5 C.F.R. Subpart B—Substantive Provisions
Title 5 - Administrative Personnel
(a) Basic prohibition of 18 U.S.C. 207(a). No former Government employee, after terminating Government employment, shall knowingly act as agent or attorney for, or otherwise represent any other person in any formal or informal appearance before, or with the intent to influence, make any oral or written communication on behalf of any other person (1) to the United States, (2) in connection with any particular Government matter involving a specific party, (3) in which matter such employee participated personally and substantially as a Government employee. (b) Representation: Acting as agent or attorney, or other representative in an appearance, or communicating with intent to influence—(1) Attorneys and agents. The target of this provision is the former employee who participates in a particular matter while employed by the Government and later “switches sides” by representing another person on the same matter. [Note: The examples in these regulations do not incorporate the special statutory restrictions on Senior Employees, except where the terms “Senior Employee” or “Senior” are expressly used.] Example 1: A lawyer in the Department of Justice personally works on an antitrust case involving Q Company. After leaving the Department, he is asked by Q Company to represent it in that case. He may not do so. (2) Others. The statutory prohibition covers any other former employee, including managerial and technical personnel, who represents another person in an appearance or, by other communication, attempts to influence the Government concerning a particular matter in which he or she was involved. For example, a former technical employee may not act as a manufacturer's promotional or contract representative to the Government on a particular matter in which he or she participated. Nor could such employee appear as an expert witness against the Government in connection with such a matter. (See §2637.208 for specific rules relating to expert witnesses.) (3) Appearances; communications made with intent to influence. An appearance occurs when an individual is physically present before the United States in either a formal or informal setting or conveys material to the United States in connection with a formal proceeding or application. A communication is broader than an appearance and includes for example, correspondence, or telephone calls. Example 1: An appearance occurs when a former employee meets with an agency employee personally to discuss a matter; or when he submits a brief in an agency administrative proceeding in his own name. Example 2: A former employee makes a telephone call to a present employee to discuss a particular matter that is not the subject of a formal proceeding. She has made a communication. (4) Government visits to others premises. Neither a prohibited appearance nor communication occurs when a former Government employee communicates with a Government employee who, at the instance of the United States, visits or is assigned to premises leased to, or owned or occupied by, a person other than the United States which are or may be used for performance under an actual or proposed contract or grant, when such communication concerns work performed or to be performed and occurs in the ordinary course of evaluation, administration, or performance of the actual or proposed contract or grant. (5) Elements of “influence” and potential controversy required. Communications which do not include an “intent to influence” are not prohibited. Moreover, acting as agent or attorney in connection with a routine request not involving a potential controversy is not prohibited. For example, the following are not prohibited: a question by an attorney as to the status of a particular matter; a request for publicly available documents; or a communication by a former employee, not in connection with an adversary proceeding, imparting purely factual information. (See also §2637.204(d) of this part.) Example 1: A Government employee, who participated in writing the specifications of a contract awarded to Q Company for the design of certain education testing programs, joins Q Company and does work under the contract. She is asked to accompany a company vice-president to a meeting to state the results of a series of trial tests, and does so. No violation occurs when she provides the information to her former agency. During the meeting a dispute arises as to some terms of the contract, and she is called upon to support Q Company's position. She may not do so. If she had reason to believe that the contractual dispute would be a subject of the meeting, she should not have attended. (6) Assistance. A former employee is not prohibited from providing in-house assistance in connection with the representation of another person. Example 1: A Government employee administered a particular contract for agricultural research with Q Company. Upon termination of her Government employment, she is hired by Q Company. She works on the matter covered by the contract, but has no direct contact with the Government. At the request of a company vice-president, she prepares a paper describing the persons at her former agency who should be contacted and what should be said to them in an effort in increase the scope of funding of the contract and to resolve favorably a dispute over a contract clause. She may do so. (7) Project responses not included. In a context not involving a potential controversy involving the United States no finding of a “intent to influence” shall be based upon whatever influential effect inheres in an attempt to formulate a meritorious proposal or program. Example 1: The employee of Q Company in the previous example is asked to design an educational testing program, which she does and transmits it to the Government. This is not prohibited despite the fact that her well-designed program may be inherently influential on a question of additional funding under the contract. She may not argue for its acceptance. (c) “Particular matter involving a specific party or parties”—(1) Specific matters vs. policy matters. The prohibitions of subsections (a) and (b) of 18 U.S.C. 207, are based on the former Government employee's prior participation in or responsibility for a “judicial or other proceeding, application, request for a ruling or other determination, contract, claim, controversy, investigation, charge, accusation, arrest, or other particular matter involving a specific party or parties” in which the United States is a party or has a direct and substantial interest. Such a matter typically involves a specific proceeding affecting the legal rights of the parties or an isolatable transaction or related set of transactions between identifiable parties. Rulemaking, legislation, the formulation of general policy, standards or objectives, or other action of general application is not such a matter. Therefore, a former Government employee may represent another person in connection with a particular matter involving a specific party even if rules or policies which he or she had a role in establishing are involved in the proceeding. Example 1: A Government employee formulated the policy objectives of an energy conservation program. He is not restricted from later representing a university which seeks a grant or contract for work emerging from such a program. Example 2: A Government employee reviews and approves a specific city's application for Federal assistance for a renewal project. After leaving Government service, she may not represent the city in relation to that project. Example 3: An employee is regularly involved in the formulation of policy, procedures and regulations governing departmental procurement and acquisition functions. Participation in such activities does not restrict the employee after leaving the Government as to particular cases involving the application of such policies, procedures, or regulations. Example 4: An employee of the Office of Management and Budget participates substantially on the merits of a decision to reduce the funding level of a program, which has the effect of reducing the amount of money which certain cities receive to conduct youth work programs. After leaving the Government she may represent any of the cities in securing funds for its youth program, since her participation was in connection with a program, not a particular matter involving specific parties. Example 5: An agency attorney participates in drafting a standard form contract and certain “standard terms and clauses” for use in future contracts. He is not thereafter barred from representing a person in a dispute involving the application of such a “standard term or clause” in a particular contract in which he did not participate as a Government employee. (2) Technical matters. In connection with technical work, participation in projects generally involving one or more scientific or engineering concepts, in feasibility studies, or in proposed programs prior to the formulation of a contract will not restrict former Government employees with respect to a contract or specific programs entered into at a later date. Example 1: A Government employee participates significantly in formulating the “mission need” of a project pursuant to OMB Circular No. A–109, and the award of a contract to Z Company, the purpose of which is to propose alternative technical approaches. He is not barred, after leaving Government service, from representing Q Company which later seeks a contract to manufacture one of the systems suggested by the Z Company. Example 2: A Government employee, who has worked for years on the design of a new satellite communications system, joins C Company. Later, the Government issues a “request for proposals” (“rfp”) to construct the new system, which is circulated generally to industry. The employee proposes to act as C Company's representative in connection with its anticipated proposals for the contract. He may do so. The satellite contract became a particular matter when the rfp was being formulated; it would ordinarily not become one involving a specific party or parties until initial proposals or indications of interest therein by contractors were first received. Moreover, if the employee's work for C Company were limited to the formulation and communication of a proposal in response to the rfp, it would not be prohibited to the extent it involved a communication for the purpose of furnishing scientific or technological information to the Government, exempt under 18 U.S.C. 207(f). See §2637.206 below. (See paragraph (3) below as to a case where the employee's own participation may cause a different result.) (3) Relationship of personal participation to specificity. In certain cases, whether a matter should be treated as a “particular matter involving specific parties” may depend on the employee's own participation in events which give particularity and specificity to the matter in question. For example, if a Government employee (i) personally participated in that stage of the formulation of a proposed contract where significant requirements were discussed and one or more persons was identified to perform services thereunder and (ii) actively urged that such a contract be awarded, but the contract was actually awarded only after the employee left, the contract may nevertheless be a particular matter involving a specific party as to such former Government employee. Example 1: A Government employee advises her agency that it needs certain work done and meets with private firm X to discuss and develop requirements and operating procedures. Thereafter, the employee meets with agency officials and persuades them of the need for a project along the lines discussed with X. She leaves the Government and the project is awarded by other employees to firm X. The employee is asked by X to represent it on the contract. She may not do so. (4) The same particular matter must be involved. The requirement of a “particular matter involving a specific party” applies both at the time that the Government employee acts in an official capacity and at the time in question after Government service. The same particular matter may continue in another form or in part. In determining whether two particular matters are the same, the agency should consider the extent to which the matters involve the same basic facts, related issues, the same or related parties, time elapsed, the same confidential information, and the continuing existence of an important Federal interest. Example 1: A Government employee was substantially involved in the award of a long-term contract to Z Company for the development of alternative energy sources. Six years after he terminates Government employment, the contract is still in effect, but much of the technology has changed as have many of the personnel. The Government proposes to award a “follow on” contract, involving the same objective, after competitive bidding. The employee may represent Q Company in its proposals for the follow-on contract, since Q Company's proposed contract is a different matter from the contract with Z Company. He may also represent Z Company in its efforts to continue as contractor, if the agency determines on the basis of facts referred to above, that the new contract is significantly different in its particulars from the old. The former employee should first consult his agency and request a written determination before undertaking any representation in the matter. Example 2: A Government employee reviewed and approved certain wiretap applications. The prosecution of a person overheard during the wiretap, although not originally targeted, must be regarded as part of the same particular matter as the initial wiretap application. The reason is that the validity of the wiretap may be put in issue and many of the facts giving rise to the wiretap application would be involved. Other examples: See §2637.201(b)(1), Example 1, and (c), Example 2. (5) United States must be a party or have an interest. The particular matter must be one in which the United States is a party, such as in a judicial or administrative proceeding or a contract, or in which it has a direct and substantial interest. The importance of the Federal interest in a matter can play a role in determining whether two matters are the same particular matter. Example 1: An attorney participated in preparing the Government's antitrust action against Z Company. After leaving the Government, she may not represent Z Company in a private antitrust action brought against it by X Company on the same facts involved in the Government action. Nor may she represent X Company in that matter. The interest of the United States in preventing both inconsistent results and the appearance of impropriety in the same factual matter involving the same party, Z Company, is direct and substantial. However, if the Government's antitrust investigation or case is closed, the United States no longer has a direct and substantial interest in the case. Example 2: A member of a Government team providing technical assistance to a foreign country leaves and seeks to represent a private contractor in making arrangements with the Government to perform the same service. The proposed new contract may or may not be considered a separate matter, depending upon whether the United States has a national interest in maintaining the original contract. The agency involved must be consulted by the former employee before the representation can be undertaken. (d) “Participate personally and substantially”—(1) Basic requirements. The restrictions of section 207(a) apply only to those matters in which a former Government employee had “personal and substantial participation,” exercised “through decision, approval, disapproval, recommendation, the rendering of advice, investigation or otherwise.” To participate “personally” means directly, and includes the participation of a subordinate when actually directed by the former Government employee in the matter. “Substantially,” means that the employee's involvement must be of significance to the matter, or form a basis for a reasonable appearance of such significance. It requires more than official responsibility, knowledge, perfunctory involvement, or involvement on an administrative or peripheral issue. A finding of substantiality should be based not only on the effort devoted to a matter, but on the importance of the effort. While a series of peripheral involvements may be insubstantial, the single act of approving or participation in a critical step may be substantial. It is essential that the participation be related to a “particular matter involving a specific party.” (See paragraph (c) of this section.) (See also §2637.203(f) of this part.) Example 1: If an officer personally approves the departmental budget, he does not participate substantially in the approval of all items contained in the budget. His participation is substantial only in those cases where a budget item is actually put in issue. Even then, the former Government employee is not disqualified with respect to an item if it is a general program rather than a particular matter involving a specific party. The former Government employee may, however, have official responsibility for such matters. (See §2637.202(b).) Example 2: A Government lawyer is not in charge of, nor has official responsibility for a particular case, but is frequently consulted as to filings, discovery, and strategy. Such an individual has personally and substantially participated in the matter. (2) Participation on ancillary matters. An employee's participation on subjects not directly involving the substantive merits of a matter may not be “substantial,” even if it is time-consuming. An employee whose responsibility is the review of a matter solely for compliance with administrative control or budgetary considerations and who reviews a particular matter for such a purpose should not be regarded as having participated substantially in the matter, except when such considerations also are the subject of the employee's proposed representation. (See §2637.202(b)(3) of this part.) Such an employee could theoretically cause a halt in a program for noncompliance with standards under his or her jurisdiction, but lacks authority to initiate a program or to disapprove it on the basis of its substance. (3) Role of official responsibility in determining substantial participation. “Official responsibility” is defined in §2637.202(b)(1). “Personal and substantial participation” is different from “official responsibility.” One's responsibility may, however, play a role in determining the “substantiality” of an employee's participation. For example, ordinarily an employee's forbearance on a matter is not substantial participation. If, however, an employee is charged with responsibility for review of a matter and action cannot be undertaken over his or her objection, the result may be different. If the employee reviews a matter and passes it on, his or her participation may be regarded as “substantial” even if he or she claims merely to have engaged in inaction. (e) Agency responsibility in complex cases. In certain complex factual cases, the agency with which the former Government employee was associated is likely to be in the best position to make a determination as to certain issues, for example, the identity or existence of a particular matter. Designated agency ethics officials should provide advice promptly to former Government employees who make inquiry on any matter arising under these regulations. (a) Basic prohibition of 18 U.S.C. 207(b)(i). No former Government employee, within two years after terminating employment by the United States, shall knowingly act as agent or attorney for, or otherwise represent any other person in any formal or informal appearance before, or with the intent to influence, make any oral or written communication on behalf of any other person (1) to the United States, (2) in connection with any particular Government matter involving a specific party (3) if such matter was actually pending under the employee's responsibility as an officer or employee within period of one year prior to the termination of such responsibility. (b) “Official responsibility”—(1) Definition. “Official responsibility” is defined in 18 U.S.C. 202 as, “the direct administrative or operating authority, whether intermediate or final, and either exercisable alone or with others, and either personally or through subordinates, to approve, disapprove, or otherwise direct Government actions.” (2) Determining official responsibility. Ordinarily, the scope of an employee's “official responsibility” is determined by those areas assigned by statute, regulation, Executive Order, job description or delegation of authority. All particular matters under consideration in an agency are under the “official responsibility” of the agency head, and each is under that of any intermediate supervisor having responsibility for an employee who actually participates in the matter within the scope of his or her duties. (3) Ancillary matters and official responsibility. “Administrative” authority as used in the foregoing definition means authority for planning, organizing and controlling matters rather than authority to review or make decisions on ancillary aspects of a matter such as the regularity of budgeting procedures, public or community relations aspects, or equal employment opportunity considerations. Responsibility for such an ancillary consideration does not constitute responsibility for the particular matter, except when such a consideration is also the subject of the employee's proposed representation. Example 1: An agency's comptroller would not have official responsibility for all programs in the agency, even though she must review the budget, and all such programs are contained in the budget. Example 2: Within two years after terminating employment, an agency's former comptroller is asked to represent Q Company in a dispute arising under a contract which was in effect during the comptroller's tenure. The dispute concerns an accounting formula, under the contract, a matter as to which a subordinate division of the comptroller's office was consulted. She may not represent Q Company on this matter. (4) Knowledge of matter pending required. In order for a former employee to be barred from representing another as to a particular matter, he or she need not have known, while employed by the Government, that the matter was pending under his or her official responsibility. However, the former employee is not subject to the restriction unless at the time of the proposed representation of another, he or she knows or learns that the matter had been under his or her responsibility. Ordinarily, a former employee who is asked to represent another on a matter will become aware of facts sufficient to suggest the relationship of the prior matter to his or her former agency. If so, he or she is under a duty to make further inquiry, including direct contact with an agency's designated ethics official where the matter is in doubt. (5) Self-disqualification. A former employee cannot avoid the restrictions of this section on the ground by self-disqualification with respect to a matter for which he or she otherwise had official responsibility. However, self-disqualification is effective to eliminate the restriction of section 207(a). (c) “Actually pending.” “Actually pending” means that the matter was in fact referred to or under consideration by persons within the employee's area of responsibility, not that it merely could have been. Example 1: A staff lawyer in a department's Office of General Counsel is consulted by procurement officers on the correct resolution of a contractual matter involving Q Company. The lawyer renders an opinion resolving the question. The same legal question arises later in several contracts with other companies, but none of the disputes with such companies is referred to the Office of the General Counsel. The General Counsel has official responsibility for the determination of the Q Company matter. The other matters were never “actually pending” under that responsibility, although as a theoretical matter, such responsibility extended to all legal matters within the department. (d) Other essential requirements. All other requirements of the statute must be met before the restriction on representation applies. The same considerations apply in determining the existence of a “particular matter involving a specific party,” a representation in an “appearance,” or “intent to influence,” and so forth as set forth under §2637.201 of this part. Example 1: During her tenure as head of an agency, an officer's subordinates undertook major changes in agency enforcement standards involving occupational safety. Eighteen months after terminating Government employment, she is asked to represent Z Company which believes it is being unfairly treated under the enforcement program. The Z Company matter first arose on a complaint filed after the agency head terminated her employment. She may represent Z Company because the matter pending under her official responsibility was not one involving “a specific party.” (Moreover, the time-period covered by 18 U.S.C. 207(c) has elapsed.) (e) Measurement of two-year restriction period. The statutory two-year period is measured from the date when the employee's responsibility in a particular area ends, not from the termination of Government service, unless the two occur simultaneously. The prohibition applies to all particular matters subject to such responsibility in the one-year period before termination of such responsibility. Example 1: The Director, Import/Export Division of A Agency retires after 26 years of service and enters private industry as a consultant. He will be restricted for two years with respect to all matters which were actually pending under his official responsibility in the year before his retirement. Example 2: An employee transfers from a position in A Agency to a position in B Agency, and she leaves B Agency for private employment 9 months later. In 15 months she will be free of restriction insofar as matters which were pending under her responsibility in A Agency in the year before her transfer. She will be restricted for two years in respect of B Agency matters which were pending in the year before her departure for private employment. (a) Basic prohibition of 18 U.S.C. 207(b)(ii). No former Senior Employee (see §2637.102(a)(6)), within two years after terminating employment by the United States, shall knowingly represent or aid, counsel, advise, consult, or assist in representing any other person by personal presence at any formal or informal appearance, (1) before the United States, (2) in connection with any particular Government matter involving a specific party, (3) in which matter he or she participated personally and substantially. (b) Limitation to “representational” assistance by “personal presence” at an appearance. Section 207(b)(ii) is limited to assistance “in representing” another person by “personal presence” at an “appearance” before the United States. Different in scope from sections 207(a) and 207(b)(i), it does not apply to assistance in connection with an oral or written communication made with an intent to influence which does not involve an appearance. Nor does it bar assistance in preparation for either a formal or informal personal appearance or an appearance by written submission in a formal proceeding where the former employee is not personally present before the Government or a Government employee. The provision is designed to prevent the former Senior Employee from playing any auxiliary role during a negotiation proceeding or similar transaction with the Government so that he or she does not appear to be lending personal influence to the resolution of a matter and cannot do so in fact. Example 1: A former Senior Employee makes suggestions as to the content of a letter to be sent to the Government on a matter in which he had participated. No violation occurs. (c) Managerial and other off-scene assistance. The statute does not prohibit a former Senior Employee's advice and assistance to his or her organization's representatives which does not involve his or her personal presence at an appearance before the Government. The former Senior Employee's preparation of documents to be presented in any formal or informal proceeding does not constitute personal presence at an appearance, even where submission of such a document might technically constitute an appearance. Example 1: A former Senior Employee attends a hearing on a matter in which she had participated personally and substantially while in the Government. She speaks with the representative of a private party during the hearing. A violation occurs if the former Senior Employee lends assistance to the representative in that conversation. Example 2: A Senior Justice Department lawyer personally works on an antitrust case against Z Company. After leaving the Department, she is asked to discuss legal strategy with lawyers representing Z Company on that same antitrust case, to write portions of a brief and to direct the research of the staff working on the case. Any such aid would not be prohibited by the statute, but would likely be prohibited by professional disciplinary rules. (d) Representational assistance. The statute seeks to prevent a former Senior Employee from making unfair use of his or her prior governmental position by prohibiting all forms of assistance in the representation of another when personally present at an appearance, including giving advice as to how the representation in an appearance should be conducted, supplying information, participating in drafting materials, or dealing with forensic or argumentative matters (such as testimony, methods of persuasion, or strategy of presentation). (e) Measurement of restriction period. The statutory two-year period is measured from the date of termination of employment in the Senior Employee position held by the former employee when he or she participated personally and substantially in the matter involved. (cf. §2637.202(e)) (f) Other Essential Requirements. All conditions of the statutory prohibition must be met. Specifically, the former employee, (1) must have been a “Senior Employee,” (2) who “participated personally and substantially” (See §2637.201(d) of this part) in (3) a “particular matter involving a specific party.” (See subpart §2637.201(c) of this part.) (g) General Examples: Example 1: A Senior Federal Trade Commission Employee, an economist by profession, participates in an investigation involving X Company, and a proceeding is commenced against X Company based on the investigation. After leaving the Commission, he offers to serve as a consultant to the lawyers for X Company on certain economic matters involved in the proceeding. He attends the proceeding and at the close of each day, meets in the lawyers' office to advise them. Such conduct violates the statute. Example 2: A Senior Employee of the Department of the Treasury participates in a number of projects with universities and financial research institutions funded by Government grants. After leaving the Government, she becomes dean of a graduate school of business which performs work under a number of such grants. She may, in the discharge of her duties, supervise research and advise as to how funds under such a contract should be allocated, whether or not these matters are, as is likely, communicated to her former Department by the graduate school's representatives. (See §2637.204.) Example 3: A Senior Defense Department official participated personally and substantially in a contract award to F Company for fighter planes. After leaving the Department, the former official goes to work for F Company. Subsequently, F Company desires to renegotiate prices and a pension provision on the fighter plane contract, matters in which dispute is anticipated. The former official could not attend a meeting with Government employees at which such matters will be discussed and give assistance to those representing F Company in the negotiations. He could generally render advice as long as he remained absent from the negotiations. Example 4: A Senior Justice Department lawyer participated in an antitrust case against Q Company, which is represented by Y law firm. Immediately after leaving, the Department, she goes to work with Y law firm, and assists at a trial representing Q Company in a different antitrust case, not involving the allegations in the Government case. Such assistance would not be barred because it does not occur in connection with the same particular matter. Example 5: A Senior Employee of the Department of Health and Human Services leaves to take a university position. The former official's new duties include various HHS contracts which the university holds. Some of the contracts were awarded by a division within HHS which was under her official responsibility. She is not barred from assistance in negotiations with respect to such contracts, because the restriction applies only to those matters in which she had participated personally and substantially, not to those matters for which she had official responsibility. Note, however, that any participation by her as a representative would be barred by 18 U.S.C. 207(b)(i) as described in §2637.202 of this part. (But see §2637.204.) Example 6: A Senior scientist with the Food and Drug Administration was personally and substantially involved in a licensing proceeding concerning a specific drug. After leaving the FDA, he is employed by the manufacturer of the drug. There he engages in research, indicating that the drug is safe and effective, which his employer later presents to FDA in connection with the proceeding. He assists during this presentation. Such assistance would normally be restricted but may be allowed to the extent that the former official is furnishing scientific information to the Government. (See 18 U.S.C. 207(f) and §2637.206 of this part.) Example 7: A former Senior Employee of the Federal Communications Commission leaves the agency to join a graduate school faculty. In one of his courses, which from time to time includes Government employees, he discusses, unfavorably to the Commission, a specific licensing case in which he was personally and substantially involved. The restriction does not apply because the conduct does not occur in connection with any representational activities. (a) Basic prohibition of 18 U.S.C. 207(c). For a period of one year after terminating employment by the United States, no former Senior Employee (other than a special Government employee who serves for fewer than sixty days in a calendar year) shall knowingly act as an agent or attorney for, or otherwise represent, anyone in any formal or informal appearance before, or with the intent to influence, make any written or oral communication on behalf of anyone to (1) his or her former department or agency, or any of its officers or employees, (2) in connection with any particular Government matter, whether or not involving a specific party, which is pending before such department or agency, or in which it has a direct and substantial interest. (b) Transactions exempted from the basic prohibition of 18 U.S.C. 207(c). The prohibition set forth above shall not apply to an appearance, a communication, or representation by a former Senior Employee, who is: (1) An elected official of a State or local government, acting on behalf of such government, or (2) Whose principal occupation or employment is with (i) an agency or instrumentality of a State or local government, (ii) an accredited, degree-granting institution of higher education, as defined in section 1201(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965, or (iii) a hospital or medical research organization, exempted and defined under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, and the appearance, communication, or representation is on behalf of such government, institution, hospital or organization. Example 1: A former Senior Employee of the Federal Highway Administration is appointed to the position of Secretary of Transportation for the State of Kansas. He would not be prohibited from transacting business with his former agency concerning new matters on behalf of the State. He would, however, be restricted as to 207(a) and 207(b) matters. Example 2: A former Senior Employee of the Department of Housing and Urban Development establishes a consulting firm and is engaged by the City of Los Angeles to aid it in procuring a particular grant. He may not represent Los Angeles before his former Department because his “principal occupation or employment” is not with such city. Example 3: A former Senior Employee of the Department of Education founds a vocational school for the training of legal paraprofessionals and associated staff. He desires to communicate with officials at his former Department for the purpose of establishing a program of assistance to such institutions. He may not do so, since the vocational school is not an “accredited, degree granting institution of higher education.” (c) No prior involvement required. The prohibition contained in this section applies without regard to whether the former Senior Employee had participated in, or had responsibility for, the particular matter and includes matters which first arise after the employee leaves Government service. The section aims at the possible use of personal influence based upon past Governmental affiliations to facilitate the transaction of business. (d) Specific parties unnecessary. The particular matter in which the former Senior Employee proposes to act before his or her former agency need not be one “involving specific parties,” and thus is not limited to disputed proceedings or contracts in which a party has already been identified. However, the restriction does not encompass every kind of matter, but only a particular one similar to those cited in the statutory language, i.e., any judicial or other proceeding, application, request for a ruling or determination, contract, claim, controversy, investigation, charge, accusation, or arrest. Rulemaking is specifically included. Thus such matters as the proposed adoption of a regulation or interpretive ruling, or an agency's determination to undertake a particular project or to open such a project to competitive bidding are covered. Not included are broad technical areas and policy issues and conceptual work done before a program has become particularized into one or more specific projects. The particular matter must be pending before the agency or be one in which the agency has a “direct and substantial interest.” Note: Each post employment activity in the examples in this section is assumed to take place within one year of termination of Government employment. Example 1: A Senior Employee of the Department of Health and Human Services leaves Government employment for private practice, and shortly thereafter telephones a former associate urging that the Department (a) adopt a new procedure to put a ceiling on hospital costs; (b) not adopt a particular rule proposed for drug testing; and (c) oppose a bill pending in Congress relating to such drug testing. He is prohibited from attempting to influence his former co-worker on any of these matters. The first, not yet pending, is of interest to the Department; the second is pending in the Department; and the third is pending elsewhere, and is of interest to the Department. Note that the former Senior Employee may, however, communicate the same views to Congress, other agencies, the public or the press. Example 2: A recently retired Senior Employee of the Department of Defense believes that the Department's general emphasis on manned aircraft is not in the national interest. After his departure, he may continue to argue the point to the Department. (e) Element of controversy or influence required. The prohibition on acting as a representative or attempting to influence applies to situations in which there is an appreciable element of actual or potential dispute or an application or submission to obtain Government rulings, benefits or approvals, and not to a situation merely involving, for example: the transmission or filing of a document that does not involve an application for Government benefit, approval or ruling; a request for information; purely social or informational communications; or those required by law or regulations (in situations other than adversary proceedings). Each agency should, after consulting with the Director or the Attorney General, as appropriate, give guidance on the kinds of applications, filings and other matters which are not prohibited by section 207(c). Example 1: A former Senior Employee of the Internal Revenue Service prepares and mails a client's tax return. This is not a prohibited act. Should any controversy arise in connection with the tax return, the former employee may not represent the client, but may be called upon to state how the return was prepared. Example 2: A former Senior Employee of the Securities and Exchange Commission prepared and transmitted for filing to the Commission a client's annual report on form 10–K. This is not a violation, because the 10–K is a disclosure report, not intended to obtain a Government benefit or ruling. Example 3: A former Senior Employee of the Securities and Exchange Commission becomes executive vice-president of a major industrial corporation, registered under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Pursuant to Commission regulations, the officers of the corporation are required to sign certain filings on behalf of the corporation, which are transmitted to the Commission. The employee may review, concur or request changes in, and sign any such filing required to be transmitted to the Commission. (f) Agency activity or interest in matter. The restriction applies to the former employee's contacts with his or her former agency in connection with a matter before or of “direct and substantial interest” to the agency. Example 1: A former Senior Employee of the Securities and Exchange Commission is asked to represent Z Company in a new matter before the Commission, one in which the former employee had no prior involvement. He may not do so. Example 2: The matter in the foregoing example is referred to the Department of Justice for prosecution, and the former employee is asked for the first time to represent Z Company in the criminal proceeding. The matter is likely to be of direct and substantial interest to the Commission. If so, the former employee may not communicate with the Commission in the matter. However, the former Senior Employee may communicate with the Commission in order to determine whether it asserts a direct and substantial interest in the criminal proceeding. In the event of a negative answer to the question, the former Senior Employee may communicate with the Commission. Example 3: In connection with an entirely new matter a former Senior Employee of the Securities and Exchange Commission undertakes the representation of Z Company in private litigation brought by Q Company, (e.g., a private action arising under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934). Before the suit was commenced, there was no actual expression of interest by the Commission in the matter. As the litigation develops, an important question of statutory interpretation is raised, and the Commission files a brief as amicus curiae (friend of the court). The former Senior Employee may respond to the brief and need not withdraw from representation of Z Company, but he may not otherwise communicate with the Commission in the matter. If the Commission were to commence a proceeding or investigation again, Z Company on the basis of the same facts involved in the private litigation, the former employee could continue his representation in the private litigation, but could not represent Z Company in the Commission's proceeding until after the expiration of one year from the termination of his employment with the Commission. [Note: Where an agency becomes a party to a proceeding subsequent to its commencement, the question whether a former Senior Employee may continue representation should ordinarily be decided by the court on a motion for disqualification in the particular circumstances.] Example 4: In connection with a new matter, a former Senior Employee of the Federal Food and Drug Administration, since retired to private law practice, is asked to consult and assist in the preparation of briefs to be filed with the Administration on a new particular matter. He may do so, but he should not sign briefs or other communications or take any other action that might constitute an appearance. (g) Application or proposals for funding of research. In connection with any application or proposal for Government funding of research, the restrictions of this section do not prevent a former Senior Employee from assuming responsibility for the direction or conduct of such research and from providing scientific or technological information to the Senior Employee's former agency regarding such research. The former Senior Employee may not, however, submit the application on behalf of the applicant or argue for its approval or funding by the agency. Example 1: A former Senior Employee of the National Institute of Health (NIH), employed by a non-exempt research institute, prepares an application to NIH for a research contract. The application is submitted to NIH by the institute and lists the Senior Employee as principal investigator. The Senior Employee does not violate 18 U.S.C. 207(c) by preparing the application or by being listed as principal investigator, since these are not representational activities. He may also sign an assurance to NIH, as part of the application, that he will be responsible for the scientific and technical direction and conduct of the project if an award is made. He may also communicate with NIH to provide scientific or technical information on the application, including presentation to NIH personnel at the research site, so long as he does not argue for approval or funding of the application. (h) Personal matters. Unlike the provisions of subsections 207(a) and (b) the restrictions of this section apply when the former Senior Employee seeks to represent himself or herself. However, they do not apply to appearances or communications concerning matters of a personal and individual nature, such as personal income taxes, pension benefits, or the application of any provision of these regulations to an undertaking proposed by a Senior Employee. (See 18 U.S.C. 207(i).) A former Senior Employee may also appear pro se (on his or her own behalf) in any litigation or administrative proceeding, involving the individual's former agency. The former employee may not contact his or her former agency in order to secure an item of business, except for (1) discussions in contemplation of being employed by the agency as a consultant or otherwise; or (2) a proposal to furnish scientific or technological information to the Government. Example 1: Any former Government Employee may contact his or her former agency to seek information or determinations as to matters in question under these regulations or under 18 U.S.C. 207, such as whether a particular matter is considered to have been under the employee's official responsibility, whether a matter is one in which the agency asserts a direct and substantial interest, or whether a current matter is considered to be the same as that in which the employee had been involved. (i) Statements based on special knowledge. The restrictions of the section do not prevent a former Senior Employee from making or providing a statement, which is based on the former Senior Employee's own special knowledge in the particular area that is the subject matter of the statement, provided that no compensation is thereby received, other than that regularly provided by law or regulation for witnesses. (See 18 U.S.C. 207(i).) Example 1: A former Senior Employee may make any statement of his own views to his former agency on any subject matter in which he has no substantial pecuniary interests, acting on his own behalf. Example 2: A former Senior Employee is called by his successor at the agency for the purpose of eliciting some information on a matter in which he had been involved in an official capacity. His response is not prohibited. Example 3: A former Senior Employee may recommend an individual to her former agency for employment, based on her own personal knowledge of the individual's qualifications and character. (j) Measurement of one-year restriction period. The statutory one-year period is measured from the date when the individual's responsibility as a Senior Employee in a particular agency ends, not from the termination of Government service, unless the two occur simultaneously. (See §2637.202(e).) (a) Authority. There are two methods by which the application of the one-year “cooling-off” prohibition of 18 U.S.C. 207(c) may be limited to less than the entirety of a department or agency. First, 18 U.S.C. 207(e) provides that the Director may by rule designate as “separate” a statutory agency or bureau which exercises functions that are distinct and separate from the remaining functions of the parent department or agency of which it is part. (see §2637.214) Second, under the provisions of 18 U.S.C. 207(d)(1)(C), the Director may restrict the application of the prohibition as to a former employee (other than one who served in an Executive Level position or at a uniformed service grade level of 0–9 and above) insofar as it affects his or her communications with persons in an unrelated agency or bureau within his former parent department or agency which has separate and distinct subject matter jurisdiction from the agency or bureau in which he or she served. (see §2637.215) (b) Distinctions between the 18 U.S.C. 207(e) and 207(d)(1)(C) provisions. (1) The authority granted by 18 U.S.C. 207(e) is applicable solely to a separate statutory agency or bureau, that is, one created by statute or the functions of which are expressly referred to by statute in such a way that is appears that Congress intended that its functions were to be separable. A determination made under this 18 U.S.C. 207(e) does not, however, benefit former heads of the separate statutory agency or bureau. Such a determination does, however, work to the benefit of other employees at Executive Level or at uniformed service grade level of 0–9 or above. (2) The determination made pursuant to section 207(d)(1)(C) is intended to provide similar recognition of separability where the subordinate agency or bureau has been administratively created. A determination of such separability does inure to the benefit of the head of the separate component if he is a Senior Employee designated by the Director. However, the determination is not beneficial to persons, including the head of a separate component, in positions at Executive Level or serving at uniformed service grade level of 0–9 above. (c) Separate Statutory Components—(1) Procedure. Each agency shall notify the Director, in writing, of any separate statutory agency or bureau which it desires to submit for such designation under 18 U.S.C. 207(e), providing: (i) A description of the functions of the agency or bureau, indicating the basis on which such functions are claimed to be distinct and separate from the parent organization; (ii) The separate statutory basis of the agency or bureau; and (iii) Identification of those positions in the parent agency with official responsibility for supervision of such separate statutory agency or bureau. (2) Standards. A parent agency may propose as a “separate” statutory agency an agency or bureau (i) created specifically by statute, (ii) the functions of which are expressly referred to by statute in such a way as to indicate that a separate component was intended or (iii) which is the successor to either of the foregoing; but a decision as to the sufficiency of the statutory authority as well as the separability of functions shall be reserved to the Director, OGE. (3) Effect of designation. If a subordinate part of an agency is designated as “separate” by the Director, then Senior Employees of such separate agency and those of the parent agency are not subject to the restrictions of section 207(c) as to each others' agencies—except that the prohibition of section 207(c) remains applicable to the former head of a “separate” subordinate agency and to former Senior Employees of the parent agency whose official responsibility included supervision of the subordinate agency. Example 1: A former Senior Employee of the Product Agency in Executive Department leaves and joins a law firm which represents Q Corporation. Product Agency has been designated by the Director as separate from Executive Department. The former employee is not restricted from representing the Q Corporation on a new matter before the Executive Department. (d) Separate Nonstatutory Components—(1) Procedure. Each agency may notify the Director, in writing, of a component agency, bureau or office having separate and distinct subject matter jurisdiction which it desires to submit for designation under 18 U.S.C. 207(d)(1)(C), providing: (i) A description of the subject matter jurisdiction of such component, indicating the basis on which such jurisdiction is claimed to be separate and distinct from certain other agencies, bureaus and offices of the parent agency; (ii) A description of the nature of the connections and interactions between such component and certain other agencies, bureaus or offices of the parent agency indicating the basis on which the component is claimed to be unrelated; (iii) A statement of the basis on which it is claimed that no potential exists for use by former Senior Employees of such component of undue influence or unfair advantage with respect to the named other agencies, bureaus or offices of the parent agency, based on past Government service; and (iv) Identification of those organizational units of the parent agency having administrative or operational authority over such component agency, bureau or office. (2) Standards. (i) A parent agency may propose as “separate” from other parts of a department or agency any agency or bureau having subject matter jurisdiction separate and distinct from one or more other portions of the department or agency accompanied by a showing that there would be no potential for use of undue influence or unfair advantage based upon past Government service if a former employee of one such subordinate agency or bureau communicated with employees of such other portions of the department or agency. (ii) A determination under this section rests solely with the Director, OGE, and is available only for those subordinate components which would, but for the lack of a statutory basis, qualify for separate agency treatment under 18 U.S.C. 207(e). (iii) Where one component has supervisory authority over another, the two components may not be considered separate and distinct for purposes of this section. (iv) The requirement of “separate and distinct subject matter jurisdiction” may be met in at least two ways. First, the substantive areas of coverage may be distinct. For example, an office or bureau within the parent agency may handle only maritime matters. Second, the regional area of coverage may be different. For example, one regional office may, on appropriate facts, be considered separate and distinct from other regional offices and from the parent agency—except for the bureau or office in the parent agency which is responsible for its supervision. (v) It is necessary to specify the “unrelated agency or bureau within the same department or agency” as to which it is recommended that post employment communication be permitted. For example, one bureau may involve a subject matter distinct from some, but not all, parts of the parent department. Attempts to fractionalize a department could, however, become deeply complicated and involve difficult judgments and fact-finding. OGE will not usually act on such cases, and submissions should be confined to relatively clear cases. (3) Effect of determination. If a component agency, bureau or office is determined to be separate by the Director, then Senior Employees of such component are not subject to the restrictions of 18 U.S.C. 207(c) and §2637.204 as to the remaining agencies, bureaus or offices of the parent agency (except certain such agencies, bureaus or offices as specified in §2637.215)—except that the prohibition of section 207(c) and §2637.204 shall remain applicable (i) to those former Senior Employees of such component who served in positions designated by 18 U.S.C. 207(d)(1)(A) and (B) and (ii) to former Senior Employees of such component with respect to the parent agency (as defined in §2637.205(e)). Such limited application of 18 U.S.C. 207(c) may be available for the head of a separate component, unlike the limitation of 18 U.S.C. 207(e), as determined by the Director. Example 1: In the Department of Justice, while the Antitrust Division may be “separate” from other Divisions, it is not separate from the immediate office of the Attorney General. (a) Exemption. The making of communications solely for the purpose of furnishing scientific or technological information pursuant to agency procedures is exempt from all prohibitions and restrictions set forth in §§2637.201–2637.204 of these regulations (subsections (a), (b), and (c) of 18 U.S.C. 207). This exemption allows the free exchange of such information regardless of a former Government employee's prior participation in or responsibility for the matter. The former Senior Employee should not argue for the acceptance of a proposal. The exemption is not limited to communications constituting the furnishing of information, but includes those “for the purpose of” doing so. No violation occurs when, for example, a former Government employee working on a project makes contact to determine the kind and form of information required, or the adequacy of information already supplied, so long as agency procedures are satisfied. Example 1: A project manager, regardless of prior involvement in a particular matter, may contact the Government to determine deficiencies in system design or performance, furnish scientific or technological information relating to a solution or approach to a problem, seek related information from the Government; advise and supervise others who are involved as to such matters; and meet with Government technical experts for such purpose; provided in each case that there is compliance with such agency regulations as have been issued. (b) Necessary information. Scientific and technological information includes feasibility, risk, cost, and speed of implementation, when necessary to appreciate fairly the practical significance of the information. The Government may and should be fully informed of the significance of scientific and technological alternatives. (c) Intent to influence. The furnishing of meritorious or convincing scientific or technological proposals does not constitute an intent to influence. (See §2637.201(b)(7) of this part.) (d) Expert testimony. This exemption does not include testimony as an “expert” in adversary proceedings in a matter in which the United States is involved or has an interest. Such testimony is governed by regulations set forth in §2637.208. As to assistance as an expert or consultant, see §2637.203(g), Example 7. (e) Agency responsibility for procedures. The primary responsibility for developing procedures to guide activity under this exemption lies with each agency, so that such procedures comport with the particular characteristics of agency programs and needs. Such procedures will be reviewed periodically by the Director. In promulgating procedures, an agency may take into consideration: Limiting communications to certain formats which are least conducive to the use of personal influence; segregating, to the extent possible, meetings and presentations involving matters of technical substance from those involving other aspects of the relationship; requiring that the designated agency ethics official be informed of instances where the exemption is used; or employing more restrictive practices in circumstances involving either immediate competition for contracts or applications for grants than in those involving an ongoing project. (a) Applicability. A former Government employee may be exempted from the restrictions on post employment practices if the head of the agency concerned with the particular matter, in consultation with the Director, executes a certification published in the (b) When appropriate. This exemption should generally be utilized only where the former Government employee's involvement is needed on so continuous and comprehensive a basis that compliance with the procedures adopted for the communication of technical information (see §2637.206), or other actions to isolate the former Government employee from other aspects of the matter, would be burdensome and impractical. (c) Certification authority. Certification should take place at no lower level than the head of the agency, the deputy thereof, or in the absence of both, the acting agency head. Consultation with the Director shall precede any certification. The exemption takes place upon the execution of the certification, provided that it is transmitted to the (d) Agency registry. An agency may establish a registry for current employees, wherein the nature of their qualifications in one or more technical fields is certified after review by a supervisor, as a basis for establishing such qualifications in connection with, and to expedite, a later request for certification, should the necessity for such request arise. (a) Statutory basis. Section 207(h) provides:
“Nothing in this section shall prevent a former officer or employee from giving testimony under oath, or from making statements required to be made under penalty of perjury.” (b) Applicability. A former Government employee may testify before any court, board, commission, or legislative body with respect to matters of fact within the personal knowledge of the former Government employee. This provision does not, however, allow a former Government employee, otherwise barred under 18 U.S.C. 207 (a), (b), or (c) to testify on behalf of another as an expert witness except: (1) To the extent that the former employee may testify from personal knowledge as to occurrences which are relevant to the issues in the proceeding, including those in which the former Government employee participated, utilizing his or her expertise, or (2) in any proceeding where it is determined that another expert in the field cannot practically be obtained; that it is impracticable for the facts or opinions on the same subject to be obtained by other means, and that the former Government employee's testimony is required in the interest of justice. (c) Statements under penalty of perjury. A former Government employee may make any statement required to be made under penalty of perjury, such as those required in registration statements for securities, tax returns, or security clearances. The exception does not, however, permit a former employee to submit pleadings, applications, or other documents in a representational capacity on behalf of another merely because the attorney or other representative must sign the documents under oath or penalty of perjury. (a) Scope. Section 207(g) of 18 U.S.C. prohibits a partner of a current Government employee from acting as agent or attorney before the United States in a particular Government matter in which such Government employee participates, or did participate, personally and substantially. To the extent such section involves the activities of current Government employees and their partners, it is beyond the scope of these regulations. (b) Imputation. Neither the Act nor these regulations impute the restrictions on former employees to partners or associates of such employees. Imputation of the restrictions of sections 207 (b)(ii) and (c) to partners of former employees would be inappropriate for the additional reason that section 207(b)(ii) itself restricts secondary-level activity, and section 207(c) is directed at the exercise of influence personal to the former Senior Employee. For purposes of sections 207 (a), (b) and (c) of title 18 U.S.C.: (a) An official whose powers are established by the constitution of any State of the United States does not act on behalf of “any other person” or “anyone” when acting in his or her official capacity, but rather constitutes the official authority of the State; and (b) A former employee does not engage in unlawful activity when he or she acts on behalf of (1) a corporation specifically created by an Act of Congress if any of its directors is currently appointed by the United States; or (2) any public international organization if he or she serves by nomination or request of the United States or on temporary assignment from any agency. (a) Definitions. As used in these regulations, Senior Employee refers to any person specified in or designated pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 207(d)(1); that is, employed by the United States: (1) At a rate of pay specified or fixed according to subchapter II of chapter 53 of title 5, U.S.C., generally known as “Executive Level;” or (2) On active duty as a commissioned officer of a uniformed service in a pay grade of 0–9 or above as described in 37 U.S.C. 201; or (3) In a position in any pay system for which the basic rate of pay is equal to or greater than that for GS–17 as prescribed by 5 U.S.C. 5332 or positions which are established within the Senior Executive Service (SES) pursuant to the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, or positions of active duty commissioned officers of the uniformed services assigned to pay grade 0–7 and 0–8, as described in 37 U.S.C. 201, and who has significant decision-making or supervisory responsibilities, as designated by the Director, pursuant to paragraph (b) of this section. (b) Designation procedures. The following procedures will be followed in designation of Senior Employee positions pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 207(d)(1)(C): (1) Positions at GS–17 and 18 level, Senior Executive Service, and pay grades 0–7 and 0–8 of the uniformed services. The following are designated effective February 28, 1980, unless exempted as provided in paragraph (b)(2) of this section: All positions classified at GS–17 or above in the General Schedule; those in any other pay system, the rate of pay for which is at least that of grade GS–17; those in the Senior Executive Service; and those active duty uniformed service officers serving in pay grades 0–7 and 0–8. Each agency head shall submit to the Director, by May 15, 1979 and on every May 15 thereafter, a report consisting of: (i) a description of all positions as set forth in this paragraph; (ii) the agency's recommendation as to those positions that should not be designated, based on standards established in these regulations or any other reason; and (iii) the basis and reasons for each such recommendation. After making such additional inquiries as appear desirable, the Director will determine which positions should be exempt. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the effective date for Executive Level positions, whether or not included in the Senior Executive Service, is July 1, 1979. (2) Standards for designation and exemption. Positions, or classes of positions, which do not have significant decision-making or supervisory responsibility will be exempted from designation. Initial exemptions will be retroactive. Classes of positions which may be considered for exemption are those in which decision-making responsibility does not regularly extend to major policy issues within the agency or in which supervisory responsibility extends to less than all of a directorate, bureau or department which has major policy or operational responsibility. The foregoing may include, without limitation, special assistants, technical and professional advisors to persons who make policy decisions, those involved primarily in research and technical work, and administrative law judges. (3) Senior Executive Service. The establishment of positions within the Senior Executive Service pursuant to the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 is the responsibility of the Office of Personnel Management. The choice of an individual to enter or not to enter the Senior Executive Service is not a relevant factor in the designation under these regulations of a position held by such person. (4) “Rate of pay.” As used in the definition of Senior Employee, the “rate of pay” is that specified by or pursuant to law without regard to the ceiling limitations of section 5308 or section 5373 of title 5 U.S.C.; except that an individual in an executive level or GS–17 or 18 position is deemed to be employed at the rate of pay specified for that position. Increases in pay due to “steps” are not considered in determining pay grade or level. (c) Differential designation. Where appropriate, the Director may designate positions for purposes of 18 U.S.C. 207(c) without designating the positions for purposes of 18 U.S.C. 207(b)(ii). Example 1: It may be determined that a given position or class of positions will be restricted as to contact in the first post employment year, but not as to assisting in representation. (d) Fair notice of designation. No Senior Employee designation made pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 207(d)(1)(C) will be effective until the last day of the fifth full calendar month after the first publication of a notice by the Director of intention to designate; except as indicated in paragraph (i) of this section, and as to a person first occupying the position after such notice is published. The designation in paragraph (b)(1) of this section and the comparable designation in the interim regulations of April 3, 1979 (44 FR 19974) constitutes notice. (e) “Acting” or temporary positions. An individual may serve in a position designated pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 207(d) for up to 60 days in an “acting” or temporary capacity without being subject to those restrictions which specially apply to such positions, unless such individual (1) was transferred or detailed from another designated position, or (2) without a significant break in continuity, is named permanently to such position. (f) Special Government Employee. A Special Government Employee who serves on 60 days or less in a given calendar year may serve in a designated position without being subject to the restrictions which specially apply to such position. A Special Government Employee is deemed to serve only on those days actually engaged in work for the Government under his or her Special Government Employee arrangement. (g) Publication. Positions designated by the Director pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 207(d)(1)(C) and not exempted will be published in the (h) Computation of time. An individual who transfers from a designated position to one that is not designated shall compute the commencement of the time periods contained in 18 U.S.C. 207 (b)(ii) and (c) from the time of such transfer, except as indicated in paragraph (i) of this section. (See §2637.202(e).) (i) Position shifting. In any case where a person transfers from a designated position to one that is not, the agency head shall within one month transmit to the Director a report reciting the functions of each position, the reason for the transfer, and the identities of the prior holder of the position assumed and the successor, if any, to the position departed. If the Director designates the newly assumed position pursuant to section 207(d)(1)(C) of title 18 U.S.C., such designation shall be effective retroactively to the date of transfer notwithstanding paragraph (d) of this section. (j) Revocation of Designations. In the event the Director determines that a position previously designated should not have been, the designation will be revoked. Except for designations made under paragraph (i) of this section, the revocation may be made retroactive if the initial designation is determined to have been erroneous or if there is a change in standards for designation applicable to the position. Retroactive effect will not be given where the basis for revocation is a change in the functions or importance of a position. (a) Basic procedures. The following basic guidelines for administrative enforcement of restrictions on post employment activities are designed to expedite consultation with the Director as required pursuant to section 207(j) of title 18 U.S.C. (1) Delegation. The head of an agency may delegate his or her authority under this subpart. (2) Initiation of administrative disciplinary hearing. (i) On receipt of information regarding a possible violation of 18 U.S.C. 207, and after determining that such information appears substantiated, the agency head shall expeditiously provide such information, along with any comments or agency regulations, to the Director and to the Criminal Division, Department of Justice. The agency should coordinate any investigation on administrative action with the Department of Justice to avoid prejudicing criminal proceedings, unless the Department of Justice communicates to the Agency that it does not intend to initiate criminal prosecution. (ii) Whenever an agency has determined after appropriate review that there is reasonable cause to believe that a former Government employee has violated any of these regulations or 18 U.S.C. 207(a), (b), or (c), it may initiate an administrative disciplinary proceeding by providing the former Government employee with notice as defined in paragraph (a)(3) of this section. Agencies may establish procedures to protect the privacy of former employees as to allegations made prior to a determination of sufficient cause to initiate an administrative disciplinary hearing. (3) Adequate notice. (i) An agency must provide a former Government employee with adequate notice of an intention to institute a proceeding and an opportunity for a hearing. (ii) Notice to the former Government employee must include: (A) A statement of allegations (and the basis thereof) sufficiently detailed to enable the former Government employee to prepare an adequate defense; (B) Notification of the right to a hearing; and (C) An explanation of the method by which a hearing may be requested. (4) Presiding official. (i) The presiding official at proceedings under this subpart shall be the agency head or an individual to whom the agency head has delegated authority to make an initial decision (hereinafter referred to as “examiner”). (ii) Appropriate qualifications shall be established for examiners. (iii) An examiner shall be impartial. No individual who has participated in any manner in the decision to initiate the proceedings may serve as an examiner in those proceedings. (5) Time, date and place. (i) The hearing shall be conducted at a reasonable time, date, and place. (ii) In setting a hearing date, the presiding official shall give due regard to the former Government employee's need for: (A) Adequate time to prepare a defense properly, and (B) An expeditious resolution of allegations that may be damaging to his or her reputation. (6) Hearing rights. A hearing shall include, at a minimum, the following rights: (i) To represent oneself or to be represented by counsel, (ii) To introduce and examine witnesses and to submit physical evidence, (iii) To confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses, (iv) To present oral argument, and (v) To receive a transcript or recording of the proceedings, on request. (7) Burden of proof. In any hearing under this subpart, the agency has the burden of proof and must establish substantial evidence of a violation. (8) Hearing decision. (i) The presiding official shall make a determination exclusively on matters of record in the proceeding, and shall set forth in the decision all findings of fact and conclusions of law relevant to the matters at issue. (ii) Within a reasonable period of the date of an initial decision, as set by the agency, either party may appeal the decision to the agency head. The agency head shall base his or her decision on such appeal solely on the record of the proceedings or those portions thereof cited by the parties to limit the issues. (iii) If the agency head modifies or reverses the initial decision, he or she shall specify such findings of fact and conclusions of law as are different from those of the hearing examiner. (9) Administrative sanctions. The agency head may take appropriate action in the case of any individual who was found in violation of 18 U.S.C. 207 (a), (b), or (c) of these regulations after a final administrative decision or who failed to request a hearing after receiving adequate notice, by: (i) Prohibiting the individual from making, on behalf of any other person except the United States, any formal or informal appearance before, or, with the intent to influence, any oral or written communication to, such department or agency on any matter of business for a period not to exceed five years, which may be accomplished by directing agency employees to refuse to participate in any such appearance or to accept any such communication; or (ii) Taking other appropriate disciplinary action. (10) Judicial review. Any person found to have participated in a violation of 18 U.S.C. 207 (a), (b), or (c) of these regulations may seek judicial review of the administrative determination. (11) Consultation and review. Each agency shall submit a copy of its procedures for administrative enforcement to the Director. (a) Persons affected. Any person who holds a Government position after June 30, 1979, becomes subject to any additional restrictions relating to the holder of that position contained in the amendments to 18 U.S.C. 207 as set forth in these regulations. Restrictions which depend on the designation of a position by the Director shall become applicable on the date such designation becomes effective. (b) Fair notice of substantive changes. No change in the substance of these regulations shall become effective with respect to a Government employee who is adversely affected by such change until and unless such employee remains in a position to which such change is applicable for a period of five months following the first publication of a regulation in final form, reflecting or prescribing such change, or unless such employee accepts such a position after the publication. Note: Part 2637 provides guidance concerning the prior version of 18 U.S.C. 207 (1988) as it continues to apply to individuals who terminated Government service (or a “Senior” Government position) before January 1, 1991. However, since no former “Senior Employee” who terminated service before that date could any longer be subject to the one-year restriction of section 207(c) of 18 U.S.C. as it existed prior to its amendment by the Ethics Reform Act of 1989, the listing of separate statutory agencies that previously appeared in §2637.214 has been deleted. [57 FR 62468, Dec. 31, 1992] Note: Part 2637 provides guidance concerning the prior version of 18 U.S.C. 207 (1988) as it continues to apply to individuals who terminated Government service (or a “Senior” Government position) before January 1, 1991. However, since no former “Senior Employee” who terminated service before that date could any longer be subject to the one-year restriction of section 207(c) of 18 U.S.C. as it existed prior to its amendment by the Ethics Reform Act of 1989, the listing of separate components that previously appeared in §2637.215 has been deleted. [57 FR 62468, Dec. 31, 1992] Note: Part 2637 provides guidance concerning the prior version of 18 U.S.C. 207 (1988) as it continues to apply to individuals who terminated Government service (or a “Senior” Government position) before January 1, 1991. However, since no former “Senior Employee” who terminated service before that date could any longer be subject to either the two-year restriction of section 207(b)(ii) or the one-year restriction of section 207(c) of 18 U.S.C. as they existed prior to their amendment by the Ethics Reform Act of 1989, the listing of “Senior Employee” positions that previously appeared in §2637.216 has been deleted. [57 FR 62468, Dec. 31, 1992]
Title 5: Administrative Personnel
PART 2637—REGULATIONS CONCERNING POST EMPLOYMENT CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Subpart B—Substantive Provisions
§ 2637.201 Restrictions on any former Government employee's acting as representative as to a particular matter in which the employee personally and substantially participated.
§ 2637.202 Two-year restriction on any former Government employee's acting as representative as to a particular matter for which the employee had official responsibility.
§ 2637.203 Two-year restriction on a former senior employee's assisting in representing as to a matter in which the employee participated personally and substantially.
§ 2637.204 One-year restriction on a former senior employee's transactions with former agency on a particular matter, regardless of prior involvement.
§ 2637.205 Limitation of restrictions of 18 U.S.C. 207(c) to less than that whole of a department or agency.
§ 2637.206 Exemption for scientific and technological information.
§ 2637.207 Exemption for persons with special qualification in a technical discipline.
§ 2637.208 Testimony and statements under oath or subject to penalty of perjury.
§ 2637.209 Partners of present or former Government employees.
§ 2637.210 Officials of a State; officials of corporations created by an Act of Congress and public international organizations.
§ 2637.211 Standards and procedures for designating senior employee positions pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 207(d).
§ 2637.212 Administrative enforcement proceedings.
§ 2637.213 Effective date of restrictions.
§ 2637.214 Separate statutory agencies: Designations.
§ 2637.215 Separate components of agencies or bureaus: Designations.
§ 2637.216 “Senior Employee” designations.
