Programs for Specific Positions and Examinations (Miscellaneous), 61998-61999 [2010-25316]
Download as PDF
61998
Proposed Rules
Federal Register
Vol. 75, No. 194
Thursday, October 7, 2010
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER
contains notices to the public of the proposed
issuance of rules and regulations. The
purpose of these notices is to give interested
persons an opportunity to participate in the
rule making prior to the adoption of the final
rules.
OFFICE OF PERSONNEL
MANAGEMENT
5 CFR Part 930
RIN 3206–AL67
Programs for Specific Positions and
Examinations (Miscellaneous)
U.S. Office of Personnel
Management.
ACTION: Proposed rule with request for
comments.
AGENCY:
The U.S. Office of Personnel
Management (OPM) is proposing to
eliminate the licensure requirements for
incumbent administrative law judges
who are covered under the
Administrative Law Judge Program.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before December 6, 2010.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
through the Federal eRulemaking Portal
at https://www.regulations.gov. All
submissions received through the Portal
must include the agency name and
docket number or Regulation Identifier
Number (RIN) for this proposed
rulemaking.
You may also send, deliver, or fax
comments to Angela Bailey, Deputy
Associate Director for Recruitment and
Hiring, U.S. Office of Personnel
Management, Room 6566, 1900 E Street,
NW., Washington, DC 20415–9700;
e-mail at employ@opm.gov; or fax at
(202) 606–2329.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.
Linda Watson by telephone at (202)
606–0830; by fax at (202) 606–2329; by
TTY at (202) 418–3134; or by e-mail at
linda.watson@opm.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On March
20, 2007, OPM published a final rule at
72 FR 12947, to revise the
Administrative Law Judge Program.
These revisions included a requirement
for incumbent administrative law judges
(ALJs) to ‘‘possess a professional license
to practice law and be authorized to
practice law under the laws of a State,
the District of Columbia, the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or any
jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:39 Oct 06, 2010
Jkt 223001
territorial court established under the
United States Constitution.’’ That
regulation (currently at 5 CFR
930.204(b)(1)) goes on to state, ‘‘Judicial
status is acceptable in lieu of ‘active’
status in States that prohibit sitting
judges from maintaining ‘active’ status
to practice law. Being in ‘good standing’
is also acceptable in lieu of ‘active’
status in States where the licensing
authority considers ‘good standing’ as
having a current license to practice
law.’’ See 72 FR at 12955.
At the time the final rule was
published, OPM noted that under the
Administrative Procedure Act, ALJs
preside in formal proceedings requiring
a decision on the record after an
opportunity for a hearing, and
consequently, ALJs must be held to a
high standard of conduct so that the
integrity and independence of the
administrative judiciary is preserved.
The requirement was intended to ensure
that ALJs, like attorneys, remain subject
to a code of professional responsibility.
However, on July 18, 2008, OPM
published an interim rule, at 73 FR
41235, suspending the professional
license requirement as it applies to
incumbent ALJs, to prevent any adverse
impact on incumbents, because we had
‘‘reconsidered comments received
during the notice and comment period
* * * about the burdens imposed by the
active licensure requirement, as it
applies to incumbents, the potential
differences between the ethical
requirements that pertain to an advocate
and those requirements that pertain to
someone asked to adjudicate cases
impartially, and the variations in what
States require as to lawyers serving as
ALJs.’’
OPM is considering whether the
licensure requirement for incumbents
should be eliminated from the final rule.
In addition to the reasons stated above,
OPM recognizes that once an applicant
is appointed as an ALJ, he or she
becomes subject both to supervision
appropriate to the position and to the
standards of ethical conduct for
employees of the Executive Branch,
codified by the Office of Government
Ethics at part 2635 of this title.
Moreover, an ALJ who exhibits conduct
that rises to the level of ‘‘good cause
established and determined by the Merit
Systems Protection Board on the record
after opportunity for hearing by the
Board,’’ 5 U.S.C. 7521, may be subject to
PO 00000
Frm 00001
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
an adverse action pursuant to statute.
5 CFR 930.211(c) enumerates other
actions that may be taken in appropriate
circumstances.
In conclusion, OPM believes that the
standards of ethical conduct that apply
to ALJs as Federal employees, and
agencies’ existing authority to supervise
ALJs and take actions against them in
appropriate circumstances, are
sufficient to ensure that ALJs are held to
a high standard of conduct.
Accordingly, OPM is proposing to
permanently eliminate the requirement
in § 930.204(b), that an incumbent ALJ
must maintain a particular sort of
license or status with respect to the
practice of law, as unnecessary. OPM is
soliciting comments, once again, on this
narrow issue.
However, OPM is proposing no
amendment to part 930, as it concerns
applicants. OPM remains convinced
that active licensure at the time of
application and appointment is vital as
an indicator that the applicant
presenting himself or herself for
assessment and possible appointment
has been subject to rigorous ethical
requirements right up to the time of
appointment.
OPM will consider comments on this
proposed rule and comments on the
interim rule published at 73 FR 41235
when issuing a final rule.
Executive Order 12866, Regulatory
Review
This proposed rule has been reviewed
by the Office of Management and
Budget in accordance with Executive
Order 12866.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
I certify that these regulations would
not have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities
(including small businesses, small
organizational units, and small
governmental jurisdictions) because
they would affect only some Federal
agencies and employees.
List of Subjects in 5 CFR Part 930
Administrative practice and
procedure, Computer technology,
Government employees, Motor vehicles.
U.S. Office of Personnel Management.
John Berry,
Director.
Accordingly, OPM proposes to amend
5 CFR part 930 as follows:
E:\FR\FM\07OCP1.SGM
07OCP1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 194 / Thursday, October 7, 2010 / Proposed Rules
AD requires repetitive inspections of the
drain tube assemblies of the slat track
housing of the wings to find
discrepancies, corrective actions if
Subpart B—Administrative Law Judge
necessary, and terminating action for
Program
the repetitive inspections. This
proposed AD would also require
1. The authority citation for subpart B
replacing the drain tube assemblies. For
continues to read as follows:
certain airplanes, this proposed AD
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 1104(a), 1302(a), 1305,
would also require installing an
3105, 3301, 3304, 3323(b), 3344, 4301(2)(D),
additional electrostatic bond path for
5372, 7521, and E.O. 10577, 3 CFR, 1954–
the number 5 and 8 inboard slat track
1958 Comp., p. 219.
drain tube assemblies. For certain other
2. Amend § 930.204 by revising
airplanes, this proposed AD would also
paragraph (b) to read as follows:
require reworking the bonding jumper
assembly. This proposed AD would also
§ 930.204 Appointments and conditions of
revise the applicability to include
employment.
additional airplanes. This proposed AD
*
*
*
*
*
results from reports of fuel leaks from
(b) Licensure. At the time of
certain drain locations of the slat track
application and any new appointment,
housing near the engine exhaust nozzles
the individual must possess a
of the wings, which could result in a fire
professional license to practice law and
when the airplane is stationary, or
be authorized to practice law under the
taxiing at low speed; reports of a
laws of a State, the District of Columbia, bonding jumper assembly of certain
the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or
drain tubes that did not meet bonding
any territorial court established under
specifications and could result in
the United States Constitution. Judicial
electrostatic discharge and an in-tank
status is acceptable in lieu of ‘‘active’’
ignition source; and reports of fuel leaks
status in States that prohibit sitting
onto the main landing gear (MLG) as a
judges from maintaining ‘‘active’’ status
result of a cracked drain tube at the
to practice law. Being in ‘‘good standing’’ number 5 or 8 slat track housing, which
is also acceptable in lieu of ‘‘active’’
could let fuel drain from the main fuel
status in States where the licensing
tanks into the dry bay area of the wings
authority considers ‘‘good standing’’ as
and onto hot MLG brakes and result in
having a current license to practice law. a fire.
*
*
*
*
*
DATES: We must receive comments on
[FR Doc. 2010–25316 Filed 10–6–10; 8:45 am]
this proposed AD by November 22,
BILLING CODE 6325–39–P
2010.
ADDRESSES: You may send comments by
any of the following methods:
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to
https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
Federal Aviation Administration
instructions for submitting comments.
• Fax: 202–493–2251.
14 CFR Part 39
• Mail: U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M–
[Docket No. FAA–2010–0957; Directorate
Identifier 2010–NM–062–AD]
30, West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
RIN 2120–AA64
Washington, DC 20590.
• Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of
Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing
Transportation, Docket Operations, M–
Company Model 767 Airplanes
30, West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
AGENCY: Federal Aviation
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m.
Administration (FAA), Department of
and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
Transportation (DOT).
except Federal holidays.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking
For service information identified in
(NPRM).
this proposed AD, contact Boeing
Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data
SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to
& Services Management, P.O. Box 3707,
supersede an existing airworthiness
MC 2H–65, Seattle, Washington 98124–
directive (AD) that applies to certain
2207; telephone 206–544–5000,
Model 767 airplanes. The existing AD
currently requires, for certain airplanes, extension 1; fax 206–766–5680; e-mail
me.boecom@boeing.com; Internet
reworking the bonding jumper
assemblies on the drain tube assemblies https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You
may review copies of the referenced
of the slat track housing of the wings.
service information at the FAA,
For certain other airplanes, the existing
jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
PART 930—PROGRAMS FOR
SPECIFIC POSITIONS AND
EXAMINATIONS (MISCELLANEOUS)
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:39 Oct 06, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
61999
Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601
Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington.
For information on the availability of
this material at the FAA, call 425–227–
1221.
Examining the AD Docket
You may examine the AD docket on
the Internet at https://
www.regulations.gov; or in person at the
Docket Management Facility between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD
docket contains this proposed AD, the
regulatory evaluation, any comments
received, and other information. The
street address for the Docket Office
(telephone 800–647–5527) is in the
ADDRESSES section. Comments will be
available in the AD docket shortly after
receipt.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Douglas Bryant, Aerospace Engineer,
Propulsion Branch, ANM–140S, FAA,
Seattle Aircraft Certification Office
(ACO), 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,
Washington 98057–3356; telephone
425–227–2384; fax 425–917–6590.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Comments Invited
We invite you to send any written
relevant data, views, or arguments about
this proposed AD. Send your comments
to an address listed under the
ADDRESSES section. Include ‘‘Docket No.
FAA–2010–0957; Directorate Identifier
2010–NM–062–AD’’ at the beginning of
your comments. We specifically invite
comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy
aspects of this proposed AD. We will
consider all comments received by the
closing date and may amend this
proposed AD because of those
comments.
We will post all comments we
receive, without change, to https://
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each
substantive verbal contact we receive
about this proposed AD.
Discussion
On July 12, 2001, we issued AD 2001–
14–19, amendment 39–12330 (66 FR
38350, July 24, 2001), for certain Boeing
Model 767 airplanes. That AD requires,
for certain airplanes, reworking the
bonding jumper assemblies on the drain
tube assemblies of the slat track housing
of the wings. For certain other airplanes,
that AD requires repetitive inspections
of the drain tube assemblies of the slat
track housing of the wings to find
discrepancies, corrective actions if
necessary, and terminating action for
the repetitive inspections. That AD was
E:\FR\FM\07OCP1.SGM
07OCP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 194 (Thursday, October 7, 2010)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 61998-61999]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-25316]
========================================================================
Proposed Rules
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.
========================================================================
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 194 / Thursday, October 7, 2010 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 61998]]
OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT
5 CFR Part 930
RIN 3206-AL67
Programs for Specific Positions and Examinations (Miscellaneous)
AGENCY: U.S. Office of Personnel Management.
ACTION: Proposed rule with request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) is proposing to
eliminate the licensure requirements for incumbent administrative law
judges who are covered under the Administrative Law Judge Program.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before December 6, 2010.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking
Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. All submissions received through
the Portal must include the agency name and docket number or Regulation
Identifier Number (RIN) for this proposed rulemaking.
You may also send, deliver, or fax comments to Angela Bailey,
Deputy Associate Director for Recruitment and Hiring, U.S. Office of
Personnel Management, Room 6566, 1900 E Street, NW., Washington, DC
20415-9700; e-mail at employ@opm.gov; or fax at (202) 606-2329.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Linda Watson by telephone at (202)
606-0830; by fax at (202) 606-2329; by TTY at (202) 418-3134; or by e-
mail at linda.watson@opm.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On March 20, 2007, OPM published a final
rule at 72 FR 12947, to revise the Administrative Law Judge Program.
These revisions included a requirement for incumbent administrative law
judges (ALJs) to ``possess a professional license to practice law and
be authorized to practice law under the laws of a State, the District
of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or any territorial court
established under the United States Constitution.'' That regulation
(currently at 5 CFR 930.204(b)(1)) goes on to state, ``Judicial status
is acceptable in lieu of `active' status in States that prohibit
sitting judges from maintaining `active' status to practice law. Being
in `good standing' is also acceptable in lieu of `active' status in
States where the licensing authority considers `good standing' as
having a current license to practice law.'' See 72 FR at 12955.
At the time the final rule was published, OPM noted that under the
Administrative Procedure Act, ALJs preside in formal proceedings
requiring a decision on the record after an opportunity for a hearing,
and consequently, ALJs must be held to a high standard of conduct so
that the integrity and independence of the administrative judiciary is
preserved. The requirement was intended to ensure that ALJs, like
attorneys, remain subject to a code of professional responsibility.
However, on July 18, 2008, OPM published an interim rule, at 73 FR
41235, suspending the professional license requirement as it applies to
incumbent ALJs, to prevent any adverse impact on incumbents, because we
had ``reconsidered comments received during the notice and comment
period * * * about the burdens imposed by the active licensure
requirement, as it applies to incumbents, the potential differences
between the ethical requirements that pertain to an advocate and those
requirements that pertain to someone asked to adjudicate cases
impartially, and the variations in what States require as to lawyers
serving as ALJs.''
OPM is considering whether the licensure requirement for incumbents
should be eliminated from the final rule. In addition to the reasons
stated above, OPM recognizes that once an applicant is appointed as an
ALJ, he or she becomes subject both to supervision appropriate to the
position and to the standards of ethical conduct for employees of the
Executive Branch, codified by the Office of Government Ethics at part
2635 of this title. Moreover, an ALJ who exhibits conduct that rises to
the level of ``good cause established and determined by the Merit
Systems Protection Board on the record after opportunity for hearing by
the Board,'' 5 U.S.C. 7521, may be subject to an adverse action
pursuant to statute. 5 CFR 930.211(c) enumerates other actions that may
be taken in appropriate circumstances.
In conclusion, OPM believes that the standards of ethical conduct
that apply to ALJs as Federal employees, and agencies' existing
authority to supervise ALJs and take actions against them in
appropriate circumstances, are sufficient to ensure that ALJs are held
to a high standard of conduct. Accordingly, OPM is proposing to
permanently eliminate the requirement in Sec. 930.204(b), that an
incumbent ALJ must maintain a particular sort of license or status with
respect to the practice of law, as unnecessary. OPM is soliciting
comments, once again, on this narrow issue.
However, OPM is proposing no amendment to part 930, as it concerns
applicants. OPM remains convinced that active licensure at the time of
application and appointment is vital as an indicator that the applicant
presenting himself or herself for assessment and possible appointment
has been subject to rigorous ethical requirements right up to the time
of appointment.
OPM will consider comments on this proposed rule and comments on
the interim rule published at 73 FR 41235 when issuing a final rule.
Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Review
This proposed rule has been reviewed by the Office of Management
and Budget in accordance with Executive Order 12866.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
I certify that these regulations would not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities (including
small businesses, small organizational units, and small governmental
jurisdictions) because they would affect only some Federal agencies and
employees.
List of Subjects in 5 CFR Part 930
Administrative practice and procedure, Computer technology,
Government employees, Motor vehicles.
U.S. Office of Personnel Management.
John Berry,
Director.
Accordingly, OPM proposes to amend 5 CFR part 930 as follows:
[[Page 61999]]
PART 930--PROGRAMS FOR SPECIFIC POSITIONS AND EXAMINATIONS
(MISCELLANEOUS)
Subpart B--Administrative Law Judge Program
1. The authority citation for subpart B continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 1104(a), 1302(a), 1305, 3105, 3301, 3304,
3323(b), 3344, 4301(2)(D), 5372, 7521, and E.O. 10577, 3 CFR, 1954-
1958 Comp., p. 219.
2. Amend Sec. 930.204 by revising paragraph (b) to read as
follows:
Sec. 930.204 Appointments and conditions of employment.
* * * * *
(b) Licensure. At the time of application and any new appointment,
the individual must possess a professional license to practice law and
be authorized to practice law under the laws of a State, the District
of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or any territorial court
established under the United States Constitution. Judicial status is
acceptable in lieu of ``active'' status in States that prohibit sitting
judges from maintaining ``active'' status to practice law. Being in
``good standing'' is also acceptable in lieu of ``active'' status in
States where the licensing authority considers ``good standing'' as
having a current license to practice law.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2010-25316 Filed 10-6-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6325-39-P