Post-Employment Conflict of Interest Restrictions; Revision of Departmental Component Designations, 77014-77016 [2020-25750]
Download as PDF
77014
Proposed Rules
Federal Register
Vol. 85, No. 231
Tuesday, December 1, 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 GOVERNMENT ETHICS
5 CFR Part 2641
RIN 3209–AA58
Post-Employment Conflict of Interest
Restrictions; Revision of Departmental
Component Designations
Office of Government Ethics.
Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
The U.S. Office of
Government Ethics (OGE) is issuing a
proposed rule to revise the component
designations of one agency for purposes
of the one-year post-employment
conflict of interest restriction for senior
employees. Specifically, based on the
recommendation of the Department of
Defense, OGE is proposing to designate
one new component to its regulations.
DATES: Written comments are invited
and must be received on or before
December 31, 2020.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments,
in writing, to OGE on this proposed
rule, identified by RIN 3209–AA58, by
any of the following methods:
Email: usoge@oge.gov. Include the
reference ‘‘Proposed Rule Revising
Departmental Component Designations’’
in the subject line of the message.
Instructions: All submissions must
include OGE’s agency name and the
Regulation Identifier Number (RIN),
3209–AA58, for this proposed
rulemaking. All comments, including
attachments and other supporting
materials, will become part of the public
record and be subject to public
disclosure. OGE may post comments on
its website, www.oge.gov. Sensitive
personal information, such as account
numbers or Social Security numbers,
should not be included. Comments
generally will not be edited to remove
any identifying or contact information.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Kimberly L. Sikora Panza, Associate
Counsel, Office of Government Ethics,
Suite 500, 1201 New York Avenue NW,
Washington, DC 20005–3917;
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS10
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:58 Nov 30, 2020
Jkt 253001
Telephone: (202) 482–9300; TTY: (800)
877–8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Substantive Discussion; Addition of
New Departmental Component
The Director of OGE (Director) is
authorized by 18 U.S.C. 207(h) to
designate distinct and separate
departmental or agency components in
the executive branch for purposes of 18
U.S.C. 207(c), the one-year postemployment conflict of interest
restriction for senior employees. Under
18 U.S.C. 207(h)(2), component
designations do not apply to persons
employed at a rate of pay specified in
or fixed according to subchapter II of 5
U.S.C. chapter 53 (the Executive
Schedule). Component designations are
listed in appendix B to 5 CFR part 2641.
The representational bar of 18 U.S.C.
207(c) usually extends to the whole of
any department or agency in which a
former senior employee served in any
capacity during the year prior to
termination from a senior employee
position. However, 18 U.S.C. 207(h)
provides that whenever the Director
determines that an agency or bureau
within a department or agency in the
executive branch exercises functions
which are distinct and separate from the
remaining functions of the department
or agency and there exists no potential
for use of undue influence or unfair
advantage based on past Government
service, the Director shall by rule
designate such agency or bureau as a
separate component of that department
or agency. As a result, a former senior
employee who served in a designated
component of a parent department or
agency is barred from communicating to
or making an appearance before any
employee of that component, but is not
barred as to any employee of the parent,
of another designated component, or of
any other agency or bureau of the parent
that has not been designated. Likewise,
a former senior employee who served in
a ‘‘parent’’ department or agency is not
barred by 18 U.S.C. 207(c) from making
communications to or appearances
before any employees of any designated
component of that parent, but is barred
as to employees of that parent or of
other components that have not been
separately designated.
The Director regularly reviews the
component designations listed in
appendix B to part 2641, and in
PO 00000
Frm 00001
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
consultation with the department or
agency concerned, makes such
additions and deletions as are
necessary. Specifically, the Director
‘‘shall, by rule, make or revoke a
component designation after
considering the recommendation of the
designated agency ethics official.’’ 5
CFR 2641.302(e)(3). Before designating
an agency component as distinct and
separate for purposes of 18 U.S.C.
207(c), the Director must find that there
exists no potential for use of undue
influence or unfair advantage based on
past Government service, and that the
component is an agency or bureau
within a parent agency that exercises
functions which are distinct and
separate from the functions of the parent
agency and from the functions of other
components of that parent. 5 CFR
2641.302(c).
Pursuant to the procedures prescribed
in 5 CFR 2641.302(e), one agency has
forwarded a written request to OGE to
amend its listing in appendix B to part
2641. After carefully reviewing the
requested change in light of the criteria
in 18 U.S.C. 207(h) as implemented in
5 CFR 2641.302(c), OGE is proposing to
grant this request and amend appendix
B as explained below.
The Department of Defense (DoD) has
requested that OGE designate the
Defense Advanced Research Projects
Agency (DARPA) in appendix B to part
2641 as a separate component of DoD
for purposes of 18 U.S.C. 207(c) because
it exercises functions that are distinct
and separate from the functions of the
parent agency and other components.
DARPA was created under the statutory
authority of the Secretary of Defense in
1958, see DoD Directive No. 5105.15
(Feb. 7, 1958), in response to the
unforeseen launch of the world’s first
satellite by the Soviet Union. DARPA
‘‘serves as the research and
development (R&D) organization in DoD
with a primary responsibility of
maintaining U.S. technological
superiority over our adversaries.’’ See
DoD Directive 5134.10 (May 7, 2013, as
amended Sept. 22, 2017) (outlining
DARPA’s roles and responsibilities).
Directive 5134.10 provides independent
authority for DARPA to carry out its
uniquely-focused mission using its
imagination and innovativeness to
project what capabilities the military
might want in the future, and sponsor
high-risk, high payoff research to deliver
E:\FR\FM\01DEP1.SGM
01DEP1
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS10
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 1, 2020 / Proposed Rules
those capabilities. DARPA has special
hiring authorities and separate and
distinct contracting authorities that help
it exercise this mission.
DARPA is a small component, both in
absolute terms and in relative terms as
compared to the DoD as a whole.
DARPA currently has about 220
employees, while the DoD civilian
workforce is approximately 750,000
individuals and the entirety of DoD has
almost 3 million individuals. Although
the Director of DARPA reports to the
DoD Undersecretary of Defense for
Research and Engineering, the Director
of DARPA is delegated broad authority
and responsibility to act independently
and with minimal supervision in
carrying out the organization’s mission
and directing its research strategy and
execution. Directive 5134.10 delegates
to the Director of DARPA the fiscal,
contracting, and acquisition authority
necessary to carry out the organization’s
responsibilities, as well as authority to
communicate directly with other
domestic and foreign entities. See
Directive 5134.10, paragraph 7. DARPA
has a separate and distinct budget, and
conducts its budgeting process
independently of the Office of the
Secretary of Defense or any DoD
component, including decisions
regarding which programs to fund that
support the development of
breakthrough technologies and
capabilities for national security.
DARPA’s budget independence
demonstrates that it does not exercise
significant responsibilities that cut
across organizational lines within DoD.
According to DoD, designating
DARPA as a separate component will
not create the potential for undue
influence or unfair advantage based on
past government service. DARPA
independently determines what R&D
projects to pursue, and those projects
are separate and unique from the rest of
DoD and do not cut across
organizational lines. Other DoD
components do not typically get
involved in DARPA’s R&D work because
the component’s mission contemplates
developing radically new technologies
that do not exist at present and are not
known to other DoD components. The
typical senior employee who departs
DARPA has worked on projects that are
entirely outside of and beyond the work
of the Office of the Secretary of Defense
and other DoD components.
OGE is proposing to grant the request
of DoD and amend the agency’s listing
in appendix B to part 2641 to add
DARPA as a new component for
purposes of 18 U.S.C. 207(c). DARPA is
separate and distinct from its parent
organization and other DoD
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:58 Nov 30, 2020
Jkt 253001
components, and given the manner in
which DARPA works independently
from other component agencies and the
general management of the DoD, there
exists no potential for the use of undue
influence or unfair advantage based on
past Government service.
As indicated in 5 CFR 2641.302(f), a
designation ‘‘shall be effective on the
date the rule creating the designation is
published in the Federal Register and
shall be effective as to individuals who
terminated senior service either before,
on or after that date.’’ Initial
designations in appendix B to part 2641
were effective as of January 1, 1991. The
effective date of subsequent
designations is indicated by means of
parenthetical entries in appendix B. The
new component designation of DARPA
made in this proposed rule would be
effective on the date the final rule is
published in the Federal Register.
II. Matters of Regulatory Procedure
Regulatory Flexibility Act
As Director of the Office of
Government Ethics, I certify under the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C.
chapter 6) that this proposed rule will
not have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities
because it affects only Federal
departments and agencies and current
and former Federal employees.
Paperwork Reduction Act
The Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. chapter 35) does not apply to this
proposed rule because it does not
contain information collection
requirements that require the approval
of the Office of Management and
Budget.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
For purposes of the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C.
chapter 25, subchapter II), this proposed
rule would not significantly or uniquely
affect small governments and will not
result in increased expenditures by
State, local, and tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector, of
$100 million or more (as adjusted for
inflation) in any one year.
Congressional Review Act
The proposed rule is not a major rule
as defined in 5 U.S.C. chapter 8,
Congressional Review of Agency
Rulemaking.
Executive Orders 13563 and 12866
Executive Orders 13563 and 12866
direct agencies to assess all costs and
benefits of available regulatory
alternatives and, if regulation is
necessary, to select the regulatory
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
77015
approaches that maximize net benefits
(including 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. In promulgating this
proposed rule, the Office of Government
Ethics has adhered to the regulatory
philosophy and the applicable
principles of regulation set forth in
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563. This
proposed rule has not been reviewed by
the Office of Management and Budget
under Executive Order 12866 because it
is not a ‘‘significant’’ regulatory action
for the purposes of that order.
Executive Order 12988
As Director of the Office of
Government Ethics, I have reviewed this
proposed rule in light of section 3 of
Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice
Reform, and certify that it meets the
applicable standards provided therein.
List of Subjects in 5 CFR Part 2641
Conflict of interests, Government
employees.
Approved: November 17, 2020.
Emory Rounds,
Director, Office of Government Ethics.
Accordingly, for the reasons set forth
in the preamble, the Office of
Government Ethics proposes to amend 5
CFR part 2641, as set forth below:
PART 2641—POST–EMPLOYMENT
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
RESTRICTIONS
1. The authority citation for part 2641
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 5 U.S.C. App. (Ethics in
Government Act of 1978); 18 U.S.C. 207; E.O.
12674, 54 FR 15159, 3 CFR, 1989 Comp., p.
215, as modified by E.O. 12731, 55 FR 42547,
3 CFR, 1990 Comp., p. 306.
2. Amend appendix B to part 2641 by
adding the listings for the Department of
Defense to read as follows:
■
Appendix B to Part 2641—Agency
Components for Purposes of 18 U.S.C.
207(c)
*
*
*
*
*
Parent: Department of Defense
Components
Defense Advanced Research Projects
Agency (DARPA) (EFFECTIVE UPON
PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE
IN THE Federal Register).
Department of the Air Force.
Department of the Army.
Department of the Navy.
E:\FR\FM\01DEP1.SGM
01DEP1
77016
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 1, 2020 / Proposed Rules
Defense Information Systems Agency.
Defense Intelligence Agency.
Defense Logistics Agency.
Defense Threat Reduction Agency
(effective February 5, 1999).
National Geospatial-Intelligence
Agency (formerly National Imagery and
Mapping Agency) (effective May 16,
1997).
National Reconnaissance Office
(effective January 30, 2003).
National Security Agency.
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. 2020–25750 Filed 11–30–20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6345–03–P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
8 CFR Parts 103 and 235
[Docket No. USCBP–2020–0035]
RIN 1651–AB34
Harmonization of the Fees and
Application Procedures for the Global
Entry and SENTRI Programs and Other
Changes
U.S. Customs and Border
Protection, Department of Homeland
Security.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking;
correction; re-opening of comment
period.
AGENCY:
U.S. Customs and Border
Protection (CBP) published a notice of
proposed rulemaking (NPRM) in the
Federal Register of September 9, 2020,
concerning harmonization of the fees for
the Global Entry and SENTRI trusted
traveler programs as well as other
changes to those programs. An incorrect
Regulation Identifier Number (RIN) was
inadvertently listed in the heading of
that document. This document corrects
the September 9, 2020 document to
reflect that the correct RIN is 1651–
AB34 as set forth above. Additionally,
CBP included a summary of the CBP
Trusted Traveler Programs Fee Study
(Fee Study) in the NPRM and stated that
the full Fee Study was included in the
docket of the rulemaking. CBP
inadvertently failed to post the Fee
Study on the docket when the NPRM
was published. Therefore, CBP is
notifying the public that the Fee Study
has now been posted in the docket and
that CBP is re-opening the comment
period and requesting comments on the
stand-alone Fee Study.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before December 31, 2020.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Charity McKenzie Shick, Regulations
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS10
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:58 Nov 30, 2020
Jkt 253001
and Rulings, Office of International
Trade, charity.m.shick@cbp.dhs.gov.
ADDRESSES: Comments may be
submitted, identified by docket number
USCBP–2020–0035, by the following
method:
D Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
Due to COVID–19-related restrictions,
CBP has temporarily suspended its
ability to receive public comments by
mail.
Instructions: All submissions received
must include the agency name and
docket title for this rulemaking, and
must reference docket number USCBP–
2020–0035. All comments received will
be posted without change to https://
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided. For
detailed instructions on submitting
comments and additional information
on the rulemaking process, see the
‘‘Public Participation’’ heading of the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of
this document.
Docket: For access to the docket to
read background documents or
comments received, go to: https://
www.regulations.gov. Due to relevant
COVID–19-related restrictions, CBP has
temporarily suspended its on-site public
inspection of submitted comments.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Public Participation
Interested persons are invited to
participate in this rulemaking by
submitting written data, views, or
arguments on the Fee Study. Only
comments on the Fee Study will be
considered. Comments that will provide
the most assistance to CBP will
reference a specific portion of the Fee
Study, explain the reason for any
recommended change, and include data,
information, or authority that support
such recommended change.
Background
CBP operates several voluntary
trusted traveler programs at land, sea
and air ports of entry into the United
States that allow certain pre-approved
travelers dedicated processing into the
United States, including the Secure
Electronic Network for Travelers Rapid
Inspection (SENTRI) program, the
Global Entry program, and the NEXUS
program. As part of an effort to
harmonize the fees and application
procedures for these programs, CBP
published a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) titled
‘‘Harmonization of the Fees and
Application Procedures for the Global
Entry and SENTRI Programs and Other
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Changes’’ in the Federal Register (85 FR
55597) on September 9, 2020. The
NPRM proposes to change the Global
Entry and SENTRI application fees to a
uniform amount, provide a uniform
standard regarding the payment of the
Global Entry and SENTRI application
fees for minors, change the fee payment
schedule and certain aspects of the
application process for the SENTRI
program, and incorporate the SENTRI
program into the Department of
Homeland Security (DHS) regulations.
CBP will be issuing a separate Federal
Register notice regarding changes to the
NEXUS fee.
Fee Study
As part of the development of the
NPRM, CBP performed a fee study
entitled CBP Trusted Traveler Programs
Fee Study (Fee Study) to determine the
amount of the fee that is necessary to
recover the costs associated with
application processing for the Global
Entry, SENTRI, and NEXUS programs.
In the NPRM and Fee Study, CBP
concluded that a uniform $120 fee is
appropriate and necessary to recover a
reasonable portion of costs associated
with application processing for these
three CBP trusted traveler programs.
The NPRM summarizes the Fee Study,
seeks comments on its conclusion, and
states that the full Fee Study can be
found in the docket of the rulemaking.
However, CBP inadvertently failed to
post the Fee Study to the docket at the
time the NPRM was published. CBP has
now posted the Fee Study to the docket
at https://www.regulations.gov under
docket number USCBP–2020–0035 and
is re-opening the comment period to
allow for comments to be submitted on
that Fee Study. Comments must be
received on or before December 31,
2020. CBP will not accept comments on
any topic other than the Fee Study.
Correction of RIN
In the NPRM document, FR Doc.
2020–16369, beginning on page 55597
in the issue of September 9, 2020 (85 FR
55597), make the following correction in
the first column:
Remove in the heading of the
document ‘‘RIN 1651–AB94’’ and add in
its place ‘‘RIN 1651–AB34.’’
Alice A. Kipel,
Executive Director, Regulations and Rulings
Office of Trade, U.S. Customs and Border
Protection.
[FR Doc. 2020–26275 Filed 11–30–20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111–14–P
E:\FR\FM\01DEP1.SGM
01DEP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 231 (Tuesday, December 1, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 77014-77016]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-25750]
========================================================================
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. 231 / Tuesday, December 1, 2020 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 77014]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
OFFICE OF GOVERNMENT ETHICS
5 CFR Part 2641
RIN 3209-AA58
Post-Employment Conflict of Interest Restrictions; Revision of
Departmental Component Designations
AGENCY: Office of Government Ethics.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Office of Government Ethics (OGE) is issuing a
proposed rule to revise the component designations of one agency for
purposes of the one-year post-employment conflict of interest
restriction for senior employees. Specifically, based on the
recommendation of the Department of Defense, OGE is proposing to
designate one new component to its regulations.
DATES: Written comments are invited and must be received on or before
December 31, 2020.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, in writing, to OGE on this proposed
rule, identified by RIN 3209-AA58, by any of the following methods:
Email: [email protected]. Include the reference ``Proposed Rule
Revising Departmental Component Designations'' in the subject line of
the message.
Instructions: All submissions must include OGE's agency name and
the Regulation Identifier Number (RIN), 3209-AA58, for this proposed
rulemaking. All comments, including attachments and other supporting
materials, will become part of the public record and be subject to
public disclosure. OGE may post comments on its website, www.oge.gov.
Sensitive personal information, such as account numbers or Social
Security numbers, should not be included. Comments generally will not
be edited to remove any identifying or contact information.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kimberly L. Sikora Panza, Associate
Counsel, Office of Government Ethics, Suite 500, 1201 New York Avenue
NW, Washington, DC 20005-3917; Telephone: (202) 482-9300; TTY: (800)
877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Substantive Discussion; Addition of New Departmental Component
The Director of OGE (Director) is authorized by 18 U.S.C. 207(h) to
designate distinct and separate departmental or agency components in
the executive branch for purposes of 18 U.S.C. 207(c), the one-year
post-employment conflict of interest restriction for senior employees.
Under 18 U.S.C. 207(h)(2), component designations do not apply to
persons employed at a rate of pay specified in or fixed according to
subchapter II of 5 U.S.C. chapter 53 (the Executive Schedule).
Component designations are listed in appendix B to 5 CFR part 2641.
The representational bar of 18 U.S.C. 207(c) usually extends to the
whole of any department or agency in which a former senior employee
served in any capacity during the year prior to termination from a
senior employee position. However, 18 U.S.C. 207(h) provides that
whenever the Director determines that an agency or bureau within a
department or agency in the executive branch exercises functions which
are distinct and separate from the remaining functions of the
department or agency and there exists no potential for use of undue
influence or unfair advantage based on past Government service, the
Director shall by rule designate such agency or bureau as a separate
component of that department or agency. As a result, a former senior
employee who served in a designated component of a parent department or
agency is barred from communicating to or making an appearance before
any employee of that component, but is not barred as to any employee of
the parent, of another designated component, or of any other agency or
bureau of the parent that has not been designated. Likewise, a former
senior employee who served in a ``parent'' department or agency is not
barred by 18 U.S.C. 207(c) from making communications to or appearances
before any employees of any designated component of that parent, but is
barred as to employees of that parent or of other components that have
not been separately designated.
The Director regularly reviews the component designations listed in
appendix B to part 2641, and in consultation with the department or
agency concerned, makes such additions and deletions as are necessary.
Specifically, the Director ``shall, by rule, make or revoke a component
designation after considering the recommendation of the designated
agency ethics official.'' 5 CFR 2641.302(e)(3). Before designating an
agency component as distinct and separate for purposes of 18 U.S.C.
207(c), the Director must find that there exists no potential for use
of undue influence or unfair advantage based on past Government
service, and that the component is an agency or bureau within a parent
agency that exercises functions which are distinct and separate from
the functions of the parent agency and from the functions of other
components of that parent. 5 CFR 2641.302(c).
Pursuant to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR 2641.302(e), one
agency has forwarded a written request to OGE to amend its listing in
appendix B to part 2641. After carefully reviewing the requested change
in light of the criteria in 18 U.S.C. 207(h) as implemented in 5 CFR
2641.302(c), OGE is proposing to grant this request and amend appendix
B as explained below.
The Department of Defense (DoD) has requested that OGE designate
the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) in appendix B to
part 2641 as a separate component of DoD for purposes of 18 U.S.C.
207(c) because it exercises functions that are distinct and separate
from the functions of the parent agency and other components. DARPA was
created under the statutory authority of the Secretary of Defense in
1958, see DoD Directive No. 5105.15 (Feb. 7, 1958), in response to the
unforeseen launch of the world's first satellite by the Soviet Union.
DARPA ``serves as the research and development (R&D) organization in
DoD with a primary responsibility of maintaining U.S. technological
superiority over our adversaries.'' See DoD Directive 5134.10 (May 7,
2013, as amended Sept. 22, 2017) (outlining DARPA's roles and
responsibilities). Directive 5134.10 provides independent authority for
DARPA to carry out its uniquely-focused mission using its imagination
and innovativeness to project what capabilities the military might want
in the future, and sponsor high-risk, high payoff research to deliver
[[Page 77015]]
those capabilities. DARPA has special hiring authorities and separate
and distinct contracting authorities that help it exercise this
mission.
DARPA is a small component, both in absolute terms and in relative
terms as compared to the DoD as a whole. DARPA currently has about 220
employees, while the DoD civilian workforce is approximately 750,000
individuals and the entirety of DoD has almost 3 million individuals.
Although the Director of DARPA reports to the DoD Undersecretary of
Defense for Research and Engineering, the Director of DARPA is
delegated broad authority and responsibility to act independently and
with minimal supervision in carrying out the organization's mission and
directing its research strategy and execution. Directive 5134.10
delegates to the Director of DARPA the fiscal, contracting, and
acquisition authority necessary to carry out the organization's
responsibilities, as well as authority to communicate directly with
other domestic and foreign entities. See Directive 5134.10, paragraph
7. DARPA has a separate and distinct budget, and conducts its budgeting
process independently of the Office of the Secretary of Defense or any
DoD component, including decisions regarding which programs to fund
that support the development of breakthrough technologies and
capabilities for national security. DARPA's budget independence
demonstrates that it does not exercise significant responsibilities
that cut across organizational lines within DoD.
According to DoD, designating DARPA as a separate component will
not create the potential for undue influence or unfair advantage based
on past government service. DARPA independently determines what R&D
projects to pursue, and those projects are separate and unique from the
rest of DoD and do not cut across organizational lines. Other DoD
components do not typically get involved in DARPA's R&D work because
the component's mission contemplates developing radically new
technologies that do not exist at present and are not known to other
DoD components. The typical senior employee who departs DARPA has
worked on projects that are entirely outside of and beyond the work of
the Office of the Secretary of Defense and other DoD components.
OGE is proposing to grant the request of DoD and amend the agency's
listing in appendix B to part 2641 to add DARPA as a new component for
purposes of 18 U.S.C. 207(c). DARPA is separate and distinct from its
parent organization and other DoD components, and given the manner in
which DARPA works independently from other component agencies and the
general management of the DoD, there exists no potential for the use of
undue influence or unfair advantage based on past Government service.
As indicated in 5 CFR 2641.302(f), a designation ``shall be
effective on the date the rule creating the designation is published in
the Federal Register and shall be effective as to individuals who
terminated senior service either before, on or after that date.''
Initial designations in appendix B to part 2641 were effective as of
January 1, 1991. The effective date of subsequent designations is
indicated by means of parenthetical entries in appendix B. The new
component designation of DARPA made in this proposed rule would be
effective on the date the final rule is published in the Federal
Register.
II. Matters of Regulatory Procedure
Regulatory Flexibility Act
As Director of the Office of Government Ethics, I certify under the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6) that this proposed rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities because it affects only Federal departments and agencies
and current and former Federal employees.
Paperwork Reduction Act
The Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35) does not apply
to this proposed rule because it does not contain information
collection requirements that require the approval of the Office of
Management and Budget.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
For purposes of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C.
chapter 25, subchapter II), this proposed rule would not significantly
or uniquely affect small governments and will not result in increased
expenditures by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate,
or by the private sector, of $100 million or more (as adjusted for
inflation) in any one year.
Congressional Review Act
The proposed rule is not a major rule as defined in 5 U.S.C.
chapter 8, Congressional Review of Agency Rulemaking.
Executive Orders 13563 and 12866
Executive Orders 13563 and 12866 direct agencies to assess all
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select the regulatory approaches that
maximize net benefits (including 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.
In promulgating this proposed rule, the Office of Government Ethics has
adhered to the regulatory philosophy and the applicable principles of
regulation set forth in Executive Orders 12866 and 13563. This proposed
rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget under
Executive Order 12866 because it is not a ``significant'' regulatory
action for the purposes of that order.
Executive Order 12988
As Director of the Office of Government Ethics, I have reviewed
this proposed rule in light of section 3 of Executive Order 12988,
Civil Justice Reform, and certify that it meets the applicable
standards provided therein.
List of Subjects in 5 CFR Part 2641
Conflict of interests, Government employees.
Approved: November 17, 2020.
Emory Rounds,
Director, Office of Government Ethics.
Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Office
of Government Ethics proposes to amend 5 CFR part 2641, as set forth
below:
PART 2641--POST-EMPLOYMENT CONFLICT OF INTEREST RESTRICTIONS
0
1. The authority citation for part 2641 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 5 U.S.C. App. (Ethics in Government Act of 1978); 18
U.S.C. 207; E.O. 12674, 54 FR 15159, 3 CFR, 1989 Comp., p. 215, as
modified by E.O. 12731, 55 FR 42547, 3 CFR, 1990 Comp., p. 306.
0
2. Amend appendix B to part 2641 by adding the listings for the
Department of Defense to read as follows:
Appendix B to Part 2641--Agency Components for Purposes of 18 U.S.C.
207(c)
* * * * *
Parent: Department of Defense
Components
Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) (EFFECTIVE UPON
PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register).
Department of the Air Force.
Department of the Army.
Department of the Navy.
[[Page 77016]]
Defense Information Systems Agency.
Defense Intelligence Agency.
Defense Logistics Agency.
Defense Threat Reduction Agency (effective February 5, 1999).
National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (formerly National Imagery
and Mapping Agency) (effective May 16, 1997).
National Reconnaissance Office (effective January 30, 2003).
National Security Agency.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2020-25750 Filed 11-30-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6345-03-P