Comment Submitted by Anonymous

Section 4601.103(a) is overbroad and exceeds the agency and OGE’s legal authority under 5 CFR §§ 2635.105,2635.803. The latter section states that the agency is authorized to “require employees . . . to obtain prior approval before engaging in *specific* types of outside activities, *including outside employment.*” [Emphases added.] The regulation clearly implies that an agency cannot require prior approval for *all* types of activities. This implicit limitation makes sense, because it avoids the massive strain on ethics officials and invasion of employee privacy proposed here. Additionally, there is no analysis supporting the conclusion that EO12866 does not require cost-benefit analysis through OMB. DHS pays hundreds of thousands of federal employees many billions of dollars annually for their work. Severe restrictions on outside activities—which would presumably include outside employment, charitable giving, and other activities affecting the national economy—could bring the rule under OMB’s purview. Even if the rule is not significant, however, DHS has still failed to do its own cost-benefit analysis, regulate using the least burdensome means possible, and consider the relative dangers posed by various kinds of activities, as required by EOs 12866 and 13563. We observe that DHS has not formally considered the Ethics resources required to implement this rule. Government ethics officers are often overworked and often must perform extensive research on specific questions about conflicts of interest and other restrictions. By adding this broad requirement to these officers’ workload without formal analysis of their workload, DHS may hamper their performance of mission-critical ethics functions. Finally, the rule does not state where the manual will be published, whether its standards will be subject to challenge, or whether an agency’s extended failure to publish a manual or instruction will excuse noncompliance.