Design Basis Threat, 67380-67388 [05-22200]
Download as PDF
67380
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 214 / Monday, November 7, 2005 / Proposed Rules
previously approved by OMB and
assigned OMB Number 0581–0177.
Reporting and recordkeeping burdens
are necessary for compliance purposes
and for developing statistical data for
maintenance of the program. The forms
require information which is readily
available from handler records and
which can be provided without data
processing equipment or trained
statistical staff. As with other, similar
marketing order programs, reports and
forms are periodically studied to reduce
or eliminate duplicate information
collection burdens by industry and
public sector agencies. This rule does
not change those requirements.
AMS is committed to compliance
with the Government Paperwork
Elimination Act (GPEA), which requires
Government agencies in general to
provide the public the option of
submitting information or transacting
business electronically to the maximum
extent possible.
A 30-day comment period is provided
to allow interested persons to respond
to this proposal. Thirty days is deemed
appropriate because this rule would
need to be in place as soon as possible
since handlers are already shipping tart
cherries from the 2005–2006 crop. All
written comments timely received will
be considered before a final
determination is made on this matter.
List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 930
Marketing agreements, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Tart
cherries.
For the reasons set forth in the
preamble, 7 CFR part 930 is proposed to
be amended as follows:
PART 930—TART CHERRIES GROWN
IN THE STATES OF MICHIGAN, NEW
YORK, PENNSYLVANIA, OREGON,
UTAH, WASHINGTON, AND
WISCONSIN
1. The authority citation for 7 CFR
part 930 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601–674.
2. Section 930.254 is added to read as
follows:
Note: This section will not appear in the
annual Code of Federal Regulations.
§ 930.254 Final free and restricted
percentages for the 2005–2006 crop year.
The final percentages for tart cherries
handled by handlers during the crop
year beginning on July 1, 2005, which
shall be free and restricted, respectively,
are designated as follows: Free
percentage, 58 percent and restricted
percentage, 42 percent.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:03 Nov 04, 2005
Jkt 208001
Dated: November 2, 2005.
Lloyd C. Day,
Administrator, Agricultural Marketing
Service.
[FR Doc. 05–22115 Filed 11–4–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410–02–P
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
10 CFR Part 73
RIN 3150–AH60
Design Basis Threat
Nuclear Regulatory
Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) is proposing to
amend its regulations that govern the
requirements pertaining to design basis
threat (DBT). The proposed rule would
amend the Commission’s regulations to,
among other things, make generically
applicable the security requirements
previously imposed by the
Commission’s April 29, 2003 DBT
orders, which applied to existing
licensees, and redefine the level of
security requirements necessary to
ensure that the public health and safety
and common defense and security are
adequately protected. The proposed rule
would revise the DBT requirements for
radiological sabotage (applied to power
reactors and Category I fuel cycle
facilities), and theft or diversion of NRClicensed Strategic Special Nuclear
Material (SSNM) (applied to Category I
fuel cycle facilities). The NRC has
developed draft Regulatory Guides
(RGs) that provide guidance to licensees
concerning the DBT for radiological
sabotage and theft and diversion. These
draft RGs have limited distribution
because they contain either safeguards
or classified information. The specific
details related to the threat, which
contain both safeguards information
(SGI) and classified information, are
contained in adversary characteristics
documents (ACDs) that are not publicly
available. These documents include
specific details of the attributes of the
threat consistent with the requirements
imposed in the April 29, 2003, DBT
orders. Additionally, a Petition for
Rulemaking (PRM–73–12), filed by the
Committee to Bridge the Gap, was
considered as part of this proposed
rulemaking; the NRC’s disposition of
this petition is contained in this
document.
Submit comments by January 23,
2006. Comments received after this date
DATES:
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
will be considered if it is practical to do
so, but the Commission is able to ensure
consideration only for comments
received on or before this date.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
by any one of the following methods.
Please include the following number
RIN 3150–AH60 in the subject line of
your comments. Comments on
rulemakings submitted in writing or in
electronic form will be made available
for public inspection. Because your
comments will not be edited to remove
any identifying or contact information,
the NRC cautions you against including
any information in your submission that
you do not want to be publicly
disclosed.
Mail comments to: Secretary, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington, DC 20555–0001, ATTN:
Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff.
E-mail comments to: SECY@nrc.gov. If
you do not receive a reply e-mail
confirming that we have received your
comments, contact us directly at (301)
415–1966. You may also submit
comments via the NRC’s rulemaking
Web site at https://ruleforum.llnl.gov.
Address questions about our rulemaking
Web site to Carol Gallagher (301) 415–
5905; e-mail cag@nrc.gov. Comments
can also be submitted via the Federal
eRulemaking Portal https://
www.regulations.gov.
Hand deliver comments to: 11555
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland
20852, between 7:30 am and 4:15 pm
Federal workdays. (Telephone (301)
415–1966).
Fax comments to: Secretary, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission at (301)
415–1101.
You may submit comments on the
information collections by the methods
indicated in the Paperwork Reduction
Act Statement.
Publicly available documents related
to this rulemaking may be viewed
electronically on the public computers
located at the NRC’s Public Document
Room (PDR), O1 F21, One White Flint
North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville,
Maryland. The PDR reproduction
contractor will copy documents for a
fee. Selected documents, including
comments, may be viewed and
downloaded electronically via the NRC
rulemaking Web site at https://
ruleforum.llnl.gov.
Publicly available documents created
or received at the NRC after November
1, 1999, are available electronically at
the NRC’s Electronic Reading Room at
https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/
adams.html. From this site, the public
can gain entry into the NRC’s
Agencywide Document Access and
E:\FR\FM\07NOP1.SGM
07NOP1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 214 / Monday, November 7, 2005 / Proposed Rules
Management System (ADAMS), which
provides text and image files of NRC’s
public documents. If you do not have
access to ADAMS or if there are
problems in accessing the documents
located in ADAMS, contact the NRC
Public Document Room (PDR) Reference
staff at 1–800–397–4209, 301–415–4737
or by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.
Timothy Reed, Office of Nuclear Reactor
Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, DC 20555–
0001; telephone (301) 415–1462; e-mail:
tar@nrc.gov or Mr. Richard Rasmussen,
Office of Nuclear Security and Incident
Response, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, DC 20555–
0001; telephone (301) 415–8380; e-mail:
rar@nrc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Background.
II. Rulemaking Initiation.
III. Proposed Regulations.
IV. Section-by-Section Analysis.
V. Petition for Rulemaking (PRM–73–12).
VI. Guidance.
VII. Criminal Penalties.
VIII. Compatibility of Agreement State
Regulations.
IX. Availability of Documents.
X. Plain Language.
XI. Voluntary Consensus Standards.
XII. Finding of No Significant Environmental
Impact: Environmental Assessment:
Availability.
XIII. Paperwork Reduction Act Statement.
XIV. Regulatory Analysis.
XV. Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification.
XVI. Backfit Analysis.
I. Background
The DBT requirements in 10 CFR
73.1(a) describe general adversary
characteristics that designated licensees
must defend against with high
assurance. These NRC requirements
include protection against radiological
sabotage (generally applied to power
reactors and Category I fuel cycle
facilities) and theft or diversion of NRClicensed SSNM (generally applied to
Category I fuel cycle facilities). The
DBTs are used by these licensees to
form the basis for site-specific defensive
strategies implemented through security
plans, safeguards contingency plans,
and guard training and qualification
plans.
Following the terrorist attacks on
September 11, 2001, the NRC conducted
a thorough review of security to ensure
that nuclear power plants and other
licensed facilities continued to have
effective security measures in place for
the changing threat environment. In so
doing, the NRC recognized that some
elements of the DBTs required
enhancement due to the escalation of
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:03 Nov 04, 2005
Jkt 208001
the domestic threat level. After
soliciting and receiving comments from
Federal, State, local agencies, and
industry stakeholders, the NRC imposed
by order supplemental DBT
requirements that contained additional
detailed adversary characteristics. The
Commission deliberated on the
responsibilities of the local, State, and
Federal governments to protect the
nation, and the responsibility of the
licensees to protect individual nuclear
facilities, before reaching consensus on
a reasonable approach to security in the
April 29, 2003 DBT orders. After gaining
experience under these orders over the
past two years, the Commission believes
that the attributes of the orders should
be generically imposed on certain
classes of licensees.
The Commission’s decision was based
on the analysis of intelligence
information regarding the trends and
capabilities of the potential adversaries
and discussions with Federal, law
enforcement, and intelligence
community agencies. These enhanced
adversary characteristics are reflective
of the new threat environment. In
general terms, DBTs are comprised of
attributes selected from the overall
threat environment. The ACDs set forth
the specific details of the attributes of
the DBTs. The DBT technical basis
document contains a basis for the
specific adversary characteristics. These
supplemental documents contain
safeguards and classified information
that is distributed only to persons with
authorized access and on a need-toknow basis. The NRC’s DBT takes into
consideration actual demonstrated
adversary characteristics as well as
pertinent intelligence information
applicable to domestic threats and a
determination as to those characteristics
against which a private security force
could reasonably be expected to provide
protection.
The April 29, 2003 DBT orders
required nuclear power reactors and
Category I fuel cycle licensees to revise
their physical security plans, security
personnel training and qualification
plans, and safeguards contingency plans
to defend against the supplemental DBT
requirements. The orders required
licensees to make security
enhancements such as increased patrols;
augmented security forces and
capabilities; additional security posts;
additional physical barriers; vehicle
checks at greater standoff distances;
better coordination with law
enforcement and military authorities;
augmented security and emergency
response training, equipment, and
communication; and more restrictive
site access controls for personnel,
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
67381
including expanded, expedited, and
more thorough initial and follow-on
screening of temporary and permanent
workers. The NRC has reviewed and
approved the revised security plans that
were developed and submitted by
power reactor and Category I fuel
facility licensees in response to the
April 29, 2003 orders.
II. Rulemaking Initiation
On July 19, 2004, the staff issued a
memorandum entitled ‘‘Status of
Security-Related Rulemaking’’ to inform
the Commission of plans to close two
longstanding security-related actions
and replace them with a comprehensive
rulemaking plan to modify physical
protection requirements for power
reactors. This memorandum described
rulemaking efforts that were preempted
by the terrorist activities of September
11, 2001, and summarized the securityrelated actions taken following the
attack. In response to this
memorandum, the Commission directed
the staff in an August 23, 2004, Staff
Requirements Memorandum (SRM), to
forego the development of a rulemaking
plan and provide a schedule for the
completion of 10 CFR 73.1, 73.55, and
Part 73 Appendix B rulemakings. The
requested schedule was provided to the
Commission by memorandum dated
November 16, 2004.
III. Proposed Regulations
The principal objectives of the
proposed rule are, among other things,
to make generically applicable the
security requirements previously
imposed by the Commission’s April 29,
2003 DBT orders, and to define in NRC
regulations the level of security
necessary to ensure adequate protection
of the public health and safety and
common defense and security.
The Commission continues to
consider many factors in developing the
proposed DBT and other security
requirements. As directed by Congress
under section 651(a) of the recently
enacted Energy Policy Act of 2005, the
NRC is giving consideration to the
following 12 factors as part of this
rulemaking to revise the design basis
threats:
1. The events of September 11, 2001;
2. An assessment of physical, cyber,
biochemical, and other terrorist threats;
3. The potential for attack on facilities
by multiple coordinated teams of a large
number of individuals;
4. The potential for assistance in an
attack from several persons employed at
the facility;
5. The potential for suicide attacks;
6. The potential for water-based and
air-based threats;
E:\FR\FM\07NOP1.SGM
07NOP1
67382
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 214 / Monday, November 7, 2005 / Proposed Rules
7. The potential use of explosive
devices of considerable size and other
modern weaponry;
8. The potential for attacks by persons
with a sophisticated knowledge of
facility operations;
9. The potential for fires, especially
fires of long duration;
10. The potential for attacks on spent
fuel shipments by multiple coordinated
teams of a large number of individuals; 1
11. The adequacy of planning to
protect the public health and safety at
and around nuclear facilities, as
appropriate, in the event of a terrorist
attack against a nuclear facility; and
12. The potential for theft and
diversion of nuclear material from such
facilities.
A number of these factors are already
reflected in the text of the proposed
rule. For example, the proposed rule
would require protection against
suicidal attackers, insiders, and
waterborne threats. Some of these
factors are not included in the proposed
rule. For example, there is no provision
in the proposed DBT rule for an
attribute of air-based threats. The
Commission invites and looks forward
to public comment on the proposed rule
provisions, as well as whether or how
the 12 factors should be addressed in
the DBT rule. The Commission will
further consider and resolve any
comments received in the final rule.
The proposed rule would also revise
certain exemptions for independent
spent fuel storage installations (ISFSIs).
The current DBT rule exempts ISFSIs
from the land vehicle transport and land
vehicle bomb threats contained in
§§ 73.1(a)(1)(i)(E) and (a)(1)(iii),
respectively. These exemptions should
no longer be retained because the
Commission issued orders to ISFSIs on
October 16, 2002, requiring ISFSIs to
protect against these threats. The NRC
evaluated the need to apply waterborne
requirements to ISFSIs and concluded
that other means in the proposed rule
were sufficiently protective to preclude
the need for specific requirements
regarding waterborne threats.
Consequently, an exemption from the
waterborne threat has been added for
ISFSIs in this proposed rule.
The proposed rule would also amend
the exemption in the current § 73.1(a)
for licensees subject to the provisions of
§ 73.20. The current rule exempts these
licensees from the requirements to
protect against vehicles transporting
adversary personnel and equipment and
the land vehicle bomb. The Commission
has determined, however, that due to
the current threat environment certain
licensees subject to § 73.20 (Category I
fuel cycle facilities) need to protect
against such threats, so the exemption
must be amended accordingly. The
amended exemption would continue for
other licensees described in 10 CFR
73.20 (e.g., fuel reprocessing plants
licensed under Part 50).
The approach proposed in this
rulemaking maintains a level of detail in
the § 73.1(a) rule language that is
generally comparable to the current
regulation, while updating the general
DBT attributes in a manner consistent
with the insights gained from the
application of supplemental security
requirements imposed by the April 29,
2003, DBT orders. The result is a
proposed rule with a level of detail that
reflects all major features of the DBTs,
yet avoids compromising licensee
security by not publishing the specific
tactical and operational capabilities of
the DBT adversaries. The goal of this
approach is to provide sufficient public
notice of the upgrades to the DBTs,
including the new modes of attack that
facilities must be prepared to defend
against, so that meaningful public input
is possible regarding the proposed rule’s
scope and content.
The NRC recognizes that some
stakeholders may expect more detail
than is set forth in the current or
proposed DBT regulations. However, the
more detail that is made publicly
available about the specific capabilities
of the DBT adversaries, the greater the
chance that potential adversaries could
exploit that information. The disclosure
of such details as the specific weapons,
force size, ammunition, vehicles, and
bomb sizes that licensees must be
prepared to defend against could
substantially assist an adversary in
planning an attack.
On the other hand, it is important for
the public to be informed of the types
of attacks against which nuclear power
plants and Category I fuel cycle facilities
are required to defend. The public has
a vital stake in the security of these
facilities, as well as the right to
meaningful comment when NRC
proposes to amend its regulations.
Understanding the general scope of the
proposed DBT rule is necessary if the
public is to exercise its right to
meaningful comment and oversight of
NRC regulations.
After carefully balancing these
competing interests, the NRC arrived at
the level of detail regarding the
attributes of the DBT presented in the
proposed rule. More specific details
(e.g., specific weapons, ammunition,
etc.) are consolidated in ACDs, which
contain classified or safeguards
information. The technical bases for the
ACDs are derived largely from
intelligence information, and also
contain classified and safeguards
information that cannot be publicly
disclosed. These documents must be
withheld from public disclosure and
made available only on a need-to-know
basis to those who otherwise qualify for
access.
The ACDs may be updated from time
to time as a result of the NRC’s periodic
threat reviews, which NRC has been
conducting since 1979. Those threat
assessments are performed in
conjunction with the intelligence and
law enforcement communities to
identify changes in the threat
environment which may in turn require
adjustment of NRC security
requirements. Future revisions to the
ACDs would not require changes to the
DBT regulations in § 73.1, provided the
changes remain within the scope of the
rule text.
The NRC consulted with Federal,
State, and local agencies, and with
industry stakeholders in developing the
updated DBTs. This consultation
involved analysis of intelligence
information regarding the trends and
capabilities of potential adversaries, and
discussion with Federal, law
enforcement, and intelligence
community agencies. Public comments
and suggestions received in response to
PRM–73–12, also informed the NRC’s
development of this proposed rule. The
resolution of PRM–73–12, which is
being granted in part through this
rulemaking, is more fully discussed in
Section V of this notice.
The Commission concludes that the
proposed amendments to § 73.1 will
continue to ensure adequate protection
of public health and safety and the
common defense and security by
requiring the secure use and
management of radioactive materials.
The revised DBTs represent the largest
threats against which private sector
facilities must be able to defend with
high assurance. The proposed
amendments to § 73.1 reflect
requirements currently in place under
existing NRC regulations and orders.
1 Transportation of spent nuclear fuel is subject to
separate regulatory requirements and public
comments will be considered.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:03 Nov 04, 2005
Jkt 208001
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\07NOP1.SGM
07NOP1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 214 / Monday, November 7, 2005 / Proposed Rules
67383
IV. Section-by-Section Analysis
The following table provides a
comparison between the proposed rule
text and the current rule text.
Old
New
Change
(a) Purpose. This part prescribes requirements
for the establishment and maintenance of a
physical protection system which will have
capabilities for the protection of special nuclear material at fixed sites and in transit and
of plants in which special nuclear materials
used. The following design basis threats,
where referenced in ensuing sections of this
part, shall be used to design safeguards systems to protect against acts of radiological
sabotage and to prevent the theft of special
nuclear material. Licensees subject to the
provision of § 72.182, § 72.212, § 72.20,
§ 73.50, and § 73.60 are exempt from
§ 73.1(a)(1)(i)(E) and § 73.1(a)(1)(iii).
(a) Purpose. This part prescribes requirements for the establishment and maintenance of a physical protection system
which will have capabilities for the protection of special nuclear material at fixed sites
and in transit and of plants in which special
nuclear material is used. The following design basis threats, where referenced in ensuing sections of this part, shall be used to
design safeguards systems to protect
against acts of radiological sabotage and to
prevent the theft or diversion of special nuclear material. Licensees subject to the provisions of § 73.20 (except for fuel cycle licensees authorized under part 70 of this
chapter to received, acquire, possess,
transfer, use, or deliver for transportation
formula quantities of strategic special nuclear material), § 73.50, and § 73.60 are exempt from § 73.1(a)(1)(i)(E), § 73.1(a)(1)(iii),
§ 73.1(a)(1)(iv),
§ 73.1(a)(2)(iii)
and
§ 73.1(a)(2)(iv). Licensees subject to the
provisions of § 72.212, are exempt from
§ 73.1(a)(1)(iv).
(1) Radioloigcal sabotage. (i) A determined violence external assault, attack by stealth, or
deceptive actions, including diversionary actions, by an adversary force capable of operating as one or more teams, attacking
from one or more entry points, with the following attributes, assistance and equipment:
(1)(i)(A) Well-trained (including military training and skills) and dedicated individuals,
willing to kill or be killed, with sufficient
knowledge to identify specific equipment or
locations necessary for a successful attack,
(1)(i)(B) active (e.g., facilitate entrance and
exit, disable alarms and communications,
participate in violent attack) or passive
(e.g., provide information), or both, knowledgeable inside assistance. The reference
to an individual would be removed and the
paragraph reworded to provide flexibility in
defining the scope of the inside threat.
(1)(i)(C) suitable weapons, including handheld automatic weapons, equipped with silencers and having effective long range accuracy,
(1)(i)(D) hand-carried equipment, including incapacitating agents and explosives for use
as tools of entry or for otherwise destroying
reactor, facility, transporter, or container integrity or features of the safeguards systems, and
(1)(i)(E) land and water vehicles, which could
be used for transporting personnel and their
hand-carried equipment to the proximity of
vital areas, and
(1)(ii) An internal threat, and ............................
The proposed paragraph is modified to clarify
that the DBTs are designed to protect
against diversion in addition to theft of special nuclear material.
The proposed exemptions would be updated
based on the order requirements and conforming changes to other paragraphs of this
part.
(1) Radiological sabotage. (i) A determined violent external assault, attack by stealth, or deceptive actions, of several persons with the
following attributes, assistance and equipment:
(1)(i)(A) Well-trained (including military training
and skills) and dedicated individuals,
(1)(i)(B) inside assistance which may include a
knowledgeable individual who attempts to
participate in a passive role (e.g., provide information), an active role (e.g., facilitate entrance and exit, disable alarms and communications, participate in violent attack), or
both,
(1)(i)(C) suitable weapons, up to and including
hand-held automatic weapons, equipped with
silencers and having effective long range accuracy,
(1)(i)(D) hand-carried equipment, including incapacitating agents and explosives for use as
tools of entry or for otherwise destroying reactor, facility, transporter, or container integrity or features of the safeguards systems,
and
(1)(i)(E) a four-wheel drive land vehicle used for
transporting personnel and their hand-carried
equipment to the proximity of vital areas, and
(1)(ii) An internal threat of an insider, including
an employee (in any position), and
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:01 Nov 04, 2005
Jkt 208001
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
The proposed paragraph adds new capabilities to the DBT including operation as one
or more teams and attack from multiple
entry points.
The proposed paragraph would add to the
DBT adversaries who are willing to kill or
be killed and are knowledgeable about specific target selection.
The phrase ‘‘up to and including’’ was
changed to ‘‘including’’ to provide flexibility
in defining the range of weapons licensees
must be able to defend against.
This description is not revised by the proposed rule.
The scope of vehicles licensees must defend
against would be expanded to include water
vehicles and a range of land vehicles beyond four-wheel drive vehicles.
The current rule describes the internal threat
as a threat posed by an individual. The language would be revised to provide flexibility
in defining the scope of the internal threat
without adding details that may be useful to
an adversary.
E:\FR\FM\07NOP1.SGM
07NOP1
67384
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 214 / Monday, November 7, 2005 / Proposed Rules
Old
New
Change
(1)(iii) A four-wheel drive land vehicle bomb.
(1)(iii) A land vehicle bomb assault, which
may be coordinated with an external assault, and
None ...................................................................
(1)(iv) A waterborne vehicle bomb assault,
which may be coordinated with an external
assault.
(2) Theft or diversion of formula quantities of
strategic special nuclear material. (i) A determined, violent, external assault, attack by
stealth, or deceptive actions by a small group
with the following attributes, assistance, and
equipment:
(2) Theft or diversion of formula quantities of
strategic special nuclear material. (i) A determined violent external assault, attack by
stealth, or deceptive actions, including diversionary actions, by an adversary force
capable of operating as one or more teams,
attacking from one or more entry points,
with the following attributes, assistance and
equipment:
(2)(i)(A) Well-trained (including military training and skills) and dedicated individuals,
willing to kill or be killed, with sufficient
knowledge to identify specific equipment or
locations necessary for a successful attack;
(2)(i)(B) Active (e.g., facilitate entrance and
exit, disable alarms and communications,
participate in violent attack) or passive
(e.g., provide information), or both, knowledgeable inside assistance,
The proposed paragraph would be updated to
reflect that licensees are required to protect
against a wide range of land vehicles. A
new mode of attack not previously part of
the DBT would be added indicating that adversaries may coordinate a vehicle bomb
assault with another external assault.
The proposed paragraph would add a new
mode of attack not previously part of the
DBT, that being a waterborne vehicle bomb
assault. This paragraph also adds a coordinated attack concept.
The proposed paragraph would add new adversary capabilities to the DBT including
operation as one or more teams and attack
from multiple entry points.
(2)(i)(A) Well-trained (including military training
and skills) and dedicated individuals;
(2)(i)(B) Inside assistance that may include a
knowledgeable individual who attempts to
participate in a passive role (e.g., provide information), an active role (e.g., facilitate entrance and exit, disable alarms and communications, participate in violent attack), or
both;
(2)(i)(C) Suitable weapons, up to and including
hand-held automatic weapons, equipped with
silencers and having effective long-range accuracy;
(2)(i)(D) Hand-carried equipment, including incapacitating agents and explosives for use as
tools of entry or for otherwise destroying reactor, facility, transporter, or container integrity or features of the safeguards system;
(2)(i)(E) Land vehicles used for transporting
personnel and their hand-carried equipment;
and
(2)(i)(C) Suitable weapons, including handheld automatic weapons, equipped with silencers and having effective long-range accuracy;
(2)(i)(D) Hand-carried equipment, including incapacitating agents and explosives for use
as tools of entry or for otherwise destroying
reactor, facility, transporter, or container integrity or features of the safeguards system;
(2)(i)(E) Land and water vehicles, which could
be used for transporting personnel and their
hand-carried equipment; and
(2)(i)(F) the ability to operate as two or more
teams.
(2)(ii) An individual, including an employee (in
any position), and
(2)(iii) A conspiracy between individuals in any
position who may have:
(A) Access to and detailed knowledge of nuclear power plants or the facilities referred to
in § 73.20(a), or
(B) items that could facilitate theft of special nuclear material (e.g., small tools, substitute
material, false documents, etc.), or both.
None ...................................................................
Deleted .............................................................
None ...................................................................
(2)(iv) A waterborne vehicle bomb assault,
which may be coordinated with an external
assault.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:03 Nov 04, 2005
Jkt 208001
(2)(ii) An internal threat, and ............................
(2)(iii) A land vehicle bomb assault, which
may be coordinated with an external assault, and
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
The proposed paragraph would add to the
DBT adversaries who are willing to kill or
be killed and are knowledgeable about specific target selection.
The reference to an individual would be removed and the paragraph reworded to provide flexibility in defining the scope of the
inside threat.
The phrase ‘‘up to and including’’ was
changed to ‘‘including’’ to provide flexibility
in defining the range of weapons licensees
must be able to defend against.
This description is not revised by the proposed rule.
The scope of vehicles licensees must defend
against would be expanded to include water
vehicles and a range of land vehicles beyond four-wheel drive vehicles.
This requirement would be included in
§ 73.1(a)(2)(i).
The current rule describes the internal threat
as a threat posed by an individual. The language would be revised to provide flexibility
in defining the scope of the internal threat
without adding details that may be useful to
an adversary.
The proposed paragraph would be updated to
reflect that licensees are required to protect
against a wide range of land vehicles. A
new mode of attack not previously part of
the DBT would be added indicating that adversaries may coordinate a vehicle bomb
assault with another external assault.
The proposed paragraph would add a new
mode of attack not previously part of the
DBT, that being a waterborne vehicle bomb
assault. This coordinated attack concept is
another upgrade to the current regulation.
E:\FR\FM\07NOP1.SGM
07NOP1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 214 / Monday, November 7, 2005 / Proposed Rules
Additional guidance concerning the
adversary characteristics is located in
the corresponding draft regulatory
guides (radiological sabotage in DG–
5017 and theft and diversion in DG–
5018). These draft RGs contain either
safeguards or classified information and
are not publicly available.
V. Petition for Rulemaking (PRM–73–
12)
As discussed above in this notice, the
NRC staff reviewed PRM–73–12 to
determine whether the regulations in
Part 73 regarding the DBT should be
amended in response to requests in
PRM–73–12 and public comments
received on the petition. PRM–73–12
was filed by the Committee to Bridge
the Gap on July 23, 2004. The petition
requests that the NRC amend its
regulations to revise the DBT
regulations (in terms of the numbers,
teams, capabilities, planning,
willingness to die and other
characteristics of adversaries) to a level
that encompasses, with a sufficient
margin of safety, the terrorist
capabilities evidenced by the attacks of
September 11, 2001. The petition also
requests that security plans, systems,
inspections, and force-on-force exercises
be revised in accordance with the
amended DBT. Finally, the petition
requests a requirement be added to Part
73 to construct shields against air attack
(the shields are referred to as
‘‘beamhenge’’) which the petition
asserts would enable nuclear power
plants to withstand an air attack from a
jumbo jet.
PRM–73–12 was published for public
comment in the Federal Register on
November 8, 2004 (69 FR 64690). The
public comment period expired on
January 24, 2005. There were 845
comments submitted on PRM–73–12, of
which 528 were form letters. Many of
the comments were submitted after the
comment period expired; however, the
staff reviewed and considered all of the
comments. Comments were received
from nine state attorneys general,
approximately 20 public interest groups,
a U.S. Congressman from
Massachusetts, and six industry groups
and licensees. In addition, two U.S.
Senators and a U.S. Representative (all
from New Jersey) requested an
extension to the comment period. The
bulk of the comments either supported
the petition, requested a stronger DBT,
or requested that NRC give
consideration to the petition. All the
comments from industry and licensees
opposed the petition and indicated that
the supplemental DBT requirements
imposed (by order) to date were
adequate.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:03 Nov 04, 2005
Jkt 208001
Based on a review of PRM–73–12
public comments, the NRC staff
prepared a summary of those comments
in the PRM–73–12 comment summary
table (ML053040061). The table does
not list each individual comment. The
staff has grouped the comments by topic
and provided the NRC’s response. A
review of the table shows that although
there were a large number of comments,
the comments fell into a relatively small
number of topics.
The table contains the NRC’s
responses to the issues raised by public
comments, but the responses to
comments do not include a detailed
comparison of the differences between
the current DBT requirements (as
imposed by the April 29, 2003 orders)
and the requests in PRM–73–12. Such a
comparison could compromise security.
The NRC’s post-September 11, 2001,
review of security requirements
encompassed all the issues raised by the
petitioner, and a number of the
petitioner’s requested changes to the
DBT have been incorporated into the
proposed DBT amendments as
discussed below.
The NRC is partially granting PRM–
73–12 by conducting this proposed
rulemaking to revise the DBT
requirements in § 73.1(a). Some of the
requested changes in PRM–73–12 are
reflected in the proposed rule text.
These changes include the proposed
requirements in §§ 73.1(a)(1)(i) and
(a)(2)(i) that licensees be required to
protect against one or more teams of
adversaries operating from multiple
entry points. PRM–73–12 also requested
that the DBT regulation make clear that
adversaries are willing to kill and be
killed. This change is reflected in
proposed §§ 73.1(a)(1)(i)(A) and
(a)(2)(i)(A). The proposed rule would
also require licensees to protect against
waterborne threats, a wider range of
land vehicles, and coordinated attacks.
All of these features of the proposed
rule grant requests made in PRM–73–12.
The NRC intends to defer action on
the other requests in PRM–73–12,
specifically those aspects of PRM 73–12
which deal with the defense of nuclear
power plants against aircraft, and to
address those issues as part of the final
action on this proposed rule.
Federal and other governmental
efforts to protect the nation from
terrorist attacks by air have increased
substantially since September 11, 2001.
Those efforts already include a variety
of measures such as enhanced airline
passenger and baggage screening,
strengthened cockpit doors, and the
federal Air Marshals program. Federal
law enforcement and intelligence
agencies have increased efforts to
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
67385
identify potential aircraft-related threats
before they can be carried out. Such
improvements have already been
exercised by the Department of Defense
and the Federal Aviation
Administration through responses to
airspace violations near nuclear power
plants that were subsequently
determined not to be threats. These and
other government-wide efforts have
improved protection against air attacks
on all industrial facilities, both nuclear
and non-nuclear.
Following the September 11, 2001,
attacks in New York, the Pentagon, and
Pennsylvania, the NRC conducted
assessments of the potential for and
consequences of terrorists targeting a
nuclear power plant for aircraft attack,
the physical effects of such a strike, and
compounding factors such as
meteorology that would affect the
impact of potential radioactive releases.
Furthermore, the NRC required existing
nuclear power plant licensees to
develop and implement strategies to
mitigate potential consequences in the
unlikely event of an attack, including an
aircraft crash into a nuclear power
plant. For new nuclear power plants,
the opportunity exists to develop
designs that provide for enhanced
protection against potential threats. The
NRC staff will continue to review
intelligence and threat reporting to
recommend any appropriate
modifications to the DBT or NRC
requirements to mitigate air attacks.
PRM–73–12 also requests that nuclear
power plants be required to defend
against more than the number of
attackers that carried out the September
11, 2001 attacks, and identifies specific
weapons that nuclear power plants
should be able to defend against. The
Commission cannot comment publicly
on the precise numbers of attackers or
types of weapons that nuclear power
plants are required to defend against
under the proposed DBTs and ACDs for
reasons stated earlier in this notice.
However, the Commission has
conducted a thorough review of security
to continue to ensure that nuclear power
plants and other licensed facilities have
effective defensive capabilities and
security measures in place given the
changing threat environment. An
important part of this review was the
consideration of a terrorist attack similar
to that which occurred on September
11, 2001. However, the DBT is based
upon review and analysis of actual
demonstrated adversary characteristics
in a range of terrorist attacks, and a
determination as to the attacks against
which a private security force could
reasonably be expected to defend.
E:\FR\FM\07NOP1.SGM
07NOP1
67386
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 214 / Monday, November 7, 2005 / Proposed Rules
In summary, the NRC grants PRM–73–
12 in part by conducting this proposed
rulemaking to revise the DBT
requirements in § 73.1(a) to reflect
certain specific requested changes
contained in PRM–73–12 in the
proposed rule text, and is deferring
action on other requests in PRM–73–12,
specifically those aspects of PRM–73–12
which deal with air-based attacks.
VI. Guidance
The NRC staff is preparing new
regulatory guides, as listed below, to
provide detailed guidance on the
revised DBT requirements in proposed
§ 73.1. These guides are intended to
assist current licensees in ensuring that
their security plans meet requirements
in the proposed rule, as well as future
license applicants in the development of
their security programs and plans. The
new guidance incorporates the insights
gained from applying the earlier
guidance that was used to develop,
review, and approve the site security
plans that licensees put in place in
response to the April 2003 orders. As
such, this regulatory guidance is
expected to be consistent with revised
security measures at current licensees.
The publication of the regulatory guides
is planned to coincide with the
publication of the final rule. The guides
are described below.
1. Draft Regulatory Guide (DG–5017),
‘‘Guidance for the Implementation of
the Radiological Sabotage Design-Basis
Threat (Safeguards).’’ This regulatory
guide will provide guidance to the
industry on the radiological sabotage
DBT. DG–5017 contains safeguards
information and, therefore, is being
withheld from public disclosure and
distributed on a need-to-know basis to
those who otherwise qualify for access.
2. Draft Regulatory Guide (DG–5018),
‘‘Guidance for the Implementation of
the Theft and Diversion Design-Basis
Threat (Classified).’’ This regulatory
guide will provide guidance to the
industry on the theft or diversion DBT.
DG–5018 contains classified
information and, therefore, is withheld
from public disclosure and distributed
only on a need to know basis to those
who otherwise qualify for access.
VII. Criminal Penalties
For the purposes of Section 223 of the
Atomic Energy Act, as amended, the
Commission is issuing the proposed
rule to revise § 73.1 under one or more
sections of 161 of the Atomic Energy
Act of 1954 (AEA). Criminal penalties,
as they apply to regulations in Part 73
are discussed in § 73.81.
VIII. Compatibility of Agreement State
Regulations
Under the ‘‘Policy Statement on
Adequacy and Compatibility of
Agreement States Programs,’’ approved
by the Commission on June 20, 1997,
and published in the Federal Register
(62 FR 46517; September 3, 1997), this
rule is classified as compatibility
‘‘NRC.’’ Compatibility is not required for
Category ‘‘NRC’’ regulations. The NRC
program elements in this category are
those that relate directly to areas of
regulation reserved to the NRC by the
AEA or the provisions of Title 10 of the
Code of Federal Regulations, and
although an Agreement State may not
adopt program elements reserved to
NRC, it may wish to inform its licensees
of certain requirements via a mechanism
that is consistent with the particular
State’s administrative procedure laws,
but does not confer regulatory authority
on the State.
IX. Availability of Documents
Some documents discussed in this
rule are not available to the public. The
following table indicates which
documents are available to the public
and how they may be obtained.
Public Document Room (PDR). The
NRC Public Document Room is located
at 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville,
Maryland 20852.
Rulemaking Web site (Web). The
NRC’s interactive rulemaking Web site
is located at https://ruleforum.llnl.gov.
These documents may be viewed and
downloaded electronically via this Web
site.
NRC’s Electronic Reading Room
(ERR). The NRC’s electronic reading
room is located at https://www.nrc.gov/
reading-rm.html.
Document
PDR
Web
ERR
Environmental Assessment .........................................................................................................................
Regulatory Analysis .....................................................................................................................................
Public Comments on PRM–73-12 ...............................................................................................................
Radiological Sabotage Adversary Characteristics document .....................................................................
Theft and Diversion Adversary Characteristics document ..........................................................................
Technical Basis Document ..........................................................................................................................
Draft RG DG–5017 on Radiological Sabotage ...........................................................................................
Draft RG DG–5018 on Theft or Diversion ...................................................................................................
Memorandum: Status of Security-Related Rulemaking ..............................................................................
Commission SRM dated August 23, 2004 ..................................................................................................
Memorandum: Schedule for Part 73 Rulemakings .....................................................................................
Letter to Petitioner .......................................................................................................................................
Commission SRM dated October 27, 2005 ................................................................................................
X
X
X
no
no
no
no
no
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
no
no
no
no
no
X
X
X
X
X
ML053040039
ML053040013
ML053040061
no
no
no
no
no
ML041180532
ML042360548
ML043060572
ML052920150
ML053000448
X. Plain Language
XI. Voluntary Consensus Standards
The Presidential memorandum dated
June 1, 1998, entitled ‘‘Plain Language
in Government Writing,’’ published on
June 10, 1998 (63 FR 31883) directed
that the Government’s documents be in
plain, clear, and accessible language.
The NRC requests comments on the
proposed rule specifically with respect
to the clarity and effectiveness of the
language used. Comments should be
sent to the NRC as explained in the
ADDRESSES caption of this notice.
The National Technology Transfer
and Advancement Act of 1995, Pub. L.
104–113, requires that Federal agencies
use technical standards that are
developed or adopted by voluntary
consensus standards bodies unless
using such a standard is inconsistent
with applicable law or is otherwise
impractical. The NRC is not aware of
any voluntary consensus standard that
could be used instead of the proposed
Government-unique standards. The NRC
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:01 Nov 04, 2005
Jkt 208001
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
will consider using a voluntary
consensus standard if an appropriate
standard is identified.
XII. Finding of No Significant
Environmental Impact: Environmental
Assessment: Availability
The Commission has determined
under the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969, as amended, and the
Commission’s regulations in Subpart A
of 10 CFR Part 51, that this rule, if
adopted, would not be a major Federal
action significantly affecting the quality
E:\FR\FM\07NOP1.SGM
07NOP1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 214 / Monday, November 7, 2005 / Proposed Rules
of the human environment and,
therefore, an environmental impact
statement is not required.
The determination of this
environmental assessment is that there
will be no significant offsite impact to
the public from this action. However,
the general public should note that the
NRC is seeking public participation;
availability of the environmental
assessment is provided in Section IX.
Comments on any aspect of the
environmental assessment may be
submitted to the NRC as indicated
under the ADDRESSES heading.
The NRC has sent a copy of the
environmental assessment and this
proposed rule to every State Liaison
Officer and requested their comments
on the environmental assessment.
XIII. Paperwork Reduction Act
Statement
This proposed rule does not contain
new or amended information collection
requirements subject to the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.). Existing requirements were
approved by the Office of Management
and Budget, approval number 3150–
0002.
Public Protection Notification
The NRC may not conduct or sponsor,
and a person is not required to respond
to, a request for information or an
information collection requirement
unless the requesting document
displays a currently valid OMB control
number.
XIV. Regulatory Analysis
The Commission has prepared a draft
regulatory analysis on this proposed
regulation. The analysis examines the
costs and benefits of the alternatives
considered by the Commission. The
Commission requests public comment
on the draft regulatory analysis.
Availability of the regulatory analysis is
provided in Section IX. Comments on
the draft analysis may be submitted to
the NRC as indicated under the
ADDRESSES heading.
XV. Regulatory Flexibility Certification
In accordance with the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), the
Commission certifies that this rule will
not, if promulgated, 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 and
Category I fuel cycle facilities. 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 size
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:03 Nov 04, 2005
Jkt 208001
standards established by the NRC (10
CFR 2.810).
XVI. Backfit Analysis
The NRC has determined, pursuant to
the exception in 10 CFR
50.109(a)(4)(iii), that a backfit analysis is
unnecessary for this proposed rule.
Section 50.109 states in pertinent part
that a backfit analysis is not required if
the Commission finds and declares with
appropriate documented evaluation for
its finding that a ‘‘regulatory action
involves defining or redefining what
level of protection to the public health
and safety or common defense and
security should be regarded as
adequate.’’ The proposed rule would
increase the security requirements
currently prescribed in NRC regulations,
and is necessary to protect nuclear
facilities against potential terrorists.
When the Commission imposed security
enhancements by order in April 2003, it
did so in response to an escalated
domestic threat level. Since that time,
the Commission has continued to
monitor intelligence reports regarding
plausible threats from terrorists
currently facing the U.S. The
Commission has also gained experience
from implementing the order
requirements and reviewing revised
licensee security plans. The
Commission has considered all of this
information and finds that the security
requirements previously imposed by
DBT orders, which applied only to
existing licensees, should be made
generically applicable. The Commission
further finds that the proposed rule
would redefine the security
requirements stated in existing NRC
regulations, and is necessary to ensure
that the public health and safety and
common defense and security are
adequately protected in the current,
post-September 11, 2001, environment.
List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 73
Criminal penalties, Export, Hazardous
materials transportation, 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 73.
PART 73—PHYSICAL PROTECTION OF
PLANTS AND MATERIALS
1. The authority citation for part 73
continues to read as follows:
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
67387
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, 2297f); sec. 1704, 112 Stat. 2750 (44
U.S.C. 3504 note). 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).
2. In § 73.1, paragraph (a) is revised to
read as follows:
§ 73.1
Purpose and scope.
(a) Purpose. This part prescribes
requirements for the establishment and
maintenance of a physical protection
system which will have capabilities for
the protection of special nuclear
material at fixed sites and in transit and
of plants in which special nuclear
material is used. The following design
basis threats, where referenced in
ensuing sections of this part, shall be
used to design safeguards systems to
protect against acts of radiological
sabotage and to prevent the theft or
diversion of special nuclear material.
Licensees subject to the provisions of
§ 73.20 (except for fuel cycle licensees
authorized under Part 70 of this chapter
to receive, acquire, possess, transfer,
use, or deliver for transportation
formula quantities of strategic special
nuclear material), § 73.50, and § 73.60
are exempt from § 73.1(a)(1)(i)(E),
§ 73.1(a)(1)(iii), § 73.1(a)(1)(iv),
§ 73.1(a)(2)(iii), and § 73.1(a)(2)(iv).
Licensees subject to the provisions of
§ 72.212 are exempt from
§ 73.1(a)(1)(iv).
(1) Radiological sabotage. (i) A
determined violent external assault,
attack by stealth, or deceptive actions,
including diversionary actions, by an
adversary force capable of operating as
one or more teams, attacking from one
or more entry points, with the following
attributes, assistance and equipment:
(A) Well-trained (including military
training and skills) and dedicated
individuals, willing to kill or be killed,
with sufficient knowledge to identify
specific equipment or locations
necessary for a successful attack,
(B) Active (e.g., facilitate entrance and
exit, disable alarms and
communications, participate in violent
attack) or passive (e.g., provide
information), or both, knowledgeable
inside assistance,
(C) Suitable weapons, including handheld automatic weapons, equipped with
silencers and having effective long range
accuracy,
(D) Hand-carried equipment,
including incapacitating agents and
E:\FR\FM\07NOP1.SGM
07NOP1
67388
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 214 / Monday, November 7, 2005 / Proposed Rules
explosives for use as tools of entry or for
otherwise destroying reactor, facility,
transporter, or container integrity or
features of the safeguards system, and
(E) Land and water vehicles, which
could be used for transporting personnel
and their hand-carried equipment to the
proximity of vital areas, and
(ii) An internal threat, and
(iii) A land vehicle bomb assault,
which may be coordinated with an
external assault, and
(iv) A waterborne vehicle bomb
assault, which may be coordinated with
an external assault.
(2) Theft or diversion of formula
quantities of strategic special nuclear
material. (i) A determined violent
external assault, attack by stealth, or
deceptive actions, including
diversionary actions, by an adversary
force capable of operating as one or
more teams, attacking from one or more
entry points, with the following
attributes, assistance and equipment:
(A) Well-trained (including military
training and skills) and dedicated
individuals, willing to kill or be killed,
with sufficient knowledge to identify
specific equipment or locations
necessary for a successful attack;
(B) Active (e.g., facilitate entrance and
exit, disable alarms and
communications, participate in violent
attack) or passive (e.g., provide
information), or both, knowledgeable
inside assistance,
(C) Suitable weapons, including handheld automatic weapons, equipped with
silencers and having effective longrange accuracy;
(D) Hand-carried equipment,
including incapacitating agents and
explosives for use as tools of entry or for
otherwise destroying reactor, facility,
transporter, or container integrity or
features of the safe-guards system;
(E) Land and water vehicles, which
could be used for transporting personnel
and their hand-carried equipment; and
(ii) An internal threat, and
(iii) A land vehicle bomb assault,
which may be coordinated with an
external assault, and
(iv) A waterborne vehicle bomb
assault, which may be coordinated with
an external assault.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 2nd day
of November, 2005.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Annette L. Vietti-Cook,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 05–22200 Filed 11–4–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:03 Nov 04, 2005
Jkt 208001
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 93
[Docket No. FAA–2004–17005; Notice No.
05–12]
RIN 2120–AI17
Washington, DC Metropolitan Area
Special Flight Rules Area; Reopening
of Comment Period and Intent To Hold
Public Meeting
Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM); reopening of comment period.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: In this action, the FAA
reopens the comment period and
announces its intention to hold a public
meeting concerning the ‘‘Washington,
DC Metropolitan Area Special Flight
Rules Area’’ NPRM that was published
August 4, 2005. In that document, the
FAA proposed to codify current flight
restrictions for certain aircraft
operations in the Washington, DC
Metropolitan Area. This reopening is in
response to requests from Members of
Congress and industry associations.
DATES: The comment period for the
proposed rule published on August 4,
2005 (70 FR 45250) closed November 2,
2005 and is reopened until February 6,
2006. The date for the public meeting
will be announced in a future
document.
You may send comments,
identified by docket number, using any
of the following methods:
• DOT Docket Web site: Go to
https://dms.dot.gov and follow the
instructions for sending your comments
electronically.
• Government-wide rulemaking Web
site: Go to https://www.regulations.gov
and follow the instructions for sending
your comments electronically.
• Mail: Docket Management Facility;
U.S. Department of Transportation, 400
Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building,
Room PL–401, Washington, DC 20590–
0001.
• Fax: 1–202–493–2251.
• Hand Delivery: Room PL–401 on
the plaza level of the Nassif Building,
400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington,
DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
For more information on the
rulemaking process, see the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of
this document.
Privacy: We will post all comments
we receive, without change, to https://
dms.dot.gov, including any personal
ADDRESSES:
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
information you provide. For more
information, see the Privacy Act
discussion in the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section of this document.
Docket: To read background
documents or comments received, go to
https://dms.dot.gov at any time or to
Room PL–401 on the plaza level of the
Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street,
SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m.
and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Ellen Crum, Airspace and Rules, Office
of System Operations and Safety,
Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue, SW.,
Washington, DC 20591; telephone (202)
267–8783.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Comments Invited
The FAA invites interested persons to
participate in this rulemaking by
submitting written comments, data, or
views. We also invite comments relating
to the economic, environmental, energy,
or federalism impacts that might result
from adopting the proposals in this
document. The most helpful comments
reference a specific portion of the
proposal, explain the reason for any
recommended change, and include
supporting data. We ask that you send
us two copies of written comments.
We will file in the docket all
comments we receive, as well as a
report summarizing each substantive
public contact with FAA personnel
concerning this proposed rulemaking.
The docket is available for public
inspection before and after the comment
closing date. If you wish to review the
docket in person, go to the address in
the ADDRESSES section of this preamble
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
You may also review the docket using
the Internet at the Web address in the
ADDRESSES section.
Privacy Act: Using the search function
of our docket web site, anyone can find
and read the comments received into
any of our dockets, including the name
of the individual sending the comment
(or signing the comment on behalf of an
association, business, labor union, etc.).
You may review DOT’s complete
Privacy Act Statement in the Federal
Register published on April 11, 2000
(65 FR 19477–78) or you may visit
https://dms.dot.gov.
Before acting on this proposal, we
will consider all comments we receive
on or before the closing date for
comments. We will consider comments
filed late if it is possible to do so
without incurring expense or delay. We
E:\FR\FM\07NOP1.SGM
07NOP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 214 (Monday, November 7, 2005)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 67380-67388]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-22200]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
10 CFR Part 73
RIN 3150-AH60
Design Basis Threat
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is proposing to amend
its regulations that govern the requirements pertaining to design basis
threat (DBT). The proposed rule would amend the Commission's
regulations to, among other things, make generically applicable the
security requirements previously imposed by the Commission's April 29,
2003 DBT orders, which applied to existing licensees, and redefine the
level of security requirements necessary to ensure that the public
health and safety and common defense and security are adequately
protected. The proposed rule would revise the DBT requirements for
radiological sabotage (applied to power reactors and Category I fuel
cycle facilities), and theft or diversion of NRC-licensed Strategic
Special Nuclear Material (SSNM) (applied to Category I fuel cycle
facilities). The NRC has developed draft Regulatory Guides (RGs) that
provide guidance to licensees concerning the DBT for radiological
sabotage and theft and diversion. These draft RGs have limited
distribution because they contain either safeguards or classified
information. The specific details related to the threat, which contain
both safeguards information (SGI) and classified information, are
contained in adversary characteristics documents (ACDs) that are not
publicly available. These documents include specific details of the
attributes of the threat consistent with the requirements imposed in
the April 29, 2003, DBT orders. Additionally, a Petition for Rulemaking
(PRM-73-12), filed by the Committee to Bridge the Gap, was considered
as part of this proposed rulemaking; the NRC's disposition of this
petition is contained in this document.
DATES: Submit comments by January 23, 2006. Comments received after
this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the
Commission is able to ensure consideration only for comments received
on or before this date.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any one of the following methods.
Please include the following number RIN 3150-AH60 in the subject line
of your comments. Comments on rulemakings submitted in writing or in
electronic form will be made available for public inspection. Because
your comments will not be edited to remove any identifying or contact
information, the NRC cautions you against including any information in
your submission that you do not want to be publicly disclosed.
Mail comments to: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington, DC 20555-0001, ATTN: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff.
E-mail comments to: SECY@nrc.gov. If you do not receive a reply e-
mail confirming that we have received your comments, contact us
directly at (301) 415-1966. You may also submit comments via the NRC's
rulemaking Web site at https://ruleforum.llnl.gov. Address questions
about our rulemaking Web site to Carol Gallagher (301) 415-5905; e-mail
cag@nrc.gov. Comments can also be submitted via the Federal eRulemaking
Portal https://www.regulations.gov.
Hand deliver comments to: 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland
20852, between 7:30 am and 4:15 pm Federal workdays. (Telephone (301)
415-1966).
Fax comments to: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission at
(301) 415-1101.
You may submit comments on the information collections by the
methods indicated in the Paperwork Reduction Act Statement.
Publicly available documents related to this rulemaking may be
viewed electronically on the public computers located at the NRC's
Public Document Room (PDR), O1 F21, One White Flint North, 11555
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. The PDR reproduction contractor
will copy documents for a fee. Selected documents, including comments,
may be viewed and downloaded electronically via the NRC rulemaking Web
site at https://ruleforum.llnl.gov.
Publicly available documents created or received at the NRC after
November 1, 1999, are available electronically at the NRC's Electronic
Reading Room at https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. From this
site, the public can gain entry into the NRC's Agencywide Document
Access and
[[Page 67381]]
Management System (ADAMS), which provides text and image files of NRC's
public documents. If you do not have access to ADAMS or if there are
problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact the NRC
Public Document Room (PDR) Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-
4737 or by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Timothy Reed, Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC
20555-0001; telephone (301) 415-1462; e-mail: tar@nrc.gov or Mr.
Richard Rasmussen, Office of Nuclear Security and Incident Response,
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001;
telephone (301) 415-8380; e-mail: rar@nrc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Background.
II. Rulemaking Initiation.
III. Proposed Regulations.
IV. Section-by-Section Analysis.
V. Petition for Rulemaking (PRM-73-12).
VI. Guidance.
VII. Criminal Penalties.
VIII. Compatibility of Agreement State Regulations.
IX. Availability of Documents.
X. Plain Language.
XI. Voluntary Consensus Standards.
XII. Finding of No Significant Environmental Impact: Environmental
Assessment: Availability.
XIII. Paperwork Reduction Act Statement.
XIV. Regulatory Analysis.
XV. Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification.
XVI. Backfit Analysis.
I. Background
The DBT requirements in 10 CFR 73.1(a) describe general adversary
characteristics that designated licensees must defend against with high
assurance. These NRC requirements include protection against
radiological sabotage (generally applied to power reactors and Category
I fuel cycle facilities) and theft or diversion of NRC-licensed SSNM
(generally applied to Category I fuel cycle facilities). The DBTs are
used by these licensees to form the basis for site-specific defensive
strategies implemented through security plans, safeguards contingency
plans, and guard training and qualification plans.
Following the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, the NRC
conducted a thorough review of security to ensure that nuclear power
plants and other licensed facilities continued to have effective
security measures in place for the changing threat environment. In so
doing, the NRC recognized that some elements of the DBTs required
enhancement due to the escalation of the domestic threat level. After
soliciting and receiving comments from Federal, State, local agencies,
and industry stakeholders, the NRC imposed by order supplemental DBT
requirements that contained additional detailed adversary
characteristics. The Commission deliberated on the responsibilities of
the local, State, and Federal governments to protect the nation, and
the responsibility of the licensees to protect individual nuclear
facilities, before reaching consensus on a reasonable approach to
security in the April 29, 2003 DBT orders. After gaining experience
under these orders over the past two years, the Commission believes
that the attributes of the orders should be generically imposed on
certain classes of licensees.
The Commission's decision was based on the analysis of intelligence
information regarding the trends and capabilities of the potential
adversaries and discussions with Federal, law enforcement, and
intelligence community agencies. These enhanced adversary
characteristics are reflective of the new threat environment. In
general terms, DBTs are comprised of attributes selected from the
overall threat environment. The ACDs set forth the specific details of
the attributes of the DBTs. The DBT technical basis document contains a
basis for the specific adversary characteristics. These supplemental
documents contain safeguards and classified information that is
distributed only to persons with authorized access and on a need-to-
know basis. The NRC's DBT takes into consideration actual demonstrated
adversary characteristics as well as pertinent intelligence information
applicable to domestic threats and a determination as to those
characteristics against which a private security force could reasonably
be expected to provide protection.
The April 29, 2003 DBT orders required nuclear power reactors and
Category I fuel cycle licensees to revise their physical security
plans, security personnel training and qualification plans, and
safeguards contingency plans to defend against the supplemental DBT
requirements. The orders required licensees to make security
enhancements such as increased patrols; augmented security forces and
capabilities; additional security posts; additional physical barriers;
vehicle checks at greater standoff distances; better coordination with
law enforcement and military authorities; augmented security and
emergency response training, equipment, and communication; and more
restrictive site access controls for personnel, including expanded,
expedited, and more thorough initial and follow-on screening of
temporary and permanent workers. The NRC has reviewed and approved the
revised security plans that were developed and submitted by power
reactor and Category I fuel facility licensees in response to the April
29, 2003 orders.
II. Rulemaking Initiation
On July 19, 2004, the staff issued a memorandum entitled ``Status
of Security-Related Rulemaking'' to inform the Commission of plans to
close two longstanding security-related actions and replace them with a
comprehensive rulemaking plan to modify physical protection
requirements for power reactors. This memorandum described rulemaking
efforts that were preempted by the terrorist activities of September
11, 2001, and summarized the security-related actions taken following
the attack. In response to this memorandum, the Commission directed the
staff in an August 23, 2004, Staff Requirements Memorandum (SRM), to
forego the development of a rulemaking plan and provide a schedule for
the completion of 10 CFR 73.1, 73.55, and Part 73 Appendix B
rulemakings. The requested schedule was provided to the Commission by
memorandum dated November 16, 2004.
III. Proposed Regulations
The principal objectives of the proposed rule are, among other
things, to make generically applicable the security requirements
previously imposed by the Commission's April 29, 2003 DBT orders, and
to define in NRC regulations the level of security necessary to ensure
adequate protection of the public health and safety and common defense
and security.
The Commission continues to consider many factors in developing the
proposed DBT and other security requirements. As directed by Congress
under section 651(a) of the recently enacted Energy Policy Act of 2005,
the NRC is giving consideration to the following 12 factors as part of
this rulemaking to revise the design basis threats:
1. The events of September 11, 2001;
2. An assessment of physical, cyber, biochemical, and other
terrorist threats;
3. The potential for attack on facilities by multiple coordinated
teams of a large number of individuals;
4. The potential for assistance in an attack from several persons
employed at the facility;
5. The potential for suicide attacks;
6. The potential for water-based and air-based threats;
[[Page 67382]]
7. The potential use of explosive devices of considerable size and
other modern weaponry;
8. The potential for attacks by persons with a sophisticated
knowledge of facility operations;
9. The potential for fires, especially fires of long duration;
10. The potential for attacks on spent fuel shipments by multiple
coordinated teams of a large number of individuals; \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Transportation of spent nuclear fuel is subject to separate
regulatory requirements and public comments will be considered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. The adequacy of planning to protect the public health and
safety at and around nuclear facilities, as appropriate, in the event
of a terrorist attack against a nuclear facility; and
12. The potential for theft and diversion of nuclear material from
such facilities.
A number of these factors are already reflected in the text of the
proposed rule. For example, the proposed rule would require protection
against suicidal attackers, insiders, and waterborne threats. Some of
these factors are not included in the proposed rule. For example, there
is no provision in the proposed DBT rule for an attribute of air-based
threats. The Commission invites and looks forward to public comment on
the proposed rule provisions, as well as whether or how the 12 factors
should be addressed in the DBT rule. The Commission will further
consider and resolve any comments received in the final rule.
The proposed rule would also revise certain exemptions for
independent spent fuel storage installations (ISFSIs). The current DBT
rule exempts ISFSIs from the land vehicle transport and land vehicle
bomb threats contained in Sec. Sec. 73.1(a)(1)(i)(E) and (a)(1)(iii),
respectively. These exemptions should no longer be retained because the
Commission issued orders to ISFSIs on October 16, 2002, requiring
ISFSIs to protect against these threats. The NRC evaluated the need to
apply waterborne requirements to ISFSIs and concluded that other means
in the proposed rule were sufficiently protective to preclude the need
for specific requirements regarding waterborne threats. Consequently,
an exemption from the waterborne threat has been added for ISFSIs in
this proposed rule.
The proposed rule would also amend the exemption in the current
Sec. 73.1(a) for licensees subject to the provisions of Sec. 73.20.
The current rule exempts these licensees from the requirements to
protect against vehicles transporting adversary personnel and equipment
and the land vehicle bomb. The Commission has determined, however, that
due to the current threat environment certain licensees subject to
Sec. 73.20 (Category I fuel cycle facilities) need to protect against
such threats, so the exemption must be amended accordingly. The amended
exemption would continue for other licensees described in 10 CFR 73.20
(e.g., fuel reprocessing plants licensed under Part 50).
The approach proposed in this rulemaking maintains a level of
detail in the Sec. 73.1(a) rule language that is generally comparable
to the current regulation, while updating the general DBT attributes in
a manner consistent with the insights gained from the application of
supplemental security requirements imposed by the April 29, 2003, DBT
orders. The result is a proposed rule with a level of detail that
reflects all major features of the DBTs, yet avoids compromising
licensee security by not publishing the specific tactical and
operational capabilities of the DBT adversaries. The goal of this
approach is to provide sufficient public notice of the upgrades to the
DBTs, including the new modes of attack that facilities must be
prepared to defend against, so that meaningful public input is possible
regarding the proposed rule's scope and content.
The NRC recognizes that some stakeholders may expect more detail
than is set forth in the current or proposed DBT regulations. However,
the more detail that is made publicly available about the specific
capabilities of the DBT adversaries, the greater the chance that
potential adversaries could exploit that information. The disclosure of
such details as the specific weapons, force size, ammunition, vehicles,
and bomb sizes that licensees must be prepared to defend against could
substantially assist an adversary in planning an attack.
On the other hand, it is important for the public to be informed of
the types of attacks against which nuclear power plants and Category I
fuel cycle facilities are required to defend. The public has a vital
stake in the security of these facilities, as well as the right to
meaningful comment when NRC proposes to amend its regulations.
Understanding the general scope of the proposed DBT rule is necessary
if the public is to exercise its right to meaningful comment and
oversight of NRC regulations.
After carefully balancing these competing interests, the NRC
arrived at the level of detail regarding the attributes of the DBT
presented in the proposed rule. More specific details (e.g., specific
weapons, ammunition, etc.) are consolidated in ACDs, which contain
classified or safeguards information. The technical bases for the ACDs
are derived largely from intelligence information, and also contain
classified and safeguards information that cannot be publicly
disclosed. These documents must be withheld from public disclosure and
made available only on a need-to-know basis to those who otherwise
qualify for access.
The ACDs may be updated from time to time as a result of the NRC's
periodic threat reviews, which NRC has been conducting since 1979.
Those threat assessments are performed in conjunction with the
intelligence and law enforcement communities to identify changes in the
threat environment which may in turn require adjustment of NRC security
requirements. Future revisions to the ACDs would not require changes to
the DBT regulations in Sec. 73.1, provided the changes remain within
the scope of the rule text.
The NRC consulted with Federal, State, and local agencies, and with
industry stakeholders in developing the updated DBTs. This consultation
involved analysis of intelligence information regarding the trends and
capabilities of potential adversaries, and discussion with Federal, law
enforcement, and intelligence community agencies. Public comments and
suggestions received in response to PRM-73-12, also informed the NRC's
development of this proposed rule. The resolution of PRM-73-12, which
is being granted in part through this rulemaking, is more fully
discussed in Section V of this notice.
The Commission concludes that the proposed amendments to Sec. 73.1
will continue to ensure adequate protection of public health and safety
and the common defense and security by requiring the secure use and
management of radioactive materials. The revised DBTs represent the
largest threats against which private sector facilities must be able to
defend with high assurance. The proposed amendments to Sec. 73.1
reflect requirements currently in place under existing NRC regulations
and orders.
[[Page 67383]]
IV. Section-by-Section Analysis
The following table provides a comparison between the proposed rule
text and the current rule text.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Old New Change
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(a) Purpose. This part prescribes (a) Purpose. This part prescribes The proposed paragraph is modified
requirements for the establishment requirements for the establishment to clarify that the DBTs are
and maintenance of a physical and maintenance of a physical designed to protect against
protection system which will have protection system which will have diversion in addition to theft of
capabilities for the protection of capabilities for the protection of special nuclear material.
special nuclear material at fixed special nuclear material at fixed The proposed exemptions would be
sites and in transit and of plants sites and in transit and of plants updated based on the order
in which special nuclear materials in which special nuclear material requirements and conforming changes
used. The following design basis is used. The following design basis to other paragraphs of this part.
threats, where referenced in threats, where referenced in
ensuing sections of this part, ensuing sections of this part,
shall be used to design safeguards shall be used to design safeguards
systems to protect against acts of systems to protect against acts of
radiological sabotage and to radiological sabotage and to
prevent the theft of special prevent the theft or diversion of
nuclear material. Licensees subject special nuclear material. Licensees
to the provision of Sec. 72.182, subject to the provisions of Sec.
Sec. 72.212, Sec. 72.20, Sec. 73.20 (except for fuel cycle
73.50, and Sec. 73.60 are exempt licensees authorized under part 70
from Sec. 73.1(a)(1)(i)(E) and of this chapter to received,
Sec. 73.1(a)(1)(iii). acquire, possess, transfer, use, or
deliver for transportation formula
quantities of strategic special
nuclear material), Sec. 73.50,
and Sec. 73.60 are exempt from
Sec. 73.1(a)(1)(i)(E), Sec.
73.1(a)(1)(iii), Sec.
73.1(a)(1)(iv), Sec.
73.1(a)(2)(iii) and Sec.
73.1(a)(2)(iv). Licensees subject
to the provisions of Sec. 72.212,
are exempt from Sec.
73.1(a)(1)(iv).
(1) Radiological sabotage. (i) A (1) Radioloigcal sabotage. (i) A The proposed paragraph adds new
determined violent external determined violence external capabilities to the DBT including
assault, attack by stealth, or assault, attack by stealth, or operation as one or more teams and
deceptive actions, of several deceptive actions, including attack from multiple entry points.
persons with the following diversionary actions, by an
attributes, assistance and adversary force capable of
equipment: operating as one or more teams,
attacking from one or more entry
points, with the following
attributes, assistance and
equipment:
(1)(i)(A) Well-trained (including (1)(i)(A) Well-trained (including The proposed paragraph would add to
military training and skills) and military training and skills) and the DBT adversaries who are willing
dedicated individuals, dedicated individuals, willing to to kill or be killed and are
kill or be killed, with sufficient knowledgeable about specific target
knowledge to identify specific selection.
equipment or locations necessary
for a successful attack,
(1)(i)(B) inside assistance which (1)(i)(B) active (e.g., facilitate
may include a knowledgeable entrance and exit, disable alarms
individual who attempts to and communications, participate in
participate in a passive role violent attack) or passive (e.g.,
(e.g., provide information), an provide information), or both,
active role (e.g., facilitate knowledgeable inside assistance.
entrance and exit, disable alarms The reference to an individual
and communications, participate in would be removed and the paragraph
violent attack), or both, reworded to provide flexibility in
defining the scope of the inside
threat.
(1)(i)(C) suitable weapons, up to (1)(i)(C) suitable weapons, The phrase ``up to and including''
and including hand-held automatic including hand-held automatic was changed to ``including'' to
weapons, equipped with silencers weapons, equipped with silencers provide flexibility in defining the
and having effective long range and having effective long range range of weapons licensees must be
accuracy, accuracy, able to defend against.
(1)(i)(D) hand-carried equipment, (1)(i)(D) hand-carried equipment, This description is not revised by
including incapacitating agents and including incapacitating agents and the proposed rule.
explosives for use as tools of explosives for use as tools of
entry or for otherwise destroying entry or for otherwise destroying
reactor, facility, transporter, or reactor, facility, transporter, or
container integrity or features of container integrity or features of
the safeguards systems, and the safeguards systems, and
(1)(i)(E) a four-wheel drive land (1)(i)(E) land and water vehicles, The scope of vehicles licensees must
vehicle used for transporting which could be used for defend against would be expanded to
personnel and their hand-carried transporting personnel and their include water vehicles and a range
equipment to the proximity of vital hand-carried equipment to the of land vehicles beyond four-wheel
areas, and proximity of vital areas, and drive vehicles.
(1)(ii) An internal threat of an (1)(ii) An internal threat, and The current rule describes the
insider, including an employee (in internal threat as a threat posed
any position), and by an individual. The language
would be revised to provide
flexibility in defining the scope
of the internal threat without
adding details that may be useful
to an adversary.
[[Page 67384]]
(1)(iii) A four-wheel drive land (1)(iii) A land vehicle bomb The proposed paragraph would be
vehicle bomb. assault, which may be coordinated updated to reflect that licensees
with an external assault, and are required to protect against a
wide range of land vehicles. A new
mode of attack not previously part
of the DBT would be added
indicating that adversaries may
coordinate a vehicle bomb assault
with another external assault.
None (1)(iv) A waterborne vehicle bomb The proposed paragraph would add a
assault, which may be coordinated new mode of attack not previously
with an external assault. part of the DBT, that being a
waterborne vehicle bomb assault.
This paragraph also adds a
coordinated attack concept.
(2) Theft or diversion of formula (2) Theft or diversion of formula The proposed paragraph would add new
quantities of strategic special quantities of strategic special adversary capabilities to the DBT
nuclear material. (i) A determined, nuclear material. (i) A determined including operation as one or more
violent, external assault, attack violent external assault, attack by teams and attack from multiple
by stealth, or deceptive actions by stealth, or deceptive actions, entry points.
a small group with the following including diversionary actions, by
attributes, assistance, and an adversary force capable of
equipment: operating as one or more teams,
attacking from one or more entry
points, with the following
attributes, assistance and
equipment:
(2)(i)(A) Well-trained (including (2)(i)(A) Well-trained (including The proposed paragraph would add to
military training and skills) and military training and skills) and the DBT adversaries who are willing
dedicated individuals; dedicated individuals, willing to to kill or be killed and are
kill or be killed, with sufficient knowledgeable about specific target
knowledge to identify specific selection.
equipment or locations necessary
for a successful attack;
(2)(i)(B) Inside assistance that may (2)(i)(B) Active (e.g., facilitate The reference to an individual would
include a knowledgeable individual entrance and exit, disable alarms be removed and the paragraph
who attempts to participate in a and communications, participate in reworded to provide flexibility in
passive role (e.g., provide violent attack) or passive (e.g., defining the scope of the inside
information), an active role (e.g., provide information), or both, threat.
facilitate entrance and exit, knowledgeable inside assistance,
disable alarms and communications,
participate in violent attack), or
both;
(2)(i)(C) Suitable weapons, up to (2)(i)(C) Suitable weapons, The phrase ``up to and including''
and including hand-held automatic including hand-held automatic was changed to ``including'' to
weapons, equipped with silencers weapons, equipped with silencers provide flexibility in defining the
and having effective long-range and having effective long-range range of weapons licensees must be
accuracy; accuracy; able to defend against.
(2)(i)(D) Hand-carried equipment, (2)(i)(D) Hand-carried equipment, This description is not revised by
including incapacitating agents and including incapacitating agents and the proposed rule.
explosives for use as tools of explosives for use as tools of
entry or for otherwise destroying entry or for otherwise destroying
reactor, facility, transporter, or reactor, facility, transporter, or
container integrity or features of container integrity or features of
the safeguards system; the safeguards system;
(2)(i)(E) Land vehicles used for (2)(i)(E) Land and water vehicles, The scope of vehicles licensees must
transporting personnel and their which could be used for defend against would be expanded to
hand-carried equipment; and transporting personnel and their include water vehicles and a range
hand-carried equipment; and of land vehicles beyond four-wheel
drive vehicles.
(2)(i)(F) the ability to operate as Deleted This requirement would be included
two or more teams. in Sec. 73.1(a)(2)(i).
(2)(ii) An individual, including an (2)(ii) An internal threat, and The current rule describes the
employee (in any position), and internal threat as a threat posed
(2)(iii) A conspiracy between by an individual. The language
individuals in any position who may would be revised to provide
have: flexibility in defining the scope
(A) Access to and detailed knowledge of the internal threat without
of nuclear power plants or the adding details that may be useful
facilities referred to in Sec. to an adversary.
73.20(a), or
(B) items that could facilitate
theft of special nuclear material
(e.g., small tools, substitute
material, false documents, etc.),
or both.
None (2)(iii) A land vehicle bomb The proposed paragraph would be
assault, which may be coordinated updated to reflect that licensees
with an external assault, and are required to protect against a
wide range of land vehicles. A new
mode of attack not previously part
of the DBT would be added
indicating that adversaries may
coordinate a vehicle bomb assault
with another external assault.
None (2)(iv) A waterborne vehicle bomb The proposed paragraph would add a
assault, which may be coordinated new mode of attack not previously
with an external assault. part of the DBT, that being a
waterborne vehicle bomb assault.
This coordinated attack concept is
another upgrade to the current
regulation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 67385]]
Additional guidance concerning the adversary characteristics is
located in the corresponding draft regulatory guides (radiological
sabotage in DG-5017 and theft and diversion in DG-5018). These draft
RGs contain either safeguards or classified information and are not
publicly available.
V. Petition for Rulemaking (PRM-73-12)
As discussed above in this notice, the NRC staff reviewed PRM-73-12
to determine whether the regulations in Part 73 regarding the DBT
should be amended in response to requests in PRM-73-12 and public
comments received on the petition. PRM-73-12 was filed by the Committee
to Bridge the Gap on July 23, 2004. The petition requests that the NRC
amend its regulations to revise the DBT regulations (in terms of the
numbers, teams, capabilities, planning, willingness to die and other
characteristics of adversaries) to a level that encompasses, with a
sufficient margin of safety, the terrorist capabilities evidenced by
the attacks of September 11, 2001. The petition also requests that
security plans, systems, inspections, and force-on-force exercises be
revised in accordance with the amended DBT. Finally, the petition
requests a requirement be added to Part 73 to construct shields against
air attack (the shields are referred to as ``beamhenge'') which the
petition asserts would enable nuclear power plants to withstand an air
attack from a jumbo jet.
PRM-73-12 was published for public comment in the Federal Register
on November 8, 2004 (69 FR 64690). The public comment period expired on
January 24, 2005. There were 845 comments submitted on PRM-73-12, of
which 528 were form letters. Many of the comments were submitted after
the comment period expired; however, the staff reviewed and considered
all of the comments. Comments were received from nine state attorneys
general, approximately 20 public interest groups, a U.S. Congressman
from Massachusetts, and six industry groups and licensees. In addition,
two U.S. Senators and a U.S. Representative (all from New Jersey)
requested an extension to the comment period. The bulk of the comments
either supported the petition, requested a stronger DBT, or requested
that NRC give consideration to the petition. All the comments from
industry and licensees opposed the petition and indicated that the
supplemental DBT requirements imposed (by order) to date were adequate.
Based on a review of PRM-73-12 public comments, the NRC staff
prepared a summary of those comments in the PRM-73-12 comment summary
table (ML053040061). The table does not list each individual comment.
The staff has grouped the comments by topic and provided the NRC's
response. A review of the table shows that although there were a large
number of comments, the comments fell into a relatively small number of
topics.
The table contains the NRC's responses to the issues raised by
public comments, but the responses to comments do not include a
detailed comparison of the differences between the current DBT
requirements (as imposed by the April 29, 2003 orders) and the requests
in PRM-73-12. Such a comparison could compromise security. The NRC's
post-September 11, 2001, review of security requirements encompassed
all the issues raised by the petitioner, and a number of the
petitioner's requested changes to the DBT have been incorporated into
the proposed DBT amendments as discussed below.
The NRC is partially granting PRM-73-12 by conducting this proposed
rulemaking to revise the DBT requirements in Sec. 73.1(a). Some of the
requested changes in PRM-73-12 are reflected in the proposed rule text.
These changes include the proposed requirements in Sec. Sec.
73.1(a)(1)(i) and (a)(2)(i) that licensees be required to protect
against one or more teams of adversaries operating from multiple entry
points. PRM-73-12 also requested that the DBT regulation make clear
that adversaries are willing to kill and be killed. This change is
reflected in proposed Sec. Sec. 73.1(a)(1)(i)(A) and (a)(2)(i)(A). The
proposed rule would also require licensees to protect against
waterborne threats, a wider range of land vehicles, and coordinated
attacks. All of these features of the proposed rule grant requests made
in PRM-73-12.
The NRC intends to defer action on the other requests in PRM-73-12,
specifically those aspects of PRM 73-12 which deal with the defense of
nuclear power plants against aircraft, and to address those issues as
part of the final action on this proposed rule.
Federal and other governmental efforts to protect the nation from
terrorist attacks by air have increased substantially since September
11, 2001. Those efforts already include a variety of measures such as
enhanced airline passenger and baggage screening, strengthened cockpit
doors, and the federal Air Marshals program. Federal law enforcement
and intelligence agencies have increased efforts to identify potential
aircraft-related threats before they can be carried out. Such
improvements have already been exercised by the Department of Defense
and the Federal Aviation Administration through responses to airspace
violations near nuclear power plants that were subsequently determined
not to be threats. These and other government-wide efforts have
improved protection against air attacks on all industrial facilities,
both nuclear and non-nuclear.
Following the September 11, 2001, attacks in New York, the
Pentagon, and Pennsylvania, the NRC conducted assessments of the
potential for and consequences of terrorists targeting a nuclear power
plant for aircraft attack, the physical effects of such a strike, and
compounding factors such as meteorology that would affect the impact of
potential radioactive releases. Furthermore, the NRC required existing
nuclear power plant licensees to develop and implement strategies to
mitigate potential consequences in the unlikely event of an attack,
including an aircraft crash into a nuclear power plant. For new nuclear
power plants, the opportunity exists to develop designs that provide
for enhanced protection against potential threats. The NRC staff will
continue to review intelligence and threat reporting to recommend any
appropriate modifications to the DBT or NRC requirements to mitigate
air attacks.
PRM-73-12 also requests that nuclear power plants be required to
defend against more than the number of attackers that carried out the
September 11, 2001 attacks, and identifies specific weapons that
nuclear power plants should be able to defend against. The Commission
cannot comment publicly on the precise numbers of attackers or types of
weapons that nuclear power plants are required to defend against under
the proposed DBTs and ACDs for reasons stated earlier in this notice.
However, the Commission has conducted a thorough review of security to
continue to ensure that nuclear power plants and other licensed
facilities have effective defensive capabilities and security measures
in place given the changing threat environment. An important part of
this review was the consideration of a terrorist attack similar to that
which occurred on September 11, 2001. However, the DBT is based upon
review and analysis of actual demonstrated adversary characteristics in
a range of terrorist attacks, and a determination as to the attacks
against which a private security force could reasonably be expected to
defend.
[[Page 67386]]
In summary, the NRC grants PRM-73-12 in part by conducting this
proposed rulemaking to revise the DBT requirements in Sec. 73.1(a) to
reflect certain specific requested changes contained in PRM-73-12 in
the proposed rule text, and is deferring action on other requests in
PRM-73-12, specifically those aspects of PRM-73-12 which deal with air-
based attacks.
VI. Guidance
The NRC staff is preparing new regulatory guides, as listed below,
to provide detailed guidance on the revised DBT requirements in
proposed Sec. 73.1. These guides are intended to assist current
licensees in ensuring that their security plans meet requirements in
the proposed rule, as well as future license applicants in the
development of their security programs and plans. The new guidance
incorporates the insights gained from applying the earlier guidance
that was used to develop, review, and approve the site security plans
that licensees put in place in response to the April 2003 orders. As
such, this regulatory guidance is expected to be consistent with
revised security measures at current licensees. The publication of the
regulatory guides is planned to coincide with the publication of the
final rule. The guides are described below.
1. Draft Regulatory Guide (DG-5017), ``Guidance for the
Implementation of the Radiological Sabotage Design-Basis Threat
(Safeguards).'' This regulatory guide will provide guidance to the
industry on the radiological sabotage DBT. DG-5017 contains safeguards
information and, therefore, is being withheld from public disclosure
and distributed on a need-to-know basis to those who otherwise qualify
for access.
2. Draft Regulatory Guide (DG-5018), ``Guidance for the
Implementation of the Theft and Diversion Design-Basis Threat
(Classified).'' This regulatory guide will provide guidance to the
industry on the theft or diversion DBT. DG-5018 contains classified
information and, therefore, is withheld from public disclosure and
distributed only on a need to know basis to those who otherwise qualify
for access.
VII. Criminal Penalties
For the purposes of Section 223 of the Atomic Energy Act, as
amended, the Commission is issuing the proposed rule to revise Sec.
73.1 under one or more sections of 161 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954
(AEA). Criminal penalties, as they apply to regulations in Part 73 are
discussed in Sec. 73.81.
VIII. Compatibility of Agreement State Regulations
Under the ``Policy Statement on Adequacy and Compatibility of
Agreement States Programs,'' approved by the Commission on June 20,
1997, and published in the Federal Register (62 FR 46517; September 3,
1997), this rule is classified as compatibility ``NRC.'' Compatibility
is not required for Category ``NRC'' regulations. The NRC program
elements in this category are those that relate directly to areas of
regulation reserved to the NRC by the AEA or the provisions of Title 10
of the Code of Federal Regulations, and although an Agreement State may
not adopt program elements reserved to NRC, it may wish to inform its
licensees of certain requirements via a mechanism that is consistent
with the particular State's administrative procedure laws, but does not
confer regulatory authority on the State.
IX. Availability of Documents
Some documents discussed in this rule are not available to the
public. The following table indicates which documents are available to
the public and how they may be obtained.
Public Document Room (PDR). The NRC Public Document Room is located
at 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
Rulemaking Web site (Web). The NRC's interactive rulemaking Web
site is located at https://ruleforum.llnl.gov. These documents may be
viewed and downloaded electronically via this Web site.
NRC's Electronic Reading Room (ERR). The NRC's electronic reading
room is located at https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm.html.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Document PDR Web ERR
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Environmental Assessment.... X X ML053040039
Regulatory Analysis......... X X ML053040013
Public Comments on PRM-73-12 X X ML053040061
Radiological Sabotage no no no
Adversary Characteristics
document.
Theft and Diversion no no no
Adversary Characteristics
document.
Technical Basis Document.... no no no
Draft RG DG-5017 on no no no
Radiological Sabotage.
Draft RG DG-5018 on Theft or no no no
Diversion.
Memorandum: Status of X X ML041180532
Security-Related Rulemaking.
Commission SRM dated August X X ML042360548
23, 2004.
Memorandum: Schedule for X X ML043060572
Part 73 Rulemakings.
Letter to Petitioner........ X X ML052920150
Commission SRM dated October X X ML053000448
27, 2005.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
X. Plain Language
The Presidential memorandum dated June 1, 1998, entitled ``Plain
Language in Government Writing,'' published on June 10, 1998 (63 FR
31883) directed that the Government's documents be in plain, clear, and
accessible language. The NRC requests comments on the proposed rule
specifically with respect to the clarity and effectiveness of the
language used. Comments should be sent to the NRC as explained in the
ADDRESSES caption of this notice.
XI. Voluntary Consensus Standards
The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995, Pub.
L. 104-113, requires that Federal agencies use technical standards that
are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies unless
using such a standard is inconsistent with applicable law or is
otherwise impractical. The NRC is not aware of any voluntary consensus
standard that could be used instead of the proposed Government-unique
standards. The NRC will consider using a voluntary consensus standard
if an appropriate standard is identified.
XII. Finding of No Significant Environmental Impact: Environmental
Assessment: Availability
The Commission has determined under the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969, as amended, and the Commission's regulations in
Subpart A of 10 CFR Part 51, that this rule, if adopted, would not be a
major Federal action significantly affecting the quality
[[Page 67387]]
of the human environment and, therefore, an environmental impact
statement is not required.
The determination of this environmental assessment is that there
will be no significant offsite impact to the public from this action.
However, the general public should note that the NRC is seeking public
participation; availability of the environmental assessment is provided
in Section IX. Comments on any aspect of the environmental assessment
may be submitted to the NRC as indicated under the ADDRESSES heading.
The NRC has sent a copy of the environmental assessment and this
proposed rule to every State Liaison Officer and requested their
comments on the environmental assessment.
XIII. Paperwork Reduction Act Statement
This proposed rule does not contain new or amended information
collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). Existing requirements were approved by the
Office of Management and Budget, approval number 3150-0002.
Public Protection Notification
The NRC may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to, a request for information or an information collection
requirement unless the requesting document displays a currently valid
OMB control number.
XIV. Regulatory Analysis
The Commission has prepared a draft regulatory analysis on this
proposed regulation. The analysis examines the costs and benefits of
the alternatives considered by the Commission. The Commission requests
public comment on the draft regulatory analysis. Availability of the
regulatory analysis is provided in Section IX. Comments on the draft
analysis may be submitted to the NRC as indicated under the ADDRESSES
heading.
XV. Regulatory Flexibility Certification
In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C.
605(b)), the Commission certifies that this rule will not, if
promulgated, 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 and Category I fuel cycle facilities.
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 size standards established by the NRC (10 CFR
2.810).
XVI. Backfit Analysis
The NRC has determined, pursuant to the exception in 10 CFR
50.109(a)(4)(iii), that a backfit analysis is unnecessary for this
proposed rule. Section 50.109 states in pertinent part that a backfit
analysis is not required if the Commission finds and declares with
appropriate documented evaluation for its finding that a ``regulatory
action involves defining or redefining what level of protection to the
public health and safety or common defense and security should be
regarded as adequate.'' The proposed rule would increase the security
requirements currently prescribed in NRC regulations, and is necessary
to protect nuclear facilities against potential terrorists. When the
Commission imposed security enhancements by order in April 2003, it did
so in response to an escalated domestic threat level. Since that time,
the Commission has continued to monitor intelligence reports regarding
plausible threats from terrorists currently facing the U.S. The
Commission has also gained experience from implementing the order
requirements and reviewing revised licensee security plans. The
Commission has considered all of this information and finds that the
security requirements previously imposed by DBT orders, which applied
only to existing licensees, should be made generically applicable. The
Commission further finds that the proposed rule would redefine the
security requirements stated in existing NRC regulations, and is
necessary to ensure that the public health and safety and common
defense and security are adequately protected in the current, post-
September 11, 2001, environment.
List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 73
Criminal penalties, Export, Hazardous materials transportation,
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 73.
PART 73--PHYSICAL PROTECTION OF PLANTS AND MATERIALS
1. 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, 2297f); sec. 1704, 112 Stat.
2750 (44 U.S.C. 3504 note). 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).
2. In Sec. 73.1, paragraph (a) is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 73.1 Purpose and scope.
(a) Purpose. This part prescribes requirements for the
establishment and maintenance of a physical protection system which
will have capabilities for the protection of special nuclear material
at fixed sites and in transit and of plants in which special nuclear
material is used. The following design basis threats, where referenced
in ensuing sections of this part, shall be used to design safeguards
systems to protect against acts of radiological sabotage and to prevent
the theft or diversion of special nuclear material. Licensees subject
to the provisions of Sec. 73.20 (except for fuel cycle licensees
authorized under Part 70 of this chapter to receive, acquire, possess,
transfer, use, or deliver for transportation formula quantities of
strategic special nuclear material), Sec. 73.50, and Sec. 73.60 are
exempt from Sec. 73.1(a)(1)(i)(E), Sec. 73.1(a)(1)(iii), Sec.
73.1(a)(1)(iv), Sec. 73.1(a)(2)(iii), and Sec. 73.1(a)(2)(iv).
Licensees subject to the provisions of Sec. 72.212 are exempt from
Sec. 73.1(a)(1)(iv).
(1) Radiological sabotage. (i) A determined violent external
assault, attack by stealth, or deceptive actions, including
diversionary actions, by an adversary force capable of operating as one
or more teams, attacking from one or more entry points, with the
following attributes, assistance and equipment:
(A) Well-trained (including military training and skills) and
dedicated individuals, willing to kill or be killed, with sufficient
knowledge to identify specific equipment or locations necessary for a
successful attack,
(B) Active (e.g., facilitate entrance and exit, disable alarms and
communications, participate in violent attack) or passive (e.g.,
provide information), or both, knowledgeable inside assistance,
(C) Suitable weapons, including hand-held automatic weapons,
equipped with silencers and having effective long range accuracy,
(D) Hand-carried equipment, including incapacitating agents and
[[Page 67388]]
explosives for use as tools of entry or for otherwise destroying
reactor, facility, transporter, or container integrity or features of
the safeguards system, and
(E) Land and water vehicles, which could be used for transporting
personnel and their hand-carried equipment to the proximity of vital
areas, and
(ii) An internal threat, and
(iii) A land vehicle bomb assault, which may be coordinated with an
external assault, and
(iv) A waterborne vehicle bomb assault, which may be coordinated
with an external assault.
(2) Theft or diversion of formula quantities of strategic special
nuclear material. (i) A determined violent external assault, attack by
stealth, or deceptive actions, including diversionary actions, by an
adversary force capable of operating as one or more teams, attacking
from one or more entry points, with the following attributes,
assistance and equipment:
(A) Well-trained (including military training and skills) and
dedicated individuals, willing to kill or be killed, with sufficient
knowledge to identify specific equipment or locations necessary for a
successful attack;
(B) Active (e.g., facilitate entrance and exit, disable alarms and
communications, participate in violent attack) or passive (e.g.,
provide information), or both, knowledgeable inside assistance,
(C) Suitable weapons, including hand-held automatic weapons,
equipped with silencers and having effective long-range accuracy;
(D) Hand-carried equipment, including incapacitating agents and
explosives for use as tools of entry or for otherwise destroying
reactor, facility, transporter, or container integrity or features of
the safe-guards system;
(E) Land and water vehicles, which could be used for transporting
personnel and their hand-carried equipment; and
(ii) An internal threat, and
(iii) A land vehicle bomb assault, which may be coordinated with an
external assault, and
(iv) A waterborne vehicle bomb assault, which may be coordinated
with an external assault.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 2nd day of November, 2005.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Annette L. Vietti-Cook,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 05-22200 Filed 11-4-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P