| Comment Number: | OL-10510493 |
| Received: | 3/16/2005 10:04:48 AM |
| Subject: | Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Request for Comment |
| Title: | National Security Personnel System |
| CFR Citation: | 5 CFR Chapter XCIX and Part 9901 |
| No Attachments |
Comments:
Subject: Comments on Proposed NSPS Regulations--RIN 3206-AK76/0790-AH82. Agency name Department of Defense; Office of Personnel Management Docket number or RIN Docket No.: NSPS-2005-001 RIN 3206-AK76 or 0790-AH82. --------------------------------------------------- ISSUE 1: I question whether adequate information is provided for meaningful public review and comment. While I recognize and appreciate the desire for DoD to increase efficiency and flexibility for this Nation’s defense, It is troubling that for many of the subjects contained in this proposed rulemaking, the substantive language is reserved for future establishment by the Secretary without notice or an opportunity for public comment, i.e., “The Secretary will establish…”, “DoD will establish procedures…”, “DoD may establish…”, etc.. ---------------------------- ISSUE 2: The statement the “(t)his proposed regulation is consistent with the requirements of E.O. 12988, SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION, page 7574, is inaccurate. First, the proposed rule does not specify in clear language the effect on existing Federal regulations, including all provisions repealed, circumscribed, displaced, impaired, or modified, as required in E.O. 12988, Section 3 (b)(2). Additionally, the proposed rule creates a clear bias on the part of the decisionmaker that results in an injustice to persons who appear before administrative adjudicatory tribunals by retaining absolute authority to disallow an employee’s representative [Sec. 9901.715 (f)], unreasonably limiting discovery (Sec. 9901.807(k)(3)ii) and by retaining the authority to overrule any finding of the MSPB [Sec. 9901.807(k)(8)iii(B)]. ---------------------------- ISSUE 3: I appreciate the inclusion of the terms of behavior and professional demeanor as elements of expected employee performance; however, I have some concerns regarding their potential impact with respect to employees with protected disabilities. Suggest making some effort to clarify this potential issue. ------------------------- ISSUE 4: Sec. 9901.605. The option to remove geographical location as a consideration for competitive area opens all employees and their families to arbitrary relocations, and along with other eroded employee protections contained in the proposed rule, may significantly impact the quality of the future Federal workforce. Overall the proposed rule significantly changes the equation between decisionmakers and employees. While increasing efficiency and costs in the short-term, I am concerned that in the long run, a career in civil service will become less attractive to bright, educated, and dedicated employees. ----- Respectfully Submitted