Merit Systems Protection Board – Federal Register Recent Federal Regulation Documents

Results 51 - 100 of 112
Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection
Document Number: 2012-10349
Type: Notice
Date: 2012-04-30
Agency: Merit Systems Protection Board, Agencies and Commissions
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) announces that it is planning to submit a request for a three-year extension of an Information Collection Request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Before submitting this ICR to OMB for review and approval, MSPB is soliciting comments on specific aspects of the proposed information collection as described below.
Privacy Act; Termination of Three Systems of Records
Document Number: 2012-9530
Type: Notice
Date: 2012-04-20
Agency: Merit Systems Protection Board, Agencies and Commissions
The Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) is terminating the following Systems of Records: MSPB/Internal 5, ``Workload and Assignment Tracking System;'' MSPB/Internal 7, ``Administrative Data System;'' and MSPB/Central 1, ``Assignment and Correspondence Tracking System.'' They are no longer in use.
Oral Argument
Document Number: 2011-30659
Type: Notice
Date: 2011-11-29
Agency: Merit Systems Protection Board, Agencies and Commissions
Notice is hereby given of the scheduling of oral argument in the matters of: James C. Latham v. U.S. Postal Service, MSPB Docket Number DA-0353-10-0408-I-1; Ruby N. Turner v. U.S. Postal Service, MSPB Docket Number SF-0353-10-0329-I-1; Arleather Reaves v. U.S. Postal Service, MSPB Docket Number CH-0353-10-0823-I-1; Cynthia E. Lundy v. U.S. Postal Service; MSPB Docket Number AT-0353-11-0369-I-1; and Marcella Albright v. U.S. Postal Service, MSPB Docket Number DC-0752- 11-0196-I-1. Date and Time: Tuesday, December 13, 2011, at 10 a.m. Place: The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, Room 201, 717 Madison Place, NW., Washington DC. Status: Open.
Mandatory Electronic Filing for Agencies and Attorneys at Washington Regional Office and Denver Field Office
Document Number: 2011-26315
Type: Rule
Date: 2011-10-13
Agency: Merit Systems Protection Board, Agencies and Commissions
This rule informs the public that the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB or Board) is launching a pilot program under which the Washington Regional Office (WRO) and Denver Field Office (DEFO) will require all pleadings filed by agencies and attorneys who represent appellants in MSPB proceedings to be electronically filed (e- filed). This requirement will apply to all pleadings except those containing classified information or Sensitive Security Information (SSI) in all adjudicatory proceedings before the Board. Any agency or appellant's attorney who believes e-filing would create an undue burden may request an exemption from the administrative judge; however, requests will generally be considered only for pleadings that include scanned material, for example, not documents prepared and saved in a word processing program, and will be granted only when supported by a specific and detailed explanation, such as when the submission of a voluminous amount of scanned documents would create a hardship for a party.
Practices and Procedures
Document Number: 2011-25174
Type: Rule
Date: 2011-09-30
Agency: Merit Systems Protection Board, Agencies and Commissions
The Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB or the Board) is amending its rules of practice and procedure to clarify procedures regarding the issuance and citation of nonprecedential Orders.
Notice of Opportunity To File Amicus Briefs
Document Number: 2011-24439
Type: Notice
Date: 2011-09-23
Agency: Merit Systems Protection Board, Agencies and Commissions
These cases involve employees who were required to have security clearances and were indefinitely suspended from their positions pending determinations concerning whether their security clearances should be revoked. The Board has recognized that, under certain circumstances, an agency may indefinitely suspend an employee based upon the suspension of access to classified information or pending the agency's investigation regarding that access, where the access is a condition of employment. See, e.g., Gonzalez v. Department of Homeland Security, 114 M.S.P.R. 318, ] 13 (2010); Jones v. Department of the Navy, 48 M.S.P.R. 680, 682, 689, aff'd as modified on recons., 51 M.S.P.R. 607 (1991), aff'd, 978 F.2d 1223 (Fed. Cir. 1992). On appeal of such an action, the Board lacks the authority to review the merits of the agency's decision to suspend an employee's access to classified material. Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 530-31 (1988). The Board may determine, however, whether the agency afforded an employee minimum due process with respect to the employee's constitutionally protected property interest in employment. See, e.g., Johnson v. Department of the Navy, 62 M.S.P.R. 487, 490-91 (1994); Kriner v. Department of the Navy, 61 M.S.P.R. 526, 531-35 (1994). In Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532, 546 (1985), the Court held that an agency's failure to provide a tenured public employee with an opportunity to present a response, either in person or in writing, to an appealable agency action that deprives him of his property right in his employment constitutes an abridgement of his constitutional right to minimum due process of law, i.e., prior notice and an opportunity to respond. In Gilbert v. Homar, 520 U.S. 924 (1997), the Court explained, in a case involving the suspension of a state employee, how its due process analysis would apply to discipline short of termination. The Board may also review whether the agency provided the employee with the procedural protections set forth in 5 U.S.C. 7513 in taking an action. Egan, 484 U.S. at 530; see also Cheney v. Department of Justice, 479 F.3d 1343, 1344-45 (Fed. Cir. 2007); King v. Alston, 75 F.3d 657, 661-63 (Fed. Cir. 1996). The Board applies a harmful error analysis in considering statutory violations. See, e.g., Ward v. U.S. Postal Service, 634 F.3d 1274, 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2011); Handy v. U.S. Postal Service, 754 F.3d 335, 337-38 (Fed. Cir. 1985). The cases thus present the following legal issues: (1) Should the Board apply the balancing test set forth in Homar, 520 U.S. 924, in determining whether an agency violates an employee's constitutional right to due process in indefinitely suspending him or her pending a security clearance determination; (2) If so, does that right include the right to have a deciding official who has the authority to change the outcome of the proposed indefinite suspension; (3) If the Board finds that an agency did not violate an employee's constitutional right to due process in this regard, how should the Board analyze whether the agency committed harmful procedural error in light of the restrictions set forth in Egan, 484 U.S. 518, on the Board's authority to analyze the merits of an agency's security clearance determination. Interested parties may submit amicus briefs or other comments on these issues no later than October 19, 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.
Notice of Opportunity To File Amicus Briefs
Document Number: 2011-18647
Type: Notice
Date: 2011-07-25
Agency: Merit Systems Protection Board, Agencies and Commissions
The Board announces the opportunity to file amicus briefs in
Public Availability of the Merit Systems Protection Board's FY 2010 Service Contract Inventory
Document Number: 2011-17976
Type: Notice
Date: 2011-07-18
Agency: Merit Systems Protection Board, Agencies and Commissions
The Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) is publishing this notice to advise the public of the availability of its FY 2010 Service Contract Inventory as required by Section 743 of Division C of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-117). This inventory provides information on service contract actions over $25,000 awarded in FY 2010. The inventory was developed in accordance with guidance issued on November 5, 2010 by the Office of Management and Budget's Office of Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP). The OFPP's guidance is available at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/ files/omb/procurement/memo/service-contract-inventories-guida nce- 11052010.pdf. The MSPB's inventory is posted on its Web site at http:// www.mspb.gov/contact/contracting.htm.
Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB or Board) Provides Notice of Opportunity To File Amicus Briefs in the Matter of Michael B. Graves v. Department of Veterans Affairs
Document Number: 2011-13737
Type: Notice
Date: 2011-06-03
Agency: Merit Systems Protection Board, Agencies and Commissions
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.
Membership of the Merit Systems Protection Board's Performance Review Board
Document Number: 2011-6239
Type: Notice
Date: 2011-03-17
Agency: Merit Systems Protection Board, Agencies and Commissions
Notice is hereby given of the members of the Merit Systems Protection Board's Performance Review Board.
Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service Delivery
Document Number: 2011-5589
Type: Notice
Date: 2011-03-11
Agency: Merit Systems Protection Board, Agencies and Commissions
As part of a Federal Government-wide effort to streamline the process to seek feedback from the public on service delivery, the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) has submitted a Generic Information Collection Request (Generic ICR): ``Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service Delivery'' to OMB for approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
Practices and Procedures, Board Meetings
Document Number: 2011-4317
Type: Rule
Date: 2011-02-28
Agency: Merit Systems Protection Board, Agencies and Commissions
The Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB or the Board) is amending its open meeting regulations to ensure consistency with the Government in the Sunshine Act.
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
Document Number: 2011-633
Type: Notice
Date: 2011-01-13
Agency: Merit Systems Protection Board, Agencies and Commissions
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 occurring before Executive Order 12015 is revoked?
Sunshine Act Meeting
Document Number: 2010-29888
Type: Notice
Date: 2010-11-26
Agency: Merit Systems Protection Board, Agencies and Commissions
Notice is hereby given of the scheduling of a Sunshine Act Meeting on the proposed 2011-2013 research agenda of the Merit Systems Protection Board's Office of Policy and Evaluation.
Practices and Procedures, Board Meetings
Document Number: 2010-29019
Type: Proposed Rule
Date: 2010-11-18
Agency: Merit Systems Protection Board, Agencies and Commissions
The Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB or the Board) is proposing to amend its open meeting regulations at 5 CFR 1206.7 to ensure consistency with the Government in Sunshine Act.
Oral Argument
Document Number: 2010-25552
Type: Notice
Date: 2010-10-12
Agency: Merit Systems Protection Board, Agencies and Commissions
Notice is hereby given of the scheduling of oral argument in the matters of: Hyginus U. Aguzie v. Office of Personnel Management, MSPB Docket Number DC-0731-09-0261-R-1; Jenee Ella Hunt-O'Neal v. Office of Personnel Management, MSPB Docket Number AT-0731-09-0240-I-1; James A. Scott v. Office of Personnel Management, MSPB Docket Number CH-0731-09-0578-I-1; and Holley C. Barnes v. Office of Personnel Management, MSPB Docket Number DC-0731-09-0260-R-1. Date and Time: Monday, October 18, 2010, at 10 a.m. Place: The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, Room 201, 717 Madison Place, NW., Washington DC. Status: Open.
Practices and Procedures
Document Number: 2010-24864
Type: Rule
Date: 2010-10-05
Agency: Merit Systems Protection Board, Agencies and Commissions
The Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB or the Board) is amending its practices and procedures regulations to make clear that the Board may, in its discretion, include discussion of issues raised in an appeal in a nonprecedential Final Order.
Oral Argument
Document Number: 2010-22921
Type: Notice
Date: 2010-09-15
Agency: Merit Systems Protection Board, Agencies and Commissions
Notice is hereby given of the scheduling of oral argument in the matters of Rhonda K. Conyers v. Department of Defense, MSPB Docket No. CH-0752-09-0925-I-1, and Devon H. Northover v. Department of Defense, MSPB Docket No. AT-0752-10-0184-I-1.
Hyginus U. Aguzie v. Office of Personnel Management
Document Number: 2010-12444
Type: Notice
Date: 2010-05-25
Agency: Merit Systems Protection Board, Agencies and Commissions
The Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) is providing notice of an extension of time in which parties may file amicus briefs in the matter of Hyginus U. Aguzie v. Office of Personnel Management, MSPB Docket Number DC-0731-09-0261-R-1.
The Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) is Providing Notice of the Opportunity to File Amicus Briefs in the Matter of Larry L. Evans v. Department of Veterans Affairs, MSPB Docket Number AT-3330-09-0953-I-1.
Document Number: 2010-10988
Type: Notice
Date: 2010-05-10
Agency: Merit Systems Protection Board, Agencies and Commissions
Mr. Evans is a preference eligible veteran who has filed an appeal with the MSPB alleging that the agency violated his rights under the Veterans Employment Opportunities Act of 1998 (VEOA) when it failed to select him for a position. The issues raised in this matter concern the interplay of the Federal Career Intern Program (FCIP) with VEOA. The FCIP was established in 2000 by Executive Order 13,162 ``to provide for the recruitment and selection of exceptional employees for careers in the public sector,'' to attract exceptional individuals with ``diverse professional experiences, academic training and competencies'' to the Federal workforce,'' and ``to prepare them for careers in analyzing and implementing public programs.'' Exec. Order 13, 162; see Scull v. Department of Homeland Security, 113 M.S.P.R. 287, ] 6 (2010).
Publication of Open Government Directive
Document Number: 2010-9706
Type: Notice
Date: 2010-04-27
Agency: Merit Systems Protection Board, Agencies and Commissions
On April 7, 2010, the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB or Board) published MSPB's Open Government Plan pursuant to direction set forth in President Obama's January 21, 2009, Memorandum on Transparency and Open Government, and the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) December 8, 2009, Open Government Directive. The MSPB is hereby requesting public comment on MSPB's Open Government Plan.
The Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) Is Providing Notice of the Opportunity To File Amicus Briefs in the Matter of Hyginus U. Aguzie v. Office of Personnel Management, MSPB Docket Number DC-0731-09-0261-R-1
Document Number: 2010-8682
Type: Notice
Date: 2010-04-16
Agency: Merit Systems Protection Board, Agencies and Commissions
Aguzie and several other cases pending before the Board present the following legal issue: When the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) directs an agency to separate a tenured employee for suitability reasons, must the Board consider a subsequent appeal under 5 CFR part 731 as contemplated therein, or should the Board instead consider the appeal under 5 U.S.C. Chapter 75, given that the scope of a Chapter 75 appeal is broader than a part 731 appeal and that OPM generally lacks authority to issue regulations limiting statutory rights?
The Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) is Providing Notice of the Opportunity to File Amicus Briefs in the Matters of Conyers v. Department of Defense, Docket No. CH-0752-09-0925-I-1, and Northover v. Department of Defense, Docket No. AT-0752-10-0184-I-1
Document Number: 2010-2890
Type: Notice
Date: 2010-02-10
Agency: Merit Systems Protection Board, Agencies and Commissions
On January 25, 2010, the MSPB published in the Federal Register (see 75 FR 3939) a Notice of the opportunity to file amicus briefs in the matter of Crumpler v. Department of Defense, MSPB Docket Number DC-0752-09-0033-R-1, 2009 MSPB 233. Although the Crumpler case is now settled, the legal issue raised in that matter and noted in the January 25 Federal Register notice remains unresolved. The cases of Conyers v. Department of Defense, Docket No. CH-0752-09-0925-I-1, and Northover v. Department of Defense, Docket No. AT-0752-10-0184-I-1, involve the same legal issue.
Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) Provides Notice of Opportunity To File Amicus Briefs
Document Number: 2010-1378
Type: Notice
Date: 2010-01-25
Agency: Merit Systems Protection Board, Agencies and Commissions
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 7521 and 5 CFR 1201.131, the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) is providing notice of the opportunity to file amicus briefs in the matter of Stella Crumpler v. Department of Defense, MSPB Docket Number DC-0752-09-0033-R-1, 2009 MSPB 233. Crumpler raises the question of whether, pursuant to 5 CFR Part 732, National Security Position, the rule in Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 530-31 (1988), limiting the scope of MSPB review of a removal decision based on the revocation of a security clearance also applies to a removal from a ``non-critical sensitive'' position due to the employee having been denied continued eligibility for employment in a sensitive position.
Membership of the Merit Systems Protection Board's Senior Executive Service; Performance Review Board
Document Number: E9-11323
Type: Notice
Date: 2009-05-15
Agency: Merit Systems Protection Board, Agencies and Commissions
Notice is hereby given of the members of the Performance Review Board.
MSPB Practices and Procedures; Department of Homeland Security Human Resources Management System
Document Number: E9-4290
Type: Rule
Date: 2009-03-04
Agency: Merit Systems Protection Board, Agencies and Commissions
The Merit Systems Protection Board (``MSPB'') has decided to remove its DHS-specific regulations that concern the processing and adjudication of appeals filed under the DHS Human Resources Management System to conform with Department of Homeland Security regulations.
Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection
Document Number: E8-20409
Type: Notice
Date: 2008-09-03
Agency: Merit Systems Protection Board, Agencies and Commissions
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501) the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) has forwarded an information collection request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. This is a new information collection activity. This ICR describes the nature of the information collection and its estimated burden and cost.
Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection
Document Number: E8-12380
Type: Notice
Date: 2008-06-04
Agency: Merit Systems Protection Board, Agencies and Commissions
The U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) is requesting approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to conduct a new information collection activity. Before submitting the Information Collection Request (ICR) to OMB for review and approval, MSPB is soliciting comments on aspects of the proposed information collection including the public reporting burden in compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). In this regard we are soliciting comments on the public reporting burden. The reporting burden for the collection of information on this form is estimated to average 20 minutes per respondent, including time for reviewing instructions and completing the survey. In addition, the MSPB invites comments on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of MSPB's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of MSPB's estimate of burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection
Document Number: E8-11877
Type: Notice
Date: 2008-05-28
Agency: Merit Systems Protection Board, Agencies and Commissions
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) announces that it is planning to submit a request for a three-year extension of an Information Collection Request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Before submitting this ICR to OMB for review and approval, MSPB is soliciting comments on specific aspects of its information collection activities as described below.
Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection
Document Number: E8-11611
Type: Notice
Date: 2008-05-23
Agency: Merit Systems Protection Board, Agencies and Commissions
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) announces that an Information Collection Request (ICR) is to be forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR 1320.12. This is a request for a new collection. The ICR describes the nature of the information collection and its estimated burden and cost. On March 6, 2008 (Federal Register Volume 73, Number 45, page 12220), MSPB sought comments on this ICR pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d). MSPB received only one comment.
Child Nutrition Programs-Income Eligibility Guidelines
Document Number: Z8-7475
Type: Notice
Date: 2008-04-21
Agency: Department of Agriculture, Department of Defense, Internal Revenue Service, Department of Treasury, Department of Justice, Merit Systems Protection Board, Agencies and Commissions, Department of the Navy, Department of the Treasury, Food Nutrition Service, Food and Nutrition Service
Streamlining Regulations
Document Number: Z8-6934
Type: Rule
Date: 2008-04-21
Agency: Merit Systems Protection Board, Agencies and Commissions
Final Regulatory Changes Regarding Department of Homeland Security Personnel System
Document Number: E8-8092
Type: Rule
Date: 2008-04-18
Agency: Merit Systems Protection Board, Agencies and Commissions
As the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB or ``the Board'') explained in its notice of Interim Regulatory Changes Regarding Department of Homeland Security Personnel System, Federal Register, 72 FR 56883, October 5, 2007, it is revising its regulations to clarify the procedures applicable to MSPB processing and adjudication of cases arising under the Department of Homeland Security's new human resources management system established pursuant to the Homeland Security Act of 2002. As is discussed below, these revisions to the Board's regulations are necessary to reconcile the Board's regulations and procedures with final regulations published by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) on February 1, 2005.
Supplemental Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the Merit Systems Protection Board
Document Number: E8-7324
Type: Rule
Date: 2008-04-08
Agency: Merit Systems Protection Board, Agencies and Commissions
The Merit Systems Protection Board, with the concurrence of the Office of Government Ethics (OGE), is adopting as final, without change, the interim MSPB rule that supplements the executive-branch- wide Standards of Ethical Conduct (Standards) issued by OGE and, with certain exceptions, requires MSPB employees to obtain approval before engaging in outside employment.
Streamlining Regulations
Document Number: E8-6934
Type: Rule
Date: 2008-04-03
Agency: Merit Systems Protection Board, Agencies and Commissions
The Merit Systems Protection Board (``MSPB'') is issuing a revised interim rule amending several provisions of its practices and procedures regulations to improve the agency's service to its customers by facilitating the expeditious adjudication of appeals. This revised interim rule is intended to streamline MSPB case adjudication. It revises and adds to the regulatory changes undertaken in an interim rule issued by the MSPB on September 18, 2003. (68 FR 54651) This revised interim rule reflects the comments received from MSPB adjudicators and practitioners based on their experiences with the implementation of the current interim rule. The MSPB is soliciting comments concerning this revised interim rule, as well as additional comments concerning the September 18, 2003 interim rule. The MSPB will issue a final rule following the end of the comment period for this revised interim rule. All comments received during the comment period will be taken into consideration in drafting the final rule.
Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection
Document Number: E8-4292
Type: Notice
Date: 2008-03-06
Agency: Merit Systems Protection Board, Agencies and Commissions
The U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board is requesting approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to conduct Federal employee surveys for a period of two years from the approval date. Before submitting the Information Collection Request (ICR) to OMB for review and approval, MSPB is soliciting comments on specific aspects of the information collection in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). In this regard, we are soliciting comments on the public reporting burden. The reporting burden for the collection of information on this form is estimated to average 30 minutes per respondent, including time for reviewing instructions and completing the survey. In addition, the MSPB invites comments on (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of MSPB's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of MSPB's estimate of burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques, when appropriate, and other forms of information technology.
Final Rule for Implementation of Electronic Filing
Document Number: E8-3515
Type: Rule
Date: 2008-02-26
Agency: Merit Systems Protection Board, Agencies and Commissions
The Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) is adopting as a final rule the interim rule governing electronic filing (e-filing) that it promulgated in 2003, as amended the following year, and as further amended by the present notice. When first promulgated in 2003, the online application was restricted to the filing of new appeals; subsequent documents could only be delivered via electronic mail (e- mail). A year later, we modified the rule to reflect that e-Appeal Online could be used to file almost any type of pleading. As further modified in the present Notice, the rule recognizes the MSPB's online Repository of case-related documents that enables parties and their representatives to access the pleadings and MSPB issuances related to the particular employment controversies in which they are involved. The modified rule also contains a requirement that e-filers who include three (3) or more attachments with a pleading describe each attachment. Finally, although not a part of this final rule, the MSPB is giving serious consideration to making e-filing mandatory for agencies and attorneys who represent appellants in MSPB proceedings. Although any such rule could only be issued following a new Federal Register notice, we welcome comments on this issue at the present time.
Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection
Document Number: E8-2907
Type: Notice
Date: 2008-02-15
Agency: Merit Systems Protection Board, Agencies and Commissions
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) announces that it is planning to submit a request for a three-year extension of an Information Collection Request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Before submitting this ICR to OMB for review and approval, MSPB is soliciting comments on specific aspects of its information collection activities as described below.
Practices and Procedures
Document Number: E8-2104
Type: Rule
Date: 2008-02-06
Agency: Merit Systems Protection Board, Agencies and Commissions
The Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB or the Board) is amending its rules of practice and procedure to clarify a number of matters: That the date of receipt of an agency decision is date on which the petitioner receives it; that a witness who is not a federal employee may obtain an order requiring the payment of witness fees; that the time for filing a petition for review begins on the date the initial decision is first received by either the appellant or the representative; and that complaints of discrimination must be clearly marked as raising such an issue. The Board also amends its mixed case procedures to make clear that any case older than 120 days is subject to the 30 day filing requirement once the appellant receives the agency's final decision. The Board also deletes an outdated reference to Appendix 1.
Practices and Procedures
Document Number: E8-447
Type: Rule
Date: 2008-01-14
Agency: Merit Systems Protection Board, Agencies and Commissions
The Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB or the Board) is amending its rules of practice and procedure in this part to reflect the relocation of its Northeastern Regional Office. On January 22, 2008, the Board relocates its Northeastern Regional Office from the U.S. Customhouse, Room 501, Second and Chestnut Streets, Philadelphia, PA 19106-2987, to 1601 Market Street, Suite 1700, Philadelphia, PA 19103. Appendix II of this part is amended to show the new address. The Northeastern Office telephone numbers remain unchanged.
Interim Regulatory Changes Regarding Department of Homeland Security Personnel System
Document Number: E7-19574
Type: Rule
Date: 2007-10-05
Agency: Merit Systems Protection Board, Agencies and Commissions
The Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB or ``the Board'') is revising its regulations to clarify the procedures applicable to MSPB processing and adjudication of cases arising under the Department of Homeland Security's new human resources management system established pursuant to the Homeland Security Act of 2002. As is discussed below, these revisions to the Board's regulations are necessary to reconcile the Board's regulations and procedures with final regulations published by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) on February 1, 2005, at 70 FR 5272.
Membership of the Merit Systems Protection Board's Senior Executive Service; Performance Review Board
Document Number: E7-19347
Type: Notice
Date: 2007-10-02
Agency: Merit Systems Protection Board, Agencies and Commissions
Notice is hereby given of the members of the Performance Review Board.
Practices and Procedures
Document Number: E7-14293
Type: Rule
Date: 2007-07-24
Agency: Merit Systems Protection Board, Agencies and Commissions
The Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB or the Board) is amending its rules of practice and procedure in this part to reflect the relocation of its Western Regional Office.
Supplemental Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the Merit Systems Protection Board
Document Number: E7-9035
Type: Rule
Date: 2007-05-10
Agency: Merit Systems Protection Board, Agencies and Commissions
The Merit Systems Protection Board, with the concurrence of the Office of Government Ethics (OGE), is issuing an interim regulation for employees of the MSPB that supplements the executive-branch-wide Standards of Ethical Conduct (Standards) issued by OGE. With certain exceptions, the supplemental regulation requires MSPB employees, except special Government employees, to obtain approval before engaging in outside employment.
Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection
Document Number: E7-4465
Type: Notice
Date: 2007-03-13
Agency: Merit Systems Protection Board, Agencies and Commissions
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501), this document announces that an Information Collection Request (ICR) has been forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. This is a request for a new collection. This ICR describes the nature of the information collection and its estimated burden and cost.
Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection
Document Number: 06-9681
Type: Notice
Date: 2006-12-14
Agency: Merit Systems Protection Board, Agencies and Commissions
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), this notice announces that the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB or the Board) is forwarding the following proposed information collection to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for approval: MSPB Form 185, a revised paper Appeal Form; and e-Appeal, an electronic application for filing an appeal with the Board.
Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection
Document Number: E6-19914
Type: Notice
Date: 2006-11-27
Agency: Merit Systems Protection Board, Agencies and Commissions
The U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board is requesting approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to conduct employee surveys for a period of three years from the approval date. Before submitting the Information Collection Request (ICR) to OMB for review and approval, MSPB is soliciting comments on specific aspects of the information collection in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). In this regard, we are soliciting comments on the public reporting burden. The reporting burden for the collection of information on this form is estimated to average 30 minutes per respondent, including time for reviewing instructions and completing the survey. In addition, the MSPB invites comments on (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of MSPB's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of MSPB's estimate of burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques, when appropriate, and other forms of information technology.
Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection
Document Number: E6-19521
Type: Notice
Date: 2006-11-20
Agency: Merit Systems Protection Board, Agencies and Commissions
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501), this document announces that an Information Collection Request (ICR) has been forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. This is a request for a new collection. This ICR describes the nature of the information collection and its estimated burden and cost.
Membership of the Merit Systems Protection Board's Senior Executive Service; Performance Review Board
Document Number: E6-18037
Type: Notice
Date: 2006-10-27
Agency: Merit Systems Protection Board, Agencies and Commissions
Notice is hereby given of the members of the Performance Review Board.
Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection
Document Number: 06-7831
Type: Notice
Date: 2006-09-21
Agency: Merit Systems Protection Board, Agencies and Commissions
The Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) intends to request approval of a revised information collection from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3506 and 3507). The currently approved information collection is the MSPB Appeal Form, MSPB Form 185 (OMB Control Number 3124-0009). The MSPB intends to make one substantive change to the information collected on the MSPB Appeal Form: Individuals who file appeals with the MSPB will be required to provide the last four digits of their Social Security numbers. In addition, several minor edits have been made to the Appeal Form to make the process easier to understand. At this time, the MSPB is requesting public comments on the revised MSPB Form 185, which is available for review on the MSPB Web site at http://mspb.gov/headlinespage.html. In addition to soliciting comments on the changes to the Appeal Form, we are also soliciting comments on the public reporting burden.