Procedural
Requirements
Effective Date: November 01, 2024
Expiration Date: November 01, 2029
|
|
NASA Procedural Requirements |
NPR 1400.1I Effective Date: November 01, 2024 Expiration Date: November 01, 2029 |
| | TOC | Preface | Chapter1 | Chapter2 | Chapter3 | Chapter4 | Chapter5 | AppendixA | AppendixB | AppendixC | AppendixD | ALL | |
4.1.1 The NODIS DMS is NASA's primary tool that provides an electronic means to create, review, comment, disposition comments, track, concur, approve, and publish Agency-level directives, per the NODIS Manual.
4.1.2 All NPDs and NPRs are coordinated according to the timeline in Figure 4. The coordination timeline for NPDs is no more than 96 calendar days, and the coordination timeline for NPRs is no more than 140 calendar days.
Figure 4. Directives Coordination Cycle
4.1.3 NPDs and NPRs that were coordinated in a prereview may be coordinated any time during the month on an out-of-cycle schedule for an expedited review for the number of days determined by the Responsible Office. To expedite a review of a directive, the Responsible Offices shall:
a. Submit out-of-cycle review requests to the Office of the Executive Secretariat (OES), Directives Management Team (DMT) via e-mail and include the following in the request:
(1) Purpose/rationale.
(2) Internal or external requirement driving the Agency to expedite publishing requirements.
(3) Date by which NPD or NPR needs to be published.
(4) Timeline for coordination showing the number of days for each step of the coordination as illustrated in Figure 4. Download a timeline template to enter number of days for each step in the expedited review, here: Expedited Review.
(5) Names of the reviewers that participated in the prereview.
Note: An expedited review is more successful when a prereview is coordinated first. See instructions for coordinating prereviews in section 4.2.4.1.
4.1.4 OES DMT will withdraw directives from coordination if not submitted for approval by established suspense dates unless the Responsible Office requests an extension. See process requirements for requesting extensions in Chapter 5.
4.1.5 The coordination process will not be used to impede the Agency's legal obligations with respect to mission accomplishment, protection of worker health and safety and protection of the public, protection of the environment, or national security.
4.1.6 Approved NASA directives are in effect for a maximum of five years. However, the Responsible Office can make revisions whenever a change is warranted. See Chapter 3 for content and structure requirements, section 4.2 for establishing and revising directives, and section 4.3 of this Chapter for revalidating and making administrative corrections or minor changes.
a. Use the NODIS DMS to create or revise NPDs or NPRs within the timeline established in Figure 4. Updates to sections of an NPR may be coordinated if the entire directive does not need to be revised. A summary of the section changes will be included in the directive’s change log when changes are approved.
b. Provide track changes document showing where proposed changes are made in the directive for a full or section revisions.
4.2.2 Responsible Offices at the Centers shall use local processes to create, coordinate, and approve any Center-level directives.
4.2.3 Responsible Offices shall notify their DM prior to beginning the process to establish or revise a new directive.
4.2.4 Pre-review Process
4.2.4.1 Responsible Offices should use a prereview process to coordinate complex directives when substantial comments are anticipated and require follow up (e.g., meetings, conference calls, etc.) with Concurring Offices for a resolution. A prereview provides an opportunity to address these issues prior to an official review in the NODIS DMS. If a Responsible Office chooses to conduct a prereview, the following are standard steps in the prereview process:
a. Creating a draft of the new or revised directive according to Chapter 3.
Note: Local processes may have an established distribution list for directives prereviews. Consult your Center DM.
b. Determining the methodology (e.g., NODIS Open Review System (ORS) or e-mail) for coordinating the prereview and distributing the directive to those affected and those offices that the Responsible Office believes should review the draft.
Note: ORS (https://openreview.gsfc.nasa.gov/ORSHome.cfm) is a Web-based tool that may be used to coordinate a prereview. Documents requiring a prereview prior to an official review can be coordinated in ORS in accordance with the instructions provided in the NODIS Manual.
c. Consulting with the DMT to determine which organizations will be required concurrers, required reviewers, or courtesy reviewers. Refer to Appendix A for definitions.
d. Notifying DMs within the Responsible Office of preview activities (i.e., directive's number and title, and prereview reviewer names.)
e. Coordinating, consolidating, and dispositioning comments in preparation for the official review of the directive.
Note: If a prereview is conducted, comments responded to during the prereview can be restricted by the Responsible Office during the official review.
f. Consulting an attorney within OGC and the Labor Relations Officer (LRO) within OCHCO on the final draft before submitting it for official review.
4.2.5 Prior to Official Review
4.2.5.1 For Agency-level directives, the Responsible Office's DM shall coordinate the draft directive with the respective ALR so that:
a. Any information related to GAO and IG recommendations that require revisions to directives are appropriately captured on the NHQ 184 Form before the directive is placed on the schedule for review.
b. Timeline for the directive to be approved aligns with the timeline for which NASA committed to corrective actions. Confirmation of this coordination is required.
4.2.6 Official Review and Approval
4.2.6.1 The official review and approval processes for Agency- and Center-level directives may be different. The Director for Mission Support Headquarters Operations Office and CDs are responsible for establishing an official review and approval process for Center-level directives at their location and shall ensure that the process includes, at a minimum, the following steps:
a. Release of the draft directive utilizing an approved method (which may include forms) for an official review.
b. Notification and request for review to specified organizations. This may include provisions to allow organizations an opportunity to request to be added or removed from the review.
c. Sufficient instructions to reviewers to ensure that the review adheres to the approved process and schedule.
d. A system to provide feedback to reviewers indicating how their comments were incorporated or a rationale for not incorporating the reviewer's comments.
Note: Comments are not necessarily addressed individually and may provide a single consolidated response to multiple comments pertaining to the same matter instead of individual responses for each comment.
4.2.6.2 For Agency-level directives, the Responsible Office shall:
a. Submit an NHQ 184 Form, to include a purpose and justification for the directive, reasons for revising or issuing it, significant revisions that will be made, proposed required concurrers, required reviewers, and courtesy reviews, summary of cost/benefit impacts to implement new requirements in terms of financial, human resources, technical (e.g., associated costs to implement new requirements and what can be gained by implementing the new requirements), and potential for unintended consequences, and preference on submission of comments (e.g., direct entry in NODIS or via comment template loaded in NODIS).
b. Submit the draft directive in NODIS so that OES DMT can review for compliance with content and structure requirements described in Chapter 3.
c. Forward OES DMT's findings to the Responsible Office for corrective action and assist with expediting corrections.
d. Load the updated draft directive in the NODIS DMS and notify the OES DMT so that corrective actions can be verified.
e. Verify that the draft directive is grammatically sound in accordance with NPR 1450.10.
4.2.7 The Review, Comment, and Concurrence Process
4.2.7.1 Required Concurring Offices/Officials include:
a. GC shall record a concurrence decision on all directives (Headquarters GC for Agency-level directives; Chief Counsel for Center-level directives).
b. CFO shall record a concurrence decision on all directives directly affecting Agency budget, finance, or internal controls (Chief Financial Officer for Agency-level directives; Center Chief Financial Officer for Center-level directives) and is a required reviewer for all other directives.
c. CHCO shall record a concurrence decision on all directives requiring labor union consultation or which assign responsibilities to all supervisors or all employees (Chief Human Capital Officer for Agency-level directives; Center Human Resources/Human Capital Management for Center-level directives) and is a required reviewer for all other directives.
d. Procurement shall record a concurrence decision on all directives affecting acquisition, procurement, or assigning responsibilities to contracting officers (Procurement for Agency-level directives; Center Procurement/Acquisition for Center-level directives), and is a required reviewer for all other directives.
e. CIO shall record a concurrence decision on all directives which directly reference or implicate information technology (Chief Information Officer for Agency-level directives; Center Information Officer/Information Technology for Center-level directives), and is a required reviewer for all other directives.
f. NOJMO shall record a concurrence decision on all Agency-level directives.
g. Others as determined by OES based on the content of the directive.
4.2.7.2 Required Reviewing Offices include:
a. The IG is a required reviewer on all Agency-level directives, and where appropriate submits comments.
b. The LRO within OCHCO is a required reviewer to determine whether labor union consultation and union notification is required, and if so:
(1) Coordinates national union stakeholder collaboration review and collection of comments for consideration prior to final consultation for matters, per paragraph 4.2.4.1f.
(2) Concurs per paragraph 4.2.7.1c, subject to conditions described in paragraph 4.2.7.7.
c. Others as determined by OES based on the content of the directive.
4.2.7.3 During the review process, comment resolution and concurrence process, the Responsible Office will respond to required concurrers, required reviewers, and courtesy reviewers, defined in Appendix A, as follows:
a. For required concurrers who have direct implementation responsibilities in a directive, or who are enumerated in this directive, the Responsible Office:
(1) Shall disposition and resolve all comments on the directive's technical content and the cost/benefit impacts described on the NHQ 184 Form and obtain concurrence.
(2) May assume no comment if comments are not submitted by the deadline.
(3) May assume concurrence if a concurring organization is nonresponsive to attempts to resolve the issue and document this in final transmittal.
(4) May request extensions or waivers per process in this directive to resolve issues and secure concurrence.
b. For required reviewers who advise on key risk areas identified in NPD 1400.1, the Responsible Office:
(1) Shall disposition all comments.
(2) May assume no comment if comments are not submitted by the deadline.
(3) Is not required to obtain concurrence.
(4) Should make reasoned assessments of risk acceptance versus revisions which mitigate or manage risks and make good faith efforts to revise when possible.
(5) May not request extensions to resolve comments by required reviewers but should request OES or DRO mediation if the required reviewer identifies a significant concern.
(6) Shall clearly document in the final transmittal when their recommendation, as the Responsible Office, is to accept a risk identified by a required reviewer.
c. For all other courtesy reviewers, the Responsible Office:
(1) Should disposition all comments as prescribed in paragraph 4.2.6.1d note.
(2) May assume no comment if comment deadlines are not met.
(3) Is not required to resolve issues or obtain concurrence.
(4) May not request extensions to disposition comments by courtesy reviewers.
4.2.7.4 All non-concurring and concurring Offices and Centers shall:
a. Review and submit comments, including reconsideration of comments, on an Agency-level directive’s technical content and the accompanying cost/benefit impacts described on the NHQ Form 184.
b. Submit a concurrence decision from the respective OIC or Center Director to the respective DM who will enter comments and the concurrence decision in NODIS by the suspense date.
c. If the concurrence decision is "concur" or "concur with comments," enter that decision with comments, if any, by the suspense date. If the concurrence decision is "non-concur," enter that decision with comments for that specify this decision, then change the decision to "concur with comments" after the Responsible Office has satisfactorily dispositioned the comments. See Appendix A for concurrence decision definitions.
Note 1: Comments entered after the suspense date may be considered by the Responsible Office only if they do not delay timeline concurrence.
Note 2: Grammatical comments on Agency-level directives may not be dispositioned to prevent discrepancies in grammatical corrections provided by the OES EOT prior to approval for issuance.
4.2.7.5 Special Review or Concurrence
a. Agency LRO within OCHCO:
(1) Advises the Responsible Offices if consulted during prereview.
(2) Submits comments in NODIS on the draft directive during the official review.
(3) Reviews the final draft, as described in section 4.2.8.1b.
b. GC, or designee:
(1) Advises the Responsible Offices if consulted during prereview.
(2) Submits comments in NODIS on the draft directive during the official review.
(3) Reviews the final draft, as described in section 4.2.8.1a.
4.2.7.6 If, during the concurrence process, an Office's or Center's nonconcurrence cannot be resolved, the Responsible Office shall initiate resolution in accordance with process requirements in Chapter 5.
4.2.7.7 Required Concurrers may request an extension in advance of the established suspense date directly with the Responsible Office only to resolve issues. The Responsible Office determines the number of days for the extension, and, if necessary, requests a 30-day extension if it has determined that the granted extensions impede submission of the directive's clearance package. See process requirements for requesting extensions in Chapter 5.
4.2.8 Union Review and Second Attorney Review and GC Concurrence Process
4.2.8.1 The Responsible Office's DM, in coordination with the directive's originator, shall:
a. Ensure completion of concurrences from Concurring Offices and Centers.
b. Simultaneously e-mail (with a copy to the OES DMT) the final draft of the directive and a completed NHQ 117 Form, Action Document Summary, as described in section 4.2.9.1b(1) to:
(1) The GC's DM, who coordinates the attorneys’ second review and comment and the GC's concurrence.
(2) The CHCO's Agency LRO, who coordinates with the national unions and Center LROs. If new or revised changes impact employees and address any labor obligations.
(3) OES DMT, who verifies concurrences and dispositions are complete in accordance with section 4.2.7.3 of this directive.
Note: If revisions to directives are minor, a redline showing where changes were made should be included in the submission.
4.2.9 Clearance Package Submission
4.2.9.1 After the union review is complete and the GC has concurred, the Responsible Office's DM shall:
a. Submit the updated NPD or load the updated NPR in Microsoft Word “docx” format in NODIS.
b. Assemble the directive’s clearance package documents in the following order, save as a combined PDF file using Adobe Acrobat, and e-mail it to OES DMT indicating that the directive is ready for final routing:
(1) Completed NHQ 117 Form, in accordance with the form’s instructions to include the following fields:
(a) Evidence of concurrences from reviewing organizations and Centers and the concurrence of the responsible OIC.
(b) Name, number, and date of review for the DM, quality reviewer, and originator.
(c) Executive Summary that describes:
(i) Summary of purpose and justification for new or revised policy or requirement(s) and origin if revised, to include an explanation of why the new directive needs to be issued or why revisions need to be made (e.g., audit recommendation, Council action, external requirement).
(ii) Summary of significant changes if directive is being revised.
(iii) Summary of significant comments received during the review and how they were dispositioned.
(iv) Summary of disagreement with the IG, if any.
(v) Cost/benefit impacts for new resources that may be needed and a justification for why resources need to be expended.
(vi) Strategic impact (if any).
(vii) Description of Presidential initiative/external action (if any).
Note: Information on the NHQ 184 Form and the Update Routing Information page in NODIS populates to the NHQ 117 Form and the form’s Executive Summary.
c. Final draft of the new or revised directive.
d. Background sheet retrieved from EOT’s website.
e. Redlines showing the changes made in a revised directive.
f. Directive's review report of all comments and dispositions retrieved from NODIS. If comments were collected via template, ensure that the template is legible in the clearance package.
g. Copy of e-mail from the LRO indicating completion of union review.
h. Any additional documents that convey executive direction and supporting material.
4.2.10 Routing for OES EOT’s Quality Review.
4.2.10.1 After receiving the directive’s clearance package from the Response Office, the OES DMT will:
a. Verify the completeness to ensure the following before routing the directive’s clearance package for final approval:
(1) All comments from Concurring Offices are dispositioned and concurrences obtained.
(2) All required documentation listed in paragraphs 4.2.9.1a-g is complete and assembled correctly.
(3) Completed corrective actions on the directive's content and structure are not compromised.
Note: Center Responsible Offices use established Center instructions to assemble clearance packages for Center-level directives.
b. Create a Headquarters Action Tracking System (HATS) record for the directive and add the HATS number on the NHQ 117 Form.
c. Load the NHQ 117 Form and final draft directive in the System for Tracking, Approval, and Routing (STAR) for OES EOT’s quality review in accordance with NPR 1450.10.
4.2.11 Quality Review and Corrective Action
4.2.11.1 OES DMT acts as a liaison between OES EOT and the Responsible Office. To ensure that directives are grammatically correct and comply with NPR 1450.10:
a. OES EOT conducts a quality review of the directive to verify compliance with NPR 1450.10 and coordinates corrective action through OES DMT.
b. OES DMT coordinate OES EOT’s findings with the Responsible Office’s DM for corrective action.
c. The Responsible Office’s DM, in coordination with the directive’s originator, shall complete corrective actions on OES EOT’s findings, load current version of the directive in NODIS, and inform OES DMT that corrective actions are complete.
4.2.12 Routing of the Directive’s Clearance Package for Approval
4.2.12.1 After receiving the notification from the Responsible Office’s DM that corrective actions are complete:
a. OES DMT will load the directive’s final clearance package (combined PDF) in STAR.
b. OES EOT will route directive’s clearance package for final approval, close the clearance package in STAR, and notify OES DMT of the approval.
Note 1: Officials within the Administrator's office review and concur on the directive prior to the Administrator's, or designee's, approval. If corrective actions are needed, the OES EOT will coordinate with the Responsible Office through OES DMT. If corrective actions are not needed, the Administrator, or designee, will approve the directive and return the clearance package to the OES EOT.
Note 2: Each time a directive is updated throughout the clearance process, the Responsible Office's DM loads the most recent Microsoft Word version of it in NODIS. This ensures that the correct version of the directive is published when approved.
c. OES DMT will publish the directive in the NODIS Library, send an e-mail to the DMs notifying them of the publication, and close the HATS record.
4.3.1 Revalidating with administrative corrections
4.3.1.1 If a directive is due to expire, but the directive is current, necessary, and requires no changes, other than administrative corrections to typos, document citations, office or position titles, references, or substantive administrative corrections that do not add or change policy or requirements, it can be revalidated as follows:
a. The DM, with input from the directive’s originator, shall e-mail a revalidation request to the OES DMT with a redline version of the directive showing the administrative changes attached.
b. The OES DMT will:
(1) Review the directive to verify:
(a) Administrative corrections do not change policy, requirements, or responsibilities that would require a full review.
(b) Compliance with this directive and coordinate corrective actions with the DM.
(c) If there are any associated regulatory actions (e.g., E.O.s).
(d) If there are any associated audit recommendations through coordination with OES ALT.
(e) If there are any associated Council actions through coordination with OES AGT.
(f) If there are any associated actions from the Office of the Administrator through coordination with the OES Director.
(2) Send an e-mail to Agency DMs to provide notification of the intent to revalidate on an exception-only basis.
(a) If there are no objections, the OES DMT approves the revalidation, updates the directive, summarizes the administrative changes in the directive's change log, and extends the expiration date for another five years.
(b) If there are objections, the OES DMT determines whether the objections are valid and either approves the revalidation or requests that the directive be submitted for formal review and approval.
Note 1: Cost/benefit impacts are not required for revalidations.
Note 2: Revalidations will not be allowed on any directive that does not meet the content requirements in this directive.
Note 3: The effective date and signature approval does not change when directives are revalidated.
4.3.2 Making Minor Changes - If the Responsible Office needs to make minor changes during the life cycle of the directive, the Responsible Office may submit a request for the minor changes, via e-mail to the OES DMT.
Note 1: Only the review of the OES DMT is needed to make administrative adjustments to clarify policy, requirements, or responsibilities. However, if the OES DMT determines that adjustments change policy, requirements, or responsibilities, a limited review of the changes/corrections may be required.
Note 2: For Center-level directives, Center instructions apply.
4.4.1 For NIDs, the Responsible Office shall:
a. Secure written approval from the OIC and other approvals, as established within the local process for the proposed or revised interim directives (policy/requirement).
b. Document the urgent requirement for issuing an interim directive.
c. Submit the proposed or revised interim directive to the DM for processing.
4.4.2 The HQ DM shall:
a. Coordinate NIDs for a 2-week review and concurrence via e-mail with DMs in CFO, GC, CIO, Procurement, IG, NOJMO, the LRO within OCHCO, and with DMs in organizations for which responsibilities are described in the NID.
b. Submit NIDs, along with concurrences, to the OES DMT for publication.
Note: DMs coordinate directly with the LRO within OCHCO. The LRO may require a 30-day review to allow time for national and local unions' statutory and contractual labor obligations. Concurrences may be assumed for all organizations, except the GC and LRO within OCHCO, if concurrences are not submitted by the 2-week suspense date.
4.4.3 OES DMT will publish NIDs in the NODIS Library.
4.4.4 Responsible Offices will incorporate information in NIDs in the corresponding directive and submit revisions in NODIS for review six months prior to expiration.
4.4.5 For CIDs, Responsible Offices shall follow Center instructions for coordinating and publishing, to include satisfying the requirements to provide local union representatives with a consultation period.
Note: Consult the Center DM for issuing CIDs.
4.5.1 NPSs and NPIs are reserved for use by the Office of the Administrator when:
a. There is a need for Office of the Administrator principals to issue immediate direction or clarification on a policy or procedural subject.
b. There is a need for the Office of the Administrator to emphasize policy or direction under the responsibility of an OIC due to exigencies of timeliness and significant Agency-wide impact.
4.5.2 For NPSs and NPIs authored by the Office of the Administrator:
a. OES evaluates memoranda signed by Office of the Administrator Principals and recommends to the Chief of Staff whether they should be documented as an NPS or NPI.
b. OES reviews all expiring NPSs and NPIs with the Chief of Staff to determine which require revalidation, revision, or cancellation.
4.5.3 For NPSs and NPIs specially requested by an OIC, the Responsible Office:
a. Evaluates the subject matter to confirm it is unusually time sensitive and of significant Agency-wide impact.
b. Evaluates options for NIDs, NPDs, NPRs or OPDs to verify that none are suitable in lieu of an NPS or NPI.
c. Contacts OES DMT to request Chief of Staff confirmation that an NPS or NPI is appropriate.
d. Secures written approval from the OIC and other approvals, as established within the local process for the proposed or revised NPI or NPS. If the NPS or NPI requires Office of the Administrator clearance, this includes formal approval processes, per NPR 1450.1.
e. Submit the proposed or revised NPS or NPI to the HQ DM for processing in accordance with paragraph 4.4.2b.
4.6 Hyperlinking Other Documentation to the NODIS Library or Center-level Directives Library Systems
4.6.1 When a Responsible Office determines that a NASA Plan, Manual, Technical Standard, Work Instruction, or Other Policy Document (OPD) is useful, but not appropriate for inclusion as a directive, hyperlinking may be used to make the related documentation accessible via link in a directive or in the OPD section of NODIS. See Appendix A for description of these document types.
a. For Agency-level directives, the DM, in coordination with the directive’s originator, may send requests for hyperlinks to the OES DMT.
b. For Center-level directives, the Responsible Office coordinates this with the Center's DM.
| TOC | Preface | Chapter1 | Chapter2 | Chapter3 | Chapter4 | Chapter5 | AppendixA | AppendixB | AppendixC | AppendixD | ALL | |
| | NODIS Library | Organization and Administration(1000s) | Search | |
This document does not bind the public, except as authorized by law or as incorporated into a contract. This document is uncontrolled when printed. Check the NASA Online Directives Information System (NODIS) Library to verify that this is the correct version before use: https://nodis3.gsfc.nasa.gov.