ML20197C631
| ML20197C631 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 12/11/1985 |
| From: | Philips J NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION (ADM) |
| To: | Dwyer P NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20197C372 | List: |
| References | |
| FRN-49FR30726, RULE-PR-50, RULE-PR-73 AA36-2-032, AA36-2-32, AB17-2-30, NUDOCS 8611060316 | |
| Download: ML20197C631 (2) | |
Text
I J y"% jf _ , ,,
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION gg$9 q
{ s, g WASHINGTON, D, C. 20555 g/-
.:. y p
%, +..../
DEC 111985 MEMORANDUM FOR: Priscilla A. Dwyer Division of Safeguards Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards FROM: John Philips, Chief Rules and Procedures Branch Division of Rules and Records
SUBJECT:
SECY-85-381, " INSIDER SAFEGUARDS RULES" The Division of Rules and Records (DRR) has reviewed the above SECY paper, and we enclose a marked copy for your information. DRR has a number of. observations regarding the Insider Package.
At the present time, there are four petitions for rulemaking (PRMs) that are related to this rule and are pending Commission action. These PRMs are 73-2, 73-3, 73-7, and 73-8. Currently, the agenda entries for these PRMs indicate that they are being incorporated into the Insider Package. If this is the case, you will need to include a brief description of each petition and indicate how the rules, as presented in final form, either grant, partially grant, or deny each of the petitions. We will be happy to provide you with sample text to help you construct your paragraphs.
We have been informed by TIDC that this rulemaking package cannot be approved for publication until OMB has approved the package.
On October 21, 1985, the "Backfit" rule (550.109) became effective (see 50 FR 38097 dated September 20,1985). A statement of the determination made by the backfit analysis must now be included in the preamble of each proposed or final rule. The statement entitled "BACKFIT ANALYSIS" should now follow the
" REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY CERTIFICATION" statement. We recommend that you follow the form being established by the staff to include a statement such as the following.
BACKFIT ANALYSIS As required by 10 CFR 50.109 (50 FR 38097), the Commission has completed a backfit analysis for this final rule. The Commission has determined, based on this analysis, that backfitting to comply with the requirements of this final rule is justified because imposition of the requirements imposed by this rule will result in a substantial increase in the overall protection of the public health and safety or the common defense and security. The backfit analysis is available for inspection or copying for a fee at 1717 H Street, NW, Washington, DC.
8611060316 861104 PDR PR 50 49FR30726 PDR
(
), 4 Priscilla A. Dwyer DEC 111985 In many cases, this analysis need be only a brief two-page document. The infor-nation needed to address the nine factors required by E50.109(c) can usually be taken from the regulatory analysis.
We note an inconsistency in record retention schedules in Enclosure A. On pages 55 and 56, there is a two-year schedule, and on page 67, there is a three-year schedule. We are uncertain whether this inconsistency is deliberate or not.
In many places, corrections have been made where the words "shall" and "must" were inaccurately used (see pages 251 and 252 of NRC Regulations Handbook).
j However, there were still many places where those changes had not been made in this current draft. Except as otherwise noted, in every place that has parentheses around the word "shall," the correct word to use is "must." We have attempted to identify every place that that occurs.
In each rule, you indicate that there is a regulatory analysis available for public inspection. However, each regulatory analysis is in fact a Value/ Impact 1 Statement which follows the old format, since superseded by the Regulatory l Analysis Guidelines (NUREG/BR-0058, May 1984). While the RAGS are similar in format to the old Value/ Impact Statements, some of the old boilerplate language is out of date. This is especially true for the Environmental statements found on page 18 of Enclosure A-5 and page 7 of Enclosure C-4 Part 51 was completely revised in 1984 and the referenced section in the Value/ Impact Statements no longer exists.
In a previous comment memo (dated August 15,1985), we recommended that the update of the access lists in Enclosure C be carried out on the last working day of each calendar month. On page 6 of Enclosure C-1, this recommendation was taken. However, on pages 7 and 14 of Enclosure C-1, the reference to 31 1 days has been retained. We continue to recommend that you use the language found on page 6 of Enclosure C-1. (.WEcic W/ JCE Other grammatical comments have been made marginally. We did note in many places that we found typographical errors that were not made in the last draft we reviewed, apparently due to retyping portions of this current draft.
If you have any questions or comments regarding DRR's review, please call me on extension 27086 or Sarah Wigginton on extension 27752.
\ ~
JohMPhilips, Chief Rules and Procedures Branch Division of Rules and Records Office of Administration
Enclosure:
As stated
- --r-- r , ,c, >w -, .m-