Rules & Regulations

Dear Ms. Grundmann:

I provide the following comments on behalf of the Architect of the Capitol (AOC) in response to the Office of Congressional Workplace Rights (OCWR) notice of proposed rulemaking concerning amendments to the Rules of Procedure pursuant to the Congressional Accountability Act (CAA) published in the Congressional Record on April 9, 2019 for your consideration:

• Section 1.02 (r). There are individuals who volunteer their time on Capitol Hill without remuneration. The definition of unpaid staff’ should explicitly address whether “volunteers” are included or excluded from the CAA protections.
• Section 1.03(a)(2) and (a)(3). These sections should explicitly state that all pages of the fax and email (including email attachments) must be received by the deadline (11:59 pm) as evidenced on the OCWR’s fax machine time/date stamp or email time/date stamp as printed on the fax/email.
• Section 1.03(a)(4). Although this section states that parties are responsible for ensuring and confirming that electronic filings are transmitted and received by OCWR, section 402(c) of the CAA places the burden on the OCWR to ensure the effective tracking of all actions and proceedings. In addition, does OCWR intend to set up an automatic message received reply?
• Section 1.04(a). What does “receipt confirmed in the same format” mean? Will the OCWR set up an automatic message received reply?
• Section 1.06(d). Although the last sentence of the paragraph (d) states “The Board may make public any other decision at its discretion”, the parties should be given notice and opportunity to object before the decision or portions of a decision become public ifthe decision is not one that falls under the first part of paragraph (d) pursuant to the CAA confidentiality provisions.
• Sections 3.25(c)(1) and 3.26(c)(1). These sections allow a Merits Hearing Officer to rule on temporary and permanent variances applications ex parte. The appointment of a hearing officer is an indication that the adversarial process has begun. There is no reason why the hearing officer should be given the opportunity to make variance decisions without notice and opportunity to be heard by all parties at this stage ofthe proceedings. These ex parte provisions remove due process safeguards and should therefore be stricken from the final rule.