Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) Provides Notice of Opportunity To File Amicus Briefs in the Matter of Jeffrey Denton v. Department of Agriculture, MSPB Docket Number DC-3330-09-0696-I-1, 2422-2423 [2011-633]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
2422
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 9 / Thursday, January 13, 2011 / Notices
III. Current Actions
The Department of Labor seeks
approval for the extension of this
currently approved information
collection in order to determine if a
rehabilitation plan should be approved
and payment of any related expenses
authorized.
Type of Review: Extension.
Agency: Office of Workers’
Compensation Programs.
Title: Rehabilitation Plan and Award.
OMB Number: 1240–0045.
Agency Number: OWCP–16.
Affected Public: Individual or
households; Businesses or other forprofit.
Total Respondents: 5,500.
Total Responses: 5,500.
Time per Response: 30 minutes.
Estimated Total Burden Hours: 2,750.
Total Burden Cost (capital/startup):
$0.
Total Burden Cost (operating/
maintenance): $2,585.
Comments submitted in response to
this notice will be summarized and/or
included in the request for Office of
Management and Budget approval of the
information collection request; they will
also become a matter of public record.
Dated: January 7, 2011.
Vincent Alvarez,
Agency Clearance Officer, Office of Workers’
Compensation Programs, U.S. Department of
Labor.
[FR Doc. 2011–631 Filed 1–12–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–CR–P
MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION
BOARD
Merit Systems Protection Board
(MSPB) Provides Notice of Opportunity
To File Amicus Briefs in the Matter of
Jeffrey Denton v. Department of
Agriculture, MSPB Docket Number
DC–3330–09–0696–I–1
AGENCY:
Merit Systems Protection
Board.
ACTION:
Notice.
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
1204(e)(1)(A), the MSPB has requested
an advisory opinion from the Director of
the Office of Personnel Management
(OPM) concerning an appeal currently
pending before the Board, Jeffrey Denton
v. Department of Agriculture, MSPB
Docket Number DC–3330–09–0696–I–1.
The MSPB is also providing an
opportunity to other interested parties
to file amicus briefs concerning the
appeal. The legal questions set forth in
the Denton appeal, which were posed in
the request for an advisory opinion to
the Director of OPM, are set forth below.
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:15 Jan 12, 2011
Jkt 223001
The agency employs the appellant in
the position of Animal Health Program
Assistant, GS–5. The agency announced
the position of Veterinary Program
Assistant (‘‘VPA’’), GS–0303–5/6/7,
under both case exam (announcement
24VS–2009–0130) and merit promotion
(announcement 6VS–2009–0132)
procedures. The appellant applied
under both vacancy announcements and
submitted his DD–214, showing his
eligibility for veterans’ preference. The
appellant made the certificate at the GS–
7 level on the case exam announcement.
The maximum score an applicant could
receive was 100, except when veterans’
preference points were added. The
appellant had 10 points added to his
score of 99.68 to reflect his veterans’
preference, and he was thus listed on
the top of the certificate of 6 candidates
with a score of 109.68 as ‘‘CPS,’’ which
is a 30% or more disabled veteran. The
appellant also made the GS–6 level on
the merit promotion certificate, and he
was referred to the selecting official.
The agency made no selection from
either the case exam or merit promotion
certificate. Rather, the agency cancelled
both vacancy announcements and filled
the VPA position through an alternative
hiring authority, the Student Career
Experience Program (SCEP).
The appellant filed a complaint with
the Department of Labor (DOL) alleging
that his rights to veterans’ preference as
a 30% disabled veteran were violated
because the agency filled the position
through SCEP instead of filling the
position from either the merit
promotion or case exam certificate. The
DOL informed the appellant that it had
completed its investigation into the
appellant’s claim and had determined
that the evidence did not support a
finding that the appellant’s veterans’
preference rights were violated. The
DOL provided the appellant with notice
of appeal rights to the MSPB.
After exhausting his remedy with
DOL, the appellant timely filed an
appeal with the MSPB pursuant to the
Veterans Employment Opportunities
Act (VEOA) alleging that his veterans’
preference rights were violated when
the agency used SCEP to fill the VPA
position and did not select him for that
position. The appellant essentially
argued that the agency had engaged in
a sham. The assigned administrative
judge determined that the MSPB has
VEOA jurisdiction over the appeal, but
issued an initial decision on the merits
finding that the appellant did not
establish a VEOA violation.
The appellant filed a petition for
review with the MSPB challenging the
initial decision of the administrative
judge. This appeal raises significant
PO 00000
Frm 00095
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
issues regarding whether the agency’s
use of SCEP improperly circumvented
the competitive examination process,
allowing the agency to avoid its
obligations regarding veterans’
preference and a veteran’s right to
compete for positions. The material
issues are similar in many respects to
the issues raised regarding the Federal
Career Intern Program (FCIP) in the
MSPB’s recent decisions in the appeals
of Dean v. Office of Personnel
Management, AT–3330–10–0534–I–1
and Evans v. Department of Veterans
Affairs, AT–3330–09–0953–I–1, 2010
MSPB 213 (November 2, 2010). The
Board determined that appellants Dean
and Evans had established the FCIP
program as conducted violated their
veterans’ preference rights because FCIP
was inconsistent with 5 U.S.C. 3302(1)
by: (1) Allowing agencies to invoke an
appointing authority reserved for
positions for which it is not practicable
to hold a competitive examination after
holding a competitive examination
yielding highly-qualified preferenceeligible candidates; and (2) not requiring
agencies to justify placement of
positions in the excepted service.
The SCEP program is covered by
OPM’s regulations at 5 CFR 213.3202(b)
and is authorized by Executive Order
12015 (as amended by Executive Order
13024). The FCIP positions are also
Schedule B, excepted-service positions
but are addressed at 5 CFR 213.3202(o)
and Executive Order 13162. The SCEP
allows agencies to hire students
currently enrolled in specified
educational programs in Schedule B,
excepted-service positions, and
noncompetitively convert them to term,
career or career-conditional
appointments upon satisfactory
completion of the educational program
and accumulation of 640 hours of
agency work experience.
Questions to be resolved:
1. Does the SCEP program violate
veterans’ preference rights because it
allows agencies to invoke an appointing
authority reserved for positions for
which it is not practicable to hold a
competitive examination after holding a
competitive examination yielding
highly-qualified preference-eligible
candidates?
2. Does the SCEP program violate
veterans’ preference rights because it
does not require agencies to justify
placement of positions in Schedule B of
the excepted service?
3. What impact, if any, does the
Executive Order dated December 27,
2010, entitled ‘‘Recruiting and Hiring
Students and Recent Graduates,’’ have
on the appellant’s appeal or any other
appeals based on the SCEP hiring
E:\FR\FM\13JAN1.SGM
13JAN1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 9 / Thursday, January 13, 2011 / Notices
occurring before Executive Order 12015
is revoked?
DATES: All briefs submitted in response
to this notice shall be filed with the
Clerk of the Board on or before February
7, 2011.
ADDRESSES: All briefs shall be captioned
‘‘Jeffrey Denton v. Department of
Agriculture,’’ and entitled ‘‘Amicus
Brief.’’ Only one copy of the brief need
be submitted. Briefs must be filed with
the Office of the Clerk of the Board,
Merit Systems Protection Board, 1615 M
Street, NW., Washington, DC 20419.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Matthew Shannon, Merit Systems
Protection Board, Office of the Clerk of
the Board, 1615 M Street, NW.,
Washington, DC 20419; (202) 653–7200;
mspb@mspb.gov.
William D. Spencer,
Clerk of the Board.
[FR Doc. 2011–633 Filed 1–12–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7400–01–P
MILLENNIUM CHALLENGE
CORPORATION
[MCC FR 11–01]
Report on the Selection of Eligible
Countries for Fiscal Year 2011
Millennium Challenge
Corporation.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
This report is provided in
accordance with section 608(d)(1) of the
Millennium Challenge Act of 2003,
Public Law 108–199, Division D, (the
‘‘Act’’), 22 U.S.C. 7708(d)(1).
SUMMARY:
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Report on the Selection of Eligible
Countries for Fiscal Year 2011
Summary
This report is provided in accordance
with section 608(d)(1) of the
Millennium Challenge Act of 2003,
Public Law 108–199, Division D, (the
‘‘Act’’) (22 U.S.C. 7707(d)(1)).
The Act authorizes the provision of
Millennium Challenge Account (‘‘MCA’’)
assistance under section 605 of the Act
(22 U.S.C. 7704) to countries that enter
into compacts with the United States to
support policies and programs that
advance the progress of such countries
in achieving lasting economic growth
and poverty reduction, and are in
furtherance of the Act. The Act requires
the Millennium Challenge Corporation
(‘‘MCC’’) to determine the countries that
will be eligible to receive MCA
assistance during the fiscal year, based
on their demonstrated commitment to
just and democratic governance,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:15 Jan 12, 2011
Jkt 223001
economic freedom, and investing in
their people, as well as on the
opportunity to reduce poverty and
generate economic growth in the
country. The Act also requires the
submission of reports to appropriate
congressional committees and the
publication of notices in the Federal
Register that identify, among other
things:
1. The countries that are ‘‘candidate
countries’’ for MCA assistance during
fiscal year 2011 (‘‘FY11’’) based on their
per-capita income levels and their
eligibility to receive assistance under
U.S. law, and countries that would be
candidate countries but for specified
legal prohibitions on assistance (section
608(a) of the Act (22 U.S.C. 7707(a)));
2. The criteria and methodology that
the Board of Directors of MCC (the
‘‘Board’’) will use to measure and
evaluate the policy performance of the
‘‘candidate countries’’ consistent with
the requirements of section 607 of the
Act in order to select ‘‘MCA eligible
countries’’ from among the ‘‘candidate
countries’’ (section 608(b) of the Act (22
U.S.C. 7707(b))); and
3. The list of countries determined by
the Board to be ‘‘MCA eligible countries’’
for FY11, with justification for
eligibility determination and selection
for compact negotiation, including with
which of the MCA eligible countries the
Board will seek to enter into MCA
compacts (section 608(d) of the Act (22
U.S.C. 7707(d))).
This is the third of the abovedescribed reports by MCC for FY11. It
identifies countries determined by the
Board to be eligible under section 607
of the Act (22 U.S.C. 7706) for FY11 and
countries with which the Board will
seek to enter into compacts under
section 609 of the Act (22 U.S.C. 7708),
as well as the justification for such
decisions.
Eligible Countries
The Board met on January 5, 2011, to
select countries that will be eligible for
MCA compact assistance under section
607 of the Act (22 U.S.C. 7706) for
FY11. The Board selected the following
countries as eligible for such assistance
for FY11: Cape Verde, Georgia, Ghana,
Indonesia, Malawi, and Zambia.
In accordance with the Act and with
the ‘‘Report on the Criteria and
Methodology for Determining the
Eligibility of Candidate Countries for
Millennium Challenge Account
Assistance in Fiscal Year 2011’’ formally
submitted to the Congress on September
30, 2010, selection was based primarily
on a country’s overall performance in
three broad policy categories: Ruling
Justly, Encouraging Economic Freedom,
PO 00000
Frm 00096
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
2423
and Investing in People. As a basis for
determining which countries would be
eligible for MCA compact assistance, the
Board relied, to the maximum extent
possible, upon 17 transparent and
independent indicators to assess
countries’ policy performance and
demonstrated commitment in these
three broad policy areas. The Board
compared countries’ performance on the
indicators relative to their income-level
peers, evaluating them in comparison to
either the group of low income
countries (‘‘LIC’’) or the group of lowermiddle income countries (‘‘LMIC’’). In
particular, the Board considered if a
country performed above the median in
relation to its peers on at least three
indicators in each of the Ruling Justly,
Investing in People, and Encouraging
Economic Freedom policy categories,
and above the median on the Control of
Corruption indicator. Scorecards
reflecting each country’s performance
on the indicators are available on MCC’s
Web site at https://www.mcc.gov.
The Board also considered whether
any adjustments should be made for
data gaps, data lags, or recent events
since the indicators were published, as
well as strengths or weaknesses in
particular indicators. Where
appropriate, the Board took into account
additional quantitative and qualitative
information, such as evidence of a
country’s commitment to fighting
corruption and promoting democratic
governance, and its effective protection
of human rights. For countries that
graduated from the LIC group to the
LMIC group within the last two years,
due to an increase in their per capita
gross national income, the Board also
took into account supplemental
information that showed how the new
LMIC countries would have performed
in comparison to the LIC group. This is
consistent with a 2009 congressional
decision to allow MCC to fund as LICs
a set of countries that had recently
transitioned to the LMIC category.
Finally, the Board considered the
opportunity to reduce poverty and
promote economic growth in a country,
in light of the overall context of the
information available, as well as the
availability of appropriated funds.
This was the second year the Board
considered the eligibility of countries
for subsequent compacts, as permitted
under section 609(k) of the Act (22
U.S.C. 7708(k)). In determining
subsequent compact eligibility, the
Board considered—in addition to the
criteria outlined above—the country’s
performance implementing its first
compact, including the nature of the
country partnership with MCC, the
degree to which the country has
E:\FR\FM\13JAN1.SGM
13JAN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 9 (Thursday, January 13, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2422-2423]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-633]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD
Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) Provides Notice of
Opportunity To File Amicus Briefs in the Matter of Jeffrey Denton v.
Department of Agriculture, MSPB Docket Number DC-3330-09-0696-I-1
AGENCY: Merit Systems Protection Board.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 1204(e)(1)(A), the MSPB has requested an
advisory opinion from the Director of the Office of Personnel
Management (OPM) concerning an appeal currently pending before the
Board, Jeffrey Denton v. Department of Agriculture, MSPB Docket Number
DC-3330-09-0696-I-1. The MSPB is also providing an opportunity to other
interested parties to file amicus briefs concerning the appeal. The
legal questions set forth in the Denton appeal, which were posed in the
request for an advisory opinion to the Director of OPM, are set forth
below.
The agency employs the appellant in the position of Animal Health
Program Assistant, GS-5. The agency announced the position of
Veterinary Program Assistant (``VPA''), GS-0303-5/6/7, under both case
exam (announcement 24VS-2009-0130) and merit promotion (announcement
6VS-2009-0132) procedures. The appellant applied under both vacancy
announcements and submitted his DD-214, showing his eligibility for
veterans' preference. The appellant made the certificate at the GS-7
level on the case exam announcement. The maximum score an applicant
could receive was 100, except when veterans' preference points were
added. The appellant had 10 points added to his score of 99.68 to
reflect his veterans' preference, and he was thus listed on the top of
the certificate of 6 candidates with a score of 109.68 as ``CPS,''
which is a 30% or more disabled veteran. The appellant also made the
GS-6 level on the merit promotion certificate, and he was referred to
the selecting official. The agency made no selection from either the
case exam or merit promotion certificate. Rather, the agency cancelled
both vacancy announcements and filled the VPA position through an
alternative hiring authority, the Student Career Experience Program
(SCEP).
The appellant filed a complaint with the Department of Labor (DOL)
alleging that his rights to veterans' preference as a 30% disabled
veteran were violated because the agency filled the position through
SCEP instead of filling the position from either the merit promotion or
case exam certificate. The DOL informed the appellant that it had
completed its investigation into the appellant's claim and had
determined that the evidence did not support a finding that the
appellant's veterans' preference rights were violated. The DOL provided
the appellant with notice of appeal rights to the MSPB.
After exhausting his remedy with DOL, the appellant timely filed an
appeal with the MSPB pursuant to the Veterans Employment Opportunities
Act (VEOA) alleging that his veterans' preference rights were violated
when the agency used SCEP to fill the VPA position and did not select
him for that position. The appellant essentially argued that the agency
had engaged in a sham. The assigned administrative judge determined
that the MSPB has VEOA jurisdiction over the appeal, but issued an
initial decision on the merits finding that the appellant did not
establish a VEOA violation.
The appellant filed a petition for review with the MSPB challenging
the initial decision of the administrative judge. This appeal raises
significant issues regarding whether the agency's use of SCEP
improperly circumvented the competitive examination process, allowing
the agency to avoid its obligations regarding veterans' preference and
a veteran's right to compete for positions. The material issues are
similar in many respects to the issues raised regarding the Federal
Career Intern Program (FCIP) in the MSPB's recent decisions in the
appeals of Dean v. Office of Personnel Management, AT-3330-10-0534-I-1
and Evans v. Department of Veterans Affairs, AT-3330-09-0953-I-1, 2010
MSPB 213 (November 2, 2010). The Board determined that appellants Dean
and Evans had established the FCIP program as conducted violated their
veterans' preference rights because FCIP was inconsistent with 5 U.S.C.
3302(1) by: (1) Allowing agencies to invoke an appointing authority
reserved for positions for which it is not practicable to hold a
competitive examination after holding a competitive examination
yielding highly-qualified preference-eligible candidates; and (2) not
requiring agencies to justify placement of positions in the excepted
service.
The SCEP program is covered by OPM's regulations at 5 CFR
213.3202(b) and is authorized by Executive Order 12015 (as amended by
Executive Order 13024). The FCIP positions are also Schedule B,
excepted-service positions but are addressed at 5 CFR 213.3202(o) and
Executive Order 13162. The SCEP allows agencies to hire students
currently enrolled in specified educational programs in Schedule B,
excepted-service positions, and noncompetitively convert them to term,
career or career-conditional appointments upon satisfactory completion
of the educational program and accumulation of 640 hours of agency work
experience.
Questions to be resolved:
1. Does the SCEP program violate veterans' preference rights
because it allows agencies to invoke an appointing authority reserved
for positions for which it is not practicable to hold a competitive
examination after holding a competitive examination yielding highly-
qualified preference-eligible candidates?
2. Does the SCEP program violate veterans' preference rights
because it does not require agencies to justify placement of positions
in Schedule B of the excepted service?
3. What impact, if any, does the Executive Order dated December 27,
2010, entitled ``Recruiting and Hiring Students and Recent Graduates,''
have on the appellant's appeal or any other appeals based on the SCEP
hiring
[[Page 2423]]
occurring before Executive Order 12015 is revoked?
DATES: All briefs submitted in response to this notice shall be filed
with the Clerk of the Board on or before February 7, 2011.
ADDRESSES: All briefs shall be captioned ``Jeffrey Denton v. Department
of Agriculture,'' and entitled ``Amicus Brief.'' Only one copy of the
brief need be submitted. Briefs must be filed with the Office of the
Clerk of the Board, Merit Systems Protection Board, 1615 M Street, NW.,
Washington, DC 20419.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Matthew Shannon, Merit Systems
Protection Board, Office of the Clerk of the Board, 1615 M Street, NW.,
Washington, DC 20419; (202) 653-7200; mspb@mspb.gov.
William D. Spencer,
Clerk of the Board.
[FR Doc. 2011-633 Filed 1-12-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7400-01-P
