Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
MSPB Rulemaking Comment - PBGC

MSPB Rulemaking Comment - PBGC

Ratings: (0)|Views: 2 |Likes:
Published by MSPBWatch

More info:

Published by: MSPBWatch on Jul 24, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

03/05/2014

pdf

text

original

 
The Honorable Susan Tsui GrundmannChairU.S. Merit Systems Protection Board1615 M Street, N.W.Washington, D.C. 20419-0002Re: Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation’s Comments to the MSPB’s Proposed RulesDear Ms. Grundmann:The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) submits these comments to the Board’sproposed amendments to its rules of practice and procedure pursuant to 5 U.S.C. Sec. 553(c).1.
1201.21 Notice of Appeal Rights.
 The revisions proposed in paragraph (d) require agencies to provide extensive notices toemployees in final action letters. To ensure uniformity among agencies with respect tothese additional notices, as well as to avoid litigation about the adequacy of an agency’snotice, PBGC suggests that the Board issue a model notice as an appendix to the rule,which agencies can reference and supplement, as needed, in their final action letters.2.
1201.43. Sanctions
. The “Summary of Changes” implies that the Board deleted therequirement that an administrative judge issue an order to show cause before excluding a partyor representative for contumacious behavior because such a requirement is not feasible duringa hearing. The “Summary of Changes” also implies that the Board deleted the provision for aninterlocutory appeal of a sanction for contumacious behavior because of the delay such aprovision would cause during a hearing. The proposed revised regulation, however, does notappear to limit the sanction of exclusion for contumacious behavior to the hearing stage, butrather the entire case.In addition, in the “Summary of Changes,” it states that “excluding parties or representativesfor contumacious behavior is currently covered by 5 CFR 12-1.31 [Representatives]. The MSPBbelieves that this subject is better covered under 5 CFR 1201.43 [Sanctions], as exclusion orother action for contumacious behavior is a sanction.” This implies that the sanction of exclusion for contumacious behavior is a sanction limited to a party or representative. Theproposed revision states, however, that a “judge may exclude or limit the participation of arepresentative or other person in the case ….” (emphasis added.) It is unclear if this revisionseeks to expand an administrative judge’s authority to issue the sanction of exclusion forcontumacious behavior to include witnesses or other persons involved in the matter, ratherthan just parties or representatives.PBGC recommends the Board clarify when the sanction of exclusion for contumacious behaviorcan be issued (during the hearing only or at any time an appeal is pending), and to whom thesanction can be issued to (just parties and representatives or anyone involved in the appeal).

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->