This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains notices to the public of the proposed

issuance of rules and regulations. The

purpose of these notices is to give interested

persons an opportunity to participate in the

rule making prior to the adoption of the final

rules.

Proposed Rules Federal Register

30018

Vol. 65, No. 91

Wednesday, May 10, 2000

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

10 CFR Part 76

[Docket No. PRM–76–1]

United Plant Guard Workers of

America; Receipt of Petition for

Rulemaking

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory

Commission.

ACTION: Petition for rulemaking; Notice

of receipt.

SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (NRC) has received and

requests public comment on a petition

for rulemaking filed by John M. Driskill

on behalf of Local 111 of the United

Plant Guard Workers of America. The

petition has been docketed by the

Commission and has been assigned

Docket No. PRM–76–1. The petitioner

requests that the NRC amend its

regulations concerning security at

gaseous diffusion plants to address sites

that have both special nuclear material

security concerns and protection of

classified matter concerns; to require

that these facilities be able to detect,

respond to, and mitigate threats of a

sabotage event; and to require that the

security force be armed and empowered

to make arrests in limited situations.

The petitioner believes that these

amendments are necessary to address

the protection of classified information,

equipment and materials, and special

nuclear material at the gaseous diffusion

plants.

DATES: Submit comments by July 24,

2000. Comments received after this date

will be considered if it is practical to do

so, but assurance of consideration

cannot be given except as to comments

received on or before this date.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments to:

Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, Washington, DC 20555.

Attention: Rulemakings and

Adjudications staff.

Deliver comments to 11555 Rockville

Pike, Rockville, Maryland, between 7:30

am and 4:15 pm on Federal workdays.

For a copy of the petition, write to

David L. Meyer, Chief, Rules and

Directives Branch, Division of

Administrative Services, Office of

Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, Washington, DC 20555–

0001.

You may also provide comments via

the NRC’s interactive rulemaking

website at http://ruleforum.llnl.gov.

This site provides the capability to

upload comments as files (any format),

if your web browser supports that

function. For information about the

interactive rulemaking website, contact

Ms. Carol Gallagher, (301) 415–5905 (email: CAG@nrc.gov).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

David L. Meyer, Office of

Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, Washington, DC 20555.

Telephone: 301–415–7162 or Toll-free:

1–800–368–5642 or E-mail:

DLM1@NRC.GOV.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On March 30, 2000, the Nuclear

Regulatory Commission (NRC) docketed

a March 13, 2000, letter from John M.

Driskill, President of Local 111 of the

United Plant Guard Workers of America,

to William Travers, the NRC’s Executive

Director for Operations, as a petition for

rulemaking under 10 CFR 2.802. In this

letter, Mr. Driskill requested that the

NRC’s regulations applicable to

safeguards and security at gaseous

diffusion plants be amended under 10

CFR 2.206. The § 2.206 process is

applicable to actions that would

suspend, modify, or revoke a license.

Requests to add, amend, or remove a

regulation are processed under 10 CFR

2.802. Therefore, Mr. Driskill’s request

was docketed under the procedures

applicable to petitions for rulemaking

contained in § 2.802.

The Regulations

The gaseous diffusion plants located

in Piketon, Ohio and Paducah,

Kentucky have obtained a certificate of

compliance issued under the provisions

of 10 CFR part 76. This ensures that

these plants operate in compliance with

those requirements considered

necessary to protect the public health

and safety from radiological hazards and

to provide for the common defense and

security. The regulations in Subpart E of

Part 76 address safeguards and security

requirements for the gaseous diffusion

plants.

The gaseous diffusion plants process

Category III levels of special nuclear

material as described in 10 CFR 73.2.

The petitioner notes that these types of

quantities require a minimum level of

security, as specified in 10 CFR 73.67,

to minimize the possibility for the

unauthorized removal of special nuclear

material. The specified level of security

is intended to be consistent with the

potential consequences of such an

action. The petitioner also notes that the

regulations in 10 CFR part 95 establish

security requirements for the protection

of classified matter at the levels of

confidential restricted data and secret

restricted data. The petitioner further

notes that these two security protocols

are not similar.

The Requested Actions

The petitioner requests that the NRC

amend its regulations applicable to

safeguards and security at the

Portsmouth and Paducah gaseous

diffusion plants. The requested

amendments would—

1. Require more stringent security

programs to protect both the special

nuclear material and classified matter;

2. Require that these facilities be able

to detect, respond to, and mitigate

threats of a sabotage event; and

3. Require the security force to be

armed and empowered to make arrests

in limited situations, such as for

violations of the Atomic Energy Act.

Material Security and Classified Matter

The petitioner asserts that the

regulations do not adequately address

sites that have both nuclear material

security concerns and classified matter

concerns. The petitioner believes that

the applicable regulations were not

appropriately merged in the regulations

governing gaseous diffusion plants to

address a site that covers the protection

of classified information, equipment

and materials, and special nuclear

material.

The petitioner provides an example of

this situation in the Controlled Area

Fence Line. The petitioner explains that

the fence line serves as a minimum level

of protection against the unauthorized

removal of special nuclear material

contained in 10 and 20 ton cylinders.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 10, 2000 / Proposed Rules 30019

The petitioner explains that the portals

and gates are in place to ensure that

personnel who gain access to the

controlled access area have the proper

clearance or are under escort and

ensuring that prohibited articles are not

allowed into the controlled area. The

petitioner believes that the missing

element of security is whether the fence

line, which the petitioner believes does

minimize the unauthorized removal of

special nuclear material of 10 and 20

ton cylinders, adequately protects

against the unauthorized removal of

restricted information, equipment, and

other materials or the unauthorized

access to these types of materials.

The petitioner asserts that other

facilities that possess Category III

quantities of special nuclear material

regulated by the NRC do not share the

level of concern for classified matter,

equipment, and technology that exists at

the gaseous diffusion plants. The

petitioner suggests that the regulations

concerning security programs at the

gaseous diffusion plants, such as escort

requirements and physical security

measures, should be amended to be

made more stringent to protect this

technology.

Sabotage Events

According to the petitioner, the NRC

typically relies on local law

enforcement agencies to respond to

incidents of workplace violence or

sabotage at material licensee facilities.

The petitioner states that the scope and

complexity of a gaseous diffusion plant

makes it far different from other types

of NRC licensed materials facilities.

Furthermore, the petitioner believes that

these differences result in unique

problems in relying on local law

enforcement agencies to protect such a

facility from violent incidents. The

petitioner indicates that local law

enforcement agencies in the vicinity of

the Paducah plant have stated, for the

record, that they should not be viewed

as a replacement for on-site security

because of their lack of knowledge of

the plant site, the types of hazards

contained in the plant, and their limited

resources. The petitioner presents two

letters, attached to the petition, from

law enforcement agencies in the vicinity

of the Paducah plant that support this

contention.

Because of the unique nature of

gaseous diffusion plants and the

importance of their operation, the

petitioner believes that a violent

incident or an act of sabotage would

affect national security. The petitioner

also asserts that, because of the many

radiological and toxicological hazards

associated with these plants, an act of

sabotage could adversely affect the

safety of plant workers and the public.

The petitioner believes that these

dangers were not addressed as part of

the certification process. According to

the petitioner, current NRC standards do

not require a security force that is

capable of preventing a sabotage event.

The petitioner requests that the

regulations be amended to require that

security forces at the gaseous diffusion

plants be able to detect, respond to, and

mitigate violent incidents or acts of

sabotage.

The petitioner also notes that current

regulations do not require that the

security force be armed or empowered

to enforce the Atomic Energy Act. The

petitioner requests that security officers

at the gaseous diffusion plants be armed

and empowered to make arrests in

limited situations, such as for violations

of the Atomic Energy Act.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 4th day

of May, 2000.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Annette Vietti-Cook,

Secretary of the Commission.

[FR Doc. 00–11662 Filed 5–9–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 2000–NM–103–AD]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Boeing

Model 737–200, –300, –400, and –500

Series Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM).

SUMMARY: This document proposes the

adoption of a new airworthiness

directive (AD) that is applicable to

certain Boeing Model 737–200, –300,

–400, and –500 series airplanes. This

proposal would require replacement of

existing door handle mounting hub

assemblies with new, improved hub

assemblies. This proposal is prompted

by reports of cracked or broken

mounting hub assemblies for the

interior door handles on the cabin

doors. The actions specified by the

proposed AD are intended to prevent

cracking or breaking of the door handle

mounting hub, which could result in the

interior door handle breaking off while

the door is being opened. In an

emergency situation, this could impede

evacuation of the airplane.

DATES: Comments must be received by

June 26, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in

triplicate to the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), Transport

Airplane Directorate, ANM–114,

Attention: Rules Docket No. 2000–NM–

103–AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW.,

Renton, Washington 98055–4056.

Comments may be inspected at this

location between 9 a.m. and 3 p.m.,

Monday through Friday, except Federal

holidays.

The service information referenced in

the proposed rule may be obtained from

Boeing Commercial Airplane Group,

P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington

98124–2207. This information may be

examined at the FAA, Transport

Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind

Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Keith Ladderud, Aerospace Engineer,

Airframe Branch, ANM–120S, FAA,

Transport Airplane Directorate, Seattle

Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind

Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington

98055–4056; telephone (425) 227–2780;

fax (425) 227–1181.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

Interested persons are invited to

participate in the making of the

proposed rule by submitting such

written data, views, or arguments as

they may desire. Communications shall

identify the Rules Docket number and

be submitted in triplicate to the address

specified above. All communications

received on or before the closing date

for comments, specified above, will be

considered before taking action on the

proposed rule. The proposals contained

in this notice may be changed in light

of the comments received.

Comments are specifically invited on

the overall regulatory, economic,

environmental, and energy aspects of

the proposed rule. All comments

submitted will be available, both before

and after the closing date for comments,

in the Rules Docket for examination by

interested persons. A report

summarizing each FAA-public contact

concerned with the substance of this

proposal will be filed in the Rules

Docket.

Commenters wishing the FAA to

acknowledge receipt of their comments

submitted in response to this notice

must submit a self-addressed, stamped

postcard on which the following

statement is made: ‘‘Comments to

Docket Number 2000–NM–103–AD.’’