Notice of Opportunity To File Amicus Briefs, 44373-44374 [2011-18647]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 142 / Monday, July 25, 2011 / Notices
contaminants, physical hazards, and
biological agents. The Standard contains
requirements for program
administration; a written respiratorprotection program with worksitespecific procedures; respirator selection;
worker training; fit testing; medical
evaluation; respirator use; respirator
cleaning, maintenance, and repair; and
other provisions.
This information collection is subject
to the PRA. A Federal agency generally
cannot conduct or sponsor a collection
of information, and the public is
generally not required to respond to an
information collection, unless it is
approved by the OMB under the PRA
and displays a currently valid OMB
Control Number. In addition,
notwithstanding any other provisions of
law, no person shall generally be subject
to penalty for failing to comply with a
collection of information if the
collection of information does not
display a valid OMB control number.
See 5 CFR 1320.5(a) and 1320.6. The
DOL obtains OMB approval for this
information collection under OMB
Control Number 1218–0099. The current
OMB approval is scheduled to expire on
July 31, 2011; however, it should be
noted that information collections
submitted to the OMB receive a monthto-month extension while they undergo
review. For additional information, see
the related notice published in the
Federal Register on March 14, 2011 (76
FR 13668).
Interested parties are encouraged to
send comments to the OMB, Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs at
the address shown in the ADDRESSES
section within 30 days of publication of
this notice in the Federal Register. In
order to help ensure appropriate
consideration, comments should
reference OMB Control Number 1205–
0268. The OMB is particularly
interested in comments that:
• Evaluate whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary
for the proper performance of the
functions of the agency, including
whether the information will have
practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the
agency’s estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information,
including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and
clarity of the information to be
collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the
collection of information on those who
are to respond, including through the
use of appropriate automated,
electronic, mechanical, or other
technological collection techniques or
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:15 Jul 22, 2011
Jkt 223001
other forms of information technology,
e.g., permitting electronic submission of
responses.
Agency: Occupational Safety and
Health Administration (OSHA).
Title of Collection: Respiratory
Protection Standard.
OMB Control Number: 1218–0099.
Affected Public: Private Sector—
Businesses or other for-profits.
Total Estimated Number of
Respondents: 618,804.
Total Estimated Number of
Responses: 21,486,375.
Total Estimated Annual Burden
Hours: 6,801,711.
Total Estimated Annual Other Costs
Burden: $185,578,935.
Dated: July 19, 2011.
Michel Smyth,
Departmental Clearance Officer.
[FR Doc. 2011–18602 Filed 7–22–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–26–P
MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION
BOARD
Notice of Opportunity To File Amicus
Briefs
AGENCY: Merit Systems Protection Board
(MSPB or Board).
ACTION: Notice.
SUMMARY: The Board announces the
opportunity to file amicus briefs in the
matters of James C. Latham v. U.S.
Postal Service, MSPB Docket Number
DA–0353–10–0408–I–1, Ruby N. Turner
v. U.S. Postal Service, MSPB Docket
Number SF–0353–10–0329–I–1,
Arleather Reaves v. U.S. Postal Service,
MSPB Docket Number CH–0353–10–
0823–I–1, Cynthia E. Lundy v. U.S.
Postal Service, MSPB Docket Number
AT–0353–11–0369–I–1, and Marcella
Albright v. U.S. Postal Service, MSPB
Docket Number DC–0752–11–0196–I–1.
The Office of Personnel
Management’s regulation at 5 CFR
353.301(d) requires the agency to ‘‘make
every effort’’ to restore a partially
recovered employee to limited duty
within the local commuting area. The
regulation explains that ‘‘[a]t a
minimum, this would mean treating
these employees substantially the same
as other [disabled] individuals under
the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.’’ The
Board has interpreted this regulation as
requiring agencies to search within the
local commuting area for vacant
positions to which an agency can restore
a partially recovered employee and to
consider the employee for any such
vacancies. Sanchez v. U.S. Postal
Service, 114 M.S.P.R. 345, ¶ 12 (2010)
PO 00000
Frm 00075
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
44373
(citing Sapp v. U.S. Postal Service, 73
M.S.P.R. 189, 193–94 (1997)).
Conversely, the Board has found that
this regulation does not require an
agency to assign a partially recovered
employee limited duties that do not
comprise the essential functions of a
complete and separate position. Brunton
v. U.S. Postal Service, 114 M.S.P.R. 365,
¶ 14 (2010) (citing Taber v. Department
of the Air Force, 112 M.S.P.R. 124, ¶ 14
(2009)).
However, it appears that the U.S.
Postal Service may have established an
agency-specific rule providing partially
recovered employees with greater
restoration rights than the ‘‘minimum’’
rights described in 5 CFR 353.301(d).
See generally Drumheller v. Department
of the Army, 49 F.3d 1566, 1574 (Fed.
Cir. 1995) (agencies are required to
follow their own regulations).
Specifically, the U.S. Postal Service’s
Employee and Labor Relations Manual
(ELM) § 546.142(a) requires the agency
to ‘‘make every effort toward assigning
[a partially recovered current employee]
to limited duty consistent with the
employee’s medically defined work
limitation tolerance.’’ One of the
appellants has submitted evidence to
show that U.S. Postal Service Handbook
EL–505, Injury Compensation §§ 7.1–7.2
provides that limited duty assignments
‘‘are designed to accommodate injured
employees who are temporarily unable
to perform their regular functions’’ and
consist of whatever available tasks the
agency can identify for partially
recovered individuals to perform
consistent with their medical
restrictions. Latham v. U.S. Postal
Service, MSPB Docket No. DA–0353–
10–0408–I–1, Initial Appeal File, Tab
21, Subtab 7. It therefore appears that
the agency may have committed to
providing medically suitable work to
partially recovered employees
regardless of whether that work
comprises the essential functions of a
complete and separate position. Indeed,
the Board is aware of one arbitration
decision explaining that, as a product of
collective bargaining, the agency revised
the ELM in 1979 to afford partially
recovered employees the right to
restoration to ‘‘limited duty’’ rather than
to ‘‘established jobs.’’ In re Arbitration
between U.S. Postal Service and
National Association of Letter Carriers,
Case No. E06N–4E–C 09370199, 16
(2010) (Eisenmenger, Arb.). The Board is
also aware of a large number of other
recent cases challenging the
discontinuation of limited duty
assignments under the National
Reassessment Process in which the
arbitrators ruled in favor of the grievants
E:\FR\FM\25JYN1.SGM
25JYN1
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
44374
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 142 / Monday, July 25, 2011 / Notices
on the basis that the agency’s actions
violated the ELM. E.g., In re Arbitration
between U.S. Postal Service and
National Association of Letter Carriers,
Case No. G06N–4G–C 10205542 (2011)
(Sherman, Arb.); In re Arbitration
between U.S. Postal Service and
National Association of Letter Carriers,
Case No. E06N–4E–C 09419348 (2010)
(Duffy, Arb.); In re Arbitration between
U.S. Postal Service and National
Association of Letter Carriers, Case No.
F06N–4F–C 09221797 (2010) (Monat,
Arb.); In re Arbitration between U.S.
Postal Service and National Association
of Letter Carriers, Case No. B01N–4B–C
06189348 (2010) (LaLonde, Arb.).
The appellants in the above-captioned
appeals have all raised similar
arguments before the Board pertaining
to alleged violations of their restoration
rights under the ELM. The Board,
however, has not yet addressed the
implications of ELM § 546.142(a) on
restoration appeals of partially
recovered U.S. Postal Service employees
under 5 CFR 353.304(c).
The above-captioned appeals thus
present the following legal issues: (1)
May a denial of restoration be ‘‘arbitrary
and capricious’’ within the meaning 5
CFR 353.304(c) solely for being in
violation of the ELM, i.e., may the Board
have jurisdiction over a restoration
appeal under that section merely on the
basis that the denial of restoration
violated the agency’s own internal rules;
and (2) what is the extent of the
agency’s restoration obligation under
the ELM, i.e., under what circumstances
does the ELM require the agency to offer
a given task to a given partially
recovered employee as limited duty
work?
Interested parties may submit amicus
briefs or other comments on these issues
no later than August 24, 2011. Amicus
briefs must be filed with the Clerk of the
Board. Briefs shall not exceed 30 pages
in length. The text shall be doublespaced, except for quotations and
footnotes, and the briefs shall be on 81⁄2
by 11 inch paper with one inch margins
on all four sides.
DATES: All briefs submitted in response
to this notice shall be filed with the
Clerk of the Board on or before August
24, 2011.
ADDRESSES: All briefs shall be captioned
‘‘James C. Latham, et al. v. U.S. Postal
Service’’ and entitled ‘‘Amicus Brief.’’
Only one copy of the brief need be
submitted. Briefs must be filed with the
Office of the Clerk of the Board, Merit
Systems Protection Board, 1615 M
Street, NW., Washington, DC 20419.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Matthew Shannon, Office of the Clerk of
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:15 Jul 22, 2011
Jkt 223001
the Board, Merit Systems Protection
Board, 1615 M Street, NW., Washington,
DC 20419; (202) 653–7200;
mspb@mspb.gov.
William D. Spencer,
Clerk of the Board.
[FR Doc. 2011–18647 Filed 7–22–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7400–01–P
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[Docket No. 040–06394; NRC–2008–0523]
Environmental Assessment and
Finding of No Significant Impact for
License Amendment to Source
Materials License; Department of the
Army
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory
Commission.
ACTION: Notice of availability.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Dennis Lawyer, Health Physicist,
Commercial and R&D Branch, Division
of Nuclear Materials Safety, Region I,
475 Allendale Road, King of Prussia,
Pennsylvania 19406. Telephone: 610–
337–5366; fax number: 610–337–5269;
e-mail: Dennis.Lawyer@nrc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Introduction
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) is considering the
issuance of a license amendment to
Source Materials License No. SMB–141.
This license is held by the Department
of the Army, U.S. Army Research,
Development and Engineering
Command (ARDEC), Army Research
Laboratory (ARL) (the Licensee), for its
U.S. Army Research Laboratory facility
(the Facility) located at the Aberdeen
Proving Ground (APG), Maryland.
Issuance of the amendment would
authorize release of a portion of the
Facility, specifically the Building 1103A
area, for unrestricted use. The Licensee
requested this action in a letter dated
March 31, 2010. The NRC has prepared
an Environmental Assessment (EA) in
support of this proposed action in
accordance with the requirements of
Title 10 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (10 CFR), Part 51. Based on
the EA, the NRC has concluded that a
Finding of No Significant Impact
(FONSI) is appropriate with respect to
the proposed action. The amendment
will be issued to the Licensee following
the publication of this FONSI and EA in
the Federal Register.
PO 00000
Frm 00076
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
II. Environmental Assessment
Identification of Proposed Action
The proposed action would approve
the Licensee’s March 31, 2010, license
amendment request, resulting in release
of the Building 1103A area for
unrestricted use. License No. SMB–141
was issued on April 12, 1961, pursuant
to 10 CFR Part 40, and has been
amended periodically since that time.
This license authorized the Licensee to
use uranium and thorium for purposes
of conducting research and
development activities; fabrication,
modification, and testing of
components, parts, and/or devices; and
munitions testing.
The Building 1103A area is a former
radioactive material processing and
storage facility on Spesutie Island at
APG. Historical activities at the
Building 1103A area involved the
unloading of depleted uranium
contaminated targets in a central asphalt
area; storage and staging of the targets in
one of three vaults; cutting and
machining of the targets; and storage
and reloading of the resulting steel
pieces in preparation for
decontamination, disposal, or reuse.
The Building 1103A area occupies an
area of about 36,600 square feet, of
which 7,000 square feet is comprised of
buildings.
In August 2009, the Licensee ceased
licensed activities at the Building 1103A
area and initiated a survey and
decontamination of the Building 1103A
area. Based on the Licensee’s historical
knowledge of the site and the conditions
of the Building 1103A area, the Licensee
determined that a decommissioning
plan was required. The
decommissioning plan was submitted
and was approved in License
Amendment #30, issued on November
20, 2008, (Agencywide Document
Access and Management System
[ADAMS] Accession No.
ML083260281). In accordance with their
NRC-approved decommissioning plan
(ADAMS Accession Numbers
ML081550541, ML081550549,
ML081550553, ML081550557, and
ML081550561), the Licensee performed
cleanup activities. The Licensee then
conducted surveys of the Building
1103A Area and provided information
to the NRC to demonstrate that the
Building 1103A Area meets the criteria
in Subpart E of 10 CFR Part 20 for
unrestricted release.
Need for the Proposed Action
The Licensee has ceased conducting
licensed activities at the Building 1103A
area, and seeks the unrestricted use of
the Building 1103A area.
E:\FR\FM\25JYN1.SGM
25JYN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 142 (Monday, July 25, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 44373-44374]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-18647]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD
Notice of Opportunity To File Amicus Briefs
AGENCY: Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB or Board).
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Board announces the opportunity to file amicus briefs in
the matters of James C. Latham v. U.S. Postal Service, MSPB Docket
Number DA-0353-10-0408-I-1, Ruby N. Turner v. U.S. Postal Service, MSPB
Docket Number SF-0353-10-0329-I-1, Arleather Reaves v. U.S. Postal
Service, MSPB Docket Number CH-0353-10-0823-I-1, Cynthia E. Lundy v.
U.S. Postal Service, MSPB Docket Number AT-0353-11-0369-I-1, and
Marcella Albright v. U.S. Postal Service, MSPB Docket Number DC-0752-
11-0196-I-1.
The Office of Personnel Management's regulation at 5 CFR 353.301(d)
requires the agency to ``make every effort'' to restore a partially
recovered employee to limited duty within the local commuting area. The
regulation explains that ``[a]t a minimum, this would mean treating
these employees substantially the same as other [disabled] individuals
under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.'' The Board has interpreted this
regulation as requiring agencies to search within the local commuting
area for vacant positions to which an agency can restore a partially
recovered employee and to consider the employee for any such vacancies.
Sanchez v. U.S. Postal Service, 114 M.S.P.R. 345, ] 12 (2010) (citing
Sapp v. U.S. Postal Service, 73 M.S.P.R. 189, 193-94 (1997)).
Conversely, the Board has found that this regulation does not require
an agency to assign a partially recovered employee limited duties that
do not comprise the essential functions of a complete and separate
position. Brunton v. U.S. Postal Service, 114 M.S.P.R. 365, ] 14 (2010)
(citing Taber v. Department of the Air Force, 112 M.S.P.R. 124, ] 14
(2009)).
However, it appears that the U.S. Postal Service may have
established an agency-specific rule providing partially recovered
employees with greater restoration rights than the ``minimum'' rights
described in 5 CFR 353.301(d). See generally Drumheller v. Department
of the Army, 49 F.3d 1566, 1574 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (agencies are required
to follow their own regulations). Specifically, the U.S. Postal
Service's Employee and Labor Relations Manual (ELM) Sec. 546.142(a)
requires the agency to ``make every effort toward assigning [a
partially recovered current employee] to limited duty consistent with
the employee's medically defined work limitation tolerance.'' One of
the appellants has submitted evidence to show that U.S. Postal Service
Handbook EL-505, Injury Compensation Sec. Sec. 7.1-7.2 provides that
limited duty assignments ``are designed to accommodate injured
employees who are temporarily unable to perform their regular
functions'' and consist of whatever available tasks the agency can
identify for partially recovered individuals to perform consistent with
their medical restrictions. Latham v. U.S. Postal Service, MSPB Docket
No. DA-0353-10-0408-I-1, Initial Appeal File, Tab 21, Subtab 7. It
therefore appears that the agency may have committed to providing
medically suitable work to partially recovered employees regardless of
whether that work comprises the essential functions of a complete and
separate position. Indeed, the Board is aware of one arbitration
decision explaining that, as a product of collective bargaining, the
agency revised the ELM in 1979 to afford partially recovered employees
the right to restoration to ``limited duty'' rather than to
``established jobs.'' In re Arbitration between U.S. Postal Service and
National Association of Letter Carriers, Case No. E06N-4E-C 09370199,
16 (2010) (Eisenmenger, Arb.). The Board is also aware of a large
number of other recent cases challenging the discontinuation of limited
duty assignments under the National Reassessment Process in which the
arbitrators ruled in favor of the grievants
[[Page 44374]]
on the basis that the agency's actions violated the ELM. E.g., In re
Arbitration between U.S. Postal Service and National Association of
Letter Carriers, Case No. G06N-4G-C 10205542 (2011) (Sherman, Arb.); In
re Arbitration between U.S. Postal Service and National Association of
Letter Carriers, Case No. E06N-4E-C 09419348 (2010) (Duffy, Arb.); In
re Arbitration between U.S. Postal Service and National Association of
Letter Carriers, Case No. F06N-4F-C 09221797 (2010) (Monat, Arb.); In
re Arbitration between U.S. Postal Service and National Association of
Letter Carriers, Case No. B01N-4B-C 06189348 (2010) (LaLonde, Arb.).
The appellants in the above-captioned appeals have all raised
similar arguments before the Board pertaining to alleged violations of
their restoration rights under the ELM. The Board, however, has not yet
addressed the implications of ELM Sec. 546.142(a) on restoration
appeals of partially recovered U.S. Postal Service employees under 5
CFR 353.304(c).
The above-captioned appeals thus present the following legal
issues: (1) May a denial of restoration be ``arbitrary and capricious''
within the meaning 5 CFR 353.304(c) solely for being in violation of
the ELM, i.e., may the Board have jurisdiction over a restoration
appeal under that section merely on the basis that the denial of
restoration violated the agency's own internal rules; and (2) what is
the extent of the agency's restoration obligation under the ELM, i.e.,
under what circumstances does the ELM require the agency to offer a
given task to a given partially recovered employee as limited duty
work?
Interested parties may submit amicus briefs or other comments on
these issues no later than August 24, 2011. Amicus briefs must be filed
with the Clerk of the Board. Briefs shall not exceed 30 pages in
length. The text shall be double-spaced, except for quotations and
footnotes, and the briefs shall be on 8\1/2\ by 11 inch paper with one
inch margins on all four sides.
DATES: All briefs submitted in response to this notice shall be filed
with the Clerk of the Board on or before August 24, 2011.
ADDRESSES: All briefs shall be captioned ``James C. Latham, et al. v.
U.S. Postal Service'' and entitled ``Amicus Brief.'' Only one copy of
the brief need be submitted. Briefs must be filed with the Office of
the Clerk of the Board, Merit Systems Protection Board, 1615 M Street,
NW., Washington, DC 20419.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Matthew Shannon, Office of the Clerk
of the Board, Merit Systems Protection Board, 1615 M Street, NW.,
Washington, DC 20419; (202) 653-7200; mspb@mspb.gov.
William D. Spencer,
Clerk of the Board.
[FR Doc. 2011-18647 Filed 7-22-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7400-01-P
