52704 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 176 / Wednesday, September 10, 2008 / Notices 

58For the same reasons, I find unpersuasive the 

August 13, 2008 letter from Respondent’s President. 

59Respondent raises a plethora of claims that the 

Agency or its personnel have violated its rights 

under the First and Fifth Amendments, as well as 

statutory provisions including the Administrative 

Procedure Act, the Data Quality Act, and 21 U.S.C. 

880. See Resp. Br. at 114–39. For example, 

Respondent asserts that the DIs violated its First 

Amendment rights and engaged in a prior restraint 

because they refused to allow its executives to 

videotape them as they reviewed Respondent’s 

records. See id. at 116. It also alleges that a DI 

committed an assault and battery during the 

inspection when he grabbed a video recorder from 

the hands of one of its executives who was 

attempting to set up the camera in order to tape the 

investigators while they reviewed Respondent’s 

records. 

While in my order denying Respondent’s 

interlocutory appeal, I adhered to settled Agency 

precedent that the exclusionary rule does not apply 

in these proceedings, ALJ Ex. 13, at 3; Respondent 

now contends that I should discount the testimony 

of two DIs who participated in the inspection to 

deter future violations. Indeed, Respondent even 

contends that I should discount the testimony of 

these DIs based on the alleged assault and battery 

of the third DI, who did not testify at the hearing. 

Having considered the legal and factual bases for 

each of Respondent’s claims, I conclude that none 

of them presents a substantial question as to the 

fundamental fairness of this proceeding and none 

warrants further discussion. 

continue, RX 10, at 1, is a sham and not 

a legitimate effort to control diversion. 

Respondent’s failure to enforce its 

own policies provides reason alone to 

conclude that it cannot be trusted to 

adhere to compliance conditions. This 

conclusion is further supported by 

Respondent’s sustained and flagrant 

violations of Federal law, as well as its 

attempt to circumvent the suspension 

order. Indeed, as Respondent’s history 

amply demonstrates, its professed 

commitment to ‘‘teamwork’’ and ‘‘to 

become a compliance model for the 

entire industry,’’ Resp. Ex. at 139, 

cannot be taken seriously.58 I therefore 

conclude that imposing compliance 

conditions would not adequately protect 

the public interest, and reject the ALJ’s 

recommendation.59

Order 

Pursuant to the authority vested in me 

by 21 U.S.C. 823(h) & 824(a), as well as 

28 CFR 0.100(b) & 0.104, I order that 

DEA Certificate of Registration, 

003563NSY, issued to Novelty 

Distributors, D/B/A/ Greenfield Labs, 

be, and it hereby is, revoked. I further 

order that any pending application of 

Novelty Distributors, D/B/A Greenfield 

Labs, for renewal of its registration, be, 

and it hereby is, denied. This order is 

effective immediately. 

Dated: September 3, 2008. 

Michele M. Leonhart, 

Deputy Administrator. 

[FR Doc. E8–21035 Filed 9–9–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–09–P 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Office of the Secretary; Submission for 

OMB Review: Comment Request 

September 5, 2008. 

The Department of Labor (DOL) 

hereby announces the submission of the 

following public information collection 

requests (ICR) to the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) for 

review and approval in accordance with 

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(Pub. L. 104–13, 44 U.S.C. chapter 35). 

A copy of each ICR, with applicable 

supporting documentation; including 

among other things a description of the 

likely respondents, proposed frequency 

of response, and estimated total burden 

may be obtained from the RegInfo.gov 

Web site at http://www.reginfo.gov/ 

public/do/PRAMain or by contacting 

Darrin King on 202–693–4129 (this is 

not a toll-free number)/e-mail: 

DOL_PRA_PUBLIC@dol.gov. 

Interested parties are encouraged to 

send comments to the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs, 

Attn: OMB Desk Officer for the 

Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration (OSHA), Office of 

Management and Budget, Room 10235, 

Washington, DC 20503, Telephone: 

202–395–7316/Fax: 202–395–6974 

(these are not toll-free numbers), E-mail: 

OIRA_submission@omb.eop.gov within 

30 days from the date of this publication 

in the Federal Register. In order to 

ensure the appropriate consideration, 

comments should reference the OMB 

Control Number (see below). 

The OMB 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. 

Agency: Occupational Safety and 

Health Administration. 

Type of Review: Extension without 

change of a previously approved 

collection. 

Title of Collection: Slings (29 CFR 

1910.184). 

OMB Control Number: 1218–0223. 

Affected Public: Private Sector. 

Estimated Number of Respondents: 

1,000,000. 

Estimated Total Annual Burden 

Hours: 17,760. 

Estimated Total Annual Costs Burden: 

$0. 

Description: The provisions of the 

standard require that the employer make 

a periodic inspection of alloy steel chain 

slings at least once a year and to make 

and maintain a record of the inspection. 

It also requires the employer to ensure 

that each new, repaired or 

reconditioned alloy steel chain sling is 

proof tested and a certification record 

maintained. In addition, the standard 

requires the employer to maintain a 

record of the proof test on wire rope 

slings. For additional information, see 

related 60-day preclearance notice 

published at 73 FR 35412 on June 23, 

2008. PRA documentation prepared in 

association with the preclearance notice 

is available on http:// 

www.regulations.gov under docket 

number OSHA 2008–0020. 

Agency: Occupational Safety and 

Health Administration. 

Type of Review: Extension without 

change of a previously approved 

collection. 

Title of Collection: Forging Machines 

(29 CFR 1910.218). 

OMB Control Number: 1218–0228. 

Affected Public: Private Sector. 

Estimated Number of Respondents: 

27,700. 

Estimated Total Annual Burden 

Hours: 187,264. 

Estimated Total Annual Costs Burden: 

$0. 

Description: The Standard requires 

employers to establish periodic 

inspections of forging machines, guards, 

and point-of-operation protection 

devices and to mark manually 

controlled valves and switches. These 

requirements reduce employees’ risk of 

death or serious injury by ensuring that 

forging machines used by them are in 

safe operating condition, and that they 

are able to identify manually operated 

valves and switches. For additional 

information, see related 60-day 

preclearance notice published at 73 FR 

35414 on June 23, 2008. PRA 

documentation prepared in association 

with the preclearance notice is available 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 176 / Wednesday, September 10, 2008 / Notices 52705 

on http://www.regulations.gov under 

docket number OSHA 2008–0018. 

Darrin A. King, 

Departmental Clearance Officer. 

[FR Doc. E8–20983 Filed 9–9–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–26–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[NRC–2008–0486] 

NRC Enforcement Policy: Extension of 

Discretion Period of Interim 

Enforcement Policy 

AGENCY: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission. 

ACTION: Policy statement: Revision. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC) is revising the NRC 

‘‘Interim Enforcement Policy Regarding 

Enforcement Discretion for Certain Fire 

Protection Issues’’ (Title 10 of the Code 

of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) 50.48 

‘‘Fire Protection’’), which will allow a 

licensee the option to request an 

extended enforcement discretion period 

if they are pursuing transition to 10 CFR 

50.48(c), ‘‘National Fire Protection 

Association Standard NFPA 805.’’

DATES: This revision is effective 

September 10, 2008. Please submit any 

comments on this revision to the 

Enforcement Policy on or before October 

27, 2008. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

by any one of the following methods. 

Comments submitted in writing or in 

electronic form will be made available 

for public inspection. Because your 

comments will not be edited to remove 

any identifying or contact information, 

the NRC cautions you against including 

any information in your submission that 

you do not want to be publicly 

disclosed. 

Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov and search 

for documents filed under Docket ID 

[NRC–2008–0486]. Address questions 

about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher, 

301–415–5905; e-mail 

Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov. 

Mail comments to: Michael T. Lesar, 

Chief, Rulemaking, Directives, and 

Editing Branch, Division of 

Administrative Services, Office of 

Administration, Mail Stop: T6D59, U.S. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 

Washington, DC 20555–0001. 

Hand deliver comments to: 11555 

Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852, 

between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m., on 

Federal workdays. 

You can access publicly available 

documents related to this document 

using the following methods: 

NRC’s Public Document Room (PDR): 

The public may examine and have 

copied for a fee publicly available 

documents at the NRC’s PDR, Public 

File Area O1 F21, One White Flint 

North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, 

Maryland. 

NRC’s Agencywide Documents Access 

and Management System (ADAMS): 

Publicly available documents created or 

received at the NRC are available 

electronically at the NRC’s Electronic 

Reading Room at http://www.nrc.gov/ 

reading-rm/adams.html. From this page, 

the public can gain entry into ADAMS, 

which provides text and image files of 

NRC’s public documents. If you do not 

have access to ADAMS or if there are 

problems in accessing the documents 

located in ADAMS, contact the NRC’s 

PDR reference staff at 1–800–397–4209, 

301–415–4737, or by e-mail to 

pdr.resource@nrc.gov. 

The NRC maintains the current 

Enforcement Policy on its Web site at 

http://www.nrc.gov. Mouse over ‘‘Public 

Meetings and Involvement’’ on the far 

right, then select ‘‘Enforcement’’ from 

the drop-down menu. Under the bolded 

‘‘Comments’’ section select 

‘‘Enforcement Policy’’. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Cynthia Carpenter, Director, Office of 

Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Washington, DC 20555–

0001, 301–415–2741, e-mail 

Cynthia.Carpenter@nrc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On June 

16, 2004 (69 FR 33536), the NRC 

published a final rule in the Federal 

Register amending 10 CFR 50.48, ‘‘Fire 

Protection.’’ This rule became effective 

July 16, 2004 and allows licensees to 

adopt 10 CFR 50.48(c), a risk-informed, 

performance-based alternative to their 

current fire protection requirements in 

10 CFR 50.48(b). The NRC revised its 

Enforcement Policy (June 16, 2004; 69 

FR 33684) to provide interim 

enforcement discretion during a 

‘‘transition’’ period. The interim 

enforcement discretion policy includes 

provisions to address the 

noncompliance identified during the 

licensee’s transition process and 

existing identified noncompliances. 

The discretion period would start 

when the licensee informs the NRC of 

a transition start date in a Letter of 

Intent (LOI) to transition to the National 

Fire Protection Association Standard 

805 (NFPA 805). The discretion period 

would remain in effect for up to two 

years for the licensee to submit to the 

NRC a License Amendment Request 

(LAR) to transition to NFPA 805, and 

the discretion period would continue 

until the NRC dispositioned the LAR. 

Many licensees requested 3 or more 

years for the transition period. The basis 

for the extended discretion included the 

following: (1) The need for additional 

time to properly evaluate existing fire 

analysis; (2) a lack of resources; (3) the 

need for additional time to develop fire 

probabilistic risk assessments (PRAs); 

and (4) the need for additional time to 

use lessons learned from the pilot 

plants. On April 18, 2006 (71 FR 19905), 

the NRC revised the Interim 

Enforcement Policy to extend the 

enforcement discretion period from two 

to three years. 

On February 2, 2007, the Nuclear 

Energy Institute (NEI) submitted a 

request for additional discretion for sites 

transitioning to NFPA 805 (Agencywide 

Documents Access and Management 

System (ADAMS) Accession No. 

ML070460550). NEI stated that the 

extension of the enforcement discretion 

period would allow an orderly 

transition process. 

NEI states transitioning licensees are 

compelled to complete portions of the 

transition in advance of the pilot plants 

due to the enforcement discretion 

deadline. This could result in creating 

substantial risk of rework and 

inconsistency among the transitioning 

licensees. The following issues formed 

the base for NEI’s request that the staff 

reexamine the Interim Enforcement 

Policy: 

(1) Timing of the pilots schedule 

versus the nonpilot plant discretion 

deadline. 

(2) Delay of the industry fire PRA 

standard and the NEI peer review 

guidance. 

(3) Limited fire PRA expertise 

available. 

(4) Burden on NRC staff to conduct 

timely reviews of concurrent LARs. 

The NRC is revising the Enforcement 

Policy to extend, on a case-by-case 

basis, the current 3-year enforcement 

discretion period. The NRC will grant 

additional time extensions depending 

on the progress the licensee has made in 

the transition effort. The additional 

period of discretion would end 6 

months after the date of the safety 

evaluation approving the second pilot 

plant LAR review. 

Nuclear safety is the first 

consideration in any request for 

additional enforcement discretion. NRC 

requires all transitioning licensees to 

fully maintain their approved fire 

protection program. Transitioning 

licensees must address all 

nonconforming conditions with 

adequate compensatory measures to 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES