ML20045G387
| ML20045G387 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 10/16/1991 |
| From: | Shelton B NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM) |
| To: | Lesar M NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION (ADM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19351B492 | List:
|
| References | |
| FRN-57FR61152, RULE-PR-48C20 AC01-2-013, AC1-2-13, NUDOCS 9307130289 | |
| Download: ML20045G387 (6) | |
Text
f{Q) #
K pp&
nnev UNITED STATES q
,og 8'
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION n
(,
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 o
/a 007 1 0 1991 MEMORANDUM FOR:
Michael T.
Lesar, Chief Rules Review Section Regulatory Publications Branch Division of Freedom of Information and Publications Services Office of Administration FROM:
Brenda Jo. Shelton, Chief Information and Records Management Branch Division of Information Support Services Office of Information Resources Management
SUBJECT:
REQUEST FOR COMMENT AND CONC $1RENCE ON THE FINAL RULE, 48 CFR 20, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ACQUISITION REGULATION In response to your subject memorandum, the Information and Records Management Branch (IRMB) provides the following:
The Paperwork Reduction Act Statement (PRAS) is correct.
X Change the PRAS to the enclosure.
N/A The "Information Collection Requirements: OMB Approval" section is correct.
Add the enclosed "Information Collection Requirements:
OMB Approval" section.
Do not publish the " Federal Register Notice" until further notice.
X The " Federal Register Notice" can be published.
Enclosed is a copy of the IRMB memorandum to the program office addressing our concerns.
A copy of the IRMB memorandum to the program office addressing our concerns will be forwarded at a later date.
X An IRMB memorandum to the program office is not required.
'j' A /0
,3 ts. cb/ Y
,/
N Breh Chief
/ Information and Records Management Branch Division of Information Support Services Office of Information Resources Management cc:
W.
Foster, ADM n
nomarrn. AnM 9307130289 930600 PDR PR
, ~g q q y) 48C2057FR61152 PDR
?
\\
I.
Therefore, neither an environmental impact statement nor an environmental assessment is required for this rule.
Paperwork Reduction Act Statement
-Q The information collection requirements were submitted to OMB at the proposed rule stage.
At that time, OMB denied approval.
OMB believed that rather than promulgating an NRC regulation, NRC should forward those provisions appropriate for inclusion in the FAR to the FAR Councils for consideration in accordance with FAR 1.304(c).
They further requested that publication relating to Conflict of Interest Policies Applicable to Consultants cwait implementation in the FAR.
It is the agency's position that since we are required by law to have separate procurement regulations implementing the FAR and these provisions only apply to special circumstances of the NRC, they would be inappropriate for inclusion in the FAR for government wide usage.
In addition, in accordance with Sec. 8, Pub.
L.95-601, adding Sec. 170A to Pub. L.83-703, 68 Stat. 919, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2210s) NRC's organizational conflicts of interest takes precedence over the FAR 9.5, " Organizational and Consultant Conflicts of Interest."
However, where non-conflicting guidance appears in FAR 9.5, that guidance shall be followed. With these considerations, NRC is therefore requesting OHB approval of the information collection requirements at the final rule stage.
This final rule amends information collection requirements that are subject to the papervork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq).
W/ J s Q&
7 This rule Aas baan submitted to OMB for review and approval of the paperwork
^,
14
,s
b.
)
4 l
The information collections will not become effective until requirements.
after OMB approval. Notice of OMB approval will be published in the l
Federal Register.
'\\
The public reporting burden for this collection of information is i
estimated to average 11 hours1.273148e-4 days <br />0.00306 hours <br />1.818783e-5 weeks <br />4.1855e-6 months <br /> per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and malataining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information.
Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to the Information and Records Management Branch (MNBB-7714), U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, and to the Desk Officer, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, NE0B-3019, (3150-0018), Office of l
Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503.
1 Regulatory Flexibility Certification As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 605(b),
the Commission certifies that this rule does not have a significant economic The final rule impact on a substantial number of small entities.
establishes the procedures and requirements necessary to implements and supplement the FAR which will govern the acquisition of goods and services, by the NTC. To the extent that the final rule ef fects a small entity, it sets out provisions applicable to small business and to small, disadvantaged business concerns.
Backfit Analysis 15
1
/) c o l " 2-PC /2 i
NRC AC0 VISIT 10N REGULATION - RECORD OF RESPONSES - MAY 11. 1992 i
Raymond F. Fraley, Executive Director of Operations Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards Respondent: Mabel F. Lee Comments:
No Comments - verbal 10/28/91 B. Paul Cotter, Jr. Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Respondent: Elva Lions Comments:
No Comments - verbal 10/28/91 David C. Williams, Inspector General Respondent:
T. Barchi Comments:
Received 10/16/91 William C. Parler, General Council Respondents: Donald Hassell, Hudson Ragan, & Brian Kildee Comments:
Received 11/6/91 Recommended Revision in that the SEP limit its role to evaluation of the technical merits of proposals w/o a recommendation. NRCAR Sec. 2015.608 & 611.
Lloyd J. Donnelly, Administrator Office of Licensing Support System Administrator Respondent: Lynn Scatolini Comments:
Received 10/11/91 Substantial comments. Several were incorporated. Accepted.
Samuel J. Chilk Secretary of the Commission Respondent: S. Joosten Comments:
Received verbal - no comments 10/16/91 Ben B. Hayes, Director Office of Investigations Respondent: Joyce Weddle Comments:
No comments - verbal 10/29/91 Harold R. Denton, Director Office of Governmental and Public Affairs Respondent: F. Tobler Comments:
Received written memo - no comments 10/8/91 u
A
c
.e Michael Springer, Director Office of Consolidation Comments:
No comments - verbal 10/28/91 James Lieberman, Director Office of. Enforcement Respondents:
Ed Baker, Betty Summer Comments:
Verbal-no comments 10/04/91 Edward L. Jordan, Director Office for Analysis and Evaluation of Operational Data Respondent: G. Thompson Comments:
Received verbal - no comments, concurrence 10/16/91 William B. Kerr Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization and Civil Rights Comments: Received 10/8/91 Recommended that task-order-type contracts be subject to COI.
Paul E. Bird, Director Office of Personnel Respondent: F. Shields Comments:
Received verbal - no comments, concurrence 10/8/91 Robert M. Bernero, Director Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards Respondent: David T. Kinski Comments:
Written Comments 12/12/92 Request that the interpretation of COI be reconsidered.
Frank Gillespie, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Respondent: H. Polk Comments:
Received 10/4/91 Written comments concerning: C01; timely billing of Contractor Services, Access to Facilities and Fitness for Duty. (Language on Access facilities and Fitness for Duty was removed from Regulation See 5 - 92. Memo from Foster to Schwink.)
Eric S. Beckjord, Director Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Respondent: A. Burda Comments:
Received 10/17/91 Received written comments -- concerned with application of GCOI restrictions to task order contracts, concurrence.
Gerald F. Cranford, Director Office of Information and Resources Management Respondents: B. Shelton, Cranford Comments:
Received 10/16/91 and 10/18/91
._L
i Ronald Scroggins, Controller Respondents: Sharon Hudson, Lars Solander Comments:
Written Memo 11/01/91 no comments and concurrence.
Larry P. Cooper, Director Management Support Staff Office of Administration Comments: Received 10/21/91 Written comments suggesting that the designation AC01-2 be placed in the upper right-hand corner for each document to be placed in the Nuclear Document System.
Thomas T. Martin, Regional Administrator Region II Respondent: R.J. Gross Comments:
Received written memo, no comments 10/15/91 E. Bert Davis, Regional Administrator Region Ill Respondent: E. Wiggins Comments:
Received 10/16/91 Written Memo, no comments and concurrence.
Robert D. Martin, Regional Administrator I
Region IV Respondent:
G. Benoit Comments:
Received 10/16/91 Written memo, no comment and concurrence.
John B. Martin, Regional Administrator Division of Resource Management and Administration 1
Region V Respondent: K. Hamill Comments:
Received 10/16/91 Written memo, no comments and concurrence.
l i
.