ML20128Q171
| ML20128Q171 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 06/12/1995 |
| From: | Shelton B NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM) |
| To: | Lesar M NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION (ADM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20007C611 | List: |
| References | |
| FRN-60FR48623, FRN-60FR4872, RULE-PR-20, RULE-PR-35 AF10-2-015, AF10-2-15, NUDOCS 9605150038 | |
| Download: ML20128Q171 (1) | |
Text
W- u - ..m
- 'o,, UNITED STATES 4 C. 2.(l 8
8 o
I NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTOtt D. C. 20555
[ -
-}
Og .# -s
s , , e
- f[ S June 12, 1995 MEMORANDUM TO: Michael T. Lesar. Chief Rules Review Section Rules Review and Directives Branch Division of Freedom of Information and Publications Services Office of Admin 13tga n FROM: a ton, Chief Information and Records Management Branch Office of Information Resources Management
SUBJECT:
REQUEST FOR COMMENT AND CONCURRENCE ON A FINAL RULE ENTITLED, " MEDICAL ADMINISTRATION OF RADIATION AND RADI0 ACTIVE MATERIALS" (10 CFR PARTS 20 AND 35)
In response to your subject request, the Information and Records Management Branch (IRMB) provides the following:
X The Paperwork Reduction Act Statement (PRAS) is correct. l l
Change the PRAS to Attachment 1. l N/A The "Information Collection Requirements: OMB Approval" section is correct. 1 Do not publish the " Federal Register Notice" until further notice.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 l addressing our concerns. ;
1 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.
cc: S. McGuire, RES I
l i
X /t - / b
( o f(EO o 3 b l p*
cc: Glenn y.
f' %,t
-> UNITED STATES McGuire a E NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Morris 5 4! WASHINGTON, D.C. 2055tH21 p Fi10 dm June 13, 1995 -
%*se,* - ~
- f3 MEMORANDUM 10: David L. Morrison, Direc or Office of Nuclear Regulatory Reseayc,h FROM: Richard L. Bangart, Director '
x Office of State Programs c [t (c.< g f k ((itr p c t l
SUBJECT:
OFFICE REVIEW AND CONCURRENCE ON A FINAL RULE - MEDICAL ADMINISTRATION OF RADIATION AND RADI0 ACTIVE MATERIALS This is in response to your May 30, 1995, memorandum on the subject document. We have reviewed the final rule as it applies to the Agreement States through compatibility requirements. We concur without comment.
CONTACT: LLOYD BOLLING, OSP 415-2327
.gt o\
hh b 1 $^ N lf-
/)
^
t- ice + ,gpg UNITED STATES j_ g
- (gtA" afoug,o,% NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION., Morris WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 cc: G1enn G !! Schneider June 16, 1995 McGuire
. . . . . p# File OFFICE OF THE .
dm GENERAL COUNSEL MEMORANDUM T0: David L. Morrison, Director Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research .
FROM: Stuart A. Treby pf Associate General Counsel for Rulemaking and Fuel Cycle ,
SUBJECT:
COMMENTS ON DRAFT FINAL RULE - ADMINISTRATION OF RADIATION AND RADI0 ACTIVE MATERIALS (WRONG PATIENT RULE)
We have reviewed the Commission paper and final amendments to 10 CFR ,
Parts 20 and 35 which address administration of radiation and radioactive materials, including administration to the incorrect individual. One typographic error is noted on page 9 of the Federal Register Notice (page 9 I
attached). 0GC has no legal objection to the final rule subject to the change noted above.
Attachment:
As stated l l
J l
)
i a
OS t q g
.lj [ c ? ] L b A cL$ lff- )
[
by part 35 rather than part 20. The ACMUI stated that notification of an individual of an error in administration below the misadministration threshold is the current medical practice and should not be regulated. A transcript of the meeting has been placed in and is available for examination at the NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L St. NW. (Lower level), Washington, DC.
VI. Coordination with and Issue of Compatibility for Agreement States.
This rulemaking was discussed with representatives of Agreement States at a meeting in Portland, ME, on October 24, 1994. The States were polled on 3
how they regulated an administration to the wrong individuai, and it was found that they appear to regulate such administrations consistent with this rule.
Two States commented on the rule, and both fully supported the rule.
The NRC believes that the modification of part 20 should be a Division 1 matter of compatibility consistent with past practice of requiring basic definif. ions to be essentially identical for effective communication of basic radir. tion concepts. One Agreement State commenting on the compatibility issue supported a Division 1 level. Another Agreement State supported Division 1 compatibility "provided that Division I compatability means the intent, but not the lanauaae must be identical."
l VII. Finding of No Significant Environmental Impact.
The NRC has determined under the National Environmental Policy Act of ;
1969, as amended, and the ommission's regulations in Subpart A of part 51, that this rule is not a major Federal action significantly affecting the Draft: May 26, 1995 9 Attachment 1