Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 112 / Friday, June 9, 2000 / Proposed Rules 36651

November 22, 1999, the staff began

consideration of the fundamental issues

that would guide a re-evaluation of the

power reactor physical protection

requirements, including conducting

several public meetings with

stakeholders on the subject. This

process highlighted a longstanding issue

with the implementation of 10 CFR

73.55 requirements at power reactors.

Specifically, the implementation of

these requirements assumed that

compliance with the prescriptive

requirements of the physical protection

plans written in accordance with 10

CFR 73.55(b) through (h) would provide

the high assurance required by 10 CFR

73.55(a). In fact, results of force-on-force

drills conducted pursuant to the

Regulatory Effectiveness Review (RER)

program and the Operational Safeguards

Response Evaluation (OSRE) program

cast doubt on the validity of this

assumption, due in part to the way the

requirements were (a) understood by

licensees and (b) inspected and enforced

by NRC. However, overall site security

and the security organization’s

readiness to respond to an adversary

attack were tested and confirmed during

regional inspection activity and OSREs.

The staff examined approaches and

principles used in existing NRC

regulations, including the use of margin

of safety. The staff also integrated

appropriate results of previous analyses,

such as the study to re-evaluate the

guidelines and bases used to determine

vital equipment and areas to be

protected in nuclear power plants, as

documented in ‘‘Vital Equipment/Area

Guidelines Study: Vital Area Committee

Report,’’ NUREG–1178.

In the attachment to SECY–99–241,

the staff proposed to review the

definition of radiological sabotage and

consider ways to clarify the issue in a

way that is meaningful for the protective

strategy and enhances the process of

performance evaluation. After

considerable discussion, the staff

determined that a definition of

radiological sabotage at power reactors

in the new rule may not be necessary if

the regulation could delineate more

clearly the performance criteria to be

used as the basis for the new physical

protection regulations. A series of

public meetings were conducted,

including representatives from Nuclear

Energy Institute (NEI), Nuclear Control

Institute (NCI), and media, from which

the staff developed a set of physical

protection performance criteria in terms

of public protection that are consistent

with criteria used in other areas of

nuclear power plant regulation. These

performance criteria would provide the

risk-informed basis for the

comprehensive review of 10 CFR 73.55

and associated power reactor physical

protection requirements, including the

exercise requirement.

These performance criteria are based

on ensuring that a plant retains the

capability to safely shutdown the

reactor and assure long-term heat

removal in the face of a malevolent act

by the design basis threat against the

facility. The staff is developing

performance criteria and requirements

for 10 CFR 73.55(a) to protect the plant

against a malevolent act by protecting

critical safety functions, including

appropriate margin of safety, including:

(1) reactivity control,

(2) reactor coolant makeup for

maintaining reactor and spent fuel pool

inventory,

(3) reactor and spent fuel pool heat

removal,

(4) containment of radioactive

materials,

(5) process monitoring necessary to

perform and control the above

functions, and

(6) actions necessary to support the

operation of the equipment used for safe

shutdown.

These performance criteria would

clarify the scope of radiological sabotage

which licensees are expected to protect.

10 CFR 73.55(b) and succeeding

paragraphs would provide specific

performance criteria for the physical

security organization and response

elements. As described in SECY–99–

241, a new sub-section of 10 CFR 73.55

would require periodic drills and

exercises and corrective actions for

vulnerabilities identified in the

exercises.

The above performance criteria

represent a new concept in formulating

security programs and align security

with other areas of regulation involving

plant operations. This approach would

provide insights on how the remainder

of 10 CFR 73.55 might be revised. The

staff believes that it is important to

continue to have stakeholder

involvement in the early stages of

development of performance criteria.

OSREs have been conducted since

1992 to test licensees’ performance

relative to the requirements in 10 CFR

73.55(a). The last OSRE in the current

cycle is scheduled for May 2000 and

with the final rule not expected to be

published for three years, steps have

been taken by the staff to fill the gap

between May 2000 and the time when

the new rule is in place. In the shortterm, OSREs will continue. Then,

pending NRC endorsement, an industry

proposal for a Self-Assessment Program

will be used on a trial basis, with NRC

oversight, to pilot the performance

criteria envisioned in the revised

physical protection regulations.

Coordination: The Office of the

General Counsel has reviewed this

paper and has no legal objection to its

content. The FTE and resource issues

involved in this paper are already

budgeted.

Recommendations: That the

Commission: Approve (a) the staff’s

approach to re-evaluation of the power

reactor physical protection regulations,

and (b) the definition of radiological

sabotage by providing design criteria as

the basis for physical protection

regulations.

Note that: Upon the Commission’s

approval, the staff will (a) continue with

this work to implement this approach in

the new security regulations; (b) test

these concepts in the industry SelfAssessment Program, as appropriate;

and (c) publish this paper in the Federal

Register for public comment, seeking

comment on the approach described

above for revising 10 CFR 73.55(a).

William D. Travers,

Executive Director for Operations.

[FR Doc. 00–14685 Filed 6–8–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 64

[CC Docket No. 94–129; DA 00–1220]

Common Carrier Bureau Extends

Pleading Cycle on Proposal to Require

Resellers to Obtain Carrier

Identification Codes

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Reopening of comment period.

SUMMARY: This document extends the

comments and reply comments due

dates of a document published at 65 FR

33281 (May 23, 2000). The Common

Carrier Bureau published a document

soliciting comments on proposals in this

proceeding to require resellers to obtain

their own carrier identification codes.

DATES: Submit comments on or before

June 13, 2000 and reply comments on or

before June 20, 2000.

ADDRESSES: See 65 FR 33281 (May 23,

2000) for where and how to file

comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

William J. Scher or Dana WaltonBradford (202) 418–7400 TTY: (202)

418–0484.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a recent

Public Notice, 65 FR 33281 (May 23,

36652 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 112 / Friday, June 9, 2000 / Proposed Rules

2000), the Common Carrier Bureau

asked for supplemental filings on a

proposal in this proceeding to require

resellers to obtain their own carrier

identification codes, establishing

comment and reply comment dates of

June 6 and June 13, 2000, respectively.

See Common Carrier Bureau Asks

Parties to Refresh Record and Seeks

Additional Comment on Proposal to

Require Resellers to Obtain Carrier

Identification Codes, Public Notice, DA

00–1093, released May 17, 2000. On

May 30, 2000, the Association of

Communications Enterprises (ASCENT),

formerly the Telecommunications

Resellers Association, requested that the

comment periods be extended by 30

days, to July 6 and July 13, 2000,

respectively. ASCENT contends, among

other things, that it is working with its

members to compile data responsive to

the Public Notice, but that the time

allotted ‘‘has unfortunately proven

inadequate[.]’’ ASCENT Request for

Extension of Time at 3.

Based on consideration of ASCENT’s

filing, we conclude that a one-week

extension of time is warranted.

Therefore, we shall extend the

respective comment and reply comment

dates to June 13 and June 20, 2000. This

extension will provide interested parties

with more than three weeks from the

date of release of the Public Notice in

which to prepare their supplemental

filings, a period that we believe should

be sufficient to prepare the requested

information.

For the foregoing reasons, pursuant to

47 CFR 1.46 of the Commission’s rules,

the Common Carrier Bureau hereby

extends the comment and reply

comment dates in this matter to June 13

and June 20, 2000, respectively.

Dated: June 5, 2000.

K. Michele Walters,

Associate Division Chief, Accounting Policy

Division.

[FR Doc. 00–14519 Filed 6–8–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–U

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 73

[DA No. 00–1143; MM Docket No. 99–133;

RM–9523]

Radio Broadcasting Services;

Evergreen, MT

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule, denial.

SUMMARY: This document denies a

petition for rule making filed by

Mountain West Broadcasting requesting

the allotment of Channel 230A at

Evergreen, Montana. See 64 FR 24996,

May 10, 1999. Based on the information

submitted by Mountain West

Broadcasting, we believe it has failed to

establish that Evergreen qualifies as a

community for allotment purposes and

therefore it would not serve the public

interest to allot a channel to Evergreen.

With this action, this proceeding is

terminated.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Kathleen Scheuerle, Mass Media

Bureau, (202) 418–2180.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a

summary of the Commission’s Report

and Order, MM Docket No. 99–133,

adopted May 17, 2000, and released

May 26, 2000. The full text of this

Commission decision is available for

inspection and copying during normal

business hours in the Commission’s

Reference Center, 445 Twelfth Street,

SW., Washington, DC. The complete

text of this decision may also be

purchased from the Commission’s copy

contractors, International Transcription

Services, Inc., 1231 20th Street, NW.,

Washington, DC. 20036, (202) 857–3800,

facsimile (202) 857–3805.

Federal Communications Commission.

John A. Karousos,

Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules

Division, Mass Media Bureau.

[FR Doc. 00–14541 Filed 6–8–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–U

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 73

[DA 00–1142; MM Docket No. 00–92; RM–

9857]

Radio Broadcasting Services; Dos

Palos and Livingston, CA

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: This document requests

comments on a petition for rule making

filed on behalf of All American

Broadcasting, Inc., licensee of FM

Station KNTO, Channel 240A,

Livingston, California, requesting the

reallotment of Channel 240A to Dos

Palos, California, as that locality’s first

local aural transmission service, and

modification of its authorization

accordingly. Coordinates used for

Channel 240A at Dos Palos, California,

are 37–04–03 NL and 120–44–52 WL.

DATES: Comments must be filed on or

before July 17, 2000, and reply

comments on or before August 1, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Secretary, Federal

Communications Commission,

Washington, DC 20554. In addition to

filing comments with the FCC,

interested parties should serve the

petitioner’s counsel, as follows: Dan J.

Alpert, Esq., The Law Office of Dan J.

Alpert, 2120 N. 21st Rd., Arlington, VA

22201.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Nancy Joyner, Mass Media Bureau, (202)

418–2180.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a

synopsis of the Commission’s Notice of

Proposed Rule Making, MM Docket No.

00–92, adopted May 17, 2000, and

released May 26, 2000. The full text of

this Commission decision is available

for inspection and copying during

normal business hours in the FCC’s

Reference Information Center (Room

CY–A257), 445 Twelfth Street, SW.,

Washington, DC. The complete text of

this decision may also be purchased

from the Commission’s copy contractor,

International Transcription Service,

Inc., 1231 20th Street, NW.,

Washington, DC 20036, (202) 857–3800.

Provisions of the Regulatory

Flexibility Act of l980 do not apply to

this proceeding.

Members of the public should note

that from the time a Notice of Proposed

Rule Making is issued until the matter

is no longer subject to Commission

consideration or court review, all ex

parte contacts are prohibited in

Commission proceedings, such as this

one, which involve channel allotments.

See 47 CFR 1.1204(b) for rules

governing permissible ex parte contacts.

For information regarding proper

filing procedures for comments, See 47

CFR 1.415 and 1.420.

Federal Communications Commission.

John A. Karousos,

Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules

Division, Mass Media Bureau.

[FR Doc. 00–14607 Filed 6–8–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6710–01–P