24990 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 87 / Thursday, May 6, 2010 / Notices 

12See United States v. Enova Corp., 107 F. Supp. 

2d 10, 17 (D.DC 2000) (noting that the ‘‘Tunney Act 

expressly allows the court to make its public 

interest determination on the basis of the 

competitive impact statement and response to 

comments alone’’); United States v. Mid-Am. 

Dairymen, Inc., 1977–1 Trade Cas. (CCH) ¶ 61,508, 

at 71,980 (W.D. Mo. 1977) (‘‘Absent a showing of 

corrupt failure of the government to discharge its 

duty, the Court, in making its public interest 

finding, should * * * carefully consider the 

explanations of the government in the competitive 

impact statement and its responses to comments in 

order to determine whether those explanations are 

reasonable under the circumstances.’’); S. Rep. No. 

93–298, 93d Cong., 1st Sess., at 6 (1973) (‘‘Where 

the public interest can be meaningfully evaluated 

simply on the basis of briefs and oral arguments, 

that is the approach that should be utilized.’’). 

of Tunney Act proceedings.’’ SBC 

Commc’ns, 489 F. Supp. 2d at 11.12

IX. Determinative Documents 

There are no determinative materials 

or documents within the meaning of the 

APPA that were considered by the 

United States in formulating the 

proposed Final Judgment. 

Dated: April 27, 2010 

Respectfully submitted, 

l/s/l 

lllllllllllllllllll

Angela L. Hughes, (DC Bar #3034210), 

Trial Attorney, U.S. Department of 

Justice, Antitrust Division, 

Transportation, Energy, and, 

Agriculture, 450 5th Street, NW; Suite 

8000, Washington, DC 20530, 

Telephone: 202/307–6410, Facsimile: 

202/307–2784, E-mail: 

angela.hughes@usdoj.gov 

[FR Doc. 2010–10474 Filed 5–5–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Employment and Training 

Administration 

Proposed Information Collection for 

the Evaluation of the CommunityBased Job Training Grants; Comment 

Request 

AGENCY: Employment and Training 

Administration. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Labor, as 

part of its continuing effort to reduce 

paperwork and respondent burden 

conducts a pre-clearance 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 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 

on a new data collection for the 

Evaluation of the Community-Based Job 

Training Grants. 

A copy of the proposed information 

collection request can be obtained by 

contacting the office listed below in the 

addressee section of this notice or by 

accessing: http://www.doleta.gov/ 

OMBCN/OMBControlNumber.cfm. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

submitted to the office listed in the 

addressee’s section below on or before 

July 6, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: Submit written comments 

to the Employment and Training 

Administration, Room N–5641, 200 

Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, 

DC 20210, Attention: Garrett Groves, 

Telephone number: 202–693–3684 (this 

is not a toll-free number), Fax number: 

202–693–2766. E-mail: 

Groves.Garrett@DOL.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

The Community-Based Job Training 

Grants (CBJTG) program is sponsored by 

ETA as an investment in building the 

capacity of community colleges to train 

workers in the skills required to succeed 

in high-growth, high-demand industries. 

CBJTG provides grants for the 

development and implementation of 

industry-specific job training programs 

at community colleges to meet the 

workforce needs of industry, including 

health care, energy, and advanced 

manufacturing, among others. Over 200 

grants were issued from 2005 through 

2008 in three rounds of grant 

competition, with a fourth round of 

grants awarded in early 2009. Grant 

recipients are primarily community and 

technical colleges, although in the later 

rounds of grants, some community 

college districts, State community 

college systems and organizations and 

agencies within the public workforce 

investment system were awarded grants. 

ETA has contracted with the Urban 

Institute, a non-profit, non-partisan, 

research organization based in 

Washington, DC, to conduct an 

evaluation of the CBJTG program. The 

evaluation will mainly be based on data 

collected through a survey of grant 

recipients as well as a review of grant 

documents and exploratory site visits to 

a small number of grant projects. The 

survey data collected through this effort 

are the main data source for this study 

and will provide a comprehensive 

picture of the different grant-funded 

projects and identify grant 

implementation issues to date. 

The survey will be administered to all 

grantees receiving awards in the first 

three rounds. To reduce respondent 

burden, the survey will be administered 

in a Web-based format that allows for 

automatic skip patterns. Grantees will 

also have the option to complete and 

return a paper version. Survey data will 

be complemented by data collected 

through ETA’s existing quarterly 

reporting system to avoid any 

duplication and further reduce reporting 

burden for respondents. The survey will 

gather data on grantee organization type, 

size, and structure, project design and 

objectives, recruitment efforts and target 

populations, training and other program 

activities, capacity-building activities, 

partners’ contributions and activities, 

and plans for sustaining programming 

and leveraging resources. 

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 submissions 

of responses. 

III. Current Actions 

Type of Review: New. 

Agency: Employment and Training 

Administration. 

Title: Evaluation of the CommunityBased Job Training Grants. 

OMB Number: 1205–0NEW. 

Record Keeping: N/A. 

Affected Public: Community-Based 

Job Training Grantees. 

Total Respondents: 190. 

Frequency: Once. 

Total Annual Responses: 190. 

Average Time per Response: 40 

minutes. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 87 / Thursday, May 6, 2010 / Notices 24991 

Estimated Total Burden Hours: 126.67 

hours. 

Total Burden Cost: The estimated 

total burden cost is $4,862.89 as shown 

below: 

Category 

Estimated 

number of 

respondents 

Total hours Median hourly 

wage 

Total 

annualized 

cost 

Postsecondary education administrators (95.3 percent of respondents) ........ 181 120.67 $38.79 $4,680.79 

Local government social and community service managers (4.7 percent of 

respondents) ................................................................................................ 9 6.00 30.35 182.10

Total .......................................................................................................... ........................ 126.67 ........................ 4,862.89 

Comments submitted in response to 

this comment 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. 

Signed: At Washington, DC this 30th day 

of April, 2010. 

Jane Oates, 

Assistant Secretary, Employment and 

Training Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2010–10603 Filed 5–5–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[Docket No.: 70–1257; License No.: SNM– 

1227; EA–09–272] 

In the Matter of AREVA NP, Inc.; 

Confirmatory Order (Effective 

Immediately) [NRC–2010–0172] 

I 

AREVA NP, Inc. (AREVA or Licensee) 

is the holder of Materials License No. 

SNM–1227 issued by the Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission (NRC or 

Commission) pursuant to 10 CFR Part 

70. The license in effect at the time of 

the incident described below was most 

recently amended via Amendment 49, 

issued on July 9, 2007. The NRC 

renewed Materials License No. SNM– 

1227, effective April 24, 2009. The 

license authorizes the operation of the 

AREVA NP facility in accordance with 

the conditions specified therein. The 

facility is located at the AREVA site in 

Richland, Washington. 

This Confirmatory Order is the result 

of an agreement reached during an 

alternative dispute resolution (ADR) 

mediation session conducted on March 

9, 2010. 

II 

On September 23, 2009, the NRC’s 

Office of Investigations (OI) completed 

an investigation (OI Case No. 2–2009– 

025) regarding activities at the AREVA 

facility located in Richland, 

Washington. Based on the evidence 

developed during the investigation, the 

NRC staff concluded that on April 21, 

2009, Item Relied On For Safety (IROFS) 

1111, an electronic eye sensor known as 

the vacuum wand interlock, was 

deliberately bypassed by an employee 

and made to work by using tape. These 

actions violated Standard Operating 

Procedure (SOP) 40486, ‘‘Richland 

Operations General Rules,’’ Version 

16.0, Section 7.0 which states that 

‘‘interlocks, limit switches and any other 

safety-related equipment are never to be 

bypassed, made to work by using tape 

or other material, or adjusted by anyone 

except for a defined purpose and in 

accordance with an approved 

procedure.’’ As a result, IROFS 1111 was 

not available and reliable as required by 

10 CFR 70.61(e). 

III 

On March 9, 2010, the NRC and 

AREVA met in an ADR session 

mediated by a professional mediator, 

which was arranged through Cornell 

University’s Institute on Conflict 

Resolution. ADR is a process in which 

a neutral mediator with no decisionmaking authority assists the parties in 

reaching an agreement or resolving any 

differences regarding their dispute. This 

confirmatory order is issued pursuant to 

the agreement reached during the ADR 

process. The elements of the agreement 

consist of the following: 

1. The NRC and AREVA agreed that 

the incident that occurred on April 21, 

2009, as described in NRC’s January 6, 

2010, letter, constituted a violation of 

SOP 40486, and that the operator’s 

actions were deliberate. The NRC and 

AREVA also agreed that, although the 

vacuum wand interlock IROFS was 

disabled, sufficient system IROFS 

remained in service to perform the 

intended safety function for identified 

accident scenarios. 

2. Based on AREVA’s review of the 

incident and NRC concerns associated 

with precluding recurrence of the 

violation, AREVA completed the 

following corrective actions and 

enhancements: 

a. The equipment was returned to 

normal operation and safety function 

was verified; 

b. The employee was immediately 

relieved of duties pending an 

investigation; 

c. A charter was established and a 

root cause investigation was performed; 

d. Although not reportable, AREVA 

notified the NRC of the incident in a 

timely manner; 

e. Disciplinary action was 

administered in accordance with 

company policies; 

f. AREVA Richland management held 

stand down meetings with all Richland 

employees to reinforce obligations with 

respect to willful misconduct, 

procedural compliance, potential event 

repercussions, personal accountability, 

problem reporting, open 

communications, opportunities for 

employees to raise issues and other 

discussion topics; 

g. Lessons learned from this incident 

were communicated internally and to 

all other AREVA U.S. Special Nuclear 

Material (SNM) licensed facilities 

within the AREVA U.S. fuel 

organization; 

h. AREVA conducted an extent of 

condition review with operators in all 

product centers and determined that the 

incident was isolated; and 

i. Safety Conscious Work 

Environment (SCWE) training was 

conducted for employees at all AREVA 

SNM licensed facilities within the 

AREVA U.S. fuel organization. 

3. In addition to the actions 

completed by AREVA as discussed 

above, AREVA agreed to additional 

corrective actions and enhancements, as 

fully delineated below in Section V of 

this Confirmatory Order. 

4. AREVA agreed to complete the 

items listed in Section V within 12 

months of issuance of this Confirmatory 

Order. 

5. Within three months of completion 

of the terms of this Confirmatory Order, 

AREVA will provide the NRC with a 

letter discussing its basis for concluding 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES