Common use of Agreement State Participation Clause in Contracts

Agreement State Participation. a. If the working group for the proposed rule included an Agreement State member, that same member should serve on the final rule working group as well. If an Agreement State member was not on the proposed rule working group but would like to be included in the final rule working group, that Agreement State member should coordinate participation through the OAS Director of Emerging Issues and Advocacy to participate in the final rule working group. At the request of the OAS Director of Rulemaking, the rulemaking project manager will draft an email to MSST management requesting that an Agreement State member be added to the final rule working group. This request will be coordinated through ASPB and transmitted through MSST management. Once an Agreement State member is assigned to the final rule working group, that member will have the roles and responsibilities listed in Section IV.I of this procedure. b. Upon completion of the draft final rule package, the Agreement States will have an opportunity to review and comment on the document. This review should typically be completed within 30 days, but the actual comment period will be coordinated with the OAS. This review will occur in parallel with the NRC interoffice concurrence process, and the rulemaking project manager will follow the procedures detailed in Step 7 of Appendix E of NMSS Policy and Procedure 6-10, “NMSS Procedures for Preparation and Review of Rulemaking Packages” (nonpublic), which are identical to the procedures detailed in Section V.C.2.b of this document. c. Once the final rule has been revised to consider the comments received, the rulemaking project manager should provide a copy of the final rule to the MSST State Regulations Review Coordinator if Agreement States will need to adopt the rule. This allows MSST to begin developing the material used for Agreement State adoption. MSST will issue an STC letter informing the Agreement States of the final rule publication and the required adoption date. This letter also includes two attachments, the “Chronology of Amendments” list and the “Summary of Change” document, detailing the specific revisions/additions included in the published final rule.

Agreement State Participation. a. If the working group for the proposed rule included an Agreement State member, that same member should serve on the final rule working group as well. If an Agreement State member was not on the proposed rule working group but would like to be included in the final rule working group, that An Agreement State member should coordinate participation through be considered to join a DFR working group. ASPB should consult with the OAS Director of Emerging Issues and Advocacy Rulemaking to participate in determine whether the final rule Agreement States would like to join the DFR working group. At the request of the OAS Director of RulemakingIn this case, the rulemaking project manager will draft an email to MSST management requesting that an Agreement State member be added to the final rule DFR working group. This request will be coordinated through ASPB and transmitted through MSST management. Once an Agreement State member is assigned to the final rule DFR working group, that member will have the roles and responsibilities listed in Section IV.I of this procedure. b. Upon completion of the draft final rule DFR package, the Agreement States will have an opportunity to review and comment on the documentdocuments. This review should typically be completed within 30 days, but the actual comment period will be coordinated with the OAS. This review will occur in parallel with the NRC interoffice concurrence process, process and the rulemaking project manager will should follow the procedures detailed in Step 7 6 of Appendix E F of NMSS Policy and Procedure 6-10, “NMSS Procedures for Preparation and Review of Rulemaking Packages” (nonpublic), which as follows: (i) The rulemaking project manager prepares a daily note (working with the NMSS technical assistant) to inform the Commission that the companion proposed rule and DFR are identical being provided to the procedures detailed in Section V.C.2.b of this documentAgreement States for review and comment. c. Once (ii) The rulemaking project manager prepares the draft FRNs for the companion proposed rule and DFR for distribution to the Agreement States. As the FRNs are still predecisional, they should be labeled as follows: PREDECISIONAL DRAFT INFORMATION INFORMATION FEDERALLY PROTECTED NOT FOR PUBLIC DISCLOSURE (iii) The rulemaking project manager prepares the RCPD letter for signature by the MSST Division Director. In preparing the RCPD letter, the rulemaking project manager must coordinate with the ASPB BC to establish a reasonable comment period length. Although the Agreement States typically have a 30-day comment period, the ASPB BC will coordinate with OAS to determine the requested due dates for Agreement State comments. For complex packages, the comment period may be longer. Any extensions should be granted by using a second RCPD letter prepared by the rulemaking project manager. (iv) The DRM administrative assistant places the RCPD letter and the marked draft FRNs in XXXXX. The RCPD letter with the draft FRNs will be provided to the Agreement States by e-mail through the use of the LYRIS software program electronic list servers. The rulemaking project manager announces the availability of the draft documents for Agreement State comment during the next NRC/OAS/CRCPD monthly call. (v) The rulemaking project manager, in concert with WG members, addresses comments received from the Agreement States and the SCC. The Commission paper should include a discussion of the staff’s disposition of Agreement State and SCC comments. If the Agreement States provide substantive comments and/or if the companion proposed rule and DFR have significant changes, the rulemaking project manager will resend the package to the appropriate divisions and offices to confirm their concurrences. (vi) If the companion proposed rule and the DFR have significant changes from the previous draft resulting from any level of concurrence after Agreement State review or from Commission review, the rulemaking project manager must coordinate with the ASPB to inform OAS of changes made before the final rule has been revised to consider version is published. (vii) The rulemaking project manager completes the RCPD response form (a table with information on which Agreement States provided comment). The form, along with the comments received, should be added to XXXXX following the DRM document log process. The form should be a single document and should not be made publicly available. c. The rulemaking project manager will prepare the STC letter to notify the Agreement States that the NRC is about to publish the DFR and companion proposed rule. The letter should encourage the Agreement State agencies to notify their affected licensees so that both the licensees and their respective State agencies can submit more informed comments on the DFR and companion proposed rule. d. The rulemaking project manager should provide a copy of the final DFR and companion proposed rule to the MSST State Regulations Review Coordinator if Agreement States will need to adopt the rule. This allows MSST to begin developing the material used for Agreement State adoption. MSST will issue an a STC letter informing the Agreement States of the final DFR and companion proposed rule publication and the required adoption date. This letter also date and includes two attachments, the “Chronology of Amendments” list and the “Summary of Change” document, detailing the specific revisions/additions included in the published direct final rule.

Agreement State Participation. a. If the working group for the proposed rule included an Agreement State member, that same member should serve on the final rule working group as well. If an An Agreement State member was not on the should be considered to join a proposed rule working group but would like to be included in if the final rule working group, that Agreement State member should coordinate participation States express an interest through the OAS Director of Emerging Issues and Advocacy to participate in the final rule working groupRulemaking. At the request of the OAS Director of RulemakingIn this case, the rulemaking project manager will draft an email to MSST management requesting that an Agreement State member to be added to the final proposed rule working group. This request will be coordinated through ASPB and transmitted through MSST management. Once an Agreement State member is assigned to the final proposed rule working group, that member will have the roles and responsibilities listed in Section IV.I of this procedure. b. Upon completion of the draft final proposed rule package, the Agreement States will have an opportunity to review and comment on the document. This review should typically be completed within 30 days, but the actual comment period will be coordinated with the OAS. This review will occur in parallel with the NRC interoffice concurrence process, and the rulemaking project manager will follow the procedures detailed in Step 7 6 of Appendix E of D to NMSS Policy and Procedure 6-10, “NMSS Procedures for Preparation and Review of Rulemaking Packages” (nonpublic), which are identical as follows: (i) The rulemaking project manager prepares a daily note (working with the NMSS technical assistant) to inform the Commission that the proposed rule is being provided to the procedures detailed in Section V.C.2.b of this documentAgreement States for review and comment. c. Once (ii) The rulemaking project manager prepares the final draft FRN for the proposed rule for distribution to the Agreement States. As the FRN is still predecisional, it should be labeled as follows: PREDECISIONAL DRAFT INFORMATION INFORMATION FEDERALLY PROTECTED NOT FOR PUBLIC DISCLOSURE The rulemaking project manager e-mails the marked draft FRN to OGC for review and then to the ASPB BC. The ASPB BC will provide the document to the SCC for review of the compatibility determination for the proposed rule. The SCC recommendation is included in the Commission paper in the Agreement State Issue section of the paper. The SCC has been revised a 30-day review period to consider decide whether the Committee agrees or disagrees on the compatibility designation and to provide any comments receivedthat the SCC may have on this matter. If the rulemaking project manager does not take the SCC’s suggested changes, the rulemaking project manager should provide discuss the rationale with DRM management and a copy discussion of the final rule to rationale should be included in any Commission paper in the Agreement State issues section of the paper. (iii) The rulemaking project manager prepares the RCPD letter for signature by the MSST State Regulations Review Coordinator if Division Director. In preparing the RCPD letter, the rulemaking project manager must coordinate with the ASPB BC to establish a reasonable comment period length. Although the Agreement States typically have a 30-day comment period, the ASPB BC will need coordinate with OAS to adopt determine the rule. This allows MSST to begin developing the material used requested due dates for Agreement State adoptioncomments. MSST For complex proposed rule packages, the comment period may be longer. Any extensions should be granted by using a second RCPD letter prepared by the rulemaking project manager. (iv) The DRM administrative assistant places the RCPD letter and the marked draft FRN in XXXXX. The RCPD letter with the FRN as an attachment will issue an STC letter informing be provided to the Agreement States by e-mail using the LYRIS software program electronic list servers. The rulemaking project manager announces the availability of the final rule publication draft document for Agreement State comment during the next NRC/OAS/CRCPD monthly call. (v) The rulemaking project manager, in concert with WG members, addresses comments received from the Agreement States and the required adoption dateSCC. This letter also includes two attachmentsThe Commission paper should include a discussion of the staff’s disposition of Agreement State and SCC comments. If the Agreement States provide substantive comments and/or if the proposed rule has significant changes, the “Chronology rulemaking project manager will resend the package to the appropriate divisions and offices to confirm their concurrences. (vi) If the proposed rule has significant changes resulting from any level of Amendments” list concurrence after Agreement State review or from Commission review, the rulemaking project manager will coordinate with the ASPB BC to inform OAS of changes made before the proposed rule is published. (vii) The rulemaking project manager completes the RCPD response form (a table with information on which Agreement States provided comment). The form, along with the comments received, should be added to XXXXX following the DRM document log process. The form should be a single document and should not be made publicly available. c. Once the Commission has approved the proposed rule for publication, the rulemaking project manager will prepare a State and Tribal communications (STC) letter to notify the Agreement States and the “Summary of Change” documentFederally recognized Tribes, detailing if appropriate. The letter should encourage the specific revisions/additions included in Agreement State agencies to notify their affected licensees so that both the published final rulelicensees and their respective State agencies can submit more informed comments on the proposed rule and any associated guidance.

Agreement State Participation. a. If the working group for the proposed rule included an Agreement State member, that same member should serve on the final rule working group as well. If an Agreement State member was not on the proposed rule working group but would like to be included in the final rule working group, that An Agreement State member should coordinate participation be considered to join a working group during the regulatory basis stage if the Agreement States express an interest in participating on the working group through the OAS Director of Emerging Issues and Advocacy to participate in the final rule working groupRulemaking. At the request of the OAS Director of RulemakingIn this case, the rulemaking project manager will draft an email to MSST management requesting that an Agreement State member be added to the final rule working groupgroup during the regulatory basis stage. This request will be coordinated through ASPB and transmitted through MSST management. Once an Agreement State member is assigned to the final rule working group, that This member will join the working group once the schedule and milestones for development of the regulatory basis have the roles and responsibilities listed in Section IV.I of this procedurebeen determined but before regulatory basis language is drafted. b. Upon completion of the draft final rule packageregulatory basis, the Agreement States will have an opportunity to review and comment on the document. This review should typically be completed within 30 days, but the actual comment period will be coordinated with the OAS. This review will occur in parallel with the NRC interoffice concurrence process, and the rulemaking project manager will follow the procedures detailed in similar to Step 7 6 of Appendix E D of NMSS Policy and Procedure 6-10, “NMSS Procedures for Preparation and Review of Rulemaking Packages” (nonpublic), which are identical as follows: (i) The rulemaking project manager prepares a daily note (working with the NMSS technical assistant) to inform the Commission that the draft regulatory basis is being provided to the procedures detailed in Section V.C.2.b of this documentAgreement States for review and comment. c. Once (ii) The rulemaking project manager prepares the final rule has been revised draft Federal Register notice (FRN) and draft regulatory basis for distribution to consider the comments receivedAgreement States. The predecisional document should be labeled as follows: PREDECISIONAL DRAFT INFORMATION INFORMATION FEDERALLY PROTECTED NOT FOR PUBLIC DISCLOSURE (iii) The rulemaking project manager sends the draft FRN through e-mail to OGC for review and then to the ASPB Branch Chief. (iv) The rulemaking project manager may prepare the Agreement State Radiation Control Program Director (RCPD) letter. In preparing the Agreement State RCPD letter, the rulemaking project manager would coordinate with the ASPB Branch Chief to establish a reasonable comment period length. This review should provide typically be completed within 30 days, but the actual comment period will be coordinated with the OAS. For complex packages, the comment period may be longer. Any extensions should be granted through the issuance of a copy second Agreement State RCPD letter prepared by the rulemaking project manager. (v) The DRM administrative assistant places the Agreement State RCPD letter (if applicable), the marked draft FRN, and the draft regulatory basis in XXXXX. This package is sent to the Agreement States through e-mail using the LYRIS software program electronic list servers. The rulemaking project manager announces the availability of the final rule to the MSST State Regulations Review Coordinator if Agreement States will need to adopt the rule. This allows MSST to begin developing the material used draft documents for Agreement State adoptioncomment during the next NRC/OAS/CRCPD monthly teleconference. (vi) The rulemaking project manager and the rulemaking working group members address comments received from the Agreement States. MSST will issue an STC letter informing The Commission paper should discuss the staff’s disposition of Agreement State comments. If the Agreement States provide substantive comments or if the draft regulatory basis has significant changes, the rulemaking project manager reissues the package to the appropriate divisions and offices for reconcurrence. (vii) If the draft regulatory basis has significant changes, the rulemaking project manager will coordinate with the ASPB Branch Chief to inform OAS of changes made before the final rule publication draft regulatory basis is published. (viii) The rulemaking project manager completes the RCPD Comments Received response form (see NMSS Administrative Procedure Approval, “Format for STC and RCPD Letters,” AD-200, Appendix G). Either the rulemaking project manager or the DRM administrative assistant adds the form and the required adoption datecomments received to XXXXX. This letter also includes two attachments, the “Chronology of Amendments” list The documents should be scanned as a single document and the “Summary of Change” document, detailing the specific revisions/additions included in the published final ruleshould not be made publicly available.