40978 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 147 / Thursday, July 31, 1997 / Proposed Rules

Decisional Rationale

Based on the consistency which is

created between license terms for

medical licenses and all other material

licenses by the rulemaking, and the cost

effectiveness of a license term of up to

ten years, the NRC is proposing to

amend 10 CFR part 35 to eliminate the

five-year term limit for medical use

licenses and allow the license term to be

set by the established policy for up to

ten years.

IX. Regulatory Flexibility Certification

As required by the Regulatory

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

the Commission certifies that this rule,

if adopted, will not have a significant

impact on a substantial number of small

entities. If any small entity subject to

this regulation determines that, because

of its size, it is likely to bear a

disproportionate adverse economic

impact, the entity should notify the

Commission of this in a comment that

indicates the following:

(a) The licensee’s size and how the

proposed regulation would result in a

significant economic burden upon the

license compared to the economic

burden on a larger licensee;

(b) How the proposed regulation

could be modified to take into account

the licensee’s differing needs and

capabilities;

(c) The benefits that would accrue, or

the detriments that would be avoided, if

the proposed rule were modified as

suggested by the licensee;

(d) How the proposed regulation, as

modified, would more closely equalize

the impact of NRC regulations or create

more equal access to the benefits of

Federal programs, as opposed to

providing special advantages to any one

individual or group; and

(e) How the proposed regulation, as

modified, would still adequately protect

public health and safety.

X. Backfit Analysis

The NRC has determined that the

backfit rule, 10 CFR 50.109, does not

apply to this rule, and therefore a

backfit analysis is not required because

the amendment does not involve any

provisions that would impose backfits

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

List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 35

Byproduct material, Criminal

penalties, Drugs, Health facilities,

Health professions, Nuclear materials,

Occupational safety and health,

Radiation protection, Reporting and

record 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. 552 and 553;

the NRC is adopting the following

amendments to 10 CFR part 35.

PART 35—MEDICAL USE OF

BYPRODUCT MATERIAL

1. The authority citation for part 35

continues to read as follows:

Authority: Secs. 81, 161, 182, 183, 68 Stat.

935, 948, 953, 954, as amended (42 U.S.C.

2111, 2201, 2232, 2233); sec. 201, 88 Stat.

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

2. The introductory text of § 35.18 is

revised to read as follows:

§ 35.18 License issuance

The Commission shall issue a license

for the medical use of byproduct

material if:

* * * * *

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 10th day

of July, 1997.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Hugh L. Thompson, Jr.,

Acting Executive Director for Operations.

[FR Doc. 97–20189 Filed 7–30–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

10 CFR Parts 50 and 73

[PRM 50–59 and PRM 50–60]

RIN 3150–AF63

Frequency of Reviews and Audits for

Emergency Preparedness Programs,

Safeguards Contingency Plans, and

Security Programs For Nuclear Power

Reactors

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory

Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory

Commission is proposing to amend its

regulations to change the frequency of

licensees’ independent reviews and

audits of their emergency preparedness

programs, safeguards contingency plans,

and security programs. This amendment

is being proposed in response to

petitions for rulemaking submitted by

Virginia Power Company. Specifically,

instead of conducting reviews every 12

months, as is currently required, the

proposed amendment would require

nuclear power reactor licensees to

conduct program reviews and audits in

response to program performance

indicators, or after a significant change

in personnel, procedures, equipment, or

facilities, but in no case less frequently

than every 24 months.

DATES: Submit comments October 14,

1997. 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: Comments may be sent to:

Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, Washington, DC 20555–

0001. Attention: Rulemakings and

Adjudications Staff.

Deliver comments to: 11555 Rockville

Pike, Rockville, Maryland, between 7:30

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

For information on submitting

comments electronically, see the

discussion under Electronic Access in

the Supplementary Information Section.

Certain documents related to this

rulemaking, including comments

received, may be examined at the NRC

Public Document Room, 2120 L Street

NW. (Lower Level), Washington, DC.

These documents may also be viewed

and downloaded electronically via the

Electronic Bulletin Board established by

NRC for this rulemaking as discussed

under Electronic Access in the

Supplementary Information section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr.

Sandra D. Frattali, Office of Nuclear

Regulatory Research, U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission, Washington,

DC 20555–0001, telephone (301) 415–

6261, e-mail sdf@nrc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On January 7, 1994, the Commission

docketed a petition for rulemaking from

Virginia Power, dated December 30,

1993, (PRM–50–59) to change the

required audit frequency for safeguards

contingency plans and security

programs at nuclear power reactors. On

January 19, 1994, the Commission

docketed, as a separate petition for

rulemaking (PRM–50–60), Virginia

Power’s request that the NRC change the

required audit frequency for emergency

preparedness programs at nuclear power

reactor facilities. NRC published these

two petitions for public comment in the

Federal Register. PRM–50–59 was

published on May 6, 1994 (59 FR

23641). PRM 50–60 was published on

April 13, 1994 (59 FR 17449).

The Commission’s regulations

currently require power reactor

licensees to conduct independent

reviews and audits of each of these

programs at least every 12 months.

Virginia Power requested that the

frequency be changed to nominally

every 24 months. This rulemaking

addresses the issues raised in these

petitions.
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 147 / Thursday, July 31, 1997 / Proposed Rules 40979

1Note that this appendix is currently cited by

both § 73.46, which applies to nuclear fuel

licensees, and § 73.55, which applies to nuclear

power reactor licensees. This rulemaking applies

only to nuclear power reactors.

The Commission notes that although

the petitioner uses the term ‘‘audit,’’ the

emergency planning regulations use the

term ‘‘program reviews.’’ Further, the

security program and safeguards

contingency plan regulations also use

‘‘reviews.’’ When describing what is

required by a ‘‘review’’ of the physical

security plan, the regulations use the

term ‘‘audits’’ for some of the

requirements. This rule change will

continue to use the term ‘‘program

reviews’’ for the emergency

preparedness regulations and the

safeguards contingency and security

regulations. The use of the term ‘‘audit’’

in the requirements for the ‘‘reviews’’ of

the safeguards contingency and security

plans remains unchanged. The NRC

understands that licensees have

assumed that the term ‘‘audit’’ in

Appendix C to Part 73 means a quality

assurance (QA) audit that conforms to

their normal audit program

requirements and American National

Standards Institute (ANSI) standards

such as ANSI N45.2, ‘‘Quality

Assurance Programs for Nuclear

Facilities;’’ ANSI N45.2.12,

‘‘Requirements for Auditing of Quality

Assurance Programs for Nuclear Power

Plants;’’ ANSI N45.2.33, ‘‘Qualifications

of Quality Assurance Program Audit

Personnel for Nuclear Power Plants;’’

and ANSI N18.7, ‘‘Administrative

Controls and Quality Assurance for the

Operation Phase of Nuclear Power

Plants.’’ The NRC does not require that

these audits be performed by the QA

organization in accordance with the QA

program commitments for the conduct

of the audits. As stated in the current

rule, the NRC expects that these audits

must be conducted by individuals who

are qualified (technically competent) in

the subject(s) being audited and are

independent of the program (to assure

objectivity and no conflict of interest).

At the licensee’s option, the QA

organization may perform, lead, or assist

in these audits.

Along with the petitions for

rulemaking related to security and

emergency preparedness, Virginia

Power submitted a third petition (PRM–

26–1) to relax the existing audit (i.e.

program review) frequency required for

fitness-for-duty (FFD). Issues related to

the FFD petition are being addressed in

a separate NRC rulemaking.

Discussion

Requirements pertaining to the review

frequency of safeguards contingency

plans by power reactor licensees are

contained in § 50.54(p)(3) and in

Appendix C to Part 73.1 Section

50.54(p)(3) requires that licensees

provide for a review of the safeguards

contingency plan at least every 12

months by individuals who are

independent of both security program

management and personnel who have

direct responsibility for implementation

of the security program. This review

must include a review and audit of

safeguards contingency procedures and

practices, an audit of the security

system testing and maintenance

program, and a test of the safeguards

systems along with commitments

established for response by local law

enforcement authorities. The current

records retention period for the results

of this review and audit in this section

is 2 years. It is being changed to 3 years

to correspond to the retention period for

the same records in Appendix C.

In Appendix C to Part 73, the section

entitled ‘‘AUDIT AND REVIEW’’

requires a review of the safeguards

contingency plan at intervals not to

exceed 12 months. The review must

include an audit of safeguards

contingency procedures and practices,

and an audit of commitments

established for response by local law

enforcement authorities. The results of

this review and audit must be

maintained for a period of 3 years.

Requirements for security program

reviews are contained in § 73.55(g)(4).

This section requires that the security

program be reviewed at least every 12

months by individuals independent of

both security program management and

personnel who have direct

responsibility for the implementation of

the security program. The review must

include an audit of the security

procedures and practices, an evaluation

of the effectiveness of the physical

protection system, an audit of that

system’s testing and maintenance

program, and an audit of commitments

established for response by local law

enforcement authorities. The results of

this review and audit must be

maintained for a period of 3 years.

Requirements pertaining to the

frequency of program reviews of the

emergency preparedness program by

nuclear power reactor licensees are

contained in § 50.54(t). This section

requires that licensees provide for a

review of their emergency preparedness

program at least every 12 months by

persons who have no direct

responsibility for implementation of the

emergency preparedness program. The

review must include an evaluation for

adequacy of interfaces with State and

local governments, as well as the

adequacy of licensee drills, exercises,

capabilities, and procedures. The results

of the review, along with

recommendations for improvement,

must be documented, reported to the

licensee’s corporate and plant

management, and must be retained for

a period of 5 years.

The Virginia Power petitions

requested that the regulations be

amended to change the frequency of the

required audit (i.e. program review)

from at least every 12 months to

nominally every 24 months with

additional audits if performance

warranted. NRC has carefully reviewed

the arguments presented by the

petitioner and the public comments that

were submitted on the petitions. The

NRC is proposing to resolve the

petitions with regard to 10 CFR Part 50

licensees by initiating this rulemaking.

The proposed rule incorporates the

petitions in part, and modifies some

petition requests in response to the

public comments as indicated in the

following discussion.

Twenty-eight public comments

resulted from the publication of the

petitions in the Federal Register. Of

these, 9 comments concerned the

safeguards contingency plan and the

security program, and 19 concerned the

emergency preparedness program.

All the comments on the security

program were from the nuclear industry

and supported the petition. Of the 19

public comments on emergency

preparedness, 17 were from the nuclear

power industry and supported the

petition. Two were from States, who

expressed some concern with

lengthening the period between reviews.

The States’ concern has been addressed

in this proposed revision by clarifying

that more frequent, focused program

reviews and audits may be required

based on an assessment of security or

emergency preparedness by the licensee

against performance indicators, or after

a significant change in personnel,

procedures, equipment, or facilities.

The NRC staff is proposing changing

the regulations, which will reduce the

burden on the licensees without

affecting public health and safety, for

the following reasons.

First, after these rules were first

implemented, industry performance

improved to the point that annual

program reviews and audits are not

necessary to ensure that the emergency

preparedness programs, safeguards

contingency plans, or security programs

are adequate. Inspection findings and

enforcement actions, licensee
40980 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 147 / Thursday, July 31, 1997 / Proposed Rules

performance during exercises and

operational safeguards response

evaluation, and the systematic

assessment of licensee performance

(SALP) evaluations indicate sufficient

improvement to justify the

recommended reduction in audit

burden. Furthermore, if a licensee’s

program is in fact not performing

properly, the proposed changes could

result in audits more frequently than

every 24 months.

Second, the current requirements for

annual reviews and audits result in a

lack of licensee flexibility, which can

compromise the completion of effective

audits. Licensees are currently limited

in their ability to allocate audit

resources according to safety needs and

priorities, because available resources

and personnel must be committed

according to a set review and audit

schedule, rather than used to monitor or

assess other areas of concern. In

addition, licensees are not always able

to conduct reviews and audits at the

same time as other activities.

Concurrent scheduling with activities

such as separately scheduled drills,

inspections, or operational activities

would permit a better review and

evaluation of plant systems. This can

lead to reviews and audits of little or

marginal benefit, or the need to perform

extra reviews and audits to reconfirm

that a program is still adequate after

there has been a change. It can also lead

to auditing before corrective actions are

completed, when waiting a short time

could allow the review and audit to be

done when the effectiveness of a

corrective action can be evaluated.

Third, the current requirements

concerning review and audit frequency

are inconsistent with recent regulatory

trends, which have moved toward

performance-based requirements that

focus attention on action to correct

demonstrated weaknesses rather than

schedule-driven needs. By establishing

performance-based criteria for triggering

reviews and audits, the NRC staff’s

resolution to PRM–50–59 and PRM–50–

60 would be consistent with recent

recommendations of the NRC

Regulatory Review Group, the National

Performance Review, and the proposed

amendments that were published in the

Federal Register on May 9, 1996 (61 FR

21105), to resolve the FFD audit

frequency petition for rulemaking,

PRM–26–1. This approach is intended

to promote flexibility and efficiency in

nuclear facility operations while

maintaining the highest standards of

public health and safety. Both NRC

policy directives and Congressional

action emphasize the need for the

Commission to move toward

performance-based regulations.

As a result, the NRC staff proposes to

revise the regulations to require that

licensees conduct focused program

reviews and audits as needed, based on

an assessment by the licensee against

performance indicators or in response to

a significant change in personnel,

procedures, equipment, or facilities, and

that all program elements are reviewed

and audited at least every 24 months.

These changes are consistent with the

requested changes in the two petitions

for rulemaking (PRM 50–59 and PRM

50–60) and will promote performancebased rather than compliance-based

review and audit activities.

The proposed changes will further

clarify that programs must be reviewed

and audited following a significant

change in personnel, procedures, or

equipment as soon as reasonably

practicable, but no later than 12 months

after the changes. The purpose of these

focused audits would be to ensure that

changes have not adversely affected the

operation of the particular program

element or function in question.

Accordingly, this proposed rule would

better ensure that programmatic

problems will be detected and corrected

on a timely basis and that program

reviews and audits are based on specific

performance indicators rather than on

rigidly specified time limits.

It is anticipated that a regulatory

guide may be necessary. The NRC

specifically requests public comments

on suggested performance indicators

appropriate for the emergency

preparedness and security programs that

would amplify the regulation.

Electronic Access

Comments may be submitted

electronically, in either ASCII text or

WordPerfect format (version 5.1 or

later), by calling the NRC Electronic

Bulletin Board (BBS) on FedWorld or

connecting to the NRC interactive

rulemaking web site, ‘‘Rulemaking

Forum.’’ The bulletin board may be

accessed using a personal computer, a

modem, and one of the commonly

available communications software

packages, or directly via Internet.

Background documents on the

rulemaking are also available, as

practical, for downloading and viewing

on the bulletin board.

If using a personal computer and

modem, the NRC rulemaking subsystem

on FedWorld can be accessed directly

by dialing the toll free number (800)

303-9672. Communication software

indicators should be set as follows:

parity to none, data bits to 8, and stop

bits to 1 (N,8,1). Using ANSI or VT–100

terminal emulation, the NRC

rulemaking subsystem can then be

accessed by selecting the ‘‘Rules Menu’’

option from the ‘‘NRC Main Menu.’’

Users will find the ‘‘FedWorld Online

User’s Guides’’ particularly helpful.

Many NRC subsystems and data bases

also have a ‘‘Help/Information Center’’

option that is tailored to the particular

subsystem.

The NRC subsystem on FedWorld can

also be accessed by a direct dial phone

number for the main FedWorld BBS,

(703) 321–3339, or by using Telnet via

Internet: fedworld.gov. If using (703)

321–3339 to contact FedWorld, the NRC

subsystem will be accessed from the

main FedWorld menu by selecting the

‘‘Regulatory, Government

Administration and State Systems,’’

then selecting ‘‘Regulatory Information

Mall.’’ At that point, a menu will be

displayed that has an option ‘‘U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission’’ that

will take you to the NRC Online main

menu. The NRC Online area also can be

accessed directly by typing ‘‘/go nrc’’ at

a FedWorld command line. If you access

NRC from FedWorld’s main menu, you

may return to FedWorld by selecting the

‘‘Return to FedWorld’’ option from the

NRC Online Main Menu. However, if

you access NRC at FedWorld by using

NRC’s toll-free number, you will have

full access to all NRC systems, but you

will not have access to the main

FedWorld system.

If you contact FedWorld using Telnet,

you will see the NRC area and menus,

including the Rules Menu. Although

you will be able to download

documents and leave messages, you will

not be able to write comments or upload

files (comments). If you contact

FedWorld using FTP, all files can be

accessed and downloaded but uploads

are not allowed; all you will see is a list

of files without descriptions (normal

Gopher look). An index file listing all

files within a subdirectory, with

descriptions, is available. There is a 15-

minute time limit for FTP access.

Although FedWorld also can be

accessed through the World Wide Web,

like FTP, that mode only provides

access for downloading files and does

not display the NRC Rules Menu.

You may also access the NRC’s

interactive rulemaking web site through

the NRC home page (http://

www.nrc.gov). This site provides the

same access as the FedWorld bulletin

board, including the facility to upload

comments as files (any format), if your

web browser supports that function.

For more information on NRC bulletin

boards call Mr. Arthur Davis, Systems

Integration and Development Branch,

NRC, Washington, DC 20555–0001,
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 147 / Thursday, July 31, 1997 / Proposed Rules 40981

telephone (301) 415–5780; e-mail

AXD3@nrc.gov. For information about

the interactive rulemaking site, contact

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

Environmental Impact: Categorical

Exclusion

The Commission has determined that

this proposed rule is the type of action

described as a categorical exclusion in

10 CFR 51.22 (c)(3)(i). Therefore, neither

an environmental impact statement nor

an environmental assessment has been

prepared for this proposed rule.

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 collection of

information is expected to be decreased

by approximately 275 hours per licensee

per year. This reduction includes the

time required for reviewing instructions,

searching existing data sources,

gathering and maintaining the data

needed and completing and reviewing

the collection of information. The NRC

is seeking public comments on the

potential impact of the collection of

information contained in the proposed

rule and on the following issues:

1. Is the proposed collection of

information necessary for the proper

performance of the functions of the

NRC, including whether the information

will have practical utility?

2. Is the estimate of the 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

collection of information be minimized,

including the use of automated

collection techniques?

Send comments on any aspect of this

proposed collection of information,

including suggestions for further

reducing the burden, to the Information

and Records Management Branch (T–6

F33), 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,

(3150–0002), Office of Management and

Budget, Washington, DC 20503.

Comments to OMB on the collections

of information or on the above issues

should be submitted by September 2,

1997. 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

The NRC may not conduct or sponsor,

and a person is not required to respond

to, a collection of information unless it

displays a currently valid OMB control

number.

Regulatory Analysis

A discussion of each of the changes

proposed in this rule is provided above

in the supplementary information

section. The proposed changes represent

a potential cost savings for licensees

because it is anticipated that fewer

reviews and audits will be necessary.

Most licensees include the safeguards

contingency plan as part of the physical

security program and one audit and

review covers both. Information

provided by licensees on the cost for

conducting reviews and audits of the

licensee emergency preparedness and

physical security programs varies, but is

estimated to cost approximately $15,000

per annual review and audit, for a total

for both audits of $30,000 annually.

Each element of the program would be

audited at least once every 2 years. This

would represent a potential maximum

savings of 50 percent to licensees in the

emergency preparedness and physical

security program audit costs, or an

estimated $30,000 per licensee every 2

years. The total cost savings to the

industry would be approximately $1.1M

per year. Even if some elements of the

programs were audited more frequently,

the cost to the licensee will likely be

less than auditing the entire program

every year. Limited focused audits that

address significant problems or changes

will cost about $5,000 per year if they

are needed. There is no additional cost

anticipated for collecting and analyzing

program performance indicators since

most licensees already do so in some

fashion.

Regulatory Flexibility Certification

As required by the Regulatory

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

the Commission certifies that this

proposed rule, if adopted, would not

have a significant economic impact on

a substantial number of small entities.

This proposed rule would affect only

licensees authorized to operate nuclear

power reactors. These licensees 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 Act, 13 CFR

Part 121.

Backfit Analysis

The Commission has determined that

the backfit rule, 10 CFR 50.109, does not

apply to this proposed amendment

because this amendment would not

impose new requirements on existing 10

CFR part 50 licensees. The proposed

changes would reduce the frequency

with which licensees conduct

independent reviews and audits of their

emergency preparedness programs,

safeguards contingency plans, and

security programs. This action does not

seek to impose any new or increased

requirements in this area. It will be a

decrease of burden on the licensee. No

backfitting is intended or approved in

connection with this proposed rule

change. Therefore, a backfit analysis has

not been prepared for this amendment.

List of Subjects

10 CFR Part 50

Antitrust, Classified information,

Criminal penalties, Fire protection,

Intergovernmental relations, Nuclear

power plants and reactors, Radiation

protection, Reactor siting criteria,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

10 CFR Part 73

Criminal penalties, Hazardous

materials transportation, Export, Import,

Nuclear materials, Nuclear power plants

and reactors, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements, Security

measures.

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 50 and 73.

PART 50—DOMESTIC LICENSING OF

PRODUCTION AND UTILIZATION

FACILITIES

1. The authority citation for part 50

continues to read as follows:

Authority: Secs. 102, 103, 104, 105, 161,

182, 183, 186, 189, 68 Stat. 936, 937, 938,

948, 953, 954, 955, 956, as amended, sec.

234, 83 Stat. 1244, as amended (42 U.S.C.

2132, 2133, 2134, 2135, 2201, 2232, 2233,

2236, 2239, 2282); secs. 201, as amended,

202, 206, 88 Stat. 1242, as amended, 1244,

1246 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842, 5846).

2. Section 50.54 is amended by

revising paragraphs (p)(3) and (t) to read

as follows:

§ 50.54 Conditions of license.

* * * * *
40982 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 147 / Thursday, July 31, 1997 / Proposed Rules

(p) * * *

(3) The licensee shall provide for the

development, revision, implementation,

and maintenance of its safeguards

contingency plan by a review, as

necessary, based on an assessment by

the licensee against performance

indicators, or as soon as reasonably

practicable after a significant change

occurs in personnel, procedures,

equipment, or facilities, but no longer

than 12 months after the change. The

licensee shall ensure that all program

elements are reviewed at least every 24

months by individuals independent of

both security program management and

personnel who have direct

responsibility for implementation of the

security program. The review must

include a review and audit of safeguards

contingency procedures and practices,

an audit of the security system testing

and maintenance program, and a test of

the safeguards systems along with

commitments established for response

by local law enforcement authorities.

The results of the review and audit,

along with recommendations for

improvements, must be documented,

reported to the licensee’s corporate and

plant management, and kept available at

the plant for inspection for a period of

3 years.

* * * * *

(t) The licensee shall provide for the

development, revision, implementation,

and maintenance of its emergency

preparedness program by a review, as

necessary, based on an assessment by

the licensee against performance

indicators, or as soon as reasonably

practicable after a significant change

occurs in personnel, procedures,

equipment, or facilities, but no longer

than 12 months after the change. The

licensee shall ensure that all program

elements are reviewed at least every 24

months by persons who have no direct

responsibility for the implementation of

the emergency preparedness program.

The review shall include an evaluation

for adequacy of interfaces with State

and local governments and of licensee

drills, exercises, capabilities, and

procedures. The results of the review,

along with recommendations for

improvements, shall be documented,

reported to the licensee’s corporate and

plant management, and retained for a

period of five years. The part of the

review involving the evaluation for

adequacy of interface with State and

local governments shall be available to

the appropriate State and local

governments.

* * * * *

PART 73—PHYSICAL PROTECTION OF

PLANTS AND MATERIALS

3. The authority citation for part 73

continues to read as follows:

Authority: Secs. 53, 161, 68 Stat. 930, 948,

as amended, sec. 147, 94 Stat. 780 (42 U.S.C.

2073, 2167, 2201); sec. 201, as amended, 204,

88 Stat. 1242, as amended, 1245, sec. 1701,

106 Stat. 2951, 2952, 2953 (42 U.S.C. 5841,

5844, 2297(f)).

Section 73.1 also issued under secs.

135, 141, Pub. L. 97–425, 96 Stat. 2232,

2241 (42 U.S.C. 10155, 10161). Section

73.37(f) also issued under sec. 301, Pub.

L. 96–295, 94 Stat. 789 (42 U.S.C. 5841

note). Section 73.57 is issued under sec.

606, Pub. L. 99–399, 100 Stat. 876 (42

U.S.C. 2169).

4. Section 73.55 is amended by

revising paragraph (g)(4) to read as

follows:

§ 73.55 Requirements for physical

protection of licensed activities in nuclear

power reactors against radiological

sabotage.

* * * * *

(g) * * *

(4) The licensee shall review the

security program, as necessary, based on

an assessment by the licensee against

performance indicators, or as soon as

reasonably practicable after a significant

change occurs in personnel, procedures,

equipment, or facilities, but no longer

than 12 months after the change. The

licensee shall ensure that all program

elements are reviewed at least every 24

months by individuals who have no

direct responsibility for the

implementation of the security program.

The security program review must

include an audit of security procedures

and practices, an evaluation of the

effectiveness of the physical protection

system, an audit of the physical

protection system testing and

maintenance program, and an audit of

commitments established for response

by local law enforcement authorities.

The results and recommendations of the

security program review, management’s

findings on whether the security

program is currently effective, and any

actions taken as a result of

recommendations from prior program

reviews must be documented in a report

to the licensee’s plant manager and to

corporate management at least one level

higher than that having responsibility

for the day-to-day plant operation.

These reports must be maintained in an

auditable form, available for inspection,

for a period of 3 years.

* * * * *

5. Appendix C to Part 73, Licensee

Safeguards Contingency Plans, is

amended by revising the section titled

‘‘Audit and Review’’ to read as follows:

Appendix C to Part 73—Licensee

Safeguards Contingency Plans.

* * * * *

Audit and Review

For nuclear facilities subject to the

requirements of § 73.46, the licensee shall

provide for a review of the safeguards

contingency plan at intervals not to exceed

12 months. For nuclear power reactor

licensees subject to the requirements of

§ 73.55, the licensee shall provide for a

review of the safeguards contingency plan, as

necessary, based on an assessment by the

licensee against performance indicators, or as

soon as reasonably practicable after a

significant change occurs in personnel,

procedures, equipment, or facilities, but no

longer than 12 months after the change and

shall ensure that all program elements are

reviewed at least every 24 months. A licensee

subject to either requirement shall ensure

that the review of the safeguards contingency

plan is by individuals independent of both

security program management and personnel

who have direct responsibility for

implementation of the security program. The

review must include an audit of safeguards

contingency procedures and practices, and

an audit of commitments established for

response by local law enforcement

authorities.

The licensee shall document the results

and the recommendations of the safeguards

contingency plan review, management

findings on whether the safeguards

contingency plan is currently effective, and

any actions taken as a result of

recommendations from prior reviews in a

report to the licensee’s plant manager and to

corporate management at least one level

higher than that having responsibility for the

day-to-day plant operation. The report must

be maintained in an auditable form, available

for inspection for a period of 3 years.

* * * * *

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 8th day

of July 1997.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Hugh L. Thompson, Jr.,

Acting Executive Director for Operations.

[FR Doc. 97–20191 Filed 7–30–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

11 CFR Parts 100 and 114

[Notice 1997—12]

Definition of ‘‘Member’’ of a

Membership Association

AGENCY: Federal Election Commission.

ACTION: Advance notice of proposed

rulemaking.

SUMMARY: The Commission is seeking

comments on how to revise its rules

governing who is a ‘‘member’’ of a