On May 5, 2008, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) published in the Federal Register a notice for an opportunity to request an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on pure magnesium from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”). See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative Review , 73 FR 24532 (May 5, 2008). Respondent, Tianjin Magnesium International Co., Ltd. (“TMI”), requested a review on May 29, 2008, and Petitioner, US Magnesium LLC (“US Magnesium”), requested a review of TMI on May 30, 2008. The Department published in the Federal Register a notice of initiation of an administrative review of TMI for the period May 1, 2007, through April 30, 2008. See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Requests for Revocation in Part , 73 FR 37409 (July 1, 2008). Currently, the preliminary results of review are due no later than January 31, 2009.

Pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), the Department shall make a preliminary determination in an administrative review of an antidumping duty order within 245 days after the last day of the anniversary month of the date of publication of the order. The Act further provides, however, that the Department may extend that 245-day period to 365 days if it determines it is not practicable to complete the review within the foregoing time period.

We determine that completion of the preliminary results of this review within the 245-day period is not practicable because the Department requires additional time to analyze information pertaining to the respondent's sales practices, factors of production, and to issue and review responses to supplemental questionnaires. Therefore, we require additional time to complete these preliminary results. As a result, in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, the Department is extending the time period for completion of the preliminary results of this review by 120 days until May 31, 2009.

This notice is published in accordance with sections 751(a)(3)(A) and 777(i) of the Act.

On August 6, 2008, the Department published in the Federal Register the preliminary results of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on stainless steel sheet and strip in coils from Mexico for the period July 1, 2006, to June 30, 2007. See Preliminary Results . In response to the Department's invitation to comment on the preliminary results of this review, Allegheny Ludlum Corporation, AK Steel Corporation, North American Stainless, United Auto Workers Local 3303, Zanesville Armco Independent Organization, Inc. and the United Steelworkers of America (collectively, petitioners) and Mexinox filed their case briefs on September 5, 2008. Mexinox and petitioners submitted rebuttal briefs on September 12, 2008.

On October 14, 2008, we published in the Federal Register our notice extending the time limit for this review until February 2, 2009. See Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils From Mexico: Extension of Time Limit for Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review , 73 FR 60679 (October 14, 2008).

The period of review (POR) is July 1, 2006 to June 30, 2007.

For purposes of this administrative review, the products covered are certain stainless steel sheet and strip in coils. Stainless steel is an alloy steel containing, by weight, 1.2 percent or less of carbon and 10.5 percent or more of chromium, with or without other elements. The subject sheet and strip is a flat-rolled product in coils that is greater than 9.5 mm in width and less than 4.75 mm in thickness, and that is annealed or otherwise heat treated and pickled or otherwise descaled. The subject sheet and strip may also be further processed ( e.g. , cold-rolled, polished, aluminized, coated, etc .) provided that it maintains the specific dimensions of sheet and strip following such processing. The merchandise subject to this order is currently classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) at subheadings: 7219.13.0031, 7219.13.0051, 7219.13.0071, 7219.13.00.81, 7219.14.0030, 7219.14.0065, 7219.14.0090, 7219.32.0005, 7219.32.0020, 7219.32.0025, 7219.32.0035, 7219.32.0036, 7219.32.0038, 7219.32.0042, 7219.32.0044, 7219.33.0005, 7219.33.0020, 7219.33.0025, 7219.33.0035, 7219.33.0036, 7219.33.0038, 7219.33.0042, 7219.33.0044, 7219.34.0005, 7219.34.0020, 7219.34.0025, 7219.34.0030, 7219.34.0035, 7219.35.0005, 7219.35.0015, 7219.35.0030, 7219.35.0035, 7219.90.0010, 7219.90.0020, 7219.90.0025, 7219.90.0060, 7219.90.0080, 7220.12.1000, 7220.12.5000, 7220.20.1010, 7220.20.1015, 7220.20.1060, 7220.20.1080, 7220.20.6005, 7220.20.6010, 7220.20.6015, 7220.20.6060, 7220.20.6080, 7220.20.7005, 7220.20.7010, 7220.20.7015, 7220.20.7060, 7220.20.7080, 7220.20.8000, 7220.20.9030, 7220.20.9060, 7220.90.0010, 7220.90.0015, 7220.90.0060, and 7220.90.0080. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the Department's written description of the merchandise under review is dispositive.

Excluded from the scope are the following: (1) sheet and strip that is not annealed or otherwise heat treated and pickled or otherwise descaled; (2) sheet and strip that is cut to length; (3) plate ( i.e. , flat-rolled stainless steel products of a thickness of 4.75 mm or more); (4) flat wire ( i.e. , cold-rolled sections, with a prepared edge, rectangular in shape, of a width of not more than 9.5 mm); and (5) razor blade steel. Razor blade steel is a flat-rolled product of stainless steel, not further worked than cold-rolled (cold-reduced), in coils, of a width of not more than 23 mm and a thickness of 0.266 mm or less, containing, by weight, 12.5 to 14.5 percent chromium, and certified at the time of entry to be used in the manufacture of razor blades. See chapter 72 of the HTSUS, “Additional U.S. Note” 1(d).

Flapper valve steel is also excluded from the scope of the order. This product is defined as stainless steel strip in coils containing, by weight, between 0.37 and 0.43 percent carbon, between 1.15 and 1.35 percent molybdenum, and between 0.20 and 0.80 percent manganese. This steel also contains, by weight, phosphorus of 0.025 percent or less, silicon of between 0.20 and 0.50 percent, and sulfur of 0.020 percent or less. The product is manufactured by means of vacuum arc remelting, with inclusion controls for sulphide of no more than 0.04 percent and for oxide of no more than 0.05 percent. Flapper valve steel has a tensile strength of between 210 and 300 ksi, yield strength of between 170 and 270 ksi, plus or minus 8 ksi, and a hardness (Hv) of between 460 and 590. Flapper valve steel is most commonly used to produce specialty flapper valves in compressors.

Also excluded is a product referred to as suspension foil, a specialty steel product used in the manufacture of suspension assemblies for computer disk drives. Suspension foil is described as 302/304 grade or 202 grade stainless steel of a thickness between 14 and 127 microns, with a thickness tolerance of plus-or-minus 2.01 microns, and surface glossiness of 200 to 700 percent Gs. Suspension foil must be supplied in coil widths of not more than 407 mm, and with a mass of 225 kg or less. Roll marks may only be visible on one side, with no scratches of measurable depth. The material must exhibit residual stresses of 2 mm maximum deflection, and flatness of 1.6 mm over 685 mm length.

Certain stainless steel foil for automotive catalytic converters is also excluded from the scope of the order. This stainless steel strip in coils is a specialty foil with a thickness of between 20 and 110 microns used to produce a metallic substrate with a honeycomb structure for use in automotive catalytic converters. The steel contains, by weight, carbon of no more than 0.030 percent, silicon of no more than 1.0 percent, manganese of no more than 1.0 percent, chromium of between 19 and 22 percent, aluminum of no less than 5.0 percent, phosphorus of no more than 0.045 percent, sulfur of no more than 0.03 percent, lanthanum of less than 0.002 or greater than 0.05 percent, and total rare earth elements of more than 0.06 percent, with the balance iron.

Permanent magnet iron-chromium-cobalt alloy stainless strip is also excluded from the scope of the order. This ductile stainless steel strip contains, by weight, 26 to 30 percent chromium, and 7 to 10 percent cobalt, with the remainder of iron, in widths 228.6 mm or less, and a thickness between 0.127 and 1.270 mm. It exhibits magnetic remanence between 9,000 and 12,000 gauss, and a coercivity of between 50 and 300 oersteds. This product is most commonly used in electronic sensors and is currently available under proprietary trade names such as “Arnokrome III.” 1

Certain electrical resistance alloy steel is also excluded from the scope of the order. This product is defined as a non-magnetic stainless steel manufactured to American Society of Testing and Materials (“ASTM”) specification B344 and containing, by weight, 36 percent nickel, 18 percent chromium, and 46 percent iron, and is most notable for its resistance to high temperature corrosion. It has a melting point of 1390 degrees Celsius and displays a creep rupture limit of 4 kilograms per square millimeter at 1000 degrees Celsius. This steel is most commonly used in the production of heating ribbons for circuit breakers and industrial furnaces, and in rheostats for railway locomotives. The product is currently available under proprietary trade names such as “Gilphy 36.” 2

Certain martensitic precipitation-hardenable stainless steel is also excluded from the scope of the order. This high-strength, ductile stainless steel product is designated under the Unified Numbering System (“UNS”) as S45500-grade steel, and contains, by weight, 11 to 13 percent chromium, and 7 to 10 percent nickel. Carbon, manganese, silicon and molybdenum each comprise, by weight, 0.05 percent or less, with phosphorus and sulfur each comprising, by weight, 0.03 percent or less. This steel has copper, niobium, and titanium added to achieve aging, and will exhibit yield strengths as high as 1700 Mpa and ultimate tensile strengths as high as 1750 Mpa after aging, with elongation percentages of 3 percent or less in 50 mm. It is generally provided in thicknesses between 0.635 and 0.787 mm, and in widths of 25.4 mm. This product is most commonly used in the manufacture of television tubes and is currently available under proprietary trade names such as “Durphynox 17.” 3

Finally, three specialty stainless steels typically used in certain industrial blades and surgical and medical instruments are also excluded from the scope of the order. These include stainless steel strip in coils used in the production of textile cutting tools ( e.g. , carpet knives). 4 This steel is similar to AISI grade 420 but containing, by weight, 0.5 to 0.7 percent of molybdenum. The steel also contains, by weight, carbon of between 1.0 and 1.1 percent, sulfur of 0.020 percent or less, and includes between 0.20 and 0.30 percent copper and between 0.20 and 0.50 percent cobalt. This steel is sold under proprietary names such as “GIN4 Mo.” The second excluded stainless steel strip in coils is similar to AISI 420-J2 and contains, by weight, carbon of between 0.62 and 0.70 percent, silicon of between 0.20 and 0.50 percent, manganese of between 0.45 and 0.80 percent, phosphorus of no more than 0.025 percent and sulfur of no more than 0.020 percent. This steel has a carbide density on average of 100 carbide particles per 100 square microns. An example of this product is “GIN5” steel. The third specialty steel has a chemical composition similar to AISI 420 F, with carbon of between 0.37 and 0.43 percent, molybdenum of between 1.15 and 1.35 percent, but lower manganese of between 0.20 and 0.80 percent, phosphorus of no more than 0.025 percent, silicon of between 0.20 and 0.50 percent, and sulfur of no more than 0.020 percent. This product is supplied with a hardness of more than Hv 500 guaranteed after customer processing, and is supplied as, for example, “GIN6.” 5

All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by interested parties in this administrative review are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum (Decision Memorandum) from John M. Andersen, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, to Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, dated February 2, 2009, which is hereby adopted by this notice. A list of the issues which parties have raised and to which we have responded, all of which are in the Decision Memorandum, is attached to this notice as an appendix. Parties can find a complete discussion of all issues raised in this review and the corresponding recommendations in this public memorandum, which is on file in the Central Records Unit in room 1117 of the main Department building. In addition, a complete version of the Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly via the Internet at www.ia.ita.doc.gov/fm/index.html. The paper copy and electronic version of the Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

Based on our analysis of the comments received, we have made the following changes to the margin calculation:

• We revised the numerator of Mexinox's and Ken-Mac Metal Inc.'s financial expense ratio to include a certain short-term interest income offset. See “Cost of Production and Constructed Value Calculation Adjustments for the Final Results - ThyssenKrupp Mexinox S.A. de C.V. ” (Final Results Cost Calculation Memorandum), dated February 2, 2009

• We have corrected clerical errors identified by parties in the Preliminary Results : (1) we modified SAS language in the All-Macros Program where we perform the sales below cost test on a quarterly basis to avoid overwriting certain transaction-specific data; (2) we revised our calculation of Mexinox's home market credit expenses; (3) we adjusted the denominators of Mexinox's general and administrative expense ratio and financial expense ratio to include a certain depreciation expense.

We determine the following weighted-average percentage margin exists for the period July 1, 2006 to June 30, 2007:

The Department will determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries, pursuant to section 751(a)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act) and 19 CFR 351.212(b). The Department calculated an assessment rate for each importer of the subject merchandise covered by the review. Upon issuance of the final results of this review, for any importer-specific assessment rates calculated in the final results that are above de minimis ( i.e. , at or above 0.50 percent), we will issue appraisement instructions directly to CBP to assess antidumping duties on appropriate entries by applying the assessment rate to the entered value of the merchandise. Pursuant to 19 CFR 356.8(a), the Department intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 41 days after the date of publication of these final results of review.

The Department clarified its “automatic assessment” regulation on May 6, 2003. See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties , 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003). This clarification will apply to entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by Mexinox for which Mexinox did not know the merchandise was destined for the United States. In such instances, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at the 30.85 percent all-others rate if there is no company-specific rate for an intermediary involved in the transaction. See id . for a full discussion of this clarification.

The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of these final results for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of these final results of administrative review, consistent with section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) the cash deposit rate for the reviewed company will be the rate listed above; (2) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, but was covered in a previous review or the original less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the original LTFV investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and (4) the cash deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will continue to be 30.85 percent, the all-others rate established in the LTFV investigation. See Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Order; Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils From Mexico , 64 FR 40560 (July 27, 1999). These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Department's presumption that reimbursement of the antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of doubled antidumping duties.

This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective orders (APOs) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305, which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.

This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

Comment 1: Clerical Errors

Comment 2: Offsetting for U.S. Sales that Exceed Normal Value

Comment 3: U.S. Indirect Selling Expenses

Comment 4: Circumstances-of-Sale Adjustment

Comment 5: Whether to Apply an Alternative Cost Averaging Methodology

Comment 6: Depreciation for the Bright-Annealing Line

Comment 7: General and Administrative Expense Ratio

Comment 8: Financial Expense Ratio

On May 15, 1986, the Department published in the Federal Register the antidumping duty order on welded pipe and tube from Turkey. See Antidumping Duty Order . On May 5, 2008, the Department published a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of this order. See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative Review , 73 FR 24532 (May 5, 2008). On May 30, 2008, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b), domestic interested parties Allied Tube requested a review of Borusan and Toscelik.

On July 1, 2008, the Department published a notice of initiation of administrative review of the antidumping duty order on welded pipe and tube from Turkey, covering the period May 1, 2007, through April 30, 2008. See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part , 73 FR 37409 (July 1, 2008).

On July 1, 2008, the Department sent an antidumping duty administrative review questionnaire to Borusan and Toscelik. 2 On July 8, 2008, Toscelik informed the Department that it had no sales, shipments or entries of subject merchandise in or to the United States, during the period of review (“POR”). On October 10, 2008, the Department published a notice of intent to rescind the administrative review in part. See Welded Carbon Steel Pipe and Tube from Turkey: Notice of Intent to Rescind Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, In Part , 73 FR 60240 (October 10, 2008).

On August 29, 2008, the Department received Borusan's Sections A-D questionnaire response. On October 23, 2008, and November 3, 2008, the Department issued supplemental Section D and Sections A-C questionnaires, respectively, to Borusan. On November 14, 2008, Borusan file a supplemental response to the Department's supplemental Section D questionnaire. On December 8, 2008, the Department received Borusan's supplemental response to the Department's supplemental Sections A-C questionnaire. On December 10, 2008, the Department issued additional questions regarding Section D of the questionnaire. On December 11, 2008, the Department issued additional questions concerning Sections A-C of the questionnaire. The Department received Borusan's supplemental response to the Departments supplemental questions issued on December 10 and December 11, 2008, on January 7, 2009.

The products covered by this order include circular welded non-alloy steel pipes and tubes, of circular cross-section, not more than 406.4 millimeters (16 inches) in outside diameter, regardless of wall thickness, surface finish (black, or galvanized, painted), or end finish (plain end, beveled end, threaded and coupled). Those pipes and tubes are generally known as standard pipe, though they may also be called structural or mechanical tubing in certain applications. Standard pipes and tubes are intended for the low pressure conveyance of water, steam, natural gas, air, and other liquids and gases in plumbing and heating systems, air conditioner units, automatic sprinkler systems, and other related uses. Standard pipe may also be used for light load-bearing and mechanical applications, such as for fence tubing, and for protection of electrical wiring, such as conduit shells.

The scope is not limited to standard pipe and fence tubing, or those types of mechanical and structural pipe that are used in standard pipe applications. All carbon steel pipes and tubes within the physical description outlined above are included in the scope of this order, except for line pipe, oil country tubular goods, boiler tubing, cold-drawn or cold-rolled mechanical tubing, pipe and tube hollows for redraws, finished scaffolding, and finished rigid conduit.

Imports of these products are currently classifiable under the following Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) subheadings: 7306.30.10.00, 7306.30.50.25, 7306.30.50.32, 7306.30.50.40, 7306.30.50.55, 7306.30.50.85, and 7306.30.50.90. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the scope of this proceeding is dispositive.

We compared the EP to the NV, as described in the Export Price and Normal Value sections of this notice. In accordance with section 771(16) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), we first attempted to match contemporaneous sales of products sold in the United States and comparison market that were identical with respect to the following characteristics: (1) grade; (2) nominal pipe size; (3) wall thickness; (4) surface finish; and (5) end finish. When there were no sales of identical merchandise in the home market to compare with U.S. sales, we compared U.S. sales with the most similar merchandise based on the characteristics listed above in order of priority listed.

Because Borusan sold subject merchandise directly to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States prior to importation, and constructed export price (“CEP”) methodology was not otherwise warranted based on the record facts of this review, in accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, we used EP as the basis for all of Borusan's sales.

We calculated EP using, as starting price, the packed, delivered price to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. In accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act, we made the following deductions from the starting price (gross unit price), where appropriate: foreign inland freight from the mill to port, foreign brokerage and handling, international freight, marine insurance, U.S. brokerage, U.S. duty, and other related movement charges.

In addition, Borusan reported an amount for duty drawback which represents the amount of duties on imported raw materials associated with a particular shipment of subject merchandise to the United States that is exempted upon export. Borusan requested that we add the amount to the starting price. See page C-34 of Borusan's August 29, 2009, original response. To determine if a duty drawback adjustment is warranted, the Department has employed a two-prong test which determines whether: (1) the rebate and import duties are dependent upon one another, or in the context of an exemption from import duties, if the exemption is linked to the exportation of the subject merchandise; and (2) the respondent has demonstrated that there are sufficient imports of the raw material to account for the duty drawback on the exports of the subject merchandise. See Allied Tube and Conduit Corp. v. United States , Slip Op. 05-56 (May 12, 2005).

Borusan provided specific documents to demonstrate that its exemption from import duties is linked to the exportation of subject merchandise, such as a table linking the consumption of hot-rolled steel sheet to the exportation of welded pipe and tube. See Exhibit C-8 of Borusan's August 29, 2009, original response. Furthermore, Borusan provided documentation to demonstrate that there are sufficient imports of the raw material to account for the duty drawback on the exports of the subject merchandise. See id. Therefore, in accordance with our practice and determination in prior reviews, we are adding duty drawback to the starting price. See Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Certain Welded Carbon Steel Pipe and Tube From Turkey , 70 FR 73447 (December 12, 2005) (“2003-04 Administrative Review”). See also the Department's “Analysis Memorandum for the Borusan Group” (“Borusan's calculation memo”), dated February 2, 2009, available in the Central Records Unit in Room 1117 of the Main Commerce Building.

In order to determine whether there was a sufficient volume of sales in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV, we compared Borusan's volume of home market sales of the foreign like product to the volume of its U.S. sales of the subject merchandise, in accordance with section 773(a)(1)(C) of the Act. Because Borusan's aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign like product was greater than five percent of its aggregate volume of U.S. sales of the subject merchandise, we determined that the home market was viable. We calculated NV as noted in the “Calculation of NV Based on Comparison Market Prices” section of this notice. See also Borusan's calculation memo.

Because the Department disregarded sales below the cost of production (“COP”) in the last completed review of Borusan, we have reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that sales of the foreign like product under consideration for the determination of NV in this review may have been made at prices below the COP as provided by section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act. Therefore, pursuant to section 773(b)(1) of the Act, we initiated a COP investigation of sales by Borusan in the home market. See 2003-04 Administrative Review .

In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated the COP based on the sum of Borusan's costs of materials and fabrication employed in producing the foreign like product, plus selling, general, and administrative expenses and the cost of all expenses incidental to packing and preparing the foreign like product for shipment.

We compared the weighted-average COP figures to home market sales of the foreign like product as required by section 773(b) of the Act, in order to determine whether these sales had been made at prices below the COP. On a product-specific basis, we compared the COP to the home market prices, less any applicable movement charges, rebates, discounts, packing, and direct selling expenses.

Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C)(i) of the Act, where less than 20 percent of sales of a given product were at prices less than the COP, we did not disregard any below-cost sales of that product because we determined that the below-cost sales were not made in “substantial quantities.” Where 20 percent or more of sales of a given product during the POR were at prices less than the COP we determined such sales to have been made in “substantial quantities.” See section 773(b)(2)(C) of the Act. Further, we determined that the sales were made within an extended period of time, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(B) of the Act, because they were made over the course of the POR. In such cases, because we compared prices to POR-average costs, we also determined that such sales were not made at prices which would permit recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act. Therefore, we disregarded below-cost sales of a given product where more than 20 percent were sold at prices below the COP and used the remaining sales as the basis for determining NV, in accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Act. See Borusan's calculation memo.

For Borusan, for those comparison products for which there were sales at prices above the COP, we based NV on home market prices. In these preliminary results, we were able to match all U.S. sales to contemporaneous sales, made in the ordinary course of trade, of either an identical or a similar foreign like product, based on matching characteristics. In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, we have excluded certain sales sold in the comparison market which were exported to a third country. 3 We calculated NV based on free on board (“FOB”) mill or delivered prices to unaffiliated customers, or prices to affiliated customers which were determined to be at arm's length ( see discussion below regarding these sales). We made deductions, where appropriate, from the starting price for billing adjustments, discounts, rebates, and inland freight. Additionally, we added interest revenue. In accordance with section 773(a)(6) of the Act, we deducted home market packing costs and added U.S. packing costs.

In accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act, we adjusted for differences in the circumstances of sale. These circumstances included differences in imputed credit expenses and other direct selling expenses, such as the expense related to bank charges and factoring. 4 We also made adjustments, where appropriate, for physical differences in the merchandise in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act.

We included in our analysis Borusan's home market sales to affiliated customers only where we determined that such sales were made at arm's-length prices, i.e., at prices comparable to prices at which Borusan sold identical merchandise to their unaffiliated customers. Borusan's sales to affiliates constituted less than five percent of overall home market sales. To test whether the sales to affiliates were made at arm's-length prices, we compared the starting prices of sales to affiliated and unaffiliated customers net of all movement charges, direct selling expenses, discounts, and packing. Where the price to that affiliated party was, on average, within a range of 98 to 102 percent of the price of the same or comparable merchandise sold to the unaffiliated parties, we determined that the sales made to the affiliated party were at arm's length. See Antidumping Proceedings: Affiliated Party Sales in the Ordinary Course of Trade , 67 FR 69186 (November 15, 2002).

As set forth in section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act and in the Statement of Administrative Action (“SAA”) accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, at 829-831 ( see H.R. Doc. No. 316, 103d Cong., 2d Sess. 829-831 (1994)), to the extent practicable, the Department calculates NV based on sales at the same level of trade (“LOT”) as U.S. sales, either EP or CEP. When the Department is unable to find sale(s) in the comparison market at the same LOT as the U.S. sale(s), the Department may compare sales in the U.S. and foreign markets at different LOTs. The NV LOT is that of the starting-price sales in the home market. To determine whether home market sales are at a different LOT than U.S. sales, we examine stages in the marketing process and selling functions along the chain of distribution between the producer and the unaffiliated customer. See Honey from Argentina: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Intent to Revoke Order in Part , 73 FR 79802, 79805 (December 30, 2008) (“ Honey from Argentina ”). If the comparison-market sales are at a different LOT and the differences affect price comparability, as manifested in a pattern of consistent price differences between the sales on which NV is based and comparison-market sales at the LOT of the export transaction, we make an LOT adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. See Honey from Argentina , 73 FR at 79805.

In implementing these principles, we examined information from Borusan regarding the marketing stages involved in the reported home market and EP sales, including a description of the selling functions performed by Borusan for the channels of distribution in the home market and U.S. market. In our analysis, we grouped the reported selling functions into the following sales function category: sales process and marketing support, freight and delivery, inventory maintenance, and quality assurance/warranty service.

For home market sales, we found that Borusan's mill-direct sales comprised one LOT. Furthermore, Borusan provided similar selling functions to each type of customer ( i.e. trading companies/distributors and industrial end-users/construction companies), with the exception of rebates grouped into the sales process and marketing category which were given to trading companies/distributors. See pages A-18 and A-21 of Borusan's August 29, 2008, response.

We found that Borusan's U.S. sales were also made at only one LOT. Borusan reports one channel of distribution, and sales are negotiated on an order-by-order basis with an unaffiliated trading company. See page A-17 of Borusan's August 29, 2008, response.

We then compared Borusan's home market LOT and with the U.S. LOT. We note the selling functions do not differ for the activities falling under inventory maintenance ( i.e. , forward inventory maintenance and sales from warehouse), quality assurance/warranty service ( i.e. , provide warranty service), and freight and delivery ( i.e., act as agent or coordinate production/delivery for customer with mill and coordinate freight and delivery arrangement). Furthermore, we note that the selling functions grouped under sales process and marketing, such as customer advice/product information, discounts, advertising, and rebates only differ somewhat between the home market LOT and U.S. LOT. See page A-20 of Borusan's August 29, 2008, response. Therefore, we compared all U.S. sales to an identical home market LOT and did not find it necessary to make an LOT adjustment.

The Department's preferred source for daily exchange rates is the Federal Reserve Bank. However, the Federal Reserve Bank does not track or publish exchange rates for the Turkish lira. Therefore, we made currency conversions based on the daily exchange rates from the Dow Jones Business Information Services.

Section 773A(a) directs the Department to use a daily exchange rate in order to convert foreign currencies into U.S. dollars, unless the daily rate involves a “fluctuation.” It is the Department's practice to find that a fluctuation exists when the daily exchange rate differs from a benchmark rate by 2.25 percent. The benchmark rate is defined as the rolling average of the rates for the past 40 business days. When we determine that a fluctuation existed, we generally utilize the benchmark rate instead of the daily rate, in accordance with established practice.

As a result of this review, we preliminarily determine that the following margin exists for the period May 1, 2007, through April 30, 2008:

We will disclose the calculations used in our analysis to parties to this proceeding within five days of the publication date of this notice. See section 351.224(b) of the Department's regulations. Interested parties are invited to comment on the preliminary results. Interested parties may submit case briefs within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed no later than 37 days after the date of publication of this notice. Parties who submit arguments are requested to submit with each argument: (1) a statement of the issue, (2) a brief summary of the argument, and (3) a table of authorities. Further, parties submitting written comments should provide the Department with an additional copy of the public version of any such comments on a diskette. Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of publication of this notice. See section 351.310(c) of the Department's regulations. If requested, a hearing will be held 44 days after the publication of this notice, or the first workday thereafter. The Department will publish a notice of the final results of this administrative review, which will include the results of its analysis of issues raised in any written comments or hearing, within 120 days from publication of this notice.

The Department will determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries, pursuant to section 751(a)(1)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.212(b). The Department calculated importer-specific duty assessment rates on the basis of the ratio of the total antidumping duties calculated for the examined sales to the total entered value of the examined sales for that importer. Where the assessment rate is above de minimis , we will instruct CBP to assess duties on all entries of subject merchandise by that importer. The Department intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of the final results of review.

The Department clarified its “automatic assessment” regulation on May 6, 2003. See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties , 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003). This clarification will apply to entries of subject merchandise during the period of review produced by companies included in these preliminary results of review for which the reviewed companies did not know their merchandise was destined for the United States. In such instances, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at the all-others rate if there is no rate for the intermediate company(ies) involved in the transaction. For a full discussion of this clarification, see Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties , 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003).

The following cash deposit rates will be effective upon publication of the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of welded pipe and tube from Turkey entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) the cash deposit rate for the company listed above will be the rate established in the final results of this review; (2) for previously reviewed or investigated companies not listed above, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the less-than-fair-value (“LTFV”) investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and (4) if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered in this or any previous review or the LTFV investigation conducted by the Department, the cash deposit rate will be 14.74 percent, the “All Others” rate established in the LTFV investigation. These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

This notice serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under section 351.402(f)(2) of the Department's regulations to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping and/or countervailing duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping and/or countervailing duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.

This determination is issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

The following listed species are covered in this notice:

Chinook salmon ( Oncorhynchus tshawytscha ): threatened lower Columbia River (LCR), threatened upper Willamette River (UWR), endangered upper Columbia River (UCR), threatened Snake River (SR) spring/summer (spr/sum), threatened SR fall.

Chum salmon ( O. keta ): threatened Columbia River (CR).

Steelhead ( O. mykiss ): threatened LCR, threatened UWR, threatened middle Columbia River (MCR), threatened SR, endangered UCR, threatened PS.

Coho salmon ( O. kisutch ): threatened LCR, threatened Oregon Coast (OC), threatened Southern Oregon/Northern California coasts (SONCC).

Sockeye salmon ( O. nerka ): endangered SR.

Scientific research permits are issued in accordance with section 10(a)(1)(A) of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ) and regulations governing listed fish and wildlife permits (50 CFR 222-226). NMFS issues permits based on findings that such permits: (1) are applied for in good faith; (2) if granted and exercised, would not operate to the disadvantage of the listed species that are the subject of the permit; and (3) are consistent with the purposes and policy of section 2 of the ESA. The authority to take listed species is subject to conditions set forth in the permits.

Anyone requesting a hearing on an application listed in this notice should set out the specific reasons why a hearing on that application would be appropriate (see ADDRESSES ). Such hearings are held at the discretion of the Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NMFS.

The Northwest Fisheries Science Center (NWFSC) is seeking to renew permit 1410 for a period of five years. The original permit was in place for five years with three modifications; it expired on December 31, 2008. Under the new permit, the NWFSC would conduct research that would annually take adult and juvenile UCR Chinook, SR spr/sum Chinook, SR fall Chinook, LCR Chinook, UWR Chinook, SR sockeye, CR chum, LCR coho, OC coho, SONCC coho, UCR steelhead, SR steelhead, MCR steelhead, LCR steelhead, and UWR steelhead in the Columbia River plume and surrounding ocean environment. The purpose of the research is to: (a) determine the abundance, distribution, growth and condition of juvenile Columbia River salmonids in the plume and nearby ocean environment and characterize the area's physical and biological features as they relate to salmonid survival; (b) determine the impact that predators and food supply have on survival among juvenile Columbia River Chinook and coho salmon as they migrate through the Columbia River estuary and plume; and (c) synthesize the early ocean ecology of juvenile Columbia River salmonids, test mechanisms that control salmonid growth and survival, and produce ecological indices that forecast salmonid survival.

Ultimately the NWFSC would use simulation models and statistical analyses of climatic, oceanic, and other biological data and indices to help inform management decisions regarding the Columbia river and its salmonid populations. The research would benefit listed species by providing data that would help managers understand the linkages between salmonid abundance, distribution, growth, genetics, and health, and the effects of disease, parasites, diet, and predation in the estuarine and ocean environment. Ultimately, the data would help researchers and managers quantify the effects of habitat restoration efforts and improve harvest and hatchery guidelines. In any case, the research would provide important information on salmonid life histories in the study area. The NWFSC proposes to capture the fish (using surface trawling), identify, sample, and release adult fish. The juvenile fish would be sacrificed to map disease presence and determine the effects that diet, parasites, genetics, etc. have on fish condition.

This notice is provided pursuant to section 10(c) of the ESA. NMFS will evaluate the application, associated documents, and comments submitted to determine whether the application meets the requirements of section 10(a) of the ESA and Federal regulations. The final permit decision will not be made until after the end of the 30-day comment period. NMFS will publish notice of its final action in the Federal Register .

The subject amendment to Permit No. 1039-1699, issued on June 30, 2004, is requested under the authority of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq. ) and the regulations governing the taking and importing of marine mammals (50 CFR part 216).

Permit No. 1039-1699-01 authorizes the permit holder to conduct humpback whale ( Megaptera novaeangliae ) research, including photo-identification, behavioral observations, and passive acoustics in the waters off Hawaii. Several species of non-listed, small whales and dolphins may also be studied. The permit holder is requesting an amendment to take up to 100 minke whales ( Balaenoptera acutorostrata ) in the waters off Hawaii annually. Minke whales would be approached for photo-identification. The purpose of the new research is to investigate the abundance, distribution, and behavior of this species, which has not been thoroughly studied in Hawaii. The amended permit would expire on June 30, 2009.

Concurrent with the publication of this notice in the Federal Register, NMFS is forwarding copies of this application to the Marine Mammal Commission and its Committee of Scientific Advisors.

Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq. ) direct the Secretary of Commerce to allow, upon request, the incidental, but not intentional, taking of marine mammals by United States citizens who engage in a specified activity (other than commercial fishing) within a specified geographical region if certain findings are made and either regulations are issued or, if the taking is limited to harassment, a notice of a proposed authorization is provided to the public for review.

Authorization for incidental taking shall be granted if NMFS finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s), will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses (where relevant), and if the permissible methods of taking and requirements pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring and reporting of such takings are set forth. NMFS has defined “negligible impact” in 50 CFR 216.103 as ”...an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival.”

Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA established an expedited process by which citizens of the United States can apply for an authorization to incidentally take small numbers of marine mammals by harassment. Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, the MMPA defines “harassment” as:

Section 101(a)(5)(D) establishes a 45-day time limit for NMFS' review of an application followed by a 30-day public notice and comment period on any proposed authorization for the incidental harassment of marine mammals. Within 45 days of the close of the comment period, NMFS must either approve or deny the authorization.

On August 18, 2008, NMFS received an application from L-DEO for the taking by Level B harassment only, of small numbers of 29 species of marine mammals incidental to conducting, with research funding from the National Science Foundation (NSF), a marine seismic survey within the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) of Tonga in the southwest Pacific Ocean during January through February 2009. NMFS outlined the purpose of the research program in a previous notice for the proposed IHA (73 FR 71606, November 25, 2008).

The planned survey will involve one source vessel, the R/V Marcus G. Langseth ( Langseth ), a seismic vessel owned by the NSF. NSF expects the Langseth to depart Nuku'alofa, Tonga on January 14, 2009 for a one-day transit to the study area in the Lau Basin in the southwest Pacific Ocean (between 19-21° S. and 175-176° W.).

To obtain high-resolution three-dimensional (3D) structures of the Lau Basin's magmatic systems and thermal structures, the Langseth will deploy a towed array of 36 airguns with a total discharge volume of approximately 6,600 cubic inches (in 3 ). The array configuration consists of four identical linear arrays or strings, with 10 airguns on each string. L-DEO will distribute the four airgun strings across an approximate area of 24 x 16 meters (m) (79 x 52 feet (ft)) behind the Langseth which will tow the array approximately 50-100 m (164-328 ft) behind the vessel at a tow-depth of 9-12 m (29.5-39.4 ft). The airgun array will fire for a brief (0.1 second (s)) pulse every 180 s. The array will remain silent at all other times.

The Langseth will also deploy 55 to 64 Ocean Bottom Seismometers (OBS) for the survey. As the airgun array is towed along the survey lines, the OBS will receive the returning acoustic signals and record them internally for later analysis. In addition to the operations of the airgun array, the Langseth will operate a multibeam echosounder (MBES) and a sub-bottom profiler (SBP) continuously throughout the Eastern Lau Spreading Center cruise.

The survey area is approximately 42 kilometers (km) (26 miles (mi)) offshore from Tonga in water depths ranging from 1000 - 2600 m (3280 — 9186 ft). The seismic survey effort (e.g., equipment testing, startup, line changes, repeat coverage of any areas, and equipment recovery) will require approximately 19 days to complete 42 transects of variable lengths, totaling 3650 km (2268 mi) and will include approximately 456 hours of airgun operation. Please see L-DEO's application for more detailed information. The exact dates of the activities will depend on logistics, weather conditions, and the need to repeat some lines if data quality is substandard.

L-DEO will conduct all geophysical data acquisition activities with on-board assistance by the scientists who have proposed the NSF-funded study. The scientific team consists of Dr. Doug Wiens (Washington University), Dr. Robert Dunn (University of Hawaii), Dr. Donna Blackman (Scripps Institution of Oceanography), and Dr. Spahr Webb (L-DEO). The vessel will be self-contained, and the crew will live aboard the vessel for the entire cruise.

NMFS has provided a more detailed description of the authorized action, including vessel and acoustic source specifications, in a previous notice for the proposed IHA (73 FR 71606, November 25, 2008).

The distance from the sound source at which an animal would be exposed to these different received sound levels may be estimated and is typically referred to as safety radii. These safety radii are specifically used to help NMFS estimate the number of marine mammals likely to be harassed by the proposed activity and in deciding how close a marine mammal may approach an operating sound source before the applicant will be required to power-down or shut down the sound source.

L-DEO's acoustic models predict received sound levels in relation to distance and direction from the 36-airgun array in order to estimate the safety radii around their operations. L-DEO's model is based on empirical data gathered during the acoustic calibration study of the R/V Maurice Ewing's ( Ewing ) array of 20 airguns (total volume 8600 in 3 ) conducted in the northern Gulf of Mexico in 2003. L-DEO provides a more detailed description of the modeling effort and calculations of the safety radii in the previous notice for the proposed IHA (73 FR 71606, November 25, 2008), Section I of L-DEO's IHA application, and in Appendix A of the Environmental Assessment report prepared by LGL Limited environmental research associates (LGL) on behalf of NSF.

Using the modeled distances and various correction factors, Table 1 outlines the predicted distances at which three root mean square (rms) sound levels (190 decibels (dB), 180 dB, and 160 dB) are expected to be received from the 36-airgun array and a single airgun operating in water greater than 1000 m (3,820 ft) in depth.

NMFS published a notice of receipt of the L-DEO application and proposed IHA in the Federal Register on November 25, 2008 (73 FR 71606). During the comment period, NMFS received comments from the Marine Mammal Commission (Commission), the Center for Regulatory Effectiveness (CRE); and the South Pacific Whale Research Consortium (SPWRC).

Following are the comments from the Commission, CRE, and SPWRC and NMFS' responses.

Comment 1: The Commission recommends that NMFS provide additional justification for its preliminary determination that the planned monitoring program will be sufficient to detect, with a high level of confidence, all marine mammals within or entering the identified safety zones; as such monitoring is essential for determining whether animals are being taken in unanticipated ways and unexpected numbers.

Response: NMFS believes that the planned monitoring program will be sufficient to detect (using visual detection and passive acoustic monitoring (PAM)), with reasonable certainty, most marine mammals within or entering identified safety radii. This monitoring, along with the required mitigation measures (see below), will result in the least practicable adverse impact on the affected species or stocks and will result in a negligible impact on the affected species or stocks. The Langseth is utilizing a team of trained marine mammal observers (MMOs) to visually monitor marine mammals and conduct passive acoustic monitoring (PAM).

The Langseth's high observation tower is a suitable platform for conducting marine mammal and turtle observations. When stationed on the observation platform, the MMO's eye level will be approximately 18 m (59 ft) above sea level, providing a panoramic view around the entire vessel. During the daytime, the MMO(s) will scan the area around the vessel systematically using reticle binoculars (e.g., 7 x 50 Fujinon), big-eye binoculars (25 x 150), and the naked eye. The platform of the Langseth is high enough that, in good weather, MMOs can see out to 8.9 nm (16.5 km, 10.2 mi). All of the 180-dB safety radii that MMOs will monitor during ramp-ups and power-downs are less than 2 km (1.1 nm, 1.2 mi).

MMOs will use night vision devices (NVDs) (ITT F500 Series Generation 3 binocular-image intensifier or equivalent), during dusk or nighttime, when required. Finally, L-DEO will provide laser rangefinding binoculars (Leica LRF 1200 laser rangefinder or equivalent) to MMOs to assist with distance estimation. MMOs estimate that visual detection from the ship is between 150 and 250 m (492 and 820 ft) using NVDs and about 30 m (98.4 ft) with the naked eye, which are affected by ambient lighting conditions, sea state, and thermal factors.

The Langseth will complement visual observations of marine mammals with an acoustical monitoring program. L-DEO will use a PAM system to improve detection, identification, localization, and tracking of marine mammals. The acoustic monitoring will alert visual observers (if on duty) when vocalizing cetaceans are detected. When an MMO detects a vocalization while visual observations are in progress, the acoustic MMO will contact the visual MMO immediately, to alert him/her to the presence of cetaceans (if they have not already been seen), and to initiate a power down or shut down, if required.

The theoretical detection distance of this PAM system is tens of kilometers and it has reliable detection rates out to 3 km (1.6 nm) and more limited ability out to tens of kilometers. During the Ewing's cruise in the Gulf of Mexico in 2003, MMOs detected marine mammals at a distance of approximately 10 km (5.4 nm) from the vessel and identified them to species level at approximately 5 km (2.7 nm) from the vessel, though the bridge of that vessel was only 11 m (36 ft) above the water (vs. the Langseth, which is 18 m (59 ft) above sea level).

The likelihood of MMOs visual detecting a marine mammal at night is significantly lower than the ability to detect any species during the day. However, the PAM operates equally as effective at night as during the day, and does not depend on good visibility.

The Langseth will not start up the airguns unless the MMO can visibly detect the safety range for the 30 minutes prior (i.e., not an night) to start up. In all cases at night, the Langseth will already be operating the airguns. NMFS believes that operating the airguns at night will cause many cetaceans to avoid the vessel; thus reducing the number of cetaceans likely to come within the safety radii. Additionally, all of the safety radii in deep water depths are smaller than 2 km (1.1 nm, 1.2 mi) and fall easily within the reliable detection capabilities of the PAM.

Comment 2: The Commission recommends that observations be made during all ramp-up procedures to gather data needed to analyze and report on its effectiveness as a mitigation measure.

Response: The IHA requires that MMOs on the Langseth make observations for 30 minutes prior to ramp-up, during all ramp-ups, and during all daytime seismic operations and record the following information when a marine mammal is sighted:

(i) Species, group size, age/size/sex categories (if determinable), behavior when first sighted and after initial sighting, heading (if consistent), bearing and distance from seismic vessel, sighting cue, apparent reaction to the airguns or vessel (e.g., none, avoidance, approach, paralleling, etc., and including responses to ramp-up), and behavioral pace; and

(ii) Time, location, heading, speed, activity of the vessel (including number of airguns operations and whether in state of ramp-up or power-down), sea state, visibility, cloud cover, and sun glare.

These requirements should provide information regarding the effectiveness of ramp-up as a mitigation measure, provided animals are detected during ramp-up.

Comment 3: The Commission recommends that the monitoring period prior to the initiation of seismic activities and to the resumption of airgun activities after a power-down be extended to one hour.

Response: As the MMC points out, several species of deep-diving cetaceans are capable of remaining underwater for more than 30 minutes, however, for the following reasons NMFS believes that 30 minutes is an adequate length for the monitoring period prior to the start-up of airguns: (1) because the Langseth is required to ramp-up, the time of monitoring prior to start-up of any but the smallest array is effectively longer than 30 minutes (Ramp up will begin with the smallest gun in the array and airguns will be added in a sequence such that the source level of the array will increase in steps not exceeding approximately 6 dB per 5-min period over a total duration of 20-30 min), (2) in many cases MMOs are making observations during times when sonar is not being operated and will actually be observing prior to the 30-minute observation period anyway, (3), the majority of the species that may be exposed do not stay underwater more than 30 minutes, and (4) all else being equal and if a deep diving individual happened to be in the area in the short time immediately prior to the pre-start-up monitoring, if an animal's maximum underwater time is 45 minutes, there is only a 1 in 3 chance that his last random surfacing would be prior to the beginning of the required 30-minute monitoring period.

Also, seismic vessels are moving continuously (because of long-towed array) and NMFS believes that unless the animal submerges and follows at the speed of the vessel (highly unlikely), the vessel will be far beyond the length of the safety radii within 30 minutes, and therefore it will be safe to start the airguns again.

Comment 4: In the proposed IHA on page 71612, column 2, paragraph 2: The statement “However, controlled exposure experiments in the Gulf of Mexico indicate that foraging behavior was altered upon exposure to airgun sound (Jochens et al. , 2006),” is not based on the most recent assessment of the data. NMFS' statement cites a 2006 Sperm Whale Seismic Study (SWSS) in the Gulf of Mexico Report which discusses data on foraging behavior and avoidance movements of seven tagged sperm whales in the Gulf of Mexico during exposure to airguns. The CRE requests that NMFS cite the final 2008 Synthesis Report on the sperm whale seismic study which cautions that the “...sample size of 7 animals that conducted foraging dives during exposure was too small to provide definitive results...the power of the test to detect small changes in foraging success was low, and no conclusions on the biological significance of these effects for an individual animal or for the population can be made from the data sets available.”

Response: As CRE points out in their letter, L-DEO acknowledges in their application (see Section 7, page 34) that seismic energy alters sperm whale foraging behavior. NMFS acknowledges the commentor's interpretation of the 2006 SSWS. However, after reviewing the 2008 Synthesis Report, NMFS believes that the following statement: “...sample size of 7 animals that conducted foraging dives during exposure was too small to provide definitive results...the power of the test to detect small changes in foraging success was low, and no conclusions on the biological significance of these effects for an individual animal or for the population can be made from the data sets available,” refers to having the statistical power to detect small changes in foraging success. Conversely, page 264 of the 2008 Synthesis Report states the following: “...Our data seem to indicate that airgun exposure — even at the low exposure levels observed in this experiment — can result in large reductions in foraging rate for some individual sperm whales.” Therefore, the proposed IHA notice statement that data indicated alterations in foraging behavior, is supported by one of the conclusions discussed in the 2008 Synthesis Report. NSF/L-DEO presented this study as one of several pieces of information that relate to this topic. Though the commenter has presented an alternate interpretation of the data related to foraging behavior, NMFS finds that the Environmental Assessment (EA) provides sufficient analysis of the available data and the information is not such that it will affect NMFS' findings.

Comment 5: The safety zone (power down/shut down zones) proposed are currently based on 180 dB (re 1μPa 2 rms) received level for cetaceans. While this is based on exposure levels that may cause a temporary threshold shift (TTS) in exposed cetaceans, biologically significant behavioral changes may occur at lower levels. Current best-practice is to power down at received levels of 160 dB (re 1μPa 2 rms). The SPWRC recommends that NMFS base the exclusion zones on the received levels of 160 dB.

Response: NMFS' marine mammal incidental take authorizations typically require a shutdown zone that corresponds to the isopleths associated with the Level A harassment threshold (i.e., 180 dB). NMFS does not require shutdown at the threshold associated with the onset of Level B behavioral harassment (i.e., 160 dB), as that would effectively be an avoidance of take, which would render a take authorization under the MMPA unnecessary. The MMOs will still be looking beyond the safety zone and will use the information to help implement the current safety zone measures. Further, though NMFS does not ask for protective measures meant to entirely avoid disturbance of marine mammals, which would preclude the need for an authorization, we have included measures intended to affect the least practicable adverse impact on the species.

Comment 6: If the designated exclusion zone for power down/shut down zones is based on the received levels of 160 dB, SPWRC does not consider that L-DEO can effectively monitor such a large safety zone (> 6 km radius) in normal operating sea conditions and detect cetaceans at that distance. We recommend that a suitable support vessel with a high observation platform, with at least two experienced MMOs operates at least 3 to 4 km ahead of the seismic vessel as a forward lookout.

Response: See Comment 5. The designated exclusion zone for power down/shut down zones is based on the received levels of 180 dB, not 160 dB. The visual and acoustic monitoring program (see below) will be sufficient to detect, most marine mammals within or entering identified safety radii. This monitoring, along with the required mitigation measures, will result in the least practicable adverse impact on the affected species or stocks and will result in a negligible impact on the affected species or stocks.

Comment 7: As no systematic cetacean surveys have been undertaken to determine the diversity, abundance and distribution cetaceans within the Lau Basin during summer months and PAM systems cannot be relied upon to detect all cetaceans present during periods of night, SWPC recommends that should high densities of cetaceans be observed resulting in interruptions to seismic operations during daylight hours, a trigger for ceasing night time operations be included for the survey.

Response: It is NMFS' opinion that once a safety zone is determined visually to be free of marine mammals, seismic may continue into periods of poor visibility. It should be understood that the safety zone is not stationary but is moving along with the ship at whatever speed the ship is progressing.

The IHA authorizes L-DEO to continue marine geophysical surveys into night and low-light hours if such segment of the survey is initiated when the entire relevant safety zones are visible and can be monitored for the entire 30 minutes prior (i.e., not an night) to starting the airguns. The IHA prohibits the initiation of the airgun array operation from a shut-down position at night or during low-light hours (such as in dense fog) when the full safety zone cannot be monitored by the MMOs. Finally, if L-DEO wishes to conduct seismic surveys at night or during low-light hours, a small airgun with the source level of at least 180 dB re μPa (rms) shall be initiated during the day-time with good visibility when no marine mammal is in the safety zone, and be kept on and monitored before ramping up for the survey.

Therefore, in cases where the airguns are already operating at night, NMFS believes that the continuing airgun operation will cause many cetaceans to avoid the vessel, which therefore will reduce the number likely to come within the safety radii. Additionally, because of normal operating procedures, which entail beginning seismic operations as soon after dawn as possible, at the most, less than one third of actual airgun operation (and much less, most likely) will occur at nighttime.

Comment 8: It is recommended that if three or more cetacean related interruptions (shutdowns or power downs) occur during the daylight hours then no nighttime seismic operations are conducted the following night. This is best practice and a requirement for all seismic surveys in Australian waters.

Response: See Comment 7. It is NMFS opinion that once a safety zone is determined visually to be free of marine mammals, seismic should continue into periods of poor visibility. As a general rule, termination of seismic during nighttime and poor visibility is simply not practicable due to cost considerations and ship time schedules. A review of previous monitoring programs indicates that these species were not within a distance to incur Level A harassment.

L-DEO's monitoring plan, along with the required mitigation measures in the IHA, will result in the least practicable adverse impact on the affected species or stocks and will result in a negligible impact on the affected species or stocks.

Comment 9: As the proposed seismic survey is an activity governed by the Tongan Fisheries Act of 1989, we recommend a Tonga Fisheries Observer be invited to participate in the survey (with all costs covered).

Response: NMFS acknowledges the commentor's interpretation of the Tongan Fisheries Act 1989 and will forward SPWRC's request to NSF and L-DEO. NSF/L-DEO has received approval from the Tonganeese government to conduct the survey and the terms and conditions of the IHA encourage NSF to coordinate with the Tongan government regarding the proposed seismic activity.

Comment 10: It is recommended that at least one SPWRC representative who is familiar with the cetacean species within the region be included, in the MMO team for the survey (with all costs associated with participating in the survey covered) and that the Consortium have full access to all cetacean sighting data collected.

Response: L-DEO appoints NMFS-qualified marine mammal observers with NMFS' concurrence. If an SPWRC representative requests to participate in the seismic survey, they should discuss this directly with a representative from L-DEO.

The IHA requires L-DEO to submit a report on all activities and monitoring results to the Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, within 90 days after the expiration of the IHA. L-DEO is then required to submit a final report within 30 days after receiving comments from NMFS on the draft report. NMFS will make a copy of the final report available on the internet at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental.htm#applications .

Twenty-nine marine mammal species may occur off the coast of Tonga, including 21 odontocetes (toothed cetaceans, such as dolphins), and 8 mysticetes (baleen whales). Pinnipeds are unlikely to be encountered in or near the Lau Basin survey area where seismic operations will occur, and are, therefore, not addressed further in this document. Five of these species are listed as endangered under the U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA), including the humpback ( Megaptera novaeanliae ), sei ( Balaenoptera borealis ), fin ( Balenoptera physalus ), blue ( Balenoptera musculus ), and sperm ( Physeter macrocephalus ) whales. This IHA will only address requested take authorizations for cetaceans as L-DEO does not expect to encounter pinnipeds that far offshore in the study area. Thus L-DEO is not requesting any takes for pinnipeds in this IHA.

Table 2 below outlines the species, their habitat and abundance in the proposed survey area, and the estimated exposure levels. Additional information regarding the status and distribution of the marine mammals in the area as well as how L-DEO calculated the densities were included in a previous notice for the proposed IHA (73 FR 71606, November 25, 2008) and in Sections III and IV of L-DEO's application.

Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq. ) direct the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) to allow, upon request, the incidental, but not intentional taking of marine mammals by U.S. citizens who engage in a specified activity (other than commercial fishing) during periods of not more than five consecutive years each if certain findings are made and regulations are issued or, if the taking is limited to harassment and of no more than 1 year, the Secretary shall issue a notice of proposed authorization for public review.

Authorization shall be granted if NMFS finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s), will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses, and if the permissible methods of taking and requirements pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring and reporting of such taking are set forth.

NMFS has defined “negligible impact” in 50 CFR 216.103 as:

The NDAA (Public Law 108-136) removed the “small numbers” and “specified geographical region” limitations and amended the definition of “harassment” as it applies to a “military readiness activity” to read as follows (Section 3(18)(B) of the MMPA):

On June 25, 2007, NMFS received an application from the Navy requesting authorization for the take of 24 species of marine mammals incidental to upcoming Navy training activities to be conducted within the HRC, which covers 235,000 nm 2 around the Main Hawaiian Islands (see map on page 17 of the application), over the course of 5 years. These training activities are classified as military readiness activities. These training activities may incidentally take marine mammals present within the HRC by exposing them to sound from mid-frequency or high frequency active sonar (MFAS/HFAS) or to underwater detonations at levels that NMFS associates with the take of marine mammals. The Navy requested authorization to take individuals of 24 species of marine mammals by Level B Harassment. Further, though they do not anticipate it to occur, the Navy requested authorization to take, by injury or mortality, up to 10 individuals each of 11 species over the course of the 5-year period (bottlenose dolphin, Kogia spp., melon-headed whale, pantropical spotted dolphin, pygmy killer whale, short-finned pilot whale, striped dolphin, and Cuvier's, Longman's, and Blainville's beaked whale).

On January 5, 2009, NMFS' final rule governing the take of marine mammals incidental to U.S. Navy Training in the Hawaii Range Complex became effective. In accordance with the final rule, NMFS issued an LOA to the Navy on January 8, 2009, authorizing Level B harassment of 24 species of marine mammals and mortality of 11 species of marine mammals incidental to U.S. Navy training, maintenance, and RDT&E activities in the HRC. Issuance of this LOA is based on findings, described in the preamble to the final rule (74 FR 1456, January 12, 2009), that the taking resulting from the activities described in this LOA will have a negligible impact on marine mammal stocks and will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the affected marine mammal stock for subsistence uses. The LOA describes the permissible methods of taking and includes requirements pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring and reporting of such taking.

I. Background

The Commission is aware that there is substantial confusion as to which testing and certification requirements of subsection 14(a) of the CPSA apply to which products under the Commission's jurisdiction, what sort of testing is required where the provisions do apply, whether testing is necessary for children's products that may not by their nature contain lead, whether testing to demonstrate compliance must be conducted on the final product rather than on its parts prior to assembly or manufacture, whether manufacturers and importers must issue certificates of compliance to address the labeling requirements under the Federal Hazardous Substance Act (“FHSA”), and what sort of certificate must be issued and by whom. The Commission has received literally thousands of e-mail, telephone, and written inquiries as to how to comply, when to comply, what is required in support of the various certifications, what form the required certificates must take, and who must issue them. Likewise, the Commission has received innumerable inquiries seeking relief from the expense of testing children's products that either may not contain lead or may be subject to exemptions that the Commission may announce in the near future as a result of ongoing rulemakings either required or permitted by the CPSIA. 2 Commission staff has been unable to respond to many of these inquiries due to the press of its usual regulatory and compliance activities and the additional burden of the very early, multiple statutory deadlines imposed on the agency by the CPSIA, including those necessitating issuance of fourteen proposed and final rules in the six months since CPSIA was signed into law on August 14, 2008. Furthermore, the Commission is operating in fiscal year 2009 with the same level of funding appropriated to it for fiscal year 2008, before the CPSIA as well as two other acts also requiring significant additional Commission efforts—the Virginia Graeme Baker Pool and Spa Safety Act and the Children's Gasoline Burn Prevention Act—were enacted. This funding constraint is a severe handicap on the Commission's ability to staff up to address the numerous new requirements imposed by the CPSIA.

The Commission has embarked on four rulemakings to address many of these issues  3 as they relate to the lead content of children's products:

• Determinations that certain materials inherently will not exceed the statutory CPSIA limits on the lead content of children's products. 74 FR 2433 (January 15, 2009).

• Exemption of certain electronic devices from otherwise applicable limits on lead in children's products. 74 FR 2435 (January 15, 2009).

• Guidance on determining inaccessibility of components of children's products containing lead. 74 FR 2439 (January 15, 2009).

• Procedures for seeking determinations as to lead content of materials or products and exclusions from otherwise applicable limits on lead content of children's products. 74 FR 2428 (January 15, 2009).

These proposed rules present complex scientific, technical, and procedural issues that will not be resolved by February 10, 2009, the effective date of CPSIA's initial 600 parts per million (“ppm”) limit on the lead content of children's products. Moreover, on that same date—February 10, 2009—additional sweeping requirements of the CPSIA come into effect, including those related to the phthalates content of children's toys and child care articles, the myriad requirements of the ASTM F963 voluntary toy standard becoming mandatory CPSC consumer product safety standards, 4 and the recently issued CPSIA regulations related to print and catalog advertising of certain children's products.

These extensive changes to the regulatory landscape cut a broad swath through the business community from books to children's apparel to toys and sporting goods to children's electronic products. Many firms making consumer products, especially children's products, are small businesses. Bureau of Census data indicates that approximately ninety-eight percent of the domestic manufacturers of toys, dolls and games fall into the Small Business Administration's traditional definition of small business (less than 500 employees), approximately eighty one percent of manufacturers of such products have fewer than twenty employees, and over fifty percent have fewer than five employees. According to the same source, over 99 percent of firms making apparel (including clothing for children and infants) are small businesses. Moreover, the testing and certification requirements affect companies that have not previously been regulated (or did not realize that they could be regulated) by the Commission, such as book publishers and craft makers. These entities too are dominated by small businesses. According to a 2000 survey conducted by the Craft Organization Directors Association, 64 percent of craftspeople worked alone, and nearly all of them employed fewer than 5 people.

The new requirements pose many significant technical challenges. Since the passage of the CPSIA, the Commission's technical staff has had to verify testing methods for total lead in metallic substrates. The staff has also been working diligently to validate testing methodologies for lead in plastics and other organic substrates to meet the lead content requirements of section 101 of the CPSIA. As soon as those methodologies are confirmed, they will be announced publicly. A method for testing for phthalates was identified by staff, but the extremely tight timeframe precluded meaningful public comment and input from the laboratories that will ultimately have to perform the testing. While the x-ray fluorescence screening method for lead has proven a useful tool, there is presently no similar screening method for preliminary testing for phthalates, although several promising ideas are under development. Finding appropriate screening tests for phthalates is essential given the costly and burdensome destructive testing currently required for the chemical analysis measuring phthalate concentrations. Commission staff needs time to work with laboratories to assure uniform understanding of the testing requirements adequate to support certification of compliance. We also need time to educate the numerous businesses, both big and small, for which this expansion of mandatory regulatory requirements is all new.

Smaller businesses that make up a significant portion of companies manufacturing products under the Commission's jurisdiction do not have laboratory test facilities and must turn to outside labs. The testing required to confirm compliance with requirements of the F963 toy standard ranges from chemical tests for antimony, arsenic, barium, cadmium, and chromium in surface coatings to various acoustic measurements for sound producing toys, tests for surface temperatures in battery operated toys, and tests for breakaway features on cords, straps, and elastic, among other things. To enforce certification on February 10, 2009, without the Commission having identified the labs accredited to do such testing disadvantages these small businesses and could result in these businesses paying for testing twice if the accreditation of the laboratory they choose for testing is not later accepted by the Commission. Also, the Commission has not had enough time or resources to educate the craft and handmade toy businesses on these new standards and testing requirements. While many of the larger manufacturers may already be conducting testing and certification, many smaller companies are only just learning which CPSIA requirements apply to them. Companies cannot test and certify products when it is still unclear to them what standards apply.

Furthermore, the CPSIA tasks the Commission with issuing a number of additional rules within the first 15 months of enactment addressing testing and certification of compliance of children's products that will help to clarify the responsibilities of importers, manufacturers, distributors, retailers, and testing labs. These include requirements addressing mandatory third party testing to all applicable children's product safety rules  5 due by statute in June 2009, rules addressing auditing of accredited children's product testing laboratories also due in June 2009, and comprehensive rules addressing compliance labeling of consumer products and production testing of children's products subject to third party testing and certification for continued compliance with applicable requirements, including random sampling protocols, required by CPSIA to be issued in November of 2009. These rules will define, among other things, which tests on what products will be required and how frequently those tests will need to be conducted. These answers are needed to ensure that the right tests are run on the right products without unnecessary and expensive testing on products likely to be exempted in some manner by the Commission in the coming months. 6

The Commission anticipates that when these rules are finalized and our ongoing stakeholder information and education efforts have been in place for sufficient time for the new requirements to become known and understood within the regulated community, implementation of the stayed testing and certification requirements could move forward by Commission action in orderly fashion supported by sound scientific and technical analysis and determinations. Accordingly, the stay will remain in effect until February 10, 2010, at which time the Commission will vote to terminate the stay. We believe at this time that the stay will give us the time needed to develop sound rules and requirements as well as implement outreach efforts to explain these requirements of the CPSIA and their applicability.

The stay will provide the Commission with the ability to focus in the immediate future on high priority enforcement matters such as those related to cribs, where the Commission has recognized the need for a thorough investigation of what appear to be potentially widespread safety issues (see 73 FR 71570), small parts, and lead in children's metal jewelry. Also, the Commission's technical and scientific staff will be able to focus on areas such as children's wearing apparel and children's books where certain of the pending rulemakings noted above may be able to provide appropriate relief, well in advance of the lifting of this stay, assuming that those industries provide the additional information requested by our staff in a timely manner. Among the children's products issues staff will need to address are bicycles intended or designed primarily for children 12 and under, where spokes and tire inflation valves raise complex issues related to the lead provisions of CPSIA.

Leaving in place the manufacturer, including importer, certification and testing requirements for lead paint, full-size and non-full-size cribs, pacifiers, small parts, and lead in metal components of children's metal jewelry, where laboratory accreditation requirements have been issued by the Commission will provide a high degree of assurance of safety in children's products manufactured during the pendency of the stay and reflects the priorities attached to those products by Congress in the CPSIA. Also, the Commission emphasizes that the stay only applies to testing and certification, not to the sale of products that do not comply with applicable mandatory safety requirements. All children's products must comply with all applicable children's product safety rules, including, but not limited to, the upcoming limits on lead and phthalates in the CPSIA. 7 Failure to comply with all applicable product safety rules as defined in the CPSA or similar rules, bans, standards, or regulations under any other Act enforced by the Commission will remain prohibited in accordance with section 19 of the CPSA as amended by CPSIA.

The United States Consumer Product Safety Commission hereby stays applicability to manufacturers, including importers, of the requirements for testing and certification  8 of products set forth in paragraphs 14(a)(1), (2) and (3) of the CPSA, as amended by subsection 102(a) of CPSIA, with the exception of:

(1) The requirements of any CPSC regulation, or of subsection 14(a) of the CPSA as it existed prior to amendment by the CPSIA, for product testing and certification, including existing requirements for certification of automatic residential garage door openers, bike helmets, candles with metal core wicks, lawnmowers, lighters, mattresses, and swimming pool slides;  9 and

(2) The certifications required due to certain requirements of the Virginia Graeme Baker Pool & Spa Safety Act being defined as consumer product safety “rules;” and

(3) The certifications of compliance required for ATVs in section 42(a)(2) of the CPSA which were added by CPSIA; and

(4) Any voluntary guarantees provided for in the Flammable Fabrics Act (“FFA”) or otherwise (to the extent a guarantor wishes to issue one); and

(5) The requirements on manufacturers, including importers, of children's products to use third party laboratories to test and to certify, on the basis of that testing, compliance of children's products with:

• Requirements on the lead content of paint and other surface coatings effective for products manufactured after December 21, 2008;

• Requirements applicable to full-size and non-full-size cribs and pacifiers effective for products manufactured after January 20, 2009;

• Requirements concerning small parts effective for products manufactured after February 15, 2009; and

• Requirements on the lead content of metal components of children's metal jewelry effective for products manufactured after March 23, 2009.

This action by the Commission does not stay the requirement that products meet all applicable product safety rules as defined in the CPSA or similar rules, bans, standards, or regulations under any other Act enforced by the Commission.

Section 3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) requires that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) provide interested Federal agencies and the public an early opportunity to comment on information collection requests. OMB may amend or waive the requirement for public consultation to the extent that public participation in the approval process would defeat the purpose of the information collection, violate State or Federal law, or substantially interfere with any agency's ability to perform its statutory obligations. The Director, Regulatory Information Management Services, Office of Management, publishes that notice containing proposed information collection requests prior to submission of these requests to OMB. Each proposed information collection, grouped by office, contains the following: (1) Type of review requested, e.g., new, revision, extension, existing or reinstatement; (2) Title; (3) Summary of the collection; (4) Description of the need for, and proposed use of, the information; (5) Respondents and frequency of collection; and (6) Reporting and/or Recordkeeping burden. OMB invites public comment.

The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology.

Type of Review: New.

Title: Documents Associated with the Notice of Terms and Conditions of Additional Purchase of Loans under the “Ensuring Continued Access to Student Loans Act of 2008.”

Frequency: On occasion.

Affected Public: Businesses or other for-profit.

Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour Burden:

Abstract: The Ensuring Continued Access to Student Loans Act of 2008 (Pub. L. No. 110-227) (the ECASLA) which was signed into law on May 7, 2008, amended the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (the HEA) by adding a new Section 459A that provides the U.S. Department of Education (the Department) with temporary authority to purchase student loans from Federal Family Education Loan (FFEL) Program lenders. The documents included with this submission establish the terms and conditions that will govern certain loan purchases through the replication for the 2009-2010 academic year of the Loan Participation Purchase Program and the Loan Purchase Commitment Program that have been established for the 2007-2008 and 2008-2009 academic years.

Requests for copies of the proposed information collection request may be accessed from http://edicsweb.ed.gov , by selecting the “Browse Pending Collections” link and by clicking on link number 3904. When you access the information collection, click on “Download Attachments” to view. Written requests for information should be addressed to U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., LBJ, Washington, DC 20202-4537. Requests may also be electronically mailed to ICDocketMgr@ed.gov or faxed to 202-401-0920. Please specify the complete title of the information collection when making your request.

Comments regarding burden and/or the collection activity requirements should be electronically mailed to ICDocketMgr@ed.gov . Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339.

35 U.S.C. 209 provides federal agencies with authority to grant exclusive licenses in federally-owned inventions, if, among other things, the agency finds that the public will be served by the granting of the license. The statute requires that no exclusive license may be granted unless public notice of the intent to grant the license has been provided, and the agency has considered all comments received in response to that public notice before the end of the comment period.

A123 Systems, Inc. of Watertown, Massachusetts has applied for an exclusive license to practice the inventions embodied in U.S. Patent Application No. 11/768,977 and has plans for commercialization of the inventions. The exclusive license will be subject to a license and other rights retained by the U.S. Government and other terms and conditions to be negotiated. DOE intends to negotiate to grant the license, unless, within 30 days of this notice, the Assistant General Counsel for Technology Transfer and Intellectual Property, Department of Energy, Washington, DC 20585, receives in writing any of the following, together with supporting documents:

(i) A statement from any person setting forth reason why it would not be in the best interests of the United States to grant the proposed license; or

(ii) An application for a nonexclusive license to the invention in which applicant states that it already has brought the invention to practical application or is likely to bring the invention to practical application expeditiously.

The Department will review all timely written responses to this notice and will proceed with negotiating the license if, after consideration of written responses to this notice, a finding is made that the license is in the public interest.

FERC-546 (Certificated Rate Filings: Gas Pipeline Rates; OMB Control Number 1902-0155) is required to implement Sections 4, 5, 16 and 7(e) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) (15 U.S.C. 717-717w). NGA Sections 4, 5 and 16 authorize the Commission to inquire into rate structures and methodologies and to set rates at a just and reasonable level. Section 7(e) authorizes the Commission to set initial rates that are in keeping with the public convenience and necessity.

The Commission uses the FERC-546 information to examine service and tariff provisions for the transportation and storage, and/or sale of natural gas in interstate commerce filed with the Commission.

When a pipeline decides to construct and operate a jurisdictional pipeline, it files an application with the Commission and receives a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity. As part of its review, the Commission considers and authorizes “initial rates” for transportation and/or storage service for the pipeline. Initial rates are established for new services authorized in certificate proceedings and must meet a public convenience and necessity standard. Initial rates established in the certificate proceeding remain in effect until such rates are reviewed by the Commission in a rate proceeding. The information submitted by the pipeline company to the Commission in these applications for initial rates is the subject of FERC-546. 1

The Commission's reporting requirements for this information collection are provided in 18 CFR 154.4, 154.7, 154.202, 154.204-.209, and 154.602-.603. Failure to collect this information would prevent the Commission from monitoring and properly evaluating pipeline proposals to add or modify services.

Action: The Commission is requesting a three-year extension of the current reporting requirements.

Burden Statement: Public reporting burden for this collection is estimated at:

The estimated cost burden to respondents is $812,381.76 (13,370 hours divided by 2,080 hours  2 per year times $126,384  3 equals $812,381.77). The cost per respondent is $10,154.77.

The reporting burden includes the total time, effort, or financial resources expended to generate, maintain, retain, disclose, or provide the information including: (1) Reviewing instructions; (2) developing, acquiring, installing, and utilizing technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, verifying, processing, maintaining, disclosing and providing information; (3) adjusting the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; (4) training personnel to respond to the collection of information; (5) searching data sources; (6) completing and reviewing the collection of information; and (7) transmitting, or otherwise disclosing the information.

The respondent's cost estimate is based upon salaries for professional and clerical support, as well as direct and indirect overhead costs. Direct costs include all costs directly attributable to providing this information, such as administrative costs and the cost for information technology. Indirect or overhead costs are costs incurred by an organization in support of its mission. These costs apply to activities which benefit the whole organization rather than any one particular function or activity.

Comments are invited on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) 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; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the respondent information collection burden, including 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.

OMB Control Number: 3060-0859.

Title: Suggested Guidelines for Petitions for Ruling Under Section 253 of the Communications Act.

Form No.: N/A.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit.

Number of Respondents: 80 respondents; 80 responses.

Estimated Time per Response: 63-125 hours.

Frequency of Response: On occasion reporting requirement.

Obligation to Respond: Voluntary. Statutory authority for this information collection are contained in 47 U.S.C. 253.

Total Annual Burden: 6,280 hours.

Total Annual Cost: N/A.

Privacy Act Impact Assessment: N/A.

Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: The Commission is not requesting respondents to submit confidential information to the Commission. Respondents may request confidential treatment of such information under 47 CFR 0.459 of the Commission's rules.

Needs and Uses: The Commission will submit this information collection to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) after this 60 day comment period in order to obtain the full three year clearance from them. The Commission is requesting an extension (no change in the on reporting requirement).

The Commission published a Public Notice in November 1998 which established various procedural guidelines related to the Commission's processing of petitions for preemption pursuant to Section 253 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended. The Commission will use the information to discharge its statutory mandate relating to the preemption of state or local statutes or other state or local legal requirements.

Section 253 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended; added by the Telecommunications Act of 1996, requires the Commission, with certain important exceptions, to preempt the enforcement of any state or local statute or regulation, or other state or local legal requirement (to the extent necessary) that prohibits or has the effect of prohibiting the ability of any entity to provide any interstate or intrastate telecommunications service. The Commission's consideration of preemption begins with the filing of a petition by an aggrieved party. The petition is placed on public notice and commented on by others. The Commission's decision is based on the public record, generally composed of the petition and comments. The Commission has considered a number of preemption items since the passage of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, and believes it in the public interest to inform the public of the information necessary to support its full consideration of the issues likely to be involved in preemption actions. In order to render a timely and informed decision, the Commission expects petitioners and commenters to provide it with relevant information sufficient to describe the legal regime involved in the controversy and to establish the factual basis necessary for decision.

OMB Control No.: 3060-0816.

OMB Approval Date: January 30, 2009.

Expiration Date: January 31, 2010.

Title: Local Telephone Competition and Broadband Reporting (Report and Order, WC Docket No. 07-38, FCC 08-89; Order on Reconsideration, WC Docket No. 07-38, FC 08-148).

Form Number(s): FCC Form 477.

Estimated Annual Burden: 1,610 respondents; 3,220 responses; 1,085,140 total annual hours; 337 hours per response (average).

Needs and Uses: This information collection (IC) was approved by OMB as a revision. The Commission reported an increase of 956,340 hours to the total annual burden. This program change increase is due to an increase in the estimated number of respondents and responses since this IC was last submitted to the OMB in June 2008.

The Commission submitted two Orders to the OMB for approval. The first was a Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in WC Docket No. 07-38, FCC 08-89 and the second was an Order on Reconsideration in WC Docket No. 07-38, FCC 08-148. With these two Orders, the Commission revised the FCC Form 477 data collection to improve the Commission's understanding of the extent of broadband deployment, facilitating the development of appropriate broadband policies. In particular, these amendments will improve the Commission's ability to carry out its obligation under section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 to “determine whether advanced telecommunications capability is being deployed to all Americans in a reasonable and timely fashion.” The Report and Order revised the FCC Form 477 to require all broadband providers to report the number of broadband connections in service in individual Census Tracts. The Report and Order adopted three additional changes to FCC Form 477. First, it requires providers to report broadband service speed data in conjunction with subscriber counts according to new categories for download and upload speeds. These new speed tiers will better identify services that support advanced applications. Second, it amended reporting requirements for mobile wireless broadband providers to require them to report the number of subscribers whose data plans allow them to browse the Internet and access the lawful Internet content of their choice. Third, it requires providers of interconnected Voice over Internet Protocol (interconnected VoIP) service to report subscribership information on FCC Form 477.

The Order on Reconsideration amended FCC Form 477 to require filers to report the percentage of broadband connections that are residential at the Census Tract level. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 directs the Commission to take actions to open all telecommunications markets to competition and to seek to promote innovation and investment by all participants, including new entrants. A central task in creating this framework is the opening of previously monopolized local telecommunications markets. By collecting timely and reliable information about the pace and extent of competition for local telephony service in different geographic areas—including rural areas—the Commission significantly improves the ability to evaluate the effectiveness of actions the Commission and the states are taking to facilitate economic competition in those markets. The Report and Order provides for additional methods to supplement the data reported by FCC Form 477 filers, including a voluntary self-reporting system, and a recommendation to the Census Bureau that the American Community Survey questionnaire be modified to gather information about broadband availability and subscription in households. The information is used by the Commission to prepare reports that help inform consumers and policy makers at the federal and state level of the development of competition in the local telephone service market and the deployment of broadband services. The Commission will continue to use the information to better inform its understanding of broadband deployment in conjunction with its congressionally mandated section 706 reports. The Commission also uses the data to support its analyses in a variety of rulemaking proceedings under the Communications Act of 1934, as amended. Absent this information collection, the Commission would lack essential data for assisting it in determining the effectiveness of its policies and fulfilling its statutory responsibilities in accordance with the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.

OMB Control Number: 3060-0249.

Title: Sections 74.781, 74.1281 and 78.69, Station Records.

Form Number: Not applicable.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Respondents: Business and other for-profit entities; Not-for-profit institutions; State, Federal or Tribal Governments.

Number of Respondents/Responses: 13,811 respondents/20,724 responses.

Estimated Time per Response: 30 minutes to 1 hour.

Frequency of Response: Recordkeeping requirement.

Total Annual Burden: 11,726 hours.

Total Annual Costs: $8,295,600.

Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: There is no need for confidentiality with this collection of information.

Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. The statutory authority for this information collection is contained in Section 154(i) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.

Privacy Impact Assessment(s): No impact(s).

Needs and Uses: 47 CFR 74.781 requires the following:

(a) The licensee of a low power TV, TV translator, or TV booster station shall maintain adequate station records, including the current instrument of authorization, official correspondence with the FCC, contracts, permission for rebroadcasts, and other pertinent documents.

(b) Entries required by § 17.49 of this Chapter concerning any observed or otherwise known extinguishment or improper functioning of a tower light: (1) The nature of such extinguishment or improper functioning. (2) The date and time the extinguishment or improper operation was observed or otherwise noted. (3) The date, time and nature of adjustments, repairs or replacements made.

(c) The station records shall be maintained for inspection at a residence, office, or public building, place of business, or other suitable place, in one of the communities of license of the translator or booster, except that the station records of a booster or translator licensed to the licensee of the primary station may be kept at the same place where the primary station records are kept. The name of the person keeping station records, together with the address of the place where the records are kept, shall be posted in accordance with § 74.765(c) of the rules. The station records shall be made available upon request to any authorized representative of the Commission.

(d) Station logs and records shall be retained for a period of two years.

47 CFR 74.1281 requires the following:

(a) The licensee of a station authorized under this Subpart shall maintain adequate station records, including the current instrument of authorization, official correspondence with the FCC, maintenance records, contracts, permission for rebroadcasts, and other pertinent documents.

(b) Entries required by § 17.49 of this chapter concerning any observed or otherwise known extinguishment or improper functioning of a tower light: (1) The nature of such extinguishment or improper functioning. (2) The date and time the extinguishment or improper operation was observed or otherwise noted. (3) The date, time and nature of adjustments, repairs or replacements made.

(c) The station records shall be maintained for inspection at a residence, office, or public building, place of business, or other suitable place, in one of the communities of license of the translator or booster, except that the station records of a booster or translator licensed to the licensee of the primary station may be kept at the same place where the primary station records are kept. The name of the person keeping station records, together with the address of the place where the records are kept, shall be posted in accordance with § 74.1265(b) of the rules. The station records shall be made available upon request to any authorized representative of the Commission.

(d) Station logs and records shall be retained for a period of two years.

47 CFR 78.69 requires each licensee of a CARS station shall maintain records showing the following:

(a) For all attended or remotely controlled stations, the date and time of the beginning and end of each period of transmission of each channel;

(b) For all stations, the date and time of any unscheduled interruptions to the transmissions of the station, the duration of such interruptions, and the causes thereof;

(c) For all stations, the results and dates of the frequency measurements made pursuant to § 78.113 and the name of the person or persons making the measurements;

(d) For all stations, when service or maintenance duties are performed, which may affect a station's proper operation, the responsible operator shall sign and date an entry in the station's records, giving:

(1) Pertinent details of all transmitter adjustments performed by the operator or under the operator's supervision.

(e) When a station in this service has an antenna structure which is required to be illuminated, appropriate entries shall be made as follows:

(1) The time the tower lights are turned on and off each day, if manually controlled. (2) The time the daily check of proper operation of the tower lights was made, if an automatic alarm system is not employed. (3) In the event of any observed or otherwise known failure of a tower light: (i) Nature of such failure. (ii) Date and time the failure was observed or otherwise noted. (iii) Date, time, and nature of the adjustments, repairs, or replacements made. (iv) Identification of Flight Service Station (Federal Aviation Administration) notified of the failure of any code or rotating beacon light not corrected within 30 minutes, and the date and time such notice was given. (v) Date and time notice was given to the Flight Service Station (Federal Aviation Administration) that the required illumination was resumed. (4) Upon completion of the 3-month periodic inspection required by § 78.63(c):

(i) The date of the inspection and the condition of all tower lights and associated tower lighting control devices, indicators, and alarm systems. (ii) Any adjustments, replacements, or repairs made to insure compliance with the lighting requirements and the date such adjustments, replacements, or repairs were made.

(f) For all stations, station record entries shall be made in an orderly and legible manner by the person or persons competent to do so, having actual knowledge of the facts required, who shall sign the station record when starting duty and again when going off duty.

(g) For all stations, no station record or portion thereof shall be erased, obliterated, or willfully destroyed within the period of retention required by rule. Any necessary correction may be made only by the person who made the original entry who shall strike out the erroneous portion, initial the correction made, and show the date the correction was made.

(h) For all stations, station records shall be retained for a period of not less than 2 years. The Commission reserves the right to order retention of station records for a longer period of time. In cases where the licensee or permittee has notice of any claim or complaint, the station record shall be retained until such claim or complaint has been fully satisfied or until the same has been barred by statute limiting the time for filing of suits upon such claims.

OMB Control Number: 3060-0310.

Title: Section 76.1801, Registration Statement; FCC Form 322, Community Cable Registration.

Form Number: FCC Form 322.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Respondents: Business and other for-profit entities; Not-for-profit institutions.

Number of Respondents/Responses: 755 respondents; 755 responses.

Estimated Time per Response: 30 minutes.

Frequency of Response: One time reporting requirement; On occasion reporting requirement.

Total Annual Burden: 378 hours.

Total Annual Costs: $37,750.

Nature and Extend of Confidentiality: There is no need for confidentiality with this collection of information.

Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. The statutory authority for this information collection is contained in Sections 154(i), 303, 308, 309 and 621 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.

Privacy Impact Assessment(s) : No impact(s).

Needs and Uses: On March 13, 2003, the Commission adopted a Report and Order (R&O), Amendment of the Commission's Rules for Implementation of its Cable Operations and Licensing System (COALS) to Allow for Electronic Filing of Licensing Applications, Forms, Registrations and Notifications in the Multichannel Video and Cable Television Service and the Cable Television Relay Service, FCC 03-55. This R&O provided for electronic filing and standardized information collections. Under 47 CFR Section 76.1801, cable operators are required to file FCC Form 322 with the Commission prior to commencing operation of a community unit. FCC Form 322 identifies biographical information about the operator and system as well as a list of broadcast channels carried on the system. This form replaces the requirement that cable operators send a letter containing the same information.

OMB Control Number: 3060-0341.

Title: Section 73.1680, Emergency Antennas.

Form Number: Not applicable.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities; Not-for-profit institutions.

Number of Respondents/Responses: 142 respondents/142 responses.

Estimated time per response: 1 hour.

Frequency of response: On occasion reporting requirement.

Total annual burden: 142 hours.

Total annual costs: $28,400.

Nature and Extend of Confidentiality: There is no need for confidentiality with this collection of information.

Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. The statutory authority for this information collection is contained in Section 154(i) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.

Privacy Impact Assessment(s): No impact(s).

Needs and Uses: 47 CFR 73.1680 requires that licensees of AM, FM or TV stations submit an informal request to the FCC (within 24 hours of commencement of use) to continue operation with an emergency antenna. An emergency antenna is one that is erected for temporary use after the authorized main and auxiliary antennas are damaged and cannot be used. FCC staff uses the data to ensure that interference is not caused to other existing stations.

OMB Control Number: 3060-0331.

Title: Aeronautical Frequency Notification.

From Number: FCC Form 321.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities; Not-for-profit institutions.

Number of Respondents/Responses: 3,240 respondents/3,240 responses.

Estimated Time per Response: 40 minutes.

Frequency of Response: One-time reporting requirement; On occasion reporting requirement.

Total Annual Burden: 2,291 hours.

Total Annual Costs: $205,200.

Nature and Extend of Confidentiality: There is no need for confidentiality with this collection of information.

Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. The statutory authority for this information collection is contained in Sections 154(i), 301, 303, 308, 309 and 621 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.

Privacy Impact Assessment(s) : No impact(s).

Needs and Uses: The FCC Form 321 is the means by which multichannel video programming distributors obtain authority to commence operation of a system on frequencies used by aeronautical services. The information is used to protect aeronautical radio communications from interference.

OMB Control Number: 3060-0569.

Title: Section 76.975, Commercial leased access dispute resolution.

Form Number: Not applicable.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities; State, Local or Tribal Government.

Number of Respondents/Responses: 60 respondents; 60 responses.

Estimated Time per Response: 4 to 40 hours.

Frequency of Response: Third party disclosure requirement; On occasion reporting requirement.

Nature and Extend of Confidentiality: There is no need for confidentiality with this collection of information.

Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. The statutory authority for this information collection is contained in Sections 154(i) and 612 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.

Total Annual Burden: 1,320 hours.

Total Annual Cost: $24,000.

Privacy Act Impact Assessment: No impact(s).

Needs and Uses: 47 CFR 76.975 permits any person aggrieved by the failure or refusal of a cable operator to make commercial channel capacity available or to charge rates for such capacity in accordance with the provisions of Title VI of the Communications Act of 1934 may file a petition for relief with the Commission.

OMB Control Number: 3060-0607.

Title: Section 76.922, Rates for Basic Service Tiers and Cable Programming Services Tiers.

Form Number: Not applicable.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities; State, local or Tribal Government.

Number of Respondents/Responses: 25 respondents/25 responses.

Estimated Time per Response: 12 hours.

Frequency of Response: On occasion reporting requirement.

Total Annual Burden: 300 hours.

Total Annual Costs: None.

Nature and Extend of Confidentiality: There is no need for confidentiality with this collection of information.

Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. The statutory authority for this information collection is contained in Sections 4(i) and 623 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.

Privacy Impact Assessment(s): No impact(s).

Needs and Uses: 47 CFR 76.922(b)(5)(c) provides that an eligible small system that elects to use the streamlined rate reduction process must implement the required rate reductions and provide written notice of such reductions to local subscribers, the local franchising authority (“LFA”), and the Commission. The information is used by Commission staff to ensure that qualified small systems have additional incentives to add channels and to insure that small systems are able to recover costs for headend upgrades when doing so.

OMB Control Number: 3060-0938.

Title: Application for a Low Power FM Broadcast Station License.

Form Number: FCC Form 319.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Respondents: Not-for-profit institutions; State, local or Tribal Government.

Number of Respondents/Responses: 200 respondents/200 responses.

Estimated Time per Response: 1 hour.

Frequency of Response: On occasion reporting requirement.

Total Annual Burden: 200 hours.

Total Annual Costs: $17,500.

Nature and Extend of Confidentiality: There is no need for confidentiality with this collection of information.

Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. The statutory authority for this information collection is contained in Sections 154(i), 303 and 308 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.

Privacy Impact Assessment(s): No impact(s).

Needs and Uses: On January 20, 2000, the Commission adopted a Report and Order (R&O) in MM Docket No. 99-25, In the Matter of Creation of Low Power Radio Service. With the adoption of this R&O, the Commission authorized the licensing of two new classes of FM radio stations, generally referred to as low power FM stations (LPFM): A LP100 class for stations operating at 50-100 watts effective radiated power (ERP) at an antenna height above average terrain (HAAT) of 30 meters; and a LP10 class for stations operating at 1-10 watts ERP and an antenna height of 30 meters HAAT. These stations will be operated on a noncommercial educational basis by entities that do not hold attributable interests in any other broadcast station or other media subject to the Commission's ownership rules. The LPFM service authorized in this Report and Order provides significant opportunities for new radio services. The LPFM service creates a class of radio stations designed to serve very localized communities or underrepresented groups within communities.

In connection with this new service, the Commission developed a new FCC Form 319, Application for a Low Power FM Broadcast Station License. FCC Form 319 is required to apply for a license for a new or modified Low Power FM (LPFM) station.

OMB Control Number: 3060-1045.

Title: Section 76.1610, Change of Operational Information; FCC Form 324, Operator, Mail Address and Operational Information Changes.

Form Number: FCC Form 324.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Respondents: Business and other for-profit entities; Not-for-profit institutions.

Number of Respondents/Responses: 5,000 respondents/5,000 responses.

Estimated Time per Response: 30 minutes.

Frequency of Response: On occasion reporting requirement.

Total Annual Burden: 2,500 hours.

Total Annual Costs: None.

Nature and Extend of Confidentiality: There is no need for confidentiality with this collection of information.

Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. The statutory authority for this information collection is contained in Sections 154(i), 303, 308, 309 and 621 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.

Privacy Impact Assessment(s): No impact(s)

Needs and Uses: Under 47 CFR 76.1610, cable operators must notify the Commission of changes in ownership information or operating status within 30 days of such change. FCC Form 324 is used to update information filed with the Commission concerning the Cable Community Registration. The information is the basic operational information on operator name, mailing address, community served, and system identification. FCC Form 324 will cover a variety of changes related to cable operators, replacing the requirement of a letter containing approximately the same information. Every Form 324 filing will require information about the system—the additional information required depending largely upon the nature of the change.

Under section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.), this notice announces a meeting of the (TAMWG).

Primary objectives of the meeting will include discussion of the following topics:

• Welcome and introductions,

• History and status of TRRP,

• Roles and responsibilities of TAMWG,

• FACA procedures,

• Discussion of bylaws,

• TRRP flow scheduling, and

• Election of officers.

Completion of the agenda is dependent on the amount of time each item takes. The meeting could end early if the agenda has been completed.

The lessee has agreed to the amended lease terms for rentals and royalties at rates of $10.00 per acre, or fraction thereof, per year, and 16 2/3 percent, respectively. The lessee has paid the required $500 administrative fee and $163 to reimburse the Department for the cost of this Federal Register notice. The lessee has met all the requirements for reinstatement of the lease as set out in Sections 31(d) and (e) of the Mineral Lands Leasing Act of 1920 (30 U.S.C. 188), and the Bureau of Land Management is proposing to reinstate lease WYW156556 effective October 1, 2008, under the original terms and conditions of the lease and the increased rental and royalty rates cited above. BLM has not issued a valid lease affecting the lands.

The U.S. Forest Service has determined that the withdrawal is no longer needed on the lands described in this order and the partial revocation is needed to facilitate a pending land exchange with the State of Montana.

By virtue of the authority vested in the Secretary of the Interior by Section 204 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, 43 U.S.C. 1714 (2000), it is ordered as follows:

1. The withdrawal created by the Executive Order dated February 11, 1918, which established Power Site Reserve No. 676, is hereby revoked insofar as it affects the following described lands:

2. At 9 a.m. on March 11, 2009, the above-described lands are hereby made available for exchange under the Act of March 20, 1922, as amended, 16 U.S.C. 485, 486 (2000).

SRC meeting locations and dates may need to be changed based on weather or local circumstances. If meeting dates and locations are changed, notice of each meeting will be published in local newspapers and announced on local radio stations prior to the meeting dates.

The proposed agendas for each meeting include the following:

1. Call to order (SRC Chair).

2. SRC Roll Call and Confirmation of Quorum.

3. SRC Chair and Superintendent's Welcome and Introductions.

4. Review and Approve Agenda.

5. Review and adopt minutes from last meeting.

6. SRC Membership Status.

7. SRC Member Reports.

8. Park Superintendent and NPS Staff Reports.

9. Federal Subsistence Board Update.

a. Wildlife Proposals.

b. Fisheries Proposals.

10. Board of Game and Board of Fisheries Updates.

11. Subsistence Uses: Horns, Antlers, Bone and Plant Environmental Assessment Update.

12. Old Business.

13. New Business.

14. Agency and Public Comments.

15. SRC Work Session.

16. Adjournment.

Title: Bureau of Reclamation Use Authorization Application, 43 CFR part 429.

Abstract: Reclamation is responsible for approximately 6.5 million acres of land which directly support Reclamation's Federal water projects in the 17 western states. Individuals or entities wanting to use Reclamation's lands, facilities, or waterbodies must submit an application to gain permission for such uses. Examples of such uses are:

Reclamation reviews applications to determine whether granting individual use authorizations is compatible with Reclamation's present or future uses of the lands, facilities, or waterbodies. When we find a proposed use compatible, we advise the applicant of the estimated administrative costs and estimated application processing time. In addition to the administrative costs, we require the applicant to pay a use fee for the use authorization based on a valuation or competitive bidding. If the application is for construction of a bridge, building, or other significant construction project, Reclamation may require that all plans and specifications be signed and sealed by a licensed professional engineer.

We changed the form and its instructions to comply with revisions to 43 CFR part 429. The name of the form is now “Bureau of Reclamation Use Authorization Application” and “right-of-use” is replaced with “use authorization” in the form and instructions. We expanded the examples in the instructions of proposed uses for which you must seek permission. The instructions reflect an application fee of $100. However, some applications may incur a higher cost due to additional required analyses such as the need to perform a valuation or to ensure compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act. The average cost for preparing an application is estimated to be $200. We made other changes to the form and the instructions to improve the readability and information-gathering. For instance, the form now requests day and evening phone numbers, instead of work and home numbers.

Frequency: Each time a use authorization is requested.

Respondents: Individuals, corporations, companies, and State and local entities who want to use Reclamation lands, facilities, or waterbodies.

Estimated Annual Total Number of Respondents: 175.

Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent: 1.

Estimated Total Number of Annual Responses: 175.

Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 350 hours.

Estimated Completion Time per Respondent: 2 hours.

We invite your comments on:

(a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of our functions, including whether the information will have practical use;

(b) The accuracy of our burden estimate for the proposed collection of information;

(c) Ways to enhance the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

(d) Ways to minimize the burden of the information collection on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. Reclamation will display a valid OMB control number on the Use Authorization Application Form 7-2540. A Federal Register notice with a 60-day comment period soliciting comments on this collection of information was published in the Federal Register (73 FR 56865, Sep. 30, 2008). No public comments were received.

OMB has up to 60 days to approve or disapprove this information collection, but may respond after 30 days; therefore, public comment should be submitted to OMB within 30 days in order to assure maximum consideration.

Before including your address, telephone number, e-mail address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment (including your personal identifying information) may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

This notice is to advise the public of the issuance of a Final Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and the State of Texas. The MOU provides the basis for mutually agreeable procedures whereby the State of Texas may utilize the NRC Emergency Response Data System (ERDS) to receive data during an emergency at a commercial nuclear power plant whose 10-mile Emergency Planning Zone lies within the State of Texas.

This MOU is effective January 23, 2009.

Documents related to this action, including the application for amendment and supporting documentation, are available electronically at the NRC's Electronic Reading Room at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. From this site, you can access the NRC's Agencywide Document Access and Management System (ADAMS), which provides text and image files of NRC's public documents. The ADAMS accession number for the document related to this notice is: Memorandum of Understanding Between the NRC and the State of Texas ML 090230637. If you do not have access to ADAMS or if there are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact the NRC Public Document Room (PDR) Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737 or by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov.

These documents may also be viewed electronically on the public computers located at the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), O 1 F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852. The PDR reproduction contractor will copy documents for a fee.

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and the State of Texas enter into this Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) under the authority of Section 274i of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended.

The State of Texas recognizes the Federal Government, primarily the NRC, as having the exclusive authority and responsibility to regulate the radiological and national security aspects of the construction and operation of nuclear production or utilization facilities, except for certain authority over air emissions granted to States by the Clean Air Act. Nothing in this MOU is intended to restrict or expand the scope of regulatory authority of either the NRC or the State of Texas.

A. The Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended, authorize the NRC to license and regulate, among other activities, the manufacture, construction, and operation of utilization facilities (nuclear power plants) in order to assure common defense and security and to protect the public health and safety. Under these statutes, the NRC is the agency responsible for regulating nuclear power plant safety.

B. NRC believes that its mission to protect public health and safety can be served by a policy of cooperation with State governments and has formally adopted a policy statement on “Cooperation with States at Commercial Nuclear Power Plants and Other Nuclear Production or Utilization Facilities” (54 FR 7530, February 25, 1992). The policy statement provides that NRC will consider State proposals to enter into instruments of cooperation for certain programs when these programs have provisions to ensure close cooperation with NRC. This MOU is intended to be consistent with, and implement the provisions of, the NRC's policy statement.

C. NRC fulfills its statutory mandate to regulate nuclear power plant safety by, among other things, responding to emergencies at licensee facilities and monitoring the status and adequacy of licensees' responses to emergency situations.

D. The State of Texas fulfills its statutory mandate to provide for preparedness, response, mitigation, and recovery in the event of an accident at a nuclear power plant through its statutes located in Chapter 418, Texas Disaster Act of 1975, Texas Government Code.

A. This MOU defines the way in which NRC and the State of Texas intend to cooperate in planning and maintaining the capability to transfer reactor plant data via the Emergency Response Data System (ERDS) during emergencies at commercial nuclear power plants in the State of Texas that have implemented an ERDS interface, and for which any portion of the plant's 10-mile Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ) lies within the State of Texas.

B. It is understood by the NRC and the State of Texas that ERDS data will only be transmitted to the State of Texas during emergencies classified at the Alert Level or above, during scheduled tests, or during exercises when available.

C. Nothing in this MOU is intended to restrict or expand the statutory authority of the NRC, the State of Texas, or to affect or otherwise alter the terms of any agreement in effect under the authority of Section 274b of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended; nor is anything in this MOU intended to restrict or expand the authority of the State of Texas on matters not within the scope of this MOU.

D. Nothing in this MOU confers upon the State of Texas the authority to (1) interpret or modify NRC regulations and NRC requirements imposed on the licensee; (2) take enforcement actions; (3) issue confirmatory letters; (4) amend, modify, or revoke a license issued by the NRC; or (5) direct or recommend nuclear power plant employees to take, or not take, any action. Authority for all such actions is reserved exclusively to the NRC.

E. This MOU does not confer any binding obligation or right of action on either party. This MOU does not obligate any funds and is subject to the availability of appropriated funds.

Under this MOU, the NRC will maintain ERDS. ERDS is a system designed to receive, store, and retransmit data from in-plant data systems at nuclear power plants during emergencies. The NRC will provide the State of Texas, up to 10 digital certificates for use by State designated personnel in accessing ERDS data during emergencies at nuclear power plants which have implemented an ERDS interface, and for which any portion of the plant's 10-mile EPZ lies within the of State of Texas. The NRC reserves the right to revoke digital certificates at any time.

A. The State of Texas, through its lead radiological agency, will, in cooperation with the NRC, establish a capability to receive ERDS data. To this end, the State of Texas will provide the necessary computer hardware and commercially licensed software required for ERDS data transfer to users.

B. The State of Texas will provide the NRC with an initial, and periodically updated, list of designated persons serving as holders of ERDS digital certificates.

C. The State of Texas will use ERDS only to access data, at the Alert level or higher, from nuclear power plants for which all or a portion of the 10-mile EPZ falls within its State boundary.

D. For the purpose of minimizing the impact on plant operators, the State of Texas will seek clarification of ERDS data through the NRC.

A. The State of Texas and the NRC agree to work in concert to assure that the following communications and information exchange protocol regarding ERDS are followed:

a. The State of Texas and the NRC agree in good faith to make available to each other information within the intent and scope of this MOU.

b. NRC and the State of Texas agree to meet as necessary to exchange information on matters of common concern pertinent to this MOU. Unless otherwise agreed, such meetings will be held in the NRC Headquarters Operations Center. The affected utilities will be kept informed of pertinent information covered by this MOU.

c. To preclude the premature release of sensitive information, NRC will protect sensitive information to the extent permitted by the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552, Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 2.790, and all other applicable authority. The State of Texas will protect sensitive information to the extent of the Texas Government Code, Chapter 552, Public Information.

d. NRC will conduct periodic tests of licensee ERDS data links. A copy of the test schedule will be provided to the Texas Department of State Health Services by the NRC. The Texas Department of State Health Services may test its ability to access ERDS data during these scheduled tests, or may schedule independent tests of the State link with the NRC.

e. NRC will provide access to ERDS for emergency exercises with reactor units capable of transmitting exercise data to ERDS. For exercises in which the NRC is not participating, the Texas Department of State Health Services will coordinate with the NRC in advance to ensure ERDS availability. NRC reserves the right to preempt ERDS use for any exercise in progress in the event of an actual event at any licensed nuclear power plant.

A. The principal senior management contacts for this MOU will be the Director, Division of Preparedness and Response, Office of Nuclear Security and Incident Response for the NRC, and the Director, Client Services Contracting Unit, Texas Department of State Health Services, for the State of Texas. These individuals may designate appropriate staff representatives for the purpose of administering this MOU.

B. Identification of these contacts is not intended to restrict communication between NRC and Texas Department of State Health Services staff members on technical and other day-to-day activities.

A. If disagreements arise about matters within the scope of this MOU, NRC and the State of Texas will work together to resolve these differences.

B. Differences between the State of Texas and NRC staff over issues arising out of this MOU will, if they cannot be resolved in accordance with Section VIII.A, be resolved by the Director of the NRC Division of Preparedness and Response, Office of Nuclear Security and Incident Response.

C. Differences which cannot be resolved in accordance with Sections VIII.A and VIII.B will be reviewed and resolved by the NRC's Director, Office of Nuclear Security and Incident Response.

D. The NRC's General Counsel has the final authority to provide legal interpretation of the Commission's regulations.

This MOU will take effect after it has been signed by both parties.

A formal review, not less than 1 year after the effective date, will be performed by the NRC to evaluate implementation of the MOU and resolve any problems identified. This MOU will be subject to periodic reviews and may be amended or modified upon written agreement by both parties, and may be terminated upon 30 days written notice by either party.

If any provision(s) of this MOU, or the application of any provision(s) to any person or circumstances is held invalid, the remainder of this MOU and the application of such provisions to other persons or circumstances will not be affected.

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 is available 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 . 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 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/about-nrc/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 Commissions 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 February 3, 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 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 needs to be strengthened?

Obtaining public input on these topics will be the focus of the February 3, 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.

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.

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 do you generally 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. Are there 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?

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 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?

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?

By letter dated May 30, 2008, COGEMA Mining, Inc. (COGEMA), submitted a License Renewal Application to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to renew Source Materials License SUA-1341 for the Christensen and Irigaray Ranch Facilities in Johnson and Campbell Counties, Wyoming (ADAMS Accession Package No. ML081850689). COGEMA has requested that the license be renewed as a performance-based license, which is its current form. COGEMA also requested that the renewal be for ten (10) years, consistent with the last renewal. The renewal, if granted, would allow for continued uranium production operations and the recovery of uranium by in situ recovery (ISR) extraction techniques as previously licensed by the NRC. An NRC administrative review, documented in a letter to COGEMA dated December 29, 2008 (ADAMS Accession No. ML082760265), found the amendment request acceptable to begin a technical review. Before approving the license amendment, the NRC findings required by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and NRC's regulations, will have been made. These findings will be documented in a Safety Evaluation Report and a site-specific environmental review consistent with the provisions in 10 CFR part 51.

The May 30, 2008 renewal request pertains to COGEMA's 10 CFR part 40 source materials license, and is COGEMA's proposal to continue uranium production operations at its facilities in Johnson and Campbell Counties, Wyoming. Any person whose interest may be affected by this proposal, and who desires to participate as a party in an NRC adjudicatory proceeding, must file a request for a hearing. The hearing request must include a specification of the contentions which the person seeks to have litigated, and must be filed in accordance with the NRC E-Filing rule, which the NRC promulgated on August 28, 2007 (72 FR 49139). The E-Filing rule requires participants to submit and serve documents over the internet or in some cases to mail copies on electronic storage media. Participants may not submit paper copies of their filings unless they seek a waiver in accordance with the procedures described below.

To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least ten (10) days prior to the filing deadline, the petitioner/requester must contact the Office of the Secretary by e-mail at HEARINGDOCKET@NRC.GOV , or by calling (301) 415-1677, to request (1) a digital identification (ID) certificate, which allows the participant (or its counsel or representative) to digitally sign documents and access the E-Submittal server for any proceeding in which it is participating; and/or (2) creation of an electronic docket for the proceeding (even in instances in which the petitioner/requester (or its counsel or representative) already holds an NRC-issued digital ID certificate). Each petitioner/requester will need to download the Workplace Forms Viewer(tm) to access the Electronic Information Exchange (EIE), a component of the E-Filing system. The Workplace Forms Viewer(tm) is free and is available at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/install-viewer.html . Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is available on NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/apply-certificates.html.

Once a petitioner/requester has obtained a digital ID certificate, has a docket created, and downloaded the EIE viewer, the petitioner/requester can then submit a request for hearing or petition for leave to intervene. Submissions should be in Portable Document Format (PDF) in accordance with NRC guidance available on the NRC public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html . A filing is considered complete at the time the filer submits its documents through EIE. To be timely, an electronic filing must be submitted to the EIE system no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the due date. Upon receipt of a transmission, the E-Filing system time-stamps the document and sends the submitter an e-mail notice confirming receipt of the document. The EIE system also distributes an e-mail notice that provides access to the document to the NRC Office of the General Counsel and any others who have advised the Office of the Secretary that they wish to participate in the proceeding, so that the filer need not serve the documents on those participants separately. Therefore, applicants and other participants (or their counsel or representative) must apply for and receive a digital ID certificate before a hearing request/petition to intervene is filed so that they can obtain access to the document via the E-Filing system.

A person filing electronically may seek assistance through the “Contact Us” link located on the NRC Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html or by calling the NRC Meta-System Help Desk, which is available between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday. The Meta-System Help Desk can be contacted by telephone at 1-866-672-7640 or by e-mail at MSHD.Resource@nrc.gov .

Participants who believe that they have good cause for not submitting documents electronically must file a motion, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper format. Such filings must be submitted by: (1) First class mail addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff. Participants filing a document in this manner are responsible for serving the document on all other participants. Filing is considered complete by first-class mail as of the time of deposit in the mail, or by courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service upon depositing the document with the provider of the service.

Non-timely requests and/or petitions and contentions will not be entertained absent a determination by the Commission, the presiding officer, or the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board that the petition and/or request should be granted and/or the contentions should be admitted based on a balancing of the factors specified in 10 CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i)-(viii). To be timely, filings must be submitted no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the due date.

Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at http://ehd.nrc.gov/EHD_Proceeding/home.asp , unless excluded pursuant to an order of the Commission, an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, or a Presiding Officer. Participants are requested not to include social security numbers in their filings. With respect to copyrighted works, except for limited excerpts that serve the purpose of the adjudicatory filings and would constitute a Fair Use application, participants are requested not to include copyrighted materials in their submissions.

The formal requirements for documents contained in 10 CFR 2.304(c)-(e) must be met. If the NRC grants an electronic document exemption in accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g)(3), then the requirements for paper documents, set forth in 10 CFR 2.304(b) must be met.

In accordance with 10 CFR 2.309(b), a request for a hearing must be filed by April 10, 2009.

In addition to meeting other applicable requirements of 10 CFR 2.309, a request for a hearing filed by a person other than an applicant or licensee must state:

1. The name, address, and telephone number of the requester;

2. The nature of the requester's right under the Act to be made a party to the proceeding;

3. The nature and extent of the requester's property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding;

4. The possible effect of any decision or order that may be issued in the proceeding on the requester's interest; and

5. The circumstances establishing that the request for a hearing is timely in accordance with 10 CFR 2.309(b).

In accordance with 10 CFR 2.309(f)(1), a request for hearing or petitions for leave to intervene must set forth with particularity the contentions sought to be raised. For each contention, the request or petition must:

1. Provide a specific statement of the issue of law or fact to be raised or controverted;

2. Provide a brief explanation of the basis for the contention;

3. Demonstrate that the issue raised in the contention is within the scope of the proceeding;

4. Demonstrate that the issue raised in the contention is material to the findings that the NRC must make to support the action that is involved in the proceeding;

5. Provide a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert opinions which support the requester's/petitioner's position on the issue and on which the requester/petitioner intends to rely to support its position on the issue; and

6. Provide sufficient information to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant or licensee on a material issue of law or fact. This information must include references to specific portions of the amendment request that the requester/petitioner disputes and the supporting reasons for each dispute, or, if the requester/petitioner believes the application fails to contain information on a relevant matter as required by law, the identification of each failure and the supporting reasons for the requester's/petitioner's belief.

In addition, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.309(f)(2), contentions must be based on documents or other information available at the time the petition is to be filed, such as the amendment request, other supporting documents filed by an applicant or licensee, or otherwise available to the petitioner. On issues arising under NEPA, the requester/petitioner must file contentions based on environmental information supplied by the licensee or previous environmental analysis. The requester/petitioner may amend those contentions or file new contentions if there are data or conclusions in the NRC draft, or final environmental impact statement, environmental assessment, or any supplements relating thereto, that differ significantly from the data or conclusions in the applicant's or licensee's documents. Otherwise, contentions may be amended or new contentions filed after the initial filing only with leave of the presiding officer.

Requesters/petitioners should, when possible, consult with each other in preparing contentions and combine similar subject matter concerns into a joint contention, for which one of the co-sponsoring requesters/petitioners is designated the lead representative. Further, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.309(f)(3), any requester/petitioner that wishes to adopt a contention proposed by another requester/petitioner must do so, in accordance with the E-Filing rule, within ten (10) days of the date the contention is filed, and designate a representative who shall have the authority to act for the requester/petitioner.

In accordance with 10 CFR 2.309(g), a request for hearing and/or petition for leave to intervene may also address the selection of the hearing procedures, taking into account the provisions of 10 CFR 2.310.

Documents related to this action are available electronically at the NRC's Electronic Reading Room at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. From this site, you can access the NRC's Agencywide Document Access and Management System (ADAMS), which provides text and image files of NRC's public documents. The ADAMS package accession number for the documents related to this Notice is ML081850689, COGEMA Mining, Inc., Irigaray and Christensen Ranch Projects, Licensing Renewal Application. If you do not have access to ADAMS or if there are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact the NRC Public Document Room (PDR) Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by e-mail to pdr.resource@nrc.gov. These documents may also be viewed electronically on the public computers located at the NRC's PDR, O 1 F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852. The PDR reproduction contractor will copy documents for a fee.

1. This order contains instructions regarding how potential parties to this proceeding may request access to documents containing sensitive unclassified information. A suggested schedule is provided as Attachment 1 to this order.

2. Within ten (10) days after publication of this notice of opportunity for hearing any potential party as defined in 10 CFR 2.4 who believes access to SUNSI is necessary for a response to the notice may request access to such information. A “potential party” is any person who intends or may intend to participate as a party by demonstrating standing and the filing of an admissible contention under 10 CFR 2.309. Requests submitted later than ten (10) days will not be considered absent a showing of good cause for the late filing, addressing why the request could not have been filed earlier.

3. The requester shall submit a letter requesting permission to access SUNSI to the Office of the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff, and provide a copy to the Associate General Counsel for Hearings, Enforcement and Administration, Office of the General Counsel, Washington, DC 20555-0001. The expedited delivery or courier mail address for both offices is U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852. The e-mail address for the Office of the Secretary and the Office of the General Counsel are HearingDocket@nrc.gov and OGCmail@nrc.gov , respectively. 1

The request must include the following information:

a. A description of the licensing action with a citation to this Federal Register notice of opportunity for hearing;

b. The name and address of the potential party and a description of the potential party's particularized interest that could be harmed, if the licensing action is taken;

c. The identity of the individual requesting access to Sensitive Unclassified Non-Sensitive Information (SUNSI) and the requester's need for the information in order to meaningfully participate in this adjudicatory proceeding, particularly why publicly available versions of the application would not be sufficient to provide the basis and specificity for a proffered contention;

4. Based on an evaluation of the information submitted under items 2 and 3.a through 3.c, above, the NRC staff will determine within ten (10) days of receipt of the written access request whether (1) there is a reasonable basis to believe the petitioner is likely to establish standing to participate in this NRC proceeding, and (2) there is a legitimate need for access to SUNSI.

5. A request for access to SUNSI will be granted if:

a. The request has demonstrated that there is a reasonable basis to believe that a potential party is likely to establish standing to intervene or to otherwise participate as a party in this proceeding;

b. The proposed recipient of the information has demonstrated a need for SUNSI;

c. The proposed recipient of the information has executed a Non-Disclosure Agreement or Affidavit and agrees to be bound by the terms of a Protective Order setting forth terms and conditions to prevent the unauthorized or inadvertent disclosure of SUNSI; and

d. The presiding officer has issued a protective order concerning the information or documents requested. 2 Any protective order issued shall provide that the petitioner must file SUNSI contentions 25 days after receipt of (or access to) that information. However, if more than 25 days remain between the petitioner's receipt of (or access to) the information and the deadline for filing all other contentions (as established in the notice of hearing or opportunity for hearing), the petitioner may file its SUNSI contentions by that later deadline.

6. If the request for access to SUNSI is granted, the terms and conditions for access to such information will be set forth in a draft protective order and affidavit of non-disclosure appended to a joint motion by the NRC staff, any other affected parties to this proceeding, 3 and the petitioner(s). If the diligent efforts by the relevant parties or petitioner(s) fail to result in an agreement on the terms and conditions for a draft protective order or non-disclosure affidavit, the relevant parties to the proceeding or the petitioner(s) should notify the presiding officer within five (5) days, describing the obstacles to the agreement.

7. If the request for access to SUNSI is denied by the NRC staff after a determination on standing, the NRC staff shall briefly state the reasons for the denial. Before the Office of Administration makes an adverse determination regarding access, the proposed recipient must be provided an opportunity to correct or explain information. The requester may challenge the NRC staff's adverse determination with respect to access to SUNSI or with respect to standing, by filing a challenge within five (5) days of receipt of that determination with (a) the presiding officer designated in this proceeding; (b) if no presiding officer has been appointed, the Chief Administrative Judge, or if he or she is unavailable, another administrative judge, or an administrative law judge with jurisdiction pursuant to 10 CFR 2.318(a); or (c) if another officer has been designated to rule on information access issues, with that officer.

In the same manner, a party other than the requester may challenge an NRC staff determination granting access to SUNSI whose release would harm that party's interest independent of the proceeding. Such a challenge must be filed within five (5) days of the notification by the NRC staff of its grant of such a request.

If challenges to the NRC staff determinations are filed, these procedures give way to the normal process for litigating disputes concerning access to information. The availability of interlocutory review by the Commission of orders ruling on such NRC staff determinations (whether granting or denying access) is governed by 10 CFR 2.311. 4

8. The Commission expects that the NRC staff and presiding officers (and any other reviewing officers) will consider and resolve requests for access to SUNSI, and motions for protective orders, in a timely fashion in order to minimize any unnecessary delays in identifying those petitioners who have standing and who have propounded contentions meeting the specificity and basis requirements in 10 CFR part 2.

The ATPA, as amended by the Andean Trade Promotion and Drug Eradication Act of 2002 (ATPDEA) in the Trade Act of 2002, 19 U.S.C. 3201 et seq. , provides trade benefits for eligible Andean countries. In Proclamation 7616 of October 31, 2002, the President designated Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, and Peru as ATPDEA beneficiary countries. In Proclamation 8323 of November 25, 2008, the President determined that Bolivia no longer satisfies the eligibility criteria and suspended Bolivia's status as a beneficiary country for purposes of the ATPA and ATPDEA. Section 203(f) of the ATPA (19 U.S.C. 3202(f)) requires the USTR, not later than April 30, 2009, to submit to Congress a report on the operation of the ATPA. Before submitting such report, USTR is required to request comments on whether beneficiary countries are meeting the criteria set forth in 19 U.S.C. 3203(b)(6)(B) (which incorporates by reference the criteria set forth in sections 3202(c) and (d)). USTR refers interested parties to the Federal Register notice published on August 15, 2002 (67 FR 53379), for a full list of the eligibility criteria.

Requirements for Submissions. Persons submitting comments must do so in English and must identify (on the first page of the submission) the “ATPA Beneficiary Countries.” Written comments must be received by March 6, 2009.

In order to ensure the most timely and expeditious receipt and consideration of comments, USTR has arranged to accept on-line submissions, with the exception of business confidential submissions, via http://www.regulations.gov. To submit testimony and comments via http://www.regulations.gov, enter docket number USTR-2009-0006 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 search-results 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 Web site provides the option of making submissions by filling in a “General Comments” field, or by attaching a document. We expect that most submissions will be provided in an attached document. If a document is attached, it is sufficient to type “See attached” in the “General Comments” field.

Submissions in Microsoft Word (.doc) or Adobe Acrobat (.pdf) are preferred. If an application other than those two is used, please identify in your submission the specific application used.

Persons wishing to submit business confidential information must submit that information by electronic mail to FR0518@ustr.eop.gov. Only business confidential submissions will be accepted at FR0518@ustr.eop.gov, and business confidential submissions will not be accepted at http://www.regulations.gov; however, public or non-confidential submissions that accompany business confidential submissions should be submitted at http://www.regulations.gov. For any comments submitted electronically containing business confidential information, the file name of the business confidential version should begin with the characters “BC”. Any page containing business confidential information must be clearly marked “BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL” on the top of that page. Filers of submissions containing business confidential information must also submit a public version of their comments. The file name of the public version should begin with the character “P”. The “BC” and “P” should be followed by the name of the person or entity submitting the comments or reply comments. Filers submitting comments containing no business confidential information should name their file using the character “P”, followed by the name of the person or entity submitting the comments or reply comments. Electronic submissions should not contain separate cover letters; rather, information that might appear in a cover letter should be included in the submission itself. Similarly, to the extent possible, any attachments to a submission should be included in the same file as the submission itself and not as separate files. All non-confidential comments and reply comments will be placed on the USTR Web site, http://www.ustr.gov pursuant to 15 CFR 2003.5.

In Proclamation 8341 (January 16, 2009) (74 FR 4105), the President proclaimed certain changes to the HTS in order to implement the United States-Peru Trade Promotion Agreement and for other purposes. Annex I of Publication 4058 of the United States International Trade Commission, incorporated by reference into Proclamation 8341, incorrectly deleted Peru from the enumeration of designated beneficiary countries in General Notes 11(a) and 11(d) of the HTS.

In Proclamation 6969 (January 27, 1997) (62 FR 4415), the President delegated to the United States Trade Representative (USTR) the authority under section 604 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2483) to make rectifications, technical or conforming changes, or similar modifications to the HTS and to embody those changes in the HTS. Pursuant to the authority delegated to the USTR in Proclamation 6969, General Notes 11(a) and 11(d) of the HTS are rectified by inserting ``Peru'' in alphabetical sequence in the list of designated beneficiary countries.

You may see all the comments online through the Federal Document Management System (FDMS) at: http://www.regulations.gov .

Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or comments, go to http://www.regulations.gov and/or Room W12-140 on the ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

Privacy Act: Anyone may search the electronic form of all comments received into any of DOT's dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or of the person signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, or other entity). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register (65 FR 19477, Apr. 11, 2000). This statement is also available at http://Docketinfo.dot.gov .

On December 12, 2008, FMCSA published a notice of receipt of Federal diabetes exemption applications from eighty-four individuals, and requested comments from the public (73 FR 75794). The public comment period closed on January 12, 2009 and six comments were received.

FMCSA has evaluated the eligibility of the eighty-four applicants and determined that granting the exemptions to these individuals would achieve a level of safety equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be achieved by complying with the current regulation 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3).

The Agency established the current standard for diabetes in 1970 because several risk studies indicated that diabetic drivers had a higher rate of crash involvement than the general population. The diabetes rule provides that “A person is physically qualified to drive a commercial motor vehicle if that person has no established medical history or clinical diagnosis of diabetes mellitus currently requiring insulin for control” (49 CFR 391.41(b)(3)).

FMCSA established its diabetes exemption program, based on the Agency's July 2000 study entitled “A Report to Congress on the Feasibility of a Program to Qualify Individuals with Insulin-Treated Diabetes Mellitus to Operate in Interstate Commerce as Directed by the Transportation Act for the 21st Century.” The report concluded that a safe and practicable protocol to allow some drivers with ITDM to operate CMVs is feasible. The 2003 notice in conjunction with the November 8, 2005 (70 FR 67777) Federal Register Notice provides the current protocol for allowing such drivers to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.

These eighty-four applicants have had ITDM over a range of 1 to 36 years. These applicants report no hypoglycemic reaction that resulted in loss of consciousness or seizure, that required the assistance of another person, or resulted in impaired cognitive function without warning symptoms in the past 5 years (with one year of stability following any such episode). In each case, an endocrinologist has verified that the driver has demonstrated willingness to properly monitor and manage their diabetes, received education related to diabetes management, and is on a stable insulin regimen. These drivers report no other disqualifying conditions, including diabetes-related complications. Each meets the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10).

The qualifications and medical condition of each applicant were stated and discussed in detail in the December 12, 2008, Federal Register Notice (73 FR 75794). Therefore, they will not be repeated in this notice.

Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption from the diabetes standard in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3) if the exemption is likely to achieve an equivalent or greater level of safety than would be achieved without the exemption. The exemption allows the applicants to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.

To evaluate the effect of these exemptions on safety, FMCSA considered medical reports about the applicants' ITDM and vision, and reviewed the treating endocrinologist's medical opinion related to the ability of the driver to safely operate a CMV while using insulin.

Consequently, FMCSA finds that exempting these applicants from the diabetes standard in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3) is likely to achieve a level of safety equal to that existing without the exemption.

The terms and conditions of the exemption will be provided to the applicants in the exemption document and they include the following: (1) That each individual submit a quarterly monitoring checklist completed by the treating endocrinologist as well as an annual checklist with a comprehensive medical evaluation; (2) that each individual reports within 2 business days of occurrence, all episodes of severe hypoglycemia, significant complications, or inability to manage diabetes; also, any involvement in an accident or any other adverse event in a CMV or personal vehicle, whether or not they are related to an episode of hypoglycemia; (3) that each individual provide a copy of the ophthalmologist's or optometrist's report to the medical examiner at the time of the annual medical examination; and (4) that each individual provide a copy of the annual medical certification to the employer for retention in the driver's qualification file, or keep a copy in his/her driver's qualification file if he/she is self-employed. The driver must also have a copy of the certification when driving, for presentation to a duly authorized Federal, State, or local enforcement official.

FMCSA received six comments in this proceeding. The Pennsylvania Department of Transportation expressed that it had reviewed the driving records for Robert S. Althouse, Tyson C. Johnson, Steven F. Kohalmi, Theodore Stanley Pankiewicz and Gary E. Stone, and was in favor of granting the Federal diabetes exemptions to these applicants. Two of the comments were recommendations in favor of granting the Federal diabetes exemption for Mr. William G. Hansen. The letters were written by Mr. Eric D. Stubblefield and Ms. Charlene Ruth LaForest, who state that Mr. Hansen has not had problems with his diabetes to preclude him from operating a commercial motor vehicle safely. Three of the comments were recommendations in favor of granting Federal diabetes exemptions to individuals with ITDM and suggested streamlining the process of granting exemptions.

After considering the comments to the docket, and based upon its evaluation of the eighty-four exemption applications, FMCSA exempts, Robert S. Althouse, Edwin K. Anderson, James G. Arnoldussen, Sr., William B. Bailor, Kenneth E. Benoit, Thomas S. Benson, Dennis A. Boelens, Melvin J. Boney, Christopher D. Bostic, Walter R. Braxton, Gordon M. Caldwell, Jake C. Cogswell, Eric W. Crawford, Merle N. Cromwell, Trenn A. Davis, Bobby J. Davison, Donald J. DeBaets, Anthony Espinosa, Gregory W. Eylar, Stephen R. Ferrario, Raymond J. Ford, Kevin J. Fries, Fred L. Frisch, Douglas E. Fuller, Daniel D. Greenwell, William G. Hansen, George H. Hayes, Jr., Danny E. Hillier, John H. Hilliges, Thomas Hogan, Harvey J. Hollins, John Horta, Paris J. Howell, Eric J. Huffman, Tyson C. Johnson, Ken M. Jorgenson, Barry J. Kelley, John H. Kingsley, Gary J. Klostermann, Steven F. Kohalmi, Peter D. Krenz, Robert J. Lampman, Jason C. Lang, Kevin J. Lavoie, Dennis M. Lester, Dario Lopez, Jerald L. Marquardt, Robert H. McCann, III, Lewis S. Needles, Derald W. Newton, Galen L. Nightingale, Chris C. Northway, John D. Owens, Theodore S. Pankiewicz, Jody A. Peckels, James H. Pfeiffer, Marc R. Pream, Travis W. Proctor, William B. Racobs, Remson H. Rawson, Ann M. Reinke, Frank W. Reynolds, Vincente L. Rodriquez, Bradley C. Roen, Thomas C. Routon, Tyler A. Russell, Randy L. Schroeder, Michael W. Sharp, Nathaniel B. Shaw, Sean L. Shidell, Wendell R. Shults, Joseph B. Simon, David E. Steinke, Floyd T. Stokes, Gary E. Stone, Timothy D. Stone, Anthony A. Thomas, William J. Thomas, Kaleo B. Tokunaga, John R. Turcotte, Danny J. Watson, Eric W. Williams, Russell A. Williams, and Kimberly A. Woehrman, from the ITDM standard in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3), subject to the conditions listed under “Conditions and Requirements” above.

In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315 each exemption will be valid for two years unless revoked earlier by FMCSA. The exemption will be revoked if: (1) The person fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained before it was granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315. If the exemption is still effective at the end of the 2-year period, the person may apply to FMCSA for a renewal under procedures in effect at that time.