ML20217H357
| ML20217H357 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 07/09/1997 |
| From: | Bell H NRC OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL (OIG) |
| To: | Galante A NRC |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20217H029 | List: |
| References | |
| FRN-62FR46922, RULE-PR-9 AF78-1-010, NUDOCS 9910220113 | |
| Download: ML20217H357 (2) | |
Text
c 1
o.,,
UNITED STATES
.N 8, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
~ ~ ~
o C,
E WASHINGTON. D.C. 20555-0001
\\..... p July 9,1997 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL MEMORANDUM TO:
Anthony J. Galante Chief Information Officer l
FROM:
Hubert T. Bell /
du[ J^Mpp Inspector General
\\
SUBJECT:
PROPOSED RULE AMENDING 10 CFR PART 9, SUBPART A - FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT REGULATIONS The inspector General Act requires that my office review statutes, regulations and policies to make recommendations concerning the impact of these statutes, regulations and policies on agency programs and operations. The purpose of this review is to analyze and comment on their effect on the economy and efficiency of programs and operations administered by the agency.
In accordance with that statutory obligation, we have reviewed the PROPOSED RULE AMENDING 10 CFR PART 9, SUBPART A - FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT, (FOlA),
REGULATIONS. Our comments and concems regarding the proposed rule are discussed below.
As a preliminary matter, some of the logistical aspects of implementing the statute will need
'o be addressed, if not in this document, then in others, For example, measurement of time for deletion of material; and disposition of information on disks which is not related to the request. In addition, it would be helpful to provide more comprehensive definitions of the practical terms used in the rule. For instance, definition of a " completed" FOlA, and the date established for when " disclosure" occurs.
The substantive comments in this regulatory review address consistency and clarity within the proposed rule,' as well as provisions which are applicable to the Office of the Inspector General (OlG) functions in administering the FOlA. An initial concem relates to the economic impact statement reflected in the Regulatory Analysis on page 12: "The proposed rule would not have any adverse impact on any class of licensees or the NRC.. " This statement does not appear to be consistent with the November 7,1996, Office of General Counsel analysis which states, on page 3, that: 'The NRC staff believes this provision will require the NRC to develop both a capability and a discipline for maintaining records in electronic form or have the capability to prepare an electronic version when required. This presents both a daunting 9910220113 991020
(
f g
~
and an immediate challenge for the NRC staff to devise a plan to meet this requirement." An 1 1 '"
additional concern with the analysis in the proposed rule is that it is illogical, without g.
justification or support, to state that establishment and implementation of a new set of f
processes and procedures will be without economic impact.
2
\\Y.
1.
On page 21, Section 9.17, " Agency records exempt from public disclosure," paragraoh (c),
9, ;} ' " ' g,#
appears to address the authority to issue a "Glomar" response, that is, neither admitting nor tj T. ',
Y d's r denying the existence of the r.ecords. However, this is not entirely clear from the language used in the proposed ru!e and needs clarification.
Another area which is unclear is the description of the denial process on pages 34 and 35.
Section 9.29 (a) identifies three matters for appeal: denial of access to records; denial of fee
((j.h j
waivers requests; and requests for expedited processing. This paragraph continues to describe part of the process for appeal of access. Paragraph (2) then shifts to procedures for denial of reduction in fees and paragraph (3) seems to contain general guidance for
" denials" in general. Denial for expedited processing, which is on page 9, is not addressed or referenced in this section at all. Reorganization of this important section will aid in compliance with the statute.
I'
-m i '--
There are two matters in the proposed r'le which dii'ectlyq'r tivolve OlG functions. First, pag u
35 incorrectly includes the Assistadt inspector General fo Audits as a denial authority. This provision should be deleted. Also, on page 33, section 9.27 of the proposed rule states that,
" NRC will normally place copies of ag6ncy records disclosed...in the Public Document Room, (PDR)." Although this provision allows the OlG discretion to not place records disclosed under its authority in the PDR, it would be less ambiguous to state that OlG records are not routinely placed in the PDR.
Finally, the "an" on page 10, should be "a."
Please provide us with a copy of the revised rule. If you have questions regarding this matter, my point of contact is Maryann L. Grodin, she may be reached at 415-5945.
C O