Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 9 / Thursday, January 13, 2011 / Notices 2421 

II. Desired Focus of Comments 

Currently VETS is soliciting 

comments concerning a request to 

extend the currently approved 

information collection request. The 

Department of Labor is particularly 

interested in comments which: 

* Evaluate whether the proposed 

collection of information is necessary 

for the proper performance of the 

functions of the agency, including 

whether the information will have 

practical utility; 

* Evaluate the accuracy of the 

agency’s estimate of the burden of the 

proposed collection of information, 

including the validity of the 

methodology and assumptions used; 

* Enhance the quality, utility and 

clarity of the information to be 

collected; and 

* Minimize the burden of the 

collection of information on those who 

are to respond, including through the 

use of appropriate automated, 

electronic, mechanical, or other 

technological collection techniques or 

other forms of information technology, 

e.g., permitting electronic submissions 

of responses. 

III. Current Actions 

The Department of Labor seeks 

approval of the extension of the 

currently approved information 

collection request in order to carry out 

its responsibilities to administer and 

enforce compliance with the contractor 

reporting requirements under VEVRAA, 

as amended by the JVA. 

Type of Review: Extension without 

change of currently approved collection. 

Agency: Veterans’ Employment and 

Training Service. 

Title: Federal Contractor Veterans’ 

Reports VETS–100 and VETS–100A. 

OMB Number: 1293–0005. 

Affected Public: Government 

contractors and subcontractors with a 

contract of $25,000 or more entered into 

before December 1, 2003, and 

Government contractors and 

subcontractors with a contract of 

$100,000 or more entered into or 

modified on or after December 1, 2003, 

that are required to comply with the 

affirmative action provisions of the 

Vietnam Era Veterans’ Readjustment 

Assistance Act. 

Total Respondents: 20,700. 

Total Annual responses: 387,900. 

Average Time per Response: 

Electronic Submission—30 minutes; 

Paper Submission—one hour. 

Total Burden Hours: 202,100. 

Frequency: Annually. 

Total Burden Cost (capital/startup): 

$0. 

Total Burden Cost (operating/ 

maintaining): $0—The information 

contractors report about their veterans’ 

employment is collected and 

maintained in the normal course of 

business. There are no requirements for 

contractors to have any kind of 

equipment to be able comply with this 

collection of information. 

Comments submitted in response to 

this notice will be summarized and/or 

included in the request for Office of 

Management and Budget approval of the 

information collection request; they will 

also become a matter of public record. 

John M. McWilliam, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Operations 

and Management, Veterans’ Employment and 

Training. 

[FR Doc. 2011–638 Filed 1–12–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–79–P 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Office of Workers’ Compensation 

Programs 

Proposed Extension of Existing 

Collection; Comment Request 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Labor, as 

part of its continuing effort to reduce 

paperwork and respondent burden, 

conducts a preclearance consultation 

program to provide the general public 

and Federal agencies with an 

opportunity to comment on proposed 

and/or continuing collections of 

information in accordance with the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(PRA95) [44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)]. This 

program helps to ensure that requested 

data can be provided in the desired 

format, reporting burden (time and 

financial resources) is minimized, 

collection instruments are clearly 

understood, and the impact of collection 

requirements on respondents can be 

properly assessed. Currently, the Office 

of Workers’ Compensation Programs is 

soliciting comments concerning the 

proposed collection: Rehabilitation Plan 

and Award (OWCP–16). A copy of the 

proposed information collection request 

can be obtained by contacting the office 

listed below in the addresses section of 

this Notice. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

submitted to the office listed in the 

addresses section below on or before 

March 14, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: Mr. Vincent Alvarez, U.S. 

Department of Labor, 200 Constitution 

Ave., NW., Room S–3201, Washington, 

DC 20210, telephone (202) 693–0372, 

fax (202) 693–1378, E-mail 

Alvarez.Vincent@dol.gov. Please use 

only one method of transmission for 

comments (mail, fax, or E-mail). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

The Office of Workers’ Compensation 

Programs (OWCP) is the agency 

responsible for administration of the 

Longshore and Harbor Workers’ 

Compensation Act (LHWCA), 33 U.S.C. 

901 et seq., and the Federal Employees’ 

Compensation Act (FECA), 5 U.S.C. 

8101 et seq. Both of these Acts authorize 

OWCP to pay for approved vocational 

rehabilitation services to eligible 

workers with work-related disabilities. 

In order to decide whether to approve 

a rehabilitation plan, OWCP must 

receive a copy of the plan, supporting 

vocational testing materials and the 

estimated cost to implement the plan, 

broken down to show the fees, supplies, 

tuition and worker maintenance 

payments that are contemplated. OWCP 

also must receive the signatures of the 

worker and the rehabilitation counselor 

to show that the worker agrees to follow 

the proposed plan, and that the 

proposed plan is appropriate. Form 

OWCP–16 is the standard format for the 

collection of this information. The 

regulations implementing these statutes 

allow for the collection of information 

needed for OWCP to determine if a 

rehabilitation plan should be approved 

and payment of any related expenses 

should be authorized. This information 

collection is currently approved for use 

through May 31, 2011. 

II. Review Focus 

The Department of Labor is 

particularly interested in comments 

which: 

* Evaluate whether the proposed 

collection of information is necessary 

for the proper performance of the 

functions of the agency, including 

whether the information will have 

practical utility; 

* Evaluate the accuracy of the 

agency’s estimate of the burden of the 

proposed collection of information, 

including the validity of the 

methodology and assumptions used; 

* Enhance the quality, utility and 

clarity of the information to be 

collected; and 

* Minimize the burden of the 

collection of information on those who 

are to respond, including through the 

use of appropriate automated, 

electronic, mechanical, or other 

technological collection techniques or 

other forms of information technology, 

e.g., permitting electronic submissions 

of responses. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
2422 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 9 / Thursday, January 13, 2011 / Notices 

III. Current Actions 

The Department of Labor seeks 

approval for the extension of this 

currently approved information 

collection in order to determine if a 

rehabilitation plan should be approved 

and payment of any related expenses 

authorized. 

Type of Review: Extension. 

Agency: Office of Workers’ 

Compensation Programs. 

Title: Rehabilitation Plan and Award. 

OMB Number: 1240–0045. 

Agency Number: OWCP–16. 

Affected Public: Individual or 

households; Businesses or other forprofit. 

Total Respondents: 5,500. 

Total Responses: 5,500. 

Time per Response: 30 minutes. 

Estimated Total Burden Hours: 2,750. 

Total Burden Cost (capital/startup): 

$0. 

Total Burden Cost (operating/ 

maintenance): $2,585. 

Comments submitted in response to 

this notice will be summarized and/or 

included in the request for Office of 

Management and Budget approval of the 

information collection request; they will 

also become a matter of public record. 

Dated: January 7, 2011. 

Vincent Alvarez, 

Agency Clearance Officer, Office of Workers’ 

Compensation Programs, U.S. Department of 

Labor. 

[FR Doc. 2011–631 Filed 1–12–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–CR–P 

MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION 

BOARD 

Merit Systems Protection Board 

(MSPB) Provides Notice of Opportunity 

To File Amicus Briefs in the Matter of 

Jeffrey Denton v. Department of 

Agriculture, MSPB Docket Number 

DC–3330–09–0696–I–1 

AGENCY: Merit Systems Protection 

Board. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 

1204(e)(1)(A), the MSPB has requested 

an advisory opinion from the Director of 

the Office of Personnel Management 

(OPM) concerning an appeal currently 

pending before the Board, Jeffrey Denton 

v. Department of Agriculture, MSPB 

Docket Number DC–3330–09–0696–I–1. 

The MSPB is also providing an 

opportunity to other interested parties 

to file amicus briefs concerning the 

appeal. The legal questions set forth in 

the Denton appeal, which were posed in 

the request for an advisory opinion to 

the Director of OPM, are set forth below. 

The agency employs the appellant in 

the position of Animal Health Program 

Assistant, GS–5. The agency announced 

the position of Veterinary Program 

Assistant (‘‘VPA’’), GS–0303–5/6/7, 

under both case exam (announcement 

24VS–2009–0130) and merit promotion 

(announcement 6VS–2009–0132) 

procedures. The appellant applied 

under both vacancy announcements and 

submitted his DD–214, showing his 

eligibility for veterans’ preference. The 

appellant made the certificate at the GS– 

7 level on the case exam announcement. 

The maximum score an applicant could 

receive was 100, except when veterans’ 

preference points were added. The 

appellant had 10 points added to his 

score of 99.68 to reflect his veterans’ 

preference, and he was thus listed on 

the top of the certificate of 6 candidates 

with a score of 109.68 as ‘‘CPS,’’ which 

is a 30% or more disabled veteran. The 

appellant also made the GS–6 level on 

the merit promotion certificate, and he 

was referred to the selecting official. 

The agency made no selection from 

either the case exam or merit promotion 

certificate. Rather, the agency cancelled 

both vacancy announcements and filled 

the VPA position through an alternative 

hiring authority, the Student Career 

Experience Program (SCEP). 

The appellant filed a complaint with 

the Department of Labor (DOL) alleging 

that his rights to veterans’ preference as 

a 30% disabled veteran were violated 

because the agency filled the position 

through SCEP instead of filling the 

position from either the merit 

promotion or case exam certificate. The 

DOL informed the appellant that it had 

completed its investigation into the 

appellant’s claim and had determined 

that the evidence did not support a 

finding that the appellant’s veterans’ 

preference rights were violated. The 

DOL provided the appellant with notice 

of appeal rights to the MSPB. 

After exhausting his remedy with 

DOL, the appellant timely filed an 

appeal with the MSPB pursuant to the 

Veterans Employment Opportunities 

Act (VEOA) alleging that his veterans’ 

preference rights were violated when 

the agency used SCEP to fill the VPA 

position and did not select him for that 

position. The appellant essentially 

argued that the agency had engaged in 

a sham. The assigned administrative 

judge determined that the MSPB has 

VEOA jurisdiction over the appeal, but 

issued an initial decision on the merits 

finding that the appellant did not 

establish a VEOA violation. 

The appellant filed a petition for 

review with the MSPB challenging the 

initial decision of the administrative 

judge. This appeal raises significant 

issues regarding whether the agency’s 

use of SCEP improperly circumvented 

the competitive examination process, 

allowing the agency to avoid its 

obligations regarding veterans’ 

preference and a veteran’s right to 

compete for positions. The material 

issues are similar in many respects to 

the issues raised regarding the Federal 

Career Intern Program (FCIP) in the 

MSPB’s recent decisions in the appeals 

of Dean v. Office of Personnel 

Management, AT–3330–10–0534–I–1 

and Evans v. Department of Veterans 

Affairs, AT–3330–09–0953–I–1, 2010 

MSPB 213 (November 2, 2010). The 

Board determined that appellants Dean 

and Evans had established the FCIP 

program as conducted violated their 

veterans’ preference rights because FCIP 

was inconsistent with 5 U.S.C. 3302(1) 

by: (1) Allowing agencies to invoke an 

appointing authority reserved for 

positions for which it is not practicable 

to hold a competitive examination after 

holding a competitive examination 

yielding highly-qualified preferenceeligible candidates; and (2) not requiring 

agencies to justify placement of 

positions in the excepted service. 

The SCEP program is covered by 

OPM’s regulations at 5 CFR 213.3202(b) 

and is authorized by Executive Order 

12015 (as amended by Executive Order 

13024). The FCIP positions are also 

Schedule B, excepted-service positions 

but are addressed at 5 CFR 213.3202(o) 

and Executive Order 13162. The SCEP 

allows agencies to hire students 

currently enrolled in specified 

educational programs in Schedule B, 

excepted-service positions, and 

noncompetitively convert them to term, 

career or career-conditional 

appointments upon satisfactory 

completion of the educational program 

and accumulation of 640 hours of 

agency work experience. 

Questions to be resolved: 

1. Does the SCEP program violate 

veterans’ preference rights because it 

allows agencies to invoke an appointing 

authority reserved for positions for 

which it is not practicable to hold a 

competitive examination after holding a 

competitive examination yielding 

highly-qualified preference-eligible 

candidates? 

2. Does the SCEP program violate 

veterans’ preference rights because it 

does not require agencies to justify 

placement of positions in Schedule B of 

the excepted service? 

3. What impact, if any, does the 

Executive Order dated December 27, 

2010, entitled ‘‘Recruiting and Hiring 

Students and Recent Graduates,’’ have 

on the appellant’s appeal or any other 

appeals based on the SCEP hiring 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES