This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains regulatory documents having general

applicability and legal effect, most of which

are keyed to and codified in the Code of

Federal Regulations, which is published under

50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by

the Superintendent of Documents. Prices of

new books are listed in the first FEDERAL

REGISTER issue of each week.

Rules and Regulations Federal Register

41095 

Vol. 71, No. 139 

Thursday, July 20, 2006 

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL 

MANAGEMENT 

5 CFR Part 724 

RIN 3206–AK38 

Implementation of Title II of the 

Notification and Federal Employee 

Antidiscrimination and Retaliation Act 

of 2002—Notification & Training 

AGENCY: Office of Personnel 

Management. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Office of Personnel 

Management (OPM) is issuing final 

regulations to carry out the notification 

and training requirements of the 

Notification and Federal Employees 

Antidiscrimination and Retaliation Act 

of 2002 (No FEAR Act). This rule will 

implement the notice and training 

provisions of the No FEAR Act. 

DATES: Effective September 18, 2006. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gary 

D. Wahlert by telephone at (202) 606– 

2930; by FAX at (202) 606–2613; or by 

e-mail at NoFEAR@opm.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The United States and its citizens are 

best served when the Federal workplace 

is free of discrimination and retaliation. 

In order to maintain a productive 

workplace that is fully engaged with the 

many important missions before the 

Government, Congress noted that it is 

essential that the rights of employees, 

former employees and applicants for 

Federal employment under Federal 

antidiscrimination and whistleblower 

protection laws be steadfastly protected. 

Congress also stated that agencies 

cannot be run effectively if those 

agencies practice or tolerate 

discrimination. Congress has found that 

notification of present and former 

Federal employees and applicants for 

Federal employment of their rights 

under antidiscrimination and 

whistleblower protection laws, 

combined with training of current 

employees, should increase Federal 

agency compliance with the laws. 

Congress entrusted the President with 

the authority to promulgate rules to 

carry out this title, and the President, in 

turn, delegated to OPM the authority to 

issue regulations to implement the 

notification and training provisions of 

Title II of the No FEAR Act, Public Law 

107–174. These regulations carry out 

that authority. 

Introduction 

On February 28, 2005, OPM 

published at 70 FR 9544 (2005) a 

proposed rule implementing the 

notification and training provisions of 

the No FEAR Act and providing a 60- 

day comment period. On May 26, 2005, 

OPM at 70 FR 30380 (2005) extended 

the comment period to June 28, 2005. 

OPM received 18 comments from 

Federal agencies or departments, 6 

comments from union representatives, 

and 15 comments from others, including 

the No FEAR Coalition. OPM commends 

and thanks all who have provided 

comments on this important topic, and 

OPM has carefully considered each 

comment. 

Comments on Definitions 

The proposed regulations defined the 

following terms that are used in the 

regulations: ‘‘antidiscrimination laws,’’ 

‘‘whistleblower protection laws,’’ 

‘‘notice,’’ and ‘‘training.’’ 

Several commenters suggested that 

the definition of antidiscrimination laws 

be expanded to cover matters under 5 

U.S.C. 2302(b)(10) in order to include 

discrimination on the basis of sexual 

orientation as a form of prohibited 

discrimination under the No FEAR Act. 

Some stated that Executive Order 13087 

(amending Executive Order 11478, 

‘‘Equal Employment Opportunity in the 

Federal Government’’) prohibits 

discrimination on the basis of sexual 

orientation. OPM notes that the No 

FEAR Act does not directly refer to 5 

U.S.C. 2302(b)(10) as a law covered by 

the Act or refer to Executive Order 

13087 (or 11478) as being covered by 

the Act. The regulations address those 

matters directly identified in the No 

FEAR Act. Therefore, the suggestion is 

not adopted. 

Several commenters suggested that 

the definition of whistleblower 

protection laws be expanded to cover 

whistleblower protections under other 

laws, e.g., Clean Air Act, Safe Drinking 

Water Act, and others. The No FEAR 

Act does not directly refer to 

whistleblower protections other than 

those established by the Whistleblower 

Protection Act of 1989, as amended. 

Again, the regulations address those 

matters directly identified in the No 

FEAR Act. Thus, the suggestion is not 

adopted. 

Comments on Notification Obligations 

The proposed regulations prescribed 

the ‘‘time, form, and manner’’ of the 

notices to employees, former employees, 

and applicants as required by section 

202 of the No FEAR Act. The proposal 

included model paragraphs for agencies 

to use and proposed the time frames for 

the notification process. 

Several commenters asked that OPM 

clarify what is meant by ‘‘former 

employee’’ in terms of agencies’ 

obligation to notify former employees 

about their rights under Federal 

antidiscrimination and whistleblower 

protection laws. In this regard, the 

commenters wanted to know how long 

after an employee left an agency would 

it be until the agency’s obligation to 

notify him or her expires. OPM notes 

that the No FEAR Act makes no 

distinction about former employees and 

when they are to be notified, that is, 

there is no time limitation on former 

employees’ rights to be notified under 

the Act. OPM also notes, however, that 

the proposed rule did not require 

agencies to contact former employees 

and applicants individually but could 

provide notice though other means, e.g., 

posting a notice on agencies’ Web sites. 

The final rule has been revised to make 

this clearer by requiring that the initial 

notice be published in the Federal 

Register and the same notice be posted 

on each agency’s Web site. 

Several commenters requested a 

clearer explanation of agency notice 

obligations and how they are to meet 

them. Some commenters requested that 

the regulations clarify agency 

responsibilities to post notices through 

the Federal Register process. One 

commenter suggested that OPM post a 

government-wide notice through this 

process on behalf of all agencies. OPM 

notes that the Federal Register process 


wwhite on PROD1PC76 with RULES
41096 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

was identified as an approved means to 

meet notification obligations under the 

Act in those cases where the agency 

does not have a Web site and the 

regulations have been clarified in this 

regard. Because the notice obligation 

rests with individual agencies, however, 

OPM declines to adopt the suggestion 

that OPM post a government-wide 

notice. At a minimum, agencies are 

required to include in their notices the 

text required by these regulations but 

may also add additional text in light of 

their individual agency circumstances. 

The final regulation also draws 

distinctions between the notice for 

employees and notice for former 

employees and applicants. Finally, one 

commenter asked whether a single 

posting on an agency’s Internet Web site 

would meet the initial notification 

requirements of section 724.202(e) of 

the proposed rule. OPM’s response is 

that it would not. The final rules require 

that all agencies’ initial notices be 

published in the Federal Register. In 

addition, all agencies with Web sites are 

required to place the same notices on 

their sites where they are to remain 

until replaced or revised. 

Several commenters suggested that 

agencies be afforded discretion and 

flexibility to modify the proposed model 

notice language to fit their needs rather 

than be required to use the model 

language verbatim. Because the notice 

obligation applies governmentwide, 

OPM believes that the required 

information established by these 

regulations should be consistent 

governmentwide. This would eliminate 

any confusion that might be created if 

content varied from agency to agency. 

Therefore, OPM does not adopt the 

suggestion and agencies are required to 

use the model language contained in the 

regulations. While the required 

information would be consistent 

governmentwide, OPM notes that 

agencies have the authority under the 

regulations to provide additional 

information within the notice. One 

commenter noted that the proposed 

section 724.202(f) would require 

agencies to provide a notice in 

alternative, accessible formats if 

requested by employees, former 

employees and applicants. The 

commenter was concerned that this 

might be read to impose requirements 

beyond those covered in section 508 of 

the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as 

amended. OPM notes that section 508 is 

limited to electronic materials and the 

regulations address other materials such 

as (non-electronic) written notices. 

Therefore, OPM has not deleted the 

section but has modified it to state that 

agencies are obligated to provide 

requested notices in alternative, 

accessible formats to the extent required 

by law. 

Several commenters suggested that 

the model language describing the bases 

for prohibited discrimination be 

expanded to include sexual orientation. 

As noted previously in discussing the 

definition of antidiscrimination laws, 

OPM has decided not to expand the 

regulations beyond the express terms of 

the No FEAR Act; thus the suggestion is 

not adopted. Similar suggestions that 

the model language include references 

to types of whistleblowing other than 

that protected by the Whistleblower 

Protection Act of 1989, as amended, are 

not adopted because OPM has decided 

not to expand the regulations as 

previously discussed. 

One commenter suggested as 

unnecessary the last sentence in the 

‘‘Disciplinary Actions’’ portion of the 

model language that states agencies may 

not take unfounded disciplinary actions. 

OPM believes it is important to state 

clearly that the No FEAR Act does not 

change existing laws with respect to 

taking disciplinary actions. As the No 

FEAR Act states in section 102, 

increased accountability under the Act 

is not furthered ‘‘by taking unfounded 

disciplinary actions against managers or 

by violating the procedural rights of 

managers.’’ Thus, OPM does not adopt 

the suggestion. 

OPM also made a technical change to 

the ‘‘Disciplinary Actions’’ portion of 

the model language to clarify the 

circumstances in which disciplinary 

action may be appropriate. Accordingly, 

the final rule states that employees may 

be disciplined for conduct inconsistent 

with Federal antidiscrimination and 

whistleblower protection laws. 

Several commenters requested 

clarification of the relationship of the 

No FEAR Act notification process to the 

Office of Special Counsel (OSC) 

certification program which calls for 

agencies to inform employees about 

their whistleblower protection rights. 

During the development of the proposed 

regulations, OPM consulted OSC on this 

issue and we agreed there is overlap 

between the two notification programs, 

with the No FEAR Act notification 

obligation being broader. As a result, a 

properly completed notice under the No 

FEAR Act might also meet that agency’s 

obligations under OSC’s certification 

program. Agencies are cautioned, 

however, to verify with OSC that their 

specific No FEAR notification process in 

fact does meet the requirements of the 

OSC’s program. An agency’s OSCapproved notice that includes the 

minimum model language in these 

regulations would satisfy the 

notification requirements of the No Fear 

Act. 

One commenter suggested that the 

proposed model language stating that 

‘‘you may pursue a discrimination 

complaint by filing a grievance through 

your agency’s administrative or 

negotiated grievance procedures, if such 

procedures apply and are available’’ is 

in error. The commenter asserted that 

allegations of discrimination cannot be 

addressed by an agency’s administrative 

grievance procedure. While OPM’s 

former rules on administrative grievance 

procedures prohibited such coverage, 

OPM eliminated that restriction ten 

years ago (see 60 FR 47040, September 

11, 1995), and some agencies do provide 

for such coverage in their administrative 

grievance procedure. 

Comments on Training Obligations 

The proposed regulations prescribed 

the requirements for Federal agencies to 

provide training under section 202 of 

the No FEAR Act to all their employees 

regarding their rights and remedies 

under Federal antidiscrimination and 

whistleblower protection laws. The 

proposed regulations called for agencies 

to develop written plans for meeting 

their training obligations under the Act 

and prescribed time limits for providing 

the training. 

A commenter noted that some of the 

time frames in the regulations were 

expressed in ‘‘business days’’ while 

others used ‘‘calendar days’’ and 

suggested that the final rule use 

consistent terminology. OPM agrees that 

consistency within the regulations 

promotes better understanding and 

therefore adopts the suggestion. As a 

result, the time frames in the final 

regulations have been modified to use 

the term calendar days in all cases and 

the number of calendar days adjusted to 

reflect a comparable amount of actual 

time as proposed, e.g., 90 calendar days 

instead of 60 business days. 

One commenter suggested that the 

word ‘‘content’’ be replaced in section 

724.203(b) of the proposed regulations 

concerning training plans because the 

‘‘content’’ of training is already set by 

the No FEAR Act itself, i.e., training on 

the rights and remedies available under 

the Antidiscrimination Laws and 

Whistleblower Protection Laws. OPM 

agrees and adopts the suggestion, 

changing ‘‘content’’ to ‘‘training 

materials’’ as a necessary element to be 

described in each agency’s training 

plan. 

In another reference to the content of 

agency training, a second commenter 

noted that section 102(5)(B) of the No 

FEAR Act provides that ‘‘Federal 


wwhite on PROD1PC76 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 41097 

agencies should ensure that managers 

have adequate training in the 

management of a diverse workforce and 

in dispute resolution and other essential 

communication skills.’’ This provision 

is part of a number of items in the Act 

reflecting the ‘‘Sense of Congress’’; 

however, this language is not repeated 

in the Act’s section 202(c) which 

independently prescribes the content of 

agency training. Training on dispute 

resolution and communications skills, 

for example, may be beneficial, and 

agencies are free to include such topics 

in their training programs. Such topics 

are not, however, required under the 

Act and OPM declines to require such 

training as part of agencies’ obligation to 

train employees on the rights and 

remedies available under the 

Antidiscrimination Laws and 

Whistleblower Protection Laws. 

In addition to the above specific 

issues, a number of commenters 

suggested that OPM review and/or 

approve agency training programs, 

provide an oversight/enforcement 

mechanism on training, and receive 

periodic reports from agencies. Some 

commenters suggested that the No FEAR 

Coalition be a part of an OPM review 

process of agency training plans. OPM 

notes that under section 724.302(a)(9) of 

the proposed rule, each agency will be 

required to report on their written plan 

developed under 724.203(a) of this final 

rule. Copies of the agency’s report will 

be provided to Members of Congress, 

the Chair of the EEOC, the Attorney 

General and the Director of OPM. This 

reporting mechanism will provide an 

appropriate level of oversight; therefore 

the suggestions are not adopted. 

Several commenters suggested that 

the Equal Employment Opportunity 

Commission and the Office of Special 

Counsel develop training programs that 

agencies could use to meet their training 

obligations. OPM notes that the No 

FEAR Act did not task these agencies 

with that responsibility, and OPM will 

not do so. Agencies, however, may seek 

assistance and information from these 

agencies. 

One commenter recommended that 

the final rule clarify that, while agencies 

are required to train their employees, 

this requirement does not extend to 

contract employees. OPM believes that 

the language is clear on its face that only 

current Federal employees are to be 

trained; thus OPM does not adopt the 

recommendation. 

One commenter suggested that OPM 

require agencies to conduct face-to-face 

training as opposed to other types of 

training, e.g., computer-based training. 

OPM has determined that it is best left 

to agencies to decide the most 

appropriate method(s) of training for 

their employees. OPM therefore 

declines to adopt this suggestion. 

One commenter noted that the 

proposed regulations appeared to 

require agencies to incorporate No 

FEAR Act training into their new 

employee orientation programs if they 

have such programs. While agencies 

may do so (and OPM believes this may 

be an efficient vehicle for agencies to 

meet their training obligations), OPM 

did not intend to prevent agencies from 

conducting other training for new 

employees outside of the orientation 

process. OPM’s intent instead is to 

ensure that if training is not done during 

a new employee orientation, it is 

completed within 90 calendar days after 

an employee enters on duty. Therefore, 

OPM has modified the regulation to 

clarify that agencies may train new 

employees on the rights and remedies 

under Federal antidiscrimination and 

whistleblower protection laws using 

new employee orientation programs or 

other training programs as long as the 

applicable training program is 

completed within 90 calendar days after 

an employee enters on duty. 

Many commenters expressed concern 

about the proposed requirement that 

agencies complete initial training of 

their employees under the No FEAR Act 

by September 30, 2005. Their concerns 

include the logistics of training large 

numbers of employees in a short time, 

the burden on small agencies with 

limited resources, and the Federal 

budget request cycle. A number of 

commenters suggested that September 

30, 2006, would be a more feasible date 

for completing initial training. One 

commenter suggested moving the initial 

training date to 2007. Other 

commenters, including the No FEAR 

Coalition, however, expressed their 

deep concern about the amount of time 

already expended in developing the 

regulations governing training. In 

balancing these concerns, OPM notes 

the importance Congress has attached to 

the training obligation, and concludes 

that it is imperative that agencies be 

allowed sufficient time to develop and 

deliver to employees the quality training 

that they deserve and to which they are 

entitled under the Act. Therefore, OPM 

has decided to require that initial 

training be completed within 90 days of 

the effective date of these regulations. 

Several commenters expressed 

concern about the proposed rule’s 

requirement for a two-year training 

cycle after the initial training is 

completed. Some recommended no 

additional training and another 

recommended a five-year cycle. OPM 

has taken into account comments on the 

initial training, e.g., the logistics of 

training large numbers of employees, 

the burdens on small agencies, and the 

Federal budget request cycle. OPM 

believes, however, that on-going 

training is essential to maintaining a 

workforce that is knowledgeable about 

its rights and remedies under these 

laws. Accordingly, OPM is retaining the 

two-year training cycle as proposed. 

Miscellaneous Comments 

One commenter suggested that OPM 

issue regulations concerning the 

discipline of employees for violations of 

Federal antidiscrimination and 

whistleblower protection laws. OPM 

notes that section 204 of Title II of the 

No FEAR Act requires the President or 

his designee (OPM) to conduct a study 

of agency best practices in taking such 

disciplinary actions and then to develop 

advisory guidelines for agencies to 

follow in taking action. Because the No 

FEAR Act (through delegation by the 

President) already assigns this similar 

responsibility to OPM, the suggestion is 

not adopted. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

I certify that this regulation will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities 

because the regulations pertain only to 

Federal employees and agencies. 

E.O. 12866, Regulatory Review 

This final rule has been reviewed by 

the Office of Management and Budget 

under Executive Order 12866. 

E.O. 13132 

This regulation will not have 

substantial direct effects on the States, 

on the relationship between the 

National Government and the States, or 

on distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. Therefore, in 

accordance with Executive Order 13132, 

it is determined that this rule does not 

have sufficient federalism implications 

to warrant preparation of a Federalism 

Assessment. 

E.O. 12988, Civil Justice Reform 

This regulation meets the applicable 

standard set forth in sections 3(a) and 

3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 

1995 

This rule will not result in the 

expenditure by State, local and tribal 

governments, in the aggregate, or by the 

private sector, of $100,000,000 or more 

in any one year, and it will not 

significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments. Therefore, no actions were 


wwhite on PROD1PC76 with RULES
41098 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

deemed necessary under the provisions 

of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995. 

Congressional Review Act 

This action pertains to agency 

management, personnel and 

organization and does not substantially 

affect the rights or obligations of nonagency parties and, accordingly, is not 

a ‘‘rule’’ as that term is used by the 

Congressional Review Act (Subtitle E of 

the Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 

(SBREFA)). Therefore, the reporting 

requirement of 5 U.S.C. 801 does not 

apply. 

List of Subjects in 5 CFR Part 724 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Civil rights, Claims. 

U.S. Office of Personnel Management. 

Linda M. Springer, 

Director. 

■ Accordingly, OPM amends part 724 of 

title 5, Code of Federal Regulations, as 

follows: 

PART 724—IMPLEMENTATION OF 

TITLE II OF THE NOTIFICATION AND 

FEDERAL EMPLOYEE 

ANTIDISCRIMINATION AND 

RETALIATION ACT OF 2002 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 724 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: Sec. 204 of Public Law 107–174; 

Presidential Memorandum dated July 8, 

2003, ‘‘Delegation of Authority Under 

Section 204(a) of the Notification and Federal 

Employee Antidiscrimination Act of 2002.’’

Subpart A—Reimbursement of 

Judgment Fund 

■ 2. In § 724.102 of subpart A, add new 

definitions for Antidiscrimination Laws, 

Notice, Training, and Whistleblower 

Protection Laws in alphabetical order to 

read as follows: 

§ 724.102 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

Antidiscrimination Laws refers to 5 

U.S.C. 2302(b)(1), 5 U.S.C. 2302(b)(9) as 

applied to conduct described in 5 U.S.C. 

2302(b)(1), 29 U.S.C. 206(d), 29 U.S.C. 

631, 29 U.S.C. 633a, 29 U.S.C. 791 and 

42 U.S.C. 2000e–16. 

* * * * * 

Notice means the written information 

provided by Federal agencies about the 

rights and protections available under 

Federal Antidiscrimination Laws and 

Whistleblower Protection Laws. 

* * * * * 

Training means the process by which 

Federal agencies instruct their 

employees regarding the rights and 

remedies applicable to such employees 

under the Federal Antidiscrimination 

Laws and Whistleblower Protection 

Laws. 

Whistleblower Protection Laws refers 

to 5 U.S.C. 2302(b)(8) or 5 U.S.C. 

2302(b)(9) as applied to conduct 

described in 5 U.S.C. 2302(b)(8). 

■ 3. A new subpart B to Part 724 is 

added to read as follows: 

Subpart B—Notification of Rights and 

Protections and Training 

Sec. 

724.201 Purpose and scope. 

724.202 Notice obligations. 

724.203 Training obligations. 

§ 724.201 Purpose and scope. 

(a) This subpart implements Title II of 

the Notification and Federal Employee 

Antidiscrimination and Retaliation Act 

of 2002 concerning the obligation of 

Federal agencies to notify all employees, 

former employees, and applicants for 

Federal employment of the rights and 

protections available to them under the 

Federal Antidiscrimination Laws and 

Whistleblower Protection Laws. This 

subpart also implements Title II 

concerning the obligation of agencies to 

train their employees on such rights and 

remedies. The regulations describe 

agency obligations and the procedures 

for written notification and training. 

(b) Pursuant to section 205 of the No 

FEAR Act, neither that Act nor this 

notice creates, expands or reduces any 

rights otherwise available to any 

employee, former employee or applicant 

under the laws of the United States, 

including the provisions of law 

specified in 5 U.S.C. 2302(d). 

§ 724.202 Notice obligations. 

(a) Each agency must provide notice 

to all of its employees, former 

employees, and applicants for Federal 

employment about the rights and 

remedies available under the 

Antidiscrimination Laws and 

Whistleblower Protection Laws 

applicable to them. 

(b) The notice under this part must be 

titled, ‘‘No FEAR Act Notice.’’

(c) Each agency must provide initial 

notice within 60 calendar days after 

September 18, 2006. Thereafter, the 

notice must be provided by the end of 

each successive fiscal year and any 

posted materials must remain in place 

until replaced or revised. 

(d) After the initial notice, each 

agency must provide the notice to new 

employees within 90 calendar days of 

entering on duty. 

(e) Each agency must provide the 

notice to its employees in paper (e.g., 

letter, poster or brochure) and/or 

electronic form (e.g., e-mail, internal 

agency electronic site, or Internet Web 

site). Each agency must publish the 

initial notice in the Federal Register. 

Agencies with Internet Web sites must 

also post the notice on those Web sites, 

in compliance with section 508 of the 

Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended. 

For agencies with components that 

operate Internet Web sites, the notice 

must be made available by hyperlinks 

from the Internet Web sites of both the 

component and the parent agency. An 

agency may meet its paper and 

electronic notice obligation to former 

employees and applicants by publishing 

the initial notice in the Federal Register 

and posting the notice on its Internet 

Web site if it has one. 

(f) To the extent required by law and 

upon request by employees, former 

employees and applicants, each agency 

must provide the notice in alternative, 

accessible formats. 

(g) Unless an agency is exempt from 

the cited statutory provisions, the 

following is the minimum text to be 

included in the notice. Each agency may 

incorporate additional information 

within the model paragraphs, as 

appropriate. 

Model Paragraphs 

No Fear Act Notice 

On May 15, 2002, Congress enacted the 

‘‘Notification and Federal Employee 

Antidiscrimination and Retaliation Act of 

2002,’’ which is now known as the No FEAR 

Act. One purpose of the Act is to ‘‘require 

that Federal agencies be accountable for 

violations of antidiscrimination and 

whistleblower protection laws.’’ Public Law 

107–174, Summary. In support of this 

purpose, Congress found that ‘‘agencies 

cannot be run effectively if those agencies 

practice or tolerate discrimination.’’ Public 

Law 107–174, Title I, General Provisions, 

section 101(1). 

The Act also requires this agency to 

provide this notice to Federal employees, 

former Federal employees and applicants for 

Federal employment to inform you of the 

rights and protections available to you under 

Federal antidiscrimination and 

whistleblower protection laws. 

Antidiscrimination Laws 

A Federal agency cannot discriminate 

against an employee or applicant with 

respect to the terms, conditions or privileges 

of employment on the basis of race, color, 

religion, sex, national origin, age, disability, 

marital status or political affiliation. 

Discrimination on these bases is prohibited 

by one or more of the following statutes: 5 

U.S.C. 2302(b)(1), 29 U.S.C. 206(d), 29 U.S.C. 

631, 29 U.S.C. 633a, 29 U.S.C. 791 and 42 

U.S.C. 2000e–16. 

If you believe that you have been the 

victim of unlawful discrimination on the 

basis of race, color, religion, sex, national 

origin or disability, you must contact an 


wwhite on PROD1PC76 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 41099 

Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) 

counselor within 45 calendar days of the 

alleged discriminatory action, or, in the case 

of a personnel action, within 45 calendar 

days of the effective date of the action, before 

you can file a formal complaint of 

discrimination with your agency. See, e.g. 29 

CFR 1614. If you believe that you have been 

the victim of unlawful discrimination on the 

basis of age, you must either contact an EEO 

counselor as noted above or give notice of 

intent to sue to the Equal Employment 

Opportunity Commission (EEOC) within 180 

calendar days of the alleged discriminatory 

action. If you are alleging discrimination 

based on marital status or political affiliation, 

you may file a written complaint with the 

U.S. Office of Special Counsel (OSC) (see 

contact information below). In the alternative 

(or in some cases, in addition), you may 

pursue a discrimination complaint by filing 

a grievance through your agency’s 

administrative or negotiated grievance 

procedures, if such procedures apply and are 

available. 

Whistleblower Protection Laws 

A Federal employee with authority to take, 

direct others to take, recommend or approve 

any personnel action must not use that 

authority to take or fail to take, or threaten 

to take or fail to take, a personnel action 

against an employee or applicant because of 

disclosure of information by that individual 

that is reasonably believed to evidence 

violations of law, rule or regulation; gross 

mismanagement; gross waste of funds; an 

abuse of authority; or a substantial and 

specific danger to public health or safety, 

unless disclosure of such information is 

specifically prohibited by law and such 

information is specifically required by 

Executive order to be kept secret in the 

interest of national defense or the conduct of 

foreign affairs. 

Retaliation against an employee or 

applicant for making a protected disclosure 

is prohibited by 5 U.S.C. 2302(b)(8). If you 

believe that you have been the victim of 

whistleblower retaliation, you may file a 

written complaint (Form OSC–11) with the 

U.S. Office of Special Counsel at 1730 M 

Street NW., Suite 218, Washington, DC 

20036–4505 or online through the OSC Web 

site—http://www.osc.gov. 

Retaliation for Engaging in Protected 

Activity 

A Federal agency cannot retaliate against 

an employee or applicant because that 

individual exercises his or her rights under 

any of the Federal antidiscrimination or 

whistleblower protection laws listed above. If 

you believe that you are the victim of 

retaliation for engaging in protected activity, 

you must follow, as appropriate, the 

procedures described in the 

Antidiscrimination Laws and Whistleblower 

Protection Laws sections or, if applicable, the 

administrative or negotiated grievance 

procedures in order to pursue any legal 

remedy. 

Disciplinary Actions 

Under the existing laws, each agency 

retains the right, where appropriate, to 

discipline a Federal employee for conduct 

that is inconsistent with Federal 

Antidiscrimination and Whistleblower 

Protection Laws up to and including 

removal. If OSC has initiated an investigation 

under 5 U.S.C. 1214, however, according to 

5 U.S.C. 1214(f), agencies must seek approval 

from the Special Counsel to discipline 

employees for, among other activities, 

engaging in prohibited retaliation. Nothing in 

the No FEAR Act alters existing laws or 

permits an agency to take unfounded 

disciplinary action against a Federal 

employee or to violate the procedural rights 

of a Federal employee who has been accused 

of discrimination 

Additional Information 

For further information regarding the No 

FEAR Act regulations, refer to 5 CFR part 

724, as well as the appropriate offices within 

your agency (e.g., EEO/civil rights office, 

human resources office or legal office). 

Additional information regarding Federal 

antidiscrimination, whistleblower protection 

and retaliation laws can be found at the 

EEOC Web site—http://www.eeoc.gov and the 

OSC Web site—http://www.osc.gov. 

Existing Rights Unchanged 

Pursuant to section 205 of the No FEAR 

Act, neither the Act nor this notice creates, 

expands or reduces any rights otherwise 

available to any employee, former employee 

or applicant under the laws of the United 

States, including the provisions of law 

specified in 5 U.S.C. 2302(d). 

§ 724.203 Training obligations. 

(a) Each agency must develop a 

written plan to train all of its employees 

(including supervisors and managers) 

about the rights and remedies available 

under the Antidiscrimination Laws and 

Whistleblower Protection Laws 

applicable to them. 

(b) Each agency shall have the 

discretion to develop the instructional 

materials and method of its training 

plan. Each agency training plan shall 

describe: 

(1) The instructional materials and 

method of the training, 

(2) The training schedule, and 

(3) The means of documenting 

completion of training. 

(c) Each agency may contact EEOC 

and/or OSC for information and/or 

assistance regarding the agency’s 

training program. Neither agency, 

however, shall have authority under this 

regulation to review or approve an 

agency’s training plan. 

(d) Each agency is encouraged to 

implement its training as soon as 

possible, but required to complete the 

initial training under this subpart for all 

employees (including supervisors and 

managers) by December 17, 2006. 

Thereafter, each agency must train all 

employees on a training cycle of no 

longer than every 2 years. 

(e) After the initial training is 

completed, each agency must train new 

employees as part of its agency 

orientation program or other training 

program. Any agency that does not use 

a new employee orientation program for 

this purpose must train new employees 

within 90 calendar days of the new 

employees’ appointment. 

[FR Doc. E6–11541 Filed 7–19–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6325–39–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 23 

[Docket No. CE194, Special Condition 23–

134A–SC] 

Special Conditions; Cirrus Design 

Corporation SR22; Protection of 

Systems for High Intensity Radiated 

Fields (HIRF) 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Amended final special 

conditions; request for comments. 

SUMMARY: These amended special 

conditions are issued to Cirrus Design 

Corporation, 4515 Taylor Circle, Duluth, 

Minnesota 55811, for a Type Design 

Change. This special condition amends 

special condition 23–134–SC, which 

was published February 4, 2003 (68FR 

5538), for installation of an Electronic 

Flight Instrument System (EFIS) 

manufactured by Avidyne Corporation 

on the SR22. This amendment covers 

additional electronic equipment, such 

as a digital autopilot and/or engine 

related systems designed to perform 

critical functions on the SR22 and other 

models listed on the same Type Data 

Sheet, A00009CH. 

The airplanes will have novel and 

unusual design features when compared 

to the state of technology envisaged in 

the applicable airworthiness standards. 

The applicable regulations do not 

contain adequate or appropriate 

airworthiness standards for the 

protection of these systems from the 

effects of high intensity radiated fields 

(HIRF). These special conditions 

contain the additional safety standards 

that the Administrator considers 

necessary to establish a level of safety 

equivalent to the airworthiness 

standards applicable to these airplanes. 

DATES: The effective date of these 

special conditions is July 11, 2006. 

Comments must be received on or 

before August 21, 2006. 

ADDRESSES: Comments on these special 

conditions may be mailed in duplicate 


wwhite on PROD1PC76 with RULES