Agencies and Commissions June 2011 – Federal Register Recent Federal Regulation Documents

The Committee is proposing to add products and a service to the Procurement List that will be furnished by nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities. Comments Must Be Received on or Before: 7/4/2011.

In March 2011, the GSA requested public input on how it can best implement the goals of Executive Order (E.O.) 13563, ``Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review.'' E.O. 13563 was signed by President Obama on January 18, 2011, and calls for an improvement in the creation and review of regulations and better opportunities for the public to be part of this process. Through comments received as well as internal input, GSA has created a retrospective review plan that is now available for comment. The plan is located at https://www.gsa.gov/open.

In Graves v. Department of Veterans Affairs, 114 M.S.P.R. 245 (2010), and Graves v. Department of Veterans Affairs, 114 M.S.P.R. 209 (2010), which involved appeals filed under the Veterans Employment Opportunities Act of 1998 (VEOA), the Board held that the agency's use of veterans' preference status as a ``tie-breaker'' in making selections for excepted service ``hybrid'' positions under 38 U.S.C. 7401(3), which includes the Medical Records Technician (MRT) positions at issue in these cases, was inadequate, and that the agency must comply with the competitive service veterans' preference requirements set forth in title 5 of the United States Code. The Board reasoned that although title 5 provisions such as those relating to veterans' preference rights do not apply to appointments listed under 38 U.S.C. 7401(1) (physicians, dentists, etc.) because those appointments are made ``without regard to civil-service requirements,'' ``hybrid'' employees retain many title 5 rights, including the adverse action and reduction in force (RIF) rights mentioned in 38 U.S.C. 7403(f)(3). The Board noted that section 7403(f)(2) provides that ``[i]n using such authority to appoint individuals to such positions, the Secretary shall apply the principles of preference for the hiring of veterans and other persons established in subchapter I of chapter 33 of title 5,'' and that section 7403(f)(3) provides that ``the applicability of the principles of preference referred to in paragraph (2) * * * shall be resolved under the provisions of title 5 as though such individuals had been appointed under that title.'' Based on its reading of these two provisions, the Board concluded that title 5 competitive service veterans' preference requirements apply to appointments made to 38 U.S.C. 7401(3) positions such as MRTs. The Board also suggested in Graves, 114 M.S.P.R. 209, ]] 12-15, that the agency violated veterans' preference requirements set forth in the Office of Personnel Management's Delegated Examining Operations Handbook and VetGuide, and that corrective action was therefore warranted. The Graves cases are now before the Board on petition for review after remand. The agency has raised several arguments regarding the above findings. The agency asserts that 38 U.S.C. 7403(f)(3) does not address the appointment of individuals because its plain language refers multiple times to individuals who have already been appointed. Thus, the agency contends that the Board's decisions do not give effect to the word ``appointed'' in section 7403(f)(3), and under the statutory construction maxim noscitur a sociis (a word is defined by the company it keeps), the reference in section 7403(f)(3) to ``matters relating to * * * the applicability of the principles of preference referred to in paragraph (2)'' should mean matters relating to veterans' preference principles that apply to individuals who have already been appointed, like ``matters relating to'' adverse actions, RIFs, part-time employees, disciplinary actions, and grievance procedures. The agency also contends that the legislative history for 5 U.S.C. 7403(f)(2)-(3) indicates that a Senate committee specifically intended for the agency to apply a tie-breaker principle to ``hybrid'' applicants, and that Congress did not intend to require the agency to apply title 5 rights to applicants for employment. The agency further asserts that in 1984 it provided notice in the Federal Register that it would be implementing the ``principles of preference'' requirement in the statute through an internal circular that called for the use of the ``tie-breaker'' principle that has been in effect from 1984 through the Board's decisions in Graves. We also note that while section 7403(f)(2) calls for applying ``the principles of preference for the hiring of veterans and other persons established in subchapter I of chapter 33 of title 5,'' such application appears to relate to the use of ``such authority,'' i.e., the ``authority'' mentioned in 38 U.S.C. 7403(a), which in turn calls for appointments to be made ``without regard to civil-service requirements.'' See Scarnati v. Department of Veterans Affairs, 344 F.3d 1246, 1248 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (under 38 U.S.C. 7403(a), title 5 provisions, including those regarding veterans' preference rights, do not apply to appointments made ``without regard to civil service requirements''). Further, deference is generally given to an agency's consistent, long-standing regulatory interpretation of an ambiguous statute as long as it is reasonable, Rosete v. Office of Personnel Management, 48 F.3d 514, 518-19 (Fed. Cir. 1995), and Congress is presumed to be aware of an administrative or judicial interpretation of a statute and to adopt that interpretation when it adopts a new law incorporating sections of a prior law without change, Fitzgerald v. Department of Defense, 80 M.S.P.R. 1, 14 (1998). The Graves cases thus present the following legal issues: (1) Does 38 U.S.C. 7403(f)(2) require the agency to apply title 5 veterans' preference provisions, including but not limited to 5 U.S.C. 3305(b) and 5 CFR 332.311(a), which the Board found the agency violated in not accepting the appellant's late-filed application, see Graves, 114 M.S.P.R. 245, ]] 12-15, in filling ``hybrid'' positions under 38 U.S.C. 7401(3); (2) does the legislative history for the applicable statutory provisions offer guidance regarding how those provisions should be interpreted; (3) are the Delegated Examining Operations Handbook and VetGuide ``statute[s] or regulation[s]'' relating to veterans' preference within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. 3330a(a)(1)(A), such that a violation of a provision in those documents would constitute a violation under VEOA; (4) does the law of the case doctrine apply to the Board's rulings in these cases; and (5) if so, is there a basis for finding that the ``clearly erroneous'' exception to that doctrine has been met? In addition, we note that the resolution of the above issues may affect whether the Board has jurisdiction over VEOA appeals filed by ``hybrid'' applicants. Interested parties may submit amicus briefs or other comments on these issues no later than June 30, 2011. Amicus briefs must be filed with the Clerk of the Board. Briefs shall not exceed 30 pages in length. The text shall be double-spaced, except for quotations and footnotes, and the briefs shall be on 8\1/2\ by 11 inch paper with one inch margins on all four sides.

The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) is providing notice of revised normal cost percentages for employees covered by the Federal Employees' Retirement System (FERS) Act of 1986.

The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) is providing notice of adjusted present value factors applicable to retirees who elect to provide survivor annuity benefits to a spouse based on post-retirement marriage, and to retiring employees who elect the alternative form of annuity or elect to credit certain service with nonappropriated fund instrumentalities. This notice is necessary to conform the present value factors to changes in the economic assumptions adopted by the Board of Actuaries of the Civil Service Retirement System.

The U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) is cancelling the Optional Application for Federal Employment. The information contained in the OF 612 is now incorporated in the online Resume Builder on the USAJOBS[supreg] Web site. The need to maintain the OF 612 as an alternative means of applying for Federal positions no longer exists as job seekers now have the ability to either build or upload resumes. This action is being taken to facilitate a more seamless employment application process for both Federal agencies and job seekers, consistent with the goals of Federal hiring reform.

The U.S. Office of Personnel Management is issuing a final rule to redefine the geographic boundaries of the Madison, Wisconsin, and Southwestern Wisconsin appropriated fund Federal Wage System (FWS) wage areas. The final rule redefines Adams and Waushara Counties, WI, from the Southwestern Wisconsin wage area to the Madison wage area. These changes are based on consensus recommendations of the Federal Prevailing Rate Advisory Committee to best match the above counties to a nearby FWS survey area.

The U.S. Office of Personnel Management is issuing a proposed rule that would redefine the geographic boundaries of the Northern Mississippi and Memphis, Tennessee, appropriated fund Federal Wage System (FWS) wage areas. The proposed rule would redefine Panola County, MS, from the Northern Mississippi wage area to the Memphis wage area. This change is based on a consensus recommendation of the Federal Prevailing Rate Advisory Committee (FPRAC) to best match the county proposed for redefinition to a nearby FWS survey area. FPRAC did not recommend other changes for the Northern Mississippi and Memphis FWS wage areas at this time.

The U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) has completed its annual determination of the States that qualify as Medically Underserved Areas under the Federal Employees Health Benefits (FEHB) Program for calendar year 2012. This is necessary to comply with a provision of the FEHB law that mandates special consideration for enrollees of certain FEHB plans who receive covered health services in States with critical shortages of primary care physicians. Accordingly, for calendar year 2012, the following 15 states are considered as Medically Underserved Areas under the FEHB Program: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Idaho, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, and Wyoming. South Carolina is designated as a Medically Underserved Area in 2011, but will not be so designated for 2012. Alaska is being added as a Medically Underserved Area for the 2012 calendar year.

As part of its implementation of Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, issued by the President on January 18, 2011, NASA is seeking comments on the Agency's preliminary plan to conduct a retrospective analysis of its existing regulations. The purpose of this analysis is to make NASA's regulatory program more effective and less burdensome in achieving its regulatory objectives.

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC), as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995. An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid control number. Comments are requested concerning: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and (e) ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees. The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number.

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC), as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995. Comments are requested concerning (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and (e) ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees. The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (``EEOC'' or ``Commission'') proposes to extend its existing recordkeeping requirements under title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) to entities covered by title II of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 (``GINA''), which prohibits employment discrimination based on genetic information.