Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 206 / Wednesday, October 26, 2005 / Notices 61845 

II. Desired Focus of Comments 

Currently, the Mine Safety and Health 

Administration (MSHA) is soliciting 

comments concerning the proposed 

extension of the information collection 

related to the Record of Mine Closure 

addressed in 30 CFR 75.1204 and 

75.1204–1; the inclusion of standards 

requiring MSHA notification and 

inspection prior to mining when 

opening a new mine or reopening an 

inactive or abandoned mine addressed 

in 30 CFR 75.373 and 75.1721; and, the 

inclusion of standards requiring 

underground and surface mine 

operators to prepare and maintain 

accurate and up-to-date mine maps 

addressed in 30 CFR 75.1200, 75.1200–

1, 75.1201, 75.1202, 75.1202–1, 75.1203, 

75,372, 77.1200, 77.1201 and 77.1202. 

MSHA 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 

other forms of information technology, 

e.g., permitting electronic submissions 

of responses. 

A copy of the proposed information 

collection request can be obtained by 

contacting the employee listed in the 

ADDRESES section of this notice, or 

viewed on the Internet by accessing the 

MSHA home page (http:// 

www.msha.gov) and then choosing 

‘‘Statutory and Regulatory Information’’

and ‘‘Federal Register Documents.’’

III. Current Actions 

Mine operators are required to 

conduct surveying such that mine maps 

are maintained accurate and up-to-date, 

the maps must be revised every 6 

months and certified accurate by a 

registered engineer or surveyor and to 

submit copies of the certified 

underground maps to MSHA annually 

and an up-to-date and revised mine 

closure map whenever an operator 

permanently closes or abandons a coal 

mine, or temporarily closes a coal mine 

for a period of more than 90 days, he or 

she shall promptly notify the Secretary 

of such closure. 

In addition, mine operators must 

notify MSHA so that an inspection can 

be conducted whenever a new mine is 

opened or a previously abandoned or 

inactive mine is reopened. The 

information required to be gathered and 

recorded on mine maps is essential to 

the safe operation of the mine and 

essential to the effectiveness of 

mandatory inspections and mandated 

mine plan approval by MSHA. Such 

information cannot be replaced by any 

other source and anything less than 

continuously updated and accurate 

information would place miner’s safety 

at risk. 

The information collected through the 

submittal of mine closure maps is used 

by operators of adjacent coal mines 

when approaching abandoned 

underground mines. The abandoned 

mine could be flooded with water or 

contain explosive amounts of methane 

or harmful gases. If the operator were to 

mine into such an area, unaware of the 

hazards, miners could be killed or 

seriously injured. In addition, it is in the 

public interest to maintain permanent 

records of the locations, extent of 

workings and potential hazards 

associated with abandoned mines. The 

public safety can be adversely affected 

by future land usage where such 

hazards are not known or inaccurately 

assessed. MSHA collects the closure 

maps and provides those documents to 

the Office of Surface Mining, 

Reclamation & Enforcement for 

inclusion in a repository of abandoned 

mine maps. Therefore, MSHA is 

continuing the certification and 

application of 30 CFR 75.1204 to assure 

the required information remains 

available for the protection of miner’s 

and public safety. In addition, MSHA 

has added the burden hours and cost 

estimates for standards which address 

the preparation and maintenance of 

certified mine maps for surface and 

underground coal mines and the 

notification of MSHA prior to the 

opening of new coal mines or the 

reopening of inactive or abandoned 

mines. 

Type of Review: Extension. 

Agency: Mine Safety and Health 

Administration. 

Title: Preparation and Maintenance of 

Accurate and Up-to-date Certified Mine 

Maps for Surface and Underground Coal 

Mines; Submittal of Underground Mine 

Closure Maps; and Notification of 

MSHA Prior to Opening New Mines or 

the Reopening of Inactive or Abandoned 

Mines. 

OMB Number: 1219–0073. 

Recordkeeping: Annual or on 

occasion. 

Affected Public: Business or other forprofit. 

Number of Responses: 1,586. 

Number of Respondents: 1,586. 

Total Burden Hours: 15,936. 

Total Burden Cost (capital/startup): 

None. 

Total Burden Cost (operating/ 

maintaining): $18,292,611. 

Comments submitted in response to 

this notice will be summarized and/or 

included in the request for Office of 

Management and Budget approval of the 

information collection request; they will 

also become a matter of public record. 

Dated at Arlington, Virginia, this 18th day 

of October, 2005. 

David L. Meyer, 

Director of Administration and Management. 

[FR Doc. 05–21358 Filed 10–25–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–43–P 

MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION 

BOARD 

[MSPB Docket No. DA–1221–05–0320–W–1] 

Opportunity To File Amicus Briefs in 

William A. Wilcox v. International 

Boundary and Water Commission 

AGENCY: Merit Systems Protection 

Board. 

ACTION: The Merit Systems Protection 

Board is providing interested parties 

with an opportunity to submit amicus 

briefs on whether the Board has 

jurisdiction to review an individual 

right of action (IRA) appeal from an 

employee, former employee, or 

applicant for employment of the 

International Boundary and Water 

Commission. 

SUMMARY: 

Background 

The appellant in Wilcox v. 

International Boundary and Water 

Commission, MSPB Docket No. DA–

1221–05–0320–W–1, filed an IRA 

appeal alleging that the agency 

retaliated against him for protected 

disclosures he made while employed as 

Legal Advisor/General Counsel, GG–15, 

with the agency. The administrative 

judge dismissed the appeal for lack of 

jurisdiction. She found that the U.S. 

Section of the agency is a subdivision of 

an international organization and that 

its hiring authority derives from a 1944 

Treaty, not from the provisions of U.S.C. 

Title 5. She found that the right to bring 

an IRA appeal derives from 5 U.S.C. 

1221(a). She thus concluded that the 

appellant was not an employee entitled 

61846 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 206 / Wednesday, October 26, 2005 / Notices 

to file an IRA appeal. The appellant has 

filed a petition for review arguing that 

the Board has jurisdiction over his 

appeal. The agency has filed a response 

opposing the petition. 

Question To Be Resolved 

This appeal raises the question of 

whether the Board has appellate 

jurisdiction to review an IRA appeal 

from an employee, former employee, or 

applicant for employment of the 

International Boundary and Water 

Commission. 

Issues To Be Considered in Resolving 

the Question Posed 

Title 5 of the United States Code, 

section 1221(a) provides that an 

employee, former employee, or 

applicant for employment may, with 

respect to any personnel action taken, or 

proposed to be taken * * * as a result 

of a prohibited personnel practice 

described in section 2302(b)(8), seek 

corrective action from the Merit Systems 

Protection Board. Section 2302(a)(2)(A) 

defines ‘‘personnel action’’ as various 

types of employment-related actions 

‘‘with respect to an employee in, or 

applicant for, a covered position in an 

agency.’’ Section 2302(2)(C) in turn 

defines an ‘‘agency’’ to mean, inter alia, 

‘‘an Executive agency.’’ For purposes of 

title 5, ‘‘Executive agency’’ means an 

Executive department, a Government 

corporation, and an independent 

establishment. 5 U.S.C. 105. An 

‘‘independent establishment’’ means, 

inter alia, an establishment in the 

executive branch ‘‘which is not an 

Executive department, military 

department, Government corporation, or 

part thereof, or part of an independent 

establishment.’’ 5 U.S.C. 104. 

The appellant in this case argues that 

the U.S. Section of the International 

Boundary and Water Commission is 

‘‘entirely a creature of the United 

States,’’ operates as a separate federal 

agency, is an ‘‘independent 

establishment’’ within the meaning of 5 

U.S.C. 104, and is not subject to 

international control. In contrast, the 

administrative judge found that the 

International Boundary and Water 

Commission is a subdivision of an 

‘‘international organization’’ under 22 

U.S.C. 277, 288. 

Finally, we note that the U.S. Court of 

Appeals for the Federal Circuit and the 

Merit Systems Protection Board have 

not questioned IRA jurisdiction over the 

International Boundary and Water 

Commission in previous decisions. See, 

e.g., Mestan v. International Boundary 

and Water Commission, 95 Fed. Appx. 

1012 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (non-precedential); 

White v. International Boundary and 

Water Commission, 59 M.S.P.R. 62 

(1993). 

DATES: All briefs in response to this 

notice shall be filed with the Clerk of 

the Board on or before November 25, 

2005. 

ADDRESSES: All briefs shall include the 

case name and docket number noted 

above (Wilcox v. International Boundary 

and Water Commission) and be entitled 

‘‘Amicus Brief.’’ Briefs should be filed 

with the Office of the Clerk, Merit 

Systems Protection Board, 1615 M 

Street, NW., Washington, DC 20419. 

Respondents are encouraged to file by 

facsimile transmittal at (202) 653–7130. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Matthew Shannon, Deputy Clerk of the 

Board, or Melissa Jurgens, Counsel to 

the Clerk, at (202) 653–7200. 

Dated: October 20, 2005. 

Bentley M. Roberts, Jr., 

Clerk of the Board. 

[FR Doc. 05–21388 Filed 10–25–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7400–01–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[Docket Nos. 50–62 and 50–396] 

Notice of License Terminations for 

University of Virginia Research 

Reactor (UVAR) and University of 

Virginia Cooperatively Assembled 

Virginia Low Intensity Educational 

Reactor (CAVALIER) 

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC) is noticing the 

termination of Facility Operating 

License No. R–66 for the UVAR and 

Facility Operating License No. R–123 

for the CAVALIER. 

The NRC has terminated the license of 

the decommissioned UVAR, in the 

reactor facility on the UVA campus in 

Charlottesville, Virginia, and has 

released the site for unrestricted use. 

The licensee requested termination of 

the license in a letter to NRC dated June 

18, 2004. The UVAR was a 2-MWthermal, light-water-moderated, -cooled, 

and -reflected reactor fueled with platetype fuel. It was licensed and first 

operated in June 1960. The reactor was 

permanently shut down on June 30, 

1998. The licensee submitted a 

decommissioning plan to NRC for 

review and approval in a letter dated 

February 9, 2000, updated by letter 

dated April 26, 2000, and supplemented 

by letters on December 19, 2000, and 

May 4 and May 11, 2001. The NRC 

approved the UVAR decommissioning 

plan by Amendment No. 26 to the 

Facility Operating License No. R–66 on 

March 26, 2002. 

The NRC has also terminated the 

license of the decommissioned 

CAVALIER, which was in the same 

reactor facility on the UVA campus in 

Charlottesville, Virginia, and has 

released the site for unrestricted use. 

The licensee requested termination of 

the license in an April 4, 2003 letter to 

NRC. The request for termination was 

affirmed by letter dated September 26, 

2005. The CAVALIER was a 100-MWthermal, light-water-moderated, -cooled, 

and -reflected reactor fueled with platetype fuel. It was licensed and first 

operated in October 1974. The licensee 

submitted a decommissioning plan by 

letter February 26, 1990, and 

supplemented the plan on June 17, 

1991. The NRC Commission issued an 

Order Authorizing Dismantling of 

Facility and Disposition of Component 

Parts for the CAVALIER, Facility 

Operating License No. R–123, on 

February 3, 1992. 

A Notice and Solicitation of 

Comments Pursuant to 10 CFR 20.1405 

and 10 CFR 50.82(b)(5) Concerning 

Proposed Action To Decommission the 

University of Virginia, University of 

Virginia Research Reactor appeared in 

the Federal Register on December 6, 

2001 (65 FR 17684). All comments 

received were considered by the staff 

during the review of the UVAR 

decommissioning plan for Facility 

Operating License No. R–66. 

A Notice of Proposed Issuance of 

Orders Disposition of Component Parts 

and Terminating Facility License 

appeared in the Federal Register on 

April 22, 1991 (56 FR 16350). No 

request for a hearing or petition for 

leave to intervene was filed following 

notice of the proposed action 

concerning Facility Operating License 

No. R–123. 

The NRC completed its review of the 

April 2004 UVAR Final Status Survey 

Report submitted to NRC by letter dated 

June 18, 2004, and the March 2003 

Evaluation of Radiological 

Characterization Results Relative to the 

Termination of NRC License No. R–123 

dated, March 2003, submitted by letter 

dated April 4, 2003. Both reports 

documented the level of residual 

radioactivity remaining at the facility 

and stated that compliance with the 

criteria in the NRC-approved 

decommissioning plan for both reactors 

has been demonstrated. 

Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.82(b)(6), the 

NRC staff has concluded that both 

reactors have been decommissioned in 

accordance with the approved 

decommissioning plans and that the 

terminal radiation surveys and