ML19209A142
| ML19209A142 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 07/17/1979 |
| From: | Minogue R NRC OFFICE OF STANDARDS DEVELOPMENT |
| To: | Gossick L NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19209A143 | List: |
| References | |
| FRN-43FR41100, RULE-PRM-7-1, TASK-OS, TASK-TP-901-3 NUDOCS 7910030009 | |
| Download: ML19209A142 (3) | |
Text
__
- =. - - _ _ -
= : - --
900.
[earc o
o UNITED STATES
'g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3 s., (
g WASW"CToN. D, C. 20555 q;
/
%l 4 v JUL 171979 PRM 7-1
~
MEMORANDUM FOR:
Lee V. Gossick, Executive Director for Operations FROM:
Robert B. Minogue, Director, Office of Standards Development
SUBJECT:
DENIAL OF PETITION TO ESTABLISH A REGULATIONS REVIEW BOARD Attached for your signature are:
(1) A letter to Walter P. Peeples, Jr.,
President, Non Destructive Testing Management Association, setting out the grounds of denial of his petition requesting that the Commission form a review board made up of responsible members of industry to review all pertinent regulations and to clarify positions of the industry prior to issuance of all new regulatiens (Enclosure A); and, (2) A Federal Register notice of denial of petition for rule making (Enclosure B).
By letter dated July 19, 1978, Mr. Peeples petitioned the Commission to form a review board as set forth above and, as a basis for the petition, stated that within the past few years certata regulations have been placed upon the industry which are deemed by the industry to be unnecessary, and the industry's objective in proposing a review board is to maintain liaison with the Commis-
.m and to indicate to the Commission what is considered necessary and unneces-a relation to regulations (Enclosure C).
of filing of petition for rule making was published in the Federal ke<
on September 14, 1978 (43 FR 41100), allowing 60 days for public ccm-
,s
' ~
.it.
our letters of comment were received in response to the notice.
s 9cc x & Wilcox and Measurex Corp. endorsed the petition as submitted.
John I. Riesland agreed with the petitioner's reasons for the need to review 9
q ]1m regulations but indicated that est&blishing a Commission review board is an unnecessary addition to the increasing staff of the Commission and should not e
be ewoloyed.
The Air Transport Association of America stated that a few mem-ber
- rlines do not believe the proposed review board would be productive, but a majority feel that such a review board would be beneficial.
The question is whether the industry's objectives of maintaining liaison with the Commission and clarifying industry positions prior to issuance of all new p, h,
regulations een be achieved without a review board.
In my view, the answer is
- ...v yes for the reasons discussed below.
(.y e
1088 106
'- f.,,lj
Contact:
J. J. Henry, 50 443-5946 d ck a 91 003O Sy M h, # 90M l
C.
m----
-imi
s a
JUb II 1979 Lee V. Gossick 2
By memorandum dated November 20, 1978, you established a new policy and provided NRC-wide procedures for direct distribution of all substantive proposed and effective amendments of NRC regulations to affected licensees and other known interested persons.
" Interested persons" includes trade associations (for example, the Non Destructive Testing Management Association) and trade publica-tions likely to be read by affected licensees (for example, NDTMA Speaks),
standards writing groups, persons who commented on a proposed rule, and other
{
persons who have expressed an interest in the regulation.
Under the direct distribution procedures, the task leader responsible for the development of a regulation will be responsible for designating the addressen to whom the rule will be mailed and coordinating the mailing of the rule.
Accordingly, the SD task leader responsible for responding to PRM 7-1 has placed Mr. Peeples' name on mailing lists for regulations concerned with non-i destructive testing, e.g., industrial radiography, industrial gauging, and oil well logging (and has placed on appropriate mailing lists the names of the four persons commenting on the notice of receipt of PRM 7-1).
In addition, the letter to Mr. Peeples invites all interested persons belonging to or associated l
with the Non Destructive Testing Management Association who desire to receive proposed and effective regulations to send their names, addresses, and areas i
l of interest to the' Distribution Services Branch, DDC.
i Based on these factors, I reccmmend that you deny petition for rule making PRM 7-1 on the grounds that NRC policy and procedures for direct distribution of proposed and effective amendments of NRC regulations to licensees and other interested persons:
(1) Fully satisfy the objectives set forth in the petition; and (2) Assure that affected licensees and applicants are aware of all proposed and effective regulations of a substantive nature, without the need to form a review board as requested in the petition.
The letter to Mr. Peeples setting out the grounds of denial of his petition sets out our present procedures for aggressively seeking public comments plus the new NRC pclicy for direct distribution of substantive proposed and effec-tive regulations to affected licensees and other known interested persons. To provide for wider public awareness of the new NRC policy, I recommend issuance of a related public announcement such as Enclosure D.
The public announcement invites all interested persons who desire to receive proposed and effective regulations to send their names, addresses, and areas of interest to the Dis-tribution Services Branch, DDC.
The Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment of the House Interior and Insular Affairs Committee, the Subcommittee on Energy and Power of the House Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee, and the Subcommittee on Nuclear Regulation of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works will be furnished copies of the notice of denial and the related public announcement (Enclosure E).
1088 107
i
__m_
1 I
i Lee V. Cossick 3
JUL 171979 1
A note regarding issuance of the denial will be included in the next Weekly Report to the Commission. The issuance of denial will be pub-lished in Nuclear Regulatory Ccamission Issuances.
i Coordination: The NRC's Advisory Committee Management Officer states that SECY need not concur in denial of the request to form a review board.
The Office of the Executive Legal Director has no legal objection.
The l
Office of Public Affairs prepared the draft piblic announcement.
/2Asn% 4 Robert B. Minogue, Director Office of Standards Development i
Enclosures:
"A" - Letter Gossi;k, NRC, to Peeples, NDTMA "B" - Federal Register Notice "C" - Letter 7/19/78 Peeples, NDTMA, to Chilk, NRC
{
"0" - Draft Public Announcement "E" - Draft Congressional Letter "F" - Value/Ispact Statement i
"G" - Abstracts of Coms.nts and Staff Responses l
Approved for Publication Under 10 CFR 1.40(o), the Executive Director for Operations has been i
delegated authority to deny petitions for rule making of a minor or non policy nature, where the grounds for denial do not substantially modify existing precedent.
I have found that the enclosed denial is in this category and am proceeding to issue it.
JUL 181979
/
Date
/ Lee V. Gossick Executive Director for Operations 1088 108
/
[
' 'o, UNITED STATES j
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION y,
WASHf NGT oN, D. C. 20555
- p pg JUl.18 1979 PRM 7-1 Mr. Walter P. Peeples, Jr., President Non Destructive Testing Management Association 4
P.O. Box 1214 Magnolia Park Station Burbank, California 91507
Dear Mr. Peeples:
Thank you for your letter of July 19, 1978, reqJesting that the Nuclear Regula-tory Commission form a review board made up of responsible members of industry to review all pertinent regulations and to clarify positions of the industry prior to issuance of all new regulations.
Your request coincided with NRC staff actions expected to result in a broader spectrum of public comment on proposed regulations and better assurance of licensee awareness.of and compliance with effective regulations.
We strongly encourage public participation and input throughout the Commission's rule making process.
We publish Federal Register notices, issue public announce-ment.s,, hold public hearings if deemed advisable, and take other actions designed to notify and invite all interested persons who desire to submit written com-ments or suggestions for consideration in connection with a proposed regula-tion to send them to the Commission.
The invitation is extended to all persons who desire to comment upon a proposed regulation after learning of its existence.
Last year, it was brought to our attention that, despite publication in the Federal Register and other efforts to invite comments from interested persons, some licensees do not become aware of a regulation until long af ter it is in effect or the comment period has expired.
In response, we undertook a review of our procedures for aggressively seeking public participation in our rulemak-ing proceedings.
As a result of the review, I established on November 20, 1978, a new policy and provided NRC-wide procedures for direct distribution of amendments to NRC regulations to licensees and other interested persons.
The new policy is as follows:
A.
All substantive proposed and effective regulations will be mailed to~
affected licensees and other known interested persons.
" Interested per-sons" includes, for example, standards writing graups, trade associations, trade publications likely to be read by affected licensees, public interest groups, persons who commented on a proposed rule, and other persons who have expressed an interest in the regulation.
1038 109 6o0'
t B.
Commission papers recommending proposed or effective regulations will contain a statement that affected licensees and other interested persons will receive a copy of the amendment by direct mail.
C.
The' task leader responsible for the development of a regulation will be responsible for designating the addressees to whom the rule will be mailed and coordinating the mailing of the rule.
Tne task leader, in coordination with other affected offices and the Division of Technical Informatior, and Document Control (DDC), will develop a list of licensees and other interested persons who will receive the regulation by mail.
D.
In the case of a regulation affecting Agreement State licensees, the Office of State Programs will be provided 45 copies of the regulation to make available to Agreement States.
This NRC policy is in keeping with Executive Order 12044, " Improving Government Regulations," which in part provides that agencies give the public an early and meaningful opportunity to participate in the oevelopment of agency regula-tions, including notifying interested parties directly and sending notices of proposed regulations to publications likely to be read by those affected.
In view of your interest in regulations concerned with noadestructive testing, the task leader responsible for responding to your request has placed your name on mailing lists for regulations concerned with industrial radiography, industrial gauging, and oil well logging.
In addition, I invite all inter-ested persons belonging to or associated with the Non Destructive Testing Management Association who desire to receive proposed and effective regula-tions.to send their names, addresses, and areas of interest to the U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C.
20555, Attention:
Distribu-tion Services Branch (ADM/DSB), DDC.
Please note that the direct distribution of substantive proposed regulations to affected licensees and other known interested persons supplements and does not take the place of public rulemaking procedures.
Notice and publication in the Federal Register with specific invitation for written comments or sugges-tions in connection with proposed regulations is still necessary.
All comments received in response to notices published in the Federal Register, reproduced in journals or newsletters, or directly distributed are docketed, acknowledged, and considered in developing effective regulations.
This public comment procedure provides ample opportunity for all interested persons, including industry, to submit to the NRC their views on the values, impacts, administrative burdens, costs, and other aspects of proposed regulations.
Based on these factors, I am denying your request (Docket Number PRM 7-1) that the Commission form a review board made up of responsible members of the indus-try to review all pertinent regulations and to clarify positions of the indus-try prior to issuance of all new regulations.
I believe that the NRC policy and procedures for direct distribution of proposed and effective amendments of 1083 110 2
e
.-.4
=.,..w
- m. m e. -.-
s NRC regulations to licensees and other interested persons:
(1) Fully satisfy the objectives set forth in your letter; and (2) Assure that affected licensees and applicants are aware of all proposed and effective regulations of a substan-tive nature, without the need to form a review board as requested in your letter.
Enclosed is a copy of the Federal Register notice of denial of your petition for rule making.
Also enclosed is a copy of a public announcement issued to increase public awareness of the NRC staff procedures for direct mailing of rule changes to affected licensees and other interested persons.
Thank you for your time and effort on this important matter.
Sincerely, Lee V.
Executive Director for Operations
Enclosures:
1.
Notice of Denial of Petition for Rule Making 2.
Public Announcement
- % g e
m e
1088 111 3
omo
=-
o eme
~-
--Mw-ow,-wm-eow~n
-m
+e,-am-.
,w, a
e m-ve-mw-e-
m e
.amo mm emoa--m-Aw w
s NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[ Docket No. PRM-7-1]
NON DESTRUCTIVE TESTING MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION Denial of Petition for Rule Making By letter dated July 19, 1978, Mr. Walter P. Peeples, Jr., on behalf of the Non Destructive Testing Management Association, filed with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission a petition for rule making (PRM 7-1).
THE PETITION The petitioner requested the Commission to form a review board made up of responsible members of the industry to review all pertinent regula-tions and to clarify positions of the industry prior to issuance of all new regulations.
The petitioner stated that the petition is related to all regulations that directly affect users of byproduct materials in the s.
field of non'.ttructive testing.
The petitioner stated also that since the field of nondestructive testing is large in scope, the members of the review group should be selected from the manufacturers and users of byproduct materials representing industrial radiography, gauging, and oil well logging industries.
BASIS FOR REQUEST As the basis for the petition, the petitioner stated:
Within the past few years, it has beccme obvious that certain regulations are placed upon the industry which are deemed unnecessary.
It is the consensus of the industry that this is caused by certain individuals within the bureaucracy writing regulations and not being familiar with the industry.
1088 112 1
3 W oj,.-('
q
i We feel that this petition is necessary and that this approach will serve to educate both the industry and the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
The. industry's objective is to maintain a liaison with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and to indicate to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission what is considered neces-sary and unnecessary in relationship to regulations.
REQUEST FOR COMMENTS ON PETITION A notice of filing of petition for rule making was published in the FEDERAL REGISTER on September 14,1978 (43 FR 41100).
The comment period expired November 13, 1978.
Four letters of comment were received in response to the notice.
Two letters endorsed the petition as submitted.
One letter agreed with the petitioner's reasons for the need to review regulations but indicated that establishing a Commission review board is an unnecessary addition to the increasing staff of the Commission and should not be employed.
One letter stated a few members of its associa-
,w tion do not believe the proposed review board would be productive, but a majority feel that such a review board would be beneficial.
NRC STAFF ACTIONS The NRC strongly encourages public participation and input through-out the NRC's rule making process.
The NRC publishes FEDERAL REGISTER notices, issues public announcements, holds public meetings if deemed advisable, and takes other actions designed to notify and invite all interested persons who desire to submit written ccmments or suggestions for consideration in cor.nection with a proposed regulation to send them to the NRC.
1088 113 2
In addition, the NRC staff has adopted procedures expected to result in a broader spectrum of public comment on proposed amendments to NRC regulations and betten assurance of licensee awareness of and compliance with effective NRC regulations.
The procedures carry out NRC policy established November 20, 1978, that all substantive proposed and effective regulations will be mailed to affected licensees and other known interested persons.
" Interested persons" include, for example, standards writing groups, trade associa-tions, trade publications likely to be read by affected licensees, public interest groups, persons who commented on a proposed rule, and other persons who have expressed an interest in the regulation being issued, amended, or rescinded.
Under this policy, the NRC contact listed in the FEDERAL REGISTER notice of proposed or final rule making will be responsible for designat-ing the addressees to whom the notice will be mailed and coordinating the mailing of the notice.
In keeping with this NRC policy, all interested persons who desire to receive proposed and effective regulations are invited to send their names, addresses, and areas of interest to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C.
20555, Attention:
Distribution Services Branch (ADM/DSB), DDC.
1088 1i4 3
s All persons who submit substantive comments on a proposed regulation can identify their comments and the NRC staff responses to their comments in the comment analysis prepared in connection with the effective regula-tion.
This public comment procedure provides ample opportunity for all interested persons, including industry, to submit to the NRC their views on the values, impacts administrative burdens, costs, and other aspects of proposed regulations.
Only after thorough consideration of relevant matter presented does the NRC publish in the FEDERAL REGISTER notices of adoption of effective regulations that include responses to the substantive comments received.
GROUNDS FOR DENIAL The Commission has given careful consideration to this petition for rule maki,ng (PRM 7-1) and has decided to deny the petition on the grounds that NRC policy and procedures for direct distribution of proposed and effective amendments of NRC regulations to licensees and other interested persons:
(1) Fully satisfy the objectives set forth in the petition; and (2) Assure that affected licensees and applicants are aware of all proposed and effective regulations of a substantive nature, without the need to form a review board as requested in the petition.
1088 115 4
4 A copy of the petition for rule making and copies of the letters of comment and the Commission's letter of denial are available for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room at 1717 H Street NW.,
Washington, D.C.
Dated at Dethesda. W rvl na this 1p+h day of Jul v 1979.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
, dx f if Lee V. Gossick Executive Director for Operations n.
1083 116 s
e DRAFT PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT NRC DENIES PETITION TO FORM REGULATIONS REVIEW BOARD The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has denied a petition from the Non Destructive T,esting Management Association asking that the Commission form a review board, made up of responsible members of the industry, to review all pertinent regulations and clarify positions of the industry before new regu-lations are issued.
The petitioner believes that certain regulations have been passed within the past few years that are unnecessary, and that this is caused by lack of familiarity with the industry on the part of individuals who write the regula-tions.
The petition is related to all rules that directly affect users of byproduct materials (materials made radioactive during the use or production of certain types of uranium or plutorium) in the field of nondestructive testing.
In denying the petition, the NRC noted that current and new agency policies and procedures ensure that.affected licensees are made aware of pro-posed regulatory changes--without the need to form a review board as requested in the petition.
To encourage public participation and input to the rule mak-ing process, the NRC:
1)
Publishes notices in the Federal Register concerning p; oposed and effective regulations, 2)
Issues news releases to the press, 3)
Hola public meetings when arpropriate and 4)
-Invites interested persons to submit written comments or suggestions on proposed regulations.
1038 117 O
775/6 m W
In addition, the NRC adopted in November 1978 procedures to mail proposed and effective regulations directly to affected licensees and other known inter-ested persons, such as standards writing groups, trade associations, trade publi-cations, public interest groups, persons who commented on a proposed rule and other individuals who have expressed an interest in a regulation.
In keeping with this poli.cy, individuals who would like to receive a copy of proposed and effective regulations when issued are invited to send their names, addresses and areas of interest to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555, Attention:
Distribution Services Branch, Division of Technical Information and Document Control.
1088 118 2
6 9
9 I
O ENCLOSURE B 1033 119
[7590-01]
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[ Docket No. PRM-7-1]
NON DESTRUCTIVE TESTING MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION Denial of Petition for Rule Making By letter dated July 19, 1978, Mr. Walter P. Peeples, Jr., on behalf of the Non Destructive Testing Management Association, filed with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission a petition for rule making (PRM 7-1).
THE PETITION The petitioner requested the Commission to form a review board made up of responsible members of the industry to review all pertinent regula-tions and to clarify positions of the industry prior to issuance of all new regulations. The petitioner stated that the petition is related to all regulations that directly affect user of byproduct materials in the field of nondestructive testing.
The petitioner stated also that since the field of nondestructive testing is large in scope, the members of the review group should be selected from the manufacturers and users of byproduct materials representing industrial radiography, gauging, and oil well logging industries.
BASIS FOR REQUEST As the basis for the petition, the petitioner stated:
Within the past few years, it has become obvious that certain regulations are placed upon the industry which are deemed unnecessary.
It is the consensus of the industry that this is caused by certain individuals within the bureaucracy writing regulations and not being familiar with the industry.
1088 120 Lip
]
bh/(Oo22
[7590-01]
We feel that this petition is necessary and that this approach will serve to educate both the industry and the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
The industry's objective is to maintain a liaison with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and to indicate to the.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission what is considered neces-sary and unnecessary in relationship to regulations.
REQUEST FOR COMMENTS ON PETITION A notice of filing of petition for rule making was published in the FEDERAL REGISTER on September 14, 1978 (43 FR 41100).
The comment period expired November 13, 1978.
Four letters of comment were received in response to the notice.
Two letters endorsed the petition as submitted.
One letter agreed with the petitioner's reasons for the need to review regulations but indicated that establishing a Commission review board is an unnecessary addition to the increasing staff of the Commission and should not be employed.
One letter stated a few members of its associa-tion do not believe the proposed review board would be productive, but a majority feel that such a review board would be beneficial.
NRC STAFF ACTIONS The NRC strongly encourages public participation and input through-out the NRC's rule making process.
The NRC publishes FEDERAL REGISTER notices, issues public announcements, holds public meetings if deemed advisable, and takes other actions designed to notify and invite all interested persons who desire to submit written comments or suggestions for consideration in connection with a proposed regulation 'o send them to the NRC.
1083 121 2
[7590-01]
In addition, the NRC staff has adopted procedures expected to result in a broader spectrum of public comment on proposed amendments to NRC regulations and better assurance of licensee awareness of and compliance with effective NRC regulations.
The procedures carry out NRC policy established November 20, 1978, that all substantive proposed and effective regulations will be mailed to affected licensee's in*d other known interested persons.
" Interested persons" include, for example, standards writing groups, trade associa-tions, trade publications likely to be read by affected licensees, public interest groups, persons who commented on a proposed rule, and other persons who have expressed an interest in the regulation being issued, amended, or rescinded.
Under this policy, the NRC contact listed in the FEDERAL REGISTER notice of proposed or final rule making will be responsible for designat-ing the addressees to whom the notice will be mailed and coordinating the mailing of the notice.
In keeping with this NRC policy, all interested persons who desire to receive proposed and effective regulations are invited to send their names, addresses, and areas of interest to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C.
20555, Attention:
Distribution Services Branch (ADM/DSB), DDC.
1038 122 3
-~
[7590-01]
All persons who submit substantive comments on a proposed regulation can identify the. comments and the NRC staff responses to their comments in the comment analysis prepared in connection with the effective regula-tion.
This public comment procedure provides ample opportunity for all interested persons, including industry, to submit to the NRC their views on the values, impacts administrative burdens, costs, and other aspects of proposed regulations.
Only after thorough consideration of relevant matter presented does the NRC publish in the FEDERAL REGISTER notices of adoption of effective regulations that include responses to the substantive comments received.
GROUNDS FOR DENIAL The Commission has given careful consideration to this petition for rule making (PRM 7-1) and has decided to d ay -the petition on'the grounds that NRC policy and procedures for direct distribution of proposed and effective amendments of NRC regulations to licensees and other interested persons:
(1) Fully satisfy the objectives set forth in the petition; and (2) Assure that affected licensees and applicants are aware of all proposed and effective regulations of a substantive nature, without the need to form a review board as requested in the petition.
1088 123 4
[7590-01]
A copy of the petition for rule making and copies of the letters of comment and the Commission's letter of denial are available for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room at 1717 H Street NW.,
Washington, D.C.
Dated at Bethesda. Marylana this 1Rth day oi July 1979.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
]
s Lee V. Gossick Executive Director for Operations 1033 124 5
-