This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains notices to the public of the proposed

issuance of rules and regulations. The

purpose of these notices is to give interested

persons an opportunity to participate in the

rule making prior to the adoption of the final

rules.

Proposed Rules Federal Register

24803

Vol. 60, No. 90

Wednesday, May 10, 1995

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

10 CFR Part 73

RIN 3150–AF36

Changes to Nuclear Power Plant

Security Requirements Associated

with Containment Access Control

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory

Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (NRC) is proposing

amending its regulations to delete

certain security requirements for

controlling the access of personnel and

materials into reactor containment

during periods of high traffic such as

refueling and major maintenance. This

action would relieve nuclear power

plant licensees of the requirement to

separately control access to reactor

containments during periods of high

traffic, such as refueling and major

maintenance outages. Deletion of this

requirement would decrease the

regulatory burden for the licensees

without degradation of physical

security. This action follows

reconsideration by the NRC of nuclear

power plant physical security

requirements to identify those that are

marginal to safety, redundant, or out-ofdate.

DATES: Submit comments by June 9,

1995. 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.

Attn: Docketing and Service Branch.

Hand deliver comments to 11545

Rockville Pike, Maryland, between 7:45

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

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. 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 this rulemaking are also

available 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

parameters 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.

For more information on NRC bulletin

boards call Mr. Arthur Davis, Systems

Integration and Development Branch,

NRC, Washington, DC 20555, telephone

(301) 415–5780; e-mail AXD3@nrc.gov.

Single copies of this proposed

rulemaking may be obtained by written

request or telefax ((301) 415–2260) from:

Distribution Services, Printing and Mail

Services Branch, Office of

Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, Washington DC 20555–

0001. 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 same documents may also be

viewed and downloaded electronically

via the Electronic Bulletin Board

established by NRC for this rulemaking

as indicated above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr.

Sandra Frattali, Office of Nuclear

Regulatory Research, U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission, Washington,

DC 20555, telephone (301) 415–6261, email sdf@nrc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

In 1991, the Commission staff reexamined the NRC’s nuclear power

plant security requirements contained

in 10 CFR part 73, ‘‘Physical Protection

of Plants and Materials,’’ associated

with an internal threat. Requirements

were identified that were redundant,

out-of-date, or marginal-to-safety

(SECY–92–272). Following public

meetings held to discuss these

requirements, the NRC staff

recommended changes to § 73.55

(SECY–93–326). One of the

recommended changes was the deletion

of § 73.55(d)(8), which contains a

requirement for separate access control

to reactor containments, which is

unneeded, and a requirement for locks

and alarms, which is contained
24804 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 90 / Wednesday, May 10, 1995 / Proposed Rules

elsewhere in part 73. If this paragraph

were removed it would provide burden

relief to the licensees without

compromising the physical protection of

the health and safety of the public

against radiological sabotage. The NRC

is proposing this rulemaking in

response to the above recommendation.

The other recommendations will be

addressed in other NRC actions.

Discussion

Paragraph (d)(8) in § 73.55 requires

physical protection for access into

reactor containment. The paragraph

contains two requirements, one is a

requirement for locks and alarms. The

second requires control, by a guard or

watchman, of access of personnel and

material into containment during

periods of high traffic such as refueling

and major maintenance outages.

When paragraph (d)(8) was

promulgated there were no specific

access authorization regulations, thus

no additional protection for reactor

containment against the insider threat.

Subsequent rulemakings have been

promulgated directed at protecting

against the insider threat, namely

§ 73.56, ‘‘Personnel access authorization

requirements for nuclear power plants,’’

and § 73.57, ‘‘Requirements for criminal

history checks of individuals granted

unescorted access to a nuclear power

facility or access to Safeguards

Information by power reactor

licensees.’’ Reactor containment or

adjacent areas that provide access to

containment are already vital areas.

Thus, access of personnel into

containment during periods of high

traffic, such as refueling and major

maintenance outages, is already

controlled. In addition having security

personnel control access of materials

into containment during periods of high

traffic provides no substantial benefit

since material access into the protected

area is already controlled and the

containment is located within the

protected area. Moreover, even certain

‘‘authorized’’ materials could be

misused once in containment. The

requirement that access be controlled by

a guard or watchman provides little

security since the purpose is to control

access, which has already been

provided, and not prevent a forced

entry. After reactor containment is

secured following periods of heavy

traffic, existing NRC requirements for

walkdown inspections and security

searches apply and assure the security

of the containment. Hence, the

requirement that access into the reactor

containment itself be separately

controlled provides little or no

additional security.

In addition, because a reactor

containment is a vital area, it is subject

to the vital area requirements for locks

and alarms contained in other sections

of § 73.55, as well as all other policies

and procedures related to vital areas and

equipment. Thus, the requirement for

locks and alarms in paragraph (d)(8) is

redundant.

For these reasons, the NRC believes

that deletion of § 73.55(d)(8) would

relieve licensees of an unnecessary

burden, without degradation of physical

security. Moreover, since security

personnel would no longer be required

to be assigned to a radiation control

area, there would be a decrease in

occupational exposure. It should be

noted that this change would apply only

to access from vital areas into reactor

containment (which continues to

remain a vital area) and does not relieve

the licensee of requirements to provide

radiological controls or of other

requirements for personnel

accountability.

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)(2). Therefore, neither

an environmental impact statement nor

an environmental assessment has been

prepared for this proposed rule.

Paperwork Reduction Act Statement

This proposed rule does not contain

a new or amended information

collection requirement subject to the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). Existing

requirements were approved by the

Office of Management and Budget,

approval number 3150–0002.

Regulatory Analysis

Elimination of § 73.55(d)(8) would

relieve licensees of the requirement to

station security personnel at entrances

to containment during periods of high

traffic. The potential savings to the

licensees from the elimination of this

requirement are substantial. Assuming,

on the average, 2 security personnel are

needed to control access to containment

during the time the reactor is open, and

assuming that the containment is open

50 days per major outage, with two

major outages every 3 years, and a wage

of approximately $30 per hour (loaded)

for security personnel, the total savings

per reactor per year would be:

2 guards/reactor × 50 days/outage × 2/

3 outages/year × $30/hr-guard × 24 hrs/

day = $48,000/year-reactor.

With 110 operating nuclear power

reactors, the total savings for the

industry are potentially $5,280,000/

year. Moreover, deletion of paragraph

(d)(8) would result in a decrease in

occupational exposure because security

personnel would no longer be required

to be within the radiation controlled

area directly adjacent to containment.

Based on the above discussion, the

NRC concludes that eliminating

§ 73.55(d)(8) would provide relief to the

licensees, and lower occupational

exposure, without compromising

physical protection of the public health

and safety against radiological sabotage

at licensed nuclear power reactors.

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 rule because this

amendment would not impose new

requirements on existing 10 CFR part 50

licensees. It is voluntary and should the

licensee decide to implement this

amendment, it is a reduction in burden

to the licensee. Therefore, a backfit

analysis has not been prepared for this

amendment.

List of Subjects in 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. 552 and 553,

the NRC is proposing to adopt the

following amendments to 10 CFR part

73.

PART 73—PHYSICAL PROTECTION OF

PLANTS AND MATERIALS

1. The authority citation for part 73

continues to read as follows:
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 90 / Wednesday, May 10, 1995 / Proposed Rules 24805

1See Credit Practices Rule: Statement of Basis

and Purpose and Regulatory Analysis (SBP), 49 FR

7740, 7743–7745 (1984).

2Comments were received from the Credit Union

National Association (‘‘CUNA’’), which represents

5,000 state and 7,000 federal credit unions in the

United States; the CUNA Mutual Insurance Group

(‘‘CMIG’’), which provides form contracts and

compliance support, as well as insurance coverage,

to CUNA members; the Illinois Credit Union

System, which represents 645 state and federal

credit unions in Illinois; and the Missouri Bankers

Association, a trade association representing 500

commercial banks in Missouri.

3Comments were received from the National

Consumer Law Center, Inc. (‘‘NCLC’’); the UAW–

GM Legal Service Plan (‘‘UAW–GM’’), which

provides legal services to auto workers and retirees;

and the law firm of Williams & Eoannou, which

represents consumer debtors in bankruptcy

proceedings and in cases involving possible

violations of federal and state credit laws.

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 (42 U.S.C.

5841, 5844).

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).

§ 73.55 [Amended]

2. In § 73.55, paragraph (d)(8) is

removed and paragraph (d)(9) is

redesignated as (d)(8).

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 2nd day

of May, 1995.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

James M. Taylor,

Executive Director for Operations.

[FR Doc. 95–11482 Filed 5–9–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

16 CFR Part 444

Regulatory Flexibility Act Review of

Trade Regulation Rule Concerning

Credit Practices

AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission.

ACTION: Termination of review.

SUMMARY: In accordance with the

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601)

(‘‘the RFA’’) and a published plan for

Periodic Review of Commission Rules

(46 FR 35118 (July 7, 1981)), the Federal

Trade Commission solicited comments

and data on whether the Trade

Regulation Rule Concerning Credit

Practices (16 CFR part 444) (the ‘‘Rule’’)

has had a significant impact on a

substantial number of small entities,

and if it has, whether the Rule should

be amended to minimize any significant

impact on small entities (59 FR 18009

(April 15, 1994)). The Commission also

requested comments about the overall

costs and benefits of the Rule and its

overall regulatory and economic impact

as a part of it systematic review of all

current Commission regulations and

guides. The notice required comments

to be submitted to the Commission no

later than June 14, 1994. Based on the

comments received, which are

summarized in this notice, the

Commission finds that there is an

insufficient basis to conclude that the

Rule has had a significant economic

impact upon a substantial number of

number entities of otherwise merits

revision. The Commission is therefore

terminating this review.

DATES: This action is effective as of May

10, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sandra M. Wilmore, Attorney, Division

of Credit Practices, Bureau of Consumer

Protection, Room S4429, Federal Trade

Commission, 6th and Pennsylvania

Avenue NW., Washington, D.C. 20580.

Tel: (202) 326–3224.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The RFA

requires the Federal Trade Commission

to conduct a periodic review of rules

issued by the Commission that have or

will have a significant economic impact

on a substantial number of small

entities. For the purpose of the RFA

review, the term ‘‘small entity’’ is

defined under the Small Business Size

Standards, codified at 13 CFR part 121

and revised by the Small Business

Administration (49 FR 5024–5048 (Feb.

9, 1984)). In addition, the Commission

has determined, as a part of its oversight

responsibilities, to review rules and

guides periodically. These reviews will

seek information about the costs and

benefits of the Commission’s rules and

guides and their regulatory and

economic impact. The information

obtained will assist the Commission in

identifying rules and guides that

warrant modification or rescission. This

periodic review is conducted in

accordance with the Commission’s plan

for periodic review of rules (46 FR

35118 (July 7, 1981)).

I. Background and Summary

The Commission promulgated the

Rule on March 1, 1984, (49 FR 7740),

and it became effective on March 1,

1985. The Rule applies to lenders and

retail installment sellers (creditors) and

prohibits them from directly or

indirectly taking or receiving from a

consumer an obligation that includes

certain contract provisions determined

to be unfair, failing to provide a notice

to potential cosigners, or using an unfair

method of calculating late fees.

In promulgating the Rule, the

Commission found that: (1) consumers

suffers substantial economic and noneconomic injury from creditors’ use of

the remedies that the Rule restricts; (2)

consumers themselves cannot

reasonable avoid these remedies or

avoid the harsh consequences of the

remedies by avoiding default; and (3)

the overall costs to consumers are

greater than the countervailing benefits

that the use of these remedies provide

to consumers or creditors.1

The notice that initiated this review

requested comments on whether any

part of the Rule has had a significant

impact on a substantial number of small

entities and, if so, whether any such

impact can be reduced consistent with

the operation of the Rule.

In addition, the Commission

requested comments on a number of

other issues relating to the operation of

the Rule.

II. Public Comments

In response to the Federal Register

notice, the Commission received a total

of seven comments, four from creditor

trade associations 2 and three from legal

organizations representing consumers.3

The commenters’ responses to the

questions posed in the notice are

summarized and analyzed below.

Unless otherwise noted, the

Commission is not aware of other

information bearing on the issues

discussed.

1. Continuing Need for the Rule

Two commenters directly addressed

the question of the continuing need for

the Rule. The UAW–GM and NCLC

stated that consumers continue to need

the protection of the Rule. According to

Williams & Eoannou, consumers have

benefited from the Rule because it

‘‘eliminated the use of a limited number

of onerous and overreaching boilerplate

contract provisions * * * the limited

utility of which in collecting debts was

more than offset by their brutally

invasive and disruptive impact on

consumers and their families.’’ No

commenter discussed any costs imposed

on consumers by the Rule.

2. Proposed Changes to the Rule to

Benefit Consumers

All of the commenters made some

recommendation regarding changes to

the Rule. Except as noted, the

commenters who proposed changes to

benefit consumers did not discuss the

cost to creditors of those changes.