Administrative Law Judges, 59207-59217 [2020-17684]
Download as PDF
59207
Proposed Rules
Federal Register
Vol. 85, No. 183
Monday, September 21, 2020
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.
OFFICE OF PERSONNEL
MANAGEMENT
5 CFR Parts 212, 213, 302, and 930
RIN 3206–AN72
Administrative Law Judges
Office of Personnel
Management.
ACTION: Proposed rule with request for
comments.
AGENCY:
The Office of Personnel
Management (OPM) is issuing proposed
regulations governing the appointment
and employment of administrative law
judges (ALJs). The proposed rule will
implement Executive Order (E.O.) 13843
titled ‘‘Excepting Administrative Law
Judges from the Competitive Service.’’
These proposed revisions update the
rules for ALJ hiring in light of the new
Schedule E of the excepted service for
ALJs and update the existing ALJ
employment regulations to reflect other
recent changes in the law.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before November 20, 2020.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments,
identified by document number and/or
Regulation Identification Number (RIN)
‘‘3206–AN72’’ and title using any of the
following methods:
Federal Rulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
All submissions received through the
Portal must include the agency name
and docket number or RIN for this
rulemaking.
Instructions: All submissions received
must include the agency name and
docket number or Regulatory
Information Number (RIN) for this
rulemaking. All comments received will
be posted without change to
regulations.gov, including any personal
information provided.
Docket: For access to the docket to
read background documents or
comments received, go to
regulations.gov.
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:55 Sep 18, 2020
Jkt 250001
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Roseanna Ciarlante by telephone at
(267) 392–8640 or Katika Floyd by
telephone at (202) 606–0960; by email at
employ@opm.gov; by fax at (202) 606–
4430; or by TTY at (202) 418–3134.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background and Authority for this
Rulemaking
ALJs serve as independent impartial
triers of fact in formal proceedings
requiring a decision on the record after
the opportunity for a hearing. In general,
ALJs prepare for and preside at formal
proceedings required by statute to be
held under or in accordance with
provisions of the Administrative
Procedure Act (APA), codified, in
relevant part, in sections 553 through
559 of title 5, United States Code
(U.S.C.). ALJs rule on preliminary
motions, conduct pre-hearing
conferences, issue subpoenas, conduct
hearings (which may include written
and/or oral testimony and crossexamination), review briefs, and prepare
and issue decisions, along with written
findings of fact and conclusions of law.
The Federal Government employs
ALJs in a number of agencies
throughout the United States.
Previously, appointments to the
position of ALJ have been made through
competitive examination and
competitive service selection
procedures.1 As recognized by the
Supreme Court in Lucia v. Securities
and Exchange Commission, 138 S. Ct.
2044 (2018) at least some ALJs are
‘‘inferior Officers’’ of the United States
and thus subject to the Constitution’s
Appointments Clause, which governs
who may appoint such officials. In
accordance with the Constitution, in
such instances, Congress has vested the
appointment of ALJs in the heads of
departments or agencies. Although such
department or agency head may rely on
agency human resource officials or other
staff to assess applications, conduct
interviews, and the like, the final
appointment must be made or approved
by the department or agency head; this
1 In the competitive service, individuals must go
through a competitive process (i.e., competitive
examining) which is open to all applicants. This
process may consist of a written test, an evaluation
of the individual’s education and experience, and/
or an evaluation of other attributes necessary for
successful performance in the position to be filled.
See e.g., 5 U.S.C. 2102 and 3304; 5 CFR 2.1(a) and
300.102.
PO 00000
Frm 00001
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
authority cannot be delegated. On July
10, 2018, the President signed Executive
Order (E.O.) 13843 titled, ‘‘Excepting
Administrative Law Judges from the
Competitive Service’’ (83 FR 32755).
E.O. 13843 states ‘‘that conditions of
good administration make necessary an
exception to the competitive hiring
rules and examinations for the position
of ALJ. These conditions include the
need to provide agency heads with
additional flexibility to assess
prospective appointees without the
limitations imposed by competitive
examination and competitive service
selection procedures.’’ Section 2 of the
Executive Order specifies that all
appointments of administrative law
judges made on or after July 10, 2018
must be made under Schedule E of the
excepted service.2 Section 3(a) of the
Executive Order amended Civil Service
Rule VI to shift new hiring of ALJs from
the competitive to the excepted service.
Section 3(b) of the Executive Order
directed OPM to issue transitional
guidance, and OPM issued explanatory
guidance on the E.O. on July 10, 2018.
See OPM Memorandum to Heads of
Departments and Agencies, Executive
Order—Excepting Administrative Law
Judges from the Competitive Service,
available at https://chcoc.gov/
transmittals. OPM later issued more
specific guidance to agencies on the ALJ
loan program (August 1, 2018), on
promotions and reassignments of ALJs
(August 27, 2018), and on the
termination of the ALJ register and
discontinuance of the ALJ examination
(Sept. 20, 2018). OPM published a Fact
Sheet: Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
Positions on August 19, 2019, available
at https://www.opm.gov/services-foragencies/administrative-law-judges/
fact-sheet-administrative-law-judge-aljpositions-posted.pdf.
Section 3(b) of the Executive Order
also directed OPM to ‘‘adopt such
regulations as the Director determines
may be necessary to implement this
order, including, as appropriate,
amendments to or rescissions of
regulations that are inconsistent with, or
that would impede the implementation
of, this order, giving particular attention
2 Excepted service positions in the Executive
Branch of the Federal Government are positions
that are specifically excepted from the competitive
service by or pursuant to statute, by the President,
or by the Office of Personnel Management, and are
not in the Senior Executive Service. See 5 U.S.C.
2103.
E:\FR\FM\21SEP1.SGM
21SEP1
59208
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 183 / Monday, September 21, 2020 / Proposed Rules
to 5 CFR part 212, subpart D; 5 CFR part
213, subparts A and C; 5 CFR 302.101;
and 5 CFR part 930, subpart B.’’ OPM
is proposing rules for the newly created
Schedule E hiring of ALJs. The
proposed regulations make several
significant changes to the recruitment,
appointment, and movement of ALJs
based on E.O. 13843 and formalize
OPM’s prior explanatory guidance. As
described in detail below, OPM is also
proposing other changes to comply with
other recent changes in the law.
OPM is proposing these regulations
pursuant to this instruction, the Civil
Service Rules, and OPM’s own statutory
authority to regulate the ALJ program,
which includes, inter alia, sections
1103(a)(5)(A), 1305, 3323(b)(2), and
5372(c) of title 5, U.S.C.
Summary of the Proposed Changes
Removal of References to the
Competitive Examination
In light of the Executive Order, OPM
terminated the ALJ competitive service
register, its centralized list of eligible
ALJ applicants, as the Executive Order
ended the need for competitive
examination, rating and ranking, and
selection from competitive certificates
of eligibles issued by OPM. Therefore,
OPM proposes to remove references to
the ALJ competitive examination
throughout subpart B of 5 CFR part 930.
In particular, the text of the current
regulations recites that ALJs are
appointed in the competitive service
and that OPM is responsible for
examining ALJ candidates and
producing registers of qualified ALJ
applicants from which agencies make
selections in accordance with the
provisions of subpart B of 5 CFR part
930. The proposed rule aligns the text
of OPM’s regulations to the changes the
President effected through E.O. 13843.
The proposed rule changes reflect that
OPM will no longer conduct
recruitment and competitive
examinations of ALJ candidates for
employment in Federal agencies, and
that agencies will no longer select ALJ
candidates from competitive certificates
of eligibles issued by OPM.
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Excepted Appointments of ALJs
As noted above, the proposed rule
removes references to appointments in
the competitive service. Instead, the
proposed rule, conforming to E.O.
13843, recites that any ALJ selected
(with the application of veterans’
preference as far as administratively
feasible) on or after July 10, 2018, must
be appointed by the head of the hiring
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:55 Sep 18, 2020
Jkt 250001
agency 3 and placed in an ALJ position
in the excepted service. Consistent with
Civil Service Rule VI, as amended by
section 3(a) of the E.O., the proposed
rule creates a new Schedule E in the
excepted service specific to ALJs, except
that an individual encumbering an ALJ
position in the competitive service on
July 10, 2018, shall remain in the
competitive service while he or she
remains in the position (and will
continue to be subject to the same
conditions pertaining to appointment in
the competitive service).
Recruitment
OPM’s current regulations do not
address requirements for job
opportunity announcements for ALJs,
because the requirements for job
opportunity announcements for
competitive service positions generally
are set forth in 5 U.S.C. 3330 and in 5
CFR part 330, subpart A. OPM’s August
17, 2019 transitional guidance explains
that although the excepted service has
no requirement to post a USAJOBS
announcement or to follow the job
posting requirements for competitive
service positions, the merit system
principles (5 U.S.C. 2301) apply to
excepted service recruiting.
Accordingly, agencies should tell
potential applicants about ALJ
vacancies, recruit in a manner to attract
a sufficient pool of qualified applicants,
and recruit in a manner that allows all
qualified and eligible employees to
apply for higher-level positions.
OPM proposes to codify this guidance
in the regulations. We note that this is
consistent with E.O. 11478 of August 8,
1969, as amended, Equal Opportunity in
the Federal Government, 42 U.S.C.
2000e note and similar to
Administrative Conference
Recommendation 2019–2, Agency
Recruitment and Selection of
Administrative Law Judges (para. 1), 84
FR 38927, 38930–31 (Aug. 8, 2019).
Movement Between Agencies or
Appointment After a Period of
Separation
OPM is proposing through this rule
that an ALJ serving in the competitive
service who accepts a new ALJ
appointment at another agency on or
after July 10, 2018, moves from the
competitive service to an ALJ position
under Schedule E of the excepted
service, instead of transferring to
another competitive service position.
3 Generally, under Free Enter. Fund v. PCAOB,
561 U.S. 477, 512–13 (2010), the ‘‘agency head’’ of
a multi-member board, commission, or authority is
the full body acting collectively, not its chair or a
single member. Agencies with questions should
seek the advice of the Department of Justice.
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Likewise, a former ALJ who held a
position in the competitive service prior
to separation cannot be reinstated to an
ALJ position in the competitive service,
and must be given a new excepted
appointment. The proposed rule
recognizes that transfer and
reinstatement are no longer available for
ALJ appointments because these actions
are exclusively competitive service
appointment methods and accordingly,
are no longer available for ALJ
appointments.
Qualifications of ALJs in the Excepted
Service
Section 1 of the E.O. states that
excepting the position of ALJ from the
competitive service ‘‘will give agencies
greater discretion to assess critical
qualities in ALJ candidates, such as
work ethic, judgment, and ability to
meet the particular needs of the
agency,’’ and to conduct assessments
‘‘without proceeding through
complicated and elaborate examination
processes and rating procedures that do
not necessarily reflect the agency’s
particular needs.’’
Under the proposed rule, the heads of
agencies, not OPM, are authorized to
assess prospective appointees for ALJ
positions in their respective agencies
without consideration of the
competitive hiring rules and
examination process. This provides
agency heads with greater flexibility to
assess critical qualities in ALJ
applicants and determine whether an
ALJ applicant meets the particular
needs of the hiring agency.
Appointments of ALJs are made
pursuant to Schedule E of the excepted
service, but are not subject to the
provisions of OPM’s regulations in 5
CFR part 302 governing appointments in
the excepted service, including
examination and rating requirements.
However, an agency head must apply
the principle of veterans’ preference ‘‘as
far as administratively feasible’’ when
filling ALJ positions.
Civil Service Rule VI, as amended by
section 3(a) of the E.O., adopts, as a
‘‘minimum standard of appointment to
the position of administrative law
judge,’’ the bar licensure requirement
that OPM previously prescribed through
regulation in 5 CFR 930.204(b), and
permits ‘‘additional agency
requirements’’ for qualifications ‘‘where
appropriate.’’ This means the minimum
qualification and licensure requirement
for an ALJ position is the possession of
a professional license to practice law
and being authorized to practice law
under the laws of a State, the District of
Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto
Rico, or any territorial court established
E:\FR\FM\21SEP1.SGM
21SEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 183 / Monday, September 21, 2020 / Proposed Rules
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
under the United States Constitution at
the time of selection and any new
appointment (other than of an
incumbent ALJ to another ALJ position).
Judicial status is acceptable in lieu of
‘‘active’’ status in States that prohibit
sitting judges from maintaining ‘‘active’’
status to practice law, and being in
‘‘good standing’’ also is acceptable in
lieu of ‘‘active’’ status in States where
the licensing authority considers ‘‘good
standing’’ as having a current license to
practice law.
The proposed rule therefore continues
only the existing bar licensure
requirement as the minimum standard
for appointment and explains that
agency heads may prescribe additional
requirements as appropriate.
Effect of a Promotion or Reassignment
E.O. 13843 provides that
‘‘[a]ppointments of ALJs shall be made
under Schedule E of the excepted
service,’’ but that ‘‘[i]ncumbents of this
position who are, on July 10, 2018, in
the competitive service shall remain in
the competitive service as long as they
remain in their current positions.’’
Thus, as long as an ALJ in the
competitive service on July 10, 2018,
remains in the position of ALJ, and does
not require a new appointment, he or
she remains in the competitive service.
Under generally-applicable regulations,
the internal reassignment or promotion
of an officer or employee by his or her
agency involves only a position change,
and does not involve a new
appointment under civil service law. 5
CFR 210.102; see also 5 CFR 335.101.
This rule also applies to ALJs as well as
employees in other pay systems. See 70
FR 75745, 75746 (Dec. 21, 2005).
Therefore, under the proposed rule, and
consistent with OPM’s transitional
guidance, an ALJ reassigned or
promoted within his or her agency
remains in the competitive service, as
long as he or she remains an ALJ. In this
circumstance, an agency must process
and record the personnel action as a
reassignment or promotion in the
competitive service, not as an
appointment in the excepted service.
However, because some ALJs were
deemed to have constitutional status as
inferior officers of the United States
under the Supreme Court’s decision in
Lucia v. Securities and Exchange
Commission, OPM’s transitional
guidance instructed agencies that where
a promotion or reassignment would
involve a significant position change,
such as a promotion to a position
classified at a higher level (AL–1 or AL–
2), a reassignment to a different bureau
within the same department, or a
reassignment to perform a significantly
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:55 Sep 18, 2020
Jkt 250001
different kind of work (e.g., a change
from presiding over ex parte cases to
presiding over trials, or from
adjudicating benefits cases to
adjudicating regulatory enforcement
cases), the agency’s request for OPM to
approve the action must document that
the head of the requesting agency
approved the promotion or
reassignment. OPM’s transitional
guidance further instructed that this
documentation is not necessary for
routine geographic reassignments, or for
the advancement of an ALJ’s rate within
pay level AL–3. This documentation
requirement also does not require a
change in the ALJ’s status from the
competitive service to the excepted
service. The proposed rule formalizes
these instructions.
Pay and Position Classification
ALJ pay administration and position
classification are governed by 5 U.S.C.
5372, which assigns responsibility to
OPM and makes no distinction between
competitive service and excepted
service ALJs. The proposed rule,
therefore, makes no distinction between
competitive and excepted service ALJs
with respect to OPM’s pay
administration and position
classification responsibility.
Adverse Actions and Personnel Vetting
Requirements
Adverse actions against ALJs are
governed by 5 U.S.C. 7521, subject to
regulations issued by the Merit Systems
Protection Board (MSPB) under 5 U.S.C.
1305. These provisions likewise make
no distinction between competitive
service and excepted service ALJs.
Therefore, under the proposed rule, the
MSPB procedures prescribed in 5 U.S.C.
7521 and 5 CFR part 1201 will apply to
an agency action to remove, suspend,
reduce in level, reduce pay, or furlough
for 30 days or less an ALJ in the
competitive or excepted service (i.e.,
adverse action).
The current regulations provide that
appointment as an ALJ is subject to the
competitive service suitability
requirements in 5 CFR part 731. OPM is
amending these requirements due to
changes in the law since the provisions
were last amended in 2007. First, E.O.
13764 of January 23, 2017 amended
Civil Service Rules II and V, authorizing
OPM to prescribe minimum standards
of fitness of character and conduct for
excepted service appointments, and to
require such appointments to be subject
to a risk-based position designation and
a corresponding background
investigation under OPM-prescribed
standards. E.O. 13764 also amended
Civil Service Rule VI to make excepted
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
59209
service appointments ‘‘subject to the
suitability and fitness requirements of
the applicable Civil Service Rules and
Regulations,’’ namely, Civil Service
Rules II and V. (E.O. 13843
subsequently acknowledged that this
requirement applies to ‘‘the position of
administrative law judge.’’) Finally, E.O.
13764 amended an earlier executive
order, E.O. 13467 of June 30, 2008, to
give the Director of National
Intelligence, as the Security Executive
Agent, the authority to prescribe
investigative, adjudicative, and
continuous vetting requirements for
eligibility for access to classified
information and for employment in a
sensitive position; and to give the
Director of OPM, as the Suitability and
Credentialing Executive Agent, the
authority to do the same for suitability,
fitness, and eligibility for an identity
credential. The Executive Order assigns
this responsibility to ODNI and OPM for
both competitive and excepted service
positions, including, inter alia, ALJ
positions. The proposed rule
incorporates these changes.
OPM’s current regulations state that a
removal or other action against an ALJ
on grounds of suitability under part 731
is not subject to the statutory removal
procedure in 5 U.S.C. 7521. OPM is
eliminating this provision. In Archuleta
v. Hopper, 786 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir.
2015), the Court of Appeals for the
Federal Circuit ruled that, where an
employee is covered by the statutory
removal procedure in 5 U.S.C. chapter
75, subchapter II, that procedure
governs his or her removal even if it is
on grounds of suitability under the Civil
Service Rules and OPM’s regulations in
5 CFR part 731, because (at the time of
the court’s decision) the definition of an
‘‘adverse action’’ in 5 U.S.C. 7512 did
not explicitly exclude a suitability
action. Subsequently, in section 1086 of
Public Law 114–92, the National
Defense Authorization Act for FY 2016,
Congress amended 5 U.S.C. 7512 to
explicitly exclude an OPM suitability
action from the definition of an adverse
action in 5 U.S.C. 7512. Accordingly,
suitability-based removals of employees
who are covered by subchapter II are not
subject to the statutory adverse action
procedures. However, Congress did not
make a corresponding amendment to 5
U.S.C. 7521, defining an ‘‘adverse
action’’ for purposes of 5 U.S.C. chapter
75, subchapter III, which covers ALJs.
Thus, while an ALJ may be subject to an
unfavorable suitability determination,
the removal action should follow the
statutory procedure. The proposed rule
retains references to other exceptions to
E:\FR\FM\21SEP1.SGM
21SEP1
59210
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 183 / Monday, September 21, 2020 / Proposed Rules
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
5 U.S.C. 7521 that have been prescribed
by statute.
OPM’s current regulation describes
the use of administrative leave when an
adverse action is pending. The
Administrative Leave Act of 2016,
section 1138 of Public Law 114–328,
established new types of paid non-duty
status in 5 U.S.C. 6389a and 6389b,
namely, notice leave and investigative
leave. OPM proposes to update the
regulation to reflect this change. OPM
has proposed separate rulemaking to
implement the Administrative Leave
Act, at 82 FR 32263 (July 13, 2017).
Performance Ratings, Awards, and
Incentives
The regulations in 5 CFR 930.206
currently provide that an agency may
not rate the job performance of an ALJ
and may not grant any monetary or
honorary award or incentive under 5
U.S.C. 4502, 4503, 4504, or any other
authority, to an ALJ. Sections 1305 and
4305 of title 5, U.S.C. give OPM the
responsibility to regulate the statutory
prohibition on appraising the
performance of ALJs—found in 5 U.S.C.
4301(2)(D)—without regard to whether
ALJs are in the competitive service or
the excepted service. Accordingly,
under the proposed rule, the prohibition
against rating the job performance of an
ALJ remains in effect for ALJs in the
competitive and excepted service.
OPM proposes revisions to this
section, however, to clarify the
incentives and similar payments for
which an ALJ, whether in the
competitive or excepted service, is
ineligible. Specifically, the proposed
rule clarifies that an ALJ is not eligible
for recruitment, relocation, or retention
incentives under 5 U.S.C. 5753 and
5754 because the regulations in 5 CFR
part 575, subparts A, B, and C, require
an eligible employee to have or
maintain a rating of record of at least
‘‘Fully Successful’’ or equivalent to
receive an incentive. Similarly, the
proposed rule further establishes that
ALJs are not eligible for the student loan
repayment program because, under 5
U.S.C. 5379(d)(2) and 5 CFR
537.108(a)(2), an employee must
maintain an acceptable level of
performance to receive student loan
repayment benefits. An ALJ cannot meet
the requirements for these incentives
and payments because an agency may
not rate the job performance of an ALJ
in either the competitive or excepted
service.
ALJ Loan Program
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 3344,
OPM administers an Administrative
Law Judge Loan Program that
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:03 Sep 18, 2020
Jkt 250001
coordinates the loan/detail of an
administrative law judge from one
agency to another. Section 3344 makes
no distinction between competitive
service and excepted service ALJs. The
proposed rule, like OPM’s transitional
guidance, makes clear OPM continues
its responsibilities under this Program
whether ALJs are in the competitive or
excepted service. However, because
some ALJs were deemed to have
constitutional status as inferior officers
of the United States under the Supreme
Court’s decision in Lucia, OPM’s
transitional guidance instructed
agencies that, upon accepting the
services of a loaned ALJ, the receiving
agency must provide to OPM, as soon as
practicable, documentation that the
head of that agency made, approved, or
ratified the loan of the ALJ. Likewise,
the agency lending the ALJ must
provide OPM with documentation that
the ALJ’s appointment was originally
made or approved, or later ratified, by
the head of that agency. This
documentation requirement does not
require a change in the ALJ’s status from
the competitive service to the excepted
service. The proposed rule formalizes
these instructions.
Senior ALJ Program
The Senior ALJ Program allows
retired ALJs to be reemployed on a
temporary or irregular basis to complete
hearings of one or more specified
case(s). Upon appointment, and while
reemployed, the retired ALJ is referred
to as a Senior ALJ. The proposed rule
clarifies that an agency that temporarily
reemploys a retired ALJ must use the
newly created Schedule E excepted
service appointment. It also clarifies
that Senior ALJs appointed prior to July
10, 2018 remain in the competitive
service for the duration of their
appointment, including any extension
periods authorized by OPM. OPM
approval procedures have not otherwise
changed with respect to reemploying
retired ALJs, since the statute governing
the Senior ALJ Program, 5 U.S.C.
3323(b)(2), assigns program
responsibility to OPM and makes no
distinction between competitive service
and excepted service senior ALJs after
they have been appointed.
Reduction in Force.
The proposed rule amends the ALJ
reduction in force (RIF) regulations
currently described at 5 CFR 930.210.
When implementing a reduction in
force, the provisions in this section are
a supplement to the RIF provisions in 5
CFR part 351 that have separate
provisions for the treatment of
competitive service and excepted
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
service positions. The existing rule,
which references part 351, makes clear
that competitive service ALJs are subject
to the provisions of 5 CFR part 351 that
apply to competitive service employees
and that excepted service ALJs are
subject to the provisions of 5 CFR part
351 that apply to excepted service
employees.
The proposed amendment establishes
procedures for placement assistance for
ALJs reached in an agency’s reduction
in force for those in both the
competitive and excepted service.
Under the proposed changes, an agency
is required to establish an
administrative law judge priority
reemployment list and provide
consideration to ALJs on its
administrative law judge priority
reemployment list before it may
consider candidates on its regular
employment lists, with certain
exceptions.
Summary of Proposed Changes by
Section
Changes Proposed for 5 CFR Part 212
We propose to amend the authority
citation to add a reference to E.O. 13843.
OPM is retaining the existing reference
to E.O. 10577, but adding a
corresponding reference to 5 CFR part 6.
From 1954 until the early 1980s, the
organic Civil Service Rules were set
forth in E.O. 10577 and amended from
time to time by the President. However,
in recent decades, the practice has been
for the President to amend the Civil
Service Rules and, at the same time,
directly amend a corresponding part in
chapter I, subchapter A of title 5, Code
of Federal Regulations without also
further amending E.O. 10577. Since the
Civil Service Rules are the product of
both of these methods of presidential
rulemaking, both E.O. 10577 and the
corresponding part in 5 CFR chapter I,
subchapter A should be cited as
authority for OPM’s regulation.
Proposed § 212.401(b) adds the newly
established Schedule E in the excepted
service to the list of Schedules already
in the rule. This provides that an
employee in the competitive service at
the time his or her position is first listed
in schedule A, B, C, or E remains in the
competitive service while occupying the
position.
Changes Proposed for 5 CFR Part 213
The authority citation is revised to
include E.O. 13843 and 5 CFR part 6,
and to correct the citation to E.O. 13562.
Subpart A of 5 CFR part 213 General
provisions is revised to include the
Schedule E authority in § 213.102, and
to clarify that appointments to Schedule
E:\FR\FM\21SEP1.SGM
21SEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 183 / Monday, September 21, 2020 / Proposed Rules
E must be made on a permanent basis
in accordance with part 930.
Subpart C of 5 CFR part 213 Excepted
schedules is revised by establishing
Schedule E as a new schedule in part
213. Proposed § 213.3501 is labeled
‘‘Positions of administrative law judge
appointed under 5 U.S.C. 3105.’’ This
proposed section explains the reasoning
and basis for appointments under
Schedule E and requires that all
appointments of ALJs on or after July
10, 2018 must be made under this
excepted service authority in
accordance with the provisions in
subpart B of 5 CFR part 930.
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Changes Proposed for 5 CFR Part 302
The authority citation is revised to
include references to 5 U.S.C. 3317,
3318, and 3320 (in accordance with
recent case law arising in a different
context, see 81 FR 86290, 86291 (Nov.
30, 2016)), and to E.O. 13843 and 5 CFR
part 6.
We propose to add ALJs to the list of
positions in § 302.101(c) that are exempt
from the appointment procedures of 5
CFR part 302, and for which agencies
shall apply the principle of veterans’
preference as far as administratively
feasible.
Changes Proposed for 5 CFR Part 930
The proposed rule makes extensive
changes to 5 CFR part 930.
The proposed rule revises the
authority citation for subpart B of part
930 by adding references to E.O. 13843
and 5 CFR parts 2, 5, and 6, as well as
to 5 U.S.C. 1103(a)(5)(A) (OPM’s general
substantive rulemaking authority) and 5
U.S.C. 4305 (which, together with 5
U.S.C. 1305, authorizes OPM to regulate
the exception from performance
appraisals for ALJs).
The proposed rule deletes, from the
authority citation, references to 5 U.S.C.
1104(a) (pertaining to the ALJ
examination) and 1302(a) (pertaining to
competitive examinations).
Proposed § 930.201 is revised
throughout to add references to the
excepted service. Paragraph (b) is
revised to make clear that, as of July 10,
2018, appointments of ALJs must be
made under Schedule E of the excepted
service in § 213.3501. Paragraph (c)
makes clear that ALJs appointed prior to
July 10, 2018, remain in the competitive
service as long as they remain in their
positions, including when they are
subject to actions within their agencies
that do not result in a new appointment
(including details, assignments,
reassignments, pay adjustments, and
promotions). The proposed rule also
states that no new appointments of ALJs
may be made to the competitive service
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:03 Sep 18, 2020
Jkt 250001
after July 9, 2018. Paragraph (e)
establishes OPM’s authority with
respect to the ALJ program. This
paragraph is revised to delete references
to OPM’s authority to recruit and
examine ALJ applicants, to approve
transfers and reinstatements to
competitive service positions, and to
maintain a central priority
reemployment list, and to clarify that
OPM’s authority to classify positions
under 5 U.S.C. 5372 includes the
authority to approve classifications.
We propose to change the text in
paragraphs (e) and (f), stating that OPM
has ‘‘the authority to . . . [e]nsure the
independence of the administrative law
judge’’ and that the employing agency
has ‘‘[t]he responsibility to ensure the
independence of the administrative law
judge.’’ The revised text states that OPM
has the authority, and the agency has
the responsibility, to ‘‘[e]nsure the
qualified independence of the
administrative law judge, and to
faithfully administer the structural
protections designed to ensure the
impartiality of the administrative law
judge.’’ This is a clarifying change
because the current reference to
‘‘ensuring the independence of the
administrative law judge’’ encompasses
two concepts: qualified decisional
independence, and the statutory,
structural protections designed to
ensure judges’ impartiality by limiting
agency control in matters of position
classification, pay, performance
management, case assignment, and
tenure. See, e.g., Ramspeck v. Fed. Trial
Examiners Conf., 345 U.S. 128 (1953).
We propose removing and reserving
§ 930.203 Cost of competitive
examination, since OPM no longer
conducts the examination. Under the
current regulation each agency is
charged a pro rata share of the
examination cost, based on the actual
number of administrative law judges the
agency employs; and under OPM’s
Revolving Fund statute each agency is
also charged a corresponding share for
program administration costs (e.g., for
administering the ALJ Loan and Senior
ALJ programs, review of position
descriptions and job opportunity
announcements, approval of
noncompetitive actions, and FOIA/
Privacy Act activity). While this funding
method for program administration
must continue for the time being as a
matter of appropriations law, the end of
the examination has prompted OPM to
rethink its funding method for the
program. OPM is considering requesting
the use of appropriated funds, instead of
agency payments under the Revolving
Fund, to fund its program costs. OPM
seeks comment on the appropriate
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
59211
funding method and plans to amend
this section after careful consideration
of the feasibility of a new funding
method and consideration of public
comments.
In § 930.204 Appointments and
conditions of employment, paragraph (a)
is revised to make clear that ALJs are
appointed on a permanent full-time
basis, with the exception of
appointments to the Senior ALJ
Program, and to address requirements
for excepted service appointments.
Paragraph (a)(1) includes information on
ALJ appointments under Schedule E,
and paragraph (a)(2) clarifies that ALJs
appointed prior to July 10, 2018, remain
in the competitive service under the
conditions described in § 930.201(c).
Information about hiring from
competitive certificates is removed.
Section 930.204(b), Licensure,
continues the existing licensure
requirement for competitive service ALJ
appointments, which E.O. 13843 has
now extended to excepted service as the
minimum standard for ALJ
appointments. New § 930.204(c) sets
forth the qualification requirements for
competitive service and excepted
service ALJs. Paragraph (c)(1) addresses
the qualifications for competitive
service ALJs. OPM is retaining this
information, even though E.O. 13843
does not permit new competitive service
appointments, because it may be
relevant to reconstructing past
selections. Paragraph (c)(2) addresses
the agency-specific requirements
permitted by E.O. 13843 for excepted
appointments. Existing provisions are
renumbered accordingly.
Current § 930.204(g), Reinstatement,
is proposed to be redesignated and
recaptioned as § 930.204(j) Appointment
of a former administrative law judge.
The proposed revisions to paragraph (j)
make clear that any reappointments of
ALJs must be made under Schedule E of
part 213 in the excepted service. Current
§ 930.204(h)—Transfer, is proposed to
be redesignated as § 930.204(k) and
recaptioned as Movement between
agencies. The proposed revisions to
paragraph (k) make clear that any
movements of ALJs between agencies
must be made to positions under
Schedule E of part 213 in the excepted
service in the gaining agency. The
proposed revisions to this paragraph
also require that the hiring agency
inform an ALJ that such a move will
place him or her in the excepted service,
and requires the gaining agency to
obtain a written statement from the ALJ
that the ALJ understands he or she will
be leaving the competitive service for an
appointment in the excepted service.
E:\FR\FM\21SEP1.SGM
21SEP1
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
59212
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 183 / Monday, September 21, 2020 / Proposed Rules
Proposed § 930.204(g), Promotion to a
higher level, is currently § 930.204(e).
The text is amended to address
promotions of excepted-service ALJs,
including application of agency policies
and the need to document agency head
approval in a request to OPM; and to
ensure that incumbent ALJs have an
opportunity to be considered for
promotion to higher-level positions
when the agency considers external
applicants.
Reclassification of ALJs is addressed
in proposed § 930.204(h).
Reassignment of ALJs, currently
addressed in § 930.204(f), is addressed
in proposed § 930.204(j). The text is
amended to explain the circumstances
when an agency’s request to OPM for
approval of the reassignment must
document that the head of the
requesting agency approved it.
Paragraph (l) is added to § 930.204 to
address recruitment and vacancy
announcements.
The proposed rule amends § 930.205,
Administrative law judge pay system, by
including a statement that makes clear
this section applies to ALJ positions in
both the competitive and excepted
services. The proposed rule modifies
paragraph (b) by removing the reference
to ALJ positions ‘‘filled through a
competitive examination,’’ and
replacing it with the words ‘‘at the entry
level.’’ The proposed rule amends
paragraph (f)(2)(i) by removing the
words ‘‘who is within reach for
appointment from an administrative law
judge certificate of eligibles’’ and
replacing them with ‘‘who meets the
minimum qualification and licensure
requirement in paragraph (b) and any
agency-specific requirements
established under paragraph (c)(2).’’ The
proposed rule amends paragraph
(f)(2)(ii) by removing the words ‘‘who is
eligible for reinstatement’’ and replacing
them with ‘‘who is eligible for
appointment under Schedule E and
meets the minimum qualification and
licensure requirement in paragraph (b)
and any agency-specific requirements
established under paragraph (c)(2).’’
The proposed rule modifies § 930.206,
Performance rating and awards, by
inserting the words ‘‘in the competitive
or excepted service.’’ Paragraph (b) is
proposed to be modified by adding 5
U.S.C. 4505, 4505a, 5379, 5753, and
5754 to the list of provisions under
which ALJs may not be granted ‘‘any
monetary or honorary award, incentive,
or similar payment.’’
The proposed rule modifies § 930.207,
Details and assignments to other duties
within the same agency, to clarify that
details that will last more than 120 days,
and details exceeding more than a total
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:55 Sep 18, 2020
Jkt 250001
of 120 days in a 12-month period,
require OPM approval regardless of
whether the ALJs are in the competitive
or excepted service.
The proposed rule modifies § 930.208,
Administrative law judge loan programdetail to other agencies, to make clear
that OPM administers the ALJ loan
program for loans/details of an ALJ in
both the competitive and excepted
services. The proposed rule also adds
two new paragraphs to § 930.208. New
paragraph (e) requires the loaning
agency to furnish OPM with
documentation stating that the loaned
ALJ’s appointment was originally made,
approved, or later ratified by the head
of the agency. New paragraph (f)
similarly requires the receiving agency
of a loaned ALJ to provide
documentation to OPM, as soon as
practicable, stating that the head of the
agency made, approved, or ratified the
loan of the ALJ.
The proposed rule modifies several
provisions in § 930.209, Senior
Administrative Law Judge Program. The
proposed rule modifies paragraph (b)(2)
by removing the current language and
replacing it with a reference to the
licensure, qualification, and vetting
requirements prescribed under
§ 930.204(b) through (g). The proposed
rule amends paragraph (c) by adding the
phrase ‘‘under Schedule E of § 213.3501
of this chapter’’ to make clear that
reemployed ALJ annuitants are
appointed to positions in the excepted
service. The proposed rule amends
paragraph (d) to specify that an agency’s
request to OPM for a senior ALJ must
document that the appointment will be
made or approved by the head of the
requesting agency.
OPM is proposing to amend
§ 930.210, Reduction in force. ALJs
serving in Schedule E appointments in
the excepted service will be subject to
the provisions of 5 CFR part 351 specific
to excepted service employees. ALJs in
the competitive service remain subject
to the provisions of 5 CFR part 351
specific to competitive service
employees. Thus, the existing rule
makes clear that for RIF purposes
agencies use competitive service
procedures for ALJs in the competitive
service and excepted service procedures
for ALJs in the excepted service to
determine who will remain in their
current positions. In either case, the rule
makes clear that an agency may not use
performance as a factor for purposes of
retention standing in subpart E of 5 CFR
part 351.
The proposed rule also requires
agencies to establish procedures for
placement assistance for ALJs reached
in an agency’s RIF. Agencies are
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
required to establish a priority
reemployment list and provide
consideration to ALJs on its priority
reemployment list before it may
consider candidates on its regular
employment lists, with certain
exceptions. This will replace the current
procedure under which OPM maintains
a central, government-wide priority
referral list. The agency-specific
approach we are proposing is more in
keeping with the excepted hiring model
established by E.O. 13843. There are
currently no names on the OPM list, so
no individuals will be adversely
affected by this change.
These new placement procedures will
apply to ALJs in positions in both the
competitive and the excepted service.
However, the proposed rule also
clarifies that displaced competitive
service ALJs also will be eligible for
consideration for non-ALJ competitive
service positions pursuant to 5 CFR part
330, subpart B.
Lastly, OPM proposes to amend
§ 930.211, Actions against
administrative law judges. The
proposed rule amends paragraph (b)(4)
to reference the use of notice leave,
investigative leave, or administrative
leave under the Administrative Leave
Act of 2016, and amends paragraph (c)
to remove a reference to actions taken
under 5 CFR part 731.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
I certify that this regulation will not
have a significant impact on a
substantial number of small entities
because it applies only to Federal
agencies and employees.
E.O. 13563 and E.O. 12866, Regulatory
Review
Executive Orders 13563 and 12866
direct agencies to assess all costs and
benefits of available regulatory
alternatives and, if regulation is
necessary, to select regulatory
approaches that maximize net benefits
(including potential economic,
environmental, public health and safety
effects, distributive impacts, and
equity). Executive Order 13563
emphasizes the importance of
quantifying both costs and benefits, of
reducing costs, of harmonizing rules,
and of promoting flexibility. This rule
has been designated a ‘‘significant
regulatory action,’’ under Executive
Order 12866 and has been reviewed by
OMB.
Executive Order 13771, Reducing
Regulation and Controlling Regulatory
Costs
This proposed rule is not expected to
be subject to the requirements of E.O.
E:\FR\FM\21SEP1.SGM
21SEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 183 / Monday, September 21, 2020 / Proposed Rules
13771 (82 FR 9339, February 3, 2017)
because it is expected to impose no
more than de minimis costs.
PART 212—COMPETITIVE SERVICE
AND COMPETITIVE STATUS
1. Revise the authority citation for part
212 to read as follows:
■
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of
1995
This rule will not result in the
expenditure by state, local, and tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or by the
private sector, of $100 million or more
in any year and it will not significantly
or uniquely affect small governments.
Therefore, no actions were deemed
necessary under the provisions of the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of
1995.
This regulation will not have
substantial direct effects on the States,
on the relationship between the
National Government and the States, or
on distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government. Therefore, in
accordance with Executive Order 13132,
it is determined that this rule does not
have sufficient federalism implications
to warrant preparation of a Federalism
Assessment.
E.O. 12988, Civil Justice Reform
This regulation meets the applicable
standard set forth in section 3(a) and
(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988.
Congressional Review Act
This action pertains to agency
management, personnel, and
organization and does not substantially
affect the rights or obligations of
nonagency parties and, accordingly, is
not a ‘‘rule’’ as that term is used by the
Congressional Review Act (Subtitle E of
the Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996
(SBREFA)). Therefore, the reporting
requirement of 5 U.S.C. 801 does not
apply.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This rule does not impose any new
reporting or record-keeping
requirements subject to the Paperwork
Reduction Act.
List of Subjects in 5 CFR Part 212, 213,
302, and 930
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Government employees.
Office of Personnel Management.
Alexys Stanley,
Regulatory Affairs Analyst.
Accordingly, the Office of Personnel
Management proposes to amend title 5,
Code of Federal Regulations parts 212,
213, 302, and 930 as follows:
16:55 Sep 18, 2020
Subpart D—Effect of Competitive
Status on Position
2. Amend § 212.401 by revising
paragraph (b) to read as follows:
■
§ 212.401 Effect of competitive status on
the position.
*
E.O. 13132, Federalism
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 1302, 3301, 3302; E.O.
10577, 3 CFR, 1954–1958 Comp., p. 218; E.O.
13843, 83 FR 32755; 5 CFR part 6.
Jkt 250001
*
*
*
*
(b) An employee in the competitive
service at the time the employee’s
position is first listed under Schedule A,
B, C, or E remains in the competitive
service while the employee occupies
that position.
PART 213—EXCEPTED SERVICE
3. Revise the authority citation for part
213 to read as follows:
■
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 3161, 3301 and 3302;
E.O. 10577, 3 CFR 1954–1958 Comp., p. 218;
E.O. 13562, 3 CFR, 2010 Comp., p. 291; E.O.
13843, 83 FR 32755; 5 CFR part 6; Sec.
213.101 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 2103. Sec.
213.3102 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 3301,
3302, 3307, 8337(h), and 8456; E.O. 13318, 3
CFR 1982 Comp., p. 185; 38 U.S.C. 4301 et
seq.; Pub. L. 105–339, 112 Stat 3182–83; E.O.
13162; E.O. 12125, 3 CFR 1979 Comp., p.
16879; and E.O. 13124, 3 CFR 1999 Comp.,
p. 31103; and Presidential Memorandum—
Improving the Federal Recruitment and
Hiring Process (May 11, 2010).
Subpart A—General Provisions
4. Amend § 213.102 by revising the
heading and paragraph (b)(3)(i) to read
as follows:
■
§ 213.102 Identification of Schedule A, B,
C, D, or E.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(3)(i) Upon determining that any
position or group of positions, as
defined in § 302.101(c), should be
excepted indefinitely or temporarily
from the competitive service, the Office
of Personnel Management will authorize
placement of the position or group of
positions into Schedule A, B, C, D, or
E, as applicable. Unless otherwise
specified in a particular appointing
authority, an agency may make
Schedule A, B, C, or, D appointments on
either a permanent or nonpermanent
basis, with any appropriate work
schedule (i.e., full-time, part-time,
seasonal, on-call, or intermittent). An
agency must make Schedule E
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
59213
appointments on a permanent basis, in
accordance with part 930.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 5. Amend § 213.103 by revising the
heading and paragraph (a) to read as
follows:
§ 213.103 Publication of excepted
appointing authorities in Schedules A, B, C,
D, and E.
(a) Schedule A, B, C, D, and E
appointing authorities available for use
by all agencies will be published as
regulations in the Federal Register and
the Code of Federal Regulations.
*
*
*
*
*
Subpart C—Excepted Schedules
6. At the end of subpart C, add
undesignated heading and § 213.3501 to
read as follows:
■
Schedule E
§ 213.3501 Positions of administrative law
judge appointed under 5 U.S.C. 3105.
Agency heads may make
appointments under this section to
positions of administrative law judge
appointed under 5 U.S.C. 3105.
Conditions of good administration
warrant that the position of
administrative law judge be placed in
the excepted service. Positions filled
under this authority are excepted from
the competitive service and constitute
Schedule E. All appointments of
administrative law judges made on or
after July 10, 2018 must be made under
Schedule E in accordance with the
provisions of subpart B of part 930 of
this chapter.
PART 302—EMPLOYMENT IN THE
EXCEPTED SERVICE
7. Revise the authority citation for part
302 to read as follows:
■
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 1302, 3301, 3302, 3317,
3318, 3320, 8151, E.O. 10577 (3 CFR 1954–
1958 Comp., p. 218); E.O. 13843, 83 FR
32755; 5 CFR part 6; § 302.105 also issued
under 5 U.S.C. 1104, Pub. L. 95–454, sec.
3(5); § 302.501 also issued under 5 U.S.C.
7701 et seq.
Subpart A—General Provisions
8. Amend § 302.101 by adding
paragraph (c)(12) to read as follows:
■
§ 302.101 Positions covered by
regulations.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) * * *
(12) Administrative law judge
positions filled through appointment
under 5 U.S.C. 3105 after July 9, 2018.
E:\FR\FM\21SEP1.SGM
21SEP1
59214
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 183 / Monday, September 21, 2020 / Proposed Rules
PART 930—PROGRAMS FOR
SPECIFIC POSITIONS AND
EXAMINATIONS (MISCELLANEOUS)
Subpart B—Administrative Law Judge
Program
9. Revise the authority citation for part
930, subpart B to read as follows:
■
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 1103(a)(5)(A), 1305,
3105, 3301, 3304, 3323(b), 3344, 3502,
4301(2)(D), 4305, 5372, 7521; E.O. 10577, 3
CFR, 1954–1958 Comp., p. 219; E.O. 13843,
83 FR 32755; 5 CFR parts 2, 5, 6.
10. Revise § 930.201 to read as
follows:
■
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
§ 930.201
Coverage.
(a) This subpart applies to individuals
appointed under 5 U.S.C. 3105 as
administrative law judges for
proceedings required to be conducted in
accordance with 5 U.S.C. 556 and 557.
This subpart applies to administrative
law judge positions in both the
competitive and excepted services
unless otherwise stated.
(b) On or after July 10, 2018,
appointments of individuals to
administrative law judge are made
under Schedule E of the excepted
service in § 213.3501 of this chapter.
(c) Individuals appointed to
administrative law judge positions prior
to July 10, 2018, remain in the
competitive service as long as they
remain in their positions, including
when they are subject to actions within
their agencies that do not result in a
new appointment (including details,
assignments, reassignments, pay
adjustments, and promotions under this
subchapter). No new appointments of
administrative law judges to the
competitive service may be made after
July 9, 2018. Except as otherwise stated
in this subpart, the rules and regulations
applicable to positions in the
competitive service apply to
competitive service administrative law
judge positions.
(d) The title ‘‘administrative law
judge’’ is the official title for an
administrative law judge position in
both the competitive and excepted
services. Each agency must use only this
title for personnel, budget, and fiscal
purposes.
(e) OPM does not hire administrative
law judges for other agencies, but has
the authority to:
(1) Assure that decisions concerning
the appointment, pay, and tenure of
administrative law judges in the
competitive and excepted services are
consistent with applicable laws and
regulations;
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:55 Sep 18, 2020
Jkt 250001
(2) Establish classification standards
and approve classification of
administrative law judge positions;
(3) Approve noncompetitive
personnel actions for administrative law
judges, including but not limited to
promotions, restorations, and
reassignments;
(4) Approve personnel actions related
to pay for administrative law judges
under § 930.205(c), (f)(2), (g), and (j);
(5) Approve an intra-agency detail, or
an assignment of an administrative law
judge to a non-administrative law judge
position that lasts more than 120 days
or when an administrative law judge
cumulates a total of more than 120 days
for more than one detail or assignment
within the preceding 12 months;
(6) Arrange the temporary detail
(loan) of an administrative law judge
from one agency to another under the
provisions of the administrative law
judge loan program in § 930.208;
(7) Arrange temporary reemployment
of retired administrative law judges to
meet changing agency workloads under
the provisions of the Senior
Administrative Law Judge Program in
§ 930.209;
(8) Promulgate regulations for
purposes of sections 3105, 3344,
4301(2)(D) and 5372 of title 5, U.S.C.;
and
(9) Ensure the qualified independence
of the administrative law judge, and to
faithfully administer the structural
protections designed to ensure the
impartiality of the administrative law
judge.
(f) An agency employing
administrative law judges under 5
U.S.C. 3105 has:
(1) The authority to appoint as many
administrative law judges as necessary
for proceedings conducted under 5
U.S.C. 556 and 557;
(2) The authority to assign an
administrative law judge to cases in
rotation so far as is practicable;
(3) The responsibility to confirm that
at the time of appointment
administrative law judges meet the
minimum qualification and licensure
requirement under § 930.204(b) and any
agency-specific requirements identified
by the agency under § 930.204(c);
(4) The responsibility to establish and
maintain an ALJ priority referral
program under § 930.210(c);
(5) The responsibility to ensure the
qualified independence of the
administrative law judge, and to
faithfully administer the structural
protections designed to ensure the
impartiality of the administrative law
judge; and
(6) The responsibility to obtain OPM’s
approval before taking any of the
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
personnel actions described in
paragraphs (e)(3) through (7) of this
section.
§ 930.203
[Removed and Reserved]
11. Remove and reserve § 930.203:
12. Revise § 930.204 to read as
follows:
■
■
§ 930.204 Appointments and conditions of
employment.
(a) Appointment. Administrative law
judges are appointed on a permanent
full-time basis with the exception of
appointments to the Senior
Administrative Law Judge Program
under § 930.209.
(1) Excepted service. (i) On and after
July 10, 2018, an agency head may
appoint an individual to an
administrative law judge position made
under Schedule E in § 213.3501 of this
chapter.
(ii) An excepted service appointment
as an administrative law judge is made
in accordance with such regulations and
practices as the head of the agency
concerned finds necessary, provided
that the appointee must meet the
licensure, qualification, and vetting
requirements described in paragraphs
(b) through (d) of this section.
(iii) An excepted service appointment
as an administrative law judge is not
subject to a trial period.
(2) Competitive service. (i)
Administrative law judges appointed
prior to July 10, 2018, are employees in
the competitive service and remain in
the competitive service under the
conditions described in § 930.201(c).
(ii) An administrative law judge in the
competitive service who received a
career appointment is exempt from the
probationary period requirements under
part 315 of this chapter.
(iii) A competitive service
appointment as an administrative law
judge is subject to the licensure,
qualification, and vetting requirements
described in paragraphs (b) through (d)
of this section.
(iv) An administrative law judge
serving in the competitive service who
is appointed by another agency as an
administrative law judge on or after July
10, 2018, or who separates from service
and is reappointed as an administrative
law judge on or after July 10, 2018, shall
be appointed in the excepted service.
(b) Licensure requirements. At the
time of appointment as an
administrative law judge, the
individual, other than an incumbent
administrative law judge, must possess
a professional license to practice law
and be authorized to practice law under
the laws of a State, the District of
Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto
E:\FR\FM\21SEP1.SGM
21SEP1
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 183 / Monday, September 21, 2020 / Proposed Rules
Rico, or any territorial court established
under the United States Constitution.
Judicial status is acceptable in lieu of
‘‘active’’ status in States that prohibit
sitting judges from maintaining ‘‘active’’
status to practice law. Being in ‘‘good
standing’’ is also acceptable in lieu of
‘‘active’’ status in States where the
licensing authority considers ‘‘good
standing’’ as having a current license to
practice law.
(c) Qualification requirements. (1) At
the time of a competitive service
appointment of an administrative law
judge, the individual must meet
qualification standards prescribed by
OPM under Civil Service Rule II (as
codified in § 2.1 of this chapter).
(2) At the time of an excepted service
appointment as an administrative law
judge, the individual must meet
additional requirements for
appointment, as appropriate, prescribed
by the appointing agency under Civil
Service Rule VI (as codified in § 6.3 of
this chapter). Any such agency-specific
requirements must be provided to
potential applicants.
(d) Vetting requirements. (1)
Applicants and appointees for the
position of administrative law judge,
and incumbent administrative law
judges, are subject to the applicable
personnel vetting standards and
guidelines prescribed for employment
in the Executive branch, including for:
(i) Eligibility for access to classified
information or employment in a
sensitive position, under Executive
Orders 12968 and 13467, as amended,
as implemented through standards and
guidelines prescribed by the Office of
the Director of National Intelligence;
(ii) Suitability for employment in the
competitive service under executive
orders 13467 and 13488, as amended,
Civil Service Rules II and V (as codified
in §§ 2.1 and 5.2 of this chapter), and
part 731 of this chapter;
(iii) Fitness for employment in the
excepted service under Executive
Orders 13467 and 13488, as amended,
and Civil Service Rules II, V, and VI (as
codified in §§ 2.1, 5.2, and 6.3 of this
chapter); and
(iv) Eligibility for a personal identity
verification credential under Executive
Order 13467, as amended, as
implemented through standards and
guidelines prescribed by OPM.
(2) An adverse action against an
administrative law judge based on an
unfavorable vetting determination must
follow the procedures in § 930.211(a),
unless one of the exceptions in
§ 930.211(c) applies.
(e) Appointment of incumbents of
newly classified administrative law
judge positions. An agency head may
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:55 Sep 18, 2020
Jkt 250001
appoint an incumbent employee to an
administrative law judge position under
Schedule E authority at § 213.3501 of
this chapter if:
(1) The employee is serving in the
position when it is classified as an
administrative law judge position on the
basis of legislation, Executive Order, or
a decision of a court; and
(2) The agency determines the
employee meets the licensure
requirement in paragraph (b) of this
section and any agency-specific
requirements established under
paragraph (c)(2) of this section.
(f) Appointment of an employee from
a non-administrative law judge position.
An agency head may appoint an
employee who is serving in a position
other than an administrative law judge
position to an administrative law judge
position under Schedule E of the
excepted service at § 213.3501 of this
chapter if that employee meets the
licensure requirement in paragraph (b)
of this section and any agency-specific
requirements established under
paragraph (c)(2) of this section.
(g) Promotion to a higher level. (1)
Except as otherwise stated in this
paragraph, 5 CFR part 335 applies in the
promotion of administrative law judges
in the competitive service.
(2) An agency may promote an
administrative law judge in the
excepted service according to the
agency’s excepted service policies on
promotion, subject to the administrative
law judge pay provisions at § 930.205.
(3) An agency must give its
administrative law judges, whether in
the competitive or excepted service, the
opportunity to be considered for
promotion to a higher level when it
seeks candidates from outside the
agency for the higher-level position.
(4) The agency’s request for OPM to
approve the action under § 930.201(e)(3)
must document that the agency head
approved the promotion.
(h) Reclassification. To reclassify an
administrative law judge position at a
higher level, the agency must submit a
request to OPM. If OPM approves the
higher level classification, OPM will
direct the promotion of the
administrative law judge occupying the
position prior to the reclassification.
(i) Reassignment. (1) The agency’s
request for OPM to approve the action
under § 930.201(e)(3) must document a
bona fide management reason for the
reassignment.
(2) Where a reassignment would
involve a significant position change,
such as reassignment to a different
bureau within the same department, or
a reassignment to perform a
significantly different kind of work, the
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
59215
agency’s request for OPM to approve the
action under § 930.201(e)(3) must
document that the agency head
approved the reassignment.
(j) Appointment of a former
administrative law judge. An agency
head may appoint a former
administrative law judge under
excepted service Schedule E authority at
§ 213.3501 of this chapter who was
originally appointed pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 3105 and who meets the
licensure requirement in paragraph (b)
of this section and any agency-specific
requirements established under
paragraph (c)(2) of this section.
(k) Movement between agencies. (1)
An agency head may appoint under
excepted service Schedule E authority at
§ 213.3501 of this chapter an
administrative law judge employed by
another agency, subject to the
administrative law judge pay provisions
at § 930.205, who meets any agencyspecific requirements established under
paragraph (c)(2) of this section.
Incumbent administrative law judges
are not subject to the licensure
requirement in paragraph (b) of this
section when moving to another agency.
(2) When an administrative law judge
serving in a competitive service position
is selected for an excepted appointment
at another agency, the hiring agency
must:
(i) Inform the employee that, because
the position is in the excepted service,
it may not be filled by a competitive
service appointment, and that
acceptance of the proposed appointment
will take him/her out of the competitive
service; and
(ii) Obtain from the employee a
written statement that he/she
understands he/she is leaving the
competitive service voluntarily to
accept an appointment in the excepted
service.
(l) Recruitment. Agencies must recruit
and announce vacancies for
administrative law judge positions in a
manner to attract a sufficient pool of
qualified applicants, consistent with the
merit system principles.
(m) Conformity. Agency actions under
this section must be consistent with
§ 930.201(f).
■ 13. Amend § 930.205 by adding a
sentence to the beginning of paragraph
(a), and by revising paragraphs (b) and
(f)(2) to read as follows:
§ 930.205
system.
Administrative law judge pay
(a) The administrative law judge pay
system, administered by OPM, applies
to both competitive service and
excepted service administrative law
judges. * * *
E:\FR\FM\21SEP1.SGM
21SEP1
59216
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 183 / Monday, September 21, 2020 / Proposed Rules
(b) Pay level AL–3 is the basic pay
level for administrative law judge
positions filled at the entry level in the
competitive and excepted services.
*
*
*
*
*
(f) * * *
(2) With prior OPM approval, an
agency may pay the rate of pay that is
next above the applicant’s existing pay
or earnings up to the maximum rate F.
The agency may offer a higher than
minimum rate to:
(i) An administrative law judge
applicant with superior qualifications
(as defined in § 930.202) who meets the
licensure requirement in § 930.204(b)
and any agency-specific requirements
established under § 930.204(c)(2); or
(ii) A former administrative law judge
with superior qualifications who is
eligible for appointment under Schedule
E and meets the licensure requirement
in § 930.204(b) and any agency-specific
requirements established under
§ 930.204(c)(2).
*
*
*
*
*
■ 14. Revise § 930.206 to read as
follows:
§ 930.206 Performance rating, awards, and
incentives.
(a) An agency may not rate the job
performance of an administrative law
judge in the competitive or excepted
service.
(b) An agency may not grant any
monetary or honorary award, incentive,
or similar payment under 5 U.S.C. 4502,
4503, 4504, 4505, 4505a, 5379, 5753, or
5754, or under any other similar
authority to an administrative law judge
in the competitive or excepted service.
■ 15. In § 930.207, revise paragraph (a)
to read as follows:
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
§ 930.207 Details and assignments to
other duties within the same agency.
(a) An agency may detail an
administrative law judge from one
administrative law judge position to
another administrative law judge
position within the same agency in
accordance with 5 U.S.C. 3341. All
details that will last more than 120 days,
and details exceeding more than a total
of 120 days in a 12-month period,
require OPM approval regardless of
whether the administrative law judges
are in the competitive or excepted
service.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 16. In § 930.208, revise paragraph (a)
and add paragraphs (e) and (f) to read
as follows:
§ 930.208 Administrative Law Judge Loan
Program—detail to other agencies.
(a) In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 3344,
OPM administers an Administrative
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:55 Sep 18, 2020
Jkt 250001
Law Judge Loan Program that
coordinates the loan/detail of an
administrative law judge whether in the
competitive or excepted service from
one agency to another. An agency may
request from OPM the services of an
administrative law judge if the agency is
occasionally or temporarily
insufficiently staffed with
administrative law judges, or an agency
may loan the services of its
administrative law judges to other
agencies if there is insufficient work to
fully occupy the administrative law
judges’ work schedule.
*
*
*
*
*
(e) The department or agency that
employs the administrative law judge to
be loaned must furnish OPM with
documentation that the administrative
law judge’s appointment was originally
made, approved, or later ratified, by the
head of the employing agency.
(f) Upon accepting the services of a
loaned administrative law judge, the
department or agency must, as soon as
practicable, furnish OPM with
documentation that the head of the
receiving agency has made, approved, or
ratified, the loan of the administrative
law judge.
■ 17. Amend § 930.209 by revising
paragraphs (b)(2), (c), (d)(3) and (4), and
adding paragraphs (d)(5) and (h) to read
as follows:
§ 930.209 Senior Administrative Law
Judge Program.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(2) The licensure, qualification, and
vetting requirements prescribed under
§ 930.204(b) through (d); and
*
*
*
*
*
(c) Under the Senior Administrative
Law Judge Program, OPM authorizes
agencies that have temporary, irregular
workload requirements for conducting
proceedings in accordance with 5 U.S.C.
556 and 557 to temporarily reemploy
administrative law judge annuitants
under Schedule E, § 213.3501, of this
chapter. If OPM is unable to identify an
administrative law judge under
§ 930.208 who meets the agency’s
qualification requirements, OPM will
approve the agency’s request.
(d) * * *
(3) Specify the tour of duty, location,
period of time, or particular cases(s) for
the requested reemployment;
(4) Describe any special qualifications
the retired administrative law judge
possesses that are required of the
position, such as experience in a
particular field, agency, or substantive
area of law; and
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
(5) Document that the appointment
will be made or approved by the agency
head.
*
*
*
*
*
(h) Senior administrative law judges
appointed prior to July 10, 2018, remain
in the competitive service for the
duration of their appointment,
including any extension periods
authorized by OPM.
■ 18. Amend § 930.210 by revising
paragraphs (a) and (c) to read as follows:
§ 930.210
Reduction in force.
(a) Retention preference regulations.
Except as modified by this section, the
reduction in force regulations in part
351 of this chapter apply to
administrative law judges in the
competitive and excepted services.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) Placement assistance. (1) An
administrative law judge in the
competitive service who is reached in
an agency’s reduction in force and
receives a notification of separation or is
furloughed for more than 30 days is
eligible for placement assistance for any
position in the competitive service to
which qualified under the agency’s
reemployment priority list (RPL)
established and maintained in
accordance with subpart B of part 330
of this chapter, as well as the agency’s
administrative law judge priority
reemployment list established under
paragraph (c)(3) of this section.
(2) An administrative law judge in the
excepted service who is reached in an
agency’s reduction in force and receives
a notification of separation or is
furloughed for more than 30 days is
eligible for placement assistance under
the agency’s administrative law judge
priority reemployment list established
and maintained in accordance with
paragraph (c)(3) of this section.
(3) An agency must establish an
administrative law judge priority
reemployment list whenever an
administrative law judge, in the
competitive or excepted service, has
been furloughed for more than 30 days
or separated from a continuing
appointment without delinquency or
misconduct, and applies for
reemployment.
(i) Candidates are entered on the
priority reemployment list in the
geographic areas where they were
separated unless the agency elects to
provide broader consideration.
(ii) Candidates remain on the list for
two (2) years unless the agency elects to
provide a longer period of eligibility.
(iii) Termination of eligibility on the
agency’s priority reemployment list
takes place when an administrative law
E:\FR\FM\21SEP1.SGM
21SEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 183 / Monday, September 21, 2020 / Proposed Rules
judge submits a written request to
terminate eligibility, accepts a
permanent full-time administrative law
judge position, or declines one full-time
employment offer as an administrative
law judge at or above the level held
when reached for reduction in force at
the geographic location where he or she
was separated unless the agency elects
to provide broader consideration.
(4) An agency must consider
administrative law judges on its priority
reemployment list before it may use
other selection methods, except as
described in this paragraph (c)(4). When
a qualified administrative law judge is
available on the priority reemployment
list, the agency may appoint an
individual who is not on the priority
reemployment list, or who has lower
standing on that list, only when the
agency can demonstrate that the
individual possesses experience and
qualifications superior to any other
available displaced administrative law
judge on the agency’s priority
reemployment list.
(5) A former administrative law judge
selected from the priority reemployment
list is appointed under Schedule E in
the excepted service regardless of
whether the administrative law judge
served previously in the competitive
service.
■ 19. Amend § 930.211 by revising
paragraphs (b)(4) and (c) as follows:
§ 930.211 Actions against administrative
law judges.
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
*
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(4) If the alternatives in paragraphs
(b)(1) through (3) of this section are not
available, the agency may consider
placing the administrative law judge in
administrative leave, or, when
regulations implementing the
Administrative Leave Act of 2016,
section 1138 of Public Law 114–328,
have been finalized and become
effective, in notice leave, investigative
leave, or administrative leave status, as
appropriate.
(c) Exceptions from procedures. The
procedures in paragraphs (a) and (b) of
this section do not apply:
(1) In making dismissals or other
actions made by agencies in the interest
of national security under 5 U.S.C. 7532;
(2) To reduction in force actions taken
by agencies under 5 U.S.C. 3502; or
(3) In any action initiated by the
Office of Special Counsel under 5 U.S.C.
1215.
[FR Doc. 2020–17684 Filed 9–18–20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6325–39–P
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:55 Sep 18, 2020
Jkt 250001
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. FAA–2020–0847; Product
Identifier 2018–SW–087–AD]
RIN 2120–AA64
Airworthiness Directives; Airbus
Helicopters
Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM).
AGENCY:
The FAA proposes to adopt a
new airworthiness directive (AD) for all
Airbus Helicopters Model AS350B,
AS350BA, AS350B1, AS350B2,
AS350B3, and AS350D helicopters;
Model AS355E, AS355F, AS355F1,
AS355F2, AS355N, and AS355NP
helicopters; and Model EC130 B4 and
EC130 T2 helicopters. This proposed
AD was prompted by a report of a
missing retaining ring of the inner race
of the main rotor mast (MRM) upper
bearing. This proposed AD would
require a one-time inspection to verify
the presence and correct installation of
the MRM upper bearing retaining rings,
a repetitive inspection of the sealant
bead on the MRM for damage, and
corrective actions if necessary. The FAA
is proposing this AD to address the
unsafe condition on these products.
DATES: The FAA must receive comments
on this proposed AD by November 5,
2020.
SUMMARY:
You may send comments,
using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following
methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to
https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
• Fax: 202–493–2251.
• Mail: U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M–
30, West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Washington, DC 20590.
• Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail
address above between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays.
For service information identified in
this NPRM, contact Airbus Helicopters,
2701 N Forum Drive, Grand Prairie, TX
75052; telephone 972–641–0000 or 800–
232–0323; fax 972–641–3775; or at
https://www.airbus.com/helicopters/
services/technical-support.html. You
may view this service information at the
FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel,
Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood
ADDRESSES:
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
59217
Pkwy., Room 6N–321, Fort Worth, TX
76177.
Examining the AD Docket
You may examine the AD docket on
the internet at https://
www.regulations.gov by searching for
and locating Docket No. FAA–2020–
0847; or in person at Docket Operations
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
The AD docket contains this NPRM, the
Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness
Information (MCAI), any comments
received, and other information. The
street address for Docket Operations is
listed above. Comments will be
available in the AD docket shortly after
receipt.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Scott Franke, Aviation Safety Engineer,
International Validation Branch,
General Aviation & Rotorcraft Unit,
FAA, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Fort
Worth, TX 76177; telephone 817–222–
5110; email scott.franke@faa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Comments Invited
The FAA invites you to send any
written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send
your comments to an address listed
under the ADDRESSES section. Include
‘‘Docket No. FAA–2020–0847; Product
Identifier 2018–SW–087–AD’’ at the
beginning of your comments. The most
helpful comments reference a specific
portion of the proposal, explain the
reason for any recommended change,
and include supporting data. The FAA
will consider all comments received by
the closing date and may amend this
NPRM because of those comments.
Except for Confidential Business
Information (CBI) as described in the
following paragraph, and other
information as described in 14 CFR
11.35, the FAA will post all comments
received, without change, to https://
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information you provide. The
FAA will also post a report
summarizing each substantive verbal
contact received about this NPRM.
Confidential Business Information
CBI is commercial or financial
information that is both customarily and
actually treated as private by its owner.
Under the Freedom of Information Act
(FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt
from public disclosure. If your
comments responsive to this NPRM
contain commercial or financial
information that is customarily treated
as private, that you actually treat as
private, and that is relevant or
responsive to this NPRM, it is important
E:\FR\FM\21SEP1.SGM
21SEP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 183 (Monday, September 21, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 59207-59217]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-17684]
========================================================================
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. 85, No. 183 / Monday, September 21, 2020 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 59207]]
OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT
5 CFR Parts 212, 213, 302, and 930
RIN 3206-AN72
Administrative Law Judges
AGENCY: Office of Personnel Management.
ACTION: Proposed rule with request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) is issuing proposed
regulations governing the appointment and employment of administrative
law judges (ALJs). The proposed rule will implement Executive Order
(E.O.) 13843 titled ``Excepting Administrative Law Judges from the
Competitive Service.'' These proposed revisions update the rules for
ALJ hiring in light of the new Schedule E of the excepted service for
ALJs and update the existing ALJ employment regulations to reflect
other recent changes in the law.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before November 20, 2020.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by document number and/
or Regulation Identification Number (RIN) ``3206-AN72'' and title using
any of the following methods:
Federal Rulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments. All submissions received through
the Portal must include the agency name and docket number or RIN for
this rulemaking.
Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name
and docket number or Regulatory Information Number (RIN) for this
rulemaking. All comments received will be posted without change to
regulations.gov, including any personal information provided.
Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to regulations.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Roseanna Ciarlante by telephone at
(267) 392-8640 or Katika Floyd by telephone at (202) 606-0960; by email
at [email protected]; by fax at (202) 606-4430; or by TTY at (202) 418-
3134.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background and Authority for this Rulemaking
ALJs serve as independent impartial triers of fact in formal
proceedings requiring a decision on the record after the opportunity
for a hearing. In general, ALJs prepare for and preside at formal
proceedings required by statute to be held under or in accordance with
provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), codified, in
relevant part, in sections 553 through 559 of title 5, United States
Code (U.S.C.). ALJs rule on preliminary motions, conduct pre-hearing
conferences, issue subpoenas, conduct hearings (which may include
written and/or oral testimony and cross-examination), review briefs,
and prepare and issue decisions, along with written findings of fact
and conclusions of law.
The Federal Government employs ALJs in a number of agencies
throughout the United States. Previously, appointments to the position
of ALJ have been made through competitive examination and competitive
service selection procedures.\1\ As recognized by the Supreme Court in
Lucia v. Securities and Exchange Commission, 138 S. Ct. 2044 (2018) at
least some ALJs are ``inferior Officers'' of the United States and thus
subject to the Constitution's Appointments Clause, which governs who
may appoint such officials. In accordance with the Constitution, in
such instances, Congress has vested the appointment of ALJs in the
heads of departments or agencies. Although such department or agency
head may rely on agency human resource officials or other staff to
assess applications, conduct interviews, and the like, the final
appointment must be made or approved by the department or agency head;
this authority cannot be delegated. On July 10, 2018, the President
signed Executive Order (E.O.) 13843 titled, ``Excepting Administrative
Law Judges from the Competitive Service'' (83 FR 32755). E.O. 13843
states ``that conditions of good administration make necessary an
exception to the competitive hiring rules and examinations for the
position of ALJ. These conditions include the need to provide agency
heads with additional flexibility to assess prospective appointees
without the limitations imposed by competitive examination and
competitive service selection procedures.'' Section 2 of the Executive
Order specifies that all appointments of administrative law judges made
on or after July 10, 2018 must be made under Schedule E of the excepted
service.\2\ Section 3(a) of the Executive Order amended Civil Service
Rule VI to shift new hiring of ALJs from the competitive to the
excepted service.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ In the competitive service, individuals must go through a
competitive process (i.e., competitive examining) which is open to
all applicants. This process may consist of a written test, an
evaluation of the individual's education and experience, and/or an
evaluation of other attributes necessary for successful performance
in the position to be filled. See e.g., 5 U.S.C. 2102 and 3304; 5
CFR 2.1(a) and 300.102.
\2\ Excepted service positions in the Executive Branch of the
Federal Government are positions that are specifically excepted from
the competitive service by or pursuant to statute, by the President,
or by the Office of Personnel Management, and are not in the Senior
Executive Service. See 5 U.S.C. 2103.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 3(b) of the Executive Order directed OPM to issue
transitional guidance, and OPM issued explanatory guidance on the E.O.
on July 10, 2018. See OPM Memorandum to Heads of Departments and
Agencies, Executive Order--Excepting Administrative Law Judges from the
Competitive Service, available at https://chcoc.gov/transmittals. OPM
later issued more specific guidance to agencies on the ALJ loan program
(August 1, 2018), on promotions and reassignments of ALJs (August 27,
2018), and on the termination of the ALJ register and discontinuance of
the ALJ examination (Sept. 20, 2018). OPM published a Fact Sheet:
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Positions on August 19, 2019, available
at https://www.opm.gov/services-for-agencies/administrative-law-judges/fact-sheet-administrative-law-judge-alj-positions-posted.pdf.
Section 3(b) of the Executive Order also directed OPM to ``adopt
such regulations as the Director determines may be necessary to
implement this order, including, as appropriate, amendments to or
rescissions of regulations that are inconsistent with, or that would
impede the implementation of, this order, giving particular attention
[[Page 59208]]
to 5 CFR part 212, subpart D; 5 CFR part 213, subparts A and C; 5 CFR
302.101; and 5 CFR part 930, subpart B.'' OPM is proposing rules for
the newly created Schedule E hiring of ALJs. The proposed regulations
make several significant changes to the recruitment, appointment, and
movement of ALJs based on E.O. 13843 and formalize OPM's prior
explanatory guidance. As described in detail below, OPM is also
proposing other changes to comply with other recent changes in the law.
OPM is proposing these regulations pursuant to this instruction,
the Civil Service Rules, and OPM's own statutory authority to regulate
the ALJ program, which includes, inter alia, sections 1103(a)(5)(A),
1305, 3323(b)(2), and 5372(c) of title 5, U.S.C.
Summary of the Proposed Changes
Removal of References to the Competitive Examination
In light of the Executive Order, OPM terminated the ALJ competitive
service register, its centralized list of eligible ALJ applicants, as
the Executive Order ended the need for competitive examination, rating
and ranking, and selection from competitive certificates of eligibles
issued by OPM. Therefore, OPM proposes to remove references to the ALJ
competitive examination throughout subpart B of 5 CFR part 930.
In particular, the text of the current regulations recites that
ALJs are appointed in the competitive service and that OPM is
responsible for examining ALJ candidates and producing registers of
qualified ALJ applicants from which agencies make selections in
accordance with the provisions of subpart B of 5 CFR part 930. The
proposed rule aligns the text of OPM's regulations to the changes the
President effected through E.O. 13843. The proposed rule changes
reflect that OPM will no longer conduct recruitment and competitive
examinations of ALJ candidates for employment in Federal agencies, and
that agencies will no longer select ALJ candidates from competitive
certificates of eligibles issued by OPM.
Excepted Appointments of ALJs
As noted above, the proposed rule removes references to
appointments in the competitive service. Instead, the proposed rule,
conforming to E.O. 13843, recites that any ALJ selected (with the
application of veterans' preference as far as administratively
feasible) on or after July 10, 2018, must be appointed by the head of
the hiring agency \3\ and placed in an ALJ position in the excepted
service. Consistent with Civil Service Rule VI, as amended by section
3(a) of the E.O., the proposed rule creates a new Schedule E in the
excepted service specific to ALJs, except that an individual
encumbering an ALJ position in the competitive service on July 10,
2018, shall remain in the competitive service while he or she remains
in the position (and will continue to be subject to the same conditions
pertaining to appointment in the competitive service).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Generally, under Free Enter. Fund v. PCAOB, 561 U.S. 477,
512-13 (2010), the ``agency head'' of a multi-member board,
commission, or authority is the full body acting collectively, not
its chair or a single member. Agencies with questions should seek
the advice of the Department of Justice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recruitment
OPM's current regulations do not address requirements for job
opportunity announcements for ALJs, because the requirements for job
opportunity announcements for competitive service positions generally
are set forth in 5 U.S.C. 3330 and in 5 CFR part 330, subpart A. OPM's
August 17, 2019 transitional guidance explains that although the
excepted service has no requirement to post a USAJOBS announcement or
to follow the job posting requirements for competitive service
positions, the merit system principles (5 U.S.C. 2301) apply to
excepted service recruiting. Accordingly, agencies should tell
potential applicants about ALJ vacancies, recruit in a manner to
attract a sufficient pool of qualified applicants, and recruit in a
manner that allows all qualified and eligible employees to apply for
higher-level positions.
OPM proposes to codify this guidance in the regulations. We note
that this is consistent with E.O. 11478 of August 8, 1969, as amended,
Equal Opportunity in the Federal Government, 42 U.S.C. 2000e note and
similar to Administrative Conference Recommendation 2019-2, Agency
Recruitment and Selection of Administrative Law Judges (para. 1), 84 FR
38927, 38930-31 (Aug. 8, 2019).
Movement Between Agencies or Appointment After a Period of Separation
OPM is proposing through this rule that an ALJ serving in the
competitive service who accepts a new ALJ appointment at another agency
on or after July 10, 2018, moves from the competitive service to an ALJ
position under Schedule E of the excepted service, instead of
transferring to another competitive service position. Likewise, a
former ALJ who held a position in the competitive service prior to
separation cannot be reinstated to an ALJ position in the competitive
service, and must be given a new excepted appointment. The proposed
rule recognizes that transfer and reinstatement are no longer available
for ALJ appointments because these actions are exclusively competitive
service appointment methods and accordingly, are no longer available
for ALJ appointments.
Qualifications of ALJs in the Excepted Service
Section 1 of the E.O. states that excepting the position of ALJ
from the competitive service ``will give agencies greater discretion to
assess critical qualities in ALJ candidates, such as work ethic,
judgment, and ability to meet the particular needs of the agency,'' and
to conduct assessments ``without proceeding through complicated and
elaborate examination processes and rating procedures that do not
necessarily reflect the agency's particular needs.''
Under the proposed rule, the heads of agencies, not OPM, are
authorized to assess prospective appointees for ALJ positions in their
respective agencies without consideration of the competitive hiring
rules and examination process. This provides agency heads with greater
flexibility to assess critical qualities in ALJ applicants and
determine whether an ALJ applicant meets the particular needs of the
hiring agency. Appointments of ALJs are made pursuant to Schedule E of
the excepted service, but are not subject to the provisions of OPM's
regulations in 5 CFR part 302 governing appointments in the excepted
service, including examination and rating requirements. However, an
agency head must apply the principle of veterans' preference ``as far
as administratively feasible'' when filling ALJ positions.
Civil Service Rule VI, as amended by section 3(a) of the E.O.,
adopts, as a ``minimum standard of appointment to the position of
administrative law judge,'' the bar licensure requirement that OPM
previously prescribed through regulation in 5 CFR 930.204(b), and
permits ``additional agency requirements'' for qualifications ``where
appropriate.'' This means the minimum qualification and licensure
requirement for an ALJ position is the possession of a professional
license to practice law and being authorized to practice law under the
laws of a State, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto
Rico, or any territorial court established
[[Page 59209]]
under the United States Constitution at the time of selection and any
new appointment (other than of an incumbent ALJ to another ALJ
position). Judicial status is acceptable in lieu of ``active'' status
in States that prohibit sitting judges from maintaining ``active''
status to practice law, and being in ``good standing'' also is
acceptable in lieu of ``active'' status in States where the licensing
authority considers ``good standing'' as having a current license to
practice law.
The proposed rule therefore continues only the existing bar
licensure requirement as the minimum standard for appointment and
explains that agency heads may prescribe additional requirements as
appropriate.
Effect of a Promotion or Reassignment
E.O. 13843 provides that ``[a]ppointments of ALJs shall be made
under Schedule E of the excepted service,'' but that ``[i]ncumbents of
this position who are, on July 10, 2018, in the competitive service
shall remain in the competitive service as long as they remain in their
current positions.'' Thus, as long as an ALJ in the competitive service
on July 10, 2018, remains in the position of ALJ, and does not require
a new appointment, he or she remains in the competitive service. Under
generally-applicable regulations, the internal reassignment or
promotion of an officer or employee by his or her agency involves only
a position change, and does not involve a new appointment under civil
service law. 5 CFR 210.102; see also 5 CFR 335.101. This rule also
applies to ALJs as well as employees in other pay systems. See 70 FR
75745, 75746 (Dec. 21, 2005). Therefore, under the proposed rule, and
consistent with OPM's transitional guidance, an ALJ reassigned or
promoted within his or her agency remains in the competitive service,
as long as he or she remains an ALJ. In this circumstance, an agency
must process and record the personnel action as a reassignment or
promotion in the competitive service, not as an appointment in the
excepted service.
However, because some ALJs were deemed to have constitutional
status as inferior officers of the United States under the Supreme
Court's decision in Lucia v. Securities and Exchange Commission, OPM's
transitional guidance instructed agencies that where a promotion or
reassignment would involve a significant position change, such as a
promotion to a position classified at a higher level (AL-1 or AL-2), a
reassignment to a different bureau within the same department, or a
reassignment to perform a significantly different kind of work (e.g., a
change from presiding over ex parte cases to presiding over trials, or
from adjudicating benefits cases to adjudicating regulatory enforcement
cases), the agency's request for OPM to approve the action must
document that the head of the requesting agency approved the promotion
or reassignment. OPM's transitional guidance further instructed that
this documentation is not necessary for routine geographic
reassignments, or for the advancement of an ALJ's rate within pay level
AL-3. This documentation requirement also does not require a change in
the ALJ's status from the competitive service to the excepted service.
The proposed rule formalizes these instructions.
Pay and Position Classification
ALJ pay administration and position classification are governed by
5 U.S.C. 5372, which assigns responsibility to OPM and makes no
distinction between competitive service and excepted service ALJs. The
proposed rule, therefore, makes no distinction between competitive and
excepted service ALJs with respect to OPM's pay administration and
position classification responsibility.
Adverse Actions and Personnel Vetting Requirements
Adverse actions against ALJs are governed by 5 U.S.C. 7521, subject
to regulations issued by the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB)
under 5 U.S.C. 1305. These provisions likewise make no distinction
between competitive service and excepted service ALJs. Therefore, under
the proposed rule, the MSPB procedures prescribed in 5 U.S.C. 7521 and
5 CFR part 1201 will apply to an agency action to remove, suspend,
reduce in level, reduce pay, or furlough for 30 days or less an ALJ in
the competitive or excepted service (i.e., adverse action).
The current regulations provide that appointment as an ALJ is
subject to the competitive service suitability requirements in 5 CFR
part 731. OPM is amending these requirements due to changes in the law
since the provisions were last amended in 2007. First, E.O. 13764 of
January 23, 2017 amended Civil Service Rules II and V, authorizing OPM
to prescribe minimum standards of fitness of character and conduct for
excepted service appointments, and to require such appointments to be
subject to a risk-based position designation and a corresponding
background investigation under OPM-prescribed standards. E.O. 13764
also amended Civil Service Rule VI to make excepted service
appointments ``subject to the suitability and fitness requirements of
the applicable Civil Service Rules and Regulations,'' namely, Civil
Service Rules II and V. (E.O. 13843 subsequently acknowledged that this
requirement applies to ``the position of administrative law judge.'')
Finally, E.O. 13764 amended an earlier executive order, E.O. 13467 of
June 30, 2008, to give the Director of National Intelligence, as the
Security Executive Agent, the authority to prescribe investigative,
adjudicative, and continuous vetting requirements for eligibility for
access to classified information and for employment in a sensitive
position; and to give the Director of OPM, as the Suitability and
Credentialing Executive Agent, the authority to do the same for
suitability, fitness, and eligibility for an identity credential. The
Executive Order assigns this responsibility to ODNI and OPM for both
competitive and excepted service positions, including, inter alia, ALJ
positions. The proposed rule incorporates these changes.
OPM's current regulations state that a removal or other action
against an ALJ on grounds of suitability under part 731 is not subject
to the statutory removal procedure in 5 U.S.C. 7521. OPM is eliminating
this provision. In Archuleta v. Hopper, 786 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2015),
the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled that, where an
employee is covered by the statutory removal procedure in 5 U.S.C.
chapter 75, subchapter II, that procedure governs his or her removal
even if it is on grounds of suitability under the Civil Service Rules
and OPM's regulations in 5 CFR part 731, because (at the time of the
court's decision) the definition of an ``adverse action'' in 5 U.S.C.
7512 did not explicitly exclude a suitability action. Subsequently, in
section 1086 of Public Law 114-92, the National Defense Authorization
Act for FY 2016, Congress amended 5 U.S.C. 7512 to explicitly exclude
an OPM suitability action from the definition of an adverse action in 5
U.S.C. 7512. Accordingly, suitability-based removals of employees who
are covered by subchapter II are not subject to the statutory adverse
action procedures. However, Congress did not make a corresponding
amendment to 5 U.S.C. 7521, defining an ``adverse action'' for purposes
of 5 U.S.C. chapter 75, subchapter III, which covers ALJs. Thus, while
an ALJ may be subject to an unfavorable suitability determination, the
removal action should follow the statutory procedure. The proposed rule
retains references to other exceptions to
[[Page 59210]]
5 U.S.C. 7521 that have been prescribed by statute.
OPM's current regulation describes the use of administrative leave
when an adverse action is pending. The Administrative Leave Act of
2016, section 1138 of Public Law 114-328, established new types of paid
non-duty status in 5 U.S.C. 6389a and 6389b, namely, notice leave and
investigative leave. OPM proposes to update the regulation to reflect
this change. OPM has proposed separate rulemaking to implement the
Administrative Leave Act, at 82 FR 32263 (July 13, 2017).
Performance Ratings, Awards, and Incentives
The regulations in 5 CFR 930.206 currently provide that an agency
may not rate the job performance of an ALJ and may not grant any
monetary or honorary award or incentive under 5 U.S.C. 4502, 4503,
4504, or any other authority, to an ALJ. Sections 1305 and 4305 of
title 5, U.S.C. give OPM the responsibility to regulate the statutory
prohibition on appraising the performance of ALJs--found in 5 U.S.C.
4301(2)(D)--without regard to whether ALJs are in the competitive
service or the excepted service. Accordingly, under the proposed rule,
the prohibition against rating the job performance of an ALJ remains in
effect for ALJs in the competitive and excepted service.
OPM proposes revisions to this section, however, to clarify the
incentives and similar payments for which an ALJ, whether in the
competitive or excepted service, is ineligible. Specifically, the
proposed rule clarifies that an ALJ is not eligible for recruitment,
relocation, or retention incentives under 5 U.S.C. 5753 and 5754
because the regulations in 5 CFR part 575, subparts A, B, and C,
require an eligible employee to have or maintain a rating of record of
at least ``Fully Successful'' or equivalent to receive an incentive.
Similarly, the proposed rule further establishes that ALJs are not
eligible for the student loan repayment program because, under 5 U.S.C.
5379(d)(2) and 5 CFR 537.108(a)(2), an employee must maintain an
acceptable level of performance to receive student loan repayment
benefits. An ALJ cannot meet the requirements for these incentives and
payments because an agency may not rate the job performance of an ALJ
in either the competitive or excepted service.
ALJ Loan Program
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 3344, OPM administers an Administrative
Law Judge Loan Program that coordinates the loan/detail of an
administrative law judge from one agency to another. Section 3344 makes
no distinction between competitive service and excepted service ALJs.
The proposed rule, like OPM's transitional guidance, makes clear OPM
continues its responsibilities under this Program whether ALJs are in
the competitive or excepted service. However, because some ALJs were
deemed to have constitutional status as inferior officers of the United
States under the Supreme Court's decision in Lucia, OPM's transitional
guidance instructed agencies that, upon accepting the services of a
loaned ALJ, the receiving agency must provide to OPM, as soon as
practicable, documentation that the head of that agency made, approved,
or ratified the loan of the ALJ. Likewise, the agency lending the ALJ
must provide OPM with documentation that the ALJ's appointment was
originally made or approved, or later ratified, by the head of that
agency. This documentation requirement does not require a change in the
ALJ's status from the competitive service to the excepted service. The
proposed rule formalizes these instructions.
Senior ALJ Program
The Senior ALJ Program allows retired ALJs to be reemployed on a
temporary or irregular basis to complete hearings of one or more
specified case(s). Upon appointment, and while reemployed, the retired
ALJ is referred to as a Senior ALJ. The proposed rule clarifies that an
agency that temporarily reemploys a retired ALJ must use the newly
created Schedule E excepted service appointment. It also clarifies that
Senior ALJs appointed prior to July 10, 2018 remain in the competitive
service for the duration of their appointment, including any extension
periods authorized by OPM. OPM approval procedures have not otherwise
changed with respect to reemploying retired ALJs, since the statute
governing the Senior ALJ Program, 5 U.S.C. 3323(b)(2), assigns program
responsibility to OPM and makes no distinction between competitive
service and excepted service senior ALJs after they have been
appointed.
Reduction in Force.
The proposed rule amends the ALJ reduction in force (RIF)
regulations currently described at 5 CFR 930.210. When implementing a
reduction in force, the provisions in this section are a supplement to
the RIF provisions in 5 CFR part 351 that have separate provisions for
the treatment of competitive service and excepted service positions.
The existing rule, which references part 351, makes clear that
competitive service ALJs are subject to the provisions of 5 CFR part
351 that apply to competitive service employees and that excepted
service ALJs are subject to the provisions of 5 CFR part 351 that apply
to excepted service employees.
The proposed amendment establishes procedures for placement
assistance for ALJs reached in an agency's reduction in force for those
in both the competitive and excepted service. Under the proposed
changes, an agency is required to establish an administrative law judge
priority reemployment list and provide consideration to ALJs on its
administrative law judge priority reemployment list before it may
consider candidates on its regular employment lists, with certain
exceptions.
Summary of Proposed Changes by Section
Changes Proposed for 5 CFR Part 212
We propose to amend the authority citation to add a reference to
E.O. 13843. OPM is retaining the existing reference to E.O. 10577, but
adding a corresponding reference to 5 CFR part 6. From 1954 until the
early 1980s, the organic Civil Service Rules were set forth in E.O.
10577 and amended from time to time by the President. However, in
recent decades, the practice has been for the President to amend the
Civil Service Rules and, at the same time, directly amend a
corresponding part in chapter I, subchapter A of title 5, Code of
Federal Regulations without also further amending E.O. 10577. Since the
Civil Service Rules are the product of both of these methods of
presidential rulemaking, both E.O. 10577 and the corresponding part in
5 CFR chapter I, subchapter A should be cited as authority for OPM's
regulation.
Proposed Sec. 212.401(b) adds the newly established Schedule E in
the excepted service to the list of Schedules already in the rule. This
provides that an employee in the competitive service at the time his or
her position is first listed in schedule A, B, C, or E remains in the
competitive service while occupying the position.
Changes Proposed for 5 CFR Part 213
The authority citation is revised to include E.O. 13843 and 5 CFR
part 6, and to correct the citation to E.O. 13562.
Subpart A of 5 CFR part 213 General provisions is revised to
include the Schedule E authority in Sec. 213.102, and to clarify that
appointments to Schedule
[[Page 59211]]
E must be made on a permanent basis in accordance with part 930.
Subpart C of 5 CFR part 213 Excepted schedules is revised by
establishing Schedule E as a new schedule in part 213. Proposed Sec.
213.3501 is labeled ``Positions of administrative law judge appointed
under 5 U.S.C. 3105.'' This proposed section explains the reasoning and
basis for appointments under Schedule E and requires that all
appointments of ALJs on or after July 10, 2018 must be made under this
excepted service authority in accordance with the provisions in subpart
B of 5 CFR part 930.
Changes Proposed for 5 CFR Part 302
The authority citation is revised to include references to 5 U.S.C.
3317, 3318, and 3320 (in accordance with recent case law arising in a
different context, see 81 FR 86290, 86291 (Nov. 30, 2016)), and to E.O.
13843 and 5 CFR part 6.
We propose to add ALJs to the list of positions in Sec. 302.101(c)
that are exempt from the appointment procedures of 5 CFR part 302, and
for which agencies shall apply the principle of veterans' preference as
far as administratively feasible.
Changes Proposed for 5 CFR Part 930
The proposed rule makes extensive changes to 5 CFR part 930.
The proposed rule revises the authority citation for subpart B of
part 930 by adding references to E.O. 13843 and 5 CFR parts 2, 5, and
6, as well as to 5 U.S.C. 1103(a)(5)(A) (OPM's general substantive
rulemaking authority) and 5 U.S.C. 4305 (which, together with 5 U.S.C.
1305, authorizes OPM to regulate the exception from performance
appraisals for ALJs).
The proposed rule deletes, from the authority citation, references
to 5 U.S.C. 1104(a) (pertaining to the ALJ examination) and 1302(a)
(pertaining to competitive examinations).
Proposed Sec. 930.201 is revised throughout to add references to
the excepted service. Paragraph (b) is revised to make clear that, as
of July 10, 2018, appointments of ALJs must be made under Schedule E of
the excepted service in Sec. 213.3501. Paragraph (c) makes clear that
ALJs appointed prior to July 10, 2018, remain in the competitive
service as long as they remain in their positions, including when they
are subject to actions within their agencies that do not result in a
new appointment (including details, assignments, reassignments, pay
adjustments, and promotions). The proposed rule also states that no new
appointments of ALJs may be made to the competitive service after July
9, 2018. Paragraph (e) establishes OPM's authority with respect to the
ALJ program. This paragraph is revised to delete references to OPM's
authority to recruit and examine ALJ applicants, to approve transfers
and reinstatements to competitive service positions, and to maintain a
central priority reemployment list, and to clarify that OPM's authority
to classify positions under 5 U.S.C. 5372 includes the authority to
approve classifications.
We propose to change the text in paragraphs (e) and (f), stating
that OPM has ``the authority to . . . [e]nsure the independence of the
administrative law judge'' and that the employing agency has ``[t]he
responsibility to ensure the independence of the administrative law
judge.'' The revised text states that OPM has the authority, and the
agency has the responsibility, to ``[e]nsure the qualified independence
of the administrative law judge, and to faithfully administer the
structural protections designed to ensure the impartiality of the
administrative law judge.'' This is a clarifying change because the
current reference to ``ensuring the independence of the administrative
law judge'' encompasses two concepts: qualified decisional
independence, and the statutory, structural protections designed to
ensure judges' impartiality by limiting agency control in matters of
position classification, pay, performance management, case assignment,
and tenure. See, e.g., Ramspeck v. Fed. Trial Examiners Conf., 345 U.S.
128 (1953).
We propose removing and reserving Sec. 930.203 Cost of competitive
examination, since OPM no longer conducts the examination. Under the
current regulation each agency is charged a pro rata share of the
examination cost, based on the actual number of administrative law
judges the agency employs; and under OPM's Revolving Fund statute each
agency is also charged a corresponding share for program administration
costs (e.g., for administering the ALJ Loan and Senior ALJ programs,
review of position descriptions and job opportunity announcements,
approval of noncompetitive actions, and FOIA/Privacy Act activity).
While this funding method for program administration must continue for
the time being as a matter of appropriations law, the end of the
examination has prompted OPM to rethink its funding method for the
program. OPM is considering requesting the use of appropriated funds,
instead of agency payments under the Revolving Fund, to fund its
program costs. OPM seeks comment on the appropriate funding method and
plans to amend this section after careful consideration of the
feasibility of a new funding method and consideration of public
comments.
In Sec. 930.204 Appointments and conditions of employment,
paragraph (a) is revised to make clear that ALJs are appointed on a
permanent full-time basis, with the exception of appointments to the
Senior ALJ Program, and to address requirements for excepted service
appointments. Paragraph (a)(1) includes information on ALJ appointments
under Schedule E, and paragraph (a)(2) clarifies that ALJs appointed
prior to July 10, 2018, remain in the competitive service under the
conditions described in Sec. 930.201(c). Information about hiring from
competitive certificates is removed.
Section 930.204(b), Licensure, continues the existing licensure
requirement for competitive service ALJ appointments, which E.O. 13843
has now extended to excepted service as the minimum standard for ALJ
appointments. New Sec. 930.204(c) sets forth the qualification
requirements for competitive service and excepted service ALJs.
Paragraph (c)(1) addresses the qualifications for competitive service
ALJs. OPM is retaining this information, even though E.O. 13843 does
not permit new competitive service appointments, because it may be
relevant to reconstructing past selections. Paragraph (c)(2) addresses
the agency-specific requirements permitted by E.O. 13843 for excepted
appointments. Existing provisions are renumbered accordingly.
Current Sec. 930.204(g), Reinstatement, is proposed to be
redesignated and recaptioned as Sec. 930.204(j) Appointment of a
former administrative law judge. The proposed revisions to paragraph
(j) make clear that any reappointments of ALJs must be made under
Schedule E of part 213 in the excepted service. Current Sec.
930.204(h)--Transfer, is proposed to be redesignated as Sec.
930.204(k) and recaptioned as Movement between agencies. The proposed
revisions to paragraph (k) make clear that any movements of ALJs
between agencies must be made to positions under Schedule E of part 213
in the excepted service in the gaining agency. The proposed revisions
to this paragraph also require that the hiring agency inform an ALJ
that such a move will place him or her in the excepted service, and
requires the gaining agency to obtain a written statement from the ALJ
that the ALJ understands he or she will be leaving the competitive
service for an appointment in the excepted service.
[[Page 59212]]
Proposed Sec. 930.204(g), Promotion to a higher level, is
currently Sec. 930.204(e). The text is amended to address promotions
of excepted-service ALJs, including application of agency policies and
the need to document agency head approval in a request to OPM; and to
ensure that incumbent ALJs have an opportunity to be considered for
promotion to higher-level positions when the agency considers external
applicants.
Reclassification of ALJs is addressed in proposed Sec. 930.204(h).
Reassignment of ALJs, currently addressed in Sec. 930.204(f), is
addressed in proposed Sec. 930.204(j). The text is amended to explain
the circumstances when an agency's request to OPM for approval of the
reassignment must document that the head of the requesting agency
approved it.
Paragraph (l) is added to Sec. 930.204 to address recruitment and
vacancy announcements.
The proposed rule amends Sec. 930.205, Administrative law judge
pay system, by including a statement that makes clear this section
applies to ALJ positions in both the competitive and excepted services.
The proposed rule modifies paragraph (b) by removing the reference to
ALJ positions ``filled through a competitive examination,'' and
replacing it with the words ``at the entry level.'' The proposed rule
amends paragraph (f)(2)(i) by removing the words ``who is within reach
for appointment from an administrative law judge certificate of
eligibles'' and replacing them with ``who meets the minimum
qualification and licensure requirement in paragraph (b) and any
agency-specific requirements established under paragraph (c)(2).'' The
proposed rule amends paragraph (f)(2)(ii) by removing the words ``who
is eligible for reinstatement'' and replacing them with ``who is
eligible for appointment under Schedule E and meets the minimum
qualification and licensure requirement in paragraph (b) and any
agency-specific requirements established under paragraph (c)(2).''
The proposed rule modifies Sec. 930.206, Performance rating and
awards, by inserting the words ``in the competitive or excepted
service.'' Paragraph (b) is proposed to be modified by adding 5 U.S.C.
4505, 4505a, 5379, 5753, and 5754 to the list of provisions under which
ALJs may not be granted ``any monetary or honorary award, incentive, or
similar payment.''
The proposed rule modifies Sec. 930.207, Details and assignments
to other duties within the same agency, to clarify that details that
will last more than 120 days, and details exceeding more than a total
of 120 days in a 12-month period, require OPM approval regardless of
whether the ALJs are in the competitive or excepted service.
The proposed rule modifies Sec. 930.208, Administrative law judge
loan program-detail to other agencies, to make clear that OPM
administers the ALJ loan program for loans/details of an ALJ in both
the competitive and excepted services. The proposed rule also adds two
new paragraphs to Sec. 930.208. New paragraph (e) requires the loaning
agency to furnish OPM with documentation stating that the loaned ALJ's
appointment was originally made, approved, or later ratified by the
head of the agency. New paragraph (f) similarly requires the receiving
agency of a loaned ALJ to provide documentation to OPM, as soon as
practicable, stating that the head of the agency made, approved, or
ratified the loan of the ALJ.
The proposed rule modifies several provisions in Sec. 930.209,
Senior Administrative Law Judge Program. The proposed rule modifies
paragraph (b)(2) by removing the current language and replacing it with
a reference to the licensure, qualification, and vetting requirements
prescribed under Sec. 930.204(b) through (g). The proposed rule amends
paragraph (c) by adding the phrase ``under Schedule E of Sec. 213.3501
of this chapter'' to make clear that reemployed ALJ annuitants are
appointed to positions in the excepted service. The proposed rule
amends paragraph (d) to specify that an agency's request to OPM for a
senior ALJ must document that the appointment will be made or approved
by the head of the requesting agency.
OPM is proposing to amend Sec. 930.210, Reduction in force. ALJs
serving in Schedule E appointments in the excepted service will be
subject to the provisions of 5 CFR part 351 specific to excepted
service employees. ALJs in the competitive service remain subject to
the provisions of 5 CFR part 351 specific to competitive service
employees. Thus, the existing rule makes clear that for RIF purposes
agencies use competitive service procedures for ALJs in the competitive
service and excepted service procedures for ALJs in the excepted
service to determine who will remain in their current positions. In
either case, the rule makes clear that an agency may not use
performance as a factor for purposes of retention standing in subpart E
of 5 CFR part 351.
The proposed rule also requires agencies to establish procedures
for placement assistance for ALJs reached in an agency's RIF. Agencies
are required to establish a priority reemployment list and provide
consideration to ALJs on its priority reemployment list before it may
consider candidates on its regular employment lists, with certain
exceptions. This will replace the current procedure under which OPM
maintains a central, government-wide priority referral list. The
agency-specific approach we are proposing is more in keeping with the
excepted hiring model established by E.O. 13843. There are currently no
names on the OPM list, so no individuals will be adversely affected by
this change.
These new placement procedures will apply to ALJs in positions in
both the competitive and the excepted service. However, the proposed
rule also clarifies that displaced competitive service ALJs also will
be eligible for consideration for non-ALJ competitive service positions
pursuant to 5 CFR part 330, subpart B.
Lastly, OPM proposes to amend Sec. 930.211, Actions against
administrative law judges. The proposed rule amends paragraph (b)(4) to
reference the use of notice leave, investigative leave, or
administrative leave under the Administrative Leave Act of 2016, and
amends paragraph (c) to remove a reference to actions taken under 5 CFR
part 731.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
I certify that this regulation will not have a significant impact
on a substantial number of small entities because it applies only to
Federal agencies and employees.
E.O. 13563 and E.O. 12866, Regulatory Review
Executive Orders 13563 and 12866 direct agencies to assess all
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public
health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive
Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and
benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting
flexibility. This rule has been designated a ``significant regulatory
action,'' under Executive Order 12866 and has been reviewed by OMB.
Executive Order 13771, Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory
Costs
This proposed rule is not expected to be subject to the
requirements of E.O.
[[Page 59213]]
13771 (82 FR 9339, February 3, 2017) because it is expected to impose
no more than de minimis costs.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
This rule will not result in the expenditure by state, local, and
tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100
million or more in any year and it will not significantly or uniquely
affect small governments. Therefore, no actions were deemed necessary
under the provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.
E.O. 13132, Federalism
This regulation will not have substantial direct effects on the
States, on the relationship between the National Government and the
States, or on distribution of power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government. Therefore, in accordance with Executive
Order 13132, it is determined that this rule does not have sufficient
federalism implications to warrant preparation of a Federalism
Assessment.
E.O. 12988, Civil Justice Reform
This regulation meets the applicable standard set forth in section
3(a) and (b)(2) of Executive Order 12988.
Congressional Review Act
This action pertains to agency management, personnel, and
organization and does not substantially affect the rights or
obligations of nonagency parties and, accordingly, is not a ``rule'' as
that term is used by the Congressional Review Act (Subtitle E of the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA)).
Therefore, the reporting requirement of 5 U.S.C. 801 does not apply.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This rule does not impose any new reporting or record-keeping
requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act.
List of Subjects in 5 CFR Part 212, 213, 302, and 930
Government employees.
Office of Personnel Management.
Alexys Stanley,
Regulatory Affairs Analyst.
Accordingly, the Office of Personnel Management proposes to amend
title 5, Code of Federal Regulations parts 212, 213, 302, and 930 as
follows:
PART 212--COMPETITIVE SERVICE AND COMPETITIVE STATUS
0
1. Revise the authority citation for part 212 to read as follows:
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 1302, 3301, 3302; E.O. 10577, 3 CFR, 1954-
1958 Comp., p. 218; E.O. 13843, 83 FR 32755; 5 CFR part 6.
Subpart D--Effect of Competitive Status on Position
0
2. Amend Sec. 212.401 by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:
Sec. 212.401 Effect of competitive status on the position.
* * * * *
(b) An employee in the competitive service at the time the
employee's position is first listed under Schedule A, B, C, or E
remains in the competitive service while the employee occupies that
position.
PART 213--EXCEPTED SERVICE
0
3. Revise the authority citation for part 213 to read as follows:
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 3161, 3301 and 3302; E.O. 10577, 3 CFR 1954-
1958 Comp., p. 218; E.O. 13562, 3 CFR, 2010 Comp., p. 291; E.O.
13843, 83 FR 32755; 5 CFR part 6; Sec. 213.101 also issued under 5
U.S.C. 2103. Sec. 213.3102 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 3301, 3302,
3307, 8337(h), and 8456; E.O. 13318, 3 CFR 1982 Comp., p. 185; 38
U.S.C. 4301 et seq.; Pub. L. 105-339, 112 Stat 3182-83; E.O. 13162;
E.O. 12125, 3 CFR 1979 Comp., p. 16879; and E.O. 13124, 3 CFR 1999
Comp., p. 31103; and Presidential Memorandum--Improving the Federal
Recruitment and Hiring Process (May 11, 2010).
Subpart A--General Provisions
0
4. Amend Sec. 213.102 by revising the heading and paragraph (b)(3)(i)
to read as follows:
Sec. 213.102 Identification of Schedule A, B, C, D, or E.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(3)(i) Upon determining that any position or group of positions, as
defined in Sec. 302.101(c), should be excepted indefinitely or
temporarily from the competitive service, the Office of Personnel
Management will authorize placement of the position or group of
positions into Schedule A, B, C, D, or E, as applicable. Unless
otherwise specified in a particular appointing authority, an agency may
make Schedule A, B, C, or, D appointments on either a permanent or
nonpermanent basis, with any appropriate work schedule (i.e., full-
time, part-time, seasonal, on-call, or intermittent). An agency must
make Schedule E appointments on a permanent basis, in accordance with
part 930.
* * * * *
0
5. Amend Sec. 213.103 by revising the heading and paragraph (a) to
read as follows:
Sec. 213.103 Publication of excepted appointing authorities in
Schedules A, B, C, D, and E.
(a) Schedule A, B, C, D, and E appointing authorities available for
use by all agencies will be published as regulations in the Federal
Register and the Code of Federal Regulations.
* * * * *
Subpart C--Excepted Schedules
0
6. At the end of subpart C, add undesignated heading and Sec. 213.3501
to read as follows:
Schedule E
Sec. 213.3501 Positions of administrative law judge appointed under 5
U.S.C. 3105.
Agency heads may make appointments under this section to positions
of administrative law judge appointed under 5 U.S.C. 3105. Conditions
of good administration warrant that the position of administrative law
judge be placed in the excepted service. Positions filled under this
authority are excepted from the competitive service and constitute
Schedule E. All appointments of administrative law judges made on or
after July 10, 2018 must be made under Schedule E in accordance with
the provisions of subpart B of part 930 of this chapter.
PART 302--EMPLOYMENT IN THE EXCEPTED SERVICE
0
7. Revise the authority citation for part 302 to read as follows:
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 1302, 3301, 3302, 3317, 3318, 3320, 8151,
E.O. 10577 (3 CFR 1954-1958 Comp., p. 218); E.O. 13843, 83 FR 32755;
5 CFR part 6; Sec. 302.105 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 1104, Pub. L.
95-454, sec. 3(5); Sec. 302.501 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 7701 et
seq.
Subpart A--General Provisions
0
8. Amend Sec. 302.101 by adding paragraph (c)(12) to read as follows:
Sec. 302.101 Positions covered by regulations.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(12) Administrative law judge positions filled through appointment
under 5 U.S.C. 3105 after July 9, 2018.
[[Page 59214]]
PART 930--PROGRAMS FOR SPECIFIC POSITIONS AND EXAMINATIONS
(MISCELLANEOUS)
Subpart B--Administrative Law Judge Program
0
9. Revise the authority citation for part 930, subpart B to read as
follows:
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 1103(a)(5)(A), 1305, 3105, 3301, 3304,
3323(b), 3344, 3502, 4301(2)(D), 4305, 5372, 7521; E.O. 10577, 3
CFR, 1954-1958 Comp., p. 219; E.O. 13843, 83 FR 32755; 5 CFR parts
2, 5, 6.
0
10. Revise Sec. 930.201 to read as follows:
Sec. 930.201 Coverage.
(a) This subpart applies to individuals appointed under 5 U.S.C.
3105 as administrative law judges for proceedings required to be
conducted in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 556 and 557. This subpart applies
to administrative law judge positions in both the competitive and
excepted services unless otherwise stated.
(b) On or after July 10, 2018, appointments of individuals to
administrative law judge are made under Schedule E of the excepted
service in Sec. 213.3501 of this chapter.
(c) Individuals appointed to administrative law judge positions
prior to July 10, 2018, remain in the competitive service as long as
they remain in their positions, including when they are subject to
actions within their agencies that do not result in a new appointment
(including details, assignments, reassignments, pay adjustments, and
promotions under this subchapter). No new appointments of
administrative law judges to the competitive service may be made after
July 9, 2018. Except as otherwise stated in this subpart, the rules and
regulations applicable to positions in the competitive service apply to
competitive service administrative law judge positions.
(d) The title ``administrative law judge'' is the official title
for an administrative law judge position in both the competitive and
excepted services. Each agency must use only this title for personnel,
budget, and fiscal purposes.
(e) OPM does not hire administrative law judges for other agencies,
but has the authority to:
(1) Assure that decisions concerning the appointment, pay, and
tenure of administrative law judges in the competitive and excepted
services are consistent with applicable laws and regulations;
(2) Establish classification standards and approve classification
of administrative law judge positions;
(3) Approve noncompetitive personnel actions for administrative law
judges, including but not limited to promotions, restorations, and
reassignments;
(4) Approve personnel actions related to pay for administrative law
judges under Sec. 930.205(c), (f)(2), (g), and (j);
(5) Approve an intra-agency detail, or an assignment of an
administrative law judge to a non-administrative law judge position
that lasts more than 120 days or when an administrative law judge
cumulates a total of more than 120 days for more than one detail or
assignment within the preceding 12 months;
(6) Arrange the temporary detail (loan) of an administrative law
judge from one agency to another under the provisions of the
administrative law judge loan program in Sec. 930.208;
(7) Arrange temporary reemployment of retired administrative law
judges to meet changing agency workloads under the provisions of the
Senior Administrative Law Judge Program in Sec. 930.209;
(8) Promulgate regulations for purposes of sections 3105, 3344,
4301(2)(D) and 5372 of title 5, U.S.C.; and
(9) Ensure the qualified independence of the administrative law
judge, and to faithfully administer the structural protections designed
to ensure the impartiality of the administrative law judge.
(f) An agency employing administrative law judges under 5 U.S.C.
3105 has:
(1) The authority to appoint as many administrative law judges as
necessary for proceedings conducted under 5 U.S.C. 556 and 557;
(2) The authority to assign an administrative law judge to cases in
rotation so far as is practicable;
(3) The responsibility to confirm that at the time of appointment
administrative law judges meet the minimum qualification and licensure
requirement under Sec. 930.204(b) and any agency-specific requirements
identified by the agency under Sec. 930.204(c);
(4) The responsibility to establish and maintain an ALJ priority
referral program under Sec. 930.210(c);
(5) The responsibility to ensure the qualified independence of the
administrative law judge, and to faithfully administer the structural
protections designed to ensure the impartiality of the administrative
law judge; and
(6) The responsibility to obtain OPM's approval before taking any
of the personnel actions described in paragraphs (e)(3) through (7) of
this section.
Sec. 930.203 [Removed and Reserved]
0
11. Remove and reserve Sec. 930.203:
0
12. Revise Sec. 930.204 to read as follows:
Sec. 930.204 Appointments and conditions of employment.
(a) Appointment. Administrative law judges are appointed on a
permanent full-time basis with the exception of appointments to the
Senior Administrative Law Judge Program under Sec. 930.209.
(1) Excepted service. (i) On and after July 10, 2018, an agency
head may appoint an individual to an administrative law judge position
made under Schedule E in Sec. 213.3501 of this chapter.
(ii) An excepted service appointment as an administrative law judge
is made in accordance with such regulations and practices as the head
of the agency concerned finds necessary, provided that the appointee
must meet the licensure, qualification, and vetting requirements
described in paragraphs (b) through (d) of this section.
(iii) An excepted service appointment as an administrative law
judge is not subject to a trial period.
(2) Competitive service. (i) Administrative law judges appointed
prior to July 10, 2018, are employees in the competitive service and
remain in the competitive service under the conditions described in
Sec. 930.201(c).
(ii) An administrative law judge in the competitive service who
received a career appointment is exempt from the probationary period
requirements under part 315 of this chapter.
(iii) A competitive service appointment as an administrative law
judge is subject to the licensure, qualification, and vetting
requirements described in paragraphs (b) through (d) of this section.
(iv) An administrative law judge serving in the competitive service
who is appointed by another agency as an administrative law judge on or
after July 10, 2018, or who separates from service and is reappointed
as an administrative law judge on or after July 10, 2018, shall be
appointed in the excepted service.
(b) Licensure requirements. At the time of appointment as an
administrative law judge, the individual, other than an incumbent
administrative law judge, must possess a professional license to
practice law and be authorized to practice law under the laws of a
State, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto
[[Page 59215]]
Rico, or any territorial court established under the United States
Constitution. Judicial status is acceptable in lieu of ``active''
status in States that prohibit sitting judges from maintaining
``active'' status to practice law. Being in ``good standing'' is also
acceptable in lieu of ``active'' status in States where the licensing
authority considers ``good standing'' as having a current license to
practice law.
(c) Qualification requirements. (1) At the time of a competitive
service appointment of an administrative law judge, the individual must
meet qualification standards prescribed by OPM under Civil Service Rule
II (as codified in Sec. 2.1 of this chapter).
(2) At the time of an excepted service appointment as an
administrative law judge, the individual must meet additional
requirements for appointment, as appropriate, prescribed by the
appointing agency under Civil Service Rule VI (as codified in Sec. 6.3
of this chapter). Any such agency-specific requirements must be
provided to potential applicants.
(d) Vetting requirements. (1) Applicants and appointees for the
position of administrative law judge, and incumbent administrative law
judges, are subject to the applicable personnel vetting standards and
guidelines prescribed for employment in the Executive branch, including
for:
(i) Eligibility for access to classified information or employment
in a sensitive position, under Executive Orders 12968 and 13467, as
amended, as implemented through standards and guidelines prescribed by
the Office of the Director of National Intelligence;
(ii) Suitability for employment in the competitive service under
executive orders 13467 and 13488, as amended, Civil Service Rules II
and V (as codified in Sec. Sec. 2.1 and 5.2 of this chapter), and part
731 of this chapter;
(iii) Fitness for employment in the excepted service under
Executive Orders 13467 and 13488, as amended, and Civil Service Rules
II, V, and VI (as codified in Sec. Sec. 2.1, 5.2, and 6.3 of this
chapter); and
(iv) Eligibility for a personal identity verification credential
under Executive Order 13467, as amended, as implemented through
standards and guidelines prescribed by OPM.
(2) An adverse action against an administrative law judge based on
an unfavorable vetting determination must follow the procedures in
Sec. 930.211(a), unless one of the exceptions in Sec. 930.211(c)
applies.
(e) Appointment of incumbents of newly classified administrative
law judge positions. An agency head may appoint an incumbent employee
to an administrative law judge position under Schedule E authority at
Sec. 213.3501 of this chapter if:
(1) The employee is serving in the position when it is classified
as an administrative law judge position on the basis of legislation,
Executive Order, or a decision of a court; and
(2) The agency determines the employee meets the licensure
requirement in paragraph (b) of this section and any agency-specific
requirements established under paragraph (c)(2) of this section.
(f) Appointment of an employee from a non-administrative law judge
position. An agency head may appoint an employee who is serving in a
position other than an administrative law judge position to an
administrative law judge position under Schedule E of the excepted
service at Sec. 213.3501 of this chapter if that employee meets the
licensure requirement in paragraph (b) of this section and any agency-
specific requirements established under paragraph (c)(2) of this
section.
(g) Promotion to a higher level. (1) Except as otherwise stated in
this paragraph, 5 CFR part 335 applies in the promotion of
administrative law judges in the competitive service.
(2) An agency may promote an administrative law judge in the
excepted service according to the agency's excepted service policies on
promotion, subject to the administrative law judge pay provisions at
Sec. 930.205.
(3) An agency must give its administrative law judges, whether in
the competitive or excepted service, the opportunity to be considered
for promotion to a higher level when it seeks candidates from outside
the agency for the higher-level position.
(4) The agency's request for OPM to approve the action under Sec.
930.201(e)(3) must document that the agency head approved the
promotion.
(h) Reclassification. To reclassify an administrative law judge
position at a higher level, the agency must submit a request to OPM. If
OPM approves the higher level classification, OPM will direct the
promotion of the administrative law judge occupying the position prior
to the reclassification.
(i) Reassignment. (1) The agency's request for OPM to approve the
action under Sec. 930.201(e)(3) must document a bona fide management
reason for the reassignment.
(2) Where a reassignment would involve a significant position
change, such as reassignment to a different bureau within the same
department, or a reassignment to perform a significantly different kind
of work, the agency's request for OPM to approve the action under Sec.
930.201(e)(3) must document that the agency head approved the
reassignment.
(j) Appointment of a former administrative law judge. An agency
head may appoint a former administrative law judge under excepted
service Schedule E authority at Sec. 213.3501 of this chapter who was
originally appointed pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 3105 and who meets the
licensure requirement in paragraph (b) of this section and any agency-
specific requirements established under paragraph (c)(2) of this
section.
(k) Movement between agencies. (1) An agency head may appoint under
excepted service Schedule E authority at Sec. 213.3501 of this chapter
an administrative law judge employed by another agency, subject to the
administrative law judge pay provisions at Sec. 930.205, who meets any
agency-specific requirements established under paragraph (c)(2) of this
section. Incumbent administrative law judges are not subject to the
licensure requirement in paragraph (b) of this section when moving to
another agency.
(2) When an administrative law judge serving in a competitive
service position is selected for an excepted appointment at another
agency, the hiring agency must:
(i) Inform the employee that, because the position is in the
excepted service, it may not be filled by a competitive service
appointment, and that acceptance of the proposed appointment will take
him/her out of the competitive service; and
(ii) Obtain from the employee a written statement that he/she
understands he/she is leaving the competitive service voluntarily to
accept an appointment in the excepted service.
(l) Recruitment. Agencies must recruit and announce vacancies for
administrative law judge positions in a manner to attract a sufficient
pool of qualified applicants, consistent with the merit system
principles.
(m) Conformity. Agency actions under this section must be
consistent with Sec. 930.201(f).
0
13. Amend Sec. 930.205 by adding a sentence to the beginning of
paragraph (a), and by revising paragraphs (b) and (f)(2) to read as
follows:
Sec. 930.205 Administrative law judge pay system.
(a) The administrative law judge pay system, administered by OPM,
applies to both competitive service and excepted service administrative
law judges. * * *
[[Page 59216]]
(b) Pay level AL-3 is the basic pay level for administrative law
judge positions filled at the entry level in the competitive and
excepted services.
* * * * *
(f) * * *
(2) With prior OPM approval, an agency may pay the rate of pay that
is next above the applicant's existing pay or earnings up to the
maximum rate F. The agency may offer a higher than minimum rate to:
(i) An administrative law judge applicant with superior
qualifications (as defined in Sec. 930.202) who meets the licensure
requirement in Sec. 930.204(b) and any agency-specific requirements
established under Sec. 930.204(c)(2); or
(ii) A former administrative law judge with superior qualifications
who is eligible for appointment under Schedule E and meets the
licensure requirement in Sec. 930.204(b) and any agency-specific
requirements established under Sec. 930.204(c)(2).
* * * * *
0
14. Revise Sec. 930.206 to read as follows:
Sec. 930.206 Performance rating, awards, and incentives.
(a) An agency may not rate the job performance of an administrative
law judge in the competitive or excepted service.
(b) An agency may not grant any monetary or honorary award,
incentive, or similar payment under 5 U.S.C. 4502, 4503, 4504, 4505,
4505a, 5379, 5753, or 5754, or under any other similar authority to an
administrative law judge in the competitive or excepted service.
0
15. In Sec. 930.207, revise paragraph (a) to read as follows:
Sec. 930.207 Details and assignments to other duties within the same
agency.
(a) An agency may detail an administrative law judge from one
administrative law judge position to another administrative law judge
position within the same agency in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 3341. All
details that will last more than 120 days, and details exceeding more
than a total of 120 days in a 12-month period, require OPM approval
regardless of whether the administrative law judges are in the
competitive or excepted service.
* * * * *
0
16. In Sec. 930.208, revise paragraph (a) and add paragraphs (e) and
(f) to read as follows:
Sec. 930.208 Administrative Law Judge Loan Program--detail to other
agencies.
(a) In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 3344, OPM administers an
Administrative Law Judge Loan Program that coordinates the loan/detail
of an administrative law judge whether in the competitive or excepted
service from one agency to another. An agency may request from OPM the
services of an administrative law judge if the agency is occasionally
or temporarily insufficiently staffed with administrative law judges,
or an agency may loan the services of its administrative law judges to
other agencies if there is insufficient work to fully occupy the
administrative law judges' work schedule.
* * * * *
(e) The department or agency that employs the administrative law
judge to be loaned must furnish OPM with documentation that the
administrative law judge's appointment was originally made, approved,
or later ratified, by the head of the employing agency.
(f) Upon accepting the services of a loaned administrative law
judge, the department or agency must, as soon as practicable, furnish
OPM with documentation that the head of the receiving agency has made,
approved, or ratified, the loan of the administrative law judge.
0
17. Amend Sec. 930.209 by revising paragraphs (b)(2), (c), (d)(3) and
(4), and adding paragraphs (d)(5) and (h) to read as follows:
Sec. 930.209 Senior Administrative Law Judge Program.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(2) The licensure, qualification, and vetting requirements
prescribed under Sec. 930.204(b) through (d); and
* * * * *
(c) Under the Senior Administrative Law Judge Program, OPM
authorizes agencies that have temporary, irregular workload
requirements for conducting proceedings in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 556
and 557 to temporarily reemploy administrative law judge annuitants
under Schedule E, Sec. 213.3501, of this chapter. If OPM is unable to
identify an administrative law judge under Sec. 930.208 who meets the
agency's qualification requirements, OPM will approve the agency's
request.
(d) * * *
(3) Specify the tour of duty, location, period of time, or
particular cases(s) for the requested reemployment;
(4) Describe any special qualifications the retired administrative
law judge possesses that are required of the position, such as
experience in a particular field, agency, or substantive area of law;
and
(5) Document that the appointment will be made or approved by the
agency head.
* * * * *
(h) Senior administrative law judges appointed prior to July 10,
2018, remain in the competitive service for the duration of their
appointment, including any extension periods authorized by OPM.
0
18. Amend Sec. 930.210 by revising paragraphs (a) and (c) to read as
follows:
Sec. 930.210 Reduction in force.
(a) Retention preference regulations. Except as modified by this
section, the reduction in force regulations in part 351 of this chapter
apply to administrative law judges in the competitive and excepted
services.
* * * * *
(c) Placement assistance. (1) An administrative law judge in the
competitive service who is reached in an agency's reduction in force
and receives a notification of separation or is furloughed for more
than 30 days is eligible for placement assistance for any position in
the competitive service to which qualified under the agency's
reemployment priority list (RPL) established and maintained in
accordance with subpart B of part 330 of this chapter, as well as the
agency's administrative law judge priority reemployment list
established under paragraph (c)(3) of this section.
(2) An administrative law judge in the excepted service who is
reached in an agency's reduction in force and receives a notification
of separation or is furloughed for more than 30 days is eligible for
placement assistance under the agency's administrative law judge
priority reemployment list established and maintained in accordance
with paragraph (c)(3) of this section.
(3) An agency must establish an administrative law judge priority
reemployment list whenever an administrative law judge, in the
competitive or excepted service, has been furloughed for more than 30
days or separated from a continuing appointment without delinquency or
misconduct, and applies for reemployment.
(i) Candidates are entered on the priority reemployment list in the
geographic areas where they were separated unless the agency elects to
provide broader consideration.
(ii) Candidates remain on the list for two (2) years unless the
agency elects to provide a longer period of eligibility.
(iii) Termination of eligibility on the agency's priority
reemployment list takes place when an administrative law
[[Page 59217]]
judge submits a written request to terminate eligibility, accepts a
permanent full-time administrative law judge position, or declines one
full-time employment offer as an administrative law judge at or above
the level held when reached for reduction in force at the geographic
location where he or she was separated unless the agency elects to
provide broader consideration.
(4) An agency must consider administrative law judges on its
priority reemployment list before it may use other selection methods,
except as described in this paragraph (c)(4). When a qualified
administrative law judge is available on the priority reemployment
list, the agency may appoint an individual who is not on the priority
reemployment list, or who has lower standing on that list, only when
the agency can demonstrate that the individual possesses experience and
qualifications superior to any other available displaced administrative
law judge on the agency's priority reemployment list.
(5) A former administrative law judge selected from the priority
reemployment list is appointed under Schedule E in the excepted service
regardless of whether the administrative law judge served previously in
the competitive service.
0
19. Amend Sec. 930.211 by revising paragraphs (b)(4) and (c) as
follows:
Sec. 930.211 Actions against administrative law judges.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(4) If the alternatives in paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) of this
section are not available, the agency may consider placing the
administrative law judge in administrative leave, or, when regulations
implementing the Administrative Leave Act of 2016, section 1138 of
Public Law 114-328, have been finalized and become effective, in notice
leave, investigative leave, or administrative leave status, as
appropriate.
(c) Exceptions from procedures. The procedures in paragraphs (a)
and (b) of this section do not apply:
(1) In making dismissals or other actions made by agencies in the
interest of national security under 5 U.S.C. 7532;
(2) To reduction in force actions taken by agencies under 5 U.S.C.
3502; or
(3) In any action initiated by the Office of Special Counsel under
5 U.S.C. 1215.
[FR Doc. 2020-17684 Filed 9-18-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6325-39-P