Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 142 / Monday, July 25, 2011 / Notices 44373 

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 

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) 

(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 


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 

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. 

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. 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES