Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 128 / Monday, July 3, 2000 / Proposed Rules 41021

This proposed rule would not impose

any additional reporting or

recordkeeping requirements on either

small or large winter pear handlers. As

with all Federal marketing order

programs, reports and forms are

periodically reviewed to reduce

information requirements and

duplication by industry and public

sector agencies.

The Department has not identified

any relevant Federal rules that

duplicate, overlap or conflict with this

proposed rule.

In addition, the Committee’s meetings

were widely publicized throughout the

winter pear industry and all interested

persons were invited to attend the

meeting and participate in Committee

deliberations on all issues. Like all

Committee meetings, the March 30, May

4, and June 2, 2000, meetings were

public meetings and all entities, both

large and small, were able to express

views on this issue. The Committee

itself is composed of twelve members, of

whom six are handlers and six are

producers. Finally, interested persons

are invited to submit information on the

regulatory and informational impacts of

this action on small businesses.

A small business guide on complying

with fruit, vegetable, and specialty crop

marketing agreements and orders may

be viewed at: http://www.ams.usda.gov/

fv/moab.html. Any questions about the

compliance guide should be sent to Jay

Guerber at the previously mentioned

address in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section.

A 15-day comment period is provided

to allow interested persons to respond

to this proposal. Fifteen days is deemed

appropriate because this rule would

need to be in place by August 15, 2000,

because shipments of Anjou pears are

expected to begin shortly thereafter. All

written comments timely received will

be considered before a final

determination is made on this matter.

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 927

Marketing agreements, Pears,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

For the reasons set forth in the

preamble, 7 CFR part 927 is proposed to

be amended as follows:

PART 927—WINTER PEARS GROWN

IN OREGON AND WASHINGTON

1. The authority citation for 7 CFR

part 927 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601–674.

2. A new § 927.316 is added to read

as follows:

§ 927.316 Handling regulation.

During the period August 15 through

November 1, no person shall handle any

Beurre D’Anjou variety of pears for

shipments to North America

(Continental United States, Mexico, or

Canada), unless such pears meet the

following requirements:

(a) Beurre D’Anjou variety of pears

shall have a certification by the FederalState Inspection Service, issued prior to

shipment, showing that (1) the core/

pulp temperature of such pears has been

lowered to 35 degrees Fahrenheit or less

and

(2) Any such pears have an average

pressure test of 14 pounds. The handler

shall submit, or cause to be submitted,

a copy of the certificate issued on the

shipment to the Control Committee.

(b) Each handler may ship on any one

conveyance 8,800 pounds or less of

Beurre D’Anjou variety of pears without

regard to the quality and inspection

requirements in paragraph (a) of this

section.

Dated: June 27, 2000.

Robert C. Keeney,

Deputy Administrator, Fruit and Vegetable

Programs.

[FR Doc. 00–16737 Filed 6–30–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–02–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

10 CFR Part 55

RIN 3150–AG40

Operator License Eligibility and Use of

Simulation Facilities in Operator

Licensing

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory

Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (NRC) is proposing to

amend its regulations by allowing

applicants for operator and senior

operator licenses to fulfill a portion of

the experience prerequisites for license

eligibility by manipulating a plantreferenced simulator as an alternative to

use of the actual plant. The proposed

rule would allow applicants for operator

and senior operator licenses to fulfill a

portion of the experience prerequisites

by manipulating a plant-referenced

simulator as an alternative to use of the

actual plant. In addition, the proposed

rule would remove current requirements

for certification of simulation facilities

and routine submittal of simulator

performance test reports to the NRC for

review. Also, the proposed rule would

revise the definitions of ‘‘Performance

testing,’’ ‘‘Plant-referenced simulator,’’

and ‘‘Simulator facility.’’

DATES: Submit comments by September

18, 2000. Comments received after this

date will be considered if it is practical

to do so, but the Commission is able to

assure consideration only for comments

received on or before this date.

ADDRESSES: Submit written comments

to: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, Washington, DC 20555–

0001, Attention: Rulemakings and

Adjudications Staff, Mail Stop O–16C1.

Deliver written comments to One White

Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike,

Rockville, Maryland, between 7:30 a.m.

and 4:15 p.m. on Federal workdays.

You may also provide comments via

the NRC’s interactive rulemaking

website through the NRC home page

(http://www.nrc.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 (e-mail: cag@nrc.gov).

Copies of any comments received and

certain documents related to this

rulemaking may be examined at the

NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L

Street NW. (Lower Level), Washington,

DC. These same documents may be

viewed and downloaded electronically

via the rulemaking website.

Documents created or received at the

NRC after April 1, 2000, are also

available electronically at the NRC’s

Public Electronic Reading room on the

internet at http://www.nrc.gov/NRC/

ADAMS/index.html. From this site, the

public can gain entry into the NRC’s

Agency Document Access and

Management System (ADAMS), which

provides text and image files of NRC’s

public documents. For more

information, contact the NRC Public

Document Room (PDR) Reference staff

at 202–634–3273 or toll-free at 1–800–

397–4209, or by e-mail at pdr@nrc.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Glenn Tracey, Operator Licensing,

Human Performance and Plant Support

Branch, Office of Nuclear Reactor

Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, Washington, DC 20555–

0001; telephone: (301) 415–1031; or by

Internet electronic mail to gmt@nrc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Introduction

Section 107 of the Atomic Energy Act

of 1954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2137),

requires the NRC to prescribe uniform

conditions for licensing individuals as

operators of production and utilization

facilities to determine the qualifications

41022 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 128 / Monday, July 3, 2000 / Proposed Rules

of these individuals, and to issue

licenses to these individuals. The

regulations implementing these

requirements are set out in Part 55 of

Title 10, Chapter 1, of the Code of

Federal Regulations. To assist licensees

and others, the Commission has issued

regulatory guides and generic letters

that provide guidance on acceptable

methods of meeting these regulatory

requirements.

The Commission has become

increasingly aware of the need to update

its operator licensing regulations and

related regulatory guides. These

revisions are needed to clarify the extent

to which applicants for operator and

senior operator licenses may fulfill a

portion of the experience prerequisites

for license eligibility with the

performance of five significant control

manipulations on a plant-referenced

simulator as an alternative to use of the

actual plant, and to remove current

requirements for certification of

simulation facilities and routine

submittal of simulator performance test

reports to the NRC for review. The

proposed rule changes would improve

the operator licensing process. If

adopted, these revisions would achieve

the following objectives: (1) Allow

applicants for operator and senior

operator licenses to fulfill a portion of

the experience prerequisites by

performing five significant control

manipulations on a plant-referenced

simulator and/or the actual plant facility

for which a license is sought; (2)

maintain training integrity through a

requirement that ensures adequate

simulator replication of the plant and

demonstrated fidelity for those

simulators used to provide control

manipulation experience; (3) remove

current requirements for certification of

simulation facilities; (4) eliminate

routine submittal of simulator

performance test reports to the NRC for

review; and (5) maintain safety through

NRC reviews to ensure simulator

suitability for providing effective

training in performance assessment of

operator license applicants.

Background

On March 25, 1987 (52 FR 9453), the

Commission published a final rule in

the Federal Register that amended 10

CFR Part 55 and became effective May

26, 1987. The amendment requires that

an applicant successfully manipulate

the controls of the facility for which a

license is sought. Five significant

control manipulations must be

performed which affect reactivity or

power level. The final rule also

included requirements for the use of

simulators in the qualification and

requalification of nuclear power plant

operators, and required certification of

simulation facilities.

Discussion of Proposed Rule Changes

Subpart A—Revision of § 55.4,

Definitions

Three definitions would be revised.

The definition of ‘‘Performance testing,’’

which is testing conducted to verify a

simulation facility’s performance as

compared to actual or predicted

reference plant performance, would be

revised in a manner that would not

impose additional requirements on

licensees, to comport with the definition

for such testing in the most recent

edition of the industry standard for use

of nuclear plant simulators in operator

training and examination (ANSI/ANS–

3.5–1998). The definition of a ‘‘Plantreferenced simulator,’’ which is a

simulator modeling the systems of the

reference plant, would be revised to

reference within the definition existing

simulator requirements in Part 55, and

the proposed revision allowing

completion of certain on-the-job training

prerequisites for license applicant

eligibility on the simulator. The

definition of ‘‘Simulation facility,’’

which describes the components that

alone, or in combination, can be used

for partial conduct of operating tests,

would be revised to include part-task

and limited-scope simulator devices

because these devices are now

referenced in the most recent edition of

ANSI/ANS–3.5, and a request could be

received for Commission approval of

their use.

Conforming Changes to § 55.8

Information Collection Requirements:

OMB Approval

As a result of the previously described

proposed changes to § 55.45(b) that

eliminate the simulator certification

requirement, a conforming change to

§ 55.8(c)(3) would delete Form 474,

‘‘Simulation Facility Certification,’’

OMB approval No. 3150–0138, as

currently referred to § 55.45(b)(1)(iii)

and § 55.45(b)(3)(iii).

Section 55.8(c)(4) would be deleted

because its requirements have been

incorporated into this 10 CFR part.

Subpart D—Revision of § 55.31 To

Allow Performance of Control

Manipulations on the Plant-Referenced

Simulator

Section 55.31(a)(5), currently requires

that five significant control

manipulations that affect reactivity or

power level be performed on the actual

plant would be revised to allow those

manipulations to be performed either on

a plant-referenced simulator or on the

actual plant, at the facility licensee’s

discretion. Eligibility for an operator

license encompasses education,

training, and experience factors.

Reactivity manipulations are an

operating experience requirement

addressed by on-the-job training (OJT).

Use of a plant-referenced simulator of

appropriate fidelity for these

manipulations is appropriate based

upon improvements in simulator

technology and 13 years of successful

experience in using plant-specific

simulation facilities since the 1987 final

rule. Modern plant-referenced

simulation facilities in operation today

are providing accurate and validated

operator training and examination

scenarios that convey realism in

reactivity manipulations, other normal

and abnormal procedure operations,

complex plant operations, and

emergency operating procedure

evolutions, including simultaneous task

management and faulted conditions.

The proposed rule change would allow

part of the plant operating experience

requirement for license eligibility to be

fully satisfied in a timely manner within

the facility’s accredited training

program without impacting operation of

the actual plant.

The requirement of § 55.31(a)(4) to

complete the facility licensee’s program

of education, experience, and OJT as a

prerequisite of license eligibility would

not be affected by the proposed rule

change. Performance of control

manipulations that affect reactivity or

power level constitutes only a small part

of an applicant’s preparedness to

perform licensed duties and would

continue to be implemented as a subset

of OJT. If adopted, the proposed rule

would alternatively allow use of the

actual plant and/or the plant-referenced

simulator for control manipulations,

thus broadening the range of options

available to facility licensees for

selecting the most advantageous training

method.

Although facility licensees’

simulation facilities are, for the most

part, state-of-the-art, the NRC has

identified two areas of concern with

respect to considering a plantreferenced simulator suitable for

fulfilling the experience requirements of

a license applicant. First, recognizing

that the simulator may differ to a degree

from the reference unit and to provide

experience essentially replicating that

obtained from control manipulations on

the plant, reasonable measures should

be taken to ensure that the simulated

reactor core, at least for the directly

associated models such as those for

nuclear and thermal-hydraulic

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 128 / Monday, July 3, 2000 / Proposed Rules 41023

characteristics, represents the actual

reactor core that will exist in the plant

at the time the applicant is tested for a

license. Second, the performance of the

nuclear and thermal-hydraulic

characteristics models must be tested to

ensure that the simulator is capable of

being used to satisfy predetermined

objectives without significant

performance discrepancies or deviation

from the approved scenario sequence.

To address these concerns and thereby

maintain plant safety, the proposed rule

would add a requirement under

§ 55.45(b) for licensees using a plantreferenced simulator to satisfy reactivity

manipulation experience requirements

to ensure that: Simulator models

relating to nuclear and thermalhydraulic characteristics replicate the

core load that exists in the nuclear

power unit for which a license is being

sought at the time of the applicant’s

operating test; and simulator fidelity has

been demonstrated so that significant

control manipulations are completed

without procedural exceptions,

simulator performance exceptions, or

deviations from the approved training

scenario sequence. This provision in the

proposed rule thus links § 55.45(b) with

the proposed § 55.31(a)(5).

Subpart E—Revision of § 55.45 To

Remove Current Requirements for

Simulator Certification and Routine

Submittal of Performance Test Reports

The proposed rule would delete

requirements that have become outdated

and burdensome to the facility licensees

and are of limited value to the NRC in

the following areas of § 55.45(b): (1)

Certification of simulation facilities; (2)

submittal of test schedule information;

and (3) submittal of quadrennial test

reports.

The March 25, 1987, final rule

provided a phased implementation

schedule for the requirement that

facility licensees who propose to use a

simulation facility consisting solely of a

plant-referenced simulator certify, by

means of NRC Form 474, ‘‘Simulation

Facility Certification,’’ the availability of

a simulation facility meeting

Commission regulations. The

certification requirement also contained

associated requirements for submittal of

test documentation and test schedules

on a quadrennial basis. Licensees have

certified plant-referenced simulators at

all power reactor facilities, and the NRC

staff’s experience has shown the

quadrennial reports to be of minimal

value in assessing simulator suitability

for testing of operators.

The proposed rule would, by means

of an alternative regulatory approach

that would not change substantive

existing requirements, eliminate the

need for certification and quadrennial

reports. Absent certification, assurance

of simulator suitability would be

provided through NRC reviews and

validation of operating test scenarios,

with review of performance test results,

and uncorrected modeling or hardware

discrepancies, if needed. If the

simulator is found by this review to be

unsuitable, the simulator may not be

used to conduct an operating test,

requalification training, or for

performing control manipulations to

establish license applicant eligibility.

The current requirement for more recent

simulator test and performance data to

remain onsite would not be changed.

Facility licensees proposing to use a

simulator facility meeting the definition

in § 55.4 for a plant-referenced

simulator are not required to submit an

application for Commission approval of

that simulator.

For cases in which licensees propose

to use a simulation facility not meeting

the definition of a plant-referenced

simulator, the Commission would

require additional information to

determine the acceptability of the

simulator, and thus would require an

application for Commission approval.

Since 1987, the last time the

Commission amended its regulations

regarding the use of simulators, facility

licensees have trained licensed

operators and applicants for operator

and senior operator licenses on plantreferenced simulators that were certified

in accordance with the 1985 edition of

ANSI/ANS–3.5. This standard specifies

full-scope, stand-alone testing of system

models and simulator training

capabilities as part of initial simulator

acceptance testing. Licensees continue

to test their plant-referenced simulators

in the manner of initial development

and to submit test schedules and reports

on a quadrennial basis to comply with

the 1987 final rule that requires periodic

scheduling and reporting of test results

to the NRC. The industry’s approach to

computer software development and

simulator testing has changed

considerably since 1987, and a new

approach has been codified though the

issuance of the 1998 version of ANSI/

ANS–3.5, Nuclear Power Plant

Simulators for Use in Operator Training

and Examination. The standard has

moved away from continued full-scope,

stand-alone testing of system models

and simulator training capabilities

toward a scenario-based testing and

quality control philosophy that is

associated with the facility’s planned

simulator usage.

The proposed rule would eliminate

the need for certification of simulation

facilities to the NRC and the associated

testing and reporting requirements that

have been become outdated by the 1998

revision of the national consensus

standard ANSI/ANS–3.5.

The proposed rule would eliminate

duplicate testing for those licensees that

choose to adopt the revised national

standard. The proposed rule changes

would neither require facility licensees

to adopt a newly revised version of the

national consensus standard, nor would

it require facility licensees to modify

existing simulator support programs or

practices. The proposed rule changes

would not impose additional burden or

increase the risks to the health and

safety of any segment of the nuclear

industry or the public.

The proposed rule would allow

facility licensees to voluntarily adjust

their performance test programs

consistent with end-user needs as

defined by their accredited systemsapproach-to-training (SAT) programs or

to voluntarily conform existing

simulation facility programs to new

revisions of ANSI/ANS–3.5. Facility

licensees’ plant-referenced simulators

are continually in the update and

maintenance mode of their life-cycle as

new computer technology and new

plant information is incorporated into

the simulation facility. Earlier revisions

of the national consensus standard were

not intended for today’s highly

technical, very complex, and

sophisticated computer simulation

programs that routinely encompass

verification, validation, and

documentation of a simulator’s

performance. Identification and

resolution of discrepancies are a

function of the licensees discrepancy

reporting and resolution practices. The

proposed rule and associated proposed

Regulatory Guide 1.149, ‘‘Nuclear Power

Simulation Facilities for Use in License

Examinations,’’ which would endorse

ANSI/ANS–3.5–1998 without

exception, would reduce apparent

inconsistencies between the operational

needs of facility licensee programs and

simulator testing requirements, thereby

relieving unnecessary regulatory burden

and freeing resources for more effective

developmental and validation testing

associated with either simulator

modification programs or the operator

licensing training and examination

processes.

Subpart F—Licenses

Conforming Changes to § 55.59,

Requalification

As a result of the proposed changes to

§ 55.45(b) that would eliminate the

simulator certification requirement, a

41024 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 128 / Monday, July 3, 2000 / Proposed Rules

conforming change to § 55.59(c)(4)(iv) is

proposed that would delete the terms

‘‘certified or approved’’ when referring

to a simulation facility in this section.

Section-by-Section Analysis

Subpart D—Revisions To Allow

Performance of Control Manipulations

on the Plant-Referenced Simulator

The proposed rule would add a

statement that ‘‘The Commission may

accept evidence of satisfactory

performance of control manipulations as

part of a Commission-approved training

program by a trainee on a plantreferenced simulator acceptable to the

Commission under Section 55.45(b) of

this part in lieu of use of the actual

plant. Control manipulations performed

on the simulator may be chosen from a

representative sampling of the control

manipulations and plant evolutions

described in Section 55.59(c)(3)(A–F),

(R), (T), (W), and (X) of this part, as

applicable to the design of the plant for

which the license application is

submitted.’’

By providing an option for licensee to

use plant-referenced simulators for

control manipulations, the proposed

rule obviates the need for current

provisions in Section 55.31(a)(5)

addressing the use of simulators for

performance of control manipulations

for facilities that have not yet completed

pre-operational testing and initial

startup test programs and provisions

addressing plants in extended

shutdowns. Thus those provisions are

removed.

Subpart E—Remove Current

Requirements for Simulator

Certification and Routine Submittal of

Performance Test Reports

10 CFR 55.45(b) provides regulations

associated with the implementation and

use of simulation facilities in operator

licensing. Section 55.45(b)(1) addresses

‘‘Administration’’ of the operating test

on a simulation facility. Section

55.45(b)(2) addresses ‘‘Schedule for

facility licensees’’ with respect to

submitting a plan by which its

simulation facility will be developed

and by which an application will be

submitted for its use. Section 55.45(b)(3)

addresses ‘‘Schedule for facility

applicants’’ with respect to submitting a

plan which identifies whether its

simulation facility will conform with

paragraph (b)(1)(i) or (b)(1)(ii) of this

section at the time of application.

Section 55.45(b)(4) addresses

‘‘Application for and approval of

simulation facilities’’ with respect to

using a simulation facility that is other

than solely a plant-referenced simulator

as defined in § 55.4. Section 55.45(b)(5)

addresses ‘‘Certification of simulation

facilities’’ with respect to those facility

licensees which propose, in accordance

with paragraph (b)(1)(ii) of this section,

to use a simulation facility consisting

solely of a plant-referenced simulator.

Facility licensees have communicated to

the NRC and the NRC agrees that some

or portions of the rule provisions

discussed and identified in this

paragraph are unnecessarily

burdensome.

Section 55.45(b)(1)(ii) requires that,

‘‘A simulation facility consisting solely

of a plant-reference simulator which has

been certified to the Commission’’ be

used in administering the operating test.

The proposed rule would eliminate the

requirement for certification of the

simulation facility and more

appropriately refer to the definition of a

simulation facility as described in

§ 55.4.

Section 55.45(b)(2) discusses,

‘‘Schedule for facility licenses.’’ The

proposed rule would eliminate this

outdated item in its entirety.

Section 55.45(b)(2)(i) requires that,

‘‘Within one year after the effective date

of this part, each facility licensee which

proposes to use a simulation facility

pursuant to paragraph (b)(1)(i) of this

section, except test and research

reactors, shall submit a plan by which

its simulation facility will be developed

and by which an application will be

submitted for its use’’ The proposed rule

would eliminate in its entirety this

requirement.

Section 55.45(b)(2)(ii) requires that,

‘‘Those facility licensees which propose

to conform with paragraph (b)(1)(i) of

this section, not later than 42 months

after the effective date of this rule, shall

submit an application for use of this

simulation facility to the Commission,

in accordance with paragraph (b)(4)(i) of

this section’’ The proposed rule would

eliminate in its entirety this

requirement.

Section 55.45(b)(2)(iii) requires that,

‘‘Those facility licensees which propose

to conform with paragraph (b)(1)(ii) of

this section, not later than 46 months

after the effective date of this rule, shall

submit a certification for use of this

simulation facility to the Commission

on Form NRC–474, ‘‘Simulation Facility

Certification,’’ available from Records

and Reports Management Branch,

Division of Information Support

Services, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, Washington, DC 20555, in

accordance with paragraph (b)(5)(i) of

this section.’’ The proposed rule would

eliminate in its entirety this

requirement.

Section 55.45(b)(2)(iv) requires that,

‘‘The simulation facility portion of the

operating test will not be administered

on other than a certified or an approved

simulation facility after May 26, 1991.’’

The proposed rule would eliminate in

its entirety this requirement.

Section 55.45(b)(3) discusses,

‘‘Schedule for facility applicants.’’ The

proposed rule would eliminate this

outdated item in its entirety.

Section 55.45(b)(3)(i) requires that,

‘‘For facility licensee applications after

the effective date of this rule, except test

and research reactors, the applicant

shall submit a plan which identifies

whether its simulation facility will

conform with paragraph (b)(1)(i) or

(b)(1)(ii) of this section at the time of

application.’’ The proposed rule would

eliminate in its entirety this

requirement.

Section 55.45(b)(3)(ii) requires that,

‘‘Those applicants which propose to

conform with paragraph (b)(1)(i) of this

section, not later than 180 days before

the date when the applicant proposes

that the Commission conduct operating

tests, shall submit an application for use

of its simulation facility to the NRC, in

accordance with paragraph (b)(4)(i) of

this section.’’ The proposed rule would

eliminate in its entirety this

requirement.

Section 55.45(b)(3)(iii) requires that,

‘‘Those applicants which propose to

conform with paragraph (b)(1)(ii) of this

section, not later than 60 days before the

date when the applicant proposes that

NRC conduct operating tests, shall

submit a certification for use of its

simulation facility to the Commission

on Form NRC–474, in accordance with

paragraph (b)(5)(i) of this section.’’ The

proposed rule would eliminate in its

entirety this requirement.

Section 55.45(b)(4) requires that,

‘‘Application for and approval of

simulation facilities. Those facility

licensees which propose, in accordance

with paragraph (b)(1)(i) of this section,

to use a simulation facility that is other

than solely a plant-referenced simulator

as defined in § 55.4 shall—.’’ The

proposed rule would eliminate in its

entirety this requirement and replace it

with language to address ‘‘Commissionapproved simulation facilities’’ whereby

the Commission would approve a

simulation facility if it finds that the

simulation facility and its proposed use

are suitable for the conduct of operating

test for the facility licensee’s reference

plant, in accordance with paragraph (a)

of this section.

Section 55.45(b)(4)(i) requires that,

‘‘In accordance with the plan submitted

pursuant to paragraph (b)(2)(i) or

(b)(3)(i) of this section, as applicable,

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 128 / Monday, July 3, 2000 / Proposed Rules 41025

submit an application for approval of

the simulation facility to the

Commission, in accordance with the

schedule in paragraph (b)(2)(ii) or

(b)(3)(ii) of this section, as appropriate.

This application must include:’’ The

proposed rule would eliminate the

phrases ‘‘In accordance with the plan

submitted pursuant to paragraph

(b)(2)(i) or (b)(3)(i) of this section, as

applicable’’ and ‘‘ * * * in accordance

with the schedule in paragraph (b)(2)(ii)

or (b)(3)(ii) of this section, as

appropriate.’’ and replace its language to

address those facility licensees that

propose, in accordance with paragraph

(b)(1)(i) of this section, to use a

simulation facility that is other than

solely a plant-referenced simulator as

defined in § 55.4 and to also submit an

application for approval of the

simulation facility to the Commission

that include certain items as described

in § 55.45(b)(2)(i)(A), (B), and (C).

Section 55.45(b)(4)(i)(A) requires that,

‘‘A statement that the simulation facility

meets the plan submitted to the

Commission pursuant to paragraph

(b)(2)(i) or (b)(3)(i) of this section, as

applicable;’’ The proposed rule would

eliminate in its entirety this

requirement.

Section 55.45(b)(4)(ii) requires that,

‘‘The Commission will approve a

simulation facility if it finds that the

simulation facility and its proposed use

are suitable for the conduct of operating

tests for the facility licensee’s reference

plant, in accordance with paragraph (a)

of this section.’’ The proposed rule

would eliminate in its entirety this

requirement and replace it with

language applicable to those facility

licensees which use a plant-referenced

simulator to establish prerequisites for

operator license eligibility in

accordance with § 55.31(a)(5) and to

provide in addition to existing

performance testing required for

significant control manipulations which

affect reactivity; that simulator models

relating to nuclear and thermalhydraulic characteristics replicate the

core load that exist in the nuclear power

unit for which a license is being sought

at the time of the applicants’s operating

test and that simulator fidelity has been

demonstrated so that significant control

manipulations are completed without

procedural exceptions, simulator

performance exceptions, or deviation

from the approved training scenario

sequence.

Section 55.45(b)(4)(iii) requires that

facility licensees, ‘‘Submit, every four

years on the anniversary of the

application, a report to the Commission

which identifies any uncorrected

performance test failures, and submit a

schedule for correction of these

performance test failures, if any.’’ The

proposed rule would eliminate in its

entirety this requirement.

Section 55.45(b)(4)(iv) requires that

facility licensees, ‘‘Retain the results of

the performance test conducted until

four years after the submittal of the

application under paragraph (b)(4)(i),

each report pursuant to paragraph

(b)(4)(iii), or any reapplication under

paragraph (b)(4)(iv) of this section, as

appropriate.’’ The proposed rule would

eliminate in its entirety this

requirement.

Section 55.45(b)(4)(v) requires that,

‘‘If the Commission determines, based

upon the results of performance testing,

that an approved simulation facility

does not meet the requirements of this

part, the simulation facility may not be

used to conduct operating tests.’’ The

proposed rule would eliminate in its

entirety this requirement.

Section 55.45(b)(4)(vi) requires that,

‘‘If the Commission determines,

pursuant to paragraph (b)(4)(v) of this

section, that an approved simulation

facility does not meet the requirements

of this part, the facility licensee may

again submit an application for

approval. This application must include

a description of corrective actions taken,

including results of completed

performance testing as required for

approval.’’ The proposed rule would

eliminate in its entirety this

requirement.

Section 55.45(b)(4)(vii) requires that,

‘‘Any application or report submitted

pursuant to paragraphs (b)(4)(i),

(b)(4)(iii) and (b)(4)(vi) of this section

must include a description of the

performance testing completed for the

simulation facility, and must include a

description of performance tests, if

different, to be conducted on the

simulation facility during the

subsequent four-year period, and a

schedule for the conduct of

approximately 25 percent of the

performance tests per year for the

subsequent four years.’’ The proposed

rule would eliminate in its entirety this

requirement.

Section 55.45(b)(5), ‘‘Certification of

simulation facilities’’ requires that,

‘‘Those facility licensees which propose,

in accordance with paragraph (b)(1)(ii)

of this section, to use a simulation

facility that is other than solely a plantreferenced simulator as defined in § 55.4

shall—.’’ The proposed rule would

eliminate in its entirety this requirement

and replace it with language to address

‘‘Acceptability of simulation facilities’’

such that facility licensees which

maintain a simulation facility for the

conduct of operating test shall conform

to the revised proposed rule and to

provide assurance that approved or

certified simulation facilities remain

acceptable over a period time to meet

the requirements paragraph (a) of this

section.

Section 55.45(b)(5)(i) requires that

facility licensees, ‘‘Submit a

certification to the Commission that the

simulation facility meets the

Commission’s regulations. The facility

licensee shall provide this certification

on Form NRC 474 in accordance with

the schedule in paragraph (b)(2)(iii) or

(b)(3)(iii) of this section, as applicable.’’

The proposed rule would eliminate in

its entirety this requirement.

Section 55.45(b)(5)(ii) requires that

facility licensees, ‘‘Submit, every four

years on the anniversary of the

certification, a report to the Commission

which identifies any uncorrected

performance test failures, and submit a

schedule for correction of such

performance test failures, if any.’’ The

proposed rule would partially eliminate

this requirement. The facility licensee

would have to make available for NRC

review, prior to or concurrent with

preparations for each operator licensing

operating test or requalification program

inspection results of any uncorrected

performance test failures that will exist

at the time of the operating test or

requalification program inspection.

Section 55.45(b)(5)(iii) requires that

facility licensees, ‘‘Retain the results of

the performance test conducted until

four years after the submittal of

certification under paragraph (b)(5)(i),

each report pursuant to paragraph

(b)(5)(ii), or recertification under

paragraph (b)(5)(v) of this section, as

applicable.’’ The proposed rule would

revise the rule to require facility

licensees to provide recurring assurance

of fidelity by performance testing

throughout the life of the simulation

facility consistent with paragraphs

55.45(b)(2)(ii) and 55.45(b)(3)(i)(B) and

only retain the results of performance

test conducted for four years or until

superseded by updated test results. The

proposed rule would require the

inclusion of provisions for maintaining

examination and test integrity

consistent with § 55.49.

Section 55.45(b)(5)(iv) requires that,

‘‘If the Commission determines, based

upon the results of performance testing,

that a certified simulation facility does

not meet the requirements of this part,

the simulation facility may not be used

to conduct operating tests.’’ The

proposed rule revises the language such

that if the Commission determines,

based upon the results of preexamination scenario validation, a

review of performance testing results, or

41026 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 128 / Monday, July 3, 2000 / Proposed Rules

uncorrected modeling or hardware

discrepancies, that a simulation facility

consisting solely of a plant-referenced

simulator does not meet the

requirements of this part as defined in

§ 55.4 or the criteria in § 55.45(b)(2)(ii),

then the plant-referenced simulator may

not be used to conduct operating tests,

requalification, or control

manipulations as described in

§§ 55.31(a), 55.45(b)(1), and 55.59(c)(3)

of this part. Facility licensees proposing

to use simulation facilities meeting the

definition in § 55.4 of a plant-referenced

facility would not be required to submit

an application for Commission

approval.

Section 55.45(b)(5)(v) requires that,

‘‘If the Commission determines,

pursuant to paragraph (b)(5)(iv) of this

section, that a certified simulation

facility does not meet the requirements

of this part, the facility licensee may

submit a recertification to the

Commission on Form NRC—474. This

recertification must include a

description of corrective actions taken,

including results of completed

performance testing as required for

recertification.’’ The proposed rule

eliminates this provision.

Section 55.45(b)(5)(vi) requires that,

‘‘Any certification report, or

recertification submitted pursuant to

paragraph (b)(5)(i), (b)(5)(ii) or (b)(5)(v)

of this section must include a

description of performance testing

completed for the simulation facility,

and must include a description of the

performance tests, if different, to be

conducted on the simulation facility

during the subsequent four-year period,

and a schedule for the conduct of

approximately 25 percent of the

performance tests per year for the

subsequent four years.’’ The proposed

rule would eliminate in its entirety this

requirement.

The proposed rule requirements

associated with the implementation and

use of simulation facilities would

significantly reduce unnecessary burden

for facility licensees and the NRC. The

proposed rule would allow facility

licensees greater flexibility to adjust

their performance test programs

consistent with user needs as defined by

their accredited training programs, and

encourage implementation of improved

revisions of the national standard

which, as endorsed by the NRC, would

improve focus on the training and

examination environment in which the

plant-referenced simulator is used. In

addition, the proposed rule would allow

facility licensees to reduce cost.

Since § 55.45(b) was last revised on

March 25, 1987 (52 FR 9453), facility

licensees have continually improved

and implemented sophisticated

simulator modeling and replaced

outdated computer hardware to ensure

that operator and senior operator

applicants as well as licensed operators

are trained and qualified on a plantreferenced simulator.

Subpart A—Revisions of § 55.4

Definitions

Section 55.4 defines performance

testing as ‘‘Performance testing means

testing conducted to verify a simulation

facility’s performance as compared to

actual or predicted reference plant

performance.’’ The proposed rule would

redefine performance testing as

‘‘Performance testing means validation,

scenario-based, or operability testing

conducted to verify a simulation

facility’s performance as compared to

actual or predicted reference plant

performance.’’

Section 55.4 defines plant-referenced

simulator as ‘‘Plant-referenced simulator

means a simulator modeling the systems

of the reference plant with which the

operator interfaces in the control room,

including operating consoles, and

which permits use of the reference

plant’s procedures. A plant-referenced

simulator demonstrates expected plant

response to operator input, and to

normal, transient, and accident

conditions to which the simulator has

been designed to respond.’’ The

proposed rule would enhance the

definition of plant-referenced simulator

as ‘‘Plant-referenced simulator means a

simulator modeling the systems of the

reference plant with which the operator

interfaces in the control room, including

operating consoles, and which permits

use of the reference plant’s procedures.

A plant-referenced simulator

demonstrates expected plant response to

operator input, and to normal, transient,

and accident conditions to which the

simulator has been designed to respond.

A plant-referenced simulator is

designed, implemented, and maintained

such that it: (1) Is sufficient in scope and

fidelity to allow conduct of the

evolutions listed in paragraphs

55.45(a)(1) through (13), and

55.59(c)(3)(i)(A) through (AA), as

applicable to the design of the reference

unit; (2) allows for the completion of onthe-job training experience prerequisites

for license operator eligibility consistent

with paragraph 55.45(b)(2)(ii).’’

Section 55.4 defines simulation

facility as ‘‘Simulation facility means

one or more of the following

components, alone or in combination,

used for the partial conduct of operating

tests for operators, senior operators, and

candidates: (1) The plant, (2) a plantreferenced simulator, (3) another

simulation device.’’ The proposed rule

would update the definition of

simulation facility to ‘‘Simulation

facility means one or more of the

following components, alone or in

combination, used for the partial

conduct of operating tests for operators,

senior operators, and license applicants:

(1) The plant, (2) a plant-referenced

simulator, (3) a Commission-approved

simulator in accordance with

§ 55.45(b)(2), (4) another simulation

device, including part-task and limited

scope simulation devices.’’

Subpart A—General Provisions, § 55.8

Information Collection Requirements:

OMB Approval

Section 55.8(c)(3) identifies the

information collection requirement and

the control number under which the

requirement is approved for NRC Form

474, ‘‘Simulation Facility Certification,’’

OMB approval No. 3150–0138. If

adopted, the proposed rule would

eliminate the need for the certification

form.

Section 55.8(c)(4) would be deleted

because its requirements have been

incorporated into this 10 CFR part.

Subpart F—Licenses, § 55.59,

Requalification

Section 55.59(c)(4)(iv) requires that,

‘‘* * * After the provisions of § 55.45(b)

have been implemented at a facility, the

certified or approved simulation facility

must be used to comply with this

paragraph.’’ The proposed rule would

eliminate the words ‘‘certified or

approved’’ as a result of eliminating the

certification requirement as described in

the proposed rule § 55.45(b).

Issues for Public Comment

Comments concerning the content,

level of detail specified, and the

implementation of the proposed

amendments are encouraged.

Suggestions of alternatives other than

those described in this notice and

estimates of cost for implementation are

encouraged. Because the intent of the

proposed rule changes to § 55.31(a)(5)

and § 55.45(b)(1) is to reduce

unnecessary regulatory burden by

providing acceptable methods to

comply with the Commission’s

regulations, the NRC is particularly

interested in receiving from the public

comments on the following issues

related to this proposed rule:

1. Are there rulemaking alternatives to

this proposed rule that were not

considered in the regulatory analysis for

this proposed rule?

2. Are the revised definitions as used

in § 55.4 clearly defined?

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 128 / Monday, July 3, 2000 / Proposed Rules 41027

3. Would the revised requirements

permitting control manipulations to be

performed on a plant-referenced

simulator as prescribed in § 55.31(a)(5)

reduce unnecessary regulatory burden

associated with establishing license

eligibility for operators and senior

operators and yet continue to maintain

safety by ensuring that experience

gained on the simulator essentially

replicates that obtained from control

manipulations on the plant?

4. Would the revised requirements in

§ 55.45 to eliminate the need for

certification of simulation facilities and

duplicate testing and reporting

requirements accomplish their intended

purpose of eliminating unnecessary

regulatory burden?

5. Would the proposed NRC reviews

of simulators ensure requisite simulator

suitability to support effective training

and operator performance assessment

and thereby maintain plant safety?

Related Regulatory Activity

NRC Endorsement of ANSI/ANS 3.5–

1998

The NRC staff has reviewed ANSI/

ANS 3.5–1998 with respect to the

revision of Regulatory Guide 1.149,

‘‘Nuclear Power Plant Simulation

Facilities for Use in License

Examinations.’’ The 1998 revision of the

standard was developed with full NRC

participation and insight. Accordingly,

the staff believes that those testing and

fidelity concerns that have required

exceptions and clarifications in the

regulatory positions of the previous

revisions of Regulatory Guide 1.149, are

adequately addressed in this latest

revision of the standard. The staff

further believes that industry’s concerns

have been addressed in this latest

revision of the standard. As noted in the

introductory paragraph to the standard,

‘‘the consensus committee was balanced

to ensure that competent, concerned,

and varied interests have had an

opportunity to participate.’’ The staff is

considering endorsing ANSI/ANS 3.5–

1998 without the exceptions or

clarifications that have characterized

NRC’s endorsement of previous

revisions.

The staff published in the Federal

Register for public comment a notice of

availability of Draft Guide DG–1080

(proposed Revision 3 of Regulatory

Guide 1.149) on August 23, 1999 (64 FR

162). The public comment period closed

on November 12, 1999. NRC Form 474

and the associated OMB clearance will

also be modified to reflect NRC’s

endorsement of the 1998 revision of the

standard upon final issuance of

Regulatory Guide 1.149 and final

Commission action on changes

described in this proposed rule.

Facility licensees would not be

required to automatically adopt the new

standard. The 1993 revision is still

recognized by ANS, and the 1985

revision is considered to be a

‘‘historical’’ standard. Simultaneous

endorsement of more than one version

of the standard is consistent with both

the NRC policy of evaluating the latest

version of national consensus standards

in terms of their suitability for

endorsement by regulations or

regulatory guides and the established

regulatory position regarding

simulators, allowing industry to

establish recommended and required

capabilities and acceptability criteria.

Referenced Documents

Copies of SECY–99–0225, DG–1080

(Proposed Revision 3 to Regulatory

Guide 1.149), NRC Form 474, NUREG–

1262, NUREG–1258, and NUREG–1021

are available for inspection and copying

for a fee at the NRC Public Document

Room, 2120 L Street, NW. (Lower

Level), Washington, DC.

Plain Language

The Presidential memorandum dated

June 1, 1998, entitled, ‘‘Plain Language

in Government Writing,’’ directed the

government’s writing be in plain

language. This memorandum was

published June 10, 1998 (63 FR 31883).

In complying with this directive,

editoral changes have been made in this

proposed amendment to improve

readability of the existing language of

the provisions being revised. These

types of changes are not discussed

further in this document. The NRC

requests comment on the proposed rule

specifically with respect to the clarity

and effectiveness of the language used.

Comments should be sent to the address

listed under the ADDRESSES caption of

the preamble.

Environmental Impact: Categorical

Exclusion

The NRC has determined that this

proposed rule is the type of action

described as a categorical exclusion in

10 CFR 51.22(c)(1). Therefore, neither

an environmental impact statement nor

an environmental assessment has been

prepared for this proposed regulation.

Paperwork Reduction Act Statement

This proposed rule amends

information collection requirements that

are subject to the Paperwork Reduction

Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

This rule has been submitted to the

Office of Management and Budget for

review and approval of the paperwork

requirements.

Because the rule will reduce existing

information collection requirements, the

public burden for this information

collection is expected to be decreased

by 120 hours per licensee. This

reduction includes the time required for

reviewing instructions, searching

existing data sources, gathering and

maintaining the data needed and

completing and reviewing the

information collection. The U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission is

seeking public comment on the

potential impact of the information

collections contained in the proposed

rule and on the following issues:

1. Is the proposed information collection

necessary for the proper performance of the

functions of the NRC, including whether the

information will have practical utility?

2. Is the estimate of burden accurate?

3. Is there a way to enhance the quality,

utility, and clarity of the information to be

collected?

4. How can the burden of the information

collection be minimized, including the use of

automated collection techniques?

Send comments on any aspect of this

proposed information collection,

including suggestions for further

reducing the burden, to the Records

Management Branch (T–6 E6), U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

Washington, DC 20555–0001, or by

Internet electronic mail at

BJS1@NRC.GOV; and to the Desk

Officer, Office of Information and

Regulatory Affairs, NEOB–10202,

(3150–0138), Office of Management and

Budget, Washington, DC 20503.

Comments to OMB on the information

collections or on the above issues

should be submitted by August 2, 2000.

Comments received after this date will

be considered if it is practical to do so,

but assurance of consideration cannot

be given to comments received after this

date.

Public Protection Notification

If a means used to impose an

information collection does not display

a currently valid OMB control number,

the NRC may not conduct or sponsor,

and a person is not required to respond

to, the information collection.

National Technology Transfer and

Advancement Act Statement

The National Technology Transfer

and Advancement Act of 1995, Public

Law 104–113, requires that Federal

agencies use technical standards that are

developed or adopted by voluntary

consensus standards bodies unless the

use of such a standard is inconsistent

with applicable law or otherwise

41028 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 128 / Monday, July 3, 2000 / Proposed Rules

impractical. Regulatory Guide 1.149

describes an acceptable method by

which facility licensees might

implement specific parts of this

proposed rule and references the 1985,

1993, and 1998, revisions of voluntary

standard American National Standards

Institute/American Nuclear Society

(ANSI/ANS) 3.5, ‘‘Nuclear Power Plant

Simulators for Use in Operator Training

and Examination.’’

Comments are being solicited,

particularly with respect to effects of

application of ANSI/ANS 3.5–1998 on

existing simulator support and operator

training programs and perceived

compatibility with the proposed

regulations. Comments are also being

solicited with respect to applicability of

earlier versions of ANSI/ANS 3.5 or

applicability of standards and guidance

other than ANSI/ANS 3.5 for use in

training and examination of operators at

nuclear power plants.

Regulatory Analysis

The Commission has prepared a

regulatory analysis on this proposed

regulation. The analysis examines the

costs and benefits of the alternatives

considered by the Commission. The

regulatory analysis is available for

inspection in the NRC Public Document

Room, 2120 L Street NW (Lower Level),

Washington, DC. Single copies of the

analysis may be obtained from the

Branch Chief, Operator Licensing,

Human Performance and Plant Support

Branch, Office Nuclear Reactor

Regulation, U.S. Regulatory

Commission, at 301–415–3173 or by email at jfc@nrc.gov. The Commission

requests public comment on the

regulatory analysis. Comments on the

analysis may be submitted to the NRC

as indicated under the ADDRESSES

heading.

Regulatory Flexibility Certification

In accordance with the Regulatory

Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 605(b)),

the Commission certifies that this rule

will not, if issued, have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities. This proposed

rule affects only the licensing and

operation of nuclear power plants. The

companies that own these plants do not

fall within the scope of the definition of

‘‘small entities’’ set forth in the

Regulatory Flexibility Act or the Small

Business Size Standards set out in

regulations issued by the Small

Business Administration at 13 CFR Part

121.

Backfit Analysis

The NRC has determined that the

backfit rule does not apply to this

proposed rule; therefore, a backfit

analysis is not required for this

proposed rule because these

amendments do not involve any

provisions that would impose backfits

as defined in 10 CFR 50.109(a)(1).

List of Subjects in Part 55

Criminal penalties, Manpower

training programs, Nuclear power plants

and reactors, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements.

For the reasons set out in the

preamble and under the authority of the

Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended;

the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974,

as amended; and 5 U.S.C. 553; the NRC

is proposing to adopt the following

amendments to 10 CFR Part 55.

PART 55—OPERATOR’S LICENSES

1. The authority citation for Part 55

continues to read as follows:

Authority: Secs. 107, 161, 182, 68 Stat.

939, 948, 953, as amended, sec. 234, 83 Stat.

444, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2137, 2201, 2232,

2282); secs. 201, as amended, 202, 88 Stat.

1242, as amended, 1244 (42 U.S.C. 5841,

5842).

Sections 55.41, 55.43, 55.45, and 55.59 also

issued under sec. 306, Pub. L. 97–425, 96

Stat. 2262 (42 U.S.C. 10226). Section 55.61

also issued under secs. 186, 187, 68 Stat. 955

(42 U.S.C. 2236, 2237).

2. In § 55.4, the terms ‘‘Performance

testing,’’ ‘‘Plant-referenced simulator,’’

and ‘‘Simulation facility,’’ are revised to

read as follows:

§ 55.4 Definitions.

* * * * *

Performance testing means validation,

scenario-based, or operability testing

conducted to verify a simulation

facility’s performance as compared to

actual or predicted reference plant

performance.

* * * * *

Plant-referenced simulator means a

simulator modeling the systems of the

reference plant with which the operator

interfaces in the control room, including

operating consoles, and which permits

use of the reference plant’s procedures.

A plant-referenced simulator

demonstrates expected plant response to

operator input, and to normal, transient,

and accident conditions to which the

simulator has been designed to respond.

A plant-referenced simulator is

designed and implemented such that it:

(1) Is sufficient in scope and fidelity

to allow conduct of the evolutions listed

in §§ 55.45(a)(1) through (13), and

55.59(c)(3)(i)(A) through (AA), as

applicable to the design of the reference

unit, and

(2) Allows for the completion of onthe-job training experience prerequisites

for licensed operator applicant

eligibility consistent with

§ 55.45(b)(3)(i).

* * * * *

Simulation facility means one or more

of the following components, alone or in

combination, used for the partial

conduct of operating tests for operators,

senior operators, and license applicants,

or to establish on-the-job training

experience prerequisites for operator

license eligibility:

(1) The plant;

(2) A plant-referenced simulator;

(3) A Commission-approved simulator

in accordance with § 55.45(b)(2); and

(4) Another simulation device,

including part-task and limited scope

simulation devices.

* * * * *

3. In § 55.8, paragraphs (c)(3) and

(c)(4) are removed and paragraph (b) is

revised to read as follows:

§ 55.8 Information collection

requirements: OMB approval.

* * * * *

(b) The approved information

collection requirements contained in

this part appear in §§ 55.11, 55.23,

55.25, 55.27, 55.31, 55.35, 55.40, 55.41,

55.43, 55.45, 55.47, 55.53, 55.57, and

55.59.

* * * * *

4. In § 55.31, paragraph (a)(5) is

revised to read as follows:

§ 55.31 How to apply.

(a) * * *

(5) Provide evidence that the

applicant, as a trainee, has successfully

manipulated the controls of the facility

for which a license is sought. At a

minimum, five significant control

manipulations must be performed that

affect reactivity or power level.

Evidence of satisfactory performance of

control manipulations may be

demonstrated on a plant-referenced

simulator that meets the requirements of

§ 55.45(b)(3). Control manipulations

performed on the simulator may be

chosen from a representative sampling

of the control manipulations and plant

evolutions described in § 55.59(c)(3)(A–

F), (R), (T), (W), and (X) of this part, as

applicable to the design of the plant for

which the license application is

submitted. For licensed operators

applying for a senior operator license,

certification that the operator has

successfully operated the controls of the

facility as a licensed operator shall be

accepted; and

* * * * *

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 128 / Monday, July 3, 2000 / Proposed Rules 41029

5. In § 55.45, paragraph (b) is revised

to read as follows:

§ 55.45 Operating tests.

* * * * *

(b) Implementation— (1)

Administration. The operating test will

be administered in a plant walkthrough

and in either—

(i) A simulation facility which the

Commission has approved for use after

application has been made by the

facility licensee; or

(ii) A plant-referenced simulator as

defined in § 55.4.

(2) Commission-approved simulation

facilities. (i) Facility licensees who

propose to use a simulation facility in

the administration of the operating test

in accordance with paragraph (b)(1)(i) of

this section, shall submit an application

for approval of the simulation facility to

the Commission. This application must

include:

(A) A description of the components

of the simulation facility that are

intended to be used for each part of the

operating test, unless previously

approved;

(B) A description of the performance

tests as part of the application, and the

results of these tests; and

(C) A description of the procedures

for maintaining examination and test

integrity consistent with the

requirements of § 55.49.

(ii) The Commission will approve a

simulation facility if it finds that the

simulation facility and its proposed use

are suitable for the conduct of operating

tests for the facility licensee’s reference

plant under paragraph (a) of this

section.

(3) Plant-referenced simulators. (i)

Facility licensees which propose to use

a plant-referenced simulator to meet the

experience requirements in § 55.31(a)(5)

must ensure that:

(A) The plant-referenced simulator

uses models relating to nuclear and

thermal-hydraulic characteristics that

replicate the core load that exists in the

nuclear power unit for which a license

is being sought at the time of the

applicant’s operating test; and

(B) Simulator fidelity has been

demonstrated so that significant control

manipulations are completed without

procedural exceptions, simulator

performance exceptions, or deviation

from the approved training scenario

sequence.

(ii) If the Commission determines that

a simulation facility consisting solely of

a plant-referenced simulator does not

meet either the definition of a plantreferenced simulator as defined in

§ 55.4, or the criteria in § 55.45(b)(4)(A)

and (D), the Commission will not accept

the plant-referenced simulator for

conducting operating tests as described

in § 55.45(b)(1) of this part,

requalification training as described in

§ 55.59(c)(3) of this part, or performing

control manipulations that affect

reactivity to establish eligibility for an

operator’s license as described in

§ 55.31(a)(5).

(4) Continued assurance of simulator

fidelity. Facility licensees that maintain

a simulation facility shall:

(A) Conduct performance testing

throughout the life of the simulation

facility in a manner sufficient to assure

that the criteria of paragraphs

55.45(b)(4)(C) and 55.45(b)(3)(i)(B) as

applicable, are met. The results of

performance tests must be retained for

four years after the completion of each

performance test or until superseded by

updated test results;

(B) Correct scenario validation,

performance test, modeling , and

hardware discrepancies;

(C) Make available for NRC review,

before or concurrent with preparations

for each operator licensing operating

test or requalification program

inspection, results of any uncorrected

performance test failures that may exist

at the time of the operating test or

requalification program inspection; and

(D) Maintain the provisions for

examination and test integrity

consistent with § 55.49.

* * * * *

6. In § 55.59, paragraph (c)(4)(iv) is

revised to read as follows:

§ 55.59 Requalification.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(4) * * *

(iv) Simulation of emergency or

abnormal conditions that may be

accomplished by using the control panel

of the facility involved or by using a

simulator. Where the control panel of

the facility is used for simulation, the

actions taken or to be taken for the

emergency or abnormal condition must

be discussed; actual manipulation of the

plant controls is not required. If a

simulator is used in meeting the

requirements of paragraph (c)(4)(iii) of

this section, it must accurately

reproduce the operating characteristics

of the facility involved and the

arrangement of the instrumentation and

controls of the simulator must closely

parallel that of the facility involved.

After the provisions of § 55.45(b) have

been implemented at a facility, the

simulation facility must be used to

comply with this paragraph.

* * * * *

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 27th day

of June, 2000.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Annette L. Vietti-Cook,

Secretary of the Commission.

[FR Doc. 00–16751 Filed 6–30–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–U

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND

HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

21 CFR Part 101

[Docket No. 00N–1351]

Food Labeling; Use of the Term

‘‘Fresh’’ for Foods Processed With

Alternative Nonthermal Technologies;

Public Meeting

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration,

HHS.

ACTION: Announcement of meeting.

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug

Administration (FDA) is announcing a

public meeting to discuss the use of the

term ‘‘fresh’’ in the labeling of foods

processed with alternative nonthermal

technologies. The purpose of the

meeting is to determine whether the use

of the term ‘‘fresh’’ is truthful and not

misleading on foods processed with

these alternative technologies and to

determine what type of criteria FDA

should use when considering the use of

the term with future technologies.

DATES: The public meeting will be held

on July 21, 2000, from 8:30 a.m. to 4

p.m. Please preregister by July 14, 2000.

Late registrations will be accepted

contingent on space availability.

Comments must be submitted no later

than August 21, 2000.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at

the Holiday Inn City Centre, 300 East

Ohio St., Chicago, IL, 312–787–6100.

Submit written comments to the

Dockets Management Branch (HFA–

305), Food and Drug Administration,

rm. 1061, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rockville,

MD 20852. You may also send

comments to the Dockets Management

Branch at the following e-mail address:

FDADockets@oc.fda.gov or on the FDA

website at http://

www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/oc/

dockets/comments/commentdocket.cfm.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

For registration: Kimberly Phillips or

Darlene M. Bailey, Office of Public

Affairs (HFR–CE645), Food and

Drug Administration, 300 South

Riverside Plaza, suite 550 South,

Chicago, IL 60606, 312–353–7126 or

FAX 312–886–3280.