81_FR_2924 81 FR 2913 - Notice of Opportunity To File Amicus Briefs

81 FR 2913 - Notice of Opportunity To File Amicus Briefs

MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 11 (January 19, 2016)

Page Range2913-2914
FR Document2016-00875

The Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB or the Board) announces the opportunity to file amicus briefs in the matter of Mark Abernathy v. Department of the Army, MSPB Docket No. DC-1221-14-0364-W- 1, currently pending before the Board on petition for review. Additional information concerning the question on which the Board invites amicus briefing in Abernathy and the required format and length of amicus briefs can be found in the Supplementary Information below.

Federal Register, Volume 81 Issue 11 (Tuesday, January 19, 2016)
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 11 (Tuesday, January 19, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2913-2914]
From the Federal Register Online  [www.thefederalregister.org]
[FR Doc No: 2016-00875]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD


Notice of Opportunity To File Amicus Briefs

AGENCY: Merit Systems Protection Board.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB or the Board) 
announces the opportunity to file amicus briefs in the matter of Mark 
Abernathy v. Department of the Army, MSPB Docket No. DC-1221-14-0364-W-
1, currently pending before the Board on petition for review. 
Additional information concerning the question on which the Board 
invites amicus briefing in Abernathy and the required format and length 
of amicus briefs can be found in the Supplementary Information below.

DATES: All briefs submitted in response to this notice must be received 
by the Clerk of the Board on or before February 9, 2016.

ADDRESSES: All briefs shall be captioned ``Mark Abernathy v. Department 
of the Army'' and entitled ``Amicus Brief.'' Only one copy of the brief 
need be submitted. The Board encourages interested parties to submit 
amicus briefs as attachments to electronic mail addressed to 
[email protected]. An email should contain a subject line indicating that 
the submission contains an amicus brief in the Abernathy case. Any 
commonly-used word processing format or PDF format is acceptable; text 
formats are preferable to image formats. Briefs may also be filed with 
William D. Spencer, Clerk of the Board, Merit Systems Protection Board, 
1615 M Street NW., Washington, DC 20419; Fax (202) 653-7130.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Molly Leckey, Office of the Clerk of 
the Board, Merit Systems Protection Board, 1615 M Street NW., 
Washington, DC 20419; (202) 653-7200; [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The administrative judge in Abernathy 
dismissed the individual right of action (IRA) appeal for lack of 
jurisdiction, finding that the appellant did not make a protected 
disclosure because, when he made the disclosure, he was neither an 
``employee'' nor an ``applicant,'' but rather, a Federal contractor. Of 
particular relevance in Abernathy is the jurisdictional question of 
whether, under the Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989 (WPA), as 
amended by the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act of 2012 (WPEA), 
both the disclosure and the subject matter of the disclosure must have 
occurred after the individual who is seeking corrective action in an 
IRA appeal became an applicant or employee.
    The Board believes that some ambiguity may exist in the language of 
the statute regarding who is covered by the WPA and WPEA. A starting 
point for statutory interpretation is the words of the statute itself, 
which must be examined to determine Congress's intent and purpose. In 
construing statutes, their provisions should not be read in isolation; 
rather, each statute's section should be construed in connection with 
every other section so as to produce a harmonious whole. Yee v. 
Department of the Navy, 121 M.S.P.R. 686 (2014). Because the WPA and 
WPEA are remedial legislation, the Board will interpret their 
provisions liberally to embrace all cases fairly within their scope, so 
as to effectuate the purpose of the Acts. See Fishbein v. Department of 
Health & Human Services, 102 M.S.P.R. 4 (2006). We now turn to the two 
statutory provisions in question.
    The Board has jurisdiction over whistleblower claims filed pursuant 
to 5 U.S.C. 1221(a), as amended by WPEA Sec.  101(b)(1)(A). Section 
1221(a) provides that:

an employee, former employee, or applicant for employment may, with 
respect to any personnel action taken, or proposed to be taken, 
against such employee, former employee, or applicant for employment, 
as a result of a prohibited personnel practice described in section 
2302(b)(8) . . . seek corrective action from [the Board].

5 U.S.C. Sec.  1221(a) (emphasis added).

    Section 2302(b)(8) prohibits any employee who has authority to 
take, direct others to take, recommend, or approve any personnel action 
to:

    (8) take or fail to take, or threaten to take or fail to take, a 
personnel action with respect to any employee or applicant for 
employment because of--
    (A) any disclosure of information by an employee or applicant 
which the employee or applicant reasonably believes evidences--
    (i) any violation of any law, rule, or regulation, or
    (ii) gross mismanagement, a gross waste of funds, an abuse of 
authority, or a substantial and specific danger to public health or 
safety, if such disclosure is not specifically prohibited by law and 
if such information is not specifically required by Executive order 
to be kept secret in the interest of national defense or the conduct 
of foreign affairs; or
    (B) any disclosure to the Special Counsel, or to the Inspector 
General of an agency or another employee designated by the head of 
the agency to receive such disclosures, of information which the 
employee or applicant reasonably believes evidences--
    (i) any violation (other than a violation of this section) of 
any law, rule, or regulation, or
    (ii) gross mismanagement, a gross waste of funds, an abuse of 
authority, or a substantial and specific danger to public health or 
safety[.]

5 U.S.C. Sec.  2302(b)(8) (emphasis added).

    The Board has held that, in whistleblower retaliation claims, 5 
U.S.C. 1221(a) and 2302(b)(8) should be read together. See Schmittling 
v. Department of the Army, 92 M.S.P.R. 572 (2002). In construing 
section 1221(a) with section 2302(b)(8), it is possibly unclear if a 
request for corrective action under the WPA must concern only actions 
that occurred while the individual was an employee or applicant for 
employment. In other words, it is possibly uncertain whether, to 
constitute a disclosure ``by an employee or applicant,'' the disclosure 
of information described in section 2302(b)(8)(A), as well as the 
subject matter of the disclosure, must have transpired after--and not 
before--the individual seeking corrective action became ``an employee'' 
or ``an applicant for employment.''
    The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit) 
addressed this question in three nonprecedential decisions, all of 
which were decided before the enactment of the WPEA. See Nasuti v. 
Merit Systems Protection Board, 376 F. App'x 29 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (per 
curiam) (finding that an

[[Page 2914]]

individual who was a former employee when the alleged personnel action 
and disclosure occurred could not bring a claim under the WPA); Guzman 
v. Office of Personnel Management, 53 F. App'x 927 (Fed. Cir. 2002) 
(per curiam) (construing the language of sections 1221(a) and 
2302(b)(8) as permitting a former employee to bring a claim under the 
WPA ``only as to disclosures made . . . during the period that the 
complainant was an employee or applicant''); Amarille v. Office of 
Personnel Management, 28 F. App'x 931 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (concluding that 
the Board lacked jurisdiction over an IRA appeal filed by a former 
employee because, during the relevant time in question, he was neither 
an employee nor applicant for Federal employment). The Board may follow 
the Federal Circuit's nonprecedential decisions, to the extent that the 
Board finds them persuasive.
    The Board, prior to the WPEA's enactment, also issued decisions 
ruling on the question being examined here. See Weed v. Social Security 
Administration, 113 M.S.P.R. 221 (2010) (finding that the appellant, 
who was working for the Federal Government when he filed his Office of 
Special Counsel complaint and when the personnel actions in dispute 
took place, was an ``employee'' protected by the statute, even though 
he was working at a different Federal agency than the one that took the 
personnel actions; alternatively, finding that a whistleblower need not 
be ``an employee, an applicant for employment or a former employee at 
the time he made his protected disclosures''); Pasley v. Department of 
the Treasury, 109 M.S.P.R. 105 (2008) (concluding that the termination 
of a former Federal employee by a private sector employer taken in 
retaliation for his protected disclosures during Federal Government 
employment did not meet the definition of a ``personnel action'' under 
the WPA); Greenup v. Department of Agriculture, 106 M.S.P.R. 202 (2007) 
(determining that the appellant lacked standing to challenge personnel 
actions taken against her while she was a county employee, but that she 
later was covered by the WPA after she resigned from her county job and 
applied, but was not selected, for a Federal position).
    In light of the relevant statutory language, it could be argued 
that an individual seeking protection under the WPA and WPEA must have 
been either an employee or an applicant at the time of both the 
disclosure and the subject matter of the disclosure. Adkins v. Office 
of Personnel Management, 104 M.S.P.R. 233 (2006) (reasoning that, where 
the language of a statute is clear, it controls, absent an express 
indication of an intent to the contrary), aff'd, 525 F.3d 1363 (Fed. 
Cir. 2008).
    In analyzing this question, the Board also wishes to receive 
comments that substantively compare and contrast the statutory language 
in the WPA and WPEA regarding the standing of individuals who are 
``employees,'' ``former employees,'' and ``applicants for employment,'' 
with the analogous, yet more expansive, standing requirement language 
under the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 
1994 (codified at 38 U.S.C. 4301-4333) which provides, in relevant 
part, that ``a person may submit a complaint against a Federal 
executive agency or the Office,'' 38 U.S.C. 4324(b) (emphasis added); 
see Silva v. Department of Homeland Security, 112 M.S.P.R. 362 (2009).
    Finally, the Board is seeking comments that address what, if any, 
effect the question presented here might have on other Federal 
whistleblower and anti-retaliation laws. This would include the 
Department of Defense Authorization Act of 1987, which specifically 
bans defense contractors and subcontractors from retaliating against 
employees in reprisal for disclosing to specified entities information 
about alleged gross mismanagement or a substantial and specific danger 
to public health or safety. See 10 U.S.C. 2409(a). Interested 
individuals or organizations may submit amicus briefs or other comments 
on the question presented in Abernathy no later than February 9, 2016. 
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. All amicus briefs 
received will be posted on the Board's public Web site at www.mspb.gov/SignificantCases after February 9, 2016.

William D. Spencer,
Clerk of the Board.
[FR Doc. 2016-00875 Filed 1-15-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 7400-01-P



                                                                                  Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 19, 2016 / Notices                                                  2913

                                                    foreign law enforcement officials to                    that the submission contains an amicus                 taken, against such employee, former
                                                    request that the Bureau of Alcohol,                     brief in the Abernathy case. Any                       employee, or applicant for employment, as a
                                                    Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF)                  commonly-used word processing format                   result of a prohibited personnel practice
                                                                                                                                                                   described in section 2302(b)(8) . . . seek
                                                    trace firearms used or suspected to have                or PDF format is acceptable; text formats
                                                                                                                                                                   corrective action from [the Board].
                                                    been used in crimes.                                    are preferable to image formats. Briefs
                                                       5. An estimate of the total number of                may also be filed with William D.                      5 U.S.C. § 1221(a) (emphasis added).
                                                    respondents and the amount of time                      Spencer, Clerk of the Board, Merit                       Section 2302(b)(8) prohibits any
                                                    estimated for an average respondent to                  Systems Protection Board, 1615 M                       employee who has authority to take,
                                                    respond: An estimated 6,103                             Street NW., Washington, DC 20419; Fax                  direct others to take, recommend, or
                                                    respondents will take 6 minutes to                      (202) 653–7130.                                        approve any personnel action to:
                                                    complete the survey.                                    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:                          (8) take or fail to take, or threaten to take
                                                       6. An estimate of the total public                   Molly Leckey, Office of the Clerk of the               or fail to take, a personnel action with respect
                                                    burden (in hours) associated with the                   Board, Merit Systems Protection Board,                 to any employee or applicant for employment
                                                    collection: The estimated annual public                 1615 M Street NW., Washington, DC                      because of—
                                                    burden associated with this collection is               20419; (202) 653–7200; mspb@                              (A) any disclosure of information by an
                                                    34,448 hours.                                                                                                  employee or applicant which the employee
                                                                                                            mspb.gov.                                              or applicant reasonably believes evidences—
                                                       If additional information is required                SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The                            (i) any violation of any law, rule, or
                                                    contact: Jerri Murray, Department                       administrative judge in Abernathy                      regulation, or
                                                    Clearance Officer, United States                        dismissed the individual right of action                  (ii) gross mismanagement, a gross waste of
                                                    Department of Justice, Justice                          (IRA) appeal for lack of jurisdiction,                 funds, an abuse of authority, or a substantial
                                                    Management Division, Policy and                                                                                and specific danger to public health or safety,
                                                                                                            finding that the appellant did not make                if such disclosure is not specifically
                                                    Planning Staff, Two Constitution                        a protected disclosure because, when he
                                                    Square, 145 N Street NE., Room 3E–                                                                             prohibited by law and if such information is
                                                                                                            made the disclosure, he was neither an                 not specifically required by Executive order
                                                    405B, Washington, DC 20530.                             ‘‘employee’’ nor an ‘‘applicant,’’ but                 to be kept secret in the interest of national
                                                      Dated: January 12, 2016.                              rather, a Federal contractor. Of                       defense or the conduct of foreign affairs; or
                                                    Jerri Murray,                                           particular relevance in Abernathy is the                  (B) any disclosure to the Special Counsel,
                                                    Department Clearance Officer for PRA, U.S.              jurisdictional question of whether,                    or to the Inspector General of an agency or
                                                    Department of Justice.                                  under the Whistleblower Protection Act                 another employee designated by the head of
                                                                                                                                                                   the agency to receive such disclosures, of
                                                    [FR Doc. 2016–00805 Filed 1–15–16; 8:45 am]             of 1989 (WPA), as amended by the                       information which the employee or applicant
                                                    BILLING CODE 4410–FY–P                                  Whistleblower Protection Enhancement                   reasonably believes evidences—
                                                                                                            Act of 2012 (WPEA), both the disclosure                   (i) any violation (other than a violation of
                                                                                                            and the subject matter of the disclosure               this section) of any law, rule, or regulation,
                                                    MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION                                must have occurred after the individual                or
                                                                                                            who is seeking corrective action in an                    (ii) gross mismanagement, a gross waste of
                                                    BOARD
                                                                                                            IRA appeal became an applicant or                      funds, an abuse of authority, or a substantial
                                                                                                            employee.                                              and specific danger to public health or
                                                    Notice of Opportunity To File Amicus                                                                           safety[.]
                                                    Briefs                                                     The Board believes that some
                                                                                                            ambiguity may exist in the language of                 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(8) (emphasis added).
                                                    AGENCY:    Merit Systems Protection                     the statute regarding who is covered by                   The Board has held that, in
                                                    Board.                                                  the WPA and WPEA. A starting point                     whistleblower retaliation claims, 5
                                                    ACTION:   Notice.                                       for statutory interpretation is the words              U.S.C. 1221(a) and 2302(b)(8) should be
                                                                                                            of the statute itself, which must be                   read together. See Schmittling v.
                                                    SUMMARY:    The Merit Systems Protection                examined to determine Congress’s                       Department of the Army, 92 M.S.P.R.
                                                    Board (MSPB or the Board) announces                     intent and purpose. In construing                      572 (2002). In construing section
                                                    the opportunity to file amicus briefs in                statutes, their provisions should not be               1221(a) with section 2302(b)(8), it is
                                                    the matter of Mark Abernathy v.                         read in isolation; rather, each statute’s              possibly unclear if a request for
                                                    Department of the Army, MSPB Docket                     section should be construed in                         corrective action under the WPA must
                                                    No. DC–1221–14–0364–W–1, currently                      connection with every other section so                 concern only actions that occurred
                                                    pending before the Board on petition for                as to produce a harmonious whole. Yee                  while the individual was an employee
                                                    review. Additional information                          v. Department of the Navy, 121 M.S.P.R.                or applicant for employment. In other
                                                    concerning the question on which the                    686 (2014). Because the WPA and                        words, it is possibly uncertain whether,
                                                    Board invites amicus briefing in                        WPEA are remedial legislation, the                     to constitute a disclosure ‘‘by an
                                                    Abernathy and the required format and                   Board will interpret their provisions                  employee or applicant,’’ the disclosure
                                                    length of amicus briefs can be found in                 liberally to embrace all cases fairly                  of information described in section
                                                    the Supplementary Information below.                    within their scope, so as to effectuate                2302(b)(8)(A), as well as the subject
                                                    DATES: All briefs submitted in response                 the purpose of the Acts. See Fishbein v.               matter of the disclosure, must have
                                                    to this notice must be received by the                  Department of Health & Human                           transpired after—and not before—the
                                                    Clerk of the Board on or before February                Services, 102 M.S.P.R. 4 (2006). We now                individual seeking corrective action
                                                    9, 2016.                                                turn to the two statutory provisions in                became ‘‘an employee’’ or ‘‘an applicant
                                                    ADDRESSES: All briefs shall be captioned                question.                                              for employment.’’
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES




                                                    ‘‘Mark Abernathy v. Department of the                      The Board has jurisdiction over                        The U.S. Court of Appeals for the
                                                    Army’’ and entitled ‘‘Amicus Brief.’’                   whistleblower claims filed pursuant to 5               Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit)
                                                    Only one copy of the brief need be                      U.S.C. 1221(a), as amended by WPEA                     addressed this question in three
                                                    submitted. The Board encourages                         § 101(b)(1)(A). Section 1221(a) provides               nonprecedential decisions, all of which
                                                    interested parties to submit amicus                     that:                                                  were decided before the enactment of
                                                    briefs as attachments to electronic mail                an employee, former employee, or applicant             the WPEA. See Nasuti v. Merit Systems
                                                    addressed to mspb@mspb.gov. An email                    for employment may, with respect to any                Protection Board, 376 F. App’x 29 (Fed.
                                                    should contain a subject line indicating                personnel action taken, or proposed to be              Cir. 2010) (per curiam) (finding that an


                                               VerDate Sep<11>2014   17:50 Jan 15, 2016   Jkt 238001   PO 00000   Frm 00077   Fmt 4703   Sfmt 4703   E:\FR\FM\19JAN1.SGM   19JAN1


                                                    2914                          Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 19, 2016 / Notices

                                                    individual who was a former employee                    where the language of a statute is clear,              NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS
                                                    when the alleged personnel action and                   it controls, absent an express indication              ADMINISTRATION
                                                    disclosure occurred could not bring a                   of an intent to the contrary), aff’d, 525
                                                                                                                                                                   [NARA–2016–012]
                                                    claim under the WPA); Guzman v.                         F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
                                                    Office of Personnel Management, 53 F.                                                                          Agency Information Collection
                                                                                                               In analyzing this question, the Board
                                                    App’x 927 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (per curiam)                                                                        Activities: Proposed Collection;
                                                                                                            also wishes to receive comments that
                                                    (construing the language of sections                                                                           Comment Request
                                                    1221(a) and 2302(b)(8) as permitting a                  substantively compare and contrast the
                                                    former employee to bring a claim under                  statutory language in the WPA and                      AGENCY: National Archives and Records
                                                    the WPA ‘‘only as to disclosures made                   WPEA regarding the standing of                         Administration (NARA).
                                                    . . . during the period that the                        individuals who are ‘‘employees,’’                     ACTION: Notice.
                                                    complainant was an employee or                          ‘‘former employees,’’ and ‘‘applicants
                                                    applicant’’); Amarille v. Office of                     for employment,’’ with the analogous,                  SUMMARY:    NARA gives public notice
                                                    Personnel Management, 28 F. App’x 931                   yet more expansive, standing                           that it proposes to request extension of
                                                    (Fed. Cir. 2001) (concluding that the                   requirement language under the                         Identification Card Request, NA Form
                                                    Board lacked jurisdiction over an IRA                   Uniformed Services Employment and                      6006, which will be used by NARA
                                                    appeal filed by a former employee                       Reemployment Rights Act of 1994                        employees, on-site contractors,
                                                    because, during the relevant time in                    (codified at 38 U.S.C. 4301–4333) which                volunteers, Foundation members,
                                                    question, he was neither an employee                                                                           Interns, and others in order to obtain a
                                                                                                            provides, in relevant part, that ‘‘a
                                                    nor applicant for Federal employment).                                                                         NARA Identification Card. We invite
                                                                                                            person may submit a complaint against
                                                    The Board may follow the Federal                                                                               you to comment on these proposed
                                                                                                            a Federal executive agency or the                      information collections pursuant to the
                                                    Circuit’s nonprecedential decisions, to                 Office,’’ 38 U.S.C. 4324(b) (emphasis
                                                    the extent that the Board finds them                                                                           Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
                                                                                                            added); see Silva v. Department of
                                                    persuasive.                                                                                                    DATES: We must receive written
                                                                                                            Homeland Security, 112 M.S.P.R. 362                    comments on or before March 21, 2016.
                                                       The Board, prior to the WPEA’s
                                                                                                            (2009).
                                                    enactment, also issued decisions ruling                                                                        ADDRESSES: Send comments to
                                                    on the question being examined here.                       Finally, the Board is seeking                       Paperwork Reduction Act Comments
                                                    See Weed v. Social Security                             comments that address what, if any,                    (ISSD), Room 4400; National Archives
                                                    Administration, 113 M.S.P.R. 221 (2010)                 effect the question presented here might               and Records Administration; 8601
                                                    (finding that the appellant, who was                    have on other Federal whistleblower                    Adelphi Road; College Park, MD 20740–
                                                    working for the Federal Government                      and anti-retaliation laws. This would                  6001, fax them to 301–713–7409, or
                                                    when he filed his Office of Special                     include the Department of Defense                      email them to tamee.fechhelm@
                                                    Counsel complaint and when the                          Authorization Act of 1987, which                       nara.gov.
                                                    personnel actions in dispute took place,                specifically bans defense contractors                  FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
                                                    was an ‘‘employee’’ protected by the                    and subcontractors from retaliating                    Contact Tamee Fechhelm by telephone
                                                    statute, even though he was working at                  against employees in reprisal for                      at 301–837–1694 or fax at 301–713–
                                                    a different Federal agency than the one                 disclosing to specified entities                       7409 with requests for additional
                                                    that took the personnel actions;                        information about alleged gross                        information or copies of the proposed
                                                    alternatively, finding that a                           mismanagement or a substantial and                     information collections and supporting
                                                    whistleblower need not be ‘‘an                                                                                 statements.
                                                                                                            specific danger to public health or
                                                    employee, an applicant for employment
                                                    or a former employee at the time he                     safety. See 10 U.S.C. 2409(a). Interested              SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant
                                                    made his protected disclosures’’); Pasley               individuals or organizations may submit                to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
                                                    v. Department of the Treasury, 109                      amicus briefs or other comments on the                 (Pub. L. 104–13), NARA invites the
                                                    M.S.P.R. 105 (2008) (concluding that the                question presented in Abernathy no                     public and other Federal agencies to
                                                    termination of a former Federal                         later than February 9, 2016. Amicus                    comment on proposed information
                                                    employee by a private sector employer                   briefs must be filed with the Clerk of the             collections. The comments and
                                                    taken in retaliation for his protected                  Board. Briefs shall not exceed 30 pages                suggestions should address one or more
                                                    disclosures during Federal Government                   in length. The text shall be double-                   of the following points: (a) whether the
                                                    employment did not meet the definition                  spaced, except for quotations and                      proposed information collection is
                                                    of a ‘‘personnel action’’ under the                     footnotes, and the briefs shall be on 8                necessary for NARA to properly perform
                                                    WPA); Greenup v. Department of                          1⁄2 by 11 inch paper with one inch                     its functions; (b) NARA’s estimate of the
                                                    Agriculture, 106 M.S.P.R. 202 (2007)                    margins on all four sides. All amicus                  burden of the proposed information
                                                    (determining that the appellant lacked                  briefs received will be posted on the                  collection and its accuracy; (c) ways
                                                    standing to challenge personnel actions                 Board’s public Web site at                             NARA could enhance the quality,
                                                    taken against her while she was a                       www.mspb.gov/SignificantCases after                    utility, and clarity of the information it
                                                    county employee, but that she later was                                                                        collects; (d) ways NARA could
                                                                                                            February 9, 2016.
                                                    covered by the WPA after she resigned                                                                          minimize the burden on respondents of
                                                    from her county job and applied, but                    William D. Spencer,                                    collecting the information, including
                                                    was not selected, for a Federal position).              Clerk of the Board.                                    through information technology; and (e)
                                                       In light of the relevant statutory                                                                          whether this collection affects small
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES




                                                                                                            [FR Doc. 2016–00875 Filed 1–15–16; 8:45 am]
                                                    language, it could be argued that an                                                                           businesses. We will summarize any
                                                                                                            BILLING CODE 7400–01–P
                                                    individual seeking protection under the                                                                        comments you submit and include the
                                                    WPA and WPEA must have been either                                                                             summary in our request for Office of
                                                    an employee or an applicant at the time                                                                        Management and Budget (OMB)
                                                    of both the disclosure and the subject                                                                         approval. All comments will become a
                                                    matter of the disclosure. Adkins v.                                                                            matter of public record. In this notice,
                                                    Office of Personnel Management, 104                                                                            NARA solicits comments concerning the
                                                    M.S.P.R. 233 (2006) (reasoning that,                                                                           following information collections:


                                               VerDate Sep<11>2014   17:50 Jan 15, 2016   Jkt 238001   PO 00000   Frm 00078   Fmt 4703   Sfmt 4703   E:\FR\FM\19JAN1.SGM   19JAN1



Document Created: 2016-01-16 01:12:11
Document Modified: 2016-01-16 01:12:11
CategoryRegulatory Information
CollectionFederal Register
sudoc ClassAE 2.7:
GS 4.107:
AE 2.106:
PublisherOffice of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration
SectionNotices
ActionNotice.
DatesAll briefs submitted in response to this notice must be received by the Clerk of the Board on or before February 9, 2016.
ContactMolly Leckey, Office of the Clerk of the Board, Merit Systems Protection Board, 1615 M Street NW., Washington, DC 20419; (202) 653-7200; [email protected]
FR Citation81 FR 2913 

2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR