DECISION AND ORDER
Preliminary Statement
This matter comes before the Board pursuant to section 215(c)(4) of the Congressional Accountability Act (2 U.S.C. 1341(c)(4),) which states, inter alia, that with regard to applicable OSHA standards, “[a]n employing office may request from the Board an order granting a variance from a standard made applicable by this section. For the purposes of this section, the Board shall exercise the authorities granted to the Secretary of Labor in sections 6(b)(6) and 6(d) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 655(b)(6) and 655(d)) to act on any employing office’s request for a variance.”
A “Motion for Variance from any Disclosure and Posting Requirements” was filed by the Capitol Police Board on April 12, 2002 (all subsequent dates are 2002, unless otherwise stated). On April 16, the Executive Director issued a scheduling order. He also provided a copy of the motion to counsel to the Fraternal Order of Police, U.S. Capitol Police Labor Committee (hereinafter referred to as the FOP Labor Committee), in order to ensure that the employee notice requirements of 29 U.S.C. 655(b)(6)(B)(v) regarding requests for a variance were met in this matter. Thereafter, on April 17, a “Partial Opposition to U.S. Capitol Police Motion . . .” was filed by the FOP Labor Committee, and “General Counsel’s Response to Motion for Variance . . .” was filed by the Office of the General Counsel of the Office of Compliance. On April 19, a “Capitol Police Board Reply to General Counsel’s Response . . .” was filed by the Capitol Police Board.
On April 23, a pleading not contemplated by the Executive Director’s scheduling order was filed by the Office of the General Counsel entitled “Motion for Leave to File Rebuttal Memorandum,” with an attached rebuttal. On that same day, an “Opposition to Motion for Leave to File . . .” was filed by the Capitol Police Board. The Board strongly discourages “last minute” and “supplemental” filings not contemplated in a scheduling order unless a particularly compelling cause for it is demonstrated. Such a compelling cause has not been established in this matter. The Office of the General Counsel’s Motion for Leave to File is DENIED, and the Board does not consider any arguments or submissions therein.
