ML20126A884
| ML20126A884 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 11/13/1992 |
| From: | Curtiss J NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Chilk S NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9212210279 | |
| Download: ML20126A884 (2) | |
Text
- - . -- . -- - -.. -..
i NOTATIO_H -
V 0 T E .: (BELEASED TO THE PDR !<l
} _g, , cp, _f RESPONSE SHEEI ;,,,,g)jpt r~
, , , , , , , , , , jffh , , , g ' -
T0: SAMUEL J. CHILK, SECRETARY OF THE C0t44ISSION FROM: COR4ISSIONER CURTISS
SUBJECT:
SECY-92-341 - AMENDMENT TO RULE GOVERNING-PROPRIETARY AND COPYRIGHT SUBMISSIONS X
APPROVED w/ comments DISAPPROVED ABSTAIN
-i NOT PARTICIPATING REQUEST DISCUSSION C0W4ENTS:
See attached comments.
.9212210279 921113 f L ORRES N EN E PDR [d* -
U SIGNATURE November 13, 1992
/X ,/
DATE -
WITHHOLD VOTE
/ /-
x ENTERED:ON "AS" YES NO_ cf u
]
.:{ '
.I e
9 >
Commissioner Curtisw' comments on SECY-92-3411-For purposes of noticing the proposed rule changes for public comment, I would approve-the recommended Option 2 for Issues'l' and 2, and Option 4 for-Issue 3.
As to the specific proposal for dealing with Issue 1, I am concerned that a delay on our part in making _a timely-determination regarding-the-proprietary clain of the party submitting the document, or a-delay in returning a document that we decline to treat as proprietary, may lead to a situation where the document ends up being released while it is in'our possession, undergoing what may turn out to be a lengthy review process. To address this potential problem, I would propose that .
we direct the staff to develop internal procedures that will tj ensure that we --
- 1) expeditiously determine whether documents for which the submitter requests proprietary treatment should be withhold from public disclosure; and
- 2) promptly ascertain whether the submitter would like its document returned in those cases where the NRC denies the submitter's request for l proprietary treatment and/or withholding.
As an additional safeguard, I believe that our. internal ,
procedures should provide for return of the document to the' submitter where -- (a) NRC denies the submitter's request for propriotary treatment, (b) the submitter requests that the l'
document be returned, (c) the NRC does not need to retain the document to carry out its health and safety.and/or regulatory responsibilities, and (d) the document is not " captured" by any pending FOIA request. These procedures should provide for return-of the document before the agency relies on_the document as the basis for a final-rule, the-staff submits the document to an advisory committee, or the document is considered by the Commission in an open' Commission meeting under the Sunshine Act.
h
?
2