9052 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 32 / Wednesday, February 16, 2011 / Notices 

Reservation (Ruby and Brown 

1986:179). However, many Samish 

chose to remain in their old village sites. 

In 1996, the Samish Indian Tribe was rerecognized by the Federal Government. 

Officials of the University of 

Washington, Department of 

Anthropology, have determined, 

pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), that the 

human remains described above 

represent the physical remains of one 

individual of Native American ancestry. 

Lastly, officials of the Washington State 

Department of Natural Resources and 

the University of Washington, 

Department of Anthropology, have 

determined, pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 

3001(2), that there is a relationship of 

shared group identity that can be 

reasonably traced between the Native 

American human remains and the 

Lummi Tribe of the Lummi Reservation, 

Washington; Samish Indian Tribe, 

Washington; and the Swinomish 

Indians of the Swinomish Reservation, 

Washington. 

Representatives of any other Indian 

tribe that believes itself to be culturally 

affiliated with the human remains 

should contact Maurice Major, Cultural 

Resource Specialist, Washington State 

Department of Natural Resources; PO 

Box 47000, 1111 Washington St. SE., 

Olympia, WA 98504–7000, telephone 

(360) 902–1298, before March 18, 2011. 

Repatriation of the human remains to 

the Samish Indian Tribe, Washington, 

may proceed after that date if no 

additional claimants come forward. 

The Washington State Department of 

Natural Resources is responsible for 

notifying the Lummi Tribe of the 

Lummi Reservation, Washington; 

Samish Indian Tribe, Washington; and 

the Swinomish Indians of the 

Swinomish Reservation, Washington, 

that this notice has been published. 

Dated: February 11, 2011. 

David Tarler, 

Acting Manager, National NAGPRA Program. 

[FR Doc. 2011–3522 Filed 2–15–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4312–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Notice of Lodging of Consent Decree 

Under the Clean Air Act 

Notice is hereby given that on 

February 10, 2011 a proposed Consent 

Decree (‘‘proposed Decree’’) in United 

States v. CEMEX, Inc. and CEMEX 

Construction Materials Atlantic, LLC, 

Civil Action No. 3:11–cv–00037, was 

lodged with the United States District 

Court for the Southern District of Ohio. 

In this action under Sections 113(b) 

and 167 of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 

7413(b) and 7477, the United States 

seeks injunctive relief and civil 

penalties for violations of the 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

(‘‘PSD’’) provisions of the Clean Air Act, 

42 U.S.C. 7470–7492, and the PSD 

regulation incorporated into the 

federally enforceable Ohio State 

Implementation Plan (‘‘Ohio SIP’’), and 

Title V of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 

7661–7661f, and Title V’s implementing 

federal and Ohio regulations, at a 

portland cement manufacturing plant 

located in Greene County, Ohio. 

The proposed Decree resolves the 

United States’ claims against CEMEX, 

Inc. and CEMEX Construction Materials 

Atlantic, LLC (‘‘Defendants’’) by 

requiring Defendants to install and 

operate appropriate emission controls at 

their kiln, and requires Defendants to 

pay a civil penalty of $1,400,000, twothirds of which will go to the United 

States and one-third of which will go to 

the Plaintiff Intervener, the State of 

Ohio. 

The Department of Justice will 

receive, for a period of thirty (30) days 

from the date of this publication, 

comments relating to the proposed 

Consent Decree. Comments should be 

addressed to the Assistant Attorney 

General, Environment and Natural 

Resources Division, and either e-mailed 

to pubcomment-ees.enrd@usdoj.gov or 

mailed to P.O. Box 7611, U.S. 

Department of Justice, Washington, DC 

20044–7611, and should refer to United 

States v. CEMEX, Inc. and CEMEX 

Construction Materials Atlantic, LLC, 

D.J. Ref. No. 90–5–2–1–08990. 

The proposed Decree may be 

examined at the office of the United 

States Attorney for the Southern District 

of Ohio, Room 602, Federal Building, 

200 West Second Street, Dayton, Ohio 

45402, and at the United States 

Environmental Protection Agency 

(Region 5) Records Center, Room 714, 

77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, 

Illinois 60604. During the public 

comment period, the proposed Decree 

may also be examined on the following 

Department of Justice Web site: http:// 

www.usdoj.gov/enrd/ 

ConsentDecrees.html. A copy of the 

proposed Decree may also be obtained 

via U.S. mail by making a written 

request to the Consent Decree Library, 

P.O. Box 7611, U.S. Department of 

Justice, Washington, DC 20044–7611, or 

by faxing or e-mailing a request to Tonia 

Fleetwood (tonia.fleetwood@usdoj.gov), 

fax number (202) 514–0097 (phone 

confirmation number (202) 514–1547). 

In requesting a copy from the Consent 

Decree Library, please enclose a check 

in the amount of $17.75 (25 cents per 

page reproduction cost) payable to the 

U.S. Treasury or, if requesting by e-mail 

or fax, please forward a check in that 

amount to the Consent Decree Library at 

the stated address. 

Maureen Katz, 

Assistant Chief, Environmental Enforcement 

Section, Environment and Natural Resources 

Division. 

[FR Doc. 2011–3473 Filed 2–15–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–15–P 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Comment Request for Information 

Collection for the Unemployment 

Insurance (UI) Facilitation of Claimant 

Reemployment Employment and 

Training Administration 9047 Report, 

Extension Without Revision 

AGENCY: Employment and Training 

Administration (ETA). 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Labor, as 

part of its continuing effort to reduce 

paperwork and respondent burden, 

conducts a preclearance consultation 

program to provide the general public 

and Federal agencies with an 

opportunity to comment on proposed 

and/or continuing collections of 

information in accordance with the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(PRA95) [44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)]. This 

program helps to ensure that the 

requested data can be provided in the 

desired format, reporting burden (time 

and financial resources) is minimized, 

collection instruments are clearly 

understood, and the impact of collection 

requirements on respondents can be 

properly assessed. Currently, the 

Employment and Training 

Administration is soliciting comments 

concerning the collection of data about 

the proposed extension of the UI 

Facilitation of Claimant Reemployment 

(current expiration date is July 31, 

2011). 

A copy of the proposed information 

collection request (ICR) can be obtained 

by contacting the office listed below in 

the addressee section of this notice. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

submitted to the office listed in the 

addressee’s section below on or before 

April 18, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments to 

Andrew W. Spisak, Office of Workforce 

Security, Employment and Training 

Administration, U. S. Department of 

Labor, Room S–4519, 200 Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210; 

telephone: 202–693–3196 (this is not a 

toll-free number); fax: 202–693–3975; email: spisak.andrew@dol.gov. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 32 / Wednesday, February 16, 2011 / Notices 9053 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

Required by Congress under the 

Government Performance and Results 

Act of 1993 (GPRA), the Department’s 

Strategic Plan is an integral part of the 

budget process. Among the purposes of 

the GPRA are to improve Federal 

program effectiveness and public 

accountability by focusing on program 

results, service quality, and customer 

satisfaction. 

Outcome Goal 1.3 in the Department’s 

fiscal year (FY) 2011—2016 Strategic 

Plan—Help workers who are in lowwage jobs or out of the labor market find 

a path into middle-class jobs—focuses 

on improving the operational 

performance and effectiveness of the 

federal/state UI program. This goal is 

supported in part by the performance 

measure: 

Percent of UI claimants reemployed by the 

end of the first quarter after the quarter in 

which they received their first payment. 

ETA collects the data to measure the 

facilitation of reemployment of UI 

benefit recipients through the ETA 9047 

report. OMB approved the Department’s 

request to begin collecting UI 

reemployment data through the ETA 

9047 report on July 26, 2005. This data 

collection was renewed in 2008 through 

July 31, 2011. 

ETA has also included UI 

reemployment as a performance 

measure for UI Performs, the 

Department of Labor’s performance 

management system. Per UI Program 

Letter (UIPL) No. 17–08 (May 14, 2008), 

Acceptable Levels of Performance 

(ALP)—the minimum performance 

criteria for UI Performs Core Measures— 

are set annually for each state. The ALPs 

take into account the state’s total 

unemployment rate and the percentage 

of UI claimants who are exempt from 

active work search or Employment 

Service registration requirements 

because they are job attached. Analyses 

of the data indicate that UI 

reemployment is strongly related to 

these two factors. 

Data Collection 

Each calendar quarter, states report on 

the ETA 9047 report separate counts for 

individuals receiving their first UI 

payments who are exempt from work 

search/employment service registration 

(‘‘exempt’’), in most cases because they 

are job-attached with definite recall 

dates, and those who must conduct 

work search or register with the 

employment service (‘‘nonexempt’’). 

States also report on the ETA 9047 

report the number of those first payment 

recipients for whom intrastate or out-ofstate employers reported wages in the 

subsequent quarter. States obtain these 

counts by running computer 

crossmatches of the Social Security 

Numbers (SSNs) of the claimants who 

received a first UI payment with the UI 

wage records for the subsequent 

calendar quarter. ETA issued 

instructions on obtaining out-of-state 

reemployment data through matching 

the SSNs of UI first payment recipients 

with UI wage records in the National 

Directory of New Hires in UIPL No. 1– 

06, Change 1 (August 2, 2006). 

UI Reemployment GPRA and UI 

Performs Measures 

The UI reemployment GPRA and UI 

Performs measures are defined as the 

percentage of all UI claimants receiving 

a first payment in a calendar quarter 

who were paid wages in the following 

calendar quarter that appear in UI wage 

records. 

ETA believes that this measure 

encourages the agencies that administer 

UI–which share responsibility with all 

Workforce Investment partners in 

facilitating the reemployment of UI 

beneficiaries—to be innovative in the 

steps they take to facilitate these 

individuals’ reemployment. 

The following table summarizes 

GPRA targets and performance for the 

UI reemployment measure. 

GPRA TARGETS AND PERFORMANCE

Goal and indicator FY 2010 target FY 2010 actual FY 2011 target FY 2012 target 

Facilitate Reemployment: 58.6% 53.1%* 54.4% 56.40% 

Percent of UI claimants who were reemployed by the 

end of the first quarter after the quarter in which they 

received their first payment.

* Based on UI reemployment for the period July 2009 to June 2010, which is the most recent data available. 

ETA’s analyses of the UI 

reemployment data show that state 

performance in reemployment of UI 

benefit recipients is influenced by forces 

outside the control of the agency 

administering the state UI law, most 

notably by the economic conditions in 

the state, as measured by the total 

unemployment rate, and the percent of 

UI benefit recipients that are on 

temporary layoff, as measured by the 

percent of claimants who are not 

required to search for work or register 

with the state employment service. State 

ALPs for the UI Performs Core Measure 

reflect state-specific data for these two 

factors. State ALPs and performance for 

the performance period January to 

December 2009 are available at http:// 

www.oui.doleta.gov/unemploy/pdf/ 

alp.pdf. 

II. Review Focus 

The Department of Labor is 

particularly interested in comments 

which: 

• 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. 

III. Current Actions 

Type of Review: Extension without 

change. 

Title: Unemployment Insurance 

Facilitation of Claimant Reemployment. 

OMB Number: 1205–0452. 

Affected Public: State Workforce 

Agencies (SWAs). 

Form: ETA 9047 Reemployment of UI 

Benefit Recipients. 

Total Annual Respondents: 53 SWAs. 

Annual Frequency: Quarterly. 

Total Annual Responses: 212 per year 

(53 SWAs × 4 quarterly reports per 

year). 

Average Time per Response: 10 hours. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

9054 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 32 / Wednesday, February 16, 2011 / Notices 

Estimated Total Annual Burden 

Hours: 2,120 hours. 

Total Annual Burden Cost for 

Respondents: $86,517 (approximately 

$1,633 per SWA). This is an established 

data collection for which no changes are 

proposed; there are no startup costs. 

Comments submitted in response to 

this request 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: February 10, 2011. 

Jane Oates, 

Assistant Secretary, Employment and 

Training Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2011–3469 Filed 2–15–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–FT–P 

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION 

National Science Board; Sunshine Act 

Meetings; Impromptu Notice of Change 

(Addition of Agenda Item) 

The National Science Board’s (NSB) 

Audit & Oversight (A&O) Committee, 

pursuant to NSF regulations (45 CFR 

part 614), the NSF Act, as amended (42 

U.S.C. 1862n–5), and the Government in 

the Sunshine Act (5 U.S.C. 552b), 

hereby gives notice of an Impromptu 

Change in regard to the addition of an 

agenda item that will be discussed 

during the closed session of the A&O 

Committee meeting scheduled for 

February 16, 2011, at 9:15 a.m., as 

follows: 

ORIGINAL DATE AND TIME: No change. 

SUBJECT MATTER (AGENDA ITEM ADDED): 5 

minute update on Cyber issues at NSF. 

STATUS: No change. 

LOCATION: No change. 

UPDATES AND POINT OF CONTACT: Please 

refer to the National Science Board Web 

site http://www.nsf.gov/nsb for 

additional information and schedule 

updates (time, place, subject matter or 

status of meeting) may be found at 

http://www.nsf.gov/nsb/notices/. Point 

of contact for this meeting is: Jennie 

Moehlmann, National Science 

Foundation, 4201 Wilson Blvd., 

Arlington, VA 22230. Telephone: (703) 

292–7000. 

Daniel A. Lauretano, 

Counsel to the National Science Board. 

[FR Doc. 2011–3585 Filed 2–14–11; 11:15 am] 

BILLING CODE 7555–01–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[NRC–2009–0187] 

Notice of Availability of Final 

Environmental Impact Statement for 

the AREVA Enrichment Services LLC 

Proposed Eagle Rock Enrichment 

Facility in Bonneville County, ID 

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice of Availability of Final 

Environmental Impact Statement. 

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that 

the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC) has published the 

Final Environmental Impact Statement 

(EIS) for the AREVA Enrichment 

Services LLC (AES) Proposed Eagle 

Rock Enrichment Facility (EREF). On 

December 30, 2008, AES submitted a 

license application to the NRC that 

proposes the construction, operation, 

and decommissioning of a gas 

centrifuge-based uranium enrichment 

facility on a presently undeveloped site 

near Idaho Falls in Bonneville County, 

Idaho (the ‘‘proposed action’’). This 

application is for a license to possess 

and use byproduct material, source 

material, and special nuclear material at 

the proposed uranium enrichment 

facility. The application included an 

Environmental Report (ER) regarding 

the proposed action. 

AES subsequently submitted revisions 

to the license application on April 23, 

2009 (Revision 1), and April 30, 2010 

(Revision 2), which included ER 

Revision 1 and ER Revision 2, 

respectively. License application 

Revision 1 addresses the expansion of 

the proposed EREF to increase its 

production capacity from 3.3 million 

Separative Work Units (SWUs) per year 

to 6.6 million SWUs per year; and ER 

Revision 1 includes information on the 

environmental impacts of the proposed 

6.6-million-SWU-per-year EREF. 

Revision 2 to the license application 

and the ER incorporates into Revision 1 

additional information that AES 

previously provided the NRC in 

response to NRC staff requests for 

additional information for its safety and 

environmental reviews, as well as 

supplemental information on a 

proposed electrical transmission line 

required to power the proposed EREF. 

On June 17, 2009, AES submitted a 

request for an exemption from certain 

NRC regulations so that it could 

commence certain preconstruction 

activities (e.g., site preparation) on the 

proposed EREF site prior to the NRC’s 

decision on whether to grant or deny a 

license. On March 17, 2010, the NRC 

granted an exemption authorizing AES 

to conduct the requested 

preconstruction activities. 

The Final EIS is being issued as part 

of the NRC’s process to decide whether 

to issue a license to AES, pursuant to 

Title 10 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations (10 CFR) parts 30, 40, and 

70, to construct and operate the 

proposed uranium enrichment facility. 

Specifically, AES proposes to use gas 

centrifuge technology to enrich the 

uranium-235 isotope found in natural 

uranium to concentrations up to 5 

percent by weight. The enriched 

uranium would be used to manufacture 

nuclear fuel for commercial nuclear 

power reactors. In the Final EIS, the 

NRC staff assessed the potential 

environmental impacts from the 

preconstruction, construction, 

operation, and decommissioning of the 

proposed EREF project. 

The Final EIS was prepared in 

compliance with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as 

amended (NEPA), and the NRC’s 

regulations for implementing NEPA in 

10 CFR part 51. The NRC staff assessed 

the impacts of the proposed action on 

land use, historic and cultural 

resources, visual and scenic resources, 

air quality, geology and soils, water 

resources, ecological resources, noise, 

transportation, public and occupational 

health, waste management, 

socioeconomics, and environmental 

justice. Additionally, the NRC staff 

analyzed and compared the benefits and 

costs of the proposed action. In 

preparing this Final EIS, the NRC staff 

also reviewed, considered, evaluated, 

and addressed the public comments 

received on the Draft EIS. 

In addition to the proposed action, the 

NRC staff considered the no-action 

alternative and other alternatives. Under 

the no-action alternative, the NRC 

would deny AES’s request to construct 

and operate a uranium enrichment 

facility at the EREF site. The no-action 

alternative serves as a baseline for 

comparison of the potential 

environmental impacts of the proposed 

action. Other alternatives the NRC staff 

considered but eliminated from further 

analysis include: (1) Alternative sites for 

the EREF; (2) alternative sources of 

enriched uranium; and (3) alternative 

technologies for uranium enrichment. 

These alternatives were eliminated from 

further analysis due to economic, 

environmental, national security, 

technological maturity, or other reasons. 

The Final EIS also discusses alternatives 

for the disposition of depleted uranium 

hexafluoride (UF6) resulting from 

enrichment operations over the lifetime 

of the proposed EREF. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES