[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 129 (Thursday, July 6, 1995)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 35115-35119]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-16475]
========================================================================
Rules and Regulations
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________
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.
========================================================================
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 129 / Thursday, July 6, 1995 / Rules
and Regulations
[[Page 35115]]
GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE
4 CFR Parts 28 and 29
Personnel Appeals Board; Procedural Regulations
AGENCY: General Accounting Office Personnel Appeals Board.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The General Accounting Office Personnel Appeals Board is
issuing final regulations to govern appeals filed by employees of the
Architect of the Capitol alleging discrimination based on race, color,
sex, national origin, religion, age or disability. The regulations
implement the Board's authority under Sec. 312(e) of the Architect of
the Capitol Human Resources Act.
EFFECTIVE DATE: July 6, 1995.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Barbara Lipsky, Attorney, Personnel
Appeals Board, 202-512-6137.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On July 22, 1994, the Architect of the
Capitol Human Resources Act (ACHRA), Pub. L. 103-283, Sec. 312, 108
Stat. 1443, was signed into law. ACHRA requires the Architect of the
Capitol to establish a personnel management system incorporating the
fundamental principles that exist in other modern personnel systems.
Section 312(e) of ACHRA prohibits employment discrimination against
Architect of the Capitol employees based on race, color, sex, national
origin, religion, age or disability. It also bans intimidation of or
reprisal against employees who exercise their rights under the act. In
order to ensure enforcement of these rights, ACHRA permits employees of
the Architect of the Capitol to file charges of discrimination or
retaliation with the General Accounting Office Personnel Appeals Board
(``PAB'' or ``Board'').
On November 16, 1994, the PAB adopted interim regulations to
implement its new authority under ACHRA. See, 59 FR 59103 (Nov. 16,
1994). Congress, however, significantly changed the enforcement scheme
applicable to employees of the Architect of the Capitol when it enacted
the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 (CAA), Pub. L. 104-1, 109
Stat. 3 (Jan. 23, 1995). This statute makes 11 civil rights and worker
protection laws applicable to employees of Congress and legislative
branch agencies. It also creates a new Office of Compliance within the
legislative branch to adjudicate complaints of violations of these
laws. The CAA repeals Sec. 312(e) of ACHRA, which is the section that
prohibits discrimination against employees of the Architect of the
Capitol and permits those employees to file appeals with the PAB. See,
CAA, Sec. 504(c), 109 Stat. 41. Effective January 23, 1996, Architect
of the Capitol employees will be covered by the new non-discrimination
provisions of the CAA and may file complaints with the new Office of
Compliance.
The PAB will, however, continue for a transitional period to have a
role in adjudicating claims from Architect of the Capitol employees.
The provisions of the CAA will not apply to Architect of the Capitol
employees until January 23, 1996. Until that date, the PAB will
continue to have jurisdiction over discrimination claims from Architect
of the Capitol employees. Even after that date, employees of the
Architect of the Capitol may file charges with the Board if their
claims arose before January 23, 1996. In such cases, the provisions of
Sec. 312(e) of ACHRA will remain in effect and provide the exclusive
procedure for that case until its completion. See, Sec. 506(b)(1) of
the CAA, 109 Stat. 43. The PAB may also have a further role to play if
the opening of the new Office of Compliance is delayed for any reason.
If a claim arises after the effective date of the CAA but before the
opening of the new Office of Compliance, the employee is first to
exhaust administrative procedures before the Architect of the Capitol.
If the Office of Compliance still has not opened after that exhaustion,
then the employee has the choice of either filing a charge with the PAB
or filing suit in court. If the employee elects to file with the PAB,
then he or she must proceed exclusively under the provisions of
Sec. 312(e) of ACHRA. The provisions of Sec. 312(e) remain in effect
for that case until the case is completed. See, Sec. 506(b)(2) of the
CAA, 109 Stat. 43.
In view of this continuing role for the PAB, the Board deems it
necessary to finalize its interim regulations, even though it
recognizes that its relationship with the Office of the Architect of
the Capitol and its employees will be a relatively brief one.
Brief Summary of the Interim Regulations
The interim regulations published by the Board on November 16,
1994, contained a new part, 4 CFR part 29, establishing the procedures
that the Board will follow in receiving and adjudicating cases brought
by Architect of the Capitol employees. See, 59 FR 59103 (Nov. 16,
1994). The interim regulations also included some conforming amendments
to the procedures applicable to charges filed by employees of the
General Accounting Office (GAO). See, changes to 4 CFR part 28, 59 FR
59105. The most significant change for GAO employees is that the time
in which they may file a charge with the Board has been expanded. GAO
employees now have 30 days following the relevant action by GAO in
which to file a charge with the Board's General Counsel. See,
amendments to 4 CFR 28.11 and 28.98, 59 FR 59106. Finally, the Board's
regulations concerning judicial review of Board decisions were amended
in light of Ramey v. Bowsher, 9 F.3d 133 (D.C. Cir. 1993). In that
case, the court held that an employee's only recourse following a final
decision of the Board on a complaint of discrimination is to seek
appellate review before the United States Court of Appeals for the
Federal Circuit. The Board deleted 4 CFR 28.100, which contained
contrary provisions, from its regulations. See, 59 FR 59106. The
preamble to the interim regulations contained a detailed summary of the
significant features of the regulations and an explanation of the
choices made by the Board in drafting the regulations. This material
will not be repeated here.
History of Rulemaking Proceedings
The regulations were made effective on an interim basis because of
the need to have some procedures in place to govern any charges of
discrimination received from Architect of the Capitol employees. The
PAB invited comments from the public and stated that it would
[[Page 35116]]
carefully consider such comments before the regulations were adopted in
final form. See, 59 FR 59103. The original Federal Register notice
announced that comments would be received through February 24, 1995.
Id. This deadline was later extended to March 15, 1995. See, 60 FR 9773
(Feb. 22, 1995). In addition to publishing the interim regulations in
the Federal Register, the PAB also prepared a four-page ``plain
English'' summary of the regulations and distributed this summary to
every employee of the Architect of the Capitol. The summary contained
information on how to submit comments to the Board. The Board stated
that it would receive comments either in writing or orally, on a
special voice-mail line. GAO employees were provided notice of the
rulemaking proceedings through two notices published in the ``GAO
Management News.'' See, GAO Management News, Vol. 22, No. 9 (Week of
Nov. 28-Dec. 2, 1994); Vol. 22, No. 20 (Week of Feb. 20-24, 1995).
Copies of the Federal Register notice concerning the regulatory changes
were also sent to representatives of the GAO employee councils.
The Board received two comments concerning the interim regulations.
One comment, apparently from an Architect of the Capitol employee,
praised the regulations. The employee stated that: ``I'm particularly
pleased * * * that a person can remain anonymous when reporting an
alleged illegal personnel practice * * * .'' The employee also stressed
the importance of follow-up investigations by the Board's General
Counsel to ensure that required changes are taking place. The other
comment received by the Board was from Mr. George M. White, the
Architect of the Capitol. Mr. White objected to certain provisions of
the interim regulations, arguing that they went beyond the statutory
authority of the Board.
After carefully considering the comments received, the Board has
adopted several modifications to the interim regulations. The Board
has, however, decided to retain three elements of the regulations that
were challenged by the Architect of the Capitol. The Board will discuss
below the primary concerns raised by the Architect and the Board's
views on those matters. Each change to the interim regulations will
also be explained.
Response to Comments Received from the Architect of the Capitol
The Architect of the Capitol argues that the Board lacks statutory
authority for three provisions of the interim regulations: (1) The
provision requiring that all charges be filed with and investigated by
the PAB General Counsel, prior to being considered by the Board; (2)
the provision defining ``exhaustion'' of administrative proceedings
before the Architect and stating that an employee may file a charge
with the Board if the Architect fails to issue a final decision on his
or her EEO complaint within 120 days; and (3) the provision permitting
Architect employees to file charges with the Board seeking class-wide
relief, even if such relief had not been sought from the Architect.
Each of these provisions will be discussed below.
1. Role of the PAB General Counsel
The Architect expresses concern about the role assigned to the PAB
General Counsel by the interim regulations. Under the interim
regulations, the PAB General Counsel has the same role with respect to
charges filed by employees of the Architect of the Capitol as he does
with respect to those of GAO employees. A charge of discrimination is
initially filed with the General Counsel. See, 4 CFR 29.8(a), 59 FR
59108. The General Counsel investigates the charge and determines
whether there is a reasonable basis to believe the charge is true. Id.
at Sec. 29.9. When the General Counsel's investigation is complete, he
sends the employee a Right to Appeal Letter, which includes a
confidential letter to the employee explaining the General Counsel's
conclusions on the merits of the case. Id. at Sec. 29.9(c). Where he
concludes that the charge has merit, the General Counsel offers to
represent the employee before the Board. Id. at Sec. 29.9(d).
Regardless of the findings of the General Counsel, the employee is free
to file an appeal with the PAB within 30 days of service of the Right
to Appeal Letter. Id. at Sec. 29.10(a) and (b).
The Architect asserts that there is no statutory basis for the
duties assigned to the PAB General Counsel in the interim regulations.
He argues that ACHRA only provides for the filing of appeals with the
PAB and makes no mention of any role for the General Counsel. The Board
has carefully considered this argument and concludes that there is a
firm statutory basis for the duties assigned to the General Counsel and
that the enforcement scheme adopted by the Board is supported by sound
policy considerations.
ACHRA states that any employee of the Architect of the Capitol
alleging employment discrimination based on race, color, sex, national
origin, religion, age or disability ``may file a charge with the
General Accounting Office Personnel Appeals Board in accordance with
the General Accounting Office Personnel Act of 1980 (31 U.S.C. 751-
55).'' Section 312(e)(3)(A) of ACHRA, 108 Stat. 1445 (emphasis added).
Thus, ACHRA expressly states that charges by employees of the Architect
of the Capitol will be governed by the terms of the General Accounting
Office Personnel Act (GAOPA) contained in 31 U.S.C. 751-755.
Sections 751 through 755 of Title 31, U.S.C., establish both the
PAB and its General Counsel, and assign duties to each. The PAB is to
hear and adjudicate claims relating to certain enumerated personnel
matters. 31 U.S.C. 753. The Board also has the authority to issue
procedural regulations. Id. at 753(d). The duties of the General
Counsel are to:
(A) Investigate an allegation about a prohibited personnel
practice under 732(b)(3) of this title to decide if there are
reasonable grounds to believe the practice has occurred, exists, or
will be taken by an officer or employee of the General Accounting
Office;
(B) Investigate an allegation about a prohibited political
activity under 732(b)(3) of this title;
(C) Investigate a matter under the jurisdiction of the Board if
the Board or a member of the Board requests; and
(D) Help the Board carry out its duties and powers.
31 U.S.C. 752(b)(3). Thus, the GAOPA gives the General Counsel broad
authority to investigate any matter within the Board's jurisdiction, if
requested to do so by the Board. ACHRA amended the jurisdictional grant
to the Board, contained in 31 U.S.C. 753, to include actions involving
discrimination prohibited by ACHRA. See, ACHRA, Sec. 312(e)(4)(B), 108
Stat. 1446. As a result, discrimination claims by Architect of the
Capitol employees are ``matters under the jurisdiction of the Board''
and the Board may ask the General Counsel to investigate such claims.
This is precisely what the Board has done in its interim regulations,
which require the General Counsel to investigate every discrimination
claim filed by an employee of the Architect of the Capitol.
An almost identical question concerning the Board's authority was
raised in General Accounting Office v. General Accounting Office
Personnel Appeals Board, 698 F.2d 516 (D.C. Cir. 1983). In that case,
the General Accounting Office challenged the authority of the PAB to
authorize the PAB General Counsel to prosecute appeals concerning
adverse actions on behalf of GAO employees. The District of Columbia
Circuit held that ``investigate'' as used in 31 U.S.C. 752
[[Page 35117]]
included both the investigation of claims and the prosecution of those
claims before the Board. The court further held that the Board's broad
authority to issue procedural regulations included the power to issue a
regulation requiring the General Counsel to investigate and to
prosecute any category of case within the Board's jurisdiction. The
court reasoned:
[T]he open-ended language of 4(g)(4) and 4(m) [of the original
text of the GAOPA] supports the conclusion that, within the bounds
of law and reason, the GAOPA authorizes whatever sort of advocacy
role for the General Counsel the Board determines to be appropriate.
Section 4(g)(4) provides that the General Counsel shall ``help the
Board carry out its duties and powers,'' and section 4(m) grants the
Board power to promulgate regulations ``providing for officer and
employee appeals consistent with sections 7701 and 7702 of title 5.*
* *'' These provisions give the Board broad discretion to design
appropriate procedures for appeals cases and to include in that
design whatever role for the General Counsel it deems helpful in
discharging its duties and powers. Consistent with the discretion
thereby granted, the PAB has concluded that the role created for the
General Counsel under 4 C.F.R. Sec. 28.17(d) ``helps'' the Board
carry out its duties and powers by facilitating an efficient
adjudicative procedure for all petitions filed with the Board,
including adverse action petitions. We think that conclusion is both
consistent with the statute and entirely rational and, therefore, we
decline to disturb it.
General Accounting Office v. General Accounting Office Personnel
Appeals Board, 698 F.2d at 529-30 (emphasis in original; footnotes
deleted). Because discrimination charges by Architect of the Capitol
employees are now within the Board's jurisdiction, and ACHRA states
that such charges are to be filed in accordance with the GAOPA, the
reasoning of the District of Columbia Circuit indicates that the Board
may assign a similar role to the PAB General Counsel with respect to
this new class of cases.
The Board believes that the above analysis answers the Architect's
objection that there is no statutory basis for the duties assigned to
the General Counsel. Moreover, the Board believes that there are sound
policy reasons for the enforcement role assigned to the General Counsel
by the regulations. By requiring that all charges be investigated by
the General Counsel, the Board ensures that all cases come to it with
well-defined issues and a fully developed factual record. The Board
appreciates that the Architect will have investigated these cases as
well. However, that investigation (by the agency charged with the
discrimination) may not be as impartial or as thorough as one
undertaken by a third-party such as the General Counsel. The General
Counsel's investigation also serves a screening function, because an
employee may choose not to pursue a case if an impartial investigator
such as the General Counsel concludes that his or her claim lacks
merit. Finally, the General Counsel's representation of employees adds
to the integrity of the adjudicatory process by ensuring that employees
with credible claims have a fair chance to have their cases presented
to the Board and do not have to proceed pro se against an agency
represented by skilled legal counsel.
For these reasons, the Board has decided to retain the basic role
of the PAB General Counsel as proposed in the interim regulations. The
Board has, however, decided to make one change in the duties of the
General Counsel. The Architect of the Capitol raised concerns about a
provision of the interim regulations that permitted the General Counsel
to initiate his own investigations, even in the absence of the filing
of a charge by an Architect employee. See, 4 CFR 29.12, 59 FR 59109.
This provision mirrored a provision applicable to GAO employees in the
Board's current regulations and was based on the statutory role of the
General Counsel under the GAOPA. However, after the adoption of the
interim regulations, Congress enacted the CAA. This new law transfers
responsibility for adjudicating claims of discrimination by employees
of the Architect of the Capitol to the new Office of Compliance,
beginning either in January 1996 or at a later date if the opening of
the Office is delayed. See, CAA, Sec. 506(b), 109 Stat. 43. The PAB
will thus only be hearing claims from the Architect of the Capitol for
a transitional period. Because of the Board's limited role following
the CAA, the Board has decided that it would not be feasible or
appropriate for its General Counsel to conduct any self-initiated
investigations and it has decided to drop this provision from its
regulations. The Board is mindful that the one Architect employee who
submitted a comment praised this provision and stated that it is
important for employees to be able to provide information to the
General Counsel anonymously, without filing a charge of discrimination.
Nonetheless, the Board concludes that, in light of its more limited
role following the passage of the CAA, the provision for self-initiated
investigations is no longer appropriate. The Board is therefore
deleting 4 CFR 29.12 (entitled ``Proceedings brought by the General
Counsel seeking corrective action, disciplinary action or a stay''),
which appeared in the interim regulations. References to the General
Counsel's authority to bring self-initiated cases have also been
deleted from 4 CFR 29.3 (``Jurisdiction of the Board'').
2. Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies Before the Architect of the
Capitol
The interim regulations permit an employee to file a charge with
the PAB at any time after the passage of 120 days, if the Architect
fails to issue a final decision on the employee's internal complaint of
discrimination by that date. See, 4 CFR 29.6(a), 59 FR 59107. The
Architect of the Capitol objected to this provision, taking the
position that a charge cannot be filed with the PAB until a final
decision is issued by the Architect, regardless of how long it takes to
issue that decision.
For the reasons set forth below, the Board rejects the Architect's
argument. However, after reviewing the material submitted by the
Architect, the Board has decided to lengthen to 150 days the time
period that an employee must wait before filing a charge with the
Board. The Board recognizes that the Architect has adopted a detailed
procedure for considering claims of discrimination. Because those
procedures may in some instances take as long as 140 days to complete,
the Board concludes that an expansion of the time period in its
regulations is warranted. See change to 4 CFR 29.6(a), set forth below.
ACHRA requires that employees of the Architect of the Capitol
exhaust the administrative remedies for discrimination within their own
agency before filing a charge with the PAB. The act states:
Such a charge may be filed [with the PAB] only after the
employee has filed a complaint with the Architect of the Capitol in
accordance with requirements prescribed by the Architect of the
Capitol and has exhausted all remedies pursuant to such
requirements.
ACHRA, Sec. 312(e)(3)(A), 108 Stat. 1445-46. Although ACHRA states that
employees must exhaust their internal administrative remedies before
filing a charge with the Board, the statute does not define when such
remedies will be considered ``exhausted.'' The Board's regulations
merely supply a reasonable definition of ``exhaustion.'' The
regulations, as amended below, state that administrative remedies will
be considered exhausted when either of the following occurs:
(1) The employee receives a final decision by the Architect of
the Capitol on his or her complaint of discrimination or
retaliation; or
[[Page 35118]]
(2) 150 days have passed after the filing of an internal
complaint of discrimination or retaliation and the Architect of the
Capitol has not issued a final decision on the complaint.
See, 4 CFR 29.6(a), as amended below.
Such a definition of ``exhaustion'' is extremely important. If an
employee had to await a final decision by the employing agency in all
cases, the agency effectively could deny employees access to the Board
by delaying the issuance of a decision indefinitely. Moreover, for the
right to appeal to the Board to be meaningful, an employee needs to be
able to file his or her charge when witness memories are still fresh
and effective relief can still be fashioned.
Although the statutory language and legislative history for ACHRA
are remarkably brief, two important policies are evident on the face of
the statute. On the one hand, Congress clearly intended that Architect
of the Capitol employees have a meaningful right to have their
complaints heard by an impartial adjudicatory body outside the control
of the Architect. On the other hand, Congress also wished to give the
Architect the first chance to investigate and rectify any improprieties
in his own personnel practices. The Board's definition of exhaustion
gives effect to both of these statutory policies. The regulations give
the Architect an exclusive period of time in which to investigate and
act on employee complaints. But they also ensure that employees will be
able to obtain an independent review by the PAB if their employer
withholds action on their complaints for an unreasonable period of
time.
ACHRA needs to be read against the background of the discrimination
complaint procedures that are in effect throughout the federal
government. In every other discrimination complaint process within the
federal government, employees are permitted to take an appeal to an
external adjudicatory body if their own agency fails to act on their
complaint within some specified period of time. See, 4 CFR 28.98(b)(2)
(GAO employees may file with the PAB if GAO fails to issue decision
within 120 days); 5 CFR 1201.154(b)(2) (in ``mixed cases'', executive
branch employees may file a discrimination appeal with the MSPB if
their agency fails to decide their internal EEO complaints within 120
days); 29 CFR 1614.108(e) and (f) (executive branch employees may
request hearing before EEOC administrative judge if agency does not
complete its investigation within 180 days). In adopting ACHRA,
Congress was essentially extending the protection of nondiscrimination
laws to employees of the Architect of the Capitol and stating that
those protections should be enforced in accordance with the procedures
of the GAOPA. It is thus reasonable to assume that Congress intended
the Board to interpret ``exhaustion of administrative remedies'' in a
manner consistent with other federal civil rights laws and with the
Board's longstanding regulations.
For these reasons, the Board concludes that it has a sound legal
basis for adopting its definition of exhaustion of administrative
remedies.
The interim regulations also included a special rule, permitting
the Architect of the Capitol an additional 60 days to investigate
charges filed with the Board's General Counsel prior to March 1, 1995.
As noted in the preamble to the interim regulations, this provision was
intended as an interim measure only. It has already expired and now is
deleted from the final regulations. See, deletion of 4 CFR 29.6(d), set
forth below.
3. Class Actions
The interim regulations permit an employee of the Architect of the
Capitol to file a charge with the PAB as the representative of a class
of employees. See, 4 CFR 29.8(a) and 29.10(f), 59 FR 59108. The
regulations further require that such an employee first file an
internal complaint of discrimination with the Architect of the Capitol
and exhaust administrative remedies on that complaint. 4 CFR 29.6(b).
The regulations do not require, however, that such a complaint be filed
with the Architect of the Capitol as a class action, or treated by the
Architect of the Capitol as a class action, in order to meet the
requirements of exhaustion of administrative remedies.
The Architect of the Capitol opposes these provisions concerning
class actions. He argues that the PAB has no authority to entertain any
claim or issue that was not raised before his office. However, his
letter also makes clear that the procedures adopted by his office do
not permit the filing of class actions. Thus, his argument in effect is
that employees of the Architect of the Capitol have no avenue for
seeking relief on a class-wide basis.
The PAB disagrees with the Architect's interpretation of ACHRA and
has decided to retain these provisions of its regulations. ACHRA
prohibits the Architect of the Capitol from engaging in employment
discrimination that would be unlawful under Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act and other nondiscrimination statutes. See, ACHRA,
Sec. 312(e)(2), 108 Stat. 1445. It has long been recognized that the
kind of discrimination prohibited by Title VII is often class-wide in
nature and that class actions are critical to effective enforcement of
the statute. See, e.g., discussion in Hackley v. Roudebush, 520 F.2d
108, 152, n.177 (D.C. Cir. 1975). In interpreting Title VII's
prohibition of discrimination by the federal government, the United
States District Court for the District of Columbia ruled that executive
branch agencies must accept class complaints of discrimination filed by
their employees and must afford class-wide relief in appropriate
circumstances. Barrett v. U.S. Civil Service Commission, 69 F.R.D. 544,
549-552 (D.D.C. 1975). Thus, the PAB concludes that it has an
obligation to permit the filing of class actions in proceedings before
it.
In determining what exhaustion of administrative remedies is
necessary before an Architect employee may file a class action with the
Board, the PAB followed well-established Title VII case law. Under
Title VII, a class action may be pursued in court so long as the named
representative of the class filed an individual administrative
complaint of discrimination. It is not necessary that each class member
have filed an administrative complaint or that remedies were sought at
the administrative level on behalf of the class members. Chisholm v.
U.S. Postal Service, 665 F.2d 482, 490 (4th Cir. 1981); Bowe v.
Colgate-Palmolive Co., 416 F.2d 711, 720 (7th Cir. 1969); see also,
Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody, 422 U.S. 405, 414-15, n.8 (1975). In
light of the Architect's own representations that he will not permit
the filing of class complaints in his internal EEO complaint process,
it is particularly important that Architect employees be permitted to
pursue class remedies before the Board after having filed an individual
complaint with the Architect.
Applicability of Part 29
In addition to the changes discussed above that respond to the
public comments, the Board has also revised the final section of part
29, Sec. 29.13, entitled ``Applicability of this part.'' Following the
adoption of the interim regulations, Congress enacted the CAA. As
discussed above, that statute terminates the Board's jurisdiction over
claims by employees of the Architect of the Capitol, after a
transitional period. The CAA generally limits the Board's jurisdiction
to cases arising before January 23, 1996, except in certain cases where
the opening of the new Office of Compliance is delayed. The revised
text of Sec. 29.13 makes reference to these new
[[Page 35119]]
limitations on the Board's jurisdiction contained in the CAA.
Interim Regulations Concerning GAO Employees
As noted above, the interim regulations contained a few changes to
4 CFR part 28 concerning charges brought by employees of GAO. Because
no comments were received from either GAO or its employees on these
provisions, the Board now adopts them in final form, without change.
List of Subjects
4 CFR Part 28
Administrative practice and procedure, Equal employment
opportunity, Government employees, Labor-management relations.
4 CFR Part 29
Administrative practice and procedure, Equal employment
opportunity, Government employees.
Accordingly, the interim rule amending Title 4, Chapter I,
Subchapter B, Code of Federal Regulations, which was published at 59 FR
59103 on November 16, 1994, is adopted as a final rule with the
following changes:
PART 29--GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE PERSONNEL APPEALS BOARD;
PROCEDURES APPLICABLE TO CLAIMS CONCERNING EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES AT
THE ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL
1. The authority citation for Part 29 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 31 U.S.C. 753.
2. Section 29.3 is amended by removing paragraph (c).
3. Section 29.6 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(2) and
removing paragraph (d) to read as follows:
Sec. 29.6 Requirement for exhaustion of internal administrative
remedies provided by the Architect of the Capitol.
(a) * * *
(2) 150 days have passed after the filing of an internal complaint
of discrimination or retaliation and the Architect of the Capitol has
not issued a final decision on the complaint.
* * * * *
3. Section 29.8 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(2) as follows:
Sec. 29.8 Filing a charge with the General Counsel.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(2) At any time after the passage of 150 days following the filing
of an internal complaint of discrimination or retaliation, if the
Architect of the Capitol has not yet issued a final decision on the
internal complaint.
* * * * *
Sec. 29.12 [Removed and reserved]
4. Section 29.12 is removed and reserved.
5. Section 29.13 is amended by revising the section heading,
removing paragraph (a), redesignating paragraph (b) as paragraph (a),
and adding a new paragraph (b) to read as follows:
Sec. 29.13 Applicability of this part.
* * * * *
(b) The regulations in this part apply to all charges filed with
the Board prior to January 23, 1996, the effective date of Sec. 201 of
the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 (CAA), Pub. L. 104-1, 109
Stat. 3 (January 23, 1995). They also apply to any charge filed after
that date pursuant to the terms of Sec. 506(b) of the CAA.
Nancy A. McBride,
Chair, Personnel Appeals Board, U.S. General Accounting Office.
[FR Doc. 95-16475 Filed 7-5-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1610-01-P
