personnel security review is not
completed within the required 12month time period for recertification,
the HRP certifying official’s decision to
recertify or temporarily remove an
individual in the HRP is an interim
decision pending the completion of the
security review.
10. In proposed § 712.17
‘‘Instructional requirements,’’ proposed
§ 712.17(b)(1) is modified to clarify the
type of medical conditions that need to
be reported by each individual in the
HRP.
11. The title of proposed § 712.19 is
modified to ‘‘Actions related to
Removal, Revocation and/or
Reinstatement.’’ Current § 712.19(a) is
relocated to proposed § 712.13(f), as
described in this preamble, under the
section that describes the roles and
responsibilities of the supervisor.
Proposed § 712.19(a) incorporates the
substance of current § 712.19(c)(1) and
sets forth additional circumstances
under which the HRP management
official must temporarily remove an
individual from HRP. These
circumstances include when the HRP
management official has identified a
concern during the management
evaluation (as set forth in proposed
§ 712.15), when the individual has been
immediately removed by the supervisor
(in accordance with proposed § 712.13),
or when temporary removal has been
recommended by a medical professional
associated with the HRP (under
proposed § 712.14). Language is added
to current § 712.19(b) which requires the
HRP management official to notify the
individual, in writing, that s/he is
temporarily removed. Current
§ 712.19(c)(2) is redesignated as
proposed § 712.19(c) and is modified
with the deletion of the last sentence.
Current § 712.19(c)(3) is redesignated as
proposed § 712.19(d) and is modified to
require that the HRP management
official obtain a recommendation from
an HRP medical professional if
temporary removal was based on a
concern that is medical-related, and to
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:48 Jun 21, 2017
Jkt 241001
delete the requirement that the
management official prepare a written
report of the evaluation. Current
§ 712.19(c)(4) is redesignated as
proposed § 712.19(e) and is modified to
clarify the actions to be taken by the
HRP management official upon
determining that an individual who was
temporarily removed continues to meet
the requirements for HRP certification.
Current § 712.19(c)(5) is redesignated as
proposed § 712.19(f) and is modified to
state that if the HRP management
official makes a determination that an
individual does not meet HRP
certification requirements, then a case
chronology that explains why the
individual does not meet the
requirement for certification must be
prepared for the HRP certifying official
and, further, that the HRP management
official’s determination must be based
on one or more of the types of behaviors
and conditions identified in proposed
§ 712.13(c). Proposed § 712.19(f)(1) is
modified to clarify that the individual
must be notified if his or her HRP
certification is reinstated by the HRP
certifying official. Proposed
§ 712.19(f)(3) is modified to clarify the
process to be followed should an HRP
certifying official recommend
revocation of an individual’s
certification in the HRP, including the
preparation of an evaluative report and
a role for the appropriate DOE or NNSA
counsel, as well as a course of action to
be followed if the HRP certifying official
is the same person as the Manager.
Current § 712.19(d) is redesignated as
proposed § 712.19(g) and is modified to
replace the phrase ‘‘written report’’ with
the proposed concepts ‘‘case
chronology’’ and ‘‘evaluative report’’
and to clarify the requirement that the
individual be notified if his or her HRP
certification is reinstated by the
Manager. Current § 712.19(e) is merged
with current § 712.19(g), as both
paragraphs deal with actions to be taken
upon a decision to revoke, and is
redesignated as proposed § 712.19(h).
Current § 712.19(f) is redesignated as
proposed § 712.19(i) and is modified to
reflect that the HRP certifying official, in
addition to the Manager, can direct that
an individual take certain actions to
attempt to resolve HRP concerns and to
clarify the process to be followed once
those actions have been completed.
12. In proposed § 712.20, ‘‘Request for
reconsideration or certification review
hearing,’’ proposed § 712.20 is modified
to delete paragraph (a)(1) and relocate
the substance to proposed new
paragraph (d) and to further clarify that
a failure to take action in response to the
Manager’s decision to revoke HRP
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
28415
certification means that the Manager’s
decision becomes a final agency
decision. Proposed § 712.20(b) is
modified to clarify that a ‘‘final
decision’’ refers to a ‘‘final agency
decision’’ and to delete the final
sentence, so as not to unreasonably limit
the information relied upon by the
Manager in issuing a final decision.
13. Proposed § 712.21 clarifies the
process for appointing DOE counsel
when an individual requests a
certification review hearing. This
requirement and language is consistent
with the procedures that pertain to
administrative review hearings under 10
CFR part 710. Proposed § 712.21(a) is
modified to replace the reference to the
local Chief Counsel and the General
Counsel with a general description
requiring appointment of counsel so
that this regulation will not be outdated
if there is a change to titles and
organizations in DOE.
14. Current § 712.21 is redesignated as
proposed § 712.22 in accordance with
the addition of proposed § 712.21. The
term ‘‘hearing officer’’ is replaced
throughout this section, and wherever it
appears in this part, with
‘‘Administrative Judge’’ for the reasons
set forth in 78 FR 52389 (Aug. 23, 2013).
Proposed § 712.22(a) is modified to
specify who is responsible for
appointing an Administrative Judge.
Proposed § 712.22(d) is added to
establish the individual’s burden at a
certification review hearing. For
purposes of due process, it is critical
that the individual whose HRP
certification has been revoked fully
understand the nature and scope of
evidence that he or she must present.
‘‘Specifically, the individual must
present evidence to show that the
revocation decision was either clearly
erroneous or that extraordinary
circumstances warrant recertification
into HRP. The individual cannot satisfy
this burden upon a showing that DOE’s
security or safety concerns have been
mitigated during the time since the
decision was made to revoke. Rather,
the individual must point to a clear
factual error underlying that decision or
to some circumstance that is so
extraordinary that it warrants reversal of
the decision. This is a more burdensome
standard to meet than the standard
applicable to security clearance hearings
under 10 CFR part 710, but it is
consistent with the objective that HRPcertified individuals meet the highest
standards of reliability as well as
physical and mental suitability.
Proposed § 712.22(e) is added to clarify
the DOE counsel’s role at the
certification review hearing, which is
consistent with the DOE counsel’s role
E:\FR\FM\22JNP1.SGM
22JNP1
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
28416
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 119 / Thursday, June 22, 2017 / Proposed Rules
in administrative review hearings under
10 CFR part 710.
Current § 712.22(e) is redesignated as
proposed § 712.22(f) in accordance with
the addition of proposed § 712.22(e).
Proposed § 712.22(f)(1), (2) and (7) and
§ 712.22(g) and (h) are added to clarify
the responsibilities and authority of the
Administrative Judges who perform
certification review hearings. The added
language is consistent with the
responsibilities and authorities of the
Administrative Judges who perform
administrative review hearings under 10
CFR part 710. Proposed § 712.22(i) is
added to clarify the Administrative
Judge’s responsibility to prepare a
decision, and what the decision must
contain. Proposed § 712.22(i) also
directs the Administrative Judge to
ensure that any doubt as to an
individual’s certification shall be
resolved against the individual in favor
of national security and/or safety. This
direction to err on the side of security
and safety is consistent with a similar
provision in 10 CFR part 710 and
Executive Order 12968 (Aug. 4, 1995).
15. Current § 712.22 is redesignated as
proposed § 712.23 in accordance with
the addition of proposed § 712.21. The
title is modified to reflect that a
decision, not a recommendation, is
issued by the Administrative Judge at
the conclusion of the hearing. The
position of ‘‘Chief Health Safety and
Security Officer’’ is replaced through
this section, and wherever it appears in
this part, with ‘‘Associate Under
Secretary for Environment, Health,
Safety, and Security’’ to reflect
organizational changes within the
Department. The first sentence of
proposed § 712.23(a) is modified to state
simply that the Administrative Judge’s
decision be forwarded to the Associate
Under Secretary for Environment,
Health, Safety and Security, as the
contents of this decision are already
described in proposed § 712.22(i).
Further, the term ‘‘must’’ is replaced
with ‘‘should’’ in order to clarify that
issuance of the decision within 30
calendar days is an aspiration rather
than a requirement. In addition, the
proposed § 712.23 would no longer
require the Associate Under Secretary
for Environment, Health, Safety, and
Security to make a recommendation to
recertify or revoke the certification of an
individual in the HRP. Instead, a new
proposed paragraph (b) requires the
Associate Under Secretary for
Environment, Health, Safety, and
Security to notify the individual and the
Manager of the Administrative Judge’s
decision and the appeal procedures
available, and to provide them a copy of
the Administrative Judge’s decision and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:48 Jun 21, 2017
Jkt 241001
the administrative record. A new
proposed paragraph (c) provides the
individual and the Manager the right to
file a written request for further review
of the Administrative Judge’s decision
with the cognizant Under Secretary. A
new proposed paragraph (d) requires the
Manager to provide the individual with
a copy of any request for further review
filed by the Manager. A new proposed
paragraph (e) requires the request for
review to include a statement
identifying the issues on which the
cognizant Under Secretary should focus.
A new proposed paragraph (f) clarifies
that the Administrative Judge’s
decisions become final if neither the
individual nor the Manager files a
written request for review of the
decision. The provisions of proposed
§ 712.23 are generally consistent with
the procedures for notification and
appeal of an Administrative Judge’s
decision in a security clearance hearing
under 10 CFR part 710.
16. Current § 712.23 is redesignated as
proposed § 712.24 in accordance with
the addition of proposed § 712.21. A
new proposed paragraph (a) would
require the Associate Under Secretary
for Environment, Health, Safety, and
Security to forward the request for
review, the Administrative Judge’s
decision and the administrative record
to the cognizant Under Secretary.
Proposed paragraph (b) would delete the
20-working day requirement in order to
ensure that the cognizant Under
Secretary has sufficient time to render a
final decision. Proposed paragraph (b) is
further modified to allow the cognizant
Under Secretary to delegate the
authority to issue a final decision, and
to require that final decisions expressly
state whether the individual’s
certification is revoked or restored, in
order to avoid any possible confusion. A
new proposed paragraph (c) would
clarify that the cognizant Under
Secretary’s decision shall be based only
on evidence and information in the
administrative record at the time of the
Administrative Judge’s decision.
17. Proposed § 712.25 is added to
require HRP candidates and HRPcertified individuals to cooperate in all
aspects of the HRP process. Proposed
§ 712.25(a), in addition to incorporating
current § 712.12(h)(3), as described
above, specifies that failure to cooperate
may result in a determination not to
grant HRP certification, for candidates,
or revocation, for HRP-certified
individuals. Proposed § 712.25(b)
establishes a process by which an HRPcertified individual whose certification
was revoked for failure to cooperate may
request that the Manager reconsider this
decision. This reconsideration process
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
is modelled after a similar process set
forth in DOE’s security clearance
regulations at 10 CFR part 710.
III. Regulatory Review
A. Review Under Executive Order 12866
and 13563
The regulatory action proposed today
has been determined not to be a
‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under
Executive Order 12866, ‘‘Regulatory
Planning and Review,’’ 58 FR 51735
(October 4, 1993). Accordingly, this
proposed rule is not subject to review
under the Executive Order by the Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs
within the Office of Management and
Budget.
DOE has also reviewed the proposed
regulation pursuant to Executive Order
13563, issued on January 18, 2011 (76
FR 3281 (Jan. 21, 2011)). Executive
Order 13563 is supplemental to and
explicitly reaffirms the principles,
structures, and definitions governing
regulatory review established in
Executive Order 12866. To the extent
permitted by law, agencies are required
by Executive Order 13563 to: (1)
Propose or adopt a regulation only upon
a reasoned determination that its
benefits justify its costs (recognizing
that some benefits and costs are difficult
to quantify); (2) tailor regulations to
impose the least burden on society,
consistent with obtaining regulatory
objectives, taking into account, among
other things, and to the extent
practicable, the costs of cumulative
regulations; (3) select, in choosing
among alternative regulatory
approaches, those approaches that
maximize net benefits (including
potential economic, environmental,
public health and safety, and other
advantages; distributive impacts; and
equity); (4) to the extent feasible, specify
performance objectives, rather than
specifying the behavior or manner of
compliance that regulated entities must
adopt; and (5) identify and assess
available alternatives to direct
regulation, including providing
economic incentives to encourage the
desired behavior, such as user fees or
marketable permits, or providing
information upon which choices can be
made by the public.
DOE emphasizes as well that
Executive Order 13563 requires agencies
to use the best available techniques to
quantify anticipated present and future
benefits and costs as accurately as
possible. In its guidance, the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs has
emphasized that such techniques may
include identifying changing future
compliance costs that might result from
E:\FR\FM\22JNP1.SGM
22JNP1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 119 / Thursday, June 22, 2017 / Proposed Rules
technological innovation or anticipated
behavioral changes. DOE believes that
this NOPR is consistent with these
principles, including the requirement
that, to the extent permitted by law,
agencies adopt a regulation only upon a
reasoned determination that its benefits
justify its costs and, in choosing among
alternative regulatory approaches, those
approaches maximize net benefits.
B. Review Under the National
Environmental Policy Act
DOE has concluded that promulgation
of this proposed rule falls into a class of
actions which would not individually or
cumulatively have significant impact on
the human environment, as determined
by DOE’s regulations (10 CFR part 1021,
subpart D) implementing the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of
1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.).
Specifically, this proposed rule is
categorically excluded from NEPA
review because the amendments to the
existing rule are strictly procedural
(categorical exclusion A6). Therefore,
this proposed rule does not require an
environmental impact statement or
environmental assessment pursuant to
NEPA.
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
C. Review Under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires preparation
of an initial regulatory flexibility
analysis for any rule that by law must
be proposed for public comment, unless
the agency certifies that the rule, if
promulgated, will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. As required by
Executive Order 13272, ‘‘Proper
Consideration of Small Entities in
Agency Rulemaking,’’ (67 FR 53461,
August 16, 2002), DOE published
procedures and policies on February 19,
2003, to ensure that the potential
impacts of its rules on small entities are
properly considered during the
rulemaking process (68 FR 7990). DOE
has made its procedures and policies
available on the Office of the General
Counsel’s Web site at https://
www.energy.gov/gc/office-generalcounsel.
This proposed rule would amend
procedures that apply to the
certification of individuals in the HRP.
The proposed rule applies to
individuals, and would not apply to
‘‘small entities,’’ as that term is defined
in the Regulatory Flexibility Act. As a
result, if adopted, the proposed rule
would not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:48 Jun 21, 2017
Jkt 241001
Accordingly, DOE certifies that the
proposed rule would not have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities,
and, therefore, no regulatory flexibility
analysis is required.
D. Review Under the Paperwork
Reduction Act
This proposed rule does not impose a
collection of information requirement
subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act,
44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
E. Review Under the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4) generally
requires a Federal agency to perform a
detailed assessment of costs and
benefits of any rule imposing a Federal
Mandate with costs to State, local or
tribal governments, or to the private
sector, of $100 million or more. This
rulemaking does not impose a Federal
mandate on State, local or tribal
governments or on the private sector.
F. Review Under the Treasury and
Government Appropriations Act, 1999
Section 654 of the Treasury and
General Government Appropriations
Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105–277), requires
Federal agencies to issue a Family
Policymaking Assessment for any rule
or policy that may affect family wellbeing. The proposed rule, if adopted,
will have no impact on family wellbeing. Accordingly, DOE has concluded
that it is not necessary to prepare a
Family Policymaking Assessment.
G. Review Under Executive Order 13132
Executive Order 13132, 64 FR 43255
(August 4, 1999), imposes certain
requirements on agencies formulating
and implementing policies or
regulations that preempt State law or
that have federalism implications.
Agencies are required to examine the
constitutional and statutory authority
supporting any action that would limit
the policymaking discretion of the
States and carefully assess the necessity
for such actions. DOE has examined this
proposed rule and has determined that
it does not preempt State law and, if
adopted, would not have a substantial
direct effect on the States, on the
relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government. No further action
is required by Executive Order 13132.
H. Review Under Executive Order 12988
With respect to the review of existing
regulations and the promulgation of
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
28417
new regulations, section 3(a) of
Executive Order 12988, ‘‘Civil Justice
Reform,’’ 61 FR 4729 (February 7, 1996),
imposes on Executive agencies the
general duty to adhere to the following
requirements: (1) Eliminate drafting
errors and ambiguity; (2) write
regulations to minimize litigation; and
(3) provide a clear legal standard for
affected conduct rather than a general
standard and promote simplification
and burden reduction.
With regard to the review required by
section 3(a), section 3(b) of Executive
Order 12988 specifically requires that
Executive agencies make every
reasonable effort to ensure that the
regulation: (1) Clearly specifies the
preemptive effect, if any; (2) clearly
specifies any effect on existing Federal
law or regulation; (3) provides a clear
legal standard for affected conduct
while promoting simplification and
burden reduction; (4) specifies the
retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately
defines key terms; and (6) addresses
other important issues affecting clarity
and general draftsmanship under any
guidelines issued by the Attorney
General. Section 3(c) of Executive Order
12988 requires Executive agencies to
review regulations in light of applicable
standards in section 3(a) and section
3(b) to determine whether they are met
or it is unreasonable to meet one or
more of them. DOE has completed the
required review and determined that, to
the extent permitted by law, this
proposed regulation meet the relevant
standards of Executive Order 12988.
I. Review Under the Treasury and
General Government Appropriations
Act, 2001
The Treasury and General
Government Appropriations Act, 2001
(44 U.S.C. 3516, note) provides for
agencies to review most disseminations
of information to the public under
implementing guidelines established by
each agency pursuant to general
guidelines issued by OMB. OMB’s
guidelines were published at 67 FR
8452 (February 22, 2002), and DOE’s
guidelines were published at 67 FR
62446 (October 7, 2002). DOE has
reviewed this proposed rule under the
OMB and DOE guidelines and has
concluded that it is consistent with
applicable policies in those guidelines.
J. Review Under Executive Order 13211
Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions
Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use,’’ 66 FR 28355 (May
22, 2001), requires Federal agencies to
prepare and submit to the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs
E:\FR\FM\22JNP1.SGM
22JNP1
28418
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 119 / Thursday, June 22, 2017 / Proposed Rules
(OIRA), Office of Management and
Budget, a Statement of Energy Effects for
any significant energy action. A
‘‘significant energy action’’ is defined as
any action by an agency that
promulgates or is expected to lead to
promulgation of a final rule, and that:
(1) Is a significant regulatory action
under Executive Order 12866, or any
successor order; and (2) is likely to have
a significant adverse effect on the
supply, distribution, or use of energy, or
(3) is designated by the Administrator of
OIRA as a significant energy action. For
any proposed significant energy action,
the agency must give a detailed
statement of any adverse effects on
energy supply, distribution or use
should the proposal be implemented,
and of reasonable alternatives to the
action and their expected benefits on
energy supply, distribution and use.
This proposed rule is not a significant
energy action. Accordingly, DOE has not
prepared a Statement of Energy Effects.
712.3
IV. Approval by the Office of the
Secretary
The Office of the Secretary of Energy
has approved the publication of this
proposed rule.
General Provisions
List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 712
Administrative practice and
procedure, Alcohol abuse, Classified
information, Drug abuse, Government
contracts, Government employees,
Health, Occupational safety and health,
Radiation protection, and Security
measures.
Issued in Washington, DC, on June 12,
2017.
Rick Perry,
Secretary of Energy.
For the reasons stated in the
preamble, DOE proposes to amend part
712 of title 10 of the Code of Federal
Regulations to read as follows:
PART 712—HUMAN RELIABILITY
PROGRAM
1. The authority citation for part 712
continues to read as follows:
■
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
■
2. Revise subpart A to read as follows:
Subpart A—Establishment of and
Procedures for the Human Reliability
Program
General Provisions
Sec.
712.1 Purpose.
712.2 Applicability.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:48 Jun 21, 2017
Jkt 241001
Subpart A—Establishment of and
Procedures for the Human Reliability
Program
§ 712.1
Purpose.
This part establishes the policies and
procedures for a Human Reliability
Program (HRP) in the Department of
Energy (DOE), including the National
Nuclear Security Administration
(NNSA). The HRP is a security and
safety reliability program designed to
ensure that individuals who occupy
positions affording access to certain
materials, nuclear explosive devices,
facilities, and programs meet the highest
standards of reliability and physical and
mental suitability. This objective is
accomplished under this part through a
system of continuous evaluation that
identifies individuals whose judgment
and reliability may be impaired by
physical or mental/personality
disorders, alcohol abuse, use of illegal
drugs or the abuse of legal drugs or
other substances, or any other condition
or circumstance that may be of a
security or safety concern.
§ 712.2
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 2165; 42 U.S.C. 2201;
42 U.S.C. 5814–5815; 42 U.S.C. 7101 et seq.;
50 U.S.C. 2401 et seq.; E.O. 10450, 3 CFR
1949–1953 Comp., p. 936, as amended; E.O.
10865, 3 CFR 1959–1963 Comp., p. 398, as
amended; 3 CFR Chap. IV.
Definitions.
Procedures
Sec.
712.10 Designation of HRP positions.
712.11 General requirements for HRP
certification.
712.12 HRP implementation.
712.13 Supervisory review.
712.14 Medical assessment.
712.15 Management evaluation.
712.16 Security review.
712.17 Instructional requirements.
712.18 Transferring HRP certification.
712.19 Actions related to Removal,
Revocation and/or Reinstatement.
712.20 Request for reconsideration or
certification review hearing.
712.21 Appointment of DOE Counsel.
712.22 Office of Hearings and Appeals.
712.23 Administrative Judge’s decision.
712.24 Final decision by DOE Under
Secretary.
712.25 Cooperation by the individual.
Applicability.
The HRP applies to all applicants for,
or current employees of DOE or NNSA
or a DOE or NNSA contractor or
subcontractor in a position defined or
designated under § 712.10 of this
subpart as an HRP position.
§ 712.3
Definitions.
The following definitions are used in
this part:
Access means:
(1) A situation that may provide an
individual proximity to or control over
Category I special nuclear material (SNM); or
(2) The proximity to a nuclear explosive
and/or Category I SNM that allows the
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
opportunity to divert, steal, tamper with,
and/or damage the nuclear explosive or
material in spite of any controls that have
been established to prevent such
unauthorized actions.
Alcohol means the intoxicating agent in
beverage alcohol, ethyl alcohol, or other low
molecular weight alcohol.
Alcohol abuse means consumption of any
beverage, mixture, or preparation, including
any medication containing alcohol that
results in impaired social or occupational
functioning.
Alcohol concentration means the alcohol
in a volume of breath expressed in terms of
grams of alcohol per 210 liters of breath as
indicated by a breath test.
Alcohol use disorder means a maladaptive
pattern in which a person’s intake of alcohol
is great enough to damage or adversely affect
physical or mental health or personal, social,
or occupational function; or when alcohol
has become a prerequisite to normal
function.
Associate Under Secretary for
Environment, Health, Safety and Security
means the DOE individual with
responsibility for policy and quality
assurance for DOE occupational medical
programs.
Case chronology means a written recitation
of all actions that support a recommendation
to revoke an individual’s HRP certification
under § 712.19.
Certification means the formal action the
HRP certifying official takes that permits an
individual to perform HRP duties after it is
determined that the individual meets the
requirements for certification under this part.
Contractor means contractors and
subcontractors at all tiers and any industrial,
educational, commercial, or other entity,
grantee, or licensee, including an employee
that has executed an agreement with the
Federal government for the purpose of
performing under a contract, license, or other
arrangement.
Designated Physician means a licensed
doctor of medicine or osteopathy who has
been nominated by the Site Occupational
Medical Director (SOMD) and approved by
the Manager or designee, with the
concurrence of the Associate Under Secretary
for Environment, Health, Safety and Security
or his or her designee to provide professional
expertise in occupational medicine for the
HRP.
Designated Psychologist means a licensed
Ph.D., or Psy.D., in clinical psychology who
has been nominated by the SOMD and
approved by the Manager or designee, with
the concurrence of the Associate Under
Secretary for Environment, Health, Safety
and Security or his or her designee to provide
professional expertise in the area of
psychological assessment for the HRP.
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of
Mental Disorders means the current version
of the American Psychiatric Association’s
manual containing definitions of psychiatric
terms and diagnostic criteria of mental
disorders.
Drug abuse means use of an illegal drug or
misuse of legal drugs.
Evaluative report means the document that
sets forth the bases supporting the revocation
of an individual’s certification.
E:\FR\FM\22JNP1.SGM
22JNP1
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 119 / Thursday, June 22, 2017 / Proposed Rules
Evidential-grade breath alcohol device
means a device that conforms to the model
standards for an evidential breath-testing
device as listed on the Conforming Products
List of Evidential Breath Measurement
Devices published by the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).
Flashback means an involuntary,
spontaneous recurrence of some aspect of a
hallucinatory experience or perceptual
distortion that occurs long after taking the
hallucinogen that produced the original
effect; also referred to as hallucinogen
persisting perception disorder.
Hallucinogen means a drug or substance
that produces hallucinations, distortions in
perception of sights and sounds, and
disturbances in emotion, judgment, and
memory.
HRP candidate means an individual being
considered for assignment to an HRP
position.
HRP-certified individual means an
individual who has successfully completed
the HRP requirements.
HRP certifying official means the Manager
or the Manager’s designee who certifies,
recertifies, temporarily removes, reviews the
circumstances of an individual’s removal
from an HRP position, and directs
reinstatement.
HRP management official means an
individual designated by the DOE or a DOE
contractor, as appropriate, who has
programmatic responsibility for HRP
positions.
Illegal drug means a controlled substance,
as specified in Schedules I through V of the
Controlled Substances Act, 21 U.S.C. 811 and
812; the term does not apply to the use of a
controlled substance in accordance with the
terms of a valid prescription, or other uses
authorized by Federal law.
Impaired or impairment means a decrease
in functional capacity of a person that is
caused by a physical, mental, emotional,
substance abuse, or behavioral disorder.
Incident means an unplanned, undesired
event that interrupts the completion of an
activity and that may include property
damage or injury.
Job task analysis means the formal process
of defining the requirements of a position
and identifying the knowledge, skills, and
abilities necessary to effectively perform the
duties of the position.
Manager means the senior Federal line
manager at a departmental site or Federal
office with HRP-designated positions.
Material access area means a type of
Security Area that is authorized to contain a
Category I quantity of special nuclear
material and that has specifically defined
physical barriers, is located within a
Protected Area, and is subject to specific
access controls.
Medical assessment means an evaluation of
an HRP candidate and HRP-certified
individual’s present health status and health
risk factors by means of:
(1) Medical history review;
(2) Job task analysis;
(3) Physical examination;
(4) Appropriate laboratory tests and
measurements; and
(5) Appropriate psychological and
psychiatric evaluations.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:48 Jun 21, 2017
Jkt 241001
Nuclear explosive means an assembly of
fissionable and/or fusionable materials and
main charge high explosive parts or
propellants that is capable of producing a
nuclear detonation.
Nuclear explosive duties means work
assignments that allow custody of a nuclear
explosive or access to a nuclear explosive
device or area.
Occurrence means any event or incident
that is a deviation from the planned or
expected behavior or course of events in
connection with any DOE or DOE-controlled
operation if the deviation has environmental,
public health and safety, or national security
protection significance, including (but not
limited to) incidents involving:
(1) Injury or fatality to any person
involving actions of a DOE employee or
contractor employee;
(2) An explosion, fire, spread of radioactive
material, personal injury or death, or damage
to property that involves nuclear explosives
under DOE jurisdiction;
(3) Accidental release of pollutants that
results from, or could result in, a significant
effect on the public or environment; or
(4) Accidental release of radioactive
material above regulatory limits.
Psychological assessment or test means a
scientifically validated instrument designed
to detect psychiatric, personality, and
behavioral tendencies that would indicate
problems with reliability and judgment.
Random alcohol testing means the
unscheduled, unannounced alcohol testing of
randomly selected employees by a process
designed to ensure that selections are made
in a nondiscriminatory manner.
Random drug testing means the
unscheduled, unannounced drug testing of
randomly selected employees by a process
designed to ensure that selections are made
in a nondiscriminatory manner.
Reasonable suspicion means a suspicion
based on an articulable belief that an
individual uses illegal drugs or is under the
influence of alcohol, drawn from reasonable
inferences from particular facts, as detailed
further in part 707 of this title.
Recertification means the action the HRP
certifying official takes annually, not to
exceed 12 months, that permits an employee
to remain in the HRP and perform HRP
duties.
Reinstatement means the action taken after
it has been determined that an employee who
has been temporarily removed from the HRP
meets the certification requirements of this
part and can be returned to HRP duties.
Restoration means the actions necessary to
restore an individual’s HRP duties after a
final decision has been made by the
cognizant Under Secretary or his/her
designee to overturn the revocation decision.
The restoration of HRP duties is contingent
on the individual completing any and all
components of the annual recertification
process under § 712.11 and any other specific
requirements that must be completed in
order to return to full HRP duties.
Reliability means an individual’s ability to
adhere to security and safety rules and
regulations.
Safety concern means any condition,
practice, or violation that causes a reasonable
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
28419
probability of physical harm, property loss,
and/or environmental impact.
Security concern means the presence of
information regarding an individual that
raises a question as to whether HRP
certification and recertification would
endanger the common defense and security
and would be clearly consistent with the
national interest.
Semi-structured interview means an
interview by a Designated Psychologist, or a
psychologist under his or her supervision,
who has the latitude to vary the focus and
content of the questions depending on the
interviewee’s responses.
Site Occupational Medical Director
(SOMD) means the physician responsible for
the overall direction and operation of the
occupational medical program at a particular
site or program.
Supervisor means the individual who has
oversight and organizational responsibility
for a person holding an HRP position, and
whose duties include evaluating the behavior
and performance of the HRP-certified
individual.
Transfer means an HRP-certified
individual moving from one site to another
site.
Unacceptable damage means an incident
that could result in a nuclear detonation;
high-explosive detonation or deflagration
from a nuclear explosive; the diversion,
misuse, or removal of Category I special
nuclear material; or an interruption of
nuclear explosive operations with a
significant impact on national security.
Unsafe practice means either a human
action departing from prescribed hazard
controls or job procedures or practices, or an
action causing a person unnecessary
exposure to a hazard.
Procedures
§ 712.10
Designation of HRP positions.
(a) HRP certification is required for
each individual assigned to, or applying
for, a position that:
(1) Affords access to Category I SNM
or has responsibility for transportation
or protection of Category I quantities of
SNM;
(2) Involves nuclear explosive duties
or has responsibility for working with,
protecting, or transporting nuclear
explosives, nuclear devices, or selected
components;
(3) Affords access to information
concerning vulnerabilities in protective
systems when transporting nuclear
explosives, nuclear devices, selected
components, or Category I quantities of
SNM; or
(4) Is not included in paragraphs (a)(1)
through (3) of this section but affords
the potential to significantly impact
national security or cause unacceptable
damage and is approved pursuant to
paragraph (b) of this section.
(b) The Manager or the HRP
management official may nominate
positions for the HRP that are not
specified in paragraphs (a)(1) through
E:\FR\FM\22JNP1.SGM
22JNP1
28420
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 119 / Thursday, June 22, 2017 / Proposed Rules
(3) of this section or that have not
previously been designated HRP
positions. All such nominations must be
submitted to and approved by either the
NNSA Administrator, his or her
designee, the Associate Under Secretary
for Environment, Health, Safety and
Security or the appropriate Lead
Program Secretarial Officer, or his or her
designee.
(c) Before nominating a position for
designation as an HRP position, the
Manager or the HRP management
official must analyze the risks the
position poses for the particular
operational program. If the analysis
shows that more restrictive physical,
administrative, or other controls could
be implemented that would prevent the
position from being designated an HRP
position, those controls will be
implemented, if practicable.
(d) Nothing in this part prohibits
contractors from establishing stricter
employment standards for individuals
who are nominated to DOE for
certification or recertification in the
HRP.
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
§ 712.11 General requirements for HRP
certification.
(a) The following requirements apply
to each individual applying for or in an
HRP position:
(1) A DOE ‘‘Q’’ access authorization;
(2) Signed releases, acknowledgments,
and waivers to participate in the HRP on
forms provided by DOE;
(3) Completion of initial and annual
HRP instruction as provided in § 712.17;
(4) Successful completion of an initial
and annual supervisory review, medical
assessment, management evaluation,
and a DOE personnel security review;
(5) No use of any hallucinogen in the
preceding 5 years and no experience of
flashback resulting from the use of any
hallucinogen more than 5 years before
applying for certification or
recertification;
(6) An initial drug test and random
drug tests for the use of illegal drugs at
least once each 12 months;
(7) An initial alcohol test and random
alcohol tests at least once each 12
months; and
(8) Successful completion of a
counterintelligence evaluation, which
may include a counterintelligence-scope
polygraph examination in accordance
with DOE’s Polygraph Examination
Regulation, 10 CFR part 709, and any
subsequent revisions to that regulation.
(b) Each HRP candidate must be
certified in the HRP before being
assigned to HRP duties and must be
recertified annually, not to exceed 12
months between recertifications.
(c) Individuals in newly identified
HRP positions must immediately sign
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:48 Jun 21, 2017
Jkt 241001
the releases, acknowledgments, and
waivers to participate in the HRP and
complete initial instruction on the
importance of security, safety,
reliability, and suitability. If these
requirements are not met, the individual
must be removed from the HRP
position. All remaining HRP
requirements listed in paragraph (a) of
this section must be completed in an
expedited manner.
(d) Alcohol consumption is
prohibited within an eight-hour period
preceding scheduled work for
individuals performing nuclear
explosive duties and for individuals in
specific positions designated by either
the Manager, the NNSA Administrator,
his or her designee, or the appropriate
Lead Program Secretarial Officer, or his
or her designee.
(e) Individuals reporting for
unscheduled nuclear explosive duties
and those specific positions designated
by either the Manager, the NNSA
Administrator or his or her designee, or
the appropriate Lead Program
Secretarial Officer, or his or her
designee, will be asked prior to
performing any type of work if they
have consumed alcohol within the
preceding eight-hour period. If they
answer ‘‘no,’’ they may perform their
assigned duties but still may be tested.
(f) Any doubt as to an HRP
candidate’s or HRP certified
individual’s eligibility for certification
shall be resolved against the candidate
or individual in favor of national
security and/or safety.
§ 712.12
HRP implementation.
(a) The implementation of the HRP is
the responsibility of the appropriate
Manager or his or her designee.
(b) The HRP Management Official
must prepare an HRP implementation
plan and submit it to the applicable
Manager for review and approval. The
implementation plan must:
(1) Be reviewed and updated every 2
years;
(2) Include the four annual
components of the HRP process:
Supervisory review, medical
assessment, management evaluation
(which includes random drug and
alcohol testing), and a DOE personnel
security determination; and
(3) Include the HRP instruction and
education component described in
§ 712.17 of this part.
(c) The Deputy Administrator for
Defense Programs, NNSA must:
(1) Provide advice and assistance to
the Associate Under Secretary for
Environment, Health, Safety and
Security regarding policies, standards,
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
and guidance for all nuclear explosive
duty requirements; and
(2) Be responsible for implementation
of all nuclear explosive duty safety
requirements.
(d) The Associate Under Secretary for
Environment, Health, Safety and
Security, or designee, is responsible for
HRP policy and must:
(1) Ensure consistency of the HRP
throughout the DOE and NNSA;
(2) Review and comment on all HRP
implementation plans to ensure
consistency with policy; and
(3) Provide policies and guidance,
including instructional materials, to
NNSA and non-NNSA field elements
concerning the HRP, as appropriate.
(e) The Manager must:
(1) Review and approve the HRP
implementation plan for sites/facilities
under their cognizance and forward the
plan to the Director, Office of Corporate
Security Strategy, Analysis and Special
Operations, or designee; and
(2) Ensure that the HRP is
implemented at the sites/facilities under
their cognizance.
(f) The HRP certifying official must:
(1) Approve placement, certification,
reinstatement, and recertification of
individuals into HRP positions; for
unresolved temporary removals, follow
the process in § 712.19(f);
(2) Ensure that instructional
requirements are implemented;
(3) Immediately notify (for the
purpose of limiting access) the
appropriate HRP management official of
a personnel security action that results
in the suspension of access
authorization; and
(4) Ensure that the supervisory
review, medical assessment, and
management evaluation, including drug
and alcohol testing, are conducted on an
annual basis (not to exceed 12 months).
(g) Individuals assigned to HRP duties
must:
(1) Execute HRP releases,
acknowledgments, and waivers to
facilitate the collection and
dissemination of information, the
performance of drug and alcohol testing,
and medical examinations;
(2) Notify the Designated Physician,
the Designated Psychologist, or the
SOMD immediately of a physical or
mental condition requiring medication
or treatment;
(3) Report any observed or reported
behavior or condition of another HRPcertified individual that could indicate
a reliability concern, including those
behaviors and conditions listed in
§ 712.13(c), to a supervisor, the
Designated Physician, the Designated
Psychologist, the SOMD, or the HRP
management official; and
E:\FR\FM\22JNP1.SGM
22JNP1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 119 / Thursday, June 22, 2017 / Proposed Rules
(4) Report to a supervisor, the
Designated Physician, the Designated
Psychologist, the SOMD, or the HRP
management official, any behavior or
condition, including those listed in
§ 712.13(c), that may affect his or her
ability to perform HRP duties.
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
§ 712.13
Supervisory review.
(a) The supervisor must ensure that
each HRP candidate and each
individual occupying an HRP position
but not yet HRP certified executes the
appropriate HRP releases,
acknowledgments, and waivers. If these
documents are not executed:
(1) The request for HRP certification
may not be further processed until these
requirements are completed; and
(2) The individual is immediately
removed from the position.
(b) Each supervisor of HRP-certified
personnel must conduct an annual
review of each HRP-certified individual
during which the supervisor must
evaluate information, based on his or
her personal knowledge that is relevant
to the individual’s suitability to perform
HRP tasks in a reliable and safe manner.
(c) The supervisor must report any
concerns resulting from his or her
review to the appropriate HRP
management official. Types of behavior
and conditions that would indicate a
concern include, but are not limited to:
(1) Psychological or physical
disorders that impair performance of
assigned duties;
(2) Conduct that warrants referral for
a criminal investigation or results in
arrest or conviction;
(3) Indications of deceitful or
delinquent behavior;
(4) Attempted or threatened
destruction of property or life;
(5) Suicidal tendencies or attempted
suicide;
(6) Use of illegal drugs or the abuse of
legal drugs or other substances;
(7) Alcohol use disorders;
(8) Recurring financial
irresponsibility;
(9) Irresponsibility in performing
assigned duties;
(10) Inability to deal with stress, or
the appearance of being under unusual
stress;
(11) Failure to comply with work
directives, hostility or aggression toward
fellow workers or authority,
uncontrolled anger, violation of safety
or security procedures, or repeated
absenteeism;
(12) Significant behavioral changes,
moodiness, depression, or other
evidence of loss of emotional control;
and
(13) Any unusual conduct or being
subject to any circumstances which tend
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:48 Jun 21, 2017
Jkt 241001
to show that the individual is not
reliable.
(d) A supervisor must immediately
remove an individual from HRP duties:
(1) When the supervisor has a
reasonable belief that the individual is
not reliable, based on either a safety or
security concern;
(2) When the individual does not
obtain HRP recertification; or
(3) When requested to do so by the
HRP certifying official.
(e) The supervisor must contact the
appropriate personnel office for
guidance as to any actions that should
occur as a result of the immediate
removal.
(f) Immediate Removal. If the
supervisor immediately removes an
HRP-certified individual for any reason
specified in this part, he or she must, at
a minimum:
(1) Require the individual to stop
performing HRP duties;
(2) Take action to ensure the
individual is denied both escorted and
unescorted access to the material access
areas; and
(3) Notify, within 24 hours, the HRP
management official of the immediate
removal. The HRP management official
shall take actions consistent with
§ 712.19.
§ 712.14
Medical assessment.
(a) Purpose. The HRP medical
assessment is performed to evaluate
whether an HRP candidate or an HRPcertified individual:
(1) Represents a security concern; or
(2) Has a condition that may prevent
the individual from performing HRP
duties in a reliable and safe manner.
(b) When performed. (1) The medical
assessment is performed initially on
HRP candidates and individuals
occupying HRP positions who have not
yet received HRP certification. The
medical assessment is performed
annually for HRP-certified individuals,
or more often as required by the SOMD.
(2) The Designated Physician and
other examiners working under the
direction of the Designated Physician
also will conduct an evaluation:
(i) If an HRP-certified individual
requests an evaluation (i.e., selfreferral); or
(ii) If an HRP-certified individual is
referred by management for an
evaluation.
(c) Process. The Designated Physician,
under the supervision of the SOMD, is
responsible for the medical assessment
of HRP candidates and HRP-certified
individuals. In performing this
responsibility, the Designated Physician
or the SOMD must integrate the medical
evaluations, available testing results,
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
28421
psychological evaluations, any
psychiatric evaluations, a review of
current legal drug use, and any other
relevant information. This information
is used to determine if a reliability,
safety, or security concern exists and if
the individual is medically qualified for
his or her assigned duties.
(d) Evaluation. The Designated
Physician, with the assistance of the
Designated Psychologist, must
determine the existence or nature of any
of the following:
(1) Physical or medical disabilities,
such as a lack of visual acuity, defective
color vision, impaired hearing,
musculoskeletal deformities, and
neuromuscular impairment;
(2) Mental/personality disorders or
behavioral problems, including alcohol
and other substance use disorders, as
described in the Diagnostic and
Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders;
(3) Use of illegal drugs or the abuse of
legal drugs or other substances, as
identified by self-reporting or by
medical or psychological evaluation or
testing;
(4) Threat of suicide, homicide, or
physical harm; or
(5) Medical conditions such as
cardiovascular disease, endocrine
disease, cerebrovascular or other
neurologic disease, or the use of drugs
for the treatment of conditions that may
adversely affect the judgment or ability
of an individual to perform assigned
duties in a reliable and safe manner.
(e) Job task analysis. Before the initial
or annual medical assessment and
psychological evaluation, employers
must provide, to both the Designated
Physician and Designated Psychologist,
a job task analysis for each HRP
candidate or HRP-certified individual.
Medical assessments and psychological
evaluations may not be performed if a
job task analysis has not been provided.
(f) Psychological evaluations.
Psychological evaluations must be
conducted:
(1) For initial HRP certification. This
psychological evaluation consists of a
psychological assessment (test),
approved by the Associate Under
Secretary for Environment, Health,
Safety and Security or his or her
designee, and a semi-structured
interview.
(2) For recertification. This
psychological evaluation consists of a
semi-structured interview. A
psychological assessment (test) may also
be conducted as warranted.
(3) Every third year. The medical
assessment for recertification must
include a psychological assessment
(test) approved by the Associate Under
Secretary for Environment, Health,
E:\FR\FM\22JNP1.SGM
22JNP1
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
28422
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 119 / Thursday, June 22, 2017 / Proposed Rules
Safety and Security or his or her
designee. This requirement can be
implemented over a 3-year period for
individuals who are currently in an HRP
position.
(4) When additional psychological or
psychiatric evaluations are required by
the SOMD to resolve any concerns.
(g) Return to work after sick leave.
HRP-certified individuals who have
been on sick leave for five or more
consecutive days, or an equivalent time
period for those individuals on an
alternative work schedule, must report
in person to the Designated Physician,
the Designated Psychologist, or the
SOMD before being allowed to return to
normal duties. The Designated
Physician, the Designated Psychologist,
or the SOMD must provide a written
recommendation to the appropriate HRP
supervisor regarding the individual’s
return to work. An HRP-certified
individual also may be required to
report to the Designated Physician, the
Designated Psychologist, or the SOMD
for written recommendation to return to
normal duties after any period of sick
leave.
(h) Temporary removal or restrictions.
The Designated Physician, the
Designated Psychologist, or the SOMD
may recommend temporary removal of
an individual from an HRP position or
restrictions on an individual’s work in
an HRP position if a medical condition
or circumstance develops that affects
the individual’s ability to perform
assigned job duties. The Designated
Physician, the Designated Psychologist,
or the SOMD must immediately
recommend medical removal or medical
restrictions in writing to the appropriate
HRP management official. If the HRP
management official concurs, he or she
will then notify the appropriate HRP
certifying official. To reinstate or
remove such restrictions, the Designated
Physician, the Designated Psychologist,
or the SOMD must make written
recommendation to the HRP
management official. The HRP
management official will then notify the
appropriate HRP certifying official.
(i) Medical evaluation after
rehabilitation. (1) Individuals who
request reinstatement in the HRP
following rehabilitative treatment for
alcohol use disorder, use of illegal
drugs, or the abuse of legal drugs or
other substances, must undergo an
evaluation, as prescribed by the SOMD,
to ensure continued rehabilitation and
adequate capability to perform their job
duties.
(2) The HRP certifying official may
reinstate HRP certification of an
individual who successfully completes
an SOMD-approved drug or alcohol
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:48 Jun 21, 2017
Jkt 241001
rehabilitation program. Recertification is
based on the SOMD’s follow-up
evaluation and recommendation. The
individual is also subject to
unannounced follow-up tests for illegal
drugs or alcohol and relevant
counseling for 3 years.
(j) Medication and treatment. HRPcertified individuals are required to
immediately report to the Designated
Physician, the Designated Psychologist,
or the SOMD any physical or mental
condition requiring medication or
treatment. The Designated Physician,
the Designated Psychologist, or the
SOMD determines if temporary removal
of the individual from HRP duties is
recommended and follows the
procedures pursuant to § 712.14(h).
§ 712.15
Management evaluation.
(a) Evaluation components. An
evaluation by the HRP management
official is required before an individual
can be considered for initial
certification or recertification in the
HRP. This evaluation must be based on
a careful review of the results of the
supervisory review, medical assessment,
and drug and alcohol testing. If a safety
or security concern is identified with
respect to an HRP-certified individual,
the HRP management official must take
actions consistent with § 712.19(a).
(b) Drug testing. All HRP candidates
and HRP-certified individuals are
subject to testing for the use of illegal
drugs, as required by this part. Testing
must be conducted in accordance with
10 CFR part 707, the workplace
substance abuse program for DOE
contractor employees, and DOE Order
3792.3, ‘‘Drug-Free Federal Workplace
Testing Implementation Program,’’ for
DOE employees. The program must
include an initial drug test, random
drug tests at least once every 12 months
from the previous test, and tests of HRPcertified individuals if they are involved
in an incident, unsafe practice,
occurrence, or based on reasonable
suspicion. Failure to appear for
unannounced testing within 2 hours of
notification constitutes a refusal to
submit to a test. Sites may establish a
shorter time period between notification
and testing but may not exceed the twohour requirement. If an HRP-certified
individual refuses to submit to a drug
test or, based on a drug test, is
determined to use illegal drugs, the
supervisor must immediately remove
the individual from HRP duties and take
actions consistent with § 712.13(f).
(c) Alcohol testing. All HRP
candidates and HRP-certified
individuals are subject to testing for the
use of alcohol, as required by this part.
The alcohol testing program must
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
include, as a minimum, an initial
alcohol test prior to performing HRP
duties and random alcohol tests at least
once every 12 months from the previous
test, and tests of HRP-certified
individuals if they are involved in an
incident, unsafe practice, occurrence, or
based on reasonable suspicion. The
supervisor who has been informed that
an HRP-certified individual’s
confirmatory breath alcohol test result is
at or above an alcohol concentration of
0.02 percent shall send that individual
home and not allow that individual to
perform HRP duties for 24 hours, and
take all appropriate administrative
action consistent with § 712.13(f).
(1) Breath alcohol testing must be
conducted by a certified breath alcohol
technician and conform to the DOT
procedures (49 CFR part 40, Procedures
for Transportation Workplace Drug and
Alcohol Testing Programs, subparts J
through N) for use of an evidential-grade
breath analysis device approved for
0.02/0.04 cutoff levels, which conforms
to the DOT model specifications and the
most recent ‘‘Conforming Products List’’
issued by NHTSA.
(2) An individual required to undergo
DOT alcohol testing is subject to the
regulations of the DOT. If such an
individual’s blood alcohol level exceeds
DOT standards, the individual’s
employer may take appropriate
disciplinary action.
(3) The following constitutes a refusal
to submit to a test and shall be
considered as a positive alcohol
concentration test of 0.02 percent,
which requires the individual be sent
home and not allowed to perform HRP
duties for 24 hours:
(i) Failure to appear for unannounced
testing within 2 hours of notification (or
established shorter time for the specific
site);
(ii) Failure to provide an adequate
volume of breath in 2 attempts without
a valid medical excuse; and
(iii) Engaging in conduct that clearly
obstructs the testing process, including
failure to cooperate with reasonable
instructions provided by the testing
technician.
(d) Occurrence testing. (1) When an
HRP-certified individual is involved in,
or associated with, an occurrence
requiring immediate reporting to the
DOE, the following procedures must be
implemented:
(i) Testing for the use of illegal drugs
in accordance with the provisions of the
DOE policies implementing Executive
Order 12564, and 10 CFR part 707 or
DOE Order 3792.3, which establish
workplace substance abuse programs for
contractor and DOE employees,
respectively.
E:\FR\FM\22JNP1.SGM
22JNP1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 119 / Thursday, June 22, 2017 / Proposed Rules
(ii) Testing for use of alcohol in
accordance with this section.
(2) Testing must be performed as soon
as possible after an occurrence that
requires immediate notification or
reporting.
(3) The supervisor must immediately
remove an HRP-certified individual
from HRP duties if the individual
refuses to undergo the testing required
by this subsection.
(e) Testing for reasonable suspicion.
(1) If the behavior of an individual in an
HRP position creates the basis for
reasonable suspicion of the use of an
illegal drug or alcohol, that individual
must be tested if two or more
supervisory or management officials, at
least one of whom is in the direct chain
of supervision of the individual or is the
Designated Physician, the Designated
Psychologist, or the SOMD, agree that
such testing is appropriate.
(2) Reasonable suspicion must be
based on an articulable belief, drawn
from facts and reasonable inferences
from those particular facts that an HRPcertified individual is in possession of,
or under the influence of, an illegal drug
or alcohol. Such a belief may be based
on, among other things:
(i) Observable phenomena, such as
direct observation of the use or
possession of illegal drugs or alcohol, or
the physical symptoms of being under
the influence of drugs or alcohol;
(ii) A pattern of abnormal conduct or
erratic behavior;
(iii) Information provided by a
reliable and credible source that is
independently corroborated; or
(iv) Detection of alcohol odor on the
breath.
(f) Counterintelligence Evaluation.
HRP candidates and, when selected,
HRP-certified individuals, must submit
to and successfully complete a
counterintelligence evaluation, which
may include a polygraph examination in
accordance with 10 CFR part 709,
Polygraph Examination Regulations and
any subsequent revisions to that
regulation.
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
§ 712.16
Security review.
(a) A personnel security specialist
must review the personnel security file
of every HRP candidate and every HRPcertified individual up for certification
or recertification.
(b) If the personnel security file
review is favorable, this information
must be forwarded to the HRP certifying
official and so noted on the certification
form. If the review reveals a security
concern, or if a security concern is
identified during another component of
the HRP process, the HRP certifying
official must be notified, and the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:48 Jun 21, 2017
Jkt 241001
personnel security specialist must
evaluate the concern in accordance with
10 CFR part 710. If a final determination
is made by DOE personnel security to
suspend access authorization, the HRP
management official must be notified,
the individual shall be immediately
removed from the HRP position, the
HRP certifying official notified, and the
information noted on the certification
form.
(c) A favorable adjudication of
security concerns under 10 CFR part
710 does not require granting or
continuing HRP certification. Security
concerns can be reviewed and evaluated
for purposes of granting or continuing
HRP certification even if the concerns
have been favorably resolved under part
710.
(d) Any mental/personality disorder
or behavioral issues found in a
personnel security file, which could
impact an HRP candidate or HRPcertified individual’s ability to perform
HRP duties, may be provided in writing
to the SOMD, Designated Physician, and
Designated Psychologist previously
identified for receipt of this information.
Medical personnel may not share any
information obtained from the
personnel security file with anyone who
is not an HRP certifying official, except
as consistent with the Privacy Act of
1974.
(e) If the DOE personnel security
review is not completed within the 12month time period for recertification
and the individual’s access
authorization is not suspended, the HRP
certification form shall be forwarded to
the HRP certifying official for
recertification or temporary removal,
pending completion of the personnel
security review.
§ 712.17
Instructional requirements.
(a) HRP management officials at each
DOE site or facility with HRP positions
must establish an initial and annual
HRP instruction and education program.
The program must provide:
(1) HRP candidates, HRP-certified
individuals, supervisors, and managers,
and supervisors and managers
responsible for HRP positions with the
knowledge described in paragraph (b)(1)
of this section; and
(2) For all HRP medical personnel, a
detailed explanation of HRP duties and
responsibilities.
(b) The following program elements
must be included in initial and annual
instruction. The elements may be
tailored to accommodate group
differences and refresher training needs:
(1) The objectives of the HRP and the
role and responsibilities of each
individual in the HRP to include
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
28423
recognizing and responding to
behavioral change and aberrant or
unusual behavior that may result in a
risk to national security or nuclear
explosive safety; recognizing and
reporting safety and/or security
concerns, physical, mental, or emotional
conditions that could adversely affect
the performance of HRP duties or that
require treatment by a doctor,
physician’s assistant or other health care
professional; and prescription drug use;
and an explanation of return-to-work
requirements and continuous evaluation
of HRP participants; and
(2) For those who have nuclear
explosive responsibilities, a detailed
explanation of duties and safety
requirements.
§ 712.18
Transferring HRP certification.
(a) For HRP certification to be
transferred, the individual must
currently be certified in the HRP.
(b) Transferring the HRP certification
from one site to another requires the
following before the individual is
allowed to perform HRP duties at the
new site:
(1) Verify that the individual is
currently certified in the HRP and is
transferring into a designated HRP
position;
(2) Incorporate the individual into the
new site’s alcohol and drug-testing
program;
(3) Ensure that the 12-month time
period for HRP requirements that was
established at the prior site is not
exceeded; and
(4) Provide site-specific instruction.
(c) Temporary assignment to HRP
positions at other sites requires
verification that the individual is
currently enrolled in the HRP and has
completed all site-specific instruction.
The individual is required to return to
the site that maintains his or her HRP
certification for recertification.
§ 712.19 Actions related to Removal,
Revocation and/or Reinstatement.
(a) Temporary removal. The HRP
management official shall direct the
temporary removal of an HRP-certified
individual when the management
official:
(1) Identifies, during the course of the
management evaluation, a safety or
security concern that warrants such
removal;
(2) Receives a supervisor’s written
notice of the immediate removal of an
HRP-certified individual; or
(3) Receives a recommendation from
the Designated Physician, the
Designated Psychologist, or the SOMD
to medically remove an HRP-certified
individual consistent with § 712.14(h).
E:\FR\FM\22JNP1.SGM
22JNP1
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
28424
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 119 / Thursday, June 22, 2017 / Proposed Rules
(b) The temporary removal of an HRPcertified individual from HRP duties
pending a determination of the
individual’s reliability is an interim,
precautionary action and does not
constitute a determination that the
individual is not fit to perform his or
her required duties. Removal is not, in
itself, cause for loss of pay, benefits, or
other changes in employment status.
Within five (5) business days of placing
the individual on a temporary removal,
the HRP management official must
notify the individual in writing that s/
he is temporarily removed.
(c) If temporary removal is based on
derogatory information that is a security
concern, the HRP management official
must notify the HRP certifying official
and the applicable DOE personnel
security office.
(d) If temporary removal is based on
a medical concern, the HRP
management official must obtain a
recommendation from the Designated
Physician, Designated Psychologist, or
the SOMD consistent with § 712.14(h).
(e) If the HRP management official
determines, after conducting an
evaluation of the circumstances or
information that led to the temporary
removal, that an individual who has
been temporarily removed continues to
meet the requirements for certification,
the HRP management official must:
(1) Direct that the supervisor reinstate
the individual and provide written
explanation of the reasons and factual
bases for the action;
(2) Notify the individual; and
(3) Notify the HRP certifying official.
(f) If the HRP management official
determines that an individual who has
been temporarily removed does not
meet the HRP requirements for
certification, the HRP management
official must prepare a case chronology
that explains why the individual does
not meet the requirement for
certification and forward it to the HRP
certifying official. The HRP management
official’s determination that an
individual does not meet certification
requirement must be based on one or
more of types of behaviors and
conditions identified in § 712.13(c). The
HRP certifying official must review the
case chronology from the HRP
management official and take one of the
following actions:
(1) Direct that the supervisor reinstate
the individual, with any applicable
medical restrictions, provide written
explanation of the reasons and factual
bases for the action, and notify the
individual;
(2) Direct continuation of the
temporary removal pending completion
of specified actions (e.g., medical
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:48 Jun 21, 2017
Jkt 241001
assessment, treatment) to resolve the
concerns about the individual’s
reliability; or
(3) Recommend to the Manager the
revocation of the individual’s
certification, direct the HRP
management official to prepare an
evaluative report, and provide the case
chronology and the evaluative report,
when completed, to the Manager. If the
HRP certifying official is the Manager,
he or she should direct the HRP
management official to prepare the
evaluative report and then take actions
consistent with paragraph (h)(2) of this
section. The appropriate DOE or NNSA
counsel must review the evaluative
report for legal sufficiency.
(g) The Manager, on receiving the
HRP management official’s case
chronology and evaluative report, and
the HRP certifying official’s
recommendation (if any), must take one
of the following actions:
(1) Direct that the supervisor reinstate
the individual, provide written
explanation of the reasons and factual
bases for the action, and notify the
individual;
(2) Direct revocation of the
individual’s HRP certification; or
(3) Direct continuation of the
temporary removal pending completion
of specified actions (e.g., medical
assessment, treatment) to resolve the
concerns about the individual’s
reliability.
(h) Notification of Manager’s initial
decision. If the action is revocation, the
Manager must send a letter by certified
mail (return receipt requested) or hand
deliver it with record of delivery to the
individual whose certification is
revoked notifying him or her of the
reasons for the revocation and the
options for review. The evaluative
report must be appended to the letter.
The Manager may withhold such a
report, or portions thereof, to the extent
that he or she determines that the
report, or portions thereof, may be
exempt from access by the employee
under the Privacy Act or the Freedom of
Information Act.
(i) If an individual is directed by the
Manager or HRP certifying official to
take specified actions to resolve HRP
concerns pursuant to § 712.19(f)(2) or
(g)(3) he or she must be reevaluated after
those actions have been completed, and
the Manager must direct either:
(1) Reinstatement of the individual; or
(2) Revocation of the individual’s HRP
certification. In the case of revocation,
the HRP management official will be
directed to make any appropriate
revisions to the evaluative report.
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
§ 712.20 Request for reconsideration or
certification review hearing.
(a) An individual who receives
notification of the Manager’s decision to
revoke his or her HRP certification may
choose one of the following options:
(1) Submit a written request to the
Manager for reconsideration of the
decision to revoke certification. The
request must include the individual’s
response to the information that gave
rise to the concern. The request must be
sent by certified mail to the Manager
within 20 working days after the
individual received notice of the
Manager’s decision; or
(2) Submit a written request to the
Manager for a certification review
hearing. The request for a hearing must
be sent by certified mail to the Manager
within 20 working days after the
individual receives notice of the
Manager’s decision.
(b) If an individual requests
reconsideration by the Manager but not
a certification review hearing, the
Manager must, within 20 working days
after receipt of the individual’s request,
send by certified mail (return receipt
requested) a final agency decision to the
individual.
(c) If an individual requests a
certification review hearing, the
Manager must forward the request to the
Office of Hearings and Appeals.
(d) If an individual takes no action
within 20 working days after receipt of
the Manager’s decision, the Manager’s
decision will become a final agency
decision.
§ 712.21
Appointment of DOE Counsel.
(a) Upon receipt from the individual
of a written request for a certification
review hearing, the Manager shall
request appointment of DOE counsel as
soon as possible.
(b) DOE Counsel is authorized to
consult directly with the individual if
he is not represented by counsel, or
with the individual’s counsel or
representative if so represented, to
clarify issues and reach stipulations
with respect to testimony and contents
of documents and other physical
evidence. Such stipulations shall be
binding upon the individual and the
DOE Counsel for the purposes of this
subpart.
§ 712.22
Office of Hearings and Appeals.
(a) Upon receipt of the hearing request
from the Manager, the Director, DOE
Office of Hearings and Appeals, shall
appoint, as soon as practicable, an
Administrative Judge.
(b) The Administrative Judge must
have a DOE ‘‘Q’’ access authorization.
(c) An individual who requests a
certification review hearing has the right
E:\FR\FM\22JNP1.SGM
22JNP1
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 119 / Thursday, June 22, 2017 / Proposed Rules
to appear personally before the
Administrative Judge; to present
evidence in his or her own behalf,
through witnesses or by documents, or
by both; and to be accompanied and
represented at the hearing by counsel or
any other person of the individual’s
choosing and at the individual’s own
expense.
(d) An individual must come forward
with evidence to demonstrate that the
decision to revoke his or her HRP
certification was clearly erroneous or
that extraordinary circumstances
warrant recertification into HRP.
Evidence that the individual has
rehabilitated or reformed since the time
of the Manager’s decision will not be
considered by the Administrative Judge.
(e) DOE Counsel shall assist the
Administrative Judge in establishing a
complete administrative hearing record
in the proceeding and bringing out a full
and true disclosure of all facts, both
favorable and unfavorable, having
bearing on the issues before the
Administrative Judge.
(f) In conducting the proceedings, the
Administrative Judge will:
(1) Determine the date, time, and
location of the hearing, including
whether the hearing will be conducted
by video teleconference;
(2) At least 7 calendar days prior to
date scheduled for the hearing, convene
a prehearing conference for the purpose
of discussing stipulations and exhibits,
identifying witnesses, and disposing of
other appropriate matters. The
conference will usually be conducted by
telephone;
(3) Receive all relevant and material
information relating to the individual’s
fitness for HRP duties through witnesses
or documentation;
(4) Ensure that the individual is
permitted to offer information in his or
her behalf; to call, examine, and crossexamine witnesses and other persons
who have made written or oral
statements, and to present and examine
documentary evidence to the extent
permitted by national security;
(5) Require the testimony of the
individual and all witnesses be given
under oath or affirmation;
(6) Ensure that a transcript of the
certification review proceedings is
made; and
(7) Not engage in ex parte
communications with either party.
(g) The Administrative Judge shall
have all powers necessary to regulate
the conduct of proceedings, including,
but not limited to, establishing a list of
persons to receive service of papers,
issuing subpoenas for witnesses to
attend the hearing or for the production
of specific documents or other physical
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:48 Jun 21, 2017
Jkt 241001
evidence, administering oaths and
affirmations, ruling upon motions,
receiving evidence, regulating the
course of the hearing, disposing of
procedural requests or similar matters,
and taking other actions consistent with
the regulations in this part. Requests for
subpoenas shall be granted except
where the Administrative Judge finds
that the grant of subpoenas would
clearly result in evidence or testimony
that is repetitious, incompetent,
irrelevant, or immaterial to the issues in
the case.
(h) The Administrative Judge may
return a case to the HRP Manager for a
final agency decision consistent with
§ 712.20(b) if—
(1) The individual or his or her
attorney fails to heed the instructions of
the Administrative Judge;
(2) The individual fails to appear at
the appointed time, date and location
for the certification review hearing;
(3) The individual otherwise fails to
cooperate at the hearing phase of the
process; or
(4) The individual withdraws his/her
request for a certification review
hearing.
(i) Based on a review of the
administrative hearing record, the
Administrative Judge shall prepare a
decision regarding the individual’s
eligibility for recertification in the HRP,
which shall consist of written findings
and a supporting statement of reasons.
In making a decision, the
Administrative Judge shall ensure that
any doubt as to an individual’s
certification shall be resolved against
the individual in favor of national
security and/or safety.
§ 712.23
Administrative Judge’s decision.
(a) Within 30 calendar days of the
receipt of the hearing transcript by the
Administrative Judge or the closing of
the record, whichever is later, the
Administrative Judge should forward
his or her decision to the Associate
Under Secretary for Environment,
Health, Safety, and Security. The
Administrative Judge’s decision must be
accompanied by a copy of the record.
(b) Within 10 calendar days of receipt
of the decision and the administrative
record, the Associate Under Secretary
for Environment, Health, Safety, and
Security should:
(1) Notify the individual and Manager
in writing of the Administrative Judge’s
decision;
(2) Advise the individual in writing of
the appeal procedures available to the
individual in paragraph (c) of this
section if the decision is unfavorable to
the individual;
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
28425
(3) Advise the Manager in writing of
the appeal procedures available to the
Manager in paragraph (c) of this section
if the decision is favorable to the
individual; and
(4) Provide the individual and/or
counsel or representative, and the
Manager a copy of the Administrative
Judge’s decision and the administrative
record.
(c) The individual or the Manager
may file with the Associate Under
Secretary for Environment, Health,
Safety, and Security a written request
for further review of the decision by the
cognizant Under Secretary along with a
statement required by paragraph (e) of
this section within 20 working days of
the individual’s receipt of the
Administrative Judge’s decision;
(d) The copy of any request for further
review of the individual’s case by the
cognizant Under Secretary filed by the
Manager shall be provided to the
individual by the Manager.
(e) The party filing a request for
review of the individual’s case by the
cognizant Under Secretary shall include
with the request a statement identifying
the issues on which it wishes the
cognizant Under Secretary to focus.
(f) The Administrative Judge’s
decision shall be considered final if a
written request for review is not filed in
accordance with paragraph (c) of this
section.
§ 712.24 Final decision by DOE Under
Secretary.
(a) Within 10 calendar days of receipt
of the written request for review, the
Associate Under Secretary for
Environment, Health, Safety and
Security should forward to the
cognizant Under Secretary the written
request for review, the Administrative
Judge’s decision, and the administrative
record.
(b) Upon receipt of the written request
for review, the Administrative Judge’s
decision, and the administrative record,
the cognizant Under Secretary, in
consultation with the DOE General
Counsel, will issue a final written
decision. The cognizant Under Secretary
may delegate this authority. In issuing a
final decision, the cognizant Under
Secretary shall expressly state that he or
she is either revoking or restoring an
individual’s HRP certification. A copy
of this decision must be sent by certified
mail (return receipt requested) to the
Manager and to the individual.
(c) The cognizant Under Secretary
shall consider only that evidence and
information in the administrative record
at the time of the Administrative Judge’s
decision.
E:\FR\FM\22JNP1.SGM
22JNP1
28426
§ 712.25
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 119 / Thursday, June 22, 2017 / Proposed Rules
Cooperation by the individual.
(a) It is the responsibility of the HRP
candidate or HRP certified individual to
provide full, frank, and truthful answers
to relevant and material questions, and
when requested, furnish, or authorize
others to furnish, information that DOE
deems pertinent to reach a decision
regarding HRP certification or
recertification. This obligation to
cooperate applies at any stage, including
but not limited to initial certification,
recertification, temporary removal,
revocation, and/or hearing. The
individual or candidate may elect not to
cooperate; however, such refusal may
prevent DOE from reaching an
affirmative finding required for granting
or continuing HRP certification. In this
event, any HRP certification then in
effect may be revoked, or, for HRP
candidates, may not be granted.
(b) An HRP certified individual who
receives notification of the Manager’s
decision to revoke his or her
certification due to failure to cooperate
may choose one of the following
options:
(1) Take no action; or
(2) Within 20 working days after the
individual received notice of the
Manager’s revocation decision, submit a
written request by certified mail to the
Manager for reconsideration. The
request must include the individual’s
response to the information that gave
rise to the revocation decision.
(c) Upon receipt of the request for
reconsideration, the Manager shall
notify the individual, in writing, within
20 calendar days of receipt of the
written appeal, as to whether the action
to revoke certification was appropriate.
If the Manager determines that the
action was inappropriate, he or she shall
direct that the individual be reinstated.
§ 712.34
[Amended]
3. Section 712.34 is amended by
removing the language, ‘‘Director, Office
of Health and Safety’’ in paragraphs (a),
(b), (c) and (d) and adding in its place
‘‘Associate Under Secretary for
Environment, Health, Safety and
Security’’.
■
§ 712.35
[Amended]
4. Section 712.35 is amended by
removing the language, ‘‘Director, Office
of Health and Safety’’ and adding in its
place ‘‘Associate Under Secretary for
Environment, Health, Safety and
Security’’.
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
■
§ 712.36
[Amended]
5. Section 712.36 is amended by:
a. Removing the language, ‘‘Director,
Office of Health and Safety’’ in
paragraphs (d)(1) and (d)(3) and adding
■
■
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:48 Jun 21, 2017
Jkt 241001
in its place ‘‘Associate Under Secretary
for Environment, Health, Safety and
Security’’.
■ b. Removing paragraph (i).
[FR Doc. 2017–12810 Filed 6–21–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 71
[Docket No. FAA–2016–9559; Airspace
Docket No. 16–ACE–11]
Proposed Amendment of Class D and
E Airspace for the Following Missouri
Towns; Cape Girardeau, MO; St. Louis,
MO; and Macon, MO
Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM).
AGENCY:
This action proposes to
modify Class D airspace at Spirit of St.
Louis Airport, St. Louis, MO; Class E
airspace designated as a surface area at
Cape Girardeau Regional Airport, Cape
Girardeau, MO, and Spirit of St. Louis
Airport; Class E airspace designated as
an extension at Cape Girardeau Regional
Airport; and Class E airspace extending
upward from 700 feet above the surface
at Cape Girardeau Regional Airport,
Spirit of St. Louis Airport, and MaconFower Memorial Airport, Macon, MO.
Cancellation of standard instrument
approach procedures at these airports
prompted the FAA to conduct a review
of the airspace. Additionally, the name
of Cape Girardeau Regional Airport
(formerly Cape Girardeau Municipal
Airport) and the geographic coordinates
of St. Louis Regional Airport, Alton/St.
Louis, MO; the OBLIO Locator Outer
Marker (LOM), and the Macon-Fower
Memorial Airport would be adjusted to
coincide with the FAA’s aeronautical
database. The airspace designation for
Macon-Fower, MO, in Class E airspace
extending upward from 700 feet above
the surface would be removed as it is a
duplicate entry of the Macon, MO,
airspace designation.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before August 7, 2017.
ADDRESSES: Send comments on this
proposal to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations,
West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC 20590; telephone (202)
366–9826, or 1–800–647–5527. You
must identify FAA Docket No. FAA–
2016–9559; Airspace Docket No. 16–
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
ACE–11, at the beginning of your
comments. You may also submit
comments through the Internet at https://
www.regulations.gov. You may review
the public docket containing the
proposal, any comments received, and
any final disposition in person in the
Dockets Office between 9:00 a.m. and
5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.
FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace
Designations and Reporting Points, and
subsequent amendments can be viewed
online at https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/
publications/. For further information,
you can contact the Airspace Policy
Group, Federal Aviation
Administration, 800 Independence
Avenue SW., Washington, DC, 20591;
telephone: (202) 267–8783. The Order is
also available for inspection at the
National Archives and Records
Administration (NARA). For
information on the availability of FAA
Order 7400.11A at NARA, call (202)
741–6030, or go to https://
www.archives.gov/federal_register/
code_of_federal-regulations/ibr_
locations.html.
FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace
Designations and Reporting Points, is
published yearly and effective on
September 15.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Jeffrey Claypool, Federal Aviation
Administration, Operations Support
Group, Central Service Center, 10101
Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX
76177; telephone (817) 222–5711.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Authority for This Rulemaking
The FAA’s authority to issue rules
regarding aviation safety is found in
Title 49 of the United States Code.
Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator.
Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs,
describes in more detail the scope of the
agency’s authority. This rulemaking is
promulgated under the authority
described in Subtitle VII, Part A,
Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that
section, the FAA is charged with
prescribing regulations to assign the use
of airspace necessary to ensure the
safety of aircraft and the efficient use of
airspace. This regulation is within the
scope of that authority as it would
amend Class D airspace at Spirit of St.
Louis Airport, St. Louis, MO; Class E
airspace designated as a surface area at
Cape Girardeau Regional Airport and
Spirit of St. Louis Airport; Class E
airspace designated as an extension at
Cape Girardeau Regional Airport; and
Class E airspace extending upward from
700 feet above the surface at Cape
E:\FR\FM\22JNP1.SGM
22JNP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 119 (Thursday, June 22, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 28412-28426]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-12810]
========================================================================
Proposed Rules
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.
========================================================================
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 119 / Thursday, June 22, 2017 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 28412]]
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
10 CFR Part 712
RIN 1992-AA44
Human Reliability Program
AGENCY: Department of Energy.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: DOE proposes to amend its regulation concerning the Human
Reliability Program (HRP). This regulation provides the policies and
procedures to ensure that individuals who occupy positions affording
unescorted access to certain nuclear materials, nuclear explosive
devices, facilities and programs meet the highest standards of
reliability and physical and mental suitability. The proposed revisions
include some clarification of the procedures and burden of proof
applicable in certification review hearings, the addition and
modification of certain definitions, and a clear statement that a
security concern can be reviewed pursuant to DOE regulations for
determining eligibility for access to classified matter or special
nuclear material and/or the HRP regulation. These proposed revisions
are intended to provide better guidance to HRP-certified individuals
and to ensure consistency in HRP decision making.
DATES: Written comments must be postmarked on or before July 24, 2017
to ensure consideration.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by RIN 1992-AA44, by any
of the following methods:
1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow
the Instructions for submitting comments.
2. Email: HRPComments@HQ.DOE.GOV. Include RIN 1992-AA44 in the
subject line of the message.
3. Mail: U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Corporate Security
Strategy, Analysis and Special Operations, AU-1.2, 1000 Independence
Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585.
Due to potential delays in DOE's receipt and processing of mail
sent through the U.S. Postal Service, DOE encourages responders to
submit comments electronically to ensure timely receipt.
All submissions must include the RIN for this rulemaking, RIN 1992-
AA44. For detailed instructions on submitting comments and additional
information on the rulemaking process, see the ``Public Comment
Procedures'' heading of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this
document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gina Cano, Office of Corporate
Security Strategy, Analysis and Special Operations, (202) 586-7079,
regina.cano@hq.doe.gov; Pamela Arias-Ortega, National Nuclear Security
Administration, Office of the General Counsel, (505) 845-4441,
pamela.arias-ortega@nnsa.doe.gov; or Christina Pak or Matt Rotman,
Office of the General Counsel, (202) 586-4114, christina.pak@hq.doe.gov
(Ms. Pak) or (202) 586-4753, matthew.rotman@hq.doe.gov (Mr. Rotman).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
II. Description of Proposed Changes
III. Regulatory Review and Procedural Requirements
A. Review Under Executive Order 12866
B. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act
C. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
D. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act
E. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
F. Review Under the Treasury and Government Appropriations Act,
1995
G. Review Under Executive Order 13132
H. Review Under Executive Order 12988
I. Review Under the Treasury and General Government
Appropriations Act, 2001
J. Review Under Executive Order 13211
IV. Approval by the Office of the Secretary
I. Background
Pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, (the AEA),
the DOE owns and leases defense nuclear and other facilities in various
locations in the United States. These facilities are operated by
contractors with DOE oversight or are operated by DOE. These facilities
are involved in (among other activities) researching, testing,
producing, disassembling, or transporting nuclear materials. Compromise
of these DOE facilities could severely damage national security. To
guard against such compromise, DOE established the Human Reliability
Program (HRP). The HRP is designed to ensure that individuals who
occupy positions affording unescorted access to certain nuclear
materials, facilities and programs meet the highest standards of
reliability as well as physical and mental suitability, through a
system of continuous evaluation of those individuals. The purpose of
this continuous evaluation is to identify in a timely manner
individuals whose judgment may be impaired by physical or mental/
personality disorders; the use of illegal drugs or the abuse of legal
drugs or other substances; the abuse of alcohol; or any other condition
or circumstance that may represent a reliability, safety or security
concern. If any of these conditions or circumstances is identified, the
HRP provides for an administrative process, including the opportunity
for a certification review hearing that results in either the
revocation or reinstatement of the individual's HRP certification.
The part 712 regulation has not been comprehensively updated since
it was promulgated in 2004. Two technical amendments to the regulation
were made in 2011 and 2013. In 2011, the part 712 regulation was
amended to designate the appropriate Undersecretary as the person with
the authority to issue a final written decision to recertify or revoke
the certification of an individual in the HRP. 76 FR 12271 (Mar. 7,
2011). In 2013, the part 712 regulation was amended to eliminate
references to obsolete provisions and to reflect organizational changes
within the DOE. 78 FR 56132 (Sep. 12, 2013).
In the 12 years since the HRP regulation was first promulgated, it
has become apparent that certain additional updates are necessary in
the sections pertaining to security concerns and the process related to
certification review hearings.
A. Security Concerns
The paramount intent of the HRP is to protect national security via
the identification of individuals whose judgment and reliability may be
impaired by any condition or circumstance that raises safety and/or
security concerns. The existing regulation contains language that could
be erroneously interpreted to mean that
[[Page 28413]]
security concerns fall solely under the purview of 10 CFR part 710,
which is the DOE regulation pertaining to personnel security
clearances. The part 710 regulations contain procedures that are
intended to identify and mitigate security concerns as they pertain to
individuals who hold security clearances. However, compliance with the
part 710 does not equate to being certified in the HRP, and in fact,
the parts 710 and 712 regulations represent two distinct programs.
While an employee can have a security clearance without being certified
in the HRP, no employee can participate in the HRP without a security
clearance. A general requirement in the existing HRP regulation, which
remains in the proposed revision, is that an employee must maintain a
security clearance and specifically a ``Q'' clearance. See 10 CFR
712.11(a)(1).
Because the HRP-certified individuals must meet the highest
standards of reliability and physical and mental suitability, the
procedures for considering security concerns under part 710 are not
adequate to address all security and safety concerns in the context of
the HRP. For example, under part 710, the DOE personnel who adjudicate
security clearances are not permitted to review the requirements of the
individual's job when considering whether to grant, suspend, and/or
revoke his security clearance. However, in determining whether to grant
HRP certification under part 712, the individual's job and duties are
important factors to be considered. In addition, the denial or
revocation of HRP certification under part 712 may be based on safety
issues that are not relevant to adjudication under 10 CFR part 710,
even if the same underlying facts raised security concerns that were
fully resolved and/or mitigated for security clearance purposes. As
such, we are proposing to revise the part 712 regulation to clarify
that security concerns are not to be reviewed solely under the part 710
regulations, but rather can also be reviewed under part 712, utilizing
the predictive judgments of the HRP personnel with specific expertise
in assessing both safety and security risks.
B. Certification Review Hearings
The proposed part 712 revisions fill a void in the existing
regulation by setting forth the evidentiary burden that an individual
must meet at a certification review hearing. In addition, in order to
provide greater structure to the hearing process, the proposed
regulation adopts some of the procedures that are currently applied in
the context of administrative review hearings under part 710. Although
the content of part 710 hearings is somewhat different from that of
part 712 hearings, the process for conducting both types of hearings is
similar, which is reflected in the procedures we propose to adopt.
Finally, the proposed revisions provide that the Administrative Judge
who presides over the certification review hearing must prepare a
written decision, rather than a written recommendation, to be provided
to the individual and the Manager and which may be appealed by either
party.
II. Description of Proposed Changes
DOE is publishing this notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR) to
update and clarify the policies and procedures, to include the
definition of terms used, that apply to HRP certification. The proposed
revisions would update and add to some of the definitions.
Additionally, the proposed rule would: (1) Identify the evidentiary
burden applicable to an individual requesting a certification review
hearing; (2) clarify that a security concern is reviewable under HRP
separate from a review pursuant to 10 CFR part 710; (3) eliminate
obsolete references; and (4) clarify the processes and procedures
during the removal, revocation, hearing, and appeal stages.
The proposed changes to part 712 are summarized below in the order
in which they appear:
1. The proposed changes to Sec. 712.2 ``Applicability'' would add
the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) to clarify that
part 712 applies to both the DOE and the NNSA and delete the last
sentence regarding the grandfathering of positions. The last sentence
of this section is obsolete because it is no longer necessary to
grandfather individuals in from the Personnel Assurance Program (PAP)
or the Personnel Security Assurance Program (PSAP). When part 712 was
enacted in 2004, it was necessary to include such language since the
HRP combined both the PAP and PSAP.
2. In proposed Sec. 712.3 ``Definitions,'' three new definitions
are proposed, a number of current definitions are modified, and one
definition is deleted. The proposed rule would add the new definitions:
``Case Chronology,'' ``Evaluative Report,'' and ``Restoration.'' The
proposed new definitions ``Case Chronology'' and ``Evaluative Report''
relate to new provisions in proposed Sec. 712.19 that are intended to
provide clarity and consistency among the programmatic elements
administering the HRP. The proposed new definition ``Restoration''
would provide clarity as to the specific actions that must be taken to
return an individual to HRP duties after a cognizant Under Secretary or
his/her designee restores an individual's HRP certification. The
proposed rule would modify the definitions: ``Contractors,''
``Designated Physician,'' ``Designated Psychologist,''
``Recertification,'' ``Reinstatement,'' ``Safety concern,'' ``Security
concern,'' and ``Site Occupational Medical Director (SOMD).'' The title
``Director, Office of Health and Safety'' is changed to ``Associate
Under Secretary for Environment, Health, Safety and Security.''
3. In proposed Sec. 712.10 ``Designation of HRP positions,''
current Sec. 712.10(b) is modified to replace the title ``Chief
Health, Safety and Security Officer'' with ``Associate Under Secretary
for Environment, Health, Safety and Security.''
4. In proposed Sec. 712.11 ``General requirements for HRP
certification,'' current Sec. 712.11(a) is modified to delete the word
``certification'' since it is clear that the requirements set forth in
this section relate to requirements for HRP certification or
recertification. Current Sec. 712.11(a)(1) is modified to delete the
language ``based on a background investigation'' because it is
unnecessary to specify the basis for an access authorization and may
preclude other authorized means for DOE to grant an access
authorization. Current Sec. 712.11(a)(2) is deleted, as the
requirement for an annual security review is already set forth in
proposed Sec. 712.11(a)(4), current Sec. 712.11(a)(5). Current Sec.
712.11(a)(5)(i), (ii), and (iii) are deleted and relocated, in
substance, to proposed Sec. 712.16(e) and (b), because they fall more
logically under the section that describes the personnel security
review. Current Sec. 712.11(a)(7) is deleted in the entirety because
the requirement for a psychological examination is already captured by
the requirement for a medical assessment described in proposed Sec.
712.11(a)(4), current Sec. 712.11(a)(5). The psychological examination
is a necessary part of the medical assessment, as is described in
proposed Sec. 712.14(f). Proposed Sec. 712.11(a)(6), currently Sec.
712.11(a)(8), deletes the language ``in accordance with DOE policies
implementing Executive Order 12564 or the relevant provisions of 10 CFR
part 707 for DOE contractors, and DOE Order 3792.3, `Drug-Free Federal
Workplace Testing Implementation Program,' for DOE employees,'' as this
is already addressed in proposed Sec. 712.15(b), the subsection that
deals with drug testing. Proposed Sec. 712.11(a)(7), currently Sec.
712.11(a)(9),
[[Page 28414]]
deletes the language ``using an evidential-grade breath alcohol device,
as listed without asterisks on the Conforming Products List of
Evidential Breath Measurement Devices published by the NHTSA (49 CFR
part 40),'' as this is already addressed in proposed Sec. 712.15(c),
the subsection that deals with alcohol testing. Current Sec.
712.11(b)(1) and (2) are merged and redesignated as proposed Sec.
712.11(c), as these paragraphs both concern the requirements applicable
to an individual whose position becomes an HRP position after he or she
has already begun employment. Current Sec. 712.11(c) and (d) are
redesignated as proposed Sec. 712.11(d) and (e), respectively. Current
Sec. 712.11(e) is deleted in the entirety as its content concerning
drug and alcohol testing is already addressed in proposed Sec. 712.15.
Proposed Sec. 712.11(f) is added to emphasize that national security
and safety are the paramount concerns of the HRP. This mirrors a
similar provision under DOE's security clearance regulations at 10 CFR
part 710.
5. In proposed Sec. 712.12 ``HRP implementation,'' the deadlines
for HRP implementation specified in Sec. 712.12(a) and (b)(1) are
deleted, since they occurred over a decade ago and are now obsolete.
Current Sec. 712.12(b)(2) is deleted in the entirety, as the HRP
management official's responsibilities with respect to temporary
removal and reinstatement are already addressed in proposed Sec.
712.19. Current Sec. 712.12(c)(1) is modified to replace the title
``Chief Health, Safety and Security Officer'' with ``Associate Under
Secretary for Environment, Health, Safety and Security.'' Current Sec.
712.12(d) is deleted in the entirety as the role of the cognizant Under
Secretary with respect to final decisions is already addressed in
proposed Sec. 712.24. Current Sec. 712.12(e), (f), (g), and (h) are
redesignated as proposed Sec. 712.12(d), (e), (f), and (g),
respectively. Current Sec. 712.12(e), and proposed as Sec. 712.12(d),
is modified to replace the title ``Director, Office of Security'' with
``Associate Under Secretary for Environment, Health, Safety and
Security.'' Current Sec. 712.12(f)(1), and proposed as Sec.
712.12(e)(1), is modified to replace the title ``Director, Office of
Security'' with ``Director, Office of Corporate Security, Strategy
Analysis and Special Operations.'' Current Sec. 712.12(h)(3) is
relocated to proposed Sec. 712.25(a), as it fits more logically under
the section that describes the individual's responsibility to
cooperate.
6. In proposed Sec. 712.13 ``Supervisory review,'' proposed Sec.
712.13(b) is modified to clarify that the annual reviews and
evaluations by supervisors of HRP-certified individuals are based on
any and all information within the supervisor's personal knowledge
related to the individual that he or she supervises. Current Sec.
712.13(c) is modified to include an additional type of behavior and/or
concern that would indicate a concern for HRP certification. The new
proposed language would cover any unusual conduct or circumstance that
would tend to show the individual is not reliable. The provisions in
current Sec. 712.13(d) that deal with temporary removal are deleted,
as those procedures are already addressed in proposed Sec. Sec. 712.14
and 712.19. The provisions of current Sec. 712.13(d) concerning
immediate removal are replaced with the substance of current Sec.
712.19(a) and Sec. 712.13(e), which identify the circumstances under
which immediate removal is required. The provisions of current Sec.
712.13(e) that identifies the circumstance under which immediate
removal is required are relocated to proposed Sec. 712.13(d), with the
clarification that the requirement to immediately remove applies to all
individuals and not just Federal employees. Additionally, proposed
Sec. 712.13(e) deletes language mandating a certain personnel action,
such as a temporary reassignment, when an individual is immediately
removed. Current Sec. 712.13(f) is deleted in its entirety and its
substance is relocated and merged with current Sec. 712.15(c), the
paragraph that deals with alcohol testing. Proposed Sec. 712.13(f) is
added to specify the actions to be taken in connection with an
immediate removal. This language, which can be found at current Sec.
712.19(a), fits more logically in Sec. 712.13, which addresses the
role of the supervisor. Proposed Sec. 712.13(f) is modified from the
language in current Sec. 712.19(a) to eliminate the requirement by the
supervisor to notify the individual of the immediate removal. Instead,
notification to the individual is to be provided by the management
official upon temporary removal consistent with proposed Sec. 712.19.
7. In proposed Sec. 712.14 ``Medical assessment,'' the last
sentence of current Sec. 712.14(c) describing the responsibilities of
the Designated Physician or SOMD when a security concern is identified
is deleted, as these responsibilities are already addressed in proposed
Sec. 712.19. Current Sec. 712.14(f)(1) and (f)(3) are modified to
replace the titles ``Director, Office of Health and Safety'' with
``Associate Under Secretary for Environment, Health, Safety and
Security.'' Current Sec. 712.14(h) is modified to delete ``for
concurrence'' in the second to last sentence as the responsibilities of
the Designated Physician, Designated Psychologist, and the SOMD to make
a written recommendation as to reinstating or removing a medical
restriction are already set forth clearly and the terms ``for
concurrence'' is not necessary. Additionally, current Sec. 712.14(j)
would delete ``required'' and add in its place ``recommended'' to
clarify that the determination to temporarily remove an individual from
HRP duties would be made by the management official upon the
recommendation of the Designated Physician, Designated Psychologist, or
the SOMD.
8. In proposed Sec. 712.15 ``Management evaluation,'' proposed
Sec. 712.15(a) is modified to clarify that the HRP management official
must act in accordance with the procedures for temporary removal, set
forth in proposed Sec. 712.19, upon the identification of a safety or
a security concern with respect to an HRP-certified individual.
Additionally, proposed Sec. 712.15(a) is modified to delete any
requirement that the supervisor temporarily reassign an individual to
non-HRP duties upon immediate removal. Proposed Sec. 712.15(b) is
modified to clarify that if an HRP-certified individual refuses to
submit to a drug test, or if the individual submits to the test but the
results are not favorable, the supervisor must immediately remove the
individual from HRP and take the actions specified in proposed Sec.
712.13(f). Proposed Sec. 712.15(c) is modified to incorporate the
substance of current Sec. 712.13(f), which deals with alcohol testing,
as discussed in this preamble and to clarify that if an HRP-certified
individual's test result is at or above a certain level, then the
supervisor should take actions consistent with Sec. 712.13(f).
9. The title of proposed Sec. 712.16 is changed from ``DOE
security review'' to ``Security review.'' Proposed Sec. 712.16(a) is
modified to eliminate the requirement that the security review be
initiated only after the medical assessment and management evaluations
are completed. Proposed Sec. 712.16(b) is modified to incorporate the
content of current Sec. 712.11(a)(5)(ii) and (iii), with the exception
of the last clause of paragraph (a)(5)(iii) which is deleted.
Additionally proposed Sec. 712.16(b) is modified to delete the
reference to the 10 CFR part 710 criteria since the criteria were
eliminated in a recent proposed amendment to 10 CFR part 710. The last
sentence of current Sec. 712.16(b) is deleted to clarify that security
concerns may be addressed by HRP officials in accordance with HRP
reliability
[[Page 28415]]
standards, in addition to security clearance adjudicators under 10 CFR
part 710. Proposed Sec. 712.16(c) is added to clarify that HRP
determinations are to be made independently of security clearance
determinations under 10 CFR part 710. Current Sec. 712.16(c) is
redesignated as proposed Sec. 712.16(d) and modified to clarify that
medical personnel may share information from the personnel security
file only as permitted by the Privacy Act of 1974. Proposed Sec.
712.16(e) incorporates the content of current Sec. 712.11(a)(5)(i), as
described in this preamble, and is modified to clarify that when the
DOE personnel security review is not completed within the required 12-
month time period for recertification, the HRP certifying official's
decision to recertify or temporarily remove an individual in the HRP is
an interim decision pending the completion of the security review.
10. In proposed Sec. 712.17 ``Instructional requirements,''
proposed Sec. 712.17(b)(1) is modified to clarify the type of medical
conditions that need to be reported by each individual in the HRP.
11. The title of proposed Sec. 712.19 is modified to ``Actions
related to Removal, Revocation and/or Reinstatement.'' Current Sec.
712.19(a) is relocated to proposed Sec. 712.13(f), as described in
this preamble, under the section that describes the roles and
responsibilities of the supervisor. Proposed Sec. 712.19(a)
incorporates the substance of current Sec. 712.19(c)(1) and sets forth
additional circumstances under which the HRP management official must
temporarily remove an individual from HRP. These circumstances include
when the HRP management official has identified a concern during the
management evaluation (as set forth in proposed Sec. 712.15), when the
individual has been immediately removed by the supervisor (in
accordance with proposed Sec. 712.13), or when temporary removal has
been recommended by a medical professional associated with the HRP
(under proposed Sec. 712.14). Language is added to current Sec.
712.19(b) which requires the HRP management official to notify the
individual, in writing, that s/he is temporarily removed. Current Sec.
712.19(c)(2) is redesignated as proposed Sec. 712.19(c) and is
modified with the deletion of the last sentence. Current Sec.
712.19(c)(3) is redesignated as proposed Sec. 712.19(d) and is
modified to require that the HRP management official obtain a
recommendation from an HRP medical professional if temporary removal
was based on a concern that is medical-related, and to delete the
requirement that the management official prepare a written report of
the evaluation. Current Sec. 712.19(c)(4) is redesignated as proposed
Sec. 712.19(e) and is modified to clarify the actions to be taken by
the HRP management official upon determining that an individual who was
temporarily removed continues to meet the requirements for HRP
certification. Current Sec. 712.19(c)(5) is redesignated as proposed
Sec. 712.19(f) and is modified to state that if the HRP management
official makes a determination that an individual does not meet HRP
certification requirements, then a case chronology that explains why
the individual does not meet the requirement for certification must be
prepared for the HRP certifying official and, further, that the HRP
management official's determination must be based on one or more of the
types of behaviors and conditions identified in proposed Sec.
712.13(c). Proposed Sec. 712.19(f)(1) is modified to clarify that the
individual must be notified if his or her HRP certification is
reinstated by the HRP certifying official. Proposed Sec. 712.19(f)(3)
is modified to clarify the process to be followed should an HRP
certifying official recommend revocation of an individual's
certification in the HRP, including the preparation of an evaluative
report and a role for the appropriate DOE or NNSA counsel, as well as a
course of action to be followed if the HRP certifying official is the
same person as the Manager. Current Sec. 712.19(d) is redesignated as
proposed Sec. 712.19(g) and is modified to replace the phrase
``written report'' with the proposed concepts ``case chronology'' and
``evaluative report'' and to clarify the requirement that the
individual be notified if his or her HRP certification is reinstated by
the Manager. Current Sec. 712.19(e) is merged with current Sec.
712.19(g), as both paragraphs deal with actions to be taken upon a
decision to revoke, and is redesignated as proposed Sec. 712.19(h).
Current Sec. 712.19(f) is redesignated as proposed Sec. 712.19(i) and
is modified to reflect that the HRP certifying official, in addition to
the Manager, can direct that an individual take certain actions to
attempt to resolve HRP concerns and to clarify the process to be
followed once those actions have been completed.
12. In proposed Sec. 712.20, ``Request for reconsideration or
certification review hearing,'' proposed Sec. 712.20 is modified to
delete paragraph (a)(1) and relocate the substance to proposed new
paragraph (d) and to further clarify that a failure to take action in
response to the Manager's decision to revoke HRP certification means
that the Manager's decision becomes a final agency decision. Proposed
Sec. 712.20(b) is modified to clarify that a ``final decision'' refers
to a ``final agency decision'' and to delete the final sentence, so as
not to unreasonably limit the information relied upon by the Manager in
issuing a final decision.
13. Proposed Sec. 712.21 clarifies the process for appointing DOE
counsel when an individual requests a certification review hearing.
This requirement and language is consistent with the procedures that
pertain to administrative review hearings under 10 CFR part 710.
Proposed Sec. 712.21(a) is modified to replace the reference to the
local Chief Counsel and the General Counsel with a general description
requiring appointment of counsel so that this regulation will not be
outdated if there is a change to titles and organizations in DOE.
14. Current Sec. 712.21 is redesignated as proposed Sec. 712.22
in accordance with the addition of proposed Sec. 712.21. The term
``hearing officer'' is replaced throughout this section, and wherever
it appears in this part, with ``Administrative Judge'' for the reasons
set forth in 78 FR 52389 (Aug. 23, 2013). Proposed Sec. 712.22(a) is
modified to specify who is responsible for appointing an Administrative
Judge. Proposed Sec. 712.22(d) is added to establish the individual's
burden at a certification review hearing. For purposes of due process,
it is critical that the individual whose HRP certification has been
revoked fully understand the nature and scope of evidence that he or
she must present. ``Specifically, the individual must present evidence
to show that the revocation decision was either clearly erroneous or
that extraordinary circumstances warrant recertification into HRP. The
individual cannot satisfy this burden upon a showing that DOE's
security or safety concerns have been mitigated during the time since
the decision was made to revoke. Rather, the individual must point to a
clear factual error underlying that decision or to some circumstance
that is so extraordinary that it warrants reversal of the decision.
This is a more burdensome standard to meet than the standard applicable
to security clearance hearings under 10 CFR part 710, but it is
consistent with the objective that HRP-certified individuals meet the
highest standards of reliability as well as physical and mental
suitability. Proposed Sec. 712.22(e) is added to clarify the DOE
counsel's role at the certification review hearing, which is consistent
with the DOE counsel's role
[[Page 28416]]
in administrative review hearings under 10 CFR part 710.
Current Sec. 712.22(e) is redesignated as proposed Sec. 712.22(f)
in accordance with the addition of proposed Sec. 712.22(e). Proposed
Sec. 712.22(f)(1), (2) and (7) and Sec. 712.22(g) and (h) are added
to clarify the responsibilities and authority of the Administrative
Judges who perform certification review hearings. The added language is
consistent with the responsibilities and authorities of the
Administrative Judges who perform administrative review hearings under
10 CFR part 710. Proposed Sec. 712.22(i) is added to clarify the
Administrative Judge's responsibility to prepare a decision, and what
the decision must contain. Proposed Sec. 712.22(i) also directs the
Administrative Judge to ensure that any doubt as to an individual's
certification shall be resolved against the individual in favor of
national security and/or safety. This direction to err on the side of
security and safety is consistent with a similar provision in 10 CFR
part 710 and Executive Order 12968 (Aug. 4, 1995).
15. Current Sec. 712.22 is redesignated as proposed Sec. 712.23
in accordance with the addition of proposed Sec. 712.21. The title is
modified to reflect that a decision, not a recommendation, is issued by
the Administrative Judge at the conclusion of the hearing. The position
of ``Chief Health Safety and Security Officer'' is replaced through
this section, and wherever it appears in this part, with ``Associate
Under Secretary for Environment, Health, Safety, and Security'' to
reflect organizational changes within the Department. The first
sentence of proposed Sec. 712.23(a) is modified to state simply that
the Administrative Judge's decision be forwarded to the Associate Under
Secretary for Environment, Health, Safety and Security, as the contents
of this decision are already described in proposed Sec. 712.22(i).
Further, the term ``must'' is replaced with ``should'' in order to
clarify that issuance of the decision within 30 calendar days is an
aspiration rather than a requirement. In addition, the proposed Sec.
712.23 would no longer require the Associate Under Secretary for
Environment, Health, Safety, and Security to make a recommendation to
recertify or revoke the certification of an individual in the HRP.
Instead, a new proposed paragraph (b) requires the Associate Under
Secretary for Environment, Health, Safety, and Security to notify the
individual and the Manager of the Administrative Judge's decision and
the appeal procedures available, and to provide them a copy of the
Administrative Judge's decision and the administrative record. A new
proposed paragraph (c) provides the individual and the Manager the
right to file a written request for further review of the
Administrative Judge's decision with the cognizant Under Secretary. A
new proposed paragraph (d) requires the Manager to provide the
individual with a copy of any request for further review filed by the
Manager. A new proposed paragraph (e) requires the request for review
to include a statement identifying the issues on which the cognizant
Under Secretary should focus. A new proposed paragraph (f) clarifies
that the Administrative Judge's decisions become final if neither the
individual nor the Manager files a written request for review of the
decision. The provisions of proposed Sec. 712.23 are generally
consistent with the procedures for notification and appeal of an
Administrative Judge's decision in a security clearance hearing under
10 CFR part 710.
16. Current Sec. 712.23 is redesignated as proposed Sec. 712.24
in accordance with the addition of proposed Sec. 712.21. A new
proposed paragraph (a) would require the Associate Under Secretary for
Environment, Health, Safety, and Security to forward the request for
review, the Administrative Judge's decision and the administrative
record to the cognizant Under Secretary. Proposed paragraph (b) would
delete the 20-working day requirement in order to ensure that the
cognizant Under Secretary has sufficient time to render a final
decision. Proposed paragraph (b) is further modified to allow the
cognizant Under Secretary to delegate the authority to issue a final
decision, and to require that final decisions expressly state whether
the individual's certification is revoked or restored, in order to
avoid any possible confusion. A new proposed paragraph (c) would
clarify that the cognizant Under Secretary's decision shall be based
only on evidence and information in the administrative record at the
time of the Administrative Judge's decision.
17. Proposed Sec. 712.25 is added to require HRP candidates and
HRP-certified individuals to cooperate in all aspects of the HRP
process. Proposed Sec. 712.25(a), in addition to incorporating current
Sec. 712.12(h)(3), as described above, specifies that failure to
cooperate may result in a determination not to grant HRP certification,
for candidates, or revocation, for HRP-certified individuals. Proposed
Sec. 712.25(b) establishes a process by which an HRP-certified
individual whose certification was revoked for failure to cooperate may
request that the Manager reconsider this decision. This reconsideration
process is modelled after a similar process set forth in DOE's security
clearance regulations at 10 CFR part 710.
III. Regulatory Review
A. Review Under Executive Order 12866 and 13563
The regulatory action proposed today has been determined not to be
a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866,
``Regulatory Planning and Review,'' 58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993).
Accordingly, this proposed rule is not subject to review under the
Executive Order by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs
within the Office of Management and Budget.
DOE has also reviewed the proposed regulation pursuant to Executive
Order 13563, issued on January 18, 2011 (76 FR 3281 (Jan. 21, 2011)).
Executive Order 13563 is supplemental to and explicitly reaffirms the
principles, structures, and definitions governing regulatory review
established in Executive Order 12866. To the extent permitted by law,
agencies are required by Executive Order 13563 to: (1) Propose or adopt
a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that its benefits
justify its costs (recognizing that some benefits and costs are
difficult to quantify); (2) tailor regulations to impose the least
burden on society, consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives,
taking into account, among other things, and to the extent practicable,
the costs of cumulative regulations; (3) select, in choosing among
alternative regulatory approaches, those approaches that maximize net
benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health
and safety, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity);
(4) to the extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather than
specifying the behavior or manner of compliance that regulated entities
must adopt; and (5) identify and assess available alternatives to
direct regulation, including providing economic incentives to encourage
the desired behavior, such as user fees or marketable permits, or
providing information upon which choices can be made by the public.
DOE emphasizes as well that Executive Order 13563 requires agencies
to use the best available techniques to quantify anticipated present
and future benefits and costs as accurately as possible. In its
guidance, the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has
emphasized that such techniques may include identifying changing future
compliance costs that might result from
[[Page 28417]]
technological innovation or anticipated behavioral changes. DOE
believes that this NOPR is consistent with these principles, including
the requirement that, to the extent permitted by law, agencies adopt a
regulation only upon a reasoned determination that its benefits justify
its costs and, in choosing among alternative regulatory approaches,
those approaches maximize net benefits.
B. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act
DOE has concluded that promulgation of this proposed rule falls
into a class of actions which would not individually or cumulatively
have significant impact on the human environment, as determined by
DOE's regulations (10 CFR part 1021, subpart D) implementing the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et
seq.). Specifically, this proposed rule is categorically excluded from
NEPA review because the amendments to the existing rule are strictly
procedural (categorical exclusion A6). Therefore, this proposed rule
does not require an environmental impact statement or environmental
assessment pursuant to NEPA.
C. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires
preparation of an initial regulatory flexibility analysis for any rule
that by law must be proposed for public comment, unless the agency
certifies that the rule, if promulgated, will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. As required
by Executive Order 13272, ``Proper Consideration of Small Entities in
Agency Rulemaking,'' (67 FR 53461, August 16, 2002), DOE published
procedures and policies on February 19, 2003, to ensure that the
potential impacts of its rules on small entities are properly
considered during the rulemaking process (68 FR 7990). DOE has made its
procedures and policies available on the Office of the General
Counsel's Web site at https://www.energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel.
This proposed rule would amend procedures that apply to the
certification of individuals in the HRP. The proposed rule applies to
individuals, and would not apply to ``small entities,'' as that term is
defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act. As a result, if adopted, the
proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
Accordingly, DOE certifies that the proposed rule would not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities,
and, therefore, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required.
D. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act
This proposed rule does not impose a collection of information
requirement subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et
seq.
E. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4) generally
requires a Federal agency to perform a detailed assessment of costs and
benefits of any rule imposing a Federal Mandate with costs to State,
local or tribal governments, or to the private sector, of $100 million
or more. This rulemaking does not impose a Federal mandate on State,
local or tribal governments or on the private sector.
F. Review Under the Treasury and Government Appropriations Act, 1999
Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations
Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105-277), requires Federal agencies to issue a
Family Policymaking Assessment for any rule or policy that may affect
family well-being. The proposed rule, if adopted, will have no impact
on family well-being. Accordingly, DOE has concluded that it is not
necessary to prepare a Family Policymaking Assessment.
G. Review Under Executive Order 13132
Executive Order 13132, 64 FR 43255 (August 4, 1999), imposes
certain requirements on agencies formulating and implementing policies
or regulations that preempt State law or that have federalism
implications. Agencies are required to examine the constitutional and
statutory authority supporting any action that would limit the
policymaking discretion of the States and carefully assess the
necessity for such actions. DOE has examined this proposed rule and has
determined that it does not preempt State law and, if adopted, would
not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
No further action is required by Executive Order 13132.
H. Review Under Executive Order 12988
With respect to the review of existing regulations and the
promulgation of new regulations, section 3(a) of Executive Order 12988,
``Civil Justice Reform,'' 61 FR 4729 (February 7, 1996), imposes on
Executive agencies the general duty to adhere to the following
requirements: (1) Eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity; (2) write
regulations to minimize litigation; and (3) provide a clear legal
standard for affected conduct rather than a general standard and
promote simplification and burden reduction.
With regard to the review required by section 3(a), section 3(b) of
Executive Order 12988 specifically requires that Executive agencies
make every reasonable effort to ensure that the regulation: (1) Clearly
specifies the preemptive effect, if any; (2) clearly specifies any
effect on existing Federal law or regulation; (3) provides a clear
legal standard for affected conduct while promoting simplification and
burden reduction; (4) specifies the retroactive effect, if any; (5)
adequately defines key terms; and (6) addresses other important issues
affecting clarity and general draftsmanship under any guidelines issued
by the Attorney General. Section 3(c) of Executive Order 12988 requires
Executive agencies to review regulations in light of applicable
standards in section 3(a) and section 3(b) to determine whether they
are met or it is unreasonable to meet one or more of them. DOE has
completed the required review and determined that, to the extent
permitted by law, this proposed regulation meet the relevant standards
of Executive Order 12988.
I. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act,
2001
The Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2001 (44
U.S.C. 3516, note) provides for agencies to review most disseminations
of information to the public under implementing guidelines established
by each agency pursuant to general guidelines issued by OMB. OMB's
guidelines were published at 67 FR 8452 (February 22, 2002), and DOE's
guidelines were published at 67 FR 62446 (October 7, 2002). DOE has
reviewed this proposed rule under the OMB and DOE guidelines and has
concluded that it is consistent with applicable policies in those
guidelines.
J. Review Under Executive Order 13211
Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,'' 66 FR 28355
(May 22, 2001), requires Federal agencies to prepare and submit to the
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs
[[Page 28418]]
(OIRA), Office of Management and Budget, a Statement of Energy Effects
for any significant energy action. A ``significant energy action'' is
defined as any action by an agency that promulgates or is expected to
lead to promulgation of a final rule, and that: (1) Is a significant
regulatory action under Executive Order 12866, or any successor order;
and (2) is likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy, or (3) is designated by the
Administrator of OIRA as a significant energy action. For any proposed
significant energy action, the agency must give a detailed statement of
any adverse effects on energy supply, distribution or use should the
proposal be implemented, and of reasonable alternatives to the action
and their expected benefits on energy supply, distribution and use.
This proposed rule is not a significant energy action. Accordingly, DOE
has not prepared a Statement of Energy Effects.
IV. Approval by the Office of the Secretary
The Office of the Secretary of Energy has approved the publication
of this proposed rule.
List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 712
Administrative practice and procedure, Alcohol abuse, Classified
information, Drug abuse, Government contracts, Government employees,
Health, Occupational safety and health, Radiation protection, and
Security measures.
Issued in Washington, DC, on June 12, 2017.
Rick Perry,
Secretary of Energy.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, DOE proposes to amend part
712 of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations to read as follows:
PART 712--HUMAN RELIABILITY PROGRAM
0
1. The authority citation for part 712 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 2165; 42 U.S.C. 2201; 42 U.S.C. 5814-5815;
42 U.S.C. 7101 et seq.; 50 U.S.C. 2401 et seq.; E.O. 10450, 3 CFR
1949-1953 Comp., p. 936, as amended; E.O. 10865, 3 CFR 1959-1963
Comp., p. 398, as amended; 3 CFR Chap. IV.
0
2. Revise subpart A to read as follows:
Subpart A--Establishment of and Procedures for the Human Reliability
Program
General Provisions
Sec.
712.1 Purpose.
712.2 Applicability.
712.3 Definitions.
Procedures
Sec.
712.10 Designation of HRP positions.
712.11 General requirements for HRP certification.
712.12 HRP implementation.
712.13 Supervisory review.
712.14 Medical assessment.
712.15 Management evaluation.
712.16 Security review.
712.17 Instructional requirements.
712.18 Transferring HRP certification.
712.19 Actions related to Removal, Revocation and/or Reinstatement.
712.20 Request for reconsideration or certification review hearing.
712.21 Appointment of DOE Counsel.
712.22 Office of Hearings and Appeals.
712.23 Administrative Judge's decision.
712.24 Final decision by DOE Under Secretary.
712.25 Cooperation by the individual.
Subpart A--Establishment of and Procedures for the Human
Reliability Program
General Provisions
Sec. 712.1 Purpose.
This part establishes the policies and procedures for a Human
Reliability Program (HRP) in the Department of Energy (DOE), including
the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA). The HRP is a
security and safety reliability program designed to ensure that
individuals who occupy positions affording access to certain materials,
nuclear explosive devices, facilities, and programs meet the highest
standards of reliability and physical and mental suitability. This
objective is accomplished under this part through a system of
continuous evaluation that identifies individuals whose judgment and
reliability may be impaired by physical or mental/personality
disorders, alcohol abuse, use of illegal drugs or the abuse of legal
drugs or other substances, or any other condition or circumstance that
may be of a security or safety concern.
Sec. 712.2 Applicability.
The HRP applies to all applicants for, or current employees of DOE
or NNSA or a DOE or NNSA contractor or subcontractor in a position
defined or designated under Sec. 712.10 of this subpart as an HRP
position.
Sec. 712.3 Definitions.
The following definitions are used in this part:
Access means:
(1) A situation that may provide an individual proximity to or
control over Category I special nuclear material (SNM); or
(2) The proximity to a nuclear explosive and/or Category I SNM
that allows the opportunity to divert, steal, tamper with, and/or
damage the nuclear explosive or material in spite of any controls
that have been established to prevent such unauthorized actions.
Alcohol means the intoxicating agent in beverage alcohol, ethyl
alcohol, or other low molecular weight alcohol.
Alcohol abuse means consumption of any beverage, mixture, or
preparation, including any medication containing alcohol that
results in impaired social or occupational functioning.
Alcohol concentration means the alcohol in a volume of breath
expressed in terms of grams of alcohol per 210 liters of breath as
indicated by a breath test.
Alcohol use disorder means a maladaptive pattern in which a
person's intake of alcohol is great enough to damage or adversely
affect physical or mental health or personal, social, or
occupational function; or when alcohol has become a prerequisite to
normal function.
Associate Under Secretary for Environment, Health, Safety and
Security means the DOE individual with responsibility for policy and
quality assurance for DOE occupational medical programs.
Case chronology means a written recitation of all actions that
support a recommendation to revoke an individual's HRP certification
under Sec. 712.19.
Certification means the formal action the HRP certifying
official takes that permits an individual to perform HRP duties
after it is determined that the individual meets the requirements
for certification under this part.
Contractor means contractors and subcontractors at all tiers and
any industrial, educational, commercial, or other entity, grantee,
or licensee, including an employee that has executed an agreement
with the Federal government for the purpose of performing under a
contract, license, or other arrangement.
Designated Physician means a licensed doctor of medicine or
osteopathy who has been nominated by the Site Occupational Medical
Director (SOMD) and approved by the Manager or designee, with the
concurrence of the Associate Under Secretary for Environment,
Health, Safety and Security or his or her designee to provide
professional expertise in occupational medicine for the HRP.
Designated Psychologist means a licensed Ph.D., or Psy.D., in
clinical psychology who has been nominated by the SOMD and approved
by the Manager or designee, with the concurrence of the Associate
Under Secretary for Environment, Health, Safety and Security or his
or her designee to provide professional expertise in the area of
psychological assessment for the HRP.
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders means the
current version of the American Psychiatric Association's manual
containing definitions of psychiatric terms and diagnostic criteria
of mental disorders.
Drug abuse means use of an illegal drug or misuse of legal
drugs.
Evaluative report means the document that sets forth the bases
supporting the revocation of an individual's certification.
[[Page 28419]]
Evidential-grade breath alcohol device means a device that
conforms to the model standards for an evidential breath-testing
device as listed on the Conforming Products List of Evidential
Breath Measurement Devices published by the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA).
Flashback means an involuntary, spontaneous recurrence of some
aspect of a hallucinatory experience or perceptual distortion that
occurs long after taking the hallucinogen that produced the original
effect; also referred to as hallucinogen persisting perception
disorder.
Hallucinogen means a drug or substance that produces
hallucinations, distortions in perception of sights and sounds, and
disturbances in emotion, judgment, and memory.
HRP candidate means an individual being considered for
assignment to an HRP position.
HRP-certified individual means an individual who has
successfully completed the HRP requirements.
HRP certifying official means the Manager or the Manager's
designee who certifies, recertifies, temporarily removes, reviews
the circumstances of an individual's removal from an HRP position,
and directs reinstatement.
HRP management official means an individual designated by the
DOE or a DOE contractor, as appropriate, who has programmatic
responsibility for HRP positions.
Illegal drug means a controlled substance, as specified in
Schedules I through V of the Controlled Substances Act, 21 U.S.C.
811 and 812; the term does not apply to the use of a controlled
substance in accordance with the terms of a valid prescription, or
other uses authorized by Federal law.
Impaired or impairment means a decrease in functional capacity
of a person that is caused by a physical, mental, emotional,
substance abuse, or behavioral disorder.
Incident means an unplanned, undesired event that interrupts the
completion of an activity and that may include property damage or
injury.
Job task analysis means the formal process of defining the
requirements of a position and identifying the knowledge, skills,
and abilities necessary to effectively perform the duties of the
position.
Manager means the senior Federal line manager at a departmental
site or Federal office with HRP-designated positions.
Material access area means a type of Security Area that is
authorized to contain a Category I quantity of special nuclear
material and that has specifically defined physical barriers, is
located within a Protected Area, and is subject to specific access
controls.
Medical assessment means an evaluation of an HRP candidate and
HRP-certified individual's present health status and health risk
factors by means of:
(1) Medical history review;
(2) Job task analysis;
(3) Physical examination;
(4) Appropriate laboratory tests and measurements; and
(5) Appropriate psychological and psychiatric evaluations.
Nuclear explosive means an assembly of fissionable and/or
fusionable materials and main charge high explosive parts or
propellants that is capable of producing a nuclear detonation.
Nuclear explosive duties means work assignments that allow
custody of a nuclear explosive or access to a nuclear explosive
device or area.
Occurrence means any event or incident that is a deviation from
the planned or expected behavior or course of events in connection
with any DOE or DOE-controlled operation if the deviation has
environmental, public health and safety, or national security
protection significance, including (but not limited to) incidents
involving:
(1) Injury or fatality to any person involving actions of a DOE
employee or contractor employee;
(2) An explosion, fire, spread of radioactive material, personal
injury or death, or damage to property that involves nuclear
explosives under DOE jurisdiction;
(3) Accidental release of pollutants that results from, or could
result in, a significant effect on the public or environment; or
(4) Accidental release of radioactive material above regulatory
limits.
Psychological assessment or test means a scientifically
validated instrument designed to detect psychiatric, personality,
and behavioral tendencies that would indicate problems with
reliability and judgment.
Random alcohol testing means the unscheduled, unannounced
alcohol testing of randomly selected employees by a process designed
to ensure that selections are made in a nondiscriminatory manner.
Random drug testing means the unscheduled, unannounced drug
testing of randomly selected employees by a process designed to
ensure that selections are made in a nondiscriminatory manner.
Reasonable suspicion means a suspicion based on an articulable
belief that an individual uses illegal drugs or is under the
influence of alcohol, drawn from reasonable inferences from
particular facts, as detailed further in part 707 of this title.
Recertification means the action the HRP certifying official
takes annually, not to exceed 12 months, that permits an employee to
remain in the HRP and perform HRP duties.
Reinstatement means the action taken after it has been
determined that an employee who has been temporarily removed from
the HRP meets the certification requirements of this part and can be
returned to HRP duties.
Restoration means the actions necessary to restore an
individual's HRP duties after a final decision has been made by the
cognizant Under Secretary or his/her designee to overturn the
revocation decision. The restoration of HRP duties is contingent on
the individual completing any and all components of the annual
recertification process under Sec. 712.11 and any other specific
requirements that must be completed in order to return to full HRP
duties.
Reliability means an individual's ability to adhere to security
and safety rules and regulations.
Safety concern means any condition, practice, or violation that
causes a reasonable probability of physical harm, property loss,
and/or environmental impact.
Security concern means the presence of information regarding an
individual that raises a question as to whether HRP certification
and recertification would endanger the common defense and security
and would be clearly consistent with the national interest.
Semi-structured interview means an interview by a Designated
Psychologist, or a psychologist under his or her supervision, who
has the latitude to vary the focus and content of the questions
depending on the interviewee's responses.
Site Occupational Medical Director (SOMD) means the physician
responsible for the overall direction and operation of the
occupational medical program at a particular site or program.
Supervisor means the individual who has oversight and
organizational responsibility for a person holding an HRP position,
and whose duties include evaluating the behavior and performance of
the HRP-certified individual.
Transfer means an HRP-certified individual moving from one site
to another site.
Unacceptable damage means an incident that could result in a
nuclear detonation; high-explosive detonation or deflagration from a
nuclear explosive; the diversion, misuse, or removal of Category I
special nuclear material; or an interruption of nuclear explosive
operations with a significant impact on national security.
Unsafe practice means either a human action departing from
prescribed hazard controls or job procedures or practices, or an
action causing a person unnecessary exposure to a hazard.
Procedures
Sec. 712.10 Designation of HRP positions.
(a) HRP certification is required for each individual assigned to,
or applying for, a position that:
(1) Affords access to Category I SNM or has responsibility for
transportation or protection of Category I quantities of SNM;
(2) Involves nuclear explosive duties or has responsibility for
working with, protecting, or transporting nuclear explosives, nuclear
devices, or selected components;
(3) Affords access to information concerning vulnerabilities in
protective systems when transporting nuclear explosives, nuclear
devices, selected components, or Category I quantities of SNM; or
(4) Is not included in paragraphs (a)(1) through (3) of this
section but affords the potential to significantly impact national
security or cause unacceptable damage and is approved pursuant to
paragraph (b) of this section.
(b) The Manager or the HRP management official may nominate
positions for the HRP that are not specified in paragraphs (a)(1)
through
[[Page 28420]]
(3) of this section or that have not previously been designated HRP
positions. All such nominations must be submitted to and approved by
either the NNSA Administrator, his or her designee, the Associate Under
Secretary for Environment, Health, Safety and Security or the
appropriate Lead Program Secretarial Officer, or his or her designee.
(c) Before nominating a position for designation as an HRP
position, the Manager or the HRP management official must analyze the
risks the position poses for the particular operational program. If the
analysis shows that more restrictive physical, administrative, or other
controls could be implemented that would prevent the position from
being designated an HRP position, those controls will be implemented,
if practicable.
(d) Nothing in this part prohibits contractors from establishing
stricter employment standards for individuals who are nominated to DOE
for certification or recertification in the HRP.
Sec. 712.11 General requirements for HRP certification.
(a) The following requirements apply to each individual applying
for or in an HRP position:
(1) A DOE ``Q'' access authorization;
(2) Signed releases, acknowledgments, and waivers to participate in
the HRP on forms provided by DOE;
(3) Completion of initial and annual HRP instruction as provided in
Sec. 712.17;
(4) Successful completion of an initial and annual supervisory
review, medical assessment, management evaluation, and a DOE personnel
security review;
(5) No use of any hallucinogen in the preceding 5 years and no
experience of flashback resulting from the use of any hallucinogen more
than 5 years before applying for certification or recertification;
(6) An initial drug test and random drug tests for the use of
illegal drugs at least once each 12 months;
(7) An initial alcohol test and random alcohol tests at least once
each 12 months; and
(8) Successful completion of a counterintelligence evaluation,
which may include a counterintelligence-scope polygraph examination in
accordance with DOE's Polygraph Examination Regulation, 10 CFR part
709, and any subsequent revisions to that regulation.
(b) Each HRP candidate must be certified in the HRP before being
assigned to HRP duties and must be recertified annually, not to exceed
12 months between recertifications.
(c) Individuals in newly identified HRP positions must immediately
sign the releases, acknowledgments, and waivers to participate in the
HRP and complete initial instruction on the importance of security,
safety, reliability, and suitability. If these requirements are not
met, the individual must be removed from the HRP position. All
remaining HRP requirements listed in paragraph (a) of this section must
be completed in an expedited manner.
(d) Alcohol consumption is prohibited within an eight-hour period
preceding scheduled work for individuals performing nuclear explosive
duties and for individuals in specific positions designated by either
the Manager, the NNSA Administrator, his or her designee, or the
appropriate Lead Program Secretarial Officer, or his or her designee.
(e) Individuals reporting for unscheduled nuclear explosive duties
and those specific positions designated by either the Manager, the NNSA
Administrator or his or her designee, or the appropriate Lead Program
Secretarial Officer, or his or her designee, will be asked prior to
performing any type of work if they have consumed alcohol within the
preceding eight-hour period. If they answer ``no,'' they may perform
their assigned duties but still may be tested.
(f) Any doubt as to an HRP candidate's or HRP certified
individual's eligibility for certification shall be resolved against
the candidate or individual in favor of national security and/or
safety.
Sec. 712.12 HRP implementation.
(a) The implementation of the HRP is the responsibility of the
appropriate Manager or his or her designee.
(b) The HRP Management Official must prepare an HRP implementation
plan and submit it to the applicable Manager for review and approval.
The implementation plan must:
(1) Be reviewed and updated every 2 years;
(2) Include the four annual components of the HRP process:
Supervisory review, medical assessment, management evaluation (which
includes random drug and alcohol testing), and a DOE personnel security
determination; and
(3) Include the HRP instruction and education component described
in Sec. 712.17 of this part.
(c) The Deputy Administrator for Defense Programs, NNSA must:
(1) Provide advice and assistance to the Associate Under Secretary
for Environment, Health, Safety and Security regarding policies,
standards, and guidance for all nuclear explosive duty requirements;
and
(2) Be responsible for implementation of all nuclear explosive duty
safety requirements.
(d) The Associate Under Secretary for Environment, Health, Safety
and Security, or designee, is responsible for HRP policy and must:
(1) Ensure consistency of the HRP throughout the DOE and NNSA;
(2) Review and comment on all HRP implementation plans to ensure
consistency with policy; and
(3) Provide policies and guidance, including instructional
materials, to NNSA and non-NNSA field elements concerning the HRP, as
appropriate.
(e) The Manager must:
(1) Review and approve the HRP implementation plan for sites/
facilities under their cognizance and forward the plan to the Director,
Office of Corporate Security Strategy, Analysis and Special Operations,
or designee; and
(2) Ensure that the HRP is implemented at the sites/facilities
under their cognizance.
(f) The HRP certifying official must:
(1) Approve placement, certification, reinstatement, and
recertification of individuals into HRP positions; for unresolved
temporary removals, follow the process in Sec. 712.19(f);
(2) Ensure that instructional requirements are implemented;
(3) Immediately notify (for the purpose of limiting access) the
appropriate HRP management official of a personnel security action that
results in the suspension of access authorization; and
(4) Ensure that the supervisory review, medical assessment, and
management evaluation, including drug and alcohol testing, are
conducted on an annual basis (not to exceed 12 months).
(g) Individuals assigned to HRP duties must:
(1) Execute HRP releases, acknowledgments, and waivers to
facilitate the collection and dissemination of information, the
performance of drug and alcohol testing, and medical examinations;
(2) Notify the Designated Physician, the Designated Psychologist,
or the SOMD immediately of a physical or mental condition requiring
medication or treatment;
(3) Report any observed or reported behavior or condition of
another HRP-certified individual that could indicate a reliability
concern, including those behaviors and conditions listed in Sec.
712.13(c), to a supervisor, the Designated Physician, the Designated
Psychologist, the SOMD, or the HRP management official; and
[[Page 28421]]
(4) Report to a supervisor, the Designated Physician, the
Designated Psychologist, the SOMD, or the HRP management official, any
behavior or condition, including those listed in Sec. 712.13(c), that
may affect his or her ability to perform HRP duties.
Sec. 712.13 Supervisory review.
(a) The supervisor must ensure that each HRP candidate and each
individual occupying an HRP position but not yet HRP certified executes
the appropriate HRP releases, acknowledgments, and waivers. If these
documents are not executed:
(1) The request for HRP certification may not be further processed
until these requirements are completed; and
(2) The individual is immediately removed from the position.
(b) Each supervisor of HRP-certified personnel must conduct an
annual review of each HRP-certified individual during which the
supervisor must evaluate information, based on his or her personal
knowledge that is relevant to the individual's suitability to perform
HRP tasks in a reliable and safe manner.
(c) The supervisor must report any concerns resulting from his or
her review to the appropriate HRP management official. Types of
behavior and conditions that would indicate a concern include, but are
not limited to:
(1) Psychological or physical disorders that impair performance of
assigned duties;
(2) Conduct that warrants referral for a criminal investigation or
results in arrest or conviction;
(3) Indications of deceitful or delinquent behavior;
(4) Attempted or threatened destruction of property or life;
(5) Suicidal tendencies or attempted suicide;
(6) Use of illegal drugs or the abuse of legal drugs or other
substances;
(7) Alcohol use disorders;
(8) Recurring financial irresponsibility;
(9) Irresponsibility in performing assigned duties;
(10) Inability to deal with stress, or the appearance of being
under unusual stress;
(11) Failure to comply with work directives, hostility or
aggression toward fellow workers or authority, uncontrolled anger,
violation of safety or security procedures, or repeated absenteeism;
(12) Significant behavioral changes, moodiness, depression, or
other evidence of loss of emotional control; and
(13) Any unusual conduct or being subject to any circumstances
which tend to show that the individual is not reliable.
(d) A supervisor must immediately remove an individual from HRP
duties:
(1) When the supervisor has a reasonable belief that the individual
is not reliable, based on either a safety or security concern;
(2) When the individual does not obtain HRP recertification; or
(3) When requested to do so by the HRP certifying official.
(e) The supervisor must contact the appropriate personnel office
for guidance as to any actions that should occur as a result of the
immediate removal.
(f) Immediate Removal. If the supervisor immediately removes an
HRP-certified individual for any reason specified in this part, he or
she must, at a minimum:
(1) Require the individual to stop performing HRP duties;
(2) Take action to ensure the individual is denied both escorted
and unescorted access to the material access areas; and
(3) Notify, within 24 hours, the HRP management official of the
immediate removal. The HRP management official shall take actions
consistent with Sec. 712.19.
Sec. 712.14 Medical assessment.
(a) Purpose. The HRP medical assessment is performed to evaluate
whether an HRP candidate or an HRP-certified individual:
(1) Represents a security concern; or
(2) Has a condition that may prevent the individual from performing
HRP duties in a reliable and safe manner.
(b) When performed. (1) The medical assessment is performed
initially on HRP candidates and individuals occupying HRP positions who
have not yet received HRP certification. The medical assessment is
performed annually for HRP-certified individuals, or more often as
required by the SOMD.
(2) The Designated Physician and other examiners working under the
direction of the Designated Physician also will conduct an evaluation:
(i) If an HRP-certified individual requests an evaluation (i.e.,
self-referral); or
(ii) If an HRP-certified individual is referred by management for
an evaluation.
(c) Process. The Designated Physician, under the supervision of the
SOMD, is responsible for the medical assessment of HRP candidates and
HRP-certified individuals. In performing this responsibility, the
Designated Physician or the SOMD must integrate the medical
evaluations, available testing results, psychological evaluations, any
psychiatric evaluations, a review of current legal drug use, and any
other relevant information. This information is used to determine if a
reliability, safety, or security concern exists and if the individual
is medically qualified for his or her assigned duties.
(d) Evaluation. The Designated Physician, with the assistance of
the Designated Psychologist, must determine the existence or nature of
any of the following:
(1) Physical or medical disabilities, such as a lack of visual
acuity, defective color vision, impaired hearing, musculoskeletal
deformities, and neuromuscular impairment;
(2) Mental/personality disorders or behavioral problems, including
alcohol and other substance use disorders, as described in the
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders;
(3) Use of illegal drugs or the abuse of legal drugs or other
substances, as identified by self-reporting or by medical or
psychological evaluation or testing;
(4) Threat of suicide, homicide, or physical harm; or
(5) Medical conditions such as cardiovascular disease, endocrine
disease, cerebrovascular or other neurologic disease, or the use of
drugs for the treatment of conditions that may adversely affect the
judgment or ability of an individual to perform assigned duties in a
reliable and safe manner.
(e) Job task analysis. Before the initial or annual medical
assessment and psychological evaluation, employers must provide, to
both the Designated Physician and Designated Psychologist, a job task
analysis for each HRP candidate or HRP-certified individual. Medical
assessments and psychological evaluations may not be performed if a job
task analysis has not been provided.
(f) Psychological evaluations. Psychological evaluations must be
conducted:
(1) For initial HRP certification. This psychological evaluation
consists of a psychological assessment (test), approved by the
Associate Under Secretary for Environment, Health, Safety and Security
or his or her designee, and a semi-structured interview.
(2) For recertification. This psychological evaluation consists of
a semi-structured interview. A psychological assessment (test) may also
be conducted as warranted.
(3) Every third year. The medical assessment for recertification
must include a psychological assessment (test) approved by the
Associate Under Secretary for Environment, Health,
[[Page 28422]]
Safety and Security or his or her designee. This requirement can be
implemented over a 3-year period for individuals who are currently in
an HRP position.
(4) When additional psychological or psychiatric evaluations are
required by the SOMD to resolve any concerns.
(g) Return to work after sick leave. HRP-certified individuals who
have been on sick leave for five or more consecutive days, or an
equivalent time period for those individuals on an alternative work
schedule, must report in person to the Designated Physician, the
Designated Psychologist, or the SOMD before being allowed to return to
normal duties. The Designated Physician, the Designated Psychologist,
or the SOMD must provide a written recommendation to the appropriate
HRP supervisor regarding the individual's return to work. An HRP-
certified individual also may be required to report to the Designated
Physician, the Designated Psychologist, or the SOMD for written
recommendation to return to normal duties after any period of sick
leave.
(h) Temporary removal or restrictions. The Designated Physician,
the Designated Psychologist, or the SOMD may recommend temporary
removal of an individual from an HRP position or restrictions on an
individual's work in an HRP position if a medical condition or
circumstance develops that affects the individual's ability to perform
assigned job duties. The Designated Physician, the Designated
Psychologist, or the SOMD must immediately recommend medical removal or
medical restrictions in writing to the appropriate HRP management
official. If the HRP management official concurs, he or she will then
notify the appropriate HRP certifying official. To reinstate or remove
such restrictions, the Designated Physician, the Designated
Psychologist, or the SOMD must make written recommendation to the HRP
management official. The HRP management official will then notify the
appropriate HRP certifying official.
(i) Medical evaluation after rehabilitation. (1) Individuals who
request reinstatement in the HRP following rehabilitative treatment for
alcohol use disorder, use of illegal drugs, or the abuse of legal drugs
or other substances, must undergo an evaluation, as prescribed by the
SOMD, to ensure continued rehabilitation and adequate capability to
perform their job duties.
(2) The HRP certifying official may reinstate HRP certification of
an individual who successfully completes an SOMD-approved drug or
alcohol rehabilitation program. Recertification is based on the SOMD's
follow-up evaluation and recommendation. The individual is also subject
to unannounced follow-up tests for illegal drugs or alcohol and
relevant counseling for 3 years.
(j) Medication and treatment. HRP-certified individuals are
required to immediately report to the Designated Physician, the
Designated Psychologist, or the SOMD any physical or mental condition
requiring medication or treatment. The Designated Physician, the
Designated Psychologist, or the SOMD determines if temporary removal of
the individual from HRP duties is recommended and follows the
procedures pursuant to Sec. 712.14(h).
Sec. 712.15 Management evaluation.
(a) Evaluation components. An evaluation by the HRP management
official is required before an individual can be considered for initial
certification or recertification in the HRP. This evaluation must be
based on a careful review of the results of the supervisory review,
medical assessment, and drug and alcohol testing. If a safety or
security concern is identified with respect to an HRP-certified
individual, the HRP management official must take actions consistent
with Sec. 712.19(a).
(b) Drug testing. All HRP candidates and HRP-certified individuals
are subject to testing for the use of illegal drugs, as required by
this part. Testing must be conducted in accordance with 10 CFR part
707, the workplace substance abuse program for DOE contractor
employees, and DOE Order 3792.3, ``Drug-Free Federal Workplace Testing
Implementation Program,'' for DOE employees. The program must include
an initial drug test, random drug tests at least once every 12 months
from the previous test, and tests of HRP-certified individuals if they
are involved in an incident, unsafe practice, occurrence, or based on
reasonable suspicion. Failure to appear for unannounced testing within
2 hours of notification constitutes a refusal to submit to a test.
Sites may establish a shorter time period between notification and
testing but may not exceed the two-hour requirement. If an HRP-
certified individual refuses to submit to a drug test or, based on a
drug test, is determined to use illegal drugs, the supervisor must
immediately remove the individual from HRP duties and take actions
consistent with Sec. 712.13(f).
(c) Alcohol testing. All HRP candidates and HRP-certified
individuals are subject to testing for the use of alcohol, as required
by this part. The alcohol testing program must include, as a minimum,
an initial alcohol test prior to performing HRP duties and random
alcohol tests at least once every 12 months from the previous test, and
tests of HRP-certified individuals if they are involved in an incident,
unsafe practice, occurrence, or based on reasonable suspicion. The
supervisor who has been informed that an HRP-certified individual's
confirmatory breath alcohol test result is at or above an alcohol
concentration of 0.02 percent shall send that individual home and not
allow that individual to perform HRP duties for 24 hours, and take all
appropriate administrative action consistent with Sec. 712.13(f).
(1) Breath alcohol testing must be conducted by a certified breath
alcohol technician and conform to the DOT procedures (49 CFR part 40,
Procedures for Transportation Workplace Drug and Alcohol Testing
Programs, subparts J through N) for use of an evidential-grade breath
analysis device approved for 0.02/0.04 cutoff levels, which conforms to
the DOT model specifications and the most recent ``Conforming Products
List'' issued by NHTSA.
(2) An individual required to undergo DOT alcohol testing is
subject to the regulations of the DOT. If such an individual's blood
alcohol level exceeds DOT standards, the individual's employer may take
appropriate disciplinary action.
(3) The following constitutes a refusal to submit to a test and
shall be considered as a positive alcohol concentration test of 0.02
percent, which requires the individual be sent home and not allowed to
perform HRP duties for 24 hours:
(i) Failure to appear for unannounced testing within 2 hours of
notification (or established shorter time for the specific site);
(ii) Failure to provide an adequate volume of breath in 2 attempts
without a valid medical excuse; and
(iii) Engaging in conduct that clearly obstructs the testing
process, including failure to cooperate with reasonable instructions
provided by the testing technician.
(d) Occurrence testing. (1) When an HRP-certified individual is
involved in, or associated with, an occurrence requiring immediate
reporting to the DOE, the following procedures must be implemented:
(i) Testing for the use of illegal drugs in accordance with the
provisions of the DOE policies implementing Executive Order 12564, and
10 CFR part 707 or DOE Order 3792.3, which establish workplace
substance abuse programs for contractor and DOE employees,
respectively.
[[Page 28423]]
(ii) Testing for use of alcohol in accordance with this section.
(2) Testing must be performed as soon as possible after an
occurrence that requires immediate notification or reporting.
(3) The supervisor must immediately remove an HRP-certified
individual from HRP duties if the individual refuses to undergo the
testing required by this subsection.
(e) Testing for reasonable suspicion. (1) If the behavior of an
individual in an HRP position creates the basis for reasonable
suspicion of the use of an illegal drug or alcohol, that individual
must be tested if two or more supervisory or management officials, at
least one of whom is in the direct chain of supervision of the
individual or is the Designated Physician, the Designated Psychologist,
or the SOMD, agree that such testing is appropriate.
(2) Reasonable suspicion must be based on an articulable belief,
drawn from facts and reasonable inferences from those particular facts
that an HRP-certified individual is in possession of, or under the
influence of, an illegal drug or alcohol. Such a belief may be based
on, among other things:
(i) Observable phenomena, such as direct observation of the use or
possession of illegal drugs or alcohol, or the physical symptoms of
being under the influence of drugs or alcohol;
(ii) A pattern of abnormal conduct or erratic behavior;
(iii) Information provided by a reliable and credible source that
is independently corroborated; or
(iv) Detection of alcohol odor on the breath.
(f) Counterintelligence Evaluation. HRP candidates and, when
selected, HRP-certified individuals, must submit to and successfully
complete a counterintelligence evaluation, which may include a
polygraph examination in accordance with 10 CFR part 709, Polygraph
Examination Regulations and any subsequent revisions to that
regulation.
Sec. 712.16 Security review.
(a) A personnel security specialist must review the personnel
security file of every HRP candidate and every HRP-certified individual
up for certification or recertification.
(b) If the personnel security file review is favorable, this
information must be forwarded to the HRP certifying official and so
noted on the certification form. If the review reveals a security
concern, or if a security concern is identified during another
component of the HRP process, the HRP certifying official must be
notified, and the personnel security specialist must evaluate the
concern in accordance with 10 CFR part 710. If a final determination is
made by DOE personnel security to suspend access authorization, the HRP
management official must be notified, the individual shall be
immediately removed from the HRP position, the HRP certifying official
notified, and the information noted on the certification form.
(c) A favorable adjudication of security concerns under 10 CFR part
710 does not require granting or continuing HRP certification. Security
concerns can be reviewed and evaluated for purposes of granting or
continuing HRP certification even if the concerns have been favorably
resolved under part 710.
(d) Any mental/personality disorder or behavioral issues found in a
personnel security file, which could impact an HRP candidate or HRP-
certified individual's ability to perform HRP duties, may be provided
in writing to the SOMD, Designated Physician, and Designated
Psychologist previously identified for receipt of this information.
Medical personnel may not share any information obtained from the
personnel security file with anyone who is not an HRP certifying
official, except as consistent with the Privacy Act of 1974.
(e) If the DOE personnel security review is not completed within
the 12-month time period for recertification and the individual's
access authorization is not suspended, the HRP certification form shall
be forwarded to the HRP certifying official for recertification or
temporary removal, pending completion of the personnel security review.
Sec. 712.17 Instructional requirements.
(a) HRP management officials at each DOE site or facility with HRP
positions must establish an initial and annual HRP instruction and
education program. The program must provide:
(1) HRP candidates, HRP-certified individuals, supervisors, and
managers, and supervisors and managers responsible for HRP positions
with the knowledge described in paragraph (b)(1) of this section; and
(2) For all HRP medical personnel, a detailed explanation of HRP
duties and responsibilities.
(b) The following program elements must be included in initial and
annual instruction. The elements may be tailored to accommodate group
differences and refresher training needs:
(1) The objectives of the HRP and the role and responsibilities of
each individual in the HRP to include recognizing and responding to
behavioral change and aberrant or unusual behavior that may result in a
risk to national security or nuclear explosive safety; recognizing and
reporting safety and/or security concerns, physical, mental, or
emotional conditions that could adversely affect the performance of HRP
duties or that require treatment by a doctor, physician's assistant or
other health care professional; and prescription drug use; and an
explanation of return-to-work requirements and continuous evaluation of
HRP participants; and
(2) For those who have nuclear explosive responsibilities, a
detailed explanation of duties and safety requirements.
Sec. 712.18 Transferring HRP certification.
(a) For HRP certification to be transferred, the individual must
currently be certified in the HRP.
(b) Transferring the HRP certification from one site to another
requires the following before the individual is allowed to perform HRP
duties at the new site:
(1) Verify that the individual is currently certified in the HRP
and is transferring into a designated HRP position;
(2) Incorporate the individual into the new site's alcohol and
drug-testing program;
(3) Ensure that the 12-month time period for HRP requirements that
was established at the prior site is not exceeded; and
(4) Provide site-specific instruction.
(c) Temporary assignment to HRP positions at other sites requires
verification that the individual is currently enrolled in the HRP and
has completed all site-specific instruction. The individual is required
to return to the site that maintains his or her HRP certification for
recertification.
Sec. 712.19 Actions related to Removal, Revocation and/or
Reinstatement.
(a) Temporary removal. The HRP management official shall direct the
temporary removal of an HRP-certified individual when the management
official:
(1) Identifies, during the course of the management evaluation, a
safety or security concern that warrants such removal;
(2) Receives a supervisor's written notice of the immediate removal
of an HRP-certified individual; or
(3) Receives a recommendation from the Designated Physician, the
Designated Psychologist, or the SOMD to medically remove an HRP-
certified individual consistent with Sec. 712.14(h).
[[Page 28424]]
(b) The temporary removal of an HRP-certified individual from HRP
duties pending a determination of the individual's reliability is an
interim, precautionary action and does not constitute a determination
that the individual is not fit to perform his or her required duties.
Removal is not, in itself, cause for loss of pay, benefits, or other
changes in employment status. Within five (5) business days of placing
the individual on a temporary removal, the HRP management official must
notify the individual in writing that s/he is temporarily removed.
(c) If temporary removal is based on derogatory information that is
a security concern, the HRP management official must notify the HRP
certifying official and the applicable DOE personnel security office.
(d) If temporary removal is based on a medical concern, the HRP
management official must obtain a recommendation from the Designated
Physician, Designated Psychologist, or the SOMD consistent with Sec.
712.14(h).
(e) If the HRP management official determines, after conducting an
evaluation of the circumstances or information that led to the
temporary removal, that an individual who has been temporarily removed
continues to meet the requirements for certification, the HRP
management official must:
(1) Direct that the supervisor reinstate the individual and provide
written explanation of the reasons and factual bases for the action;
(2) Notify the individual; and
(3) Notify the HRP certifying official.
(f) If the HRP management official determines that an individual
who has been temporarily removed does not meet the HRP requirements for
certification, the HRP management official must prepare a case
chronology that explains why the individual does not meet the
requirement for certification and forward it to the HRP certifying
official. The HRP management official's determination that an
individual does not meet certification requirement must be based on one
or more of types of behaviors and conditions identified in Sec.
712.13(c). The HRP certifying official must review the case chronology
from the HRP management official and take one of the following actions:
(1) Direct that the supervisor reinstate the individual, with any
applicable medical restrictions, provide written explanation of the
reasons and factual bases for the action, and notify the individual;
(2) Direct continuation of the temporary removal pending completion
of specified actions (e.g., medical assessment, treatment) to resolve
the concerns about the individual's reliability; or
(3) Recommend to the Manager the revocation of the individual's
certification, direct the HRP management official to prepare an
evaluative report, and provide the case chronology and the evaluative
report, when completed, to the Manager. If the HRP certifying official
is the Manager, he or she should direct the HRP management official to
prepare the evaluative report and then take actions consistent with
paragraph (h)(2) of this section. The appropriate DOE or NNSA counsel
must review the evaluative report for legal sufficiency.
(g) The Manager, on receiving the HRP management official's case
chronology and evaluative report, and the HRP certifying official's
recommendation (if any), must take one of the following actions:
(1) Direct that the supervisor reinstate the individual, provide
written explanation of the reasons and factual bases for the action,
and notify the individual;
(2) Direct revocation of the individual's HRP certification; or
(3) Direct continuation of the temporary removal pending completion
of specified actions (e.g., medical assessment, treatment) to resolve
the concerns about the individual's reliability.
(h) Notification of Manager's initial decision. If the action is
revocation, the Manager must send a letter by certified mail (return
receipt requested) or hand deliver it with record of delivery to the
individual whose certification is revoked notifying him or her of the
reasons for the revocation and the options for review. The evaluative
report must be appended to the letter. The Manager may withhold such a
report, or portions thereof, to the extent that he or she determines
that the report, or portions thereof, may be exempt from access by the
employee under the Privacy Act or the Freedom of Information Act.
(i) If an individual is directed by the Manager or HRP certifying
official to take specified actions to resolve HRP concerns pursuant to
Sec. 712.19(f)(2) or (g)(3) he or she must be reevaluated after those
actions have been completed, and the Manager must direct either:
(1) Reinstatement of the individual; or
(2) Revocation of the individual's HRP certification. In the case
of revocation, the HRP management official will be directed to make any
appropriate revisions to the evaluative report.
Sec. 712.20 Request for reconsideration or certification review
hearing.
(a) An individual who receives notification of the Manager's
decision to revoke his or her HRP certification may choose one of the
following options:
(1) Submit a written request to the Manager for reconsideration of
the decision to revoke certification. The request must include the
individual's response to the information that gave rise to the concern.
The request must be sent by certified mail to the Manager within 20
working days after the individual received notice of the Manager's
decision; or
(2) Submit a written request to the Manager for a certification
review hearing. The request for a hearing must be sent by certified
mail to the Manager within 20 working days after the individual
receives notice of the Manager's decision.
(b) If an individual requests reconsideration by the Manager but
not a certification review hearing, the Manager must, within 20 working
days after receipt of the individual's request, send by certified mail
(return receipt requested) a final agency decision to the individual.
(c) If an individual requests a certification review hearing, the
Manager must forward the request to the Office of Hearings and Appeals.
(d) If an individual takes no action within 20 working days after
receipt of the Manager's decision, the Manager's decision will become a
final agency decision.
Sec. 712.21 Appointment of DOE Counsel.
(a) Upon receipt from the individual of a written request for a
certification review hearing, the Manager shall request appointment of
DOE counsel as soon as possible.
(b) DOE Counsel is authorized to consult directly with the
individual if he is not represented by counsel, or with the
individual's counsel or representative if so represented, to clarify
issues and reach stipulations with respect to testimony and contents of
documents and other physical evidence. Such stipulations shall be
binding upon the individual and the DOE Counsel for the purposes of
this subpart.
Sec. 712.22 Office of Hearings and Appeals.
(a) Upon receipt of the hearing request from the Manager, the
Director, DOE Office of Hearings and Appeals, shall appoint, as soon as
practicable, an Administrative Judge.
(b) The Administrative Judge must have a DOE ``Q'' access
authorization.
(c) An individual who requests a certification review hearing has
the right
[[Page 28425]]
to appear personally before the Administrative Judge; to present
evidence in his or her own behalf, through witnesses or by documents,
or by both; and to be accompanied and represented at the hearing by
counsel or any other person of the individual's choosing and at the
individual's own expense.
(d) An individual must come forward with evidence to demonstrate
that the decision to revoke his or her HRP certification was clearly
erroneous or that extraordinary circumstances warrant recertification
into HRP. Evidence that the individual has rehabilitated or reformed
since the time of the Manager's decision will not be considered by the
Administrative Judge.
(e) DOE Counsel shall assist the Administrative Judge in
establishing a complete administrative hearing record in the proceeding
and bringing out a full and true disclosure of all facts, both
favorable and unfavorable, having bearing on the issues before the
Administrative Judge.
(f) In conducting the proceedings, the Administrative Judge will:
(1) Determine the date, time, and location of the hearing,
including whether the hearing will be conducted by video
teleconference;
(2) At least 7 calendar days prior to date scheduled for the
hearing, convene a prehearing conference for the purpose of discussing
stipulations and exhibits, identifying witnesses, and disposing of
other appropriate matters. The conference will usually be conducted by
telephone;
(3) Receive all relevant and material information relating to the
individual's fitness for HRP duties through witnesses or documentation;
(4) Ensure that the individual is permitted to offer information in
his or her behalf; to call, examine, and cross-examine witnesses and
other persons who have made written or oral statements, and to present
and examine documentary evidence to the extent permitted by national
security;
(5) Require the testimony of the individual and all witnesses be
given under oath or affirmation;
(6) Ensure that a transcript of the certification review
proceedings is made; and
(7) Not engage in ex parte communications with either party.
(g) The Administrative Judge shall have all powers necessary to
regulate the conduct of proceedings, including, but not limited to,
establishing a list of persons to receive service of papers, issuing
subpoenas for witnesses to attend the hearing or for the production of
specific documents or other physical evidence, administering oaths and
affirmations, ruling upon motions, receiving evidence, regulating the
course of the hearing, disposing of procedural requests or similar
matters, and taking other actions consistent with the regulations in
this part. Requests for subpoenas shall be granted except where the
Administrative Judge finds that the grant of subpoenas would clearly
result in evidence or testimony that is repetitious, incompetent,
irrelevant, or immaterial to the issues in the case.
(h) The Administrative Judge may return a case to the HRP Manager
for a final agency decision consistent with Sec. 712.20(b) if--
(1) The individual or his or her attorney fails to heed the
instructions of the Administrative Judge;
(2) The individual fails to appear at the appointed time, date and
location for the certification review hearing;
(3) The individual otherwise fails to cooperate at the hearing
phase of the process; or
(4) The individual withdraws his/her request for a certification
review hearing.
(i) Based on a review of the administrative hearing record, the
Administrative Judge shall prepare a decision regarding the
individual's eligibility for recertification in the HRP, which shall
consist of written findings and a supporting statement of reasons. In
making a decision, the Administrative Judge shall ensure that any doubt
as to an individual's certification shall be resolved against the
individual in favor of national security and/or safety.
Sec. 712.23 Administrative Judge's decision.
(a) Within 30 calendar days of the receipt of the hearing
transcript by the Administrative Judge or the closing of the record,
whichever is later, the Administrative Judge should forward his or her
decision to the Associate Under Secretary for Environment, Health,
Safety, and Security. The Administrative Judge's decision must be
accompanied by a copy of the record.
(b) Within 10 calendar days of receipt of the decision and the
administrative record, the Associate Under Secretary for Environment,
Health, Safety, and Security should:
(1) Notify the individual and Manager in writing of the
Administrative Judge's decision;
(2) Advise the individual in writing of the appeal procedures
available to the individual in paragraph (c) of this section if the
decision is unfavorable to the individual;
(3) Advise the Manager in writing of the appeal procedures
available to the Manager in paragraph (c) of this section if the
decision is favorable to the individual; and
(4) Provide the individual and/or counsel or representative, and
the Manager a copy of the Administrative Judge's decision and the
administrative record.
(c) The individual or the Manager may file with the Associate Under
Secretary for Environment, Health, Safety, and Security a written
request for further review of the decision by the cognizant Under
Secretary along with a statement required by paragraph (e) of this
section within 20 working days of the individual's receipt of the
Administrative Judge's decision;
(d) The copy of any request for further review of the individual's
case by the cognizant Under Secretary filed by the Manager shall be
provided to the individual by the Manager.
(e) The party filing a request for review of the individual's case
by the cognizant Under Secretary shall include with the request a
statement identifying the issues on which it wishes the cognizant Under
Secretary to focus.
(f) The Administrative Judge's decision shall be considered final
if a written request for review is not filed in accordance with
paragraph (c) of this section.
Sec. 712.24 Final decision by DOE Under Secretary.
(a) Within 10 calendar days of receipt of the written request for
review, the Associate Under Secretary for Environment, Health, Safety
and Security should forward to the cognizant Under Secretary the
written request for review, the Administrative Judge's decision, and
the administrative record.
(b) Upon receipt of the written request for review, the
Administrative Judge's decision, and the administrative record, the
cognizant Under Secretary, in consultation with the DOE General
Counsel, will issue a final written decision. The cognizant Under
Secretary may delegate this authority. In issuing a final decision, the
cognizant Under Secretary shall expressly state that he or she is
either revoking or restoring an individual's HRP certification. A copy
of this decision must be sent by certified mail (return receipt
requested) to the Manager and to the individual.
(c) The cognizant Under Secretary shall consider only that evidence
and information in the administrative record at the time of the
Administrative Judge's decision.
[[Page 28426]]
Sec. 712.25 Cooperation by the individual.
(a) It is the responsibility of the HRP candidate or HRP certified
individual to provide full, frank, and truthful answers to relevant and
material questions, and when requested, furnish, or authorize others to
furnish, information that DOE deems pertinent to reach a decision
regarding HRP certification or recertification. This obligation to
cooperate applies at any stage, including but not limited to initial
certification, recertification, temporary removal, revocation, and/or
hearing. The individual or candidate may elect not to cooperate;
however, such refusal may prevent DOE from reaching an affirmative
finding required for granting or continuing HRP certification. In this
event, any HRP certification then in effect may be revoked, or, for HRP
candidates, may not be granted.
(b) An HRP certified individual who receives notification of the
Manager's decision to revoke his or her certification due to failure to
cooperate may choose one of the following options:
(1) Take no action; or
(2) Within 20 working days after the individual received notice of
the Manager's revocation decision, submit a written request by
certified mail to the Manager for reconsideration. The request must
include the individual's response to the information that gave rise to
the revocation decision.
(c) Upon receipt of the request for reconsideration, the Manager
shall notify the individual, in writing, within 20 calendar days of
receipt of the written appeal, as to whether the action to revoke
certification was appropriate. If the Manager determines that the
action was inappropriate, he or she shall direct that the individual be
reinstated.
Sec. 712.34 [Amended]
0
3. Section 712.34 is amended by removing the language, ``Director,
Office of Health and Safety'' in paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d) and
adding in its place ``Associate Under Secretary for Environment,
Health, Safety and Security''.
Sec. 712.35 [Amended]
0
4. Section 712.35 is amended by removing the language, ``Director,
Office of Health and Safety'' and adding in its place ``Associate Under
Secretary for Environment, Health, Safety and Security''.
Sec. 712.36 [Amended]
0
5. Section 712.36 is amended by:
0
a. Removing the language, ``Director, Office of Health and Safety'' in
paragraphs (d)(1) and (d)(3) and adding in its place ``Associate Under
Secretary for Environment, Health, Safety and Security''.
0
b. Removing paragraph (i).
[FR Doc. 2017-12810 Filed 6-21-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P