ML20211P937
| ML20211P937 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 03/15/1999 |
| From: | Racquel Powell NRC |
| To: | Solander L NRC |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20211N634 | List:
|
| References | |
| FRN-64FR24531, RULE-PR-1, RULE-PR-100, RULE-PR-110, RULE-PR-2, RULE-PR-50, RULE-PR-51, RULE-PR-52, RULE-PR-60, RULE-PR-62, RULE-PR-7, RULE-PR-72, RULE-PR-75, RULE-PR-76, RULE-PR-9 AG07-1, AG07-1-025, NUDOCS 9909140140 | |
| Download: ML20211P937 (3) | |
Text
~
[ Sandra Nortilir~n~~R5:~UI555niihui NRC's P' u biic Documeni Rooms' Page 1, RGoJ-l From: Russell Powell To: Solander, Lars Date: .
Mon, Mar 15,199911:43 AM
Subject:
Re: Discontinue NRC's Public Document Rooms Thanks...yes we inadvertently left CFO off initial distribution for review / comment.
>>> Lars Solander 3/15/9911:27:48 AM >>>
Russell:
I just got this package for concurence; apparently OCFO was not on the original list of offices for comment. We have no comments.
Lars Solander, OCFO CC: Northern, Sandra i
s l
I. ,
1 9909140140 990908 !
~
/ :
1/04/YU/Y0 ._
fD
~
gcro7_f
..2 RESOLUTION OF COMMENTS RECEIVED ON DRAFT PROPOSED RULE AMENDING 10 CFR TO DISCONTINUE NRC'S LOCAL PUBLIC DOCUMENT ROOM PROGRAM AND TO ANNOUNCE THE ELECTRONIC AVAILABILITY OF NRC PUBLIC RECORDS Resolution of Comments Received from ADM ADM made several administrative, and editorial comments. As a result of these comments, changes were made where appropriate. Some of these changes were necessary to issue this action as a proposed rule instead of as a final rule as was originally intended.
Resolution of Comments Received from OClO
- 1. OClO suggested that the Paperwork Reduction Act Statement (PRAS) be replaced to reflect conclusion that the rule contains no new information collection requirements and that existing requirements are approved under the OMB approval numbera for Parts 9,50,51,52,60,62, 72,75,100 and 110. This change has been made. !
l
- 2. OClO made several administrative and editorial comments. As a result, changes were J made where appropriate. 1 Resolution of Comments Received from NRR 1
- 1. NRR noted that the Regulatory Analysis, as written,is somewhat sparse and could benefit i
' 3m listing or repeating the benefits of this action listed on pages 3 and 4. As a result of this suggestion, the Regulatory Analysis was rewritten.
- 2. NRR made several administrative and editorial comments. As a result, changes were made where appropriate.
Resolution of Comments Received from_OGQ
- 1. OGC suggested that in order to highlight the fact that these are conforming amendments to the Commission's regulations, the Notice should be revised to moro clearly indicate that the Commission's decision to end the LPDR Program was made as a part of the Commission's ]
normal program and budgeting responsibilities. (See
- for resolution.) i l
- 2. OGC suggested that this rule be issued as a proposed rule for public comment instead of as a final rule, providing a reasonable public comment period of thirty or forty-five days. (See
- for resolution.)
i 3 OGC suggested that @2.1007 reflect the most recent modifications. As a result, this was corrected to meet the changes in 63 Federal Reaister 71738 dated 12/30/98.
- 4. OGC suggested that Part 2 be changed to address appropriate subsections in the new 1 Subpart M. As a result, additions were made to incorporate appropriate subsections in new Subpart M as noted at M Federal Reaister 66730 dated 12/3/98.
....4 Resolution of Comments Received from ASLBP
- 1. ASLBP suggested a brief comment period before going to a final rule. (See
- for resolution.)
. 2. ASLBP suggested that the Regulatory Analysis be rewritten. As a result of comment received from NRR, the Regulatory Analysis was rewritten.
- 3. ASLBP stated concern of availability of pre-ADAMS documents. (See
- for resolution.) l l
'4. ASLBP questioned why a trial period was not provided for ADAMS before abandoning the )
LPDR Program. j I
i
- On January 26,1999, a meeting was held by Lynn Scattolini, IMD Director, to address the comments received from OGC and ASLBP, with Chip Cameron, OGC, Paul Bollwerk, and Lee l Dewey, ASLBP, and Russell Powell and Sandra Northern, IMD, in attendance. Comments, l questions, and concerns from both offices were discussed and cleared up.
it was agreed that; j i
The draft final rule would be revised to become a proposed rule with a forty-five j day public comment period.
-* The Notice would be rewritten with input and guidance from OGC to more clearly state objective and why we are taking public comment.
- - State clearly that when ADAMS is implemented and microfiche record production is discontinued, the current LPDRs will be offered the opportunity to keep the ,
existing document collections, including NRC-supplied paper documents, {
microfiche collection's and supporting equipment.
- Several copies of the complete pre-ADAMS microfiche collections would be ,
retained by NRC and stored for use in future adjudicatory or other proceedings. l These document collections would be made available for use in instances when l local access to such a collection would aid the efficient conduct of the l proceeding.
.