ML20209C092
| ML20209C092 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 01/13/1986 |
| From: | Philips J NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION (ADM) |
| To: | Nellis D NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REGULATORY RESEARCH (RES) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20209A892 | List:
|
| References | |
| FRN-49FR1205, RULE-PR-20 AA39-2-024, AA39-2-24, NUDOCS 8704280585 | |
| Download: ML20209C092 (3) | |
Text
'
- j
/f A.E 9- ?.
AD/l ec o
UNITED STATES
~g
[
g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION M
O p
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20E55
- /
=%
v4 PINORANDUM FOR:
Donald O. Nellis Division of Radiation Programs and Earth Sciences Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research j
FROM:
John Philips, Chief Rules and Procedures Branch Division of Rules and Records Office of Administration
/
SUBJECT:
10 CFR PART 20, " IMPROVED PERSONNEL 00SIMETRY PROCESSING" - DRAFT FINAL RULE This will confim our recent discussion regarding the cross reference, incor-poration by reference, and paperwork statement problems that were found in the' dra'ft rulemaking package regarding personnel dosimetry processing.
s By virtue of the ' cross reference to 15 CFR Part 7 (National Bureau of Standdrds, DOC), it appeared that the NRC, through NBS's regulations, was levying an information collection and/or :er.crting requirement on the personnel dosimetry processors who are now required to be accredited through the NVLAP program of N9S before the NRC licensees may utilize their services. After discussions'with you, other members of the NRC staff, and the staff of the NVLAP program at NBS, the following understanding has been reached.
s 1.
OMB has approved the NBS program insofar as its regulations have an impact on laboratories already under its umbrella.
For those laboratories who will come under its program in 'the future, OMB has granted a grace period for collection of the information regarding reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Therefore, if the Personnel Dolimetry rulemaking is completed in early 1986, there will be approximately 1 year's grace given for NBS to collect the requisite information. Thereafter, NBS will obtain additional approvals for information collections under this program from OMB. This means that the NRC regulations will not impose information collection requirements on the personnel dosimetry l
processors; rather, these will be imposed through NBS's regulations in 15 CFR Part 7.
2.'
NBS has recommended that the ANSI standard not be incorporated by i
reference into NRC's regulations.
Instead, NBS will incorporats it into the y
NVLAP procedures and, thusf accomplish the same goal.
2 i
t i
f G704280585 870422 i
PDR PR r'
20 49Fft1205 PDR
(
Woy28'C GM
9 o
JM 10 EG Donald 0. Nellis Therefore, the Paperwork Reduction Act Statement, as corrected in our marked-up copy (sent to you on December 23,1985) is the correct statement to use.
On October 21, 1985, the "Backfit" rule became effective.
It appeared in the September 20, 1985, copy of the Federal Register beginning on page 38097. The rule defined backfitting, in part, as any modification or addition to a facility or procedures or organization required to design, construct, or operate the facility. A statement of the determination made by the backfit analysis must now be included in the preamble of each proposed or final rule.
(This requirement was stressed in the December 31, 1985, memorandum for William J. Dircks from Samuel J. Chilk, regarding the Station Blackout rule.)
The statement entitled "BACKFIT ANALYSIS" should now follow the " REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY CERTIFICATION (or STATEMENT)" if one is present or the " REGULATORY ANALYSIS" statement. The attached sheet indicates the two statements that have been adopted as boilerplate statements depending on the nature of the rulemaking.
In many cases, the analysis need be only a brief two-page document. The information needed to address the nine factors required by
$50.109(c) can usually be taken from the regulatory analysis.
If you have any questions, please call me on extension 27086 or Sarah Wigginton on extension 27752.
u
, Philips, Chief Rules and Procedures Branch Division of Rules and Records Office of Administration
Enclosure:
As stated cc:
Steve Scott, TIDC Barry Pineles, ELD
~
e' The statement should read for most rules that "substantially increase safety"
{
at a " justifiable cost":
i:
As required by 10 CFR 950.109 (50 FR 38097), the Comission has completed a backfit analysis for the proposed (or final) rule.
The Comission has determined, based on this analysis, that back-fitting to comply with the requirements of this proposed (or final) rule is justified. The backfit analysis is available for inspection or copying for a fee a 1717 H Street, NW., Washington, D.C.
The statement should read for rules for which backfitting cannot be justified:
As required by 10 CFR 950.109 (50 FR 38097), the Comission has completed a backfit analysis for this proposed (or final) rule.
The Comission has determined, based on this analysis, that this proposed (or final) rule does not meet the standards under 10 CFR 550.109(a)(3) necessary to require backfitting with its requirements.
However, the Comission has decided to promulgate the rule for the following reasons.
(State the reason, which would vary -- for example.
the requirements of this rule are prospective and, therefore, back-fitting is not required; or, a special circumstance exists for this rule whereby not complying with its procedural requirements would conflict with other statutes with which the NRC must comply. There-fore, the Comission concludes that the procedural requirements imposed by this rule shall be met.) The backfit analysis is available for inspection or copying for a fee at 1717 H Street, NW., Washington, D.C.
!/
i l
ll 1