ML20128N184
| ML20128N184 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 07/19/1995 |
| From: | Haisfield M NRC |
| To: | Cant G, Lewis S NRC |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20128N048 | List:
|
| References | |
| FRN-61FR43406, FRN-61FR43409, RULE-PR-2, RULE-PR-51 AF43-2-006, AF43-2-6, NUDOCS 9610160318 | |
| Download: ML20128N184 (4) | |
Text
. _ __ - . .. - . _ _ _ .- . . _ _ . ..
A'F43-2.
l
~)
From: Mark F. Haisfield (MFH)
To: GDC, SHL l
Date: Wednesday, July 19, 1995 2:15 pm subject: Request for Rulemaking l
l Attached is a 1st draft of a rulemaking plan to make the i corrections noted in Mr. Lieberman's June 29th memo. These planning documents are new, and I'm not sure what is exactly needed to get them through the system. I would appreciate any comments / corrections you have.
After the 3 of us are satisfied (and any body else you think is necessary), I would like to get this moving through RES, and then out for official Office concurrence. Thank.
CC: RCA Files: P:\2\pp s.
M i
l I
9610160318 961009 PDR PR 2 61FR43406 PDR
- f. ] \ j'/'
Rulemaking Plan Minor Corrections to Reflect Enforcement Changes Reaulatory Issue Two minor changes are needed: the first would remove the requirement for licensee response to a Notice of Violation in cases where the staff believes the licensee has already adequately addressed the issue on the docket, and second, to remove all references to 10 CFR Part 2, Appendix C since this appendix (General Statement of Policy and F. :edures for NRC Enforcement Actions) has been removed from the CFR.
How the Reaulatory Problem Will be Addressed By Rulemakina .
- 1. 10 CFR 2.201(a) would be modified by providing the staff discretion regarding Notices of Violation responses. '4
- 2. 10 CFR 2.8(b), "Information collection requirements: OMB approval" and 10 CFR 51.10(d), " Purpose and scope of subpart; application of regulations of Council on Environmental Quality" make reference to the now removed Appendix C. These references will be removed from the CFR.
OMB has approved the information collection requirements of NRC Enforcement Policy. This approval is required whether the collection requirement is in the CFR or not. Therefore, removing the CFR reference noting the approval is an administrative change. Section 51.10(d) notes that administrative or judicial civil or criminal enforcement actions or proceedings are not subject to NEPA. The section further mentions examples of the type of actions included, and then states "...any other matters covered by Appendix C..." Therefore, removing the CFR reference would have no impact and is an administrative change.
Assessment of likelv Impacts on Licensees mO The first change could provide a minor burden reduction to licensees since there may be a reduction in redundant requests for information. ,
The administrative changes to remove CFR references are administrative ,l
-and:woulghavenoimpactonlicensees.
- t '
Assessment of Cost Effectiveness Only minor NRC resources will be needed to make these changes.
0GC leaal Analysis 1
I
These are minor and administrative changes. No-knownrbasis exists for-a--
g legal objection to the recommended changes.
03c p;, r.s j aareement State Imolementation Problems No known Agreement State problems exist.
Suocortina Documents This rulemaking will require a simple Regulatory Impact Analysis noting that the changes are minor or administrative. A slight burden reduction may occur as a result of allowing staff discretion in not requiring followup documents. No backfit analysis or 0MB Paperwork analysis will be needed. No Environmental Assessment will be needed since these changes are categorical exclusions under 10 CFR 51.22(c)(1) and (2).
Resources Needed One quarter FTE No contractor support dollars Lead Office Staff and Staff From Supoortina Offices Project Manager: Mark Haisfield, RES User office cognizant staff: Geoffrey Cant, OE OGC cognizant staff: Stephen Lewis Steerina Group /Workina Group No steering or working group will be used on this rulemaking, wj' as .sks sbu Mmh Enhanced Public Particioation i
This rulemaking will use Electronic Bulletin Boards, as appropriate, to !
enhance input from the public. I i
E00 or Commission Issuance It is recommended that the ED0 issue the proposed and final rule as directed by SECY on June 16, 1995. This action does not constitute a significant question of policy, and falls within the ED0's authority. If a significant issue is raised during the public comment period, a SECY Paper ,
could be prepared for the final rule. !
i 2
l l
l
)
. - - . - . - . . _ . . . - . . - - . . - . - - - - . . ~ . - . - - . - - . - - . _ . . .
4 l
! i 1
i Schedule t i
Approval by the ED0 of the Program Plan to initiate
! rulemaking October 1995 l
- ' y ,WL Proposed rulemaking package for Office concurrence December 1995 '
' Proposed rulemaking package to the ED0 January 1996 i i Proposed rule published (45 day comment period) February 1996
! Final rule published July 1996 i
i l
d 5
i i
i s
i i
J I
i i
i i
I e
i-i 2
4
! 3 d
L .. . _