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

29895

Vol. 66, No. 107

Monday, June 4, 2001

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL

MANAGEMENT

5 CFR Parts 330, 332, 351, 353

RIN 3206–AJ32

Career Transition Assistance for

Surplus and Displaced Federal

Employees

AGENCY: Office of Personnel

Management.

ACTION: Interim regulation with request

for comment.

SUMMARY: The Office of Personnel

Management is issuing interim

regulations making the current career

transition assistance programs

permanent to help Federal employees

displaced from their jobs by

downsizing. These interim regulations

remove the September 30, 2001 sunset

date and reporting requirements and

eliminate the Interagency Placement

Program.

DATES: This interim regulation is

effective on June 4, 2001. We will

consider written comments received by

August 3, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Send or deliver written

comments to: Richard A. Whitford,

Acting Associate Director for

Employment, Office of Personnel

Management; Suite 6500, 1900 E Street

NW., Washington, DC 20415–9000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, CONTACT:

Jacqueline Yeatman on (202) 606–0960,

FAX (202) 606–2329, TDD (202) 606–

0023 or by email at: jryeatma@opm.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: It has long

been the Federal Government’s policy to

help displaced workers affected by

downsizing and restructuring find other

employment, either within the

Government or the private sector. The

Office of Personnel Management (OPM)

has provided placement priority for

employees affected by downsizing since

at least 1970, by regulation. Before 1996,

this consisted of the Displaced

Employee Program/Interagency

Placement Assistance Program (DEP/

IPAP), later followed by the Interagency

Placement Program (IPP). All of these

programs operated under a passive

model with centralized inventories, or

‘‘lists’’ of separated Federal employees.

Agencies received these lists only when

they planned to fill a vacancy through

a competitive appointment register or

certificate. Placement rates for these

programs were relatively low for several

reasons. In many cases, agencies filled

jobs through the transfer or

reinstatement of current or former

Federal employees—and these actions

did not generate IPP referral lists. In

other cases, candidates on the

placement list were unreachable,

unavailable, or uninterested by the time

their name was referred for a job.

In 1995, OPM published regulations

temporarily suspending the IPP and

establishing the Career Transition

Assistance Plan (CTAP) and Interagency

Career Transition Assistance Plan

(ICTAP). The regulations were

developed in cooperation with

representatives from agencies and

employee unions. These new programs

were based on the ‘‘employee

empowerment’’ model—an entirely

different premise from previous

placement programs. The idea was

relatively simple—affected employees

get the resources and information they

need, coupled with meaningful hiring

priority for Federal jobs, to help them

take charge of their job search as early

and effectively as possible. Placement

data suggest that when employees take

an active role in their own transition,

faster and better placements result. The

designers of these programs also

believed that giving only well-qualified

displaced employees hiring priority

would improve the quality of

placements made and reduce the

‘‘stigma’’ sometimes associated with

selection priority. Because this was a

new and untested approach to the

placement of former Federal employees,

the regulations included reporting

requirements and a sunset date. This

gave OPM the opportunity to evaluate

these programs and determine their

usefulness. On July 27, 1999, OPM

published regulations extending the

sunset date through September 30, 2001.

Each year, OPM gathers information

from Executive Branch agencies on their

use of CTAP and ICTAP, as well as data

on involuntary separations and hiring.

We can assess the effectiveness of the

existing placement programs using this

information. The data show that

agencies hired 1,182 displaced

employees through ICTAP in the past

four years. This represents a placement

rate that is significantly higher than

under the IPP. The CTAP and ICTAP

programs combined have placed nearly

4,000 surplus or displaced employees

since 1996. When the results for the

Department of Defense Priority

Placement Program (PPP) and agency

Reemployment Priority Lists (RPLs) are

added, the overall placement rate

approaches 50% of those eligible. It is

true that, over the last four years, the

number of placements through CTAP

and ICTAP has decreased—but this is

not surprising, since fewer employees

have become surplus or displaced and

the number of involuntary separations

has dropped off as well. Significantly,

the placement rate (the proportion of

those placed relative to the number of

RIF separations) has stayed about the

same. This tells us that our existing

placement programs are effective tools

whether downsizing activity is

widespread or limited.

If we allow the current placement

programs to expire in 2001, the

Government’s primary placement tool

will once again be the IPP. Based on the

lower placement rate of the IPP, and the

long-standing dissatisfaction of agencies

with its operation, we concluded that

this is not a viable option. During the

IPP era, agencies used centralized

registers for most competitive Federal

hiring; today’s environment of

decentralized and delegated job-by-job

examining does not lend itself to a

centralized, placement-list approach.

The IPP added more time to the

recruitment process—time agencies

cannot afford to lose in today’s fastmoving and highly competitive job

market. In addition, the IPP sets

significantly lower standards for

qualification and demonstrated

performance, making it less likely to

result in good placements. In contrast,

CTAP and ICTAP give the employee

more control over the process, are

decentralized and faster, and set higher

standards for ‘‘matches.’’ OPM and the

Human Resources Management

Council’s Executive Committee

(composed of human resource directors

29896 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 107 / Monday, June 4, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

from cabinet departments, large

agencies, and representatives from small

agencies) concluded that returning to

the IPP would be a step backward for

the Federal Government’s placement

process.

While ICTAP was designed primarily

to help employees affected by

reductions in force, it is a crucial

program for other reasons. The

regulations currently provide two years

of ICTAP selection priority to veterans

in certain restricted positions affected

by competitive outsourcing under OMB

Circular A–76 procedures (see 5 CFR

part 330, subpart D). Former employees

trying to return to work after long-term

recovery from compensable injuries,

former disability annuitants who have

recovered, and disabled National Guard

Technicians have been using ICTAP

selection priority to return to work. In

addition, placement programs for some

District of Columbia Department of

Corrections employees (5 CFR part 330,

subpart K) and employees affected by

the turnover of the Panama Canal (5

CFR part 330, subpart L) were patterned

after ICTAP and use many of the same

regulatory provisions. If we let the

current programs sunset, it would affect

all of these former employees.

CTAP and ICTAP provide a continual

‘‘safety net’’ that is always available

when needed, but does not significantly

hamper other personnel processes when

not needed. Given the continuing need

for a placement safety net for

employees, we believe it makes sense to

remove the sunset date from these

regulatory provisions. Therefore, this

regulation, when finalized, will

permanently eliminate the IPP and

replace it with the CTAP and ICTAP. In

a related change, we are eliminating the

agency reporting requirements under

CTAP and ICTAP to reduce the

administrative burden on agencies and

because these reports, originally

designed to monitor agency progress

when these programs were initially

established, are no longer necessary. We

are also deleting references to the IPP in

parts 332, 351 and 353 and replacing

them with ICTAP where appropriate.

We are issuing this regulation as

interim for several reasons. Because

these placement programs would

otherwise expire in September 2001,

displaced employees need to know now

whether they will get the one year of

eligibility to which they would

normally be entitled. Although current

downsizing activity has tapered off

significantly since the peak of a few

years ago, agencies such as the

Department of Defense and others are

still implementing base closures,

restructuring, and consolidations. In

addition, the potential effects of

privatization or outsourcing initiatives

make these placement programs critical

for those employees wishing to pursue

other Federal employment options

rather than accepting private

employment. Finally, there are

employees recovering from disability or

injury who may need to use this

program for help in getting back to

work. In summary, we want to ensure

that these important and effective

placement tools for Federal employees

remain in place. This will help the

Federal Government maintain its image

as an employer who values employees

and treats them with concern even

when restructuring is necessary.

While we are not proposing any

changes to the way these programs will

operate at this time, we believe there is

room for improvement. We plan to work

with Federal agencies, employees, and

other stakeholders on ways to improve

and streamline the entire portfolio of

placement programs for displaced

employees. Any changes resulting from

this effort would be published as

proposed regulations, with request for

comment, to allow for maximum

dialogue on these issues.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

I certify that this regulation will not

have a significant economic impact on

a substantial number of small entities

because it affects only certain

Government employees.

Executive Order 12866, Regulatory

Review

This rule has been reviewed by the

Office of Management and Budget in

accordance with Executive Order 12866.

List of Subjects in 5 CFR Part 330

Armed forces reserves, Government

employees.

U.S. Office of Personnel Management.

Steven R. Cohen,

Acting Director.

Accordingly, OPM is amending parts

330, 332, 351 and 353 as follows:

PART 330—RECRUITMENT,

SELECTION, AND PLACEMENT

(GENERAL)

1. The authority citation for part 330

is revised to read as follows:

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 1302, 3301, 3302; E.O.

10577, 3 CFR 1954–58 Comp., p. 218;

§ 330.102 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 3327;

subpart B also issued under 5 U.S.C. 3315

and 8151; § 330.401 also issued under 5

U.S.C. 3310; subpart G also issued under 5

U.S.C. 8337(h) and 8457(b); subpart K also

issued under sec. 11203 of Pub. Law 105–33

(111 Stat. 738) and Pub. Law 105–274 (112

Stat. 2424); subpart L also issued under sec.

1232 of Pub. L. 96–70, 93 Stat. 452.

Subpart C—Reserved

§§ 330.301—330.307 [Reserved]

2. In part 330, subpart C consisting of

§§ 330.301 through 330.307, is removed

and reserved.

Subpart F—Agency Career Transition

Assistance Plans (CTAP) for Local

Surplus and Displaced Employees

§§ 330.603 and 330.610 [Removed and

reserved]

3. In Subpart F, §§ 330.603 and

330.610 are removed and reserved.

Subpart G—Interagency Career

Transition Assistance Plan for

Displaced Employees

§§ 330.702 and 330.710 [Removed and

reserved]

4. In Subpart G, §§ 330.702 and

330.710 are removed and reserved.

PART 332—RECRUITMENT AND

SELECTION THROUGH COMPETITIVE

EXAMINATION

5. The authority citation for part 332

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 5. U.S.C. 1302, 3301, 3302; E.O.

10577, 3 CFR, 1954–1958 Comp., p. 218.

§ 332.314 [Removed and reserved]

6. Section 332.314 is removed and

reserved.

PART 351—REDUCTION IN FORCE

7. The authority citation for part 351

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 1302, 3502, 3503; sec.

351.801 also issued under E.O. 12828, 58 FR

2965.

8. In § 351.807, paragraph (f) is

revised to read as follows:

§ 351.807 Certification of Expected

Separation.

* * * * *

(f) An agency may also enroll eligible

employees on the agency’s

Reemployment Priority List up to 6

months in advance of a reduction in

force. For requirements and criteria, see

subpart B of part 330 of this chapter.

PART 353—RESTORATION TO DUTY

FROM UNIFORMED SERVICE OR

COMPENSABLE INJURY

9. The authority citation for part 353

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 38 U.S.C. 4301 et seq., and 5

U.S.C. 8151.

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 107 / Monday, June 4, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 29897

10. In § 353.110, paragraph (b) is

revised to read as follows:

§ 353.110 OPM Placement Assistance.

* * * * *

(b) Employee returning from

compensable injury. OPM will provide

placement assistance to an employee

with restoration rights in the executive,

legislative, or judicial branches who

cannot be placed in his or her former

agency and who either has competitive

status or is eligible to acquire it under

5 U.S.C. 3304(C). If the employee’s

agency is abolished and its functions are

not transferred, or it is not possible for

the employee to be restored in his or her

former agency, the employee is eligible

for placement assistance under the

Interagency Career Transition

Assistance Plan (ICTAP) under part 330,

subpart G, of this chapter. This

paragraph does not apply to an

employee serving under a temporary

appointment pending establishment of a

register (TAPER).

[FR Doc. 01–13917 Filed 6–1–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6325–38–P

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Animal and Plant Health Inspection

Service

9 CFR Part 94

[Docket No. 01–032–1]

Prohibition of Beef From Argentina

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health

Inspection Service, USDA.

ACTION: Interim rule and request for

comments.

SUMMARY: We are amending the

regulations by removing the provisions

for the importation of fresh (chilled or

frozen) beef from Argentina and by

removing the exemptions that allowed

cured or cooked beef to be imported

from Argentina under certain conditions

without meeting the requirements of the

regulations regarding cured and cooked

meat from regions where rinderpest or

foot-and-mouth disease exists. We are

taking these actions because the

existence of foot-and-mouth disease has

been confirmed in that country. The

effect of these actions is to prohibit the

importation of any fresh (chilled or

frozen) beef from Argentina and to

prohibit the importation of any cooked

or cured beef from Argentina that does

not meet the requirements of the

regulations regarding cured and cooked

meat from regions where rinderpest or

foot-and-mouth disease exists. We are

taking these actions as an emergency

measure to protect the livestock of the

United States from foot-and-mouth

disease.

DATES: This interim rule was effective

on February 19, 2001. We invite you to

comment on this docket. We will

consider all comments that we receive

by August 3, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Please send four copies of

your comment (an original and three

copies) to: Docket No. 01–032–1,

Regulatory Analysis and Development,

PPD, APHIS, Suite 3C03, 4700 River

Road, Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737–

1238.

Please state that your comment refers

to Docket No. 01–032–1.

You may read any comments that we

receive on this docket in our reading

room. The reading room is located in

room 1141 of the USDA South Building,

14th Street and Independence Avenue

SW., Washington, DC. Normal reading

room hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.,

Monday through Friday, except

holidays. To be sure someone is there to

help you, please call (202) 690–2817

before coming.

APHIS documents published in the

Federal Register, and related

information, including the names of

organizations and individuals who have

commented on APHIS dockets, are

available on the Internet at http://

www.aphis.usda.gov/ppd/rad/

webrepor.html.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr.

Gary Colgrove, Chief Staff Veterinarian,

National Center for Import and Export,

VS, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 38,

Riverdale, MD 20737–1231; (301) 734–

3276.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The regulations in 9 CFR part 94

(referred to below as the regulations)

govern the importation of specified

animals and animal products into the

United States in order to prevent the

introduction of various animal diseases

including rinderpest, foot-and-mouth

disease (FMD), African swine fever, hog

cholera, and swine vesicular disease.

These are dangerous and destructive

communicable diseases of ruminants

and swine. Section 94.1 of the

regulations lists regions of the world

that are declared free of rinderpest or

free of both rinderpest and FMD.

Rinderpest or FMD exists in all other

regions of the world not listed.

Although Argentina is currently not

listed in § 94.1, the regulations do

provide for the importation of fresh

(chilled or frozen) beef from Argentina

under certain conditions. Specifically,

under § 94.21, fresh (chilled or frozen)

beef may be imported from Argentina if,

among other things, FMD has not been

diagnosed in Argentina within the

previous 12 months. Additionally,

cured or cooked beef from Argentina

that meets the requirements for the

importation of fresh (chilled or frozen)

beef in § 94.21 may be imported into the

United States without meeting the

requirements of § 94.4.

On or about July 22, 2000, cattle from

a neighboring country were illegally

imported into Argentina, and on August

16, 2000, Argentina confirmed that one

of the imported animals was infected

with FMD. At that time, the United

States Department of Agriculture

(USDA) imposed a temporary hold on

the importation of all beef from

Argentina that had been authorized to

be imported under § 94.21. During late

September and early October 2000, a

tripartite delegation consisting of

representatives from the United States,

Canada, and Mexico visited Argentina

to assess the FMD situation. After

extensive inspection and evaluation, the

tripartite delegation concluded that

Servicio Nacional de Sanidad y Calidad

Agroalimentario (SENASA) had acted

promptly and effectively to eliminate

the FMD infection.

Further, Veterinary Services staff

members of the Animal and Health

Inspection Service (APHIS), produced a

risk assessment document to explore the

potential FMD risks associated with

importing beef from Argentina under

the provisions of § 94.21. This report

concluded that the August 2000

outbreak of FMD, which resulted from

the illegal movement of animals into

Argentina from a bordering country, had

been quickly detected and contained.

In consideration of SENASA’s prompt

action and the conclusions of the risk

analysis, we issued an interim rule on

December 29, 2000 (65 FR 82894–82896,

Docket No. 00–079–1), that allowed beef

imports from Argentina to resume under

§ 94.21. In that interim rule, we also

amended § 94.21 by adding additional

provisions to ensure that beef being

exported to the United States was not

from an animal that had ever been in

specified areas along Argentina’s

borders with Bolivia, Brazil, Paraguay,

and Uruguay.

However, on March 12, 2001,

Argentina reported to the Office

International des Epizooties (OIE) and

the United States that they had detected

an outbreak of FMD in a herd of 300

young bulls in the province of Buenos

Aires. Subsequently, within the

following 4 days, SENASA informed the

OIE and the United States with clinical

confirmation of the existence of FMD in