ML20211K191
| ML20211K191 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 08/30/1996 |
| From: | Treby S NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC) |
| To: | Morrison D NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REGULATORY RESEARCH (RES) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20008B475 | List:
|
| References | |
| FRN-62FR6664, RULE-PR-2, RULE-PR-40, RULE-PR-70, RULE-PR-76 AF56-2-015, AF56-2-15, NUDOCS 9710090171 | |
| Download: ML20211K191 (1) | |
Text
m . - - . __ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . . . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ - _ _ . . _ - _ _ _ . _ . . . _ _ . -
I
/e r
- Stog* UNITED STATES cc: Mo M s a-
~
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMIS UON M i
g
~
WASHINGTON, D.C 70$$$-0001 4 August 30, 1996
%, e . . . . /[
NG, Jr.
Of flCC OF THE )-
Ct Nil %L COUNSEL
, Q, ,
MEMORANDUM TO: David L. Morrison, Director Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research PROM: Stuart A. Treby Assistant General Counsel for
, [ ;
' "~
Rulemaking and ruel Cycle [
SUBJECT:
RULEMAKING PLAN - USEC PRIVATIZATION ACT We have reviewed the draft Rulemaking Plan on the USEC Privatization Act-and would request that the following statement
- be includad under_the heading "OGC Legal' Analysis"
- '
"The_ proposed rulemaking revisions.are directly tied to the '
statutory directives of the USEC Privatization Act. Furthermore, the riature of the statutory provisions do not provide the NRC with much discretion over how these provisions.should be implemented. Consequently, OGC believes that the use of a direct final rule is an appropriate mechanism for promulgating this rule. However, as a general proposition-for any direct final rule, the NRC cannot chooce to issue a^ final rule for those provisions of'the direct final ru'emaking package that do not i
receive critical comment, while using the proposed rule mechanism for those provisions that do.~ Thu rulemaking provisions must be
- . treated as a unified and indivisible package-for purposes of the l direct = final rule 1 concept. In all other respects, OGC has not L identified any potential legal complications or known' bases for a l legal objection to the rulemaking."
! In addition _to inserting the above paragraph, we request the-following: change to the draf t Plan. The draft: Plan now includes l the statement that "(n]o changes are therefore required to Part-70'to-license an AVLIS facility". This statement shouli be
" . revised to indicate that conforming changes to 10 CFR Part 70 may
.be required to ensure that AVLIS is clear?y included within the definition of " uranium enrichment facility".
9710090171 971003 PDR PR
!'. 2 62FR6664 PDR l s i ov v _q v s ,y s -
. _ . . . . - . - . - :-- - + - - < - - - - - ,