Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 86 / Thursday, May 4, 1995 / Notices 22081

The Commission’s regulations

regarding physical protection of nuclear

plants are set forth in 10 CFR part 73.

The regulations require a physical

protection system designed to protect

against acts of radiological sabotage or

theft of special nuclear material based

on certain design basis threats. The

design basis threats for radiological

sabotage defined in 10 CFR part

73.1(a)(1) include ‘‘a determined,

violent, external assault.’’ The potential

threat posed by malevolent use of

vehicles as part of a violent external

assault and the need to protect against

it, were the subject of detailed analysis

before the NRC published its regulations

on design basis threat. However, the use

of a land vehicle bomb was not initially

included in the design basis threat for

radiological sabotage.

The newspaper article cited by the

Petitioner describes two events that

occurred in February 1993: a forced

vehicle entry into the protected area at

Three Mile Island (TMI), Unit 1, and a

van bomb which was detonated in a

public underground parking garage at

the World Trade Center in New York

City. As a result of these events, the

Commission directed the NRC staff to

reevaluate and, if necessary, update the

design basis threat for vehicle intrusions

and the use of vehicle bombs.

In its subsequent review of the threat

environment, the NRC staff concluded

that there is no indication of an actual

vehicle threat against the domestic

commercial nuclear industry (59 FR

38889, August 1, 1994). Nonetheless, in

light of the above recent events, the NRC

staff concluded that a vehicle intrusion

or bomb threat to a nuclear power plant

could develop without warning in the

future. Therefore, on August 1, 1994, the

Commission published in the Federal

Register (59 FR 38889), a final

regulation to amend its physical

protection regulation for operating

nuclear power reactors. The

amendments modified the design basis

threat for radiological sabotage to

include use of a land vehicle by

adversaries for transporting personnel

and their hand-carried equipment to the

proximity of vital areas and to include

a land vehicle bomb (see 10 CFR

73.1(a)(1)(i)(E) and (iii)).

All operating commercial nuclear

power plants, including SONGS Units 2

and 3, must comply with the modified

design basis threat. This amended rule

requires reactor licensees to install

vehicle control measures, including

vehicle barrier systems, to protect

against the malevolent use of a land

vehicle by February 29, 1996 (see 10

CFR 73.55(c)(9)). A description of the

proposed vehicle control measures for

all operating commercial power reactors

was required to be submitted to the

Commission by February 28, 1995, for

review. The licensee for SONGS

submitted its proposed measures on

February 24, 1995, and they are

currently being reviewed by the NRC

staff.

The security program at SONGS has

consistently demonstrated superior

performance and continues to exceed

regulatory requirements. In addition to

the normal NRC inspection activities of

the SONGS security program, and

Operational Safeguards Response

Evaluation (OSRE) was conducted with

the assistance of members of the U.S.

Army Special Forces. One objective of

the OSRE is to evaluate the licensee’s

abilities to respond to an external threat.

The OSRE team concluded that SONGS

had an excellent contingency response

capability.

The Petitioner has failed to provide an

adequate basis for asserting that the

plant is not defensible. The petitioner

cited a newspaper article as basis for his

allegation. The article does not provide

any information that is new or different

than that already considered by the

Commission. The staff has concluded

that the Petitioner has not raised a

significant health or safety issue.

IV. Conclusion

The NRC staff has reviewed the basis

and justification stated to support the

Petitioner’s request that the NRC take

appropriate actions to cause the

shutdown and dismantling of SONGS.

This review did not reveal any

substantial safety issues that would call

into question the continued safe

operation of SONGS.

The institution of proceedings in

response to a request pursuant to

Section 2.206 is appropriate only when

substantial health and safety issues have

been raised. See Consolidated Edison

Co. of New York (Indian Point, Units 1,

2, and 3), CLI–75–8, 2 NRC 173, (1975),

and Washington Public Power Supply

System (WPPSS Nuclear Project No. 2),

DD–84–7, 19 NRC 899, 923 (1984). This

standard has been applied to determine

whether any action in response to the

Petition is warranted. For the reasons

discussed above, no basis exists for

taking any action in response to the

Petition as no substantial health or

safety issues have been raised by the

Petition. Accordingly, no action

pursuant to Section 2.206 is being taken

in this matter.

A copy of this Decision will be filed

with the Secretary of the Commission

for the Commission to review in

accordance with 10 CFR 2.206(c). As

provided by this regulation, the

Decision will constitute the final action

of the Commission 25 days after

issuance, unless the Commission, on its

own motion, institutes a review of the

Decision within that time.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 27th day

of April 1995.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

William T. Russell,

Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor

Regulation.

[FR Doc. 95–11030 Filed 5–3–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–M

[Docket No. 030–31609 License No. 37–

28496–01 (Revoked) EA 94–253]

McCormick, Taylor, And Associates,

Inc., Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Order

Imposing A Civil Monetary Penalty

I

McCormick, Taylor and Associates,

Inc. (MTA) (Licensee) was the holder of

Byproduct Materials License No. 37–

28496–01 (License) issued by the

Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC

or Commission) on October 31, 1979.

The License was revoked by the

Commission on August 13, 1992 for

nonpayment of fees. The License

authorized MTA to possess and use

certain byproduct materials in

accordance with the conditions

specified therein at its facility in

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

II

An inspection of MTA’s activities was

conducted on December 2, 1994, at

MTA’s facility located in Philadelphia,

Pennsylvania. The results of the

inspection and review of

communication (and associated

documents) conducted between NRC

and MTA between August 13, 1992, and

November 19, 1994, indicated that MTA

had not conducted its activities in full

compliance with NRC requirements. A

written Notice of Violation and

Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty

(Notice) was served upon MTA by letter

dated February 13, 1995. The Notice

states the nature of the violations, the

provisions of the NRC requirements that

MTA had violated, and the amount of

the civil penalty proposed for one of the

violations.

MTA responded to the Notice in two

letters, both dated March 10, 1995. In its

responses, MTA admits the violations as

stated in the Notice and requests

mitigation of the penalty.

III

After consideration of MTA’s

responses and the statements of fact,

explanation, and arguments for
22082 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 86 / Thursday, May 4, 1995 / Notices

mitigation contained therein, the NRC

staff has determined, as set forth in the

Appendix to this Order, that the

violations occurred as stated in the

Notice, and that the violation set forth

in Section I of the Notice was

appropriately classified at a Severity

Level III. The staff also has determined

that an adequate basis was provided for

partial mitigation of the penalty, and

that a penalty of $2,000 should be

imposed.

IV

In view of the foregoing and pursuant

to Section 234 of the Atomic Energy Act

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

2282, and 10 CFR 2.205, it is hereby

ordered that: MTA pay a civil penalty in

the amount of $2,000 within 30 days of

the date of this Order, by check, draft,

money order, or electronic transfer,

payable to the Treasurer of the United

States and mailed to James Lieberman,

Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, One

White Flint North, 11555 Rockville

Pike, Rockville, MD 20852–2738.

MTA may request a hearing within 30

days of the date of the date of this

Order. A request for a hearing should be

clearly marked as a ‘‘Request for an

Enforcement Hearing’’ and shall be

addressed to the Director, Office of

Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555,

with a copy to the Commission’s

Document Control Desk, Washington,

D.C. 20555. Copies also shall be sent to

the Assistant General Counsel for

Hearings and Enforcement at the same

address and to the Regional

Administrator, NRC Region I, 475

Allendale Road, King of Prussia, PA

19406.

If a hearing is requested, the

Commission will issue an Order

designating the time and place of the

hearing. If MTA fails to request a

hearing within 30 days of the date of

this Order, the provisions of this Order

shall be effective without further

proceedings. If payment has not been

made by that time, the matter may be

referred to the Attorney General for

collection.

In the event MTA requests a hearing

as provided above, the issue to be

considered at such hearing shall be

whether, on the basis of Violation I,

which is admitted by MTA, this Order

should be sustained.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 26th day

of April 1995.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

James Lieberman,

Director, Office of Enforcement.

Appendix—Evaluations and Conclusion

On February 13, 1995, a Notice of Violation

and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty

(Notice) was issued for a violation identified

during a review of communications (and

associated documents) conducted between

NRC and McCormick, Taylor and Associates,

Inc. (MTA) between August 13, 1992 and

November 9, 1994, as well as an NRC

inspection conducted at the MTA facility on

December 2, 1994. MTA responded to the

Notice in two letters, both dated March 10,

1995. In its responses, MTA admits the

violations as stated in the Notice, but

requests mitigation of the penalty. The NRC’s

evaluation and conclusion regarding MTA’s

requests are as follows:

Summary of MTA’s Request for Mitigation

In its response, MTA maintains that there

are a number of extenuating circumstances

and other mitigating factors which should be

considered and result in mitigation of the

penalty.

With respect to the NRC application of

50% escalation because the violation was

identified by the NRC, MTA contends that it,

in fact, notified the NRC on December 2,

1994, that it could not locate the gauge. MTA

states that it did not become convinced until

December 1 or 2, 1994 that the gauge had

been stolen or misplaced. MTA further

contends that a statement made by the

Radiation Safety Officer during a telephone

conversation with the NRC on December 2,

1994, was, in fact, a notification that MTA

was in violation.

With respect to the NRC application of

50% escalation because of the lack of prompt

action, MTA states that it was not until

December 2, 1994, that it became fully aware

that the gauge was lost or stolen. MTA

further maintains that it has acted promptly

and aggressively since December in an

attempt to locate the gauge.

With respect to the NRC application of

100% escalation because of prior opportunity

to prevent the violation, MTA states that it

did not believe it ever received the Order

issued in 1992 for nonpayment of fees. At the

enforcement conference, MTA indicated that

it requested proof of a delivery receipt from

the NRC but the NRC has not yet provided

MTA with a receipt. MTA also states that its

Chief Financial Officer had a conversation

with an NRC representative (unnamed) in

1993, and was told that with its payment of

fees and penalties at that time it was fully

paid up through September 1994.

With respect to the NRC application of

100% escalation based on duration (because

the gauge was unattended for an extended

period), MTA states that there is no evidence

to document how long the gauge was outside

the locked storage closet before it was lost or

stolen. MTA also states that its office is not

easily accessible and is typically a secure

location, noting that the fact that the gauge

was out of its locked storage cabinet was not

as risky a location as it might seem.

Therefore, while admitting the violation,

MTA maintains that these factors should

reduce the escalation.

MTA also describes other bases which it

considers mitigating factors and extenuating

circumstances to the proposed civil penalty.

Specifically, MTA contends that there was

significant confusion over payment of fees

from 1991 to 1993, noting that on at least one

occasion, it was cited for nonpayment of a

particular charge that had in fact been paid.

MTA stated that due to the confusion over

payment of fees, when it was contacted in

August and September of 1994, there was

still confusion over payment. MTA further

states that this confusion, and the fact that it

never received the Order in 1992 may help

explain why it did not initially respond with

urgency.

MTA also states that a significant amount

has already been paid in penalties for late

payment of fees and that the imposition of an

additional $3,000 seems excessive. MTA

maintains that it acted aggressively to locate

the gauge over the ten weeks prior to its

response. MTA states that the penalty is

excessive to emphasize the importance of

maintaining a valid license, and is

unnecessary since MTA does not intend to

possess a gauge of this type, or any NRC

licensed material, in the future. MTA

requests that the civil penalty be reduced to

$500.

NRC Evaluation of Licensee’s Request for

Mitigation

The NRC letter, dated February 13, 1995,

transmitting the civil penalty, notes that the

base civil penalty amount of $500 in this case

was increased by 50% because the violations

were identified by the NRC; increased by

50% based on the licensee’s lack of prompt

corrective action; increased by 100% based

on the prior opportunity since the Order

provided ample notice of the need to control

entry to restricted areas; and increased 100%

based on the duration because the gauge was

unattended in the vicinity of a closet for an

extended period, based on the RSO’s

recollection. The letter also notes that to

emphasize the importance of maintaining a

valid license or properly disposing of NRClicensed materials, particularly after the NRC

directed and reminded MTA to do so, and

the importance of maintaining proper control

of licensed material, the NRC exercised

discretion in accordance with Section VII.A

of the Enforcement Policy and increased the

base civil penalty by an additional 200%. As

a result, a penalty of $3,000 was proposed.

With respect to the identification factor,

the NRC is not citing the licensee for failure

to notify the NRC as required. It was during

the NRC inspection that the specific violation

was identified, namely, failure to maintain

adequate security of licensed material (which

resulted in the gauge being lost or stolen).

Further, the loss of the gauge was only

identified after the NRC repeatedly reminded

MTA of the need to transfer the gauge to an

authorized recipient, as well as to notify the

NRC that such a transfer had taken place.

Therefore, mitigation is not warranted for

this factor.

With respect to the corrective actions and

prior opportunity to identify factors, the NRC

also notes that MTA had ample opportunity

to identify and correct any problems with

security of the gauge, via the repeated
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 86 / Thursday, May 4, 1995 / Notices 22083

contacts with the NRC reminding MTA of the

need to transfer the gauge to an authorized

recipient. If MTA had aggressively responded

to the Notice of a Violation issued by the

NRC on September 7, 1994, or the telephone

call from Mr. Walt Pasciak on August 29,

1994, the security violation could have either

been prevented, or corrected, or identified if

the gauge was already missing.

MTA’s failure to do so is considered

particularly egregious. Even if MTA had not

received a copy of the 1992 Order, it had

several conversations with NRC staff

regarding the status of the gauge between

August 1992 and November 1994, and had

received the September 7, 1994 Notice of

Violation which provided prior opportunities

to prevent or correct this violation. If MTA

had promptly acted to locate and transfer the

gauge to an authorized recipient at that time,

the security violation and subsequent loss of

the gauge might have been prevented.

Therefore, no mitigation is warranted for

these factors.

With respect to the duration factor, while

MTA contends that its office is typically a

secure location, and the gauge being out of

its locked storage cabinet is not as risky a

situation as it might seem, MTA’s action to

remove the gauge from its secure location

without taking appropriate measures for an

extended period, as the RSO recollects,

provided an appropriate basis for excalating

the penalty on this factor. Therefore, no

mitigation of this factor is warranted.

Escalation of the penalty by 200% to

emphasize the importance of maintaining a

valid license is no longer warranted due to

MTA’s assertion that they do not intend to

posses any NRC licensed material in the

future. Therefore, the penalty is reduced to

$2,000.

Furthermore, notwithstanding MTA’s

contention, the NRC does not consider the

penalty excessive, particularly given the fact

that the security violation resulted in a loss

or theft of radioactive material.

NRC Conclusion

The NRC has concluded that MTA did not

provide an adequate basis for mitigation of

the civil penalty to $500. Given the

significance of the failure to maintain

security of radioactive materials, and the loss

of the gauge that occurred in this case, a civil

penalty in the amount of $2,000 should be

imposed.

[FR Doc. 95–11029 Filed 5–3–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–M

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES

TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

Generalized System of Preferences

(GSP); Deadline for Submission of

Petitions in the 1995 Annual GSP

Review

AGENCY: Office of the United States

Trade Representatives.

ACTION: Notice of the 1995 Annual GSP

Review.

SUMMARY: The notice announces the

deadline for the submission of petitions

in the 1995 Annual GSP Review.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

GSP Subcommittee, Office of the United

States Trade Representative, 600 17th

Street, NW., Room 518, Washington, DC

20506. The telephone number is (202)

395–6971.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Announcement of 1995 Annual GSP

Review

The GSP regulations (15 CFR 2007.3

et seq.) provided for annual review,

unless otherwise specified by Federal

Register notice. Notice is hereby given

that, in order to be considered in the

1995 Annual GSP Review, all petitions

to modify the list of articles eligible for

duty-free treatment under the GSP and

requests to review the GSP status of any

beneficiary developing country must be

received by the GSP Subcommittee no

later than 5 p.m., Wednesday, June 14,

1995. Petitions submitted after the

deadline will not be considered for

review and will be returned to the

petitioner. The GSP provides for the

duty-free importation of designated

articles when imported from designated

beneficiary developing countries. The

GSP is authorized by Title V the Trade

Act of 1974, as amended (‘‘Trade Act’’)

(19 U.S.C. 2461 et seq.), and was

implemented by Executive Order 11888

of November 24, 1975, and modified by

subsequent Executive Orders and

Presidential Proclamations.

A. 1995 Annual GSP Review

Interested parties or foreign

governments may submit petitions: (1)

To designate additional articles as

eligible for GSP; (2) to withdraw,

suspend or limit GSP duty-free

treatment accorded either to eligible

articles under the GSP or to individual

beneficiary developing countries with

respect to specific GSP eligible articles;

(3) to waive the competitive need limits

for individual beneficiary developing

countries with respect to specific GSP

eligible articles; (4) to have the GSP

status of any eligible beneficiary

developing country reviewed with

respect to any of the designation criteria

listed in sections 502(b) or 502(c) of the

Trade Act (19 U.S.C. 2462 (b) and (c));

and, (5) to otherwise modify GSP

coverage.

B. Identification of Product Requests

With Respect to the Harmonized Tariff

Schedule of the United States

The Harmonized Tariff Schedule of

the United States (HTS) was

implemented by the United States on

January 1, 1989, and replaces the former

Tariff Schedules of the United States

nomenclature. All product petitions

must include a detailed description of

the product and the HTS subheading in

which the product is classified.

C. Submission of Petitions and Requests

Petitions to modify GSP treatment

should be addressed to GSP

Subcommittee, Office of the U.S. Trade

Representative, 600 17th Street, NW.,

Room 518, Washington, DC 20506. All

such submissions must conform with

the GSP regulations, which are set forth

at 15 CFR 2007. These regulations were

published in the Federal Register on

Tuesday, February 11, 1986 (FR 5035).

The regulations are printed in ‘‘A Guide

to the U.S. Generalized System of

Preferences (GSP)’’ (August 1991) (‘‘GSP

Guide’’). Information submitted will be

subject to public inspection by

appointment only with the staff of the

USTR Public Reading Room, except for

information granted ‘‘business

confidential’’ status pursuant to 15 CFR

2003.6 and other qualifying information

submitted in confidence pursuant to 15

CFR 2007.7. An original and fourteen

(14) copies of each petition must be

submitted in English. If the petition

contains business confidential

information, an original and fourteen

(14) copies of a nonconfidential version

of the submission along with an original

and fourteen (14) copies of the

confidential version must be submitted.

In addition, the submission containing

confidential information should be

clearly marked ‘‘confidential’’ at the top

and bottom of each and every page of

the submission. The version that does

not contain business confidential

information (the public version) should

also be clearly marked at the top and

bottom of each page (either ‘‘public

version’’ or ‘‘nonconfidential’’).

Petitioners are strongly advised to

review the GSP regulations. Petitioners

are reminded that submissions that do

not provide all information required by

§ 2007.1 of the GSP regulations will not

be accepted for review except upon a

detailed showing in the submission that

the petitioner made a good faith effort

to obtain the information required.

These requirements will be strictly

enforced. Petitions with respect to

competitive need waivers must meet the

informational requirements for product

addition requests in § 2007.1(c). A

model petition format is available from

the GSP Subcommittee and is included

in the GSP Guide. Petitioners are

requested to use this model petition

format so as to ensure that all

informational requirements are met.

Furthermore, interested parties