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

4264 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 14 / Friday, January 23, 2009 / Notices 

for Intellectual Property and Innovation 

and Chair of the Special 301 Committee, 

Office of the United States Trade 

Representative, at (202) 395–4510. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant 

to section 182 of the Trade Act, USTR 

must identify those countries that deny 

adequate and effective protection for 

intellectual property rights or deny fair 

and equitable market access to U.S. 

persons who rely on intellectual 

property protection. Those countries 

that have the most onerous or egregious 

acts, policies, or practices and whose 

acts, policies, or practices have the 

greatest adverse impact (actual or 

potential) on relevant U.S. products are 

to be identified as Priority Foreign 

Countries. Acts, policies, or practices 

that are the basis of a country’s 

designation as a Priority Foreign 

Country are normally the subject of an 

investigation under the section 301 

provisions of the Trade Act. 

USTR may not identify a country as 

a Priority Foreign Country if that 

country is entering into good faith 

negotiations, or making significant 

progress in bilateral or multilateral 

negotiations, to provide adequate and 

effective protection of intellectual 

property rights. 

USTR requests that, where relevant, 

submissions mention particular regions, 

provinces, states, or other subdivisions 

of a country in which an act, policy, or 

practice deserve special attention in this 

year’s report. Such mention may be 

positive or negative. For example, 

submissions may address China’s 

protection and enforcement of 

intellectual property rights at the 

provincial level, including, where 

relevant, areas that were the focus of 

USTR’s review of provincial and local 

issues in China conducted in 2008 (2008 

Special 301 Report, pp. 25–33, available 

at http://www.ustr.gov). 

Section 182 contains a special rule 

regarding actions of Canada affecting 

United States cultural industries. The 

USTR must identify any act, policy, or 

practice of Canada that affects cultural 

industries, which is adopted or 

expanded after December 17, 1992, and 

is actionable under Article 2106 of the 

North American Free Trade Agreement 

(NAFTA). Any act, policy, or practice so 

identified shall be treated the same as 

an act, policy, or practice which was the 

basis for a country’s identification as a 

Priority Foreign Country under section 

182(a)(2) of the Trade Act, unless the 

United States has already taken action 

pursuant to Article 2106 of the NAFTA. 

USTR must make the abovereferenced identifications within 30 

days after publication of the National 

Trade Estimate (NTE) report, i.e., 

approximately April 30, 2009. 

Requirements for Comments: 

Comments should include a description 

of the problems experienced and the 

effect of the acts, policies, and practices 

on U.S. industry. Comments should be 

as detailed as possible and should 

provide all necessary information for 

assessing the effect of the acts, policies, 

and practices. Any comments that 

include quantitative loss claims should 

be accompanied by the methodology 

used in calculating such estimated 

losses. Comments must be in English. 

All comments should be sent 

electronically to http:// 

www.regulations.gov, docket number 

USTR–2009–0001. 

To submit comments to http:// 

www.regulations.gov, enter docket 

number USTR–2009–0001 on the home 

page and click ‘‘go.’’ The site will 

provide a search-results page listing all 

documents associated with this docket. 

Find a reference to this notice by 

selecting ‘‘Notice’’ under ‘‘Document 

Type’’ on the left side of the searchresults page, and click on the link 

entitled ‘‘Send a Comment or 

Submission.’’ (For further information 

on using the http://www.regulations.gov 

Web site, please consult the resources 

provided on the Web site by clicking on 

‘‘How to Use This Site’’ on the left side 

of the home page). 

The http://www.regulations.gov site 

provides the option of providing 

comments by filling in a ‘‘General 

Comments’’ field, or by attaching a 

document. It is expected that most 

comments will be provided in an 

attached document. If a document is 

attached, it is sufficient to type ‘‘See 

attached’’ in the ‘‘General Comments’’ 

field. 

A person requesting that information 

contained in a comment submitted by 

that person be treated as confidential 

business information must certify that 

such information is business 

confidential and would not customarily 

be released to the public by the 

submitter. Confidential business 

information must be clearly designated 

as such, the submission must be marked 

‘‘BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL’’ at the top 

and bottom of the cover page and each 

succeeding page, and should indicate 

using brackets the specific information 

which is confidential. Any comment 

containing business confidential 

information must be accompanied by a 

non-confidential summary of the 

confidential information. The nonconfidential summary will be placed in 

the docket and open to public 

inspection. 

USTR will maintain a docket on the 

2009 Special 301 Review, accessible to 

the public. The public file will include 

non-confidential comments received by 

USTR from the public, including foreign 

governments, with respect to the 2009 

Special 301 Review. 

Public Inspection of Submissions: 

Comments will be placed in the docket 

and open to public inspection pursuant 

to 15 CFR 2006.13, except confidential 

business information exempt from 

public inspection in accordance with 15 

CFR 2006.15. Comments may be viewed 

on the http://www.regulations.gov Web 

site by entering docket number USTR– 

2009–0001 in the search field on the 

home page. 

Stanford K. McCoy, 

Assistant USTR for Intellectual Property and 

Innovation. 

[FR Doc. E9–1392 Filed 1–22–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3190–W9–P 

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES 

TRADE REPRESENTATIVE 

Determination Regarding Waiver of 

Discriminatory Purchasing 

Requirements With Respect to Goods 

and Services Covered by Chapter Nine 

of the United States-Peru Trade 

Promotion Agreement 

AGENCY: Office of the United States 

Trade Representative. 

ACTION: Determination under Trade 

Agreements Act of 1979. 

DATES: Effective Date: February 1, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jean 

Heilman Grier, Senior Procurement 

Negotiator, Office of the United States 

Trade Representative, (202) 395–9476, 

or Katherine Tai, Associate General 

Counsel, Office of the United States 

Trade Representative, (202) 395–9589. 

On April 12, 2006, the United States 

and Peru entered into the United StatesPeru Trade Promotion Agreement 

(‘‘Peru TPA’’). Chapter Nine of the Peru 

TPA sets forth certain obligations with 

respect to government procurement of 

goods and services, as specified in 

Annex 9.1 of the Peru TPA. On 

December 14, 2007, the President signed 

into law the United States-Peru Trade 

Promotion Agreement Implementation 

Act (‘‘the Peru TPA Act’’) (Pub. L. No. 

110–138, 121 Stat. 1455) (19 U.S.C. 3805 

note). In section 101(a) of the Peru TPA 

Act, the Congress approved the Peru 

TPA. The Peru FTA will enter into force 

on February 1, 2009. 

Section 1–201 of Executive Order 

12260 of December 31, 1980 (46 FR 

1653) delegates the functions of the 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES