ML20209B521
| ML20209B521 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 06/11/1986 |
| From: | Grimsley D NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION (ADM) |
| To: | Goller K NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REGULATORY RESEARCH (RES) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20209A892 | List:
|
| References | |
| FRN-49FR1205, RULE-PR-20 AA39-2-010, AA39-2-10, NUDOCS 8704280456 | |
| Download: ML20209B521 (2) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:,
- ,4 39-L PM 9
.7 UNITED STATES [ g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION .L WASHINGTON, D. C. 20655 JUN1fYM MEMORANDUM FOR: Karl R. Goller, Director Division of Radiation Programs and Earth Sciences Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research FROM: Donnie H. Grimsley, Director Division of Rules and Records Office of Administration
SUBJECT:
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION CONCURRENCE ON FINAL AMENDMENT TO 10 CFR PART 20 TO REQUIRE USE OF ACCREDITED PERSONNEL DOSIMETRY PROCESSORS The Division of Rules and Records, ADM, has reviewed and concurs in this final rulemaking subject to resolution of the following coments. A DRR-marked copy of the package is enclosed for your information. DRR is concerned that inclusion of the statement on page 18 of the draft Federal Registernotice("legalrulingsprohibittheapplicagionofdifferential fee structures based upon the size of the processor. ") will have an adverse effect upon implementation of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. Our concern arises on two accounts -- first, the Reg Flex Act specifically encourages agencies to tier the costs imposed upon small entities by their regulations to the extent possible. A statement such as the one quoted on page 18 is an overly broad denial of NRC's ability to comply with this requirement. Second, the line of cases cited in footnote 4 on page 18 arose from a situation in which NRC was regulating fees imposed upon its licensees, whereas in the dosimetry rule NRC i is not imposing fees upon the processors because it lacks jurisdiction to regulate non-licensees in this case. In this regard we have consulted Robert Fonner, Deputy Director, Regulations Division, OELD, who was counsel for the Federal Register notices cited in footnote 4 and who we believed was also counsel for this notice. Although he subsequently informed us he was not, he did raise some questions supporting DRR's concern and provided some alternative language for the first paragraph on page 18. He indicated in his attached mark up of page 18 certain important distinctions between the facts in the litigation surrounding the Part 170 rule and those in the current situation which we believe 4 deserve further consideration. The Coment Analysis portion of the preamble indicates that one coment letter received was a forgery. Without further explanation, the ancillary document, " Analysis of Coment" that is publicly available, lists " Comment 59. The Comonwealth of Massachusetts, University of Massachusetts (Forgery)." Because this statement without more detailed explanation could lead to people drawing erroneous inferences, we strongly suggest that all mention of this comment as well as the duplicates and the one coment deemed beyond the scope of the notice be deleted from this notice. We believe this would be justified and advisable because no use is made of these comments and the references to comment 59 might result in serious misunderstandings. 0704280456 870422 2 49 1205 PDR fjVI COC '/8 \\
f. l* JIE I I E Karl R. Goller The Sumary of Public Coments, beginning on page 14, should be reorganized to remove the "NRC overall position" paragraph that is bracketed on pages 15 and 16. This discussion is largely redundant of the discussion found on the bottom of page 13 and top of page 14. In addition, the coments are introduced on page 15; however, the discussion of these coments does not progress in the same sequence on pages 16 and 17. Furthermore, the coment concerning onsite NVLAP visits (page 15) is included at the end of the bracketed overview paragraph. We recomend relocating the last portion of the paragraph that discusses the onsite visits to the sequence of comments established on page 15. All of the enclosures that are related to this final rule and that are to be made available at the NRC's Public Document Room should bear the same heading as the final rule and should have the 10 CFR Part number on them as well. We noted that the Regulatory Analysis indicates that there are 14 small dosimetry processors, but in the Backfit Analysis, the figure given is 10. We wonder if the number in the Regulatory Analysis is a typo or if there should ) be some resolution of the two different numbers. As you know, a complete regulatory history must be compiled for each proposed and final rule which should consist of all documents of central relevance to a rulemaking. With this in mind, the rulemaking author should begin to place a unique identifier, in the case of this rule AA39-2, on the upper right hand corner of each document and indicate by placing PDR in the upper right-hand corner all documents that can be made publicly available, as explained in the enclosed guidance documents. Other comments are noted marginally. If you have any questions regarding DRR's review, please have a member of your staff telephone John Philips, Chief, Rules and Procedures Branch, DRR, ADM, on extension 27086 or Sarah Wigginton on extension 27752. 1 Donnie H. Grimsley, Director Division of Rules and Records Office of Administration
Enclosures:
As stated cc: Robert Fonner, ELD ff M'Y h UM ,-{ W w to , s. bc2-M ML 4 Ek % d %. a b u M o l N t4. -}}