27696 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 97 / Friday, May 18, 2001 / Notices

MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION

BOARD

Agency Information Collection

Activities; Proposed Collection

AGENCY: Merit Systems Protection

Board.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: In compliance with the

Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.

3501 et seq.), this notice announces that

the Merit Systems Protection Board

(MSPB) request for a three-year

reinstatement of its expired Generic

Clearance Request for Voluntary

Customer Surveys under Executive

Order 12862, ‘‘Setting Customer Service

Standards,’’ has been forwarded to the

Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) for review and comment. The

original approval for this information

collection was provided by OMB on

February 28, 1994, as a three-year

generic clearance request for voluntary

customer surveys under Executive

Order 12862, ‘‘Setting Customer Service

Standards,’’ and in accord with 44

U.S.C. 3506. Surveys under this

approval are assigned OMB Control

Number 3124–0012. That approval

expired on February 28, 1997. A

limited-term approval from OMB

reinstated that authority through April

30, 2001.

In this regard, we are soliciting

comments on the public reporting

burden. The reporting burden for the

collection of information on this form is

estimated to vary from 10 minutes to 30

minutes per response, with an average

of 15 minutes, including time for

reviewing instructions, searching

existing data sources, gathering and

maintaining the data needed, and

completing and reviewing the collection

of information.

Estimated Annual Reporting Burden

5 CFR section

Annual

number of

respondents

Frequency

per response

Total annual

responses

Hours

per response

(average)

Total hours

1201, 1208 and 1209 ........................................................... 2,000 1 1,500 .25 375

Send comments regarding the burden

estimate, or any other aspect of the

information collection, including

suggestions for reducing the burden, to

the address shown below. Please refer to

OMB Control No. 3124–0012 in any

correspondence.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before June 18, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Comments concerning the

paperwork burden should be addressed

to Mr. John Crum, Merit Systems

Protection Board, 1615 M Street, NW.,

Washington, DC 20419, by e-mail to

john.crum@mspb.gov, or by calling

(202) 653–8900, and to the Office of

Information and Regulatory Affairs,

Office of Management and Budget,

Attention: Desk Officer for MSPB, 725—

17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503.

Dated: May 14, 2001.

Robert E. Taylor,

Clerk of the Board.

[FR Doc. 01–12499 Filed 5–17–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7400–01–U

MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION

BOARD

Opportunity To File Amicus Briefs in

Cassandra Augustine v. Department of

Veterans Affairs, MSPB Docket

Number SF–3443–00–0085–I–1

AGENCY: Merit Systems Protection Board

(MSPB).

ACTION: The Merit Systems Protection

Board is providing interested parties

with an Opportunity to submit amicus

briefs in the above-referenced appeal.

The issues to be addressed in such

briefs are set forth in the Board’s May

14, 2001, opinion and order, which is

reprinted in its entirety in the summary

below.

SUMMARY: The Department of Veterans

Affairs (DVA) petitions for review of the

initial decision which found that it

violated the appellant’s veterans’

preference rights. The Office of

Personnel Management (OPM) has

intervened in support of DVA’s petition

for review. For the reasons set forth

below, we VACATE the initial decision,

REOPEN the record, and ORDER

presentation of further argument and

evidence. We also invite interested

parties to submit briefs amicus curiae on

the issues discussed in this decision.

Background

The appellant, a veteran with a 30%

service-connected disability, applied for

the position of Veterans Service

Representative (VSR), GS–996–7, with

the DVA. Initial Appeal File (IAF), Tab

8, Subtab 2 at 3, 20, 23. The vacancy

announcement listed nine locations,

and indicated that there were ‘‘[o]ne or

more positions at each location.’’ The

announcement also stated that the

candidates would be ‘‘rated’’ and

‘‘rank[ed]’’ according to how well their

knowledge, skills, and abilities

‘‘matche[d] * * * the requirements

identified for the position.’’ In addition,

the announcement indicated that

individuals who met one of the

following ‘‘recruitment categories’’

could apply: ‘‘Outstanding Scholar’’;

‘‘Veterans Readjustment Act (VRA)

eligibles’’; ‘‘30% or more disabled

veterans’’; ‘‘Preference Eligibles’’ and

veterans honorably discharged after 3 or

more years of active military duty;

‘‘Chapter 31 veterans’’; ‘‘Handicapped

Eligibles’’; and ‘‘VA CTAP or

Interagency CTAP Eligibles.’’ The

announcement further stated, however,

that ‘‘first consideration’’ would be

given to ‘‘[i]nternal candidates’’ who

applied under DVA’s ‘‘Merit

Promotion’’ plan. Id., Subtab 1 at 1–3.

DVA, which holds delegated authority

from OPM to examine candidates,

generated seven certificates, each

corresponding to one of the recruitment

categories listed in the vacancy

announcement. The appellant’s name

appeared on the 30% or more disabled

veteran certificate and the VRA

certificate. Although the appellant

qualified as a preference eligible

pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 2108(3)(C), the

agency did not include her name on the

certificate of ‘‘Preference Eligibles’’ and

veterans honorably discharged after 3 or

more years of active military duty. DVA

did not rank any of the candidates.

Ultimately it filled nine positions,

selecting five individuals from the 30%

or more disabled veteran certificate,

three individuals from the Outstanding

Scholar certificate (none of whom were

preference eligible), and one individual

from the certificate of ‘‘Preference

Eligibles’’ and veterans honorably

discharged after 3 or more years of

active military duty. The record

indicates that the individual selected

from the final certificate was preference

eligible pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 2108(3)(E)

as the spouse of a service-connected

disabled veteran. Although the initial

decision indicates that the agency did

not treat this candidate as a preference

eligible, IAF, Tab 11 at 4, the certificate

on which this candidate’s name

appeared clearly indicated that she was

entitled to 10 veterans preference

points, IAF, Tab 8, Subtab 3 at 9. IAF,