NASA logo NASA Headquarters' Directives
HQPD 1400.1C
Effective Date: December 04, 2008
Expiration Date: December 04, 2013
Responsible Office: LM		 Headquarters Directives System
[<< back <<]

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.

1. PURPOSE

This directive assigns responsibilities for documenting and processing Headquarters (HQ) directives and 
incorporates the Headquarters Quality Management System documents into the HQ Directives System consisting of 
HQ Policy Directives (HPD), HQ Procedural Requirements (HPR), HQ Office Work Instructions, (HOWI), and HQ Policy 
Charters (HPC).

a. HPDs - HQ Policy Directives establish and implement organizational responsibilities, delegations of authority, and 
HQ policy.  HPDs describe what is required by HQ management to achieve NASA's vision and mission as stated in the 
NASA Strategic Plan.  The Quality Management System (QMS) Manual HPD 1200-1 is incorporated into the HQ 
Directives System as an HPD and defines HQ policy in applying the ISO 9001 standard to HQ.

b. HPRs - HQ Procedural Requirements provide mandatory requirements and instructions to implement HQ policy.  
QMS HQ Common Processes (HCP) is incorporated into the HQ Directives System as HPRs.

c. HOWIs - HQ Office Work Instructions are QMS documents that provide step-by-step instructions on how to 
perform specific duties within one or more organizations, but do not apply to all HQ organizations.

d. HPCs - HQ Policy Charters establish councils, boards, and committees that are mandated by statute, the NASA 
Administrator, or Officials-in-Charge of HQ offices.  HPCs describe the purpose, applicability, responsibility, 
duration, and membership of HQ' councils, boards, and committees.

2. APPLICABILITY

This directive is applicable to NASA Headquarters.

3. AUTHORITY

NPD 1400.1, Documentation and Promulgation of Internal NASA Requirements

4. REFERENCES

a. NPR 1400.1, NASA Directives System Procedural Requirements.

b. NPR 1441.1, NASA Records and Retention Schedules

c. NPR 1450.10, NASA Correspondence Management and Communications Standards and Style.

d. HPD 1200.1, Headquarters Quality Management System

e. HOWI 1410-C008, Headquarters Policy Formulation and Approval.

5. RESPONSIBILITIES

a. The Executive Director, Office of Headquarters Operations (OHO) has overall responsibility for the HQ Directives 
System.  The Executive Director approves HPDs, HPRs, and HPCs. 

b. OICs of HQ offices, or designees, are responsible for the following:

(1) Determining their organizations need to create, revise, or cancel HQ directives, as well as ensuring appropriate 
coordination and approval of their respective HQ directives.

(2) Coordinating official reviews of the directives in HQ Document Management System (DMS).

(3) Reviewing and concurring on HQ directives in the HQ DMS.  Failure to respond or indicate the need for an 
extension by the suspense date will be interpreted as concurrence to the proposed HQ directive.

(4) Approving all HOWIs for which they have responsibility.

d. The NASA Chief Financial Officer is responsible for reviewing and concurring on all HQ-level directives to ensure 
proper financial consideration.

e. The Associate General Counsel for General Law, or designee, is responsible for reviewing and commenting on all 
HQ-level directives to ensure legal sufficiency. 

f. The Inspector General is responsible for reviewing and commenting on all HQ-level directives for any impact on 
economy and efficiency in the administration and operations of NASA HQ programs and to prevent and detect fraud, 
waste, and abuse in NASA HQ programs.

g. Division Directors within OHO are responsible for coordinating prereviews of HQ directives in the Open Review 
System prior to entering these directives in the HQ DMS for official review by organization outside of HQ Operations.  
Refer to the attachment to this directive.

h. The HQ Labor Relations Officer is responsible for reviewing HPDs, HPRs, and HPCs to ensure that all collective 
bargaining obligations are met in accordance with the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statue, 
including but not limited to appropriate bargaining and consultation with the local union.

i. The Director for Facilities and Administrative Services Division (FASD) is responsible for the following:

(1) Managing the HQ Directives System in support of the Executive Director for HQ Operations.  FASD is the 
repository for official case files of approved HQ directives with the exception of HOWIs that are maintained by the 
Office of Primary Responsibility (OPR).  

(2) Designating a HQ Directives Manager to coordinate Agency-level and HQ-level directives activities.

j. The HQ Directives Manager is responsible for the following:

(1) Tracking, monitoring, and reporting activities associated with processing HQ directives.

(2) Verifying the accuracy and completeness of the signature package in final form before final approval. 

(3) Maintaining official case files of approved HQ directives with the exception of HOWIs that are maintained by the 
Office of Primary Responsibility (OPR).

(5) Advising employees within the OHO of the HQ directives process and providing training and/or briefings on how 
to use the HQ DMs.

(6) Coordinating and submitting OHO consolidated comments on agency-level directives to the Executive Directives 
for review and concurrence.

(7) Representing OHO by participating in Directives Managers' meetings.

k. The Office of Internal Controls and Management System (OICMS) is responsible for reviewing HPDs and HPRs to 
ensure compliance with NPR 1400.1, NASA Directives System Procedural Requirements, review HOWIs to ensure 
compliance with the QMS.  OICMS is also responsible for coordinating all system enhancements to the HQ DMS and 
Document Library to ensure efficiency in the HQ directives process.

l. The Executive Secretariat is responsible for the final quality review of HPDs and HPRs upon which signature 
authority is that of the Administrator or officials within the Office of the Administrator to ensure compliance with 
NPR 1450.10, NASA Correspondence Management and Communications Standards and Style.

6. DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY

None.

7. MEASUREMENTS

None.

8. CANCELLATION

HQPD 1400.1B, dated December 3, 2002.

Christopher T. Jedry
Executive Director for Headquarters Operations

ATTACHMENT A 


  

    
        

          
Office of Headquarters Operations (OHO) 

              HQ Directives Review       & Approval Process 

        

        
 Pre-HQ   NODIS Review 
      		
  

  

    
A.  Directive Preparation  (Step   
A)
        		
    
 Notes
    		
  

  

    
1.  HQ directive?s originator discusses the directive   requirements with 
the HQ Directive Manager (HQ DM)

      
    
        
  • Discuss   the directive?s requirements with the HQ DM, and explain the purpose and   justification for the 
new or revised directive  (Refer to Note 1) 
    • 
        
  • If   it is a new directive, determine if it should be a Headquarters Policy   Directive (HPD) or Headquarters 
Procedural Requirements (HPR)
    • 
        
  • If   it is a revision to an existing HQ directive, explain extent of changes   (verify that a formal HQ DMS 
review is needed)   (Refer to Note 2) 
    • 
        
  • Clarify   directive format, time schedules, review process, reviewers, etc.  (Refer to Note 
3) 
    • 
      

    
Note 1:  A new directive will be created when   no 
Agency or HQ directive exists that provides the required policy or   instruction needed.  A directive   will be 
revised when changes occur that affects the policy or requirements of   the directive.  

        Note 2:  Depending on the change (e.g.  if due to the directive?s expiration   date, 
or due to an    administrative change, the directive may or not require a formal HQ   NODIS review, but  
HQ DM   consultation is needed).

        Note 3:  On average, the preparation, review   and final approval of a HQ directive will 
take a minimum of 2 months for the process   to be completed.  Directive   owners and originators should take 
this into account when planning for   issuing a new or revising a directive

    		
  

  

    
2.  Originator prepares the directive as   an INITIAL DRAFT Word 
document following required directive formats (Refer to Note 4). 

      
    
        
  • During preparation of the   directive, the originator is responsible for coordinating the directive   
requirements within his/her Division and, as needed, pre-coordinate it?s   requirements with other HQ offices to 
ensure there is agreement (e.g. HQ   Human Resources Management Division may coordinate directive 
requirements   with the Office of Human Capital, etc.). 
    • 
        
  • Originator finalizes   INITIAL DRAFT document and coordinates the document and next steps with the   HQ 
DM
    • 
      

    
Note 4:  Requirements for directive formats   and 
additional information are specified in NPR 1400.1- NASA Directives   System Procedural Requirements.    You 
can access NPR 1400.1 in the NODIS library at http://nodis3.gsfc.nasa.gov . 

        		
  

  

    
3.  HQ DM reviews the INITIAL DRAFT   directive and ensures that the 
directive is ready to  proceed with an OHO internal review   (Step B below)

      
    
        
  • HQ DM reviews directive   format (i.e. paragraph numbering, references, signature blocks, etc.) 
    • 
        
  • HQ DM coordinates and   assigns directive number. 
    • 
      

    
 

  

  

    
4.  HQ DM notifies the originator via e-mail of when   to proceed with 
the internal review of the INITIAL DRAFT directive.  

      
    
        
  • The e-mail sent by the HQ   DM to the originator will copy the originator?s Division Director, and the HQ   
Facilities and Administrative Services Division Director.
    • 
      

    
  

  

  

    
 B.  Directive Internal (HQ 
Operations   & Other) Review in ORS (Step B)

        		
    
 Notes

        		
  

  

    
1. Prior   to the directive undergoing formal HQ DMS review, the originator is   
responsible for conducting an internal review of the INITIAL DRAFT directive   with the HQ Operations Divisions, and 
any needed HQ offices (as determined by   the originator).  This review   provides OHO Divisions with an 
opportunity to review and provide comments on   the directive and the originator with an opportunity to consider   
incorporating needed comments in the directive. 

        		
    
Note 5:     This internal review is the only review 
of the directive by the other   HQ Operations Divisions.  As   such, this review is mandatory and disposition of 
the comments must be coordinated   with the reviewers and dispositioned accordingly by the directive 
Originator.   The disposition of these   comments will need to be submitted as part of the package for 
requesting   I&A approval to proceed with the formal HQ NODIS review.

        		
  

  

    
2. The   ?Open Review System? (ORS) will be used by the directive?s originator 
for   conducting the internal review. 

        
    
          
  • The directive?s originator,   in coordination with the HQ DM, is responsible for this review, coordination,   
dispositioning and documentation of comments in ORS.
    • 
          
  • The HQ DM will help the originator   with accessing ORS.
    • 
        

    
Note 6:    The Open Review System (ORS) is a web-
based system accessible to all   NASA employees, created for the purpose of conducting pre-reviews of various   
draft documents.  The ORS can be   accessed at:  http://openreview.gsfc.nasa.gov  

    		
  

  

    3. Originator   will provide a due date for comments to be submitted during the 
internal   review.       
  • Originator must allow a   2-week period for the review by OHO Divisions or 
others as needed, or longer   period at the discretion of the directive?s originator, considering the   complexity and 
length of document, extent of revision, and potential   disagreement by the reviewing Divisions/offices.   
The directive review shall never be less than a   week.
    • 
        
  • Review and disposition of   comments resulting from the internal review must be documented as this   
information will be included in the directive package when requesting OHO   approval to proceed with formal HQ 
DMS review of the directive.
    • 
        

    
  

  

  

    4. The   disposition of comments during the internal review will produce a FINAL 
DRAFT   document, ready to go into formal HQ DMS review.   Prior to proceeding with the formal review, 
the directive   will require OHO management review and approval.  For the OHO review, the directive package 
will be prepared   following the requirements in Step C below.
    
  

  

  

    
C.   Directive Package Preparation for OHO Management   
Review and  Approval  (Step C)

    
 Notes

        		
  

  

    
    
      
  1. HQ DM prepares the   directive?s NASA Form 184 with information provided by the originator (i.e.   reason 
and justification for new or revised directive, HQ offices reviewers,   directive impacts, etc.)
    2. 
      
  2. The HQ DM prepares a   Routing Slip to accompany the FINAL DRAFT directive package for OHO review   and 
approval to proceed with formal HQ DMS review. 
    3. 
    

    
Note 7:     Form 184 does not require signature 
approval by the I&A AA at this   time, but the form helps reviewers during the HQ internal review process   
(refer to Step B below), to understand the need and scope of the directive   requirements and/or changes. 


        
               &nbs
p;                &n
bsp;                
                &nbs
p;  

        Note 8:    Refer to Step E.1 (below) for preparing the list of offices needed to   be included 
in Form 184.

      
Note 9:    Headquarters directives require final approval by the Executive   Director as 
opposed to the Administrator or Deputy Administrator (as is the   case for Agency directives).  The   Executive 
Director acts as the Director for Headquarters as a Center. 

  

  

    
3. The   directive package must include the following documents (in 
order):

      
  • Routing Slip 
    • 
        
  • NASA Form 184
    • 
        
  • FINAL DRAFT directive
    • 
        
  • ORS comments and   dispositions
    • 
    

    
 

  

  

    
4. The   FINAL DRAFT package Routing Slip is concurred by the HQ DM first, 
then the originator,   and then the Originating HQ Division Director prior to the HQ DM requesting   concurrence and 
approval by the I&A AA to proceed with the formal HQ   NODIS review.  The HQ DM is   responsible for 
tracking the review and location of the directive package at   all times.  The routing order for   concurrence or 
approval is as follows:

        
  • HQ   DM 
    • 
          
  • Originator 
    • 
          
  • Originator?s   Division Director 
    • 
          
  • HQ   DM   
    • 
        

      
(Note:  At this point the HQ DM resolves any   issues identified by the reviews from 3b & 3c 
above, prior to   proceeding.   After above   concurrence is obtained, the DM concurs for the package to 
proceed with other   office reviews and I&A management reviews and concurrence/approval.) 

      
    
        
  • HQ   Facilities & Administrative Division Director (or Deputy Director) 
    • 
        
  • Executive   Officer to the Executive Director for HQ Operations  - Concurrence 

    • 
        
  • Executive   Director for HQ Operations - Approval 
    • 
      

    
Note 10:    Concurrence is required from positions 4a 
through 4g as listed under  Step C.4.  Approval is required from the Executive Director (3g).  The 
approval will allow the document   to proceed with formal HQ NODIS review.

        		
  

  

    
D.  OHO Management (Front Office) Review   and 
Approval  (Step D)

        		
    
 Notes 

        		
  

  

    1. Once   package arrives in the OHO Front Office, reviews are conducted as 
follows: 
      
  • Executive Officer  Review(per C.4.f above) 
          
      
            
    • reviews   package for clarity, directive requirements, review and disposition of   internal review 
comments, and other requirements; 
      • 
            
    • concurs,   or may provide comments; 
      • 
            
    • passes   package to the  Executive   Director.
      • 
          
    
          
    • 
        
  • Executive Director Review (per   C.4.g above) 
    • 
        
      
          
    • reviews   package for clarity, directive requirements, reviewing offices, internal   review comments 
disposition, and others;  
      • 
          
    • concurs,   or may provide comments;
      • 
          
    • if   comments are generated after the Executive Officer and the Executive Director   reviews, the Executive 
Officer sends package to HQ DM for disposition and   coordination of comments. 
      • 
        
    
        
  • HQ DM coordinates with the   Originator until comments are addressed/resolved by the Originator;  
 
    • 
        
      
          
    • After   addressing comments, HQ DM coordinates with and provides package back to the Executive   
Officer identifying the changes made 
      • 
          
    • if   package is clean, Executive Officer    passes the package to the Executive Director for review and   
approval.  If not, sends back to   HQ DM.
      • 
        
    
        
  • Executive Director
          
      
            
    • reviews   package for approval
      • 
            
    • if   comments, gives back to Executive Officer who coordinates comments with Originator   and HQ DM as 
needed (same as D.1.b.iii above). 
      • 
          
    
        
    • 
        
  • if   clean, approves in the Routing Slip and signs the Form 184, allowing the   directive to go to formal HQ 
DMS review.  Gives package back to Executive Officer. 
    • 
        

    
  

  

  

    
    
      
  • Executive   Officer is responsible for returning the package to the HQ DM during OHO   Front Office review 
and comments and after OHO approval. 
    • 
    

    
Note 11:   Only after receiving approval by the 
Executive   Director is the FINAL DRAFT directive ready for the formal HQ NODIS review.

        		
  

  

    
HQ DMS Review

        		
    
  

  

  

    
E.  Formal HQ DMS Review ? FINAL DRAFT   Document 
(Step   E)

        		
    
 Notes

        		
  

  

    
HQ DM coordinates with the   Agency NODIS Manager, as needed, to initiate 
the formal directive review   process in the HQ DMS.

        		
    
 

  

  

    
    
      
  • The   following are the directive review requirements for the HQ DMS:  
    • 
      
      
        
    • The approved Form 184 must   list the HQ Offices requested to review the directive (i.e., all HQ Offices   as 
needed, depending on directive scope, see list below) 
      • 
          
    • The list will include:
      • 
          
        
            
      • All HQ Offices, as needed (Note:     Subordinate Offices within the Office of 
Institutions & Management   (OIM) and the Office of Strategic Communications (OSC) will be listed as   needed, 
for their DMs to receive notification of the need for their   review.  Their comments must be   submitted in 
conjunction with their OIC (Associate Administrator) comments   and concurrence.
        • 
          
      
        
    
      
      
        
        
          
      • Mandatory Review Offices (i.e.   OHCM, OCFO, OGC, OIM, and HQ Employee Relations) will be 
included at all   times.
        • 
          
      
        
    • HQ   directives, with the exception of  HQ/ISO related directives, are not coordinated through the   
Executive Secretariat or the Office of the Administrator.
      • 
      
    
      
  • The   HQ DMS will send automatic e-mails to the reviewing offices? DMs.
    • 
      
  • The offices subordinate to OIM and OSC will receive an email   notification at the same time, requesting their 
review but the e-mail will   indicate that their comments must be incorporated and submitted in   conjunction with 
and via their OIC (Associate Administrator) office comments.
    • 
    

    
 Note 12:   For HQ/ISO 
directives (e.g. HPD   1200.1 ? HQ Quality Management System Manual, etc.) the HQ Directives Review   Process will 
be require review by all Headquarters Offices.  The Deputy Administrator (DA)   approves the final directive 
versus the I&A AA.

        		
  

  

    2. The   formal HQ DMS review provides a specific number of days for review of the   
directive (refer to the ?Monthly Summary of Actions Schedule for NASA HQ-level   
Directives?).   The HQ DMS automatically   notifies reviewing offices? DMs when their office 
comments are due in the HQ   DMS.  The reviewing offices? DMs   will include their review comments in the HQ 
DMS for the originator to review   and disposition.
    
 Note 13:   The ?HQ 
Directives Monthly Summary of Actions Schedule?,   located in the NODIS HQ DMS page, provides scheduled dates for 
HQ directive activities   when undergoing formal HQ NODIS review.    This schedule starts with the date the 
proposed directive is submitted   for formal HQ NODIS review.  It   allows 20 days for the HQ offices formal 
review and comment period for HPDs   and 30-days for the HQ offices formal  review and comment period of 
the HPRs.

        		
  

  

    3. The   originator is responsible for reviewing, coordinating and dispositioning all   
comments and non-concurrences resulting from the formal HQ DMS review within   the allotted time as dictated by 
the HQ NODIS review schedule.  Coordination with the HQ DM is   needed, per requirements below.      

  • Once   the review period ends, concurrence for organizations not responding to the   review will be 
?assumed? by the HQ DM.
    • 
        
  • All   comments must be dispositioned by the Originator in the HQ NODISDMS.
    • 
        
  • Non-concurrences   will be worked towards resolution by the Originator to obtain final   concurrence by the 
reviewing office.
    • 
        

    
 

  

  

    4. Executive   Director for HQ Operations is the final approving official for all the 
HQ   directives (except for HQ - Quality Management Systems / International   Organization of Standards (ISO) 
related directives, where the DA will be the   approving official.)
      
    
        
      
          
    • The   AA for OIM will be a reviewer, similar to other OIC offices for the HQ   directives, and will provide 
consolidated OIM offices comments and final   concurrence for the HQ directives in the HQ DMS, as other 
organizations do. 
      • 
        
    
    

    
 

  

  

    
F.  FINAL SIGNATURE AFTER NODIS DMS   REVIEW IS COMPLETE 
(Step   F) 

    
 Notes

        		
  

  

    
    
      
  1. Once   the NODIS DMS review is complete, the HQ DM assembles a package for the OGC?s   concurrence and 
the Executive Director?s signature.  
    2. 
    

    
 

  

  

    2. Assemble   directive?s package using a manilla folder, directive blue tabs, and   
appropriate sized binder clips as follows (in order):        
      
  • Outside   of folder, front:
    
        (1) Executive Correspondence (clear plastic) cover
    
        (2) Action Document Summary (NHQ Form 117) 
    • 
      
  • Inside   of folder, left side:
    
            (1) ?Review Form Report? Tab   (NHQ FORM 279)
    
        (2) Directive Review Form Report   (Report of all comments and Originator's responses)
    
        (3) ?Additional Comments? Tab (NHQ   FORM 281)
    
        (4) Memos, e-mails, notes, and   redlines that generated during the review of the directive
    
        (5) ?NHQ Form 184? Tab (NHQ FORM   280)
    
        (6) Directive Request Summary (NHQ   Form 184))
    
        (7) ?Cancelled Directive(s)? Tab   (NHQ FORM 280), if applicable 
    
        (8) Directive(s) cancelled by the   approved Directive printed from HQ Document Library
    • 
      
  • Inside   of folder, right side for an HPD/R:
    
            (1) Executive Correspondence (clear plastic) cover
    
        (2) The HPD/R
    
        (3) Signature tab (NASA Form  422) preceding the signature page in the HPD/R 
    • 
      
      		
    
Note 14:  The Executive Summary will be   prepared by 
the directive Originator to briefly explain or summarize the   reason for the directive, if new or if a revision and why 
it was needed, and   an explanation of the disposition and coordination of comments received.
[<< back <<]