4260 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 14 / Friday, January 23, 2009 / Notices 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

Sunshine Federal Register Notice 

AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETINGS: Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission. 

DATES: Week of January 26, 2009. 

PLACE: Commissioners’ Conference 

Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, 

Maryland. 

STATUS: Public and Closed. 

ADDITIONAL ITEMS TO BE CONSIDERED: 

Week of January 26, 2009 

Tuesday, January 27, 2009 

1:25 p.m. 

Affirmation Session (Public Meeting) 

(Tentative). 

a. Shieldalloy Metallurgical 

Corporation (License Amendment 

Request for Decommissioning of the 

Newfield, New Jersey Facility) 

(Tentative). 

This meeting will be Webcast live at 

the Web address—http://www.nrc.gov. 

*The schedule for Commission 

meetings is subject to change on short 

notice. To verify the status of meetings, 

call (recording)—(301) 415–1292. 

Contact person for more information: 

Rochelle Bavol, (301) 415–1651. 

The NRC Commission Meeting 

Schedule can be found on the Internet 

at: http://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/policymaking/schedule.html. 

The NRC provides reasonable 

accommodation to individuals with 

disabilities where appropriate. If you 

need a reasonable accommodation to 

participate in these public meetings, or 

need this meeting notice or the 

transcript or other information from the 

public meetings in another format (e.g., 

braille, large print), please notify the 

NRC’s Disability Program Coordinator, 

Rohn Brown, at 301–492–2279, TDD: 

301–415–2100, or by e-mail at 

rohn.brown@nrc.gov. Determinations on 

requests for reasonable accommodation 

will be made on a case-by-case basis. 

This notice is distributed by mail to 

several hundred subscribers; if you no 

longer wish to receive it, or would like 

to be added to the distribution, please 

contact the Office of the Secretary, 

Washington, DC 20555 (301–415–1969). 

In addition, distribution of this meeting 

notice over the Internet system is 

available. If you are interested in 

receiving this Commission meeting 

schedule electronically, please send an 

electronic message to 

darlene.wright@nrc.gov. 

Dated: January 16, 2009. 

Rochelle C. Bavol, 

Office of the Secretary. 

[FR Doc. E9–1554 Filed 1–21–09; 4:15 pm] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[NRC–2009–0013] 

Safety Culture Policy Statement 

Development: Public Meeting and 

Request for Public Comments 

AGENCY: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC). 

ACTION: Notice of Public Meeting and 

request for comments. 

SUMMARY: The NRC is developing an 

update to its policy statement on safety 

culture to include the unique aspects of 

security and to ensure that the policy 

applies to all licensees and certificate 

holders. The NRC is conducting a public 

meeting to solicit public input on topics 

relating to the development of the 

policy statement. In addition to 

announcing the public meeting, the 

NRC is using this notice to request 

comments on the topics discussed in 

this notice. These topics can be found 

in section D (Topics for Discussion) of 

the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. 

DATES:

Public Meeting Dates: The NRC will 

take public comments at the public 

meeting on January 28, 2009. 

Comment Dates: Comments are 

requested by February 11, 2009. 

Comments received after this date will 

be considered if it is practical to do so, 

but the NRC is able to assure 

consideration only for comments 

received on or before this date. The NRC 

will also take public comments on the 

questions raised in this notice at a 

public meeting on January 28, 2009. 

Please refer to the SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION section for additional 

information, including the topics and 

associated questions to which NRC is 

requesting input. 

ADDRESSES: The public meeting will be 

held on January 28, 2009, in the 

auditorium of the NRC Headquarters 

building at 11545 Rockville Pike, 

Rockville, MD 20852, which is across 

the street from the White Flint Metro 

stop. The most convenient 

transportation to the meeting venue is 

via Metro since there is extremely 

limited on-street parking. Please take 

Metro to the White Flint Metro stop on 

the Red Line. Please allow time to 

register with building security and to 

check with the entry guard station for 

signs for the Safety Culture Policy 

Statement Public Meeting room as you 

enter the building. Users unable to 

travel to the NRC Headquarters may 

participate by Webinar or 

teleconference. Please see the meeting 

notice, which is posted on the NRC 

public meeting schedule Web site: 

http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/

public-meetings/index.cfm?fuseaction

=Search.Detail&MC=20080837&NS=0&

CFID=264654&CFTOKEN=94010205, for 

instructions on how to register for the 

workshop. 

After the conduct of the public 

meeting, members of the public are 

invited and encouraged to submit 

comments by February 11, 2009, by mail 

to June Cai, Concerns Resolution 

Branch, Office of Enforcement, Mail 

Stop O–4 A15A, U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission, Washington, 

DC 20555–0001, or by e-mail to 

june.cai@nrc.gov. 

To ensure efficient consideration of 

your comments, please identify the 

related topic and specific question 

numbers with your comments when 

applicable. When commenting, please 

exercise caution with regard to sitespecific security-related information. 

Comments will be made available to the 

public in their entirety. Personal 

information, such as your name, 

address, telephone number, e-mail 

address, etc., will not be removed from 

your submission. 

You can access publicly available 

documents related to this notice 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 O–1F21, 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 after November 1, 

1999, are available electronically at the 

NRC’s Electronic Reading Room at 

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/ 

adams.html. From this site, 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 PDR 

Reference staff at 1–800–397–4209, 

(301) 415–4737 or by e-mail to 

pdr.resource@nrc.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: June 

Cai, (301) 415–5192, june.cai@nrc.gov or 

Pete Hernandez, (301) 415–8319, 

pete.hernandez@nrc.gov of the Office of 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 14 / Friday, January 23, 2009 / Notices 4261 

Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Washington, DC 20555– 

0001. Public meeting attendees are 

requested to register with one of the 

meeting contacts by January 26, 2009. 

Please let the meeting contacts know if 

special services, such as for the hearing 

impaired, are necessary. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

A. Purpose of the Public Meeting: The 

purpose of this meeting is to solicit the 

views of interested stakeholders on 

topics related to safety culture that were 

provided in the Commission’s Staff 

Requirements Memoranda (SRM)– 

COMGBJ–08–0001 (ML080560476), ‘‘A 

Commission Policy Statement on Safety 

Culture,’’ dated February 25, 2008, 

which are presented in Section D, 

below. The NRC will consider the input 

received during the meeting in the 

development of the draft policy 

statement(s) addressing safety culture 

and security culture. 

B. Public Meeting Agenda: A meeting 

notice and detailed agenda are available 

on the NRC public meeting schedule 

Web site: http://www.nrc.gov/publicinvolve/public-meetings/

index.cfm?fuseaction=Search.

Detail&MC=20080837&

NS=0&CFID=264654&

CFTOKEN=94010205. The meeting 

notice has information on how to 

participate via Webinar or 

teleconference. Concurrent with the 

meeting, there will be an open house 

poster session held in the Auditorium 

atrium throughout the day to provide 

additional opportunities for attendees to 

provide input. The information 

presented at the open house will also be 

made available at the Web site listed 

above, to allow those unable to attend 

the meeting or attending through the 

Webinar or teleconference to view the 

information and have an opportunity to 

provide their input on the topics 

addressed at the open house. 

C. Background: The NRC recognizes 

the importance of licensees to establish 

and maintain a strong safety culture—a 

work environment where management 

and employees are dedicated to putting 

safety first. The Commission previously 

addressed this topic on January 24, 1989 

(54 FR 3424) in ‘‘Policy Statement on 

the Conduct of Nuclear Power Plant 

Operations’’ (http://www.nrc.gov/aboutnrc/regulatory/enforcement/ 

54fr3424.pdf)—the Commission’s policy 

statement on safety culture—where it 

described expectations for such a safety 

culture and how it supports the agency’s 

mission to protect public health and 

safety. Although the policy statement 

was issued to make clear the 

Commission’s expectation of utility 

management and licensed operators 

with respect to the conduct of nuclear 

power plant operations, the Commission 

intended for the policy statement to 

help foster the development and 

maintenance of a safety culture at every 

facility licensed by the NRC. In the 

Policy Statement, safety culture is 

described as ‘‘the necessary full 

attention to safety matters,’’ and the 

‘‘personal dedication and accountability 

of all individuals engaged in any 

activity which has a bearing on the 

safety of nuclear power plants. A strong 

safety culture is one that has a strong 

safety-first focus.’’ 

The Commission has referenced the 

International Nuclear Safety Advisory 

Group’s (INSAG) definition of safety 

culture as follows: ‘‘Safety Culture is 

that assembly of characteristics and 

attitudes in organizations and 

individuals which establishes that, as an 

overriding priority, nuclear safety issues 

receive the attention warranted by their 

significance.’’ 

On May 14, 1996, the Commission 

published its policy, ‘‘Freedom of 

Employees in the Nuclear Industry to 

Raise Safety Concerns without Fear of 

Retaliation’’ (61 FR 24336) (http:// 

www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/regulatory/ 

allegations/scwe-frn-5–14–96.pdf), 

which expressed the Commission’s 

expectation that licensees and other 

employers subject to NRC authority will 

establish and maintain a safety 

conscious environment in which 

employees feel free to raise safety 

concerns, both to their management and 

to the NRC, without fear of retaliation. 

A safety conscious work environment is 

one facet of a strong safety culture. On 

August 25, 2005, the NRC issued 

Regulatory Issue Summary 2005–018 

(ML052220239), ‘‘Guidance for 

Establishing and Maintaining a Safety 

Conscious Work Environment,’’ to 

provide guidance on maintaining a 

safety conscious work environment. 

In SRM–COMGBJ–08–0001 

(ML080560476), ‘‘A Commission Policy 

Statement on Safety Culture,’’ dated 

February 25, 2008, the Commission 

directed staff to ‘‘expand the 

Commission’s policy of safety culture to 

address the unique aspects of security 

and to ensure the resulting policy is 

applicable to all licensees and certificate 

holders,’’ and to conduct a ‘‘broad 

review of issues related to safety culture 

as part of the effort for developing the 

oversight process and for revising or 

developing additional Commission 

Policy Statement(s).’’ 

The Commission directed the staff to 

complete its evaluation, provide a 

recommendation to the Commission on 

how best to update the Commission 

policy, and provide draft policy 

statement(s) on safety culture to the 

Commission for its consideration. In its 

review, the staff should, at a minimum, 

evaluate the following key areas: 

(1) Whether safety culture as applied 

to reactors needs to be strengthened. 

(2) How to increase attention to safety 

culture in the materials area. 

(3) How stakeholder involvement can 

most effectively be used to address 

safety culture for all NRC and 

Agreement State licensees and 

certificate holders, including any 

unique aspects of security. The staff 

should, as part of its public stakeholder 

outreach, reach out to all types of 

licensees and certificate holders, 

including power reactors (including 

new reactors), research and test reactors, 

fuel facilities, spent fuel shipping and 

storage cask vendors, and the materials 

community, including industrial, 

academic, and medical users. The 

assessment should also involve outreach 

activities to Members of Congress, the 

Agreement States, and other 

stakeholders. 

(4) Whether publishing NRC’s 

expectations for safety culture and for 

security culture is best accomplished in 

one safety/security culture statement or 

in two separate statements, one each for 

safety and security, while still 

considering the safety and security 

interfaces. 

A Safety Culture Policy Statement 

Task Group and Steering Committee 

have been established to address this 

direction. The Task Group has been 

conducting review and analysis of 

various information and data sources in 

order to inform and provide the basis for 

the draft policy statement(s) and 

recommendations development. 

Examples of these sources are 

information from existing agency 

activities in the safety culture and 

security culture area and information 

and insights from relevant industry 

activities, international activities and 

organizations, and the organizational 

research literature. 

The Task Group has also been 

conducting outreach activities with 

stakeholders to raise awareness of safety 

culture and to provide information 

about this activity. The Task Group is 

holding the public meeting on January 

28, 2009, to provide opportunity for 

stakeholders to offer input on the draft 

policy statement(s) development and on 

key topics related to the Commission 

direction. 

D. Topics for Discussion 

The NRC is seeking input on key 

topics related to the direction from the 

Commission on the Safety Culture 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

4262 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 14 / Friday, January 23, 2009 / Notices 

Policy Statement development. 

Specifically, the NRC is seeking input 

on the following topics: 

1. Should NRC combine its 

expectations in the policy statement for 

safety culture and security culture or 

should NRC keep its expectations 

separate? 

2. How should NRC increase attention 

by NRC, licensees, and certificate 

holders to safety culture in the materials 

area? 

3. Does safety culture as applied to 

reactors need to be strengthened? 

Obtaining public input on these 

topics will be the focus of the January 

28, 2009, public meeting. The NRC has 

developed a series of questions relating 

to each of these topics to foster 

discussion and to solicit specific 

information relating to the Commission 

direction. Some of the questions use 

terminology such as ‘‘your 

organization,’’ but input from individual 

stakeholders who may not be part of a 

specific organization in the topic area 

are requested as well. 

The following format is used in the 

presentation of the topics below. Each 

topic is assigned a number and a short 

title, and a list of questions for 

consideration then follows. Each 

question, or set of questions, is also 

assigned a number. When providing 

written comments, please list the 

relevant topic and question numbers 

when appropriate. 

Topic 1: Should NRC combine its 

expectations in the policy statement for 

safety culture and security culture or 

should NRC keep its expectations 

separate? 

Q1.1. Within organizations, one can 

think about safety and security in 

different ways. For example, safety may 

take precedence over security, security 

may take precedence over safety, or both 

may be treated equally. Different types 

of licensees, certificate holders and 

organizations have a variety of 

experiences and perspectives. How does 

your organization view the relationship 

or hierarchy between safety and security 

functions and decision making? 

Q1.2. While efforts to maintain safety 

and security have the same common 

goal of protecting public health and 

safety, there can be distinct differences 

in the approach used to achieve that 

goal and that may have competing 

outcomes. One example is how 

information is shared to mitigate risks, 

where increased sharing of information 

may contribute to maintaining safety, 

but presents increased security risks. 

What are other examples where efforts 

to maintain safety and security require 

different approaches or result in 

competing outcomes that need to be 

addressed to achieve the desired 

outcome or goal? 

Q1.3. When resolving differences or 

conflicts while seeking to maintain 

safety and security—such as when 

managing risk, sharing information, 

planning work, correcting problems, 

etc.—and where changes or actions that 

are taken to address either a safety issue 

or a security issue could have an 

adverse effect on the other (i.e., security 

or safety, respectively); what challenges 

does your organization face? 

Q1.4. What challenges or complexities 

arise when licensees and certificate 

holders work with contractors and 

vendors where the organizations either 

take different approaches to resolving 

conflicting outcomes when they seek to 

maintain safety and security or the 

organizations may balance the 

conflicting outcomes of efforts to 

maintain safety and security differently? 

Q1.5. What practices have been used 

to effectively address the conflicts to 

achieve the desired outcomes or goals? 

Q1.6. Given that there are several 

ways to think about safety culture and 

security culture within organizations, 

the NRC wishes to express a policy in 

a way that best furthers its goals of 

protecting the public and environment 

and ensuring the secure use and 

management of radioactive materials. 

If the above issues are viewed in 

terms of safety culture and security 

culture implementation, what benefits 

or challenges would licensees, 

certificate holders, Agreement States, or 

others foresee with a single policy 

statement? Two separate policy 

statements? 

Q1.7. How can the NRC best express 

a policy that gives appropriate weight to 

safety culture and security culture 

across the range of licensees and 

certificate holders? 

Q1.8. Given the diversity among the 

licensees and certificate holders 

regulated by the NRC and the 

Agreement States, how should the 

policy statement address any differences 

in emphasis on safety and security at 

the different types of licensees and 

certificate holders? 

Topic 2: How should NRC increase 

attention by licensees and certificate 

holders to safety culture in the 

materials area? 

Q2.1. What is the NRC doing that is 

working well to help materials licensees 

and certificate holders to maintain their 

safety culture and security culture? 

Q2.2. What might the NRC do 

differently, or that it is not currently 

doing, to increase NRC, licensee, or 

certificate holder attention to safety 

culture at materials licensees and 

certificate holders? 

Q2.3. How could the NRC better 

interact with materials licensees and 

certificate holders to help them to pay 

greater attention to maintaining their 

safety culture and/or security culture? 

Q2.4. If the NRC expresses a policy for 

materials licensees and certificate 

holders to maintain safety culture and 

security culture, or made its references 

to safety culture and security culture 

more explicit in its interactions with 

these licensees and certificate holders, 

how would their performance change? 

Q2.5. What should the NRC consider 

when developing policy statement(s) on 

safety culture and security culture? 

Q2.5.1. What is the current level of 

understanding of materials licensees 

and certificate holders of the NRC’s 

expectations that they maintain a safety 

culture that is cognizant of issues 

relating to security? How does this level 

of understanding change with the type 

of licensee or certificate holder? 

Q2.5.2. How should the NRC consider 

the different activities (e.g., risk, type of 

material, quantities of materials, how 

the material is used, location, etc.) 

conducted at materials licensees and 

certificate holders when evaluating 

whether, or how, to express its policy? 

Q2.5.3. How should NRC consider 

differences in the materials licensees 

and certificate holders (e.g., size of 

workforce, relationship to activities not 

regulated by the NRC, etc.) when 

evaluating whether, or how, to express 

its policy? What differences should the 

NRC consider? 

Q2.5.4. What are the unique aspects of 

security at materials licensees and 

certificate holders that the NRC should 

consider when expressing its policy? 

Q2.5.5. What topics should be 

addressed in the policy statement(s) that 

would be of value to materials licensees 

and certificate holders? 

Q2.5.6. How could the policy 

statement(s) effectively address issues 

that involve both safety and security (at 

the safety/security interface) at materials 

licensees and certificate holders? 

Q2.5.7. How can the NRC best express 

a policy that gives appropriate weight to 

safety culture and security culture 

across the range of licensees and 

certificate holders? 

Q2.5.8. Given the diversity among the 

licensees and certificate holders 

regulated by the NRC and the 

Agreement States, how should the 

policy statement address any differences 

in emphasis on safety and security at 

the different types of licensees and 

certificate holders? 

Q2.6. How should the NRC work with 

the Agreement States to encourage 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 14 / Friday, January 23, 2009 / Notices 4263 

increased attention being focused on 

safety culture, including the unique 

aspects of security, at Agreement State 

licensees? 

Q2.6.1. What is the level of 

understanding at Agreement State 

licensees regarding the value in 

maintaining safety culture and security 

culture? 

Q2.6.2. What is the level of 

understanding of safety culture and 

security culture within the Agreement 

States? 

Q2.6.3. How do the Agreement States 

view the NRC’s goal of increasing the 

attention paid to safety culture and 

security culture at materials licensees 

and certificate holders? 

Q2.6.4 What topics do the Agreement 

States believe should be addressed in 

the policy statement(s)? 

Q2.6.5. How could the NRC help the 

Agreement States to increase attention 

to safety culture and security culture at 

their licensees? 

Q2.6.6. How should the NRC address 

safety culture and security culture at 

Agreement State licensees that engage in 

activities within NRC jurisdiction under 

reciprocity? 

Q2.6.7. How might NRC use 

stakeholder involvement to increase the 

attention that materials licensees and 

certificate holders give to maintaining a 

safety culture, including the unique 

aspects of security? 

Topic 3: Does safety culture as applied 

to reactors needs to be strengthened? 

A number of enhancements were 

made to the ROP in 2006 to address 

safety culture (for example: Safety 

culture cross-cutting aspect assignment 

to findings; identifying substantive 

cross-cutting issues; performing an 

independent NRC safety culture 

assessment for licensees in Column 4 of 

the ROP Action Matrix). 

Q3.1. What are the strengths and 

weaknesses of the current approach for 

evaluating licensee safety culture in the 

ROP? 

Q3.2. How has the use of safety 

culture cross-cutting aspects that are 

assigned to inspection findings helped 

to identify potential safety culture 

issues? Suggest any alternative 

approaches that licensees could use to 

identify potential safety culture issues. 

Q3.3. What may be better or more 

effective methods or tools that the NRC 

could use to help identify precursors to 

future plant performance deficiencies? 

Q.3.4. In the following situations the 

NRC may/or will request a licensee to 

perform a safety culture assessment 

(licensee self-assessment, independent 

assessment, or a third-party assessment): 

(a) The same substantive cross-cutting 

issue had been identified in three 

consecutive assessment letters 

(generated from assessments conducted 

at 6 month intervals); (b) a 95002 

inspection (Inspection for One Degraded 

Cornerstone or Any Three White Inputs 

in a Strategic Performance Area) that 

confirmed the licensee had not 

identified a safety culture component 

that either caused or significantly 

contributed to the risk-significant 

performance issue that resulted in the 

supplemental inspection; and (c) a plant 

enters Column 4 of the Action Matrix. 

Under what other situations should 

the NRC consider requesting that a 

licensee perform a safety culture 

assessment? 

Another ROP enhancement was for 

the NRC to perform an independent 

safety culture assessment for plants that 

enter the multiple repetitive/degraded 

cornerstone column (column 4). 

Q3.5. In what other circumstances 

might the NRC consider performing an 

independent safety culture assessment? 

Q3.6. What other entity, other than 

the NRC, could perform an independent 

safety culture assessment or simply 

verify the results of the licensee’s 

assessments and corrective actions? 

Q3.7. What additional safety culture 

related ROP changes could help the 

NRC to improve the focus of NRC and 

licensee attention on site safety culture 

issues? 

The NRC has held public meetings 

where draft changes to several ROP 

guidance documents resulting from a 

lessons learned evaluation of the initial 

implementation period of the ROP 

safety culture enhancements have been 

made available for public comment. 

Q3.8 What areas beyond the draft 

changes (for example, a provision in 

Inspection Procedure 95003 for the NRC 

to be able to conduct a graded safety 

culture assessment) presented by the 

NRC have the potential to further 

enhance how the ROP addresses safety 

culture? 

Q3.8.1. How would these potential 

changes enhance or improve how the 

NRC addresses safety culture through 

the ROP? 

Q3.9. In what ways does the current 

process lead to consistency/ 

predictability of implementation by the 

NRC? Provide examples to support your 

view. 

Q3.9.1 In what ways does it lead to 

inconsistency or unpredictability? 

Q3.10. How effective is the ROP in 

addressing security culture issues? 

Q3.10.1. What ROP changes could 

help the NRC to improve the focus of 

NRC and licensee attention on site 

security culture issues? 

In previous public meetings, the NRC 

has discussed using the ROP safety 

culture components and modified 

aspects as a tool to understand the 

challenges to safety culture during new 

reactor construction. 

Q3.11. How can challenges to safety 

culture in new reactor construction be 

identified and addressed in regulatory 

oversight? 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 14th day 

of January, 2009. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Stewart L. Magruder, 

Deputy Director, Office of Enforcement. 

[FR Doc. E9–1376 Filed 1–22–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES 

TRADE REPRESENTATIVE 

2009 Special 301 Review: Identification 

of Countries Under Section 182 of the 

Trade Act of 1974: Request for Public 

Comment 

AGENCY: Office of the United States 

Trade Representative. 

ACTION: Request for written submissions 

from the public. 

SUMMARY: Section 182 of the Trade Act 

of 1974 (Trade Act) (19 U.S.C. 2242) 

requires the United States Trade 

Representative (USTR) to identify 

countries that deny adequate and 

effective protection of intellectual 

property rights or deny fair and 

equitable market access to U.S. persons 

who rely on intellectual property 

protection. (The provisions of section 

182 are commonly referred to as the 

‘‘Special 301’’ provisions of the Trade 

Act.) In addition, the USTR is required 

to determine which of these countries 

should be identified as Priority Foreign 

Countries. 

USTR requests written submissions 

from the public concerning foreign 

countries’ acts, policies, and practices 

that are relevant to the decision of 

whether particular trading partners 

should be identified under section 182 

of the Trade Act. 

DATES: Submissions from the general 

public must be received on or before 

10 a.m. on Tuesday, February 17, 2009. 

Foreign governments who chose to make 

written submissions may do so on or 

before 10 a.m. on Monday, March 2, 

2009. 

ADDRESSES: All comments should be 

sent electronically to http:// 

www.regulations.gov, docket number 

USTR–2009–0001. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jennifer Choe Groves, Senior Director 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES