ML19219A598
| ML19219A598 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 02/09/1981 |
| From: | Dircks W NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19219A599 | List: |
| References | |
| REF-10CFR9.7, TASK-RIA, TASK-SE SECY-81-100, NUDOCS 8102260120 | |
| Download: ML19219A598 (2) | |
Text
.
s
~
4 2
k-,d,
February 9,1931 SECY-31-109 t
j RULEMAKING ISSUE g'N
( Affirmation) jf, {c.r n ;;,
'N
/x cw r j e ;)
,\\
e-
- ue, ;
4_ ;
1 &_
i
- mt
.c 3 y-t.i
/
s,
G.,
5 For:
The Commissioners xs From:
William J. Dircks
./
cxecutive Director for Operations Subiect:
WITHDRAWAL 0F PP0 POSED PULEFAKING ON THE EURDEN CF FROOF IN ENFORCEMENT PROCEEDINGS
Purpose:
To cotain Cor. mission approval of a Federal Recister notice announcing the withdrawal of a proposed rule-making on the burden of proof in enforcenent proceedings.
Ca teco ry:
This paper covers a routine matter.
Discussion:
The Commission published in the Federal Recister on July 21, 1977 a proposed rule change to 10 CFR & 2.732 that would generally provide that the proponent of an order in an enforcement proceeding would have the burden of proof.
In SECY-80-212, dated April 25, 19EO, the Staff discussed the public comments received en the pro-posed rule and recomnended that the Commission approve publication of tne final rule.
(Enclosure A).
The Commission disapproved the Staff's recommendation.
(Enclosure B)
The attached Federal Reaister notice formally withdraws the notice of proposed rulemaking.
Contact:
Bruce A. Berson, OELD 492-7678 S102260 k$[()
The Commissioners Recommenda tion:
That the Commission approve the withdrawal of propos ed rulemaking.
Y y A f.~
m Willi am Di rcks Executive Director for Operations
Enclosures:
A.
SECY 212, April 25,1980 B.
Memorandum, S. Chilk to W. J. Dircks, June 20, 1980 C.
Proposed Federal Register notice Comissioners' comments or consent should be provided directly to the Office of the Secretary by c.o.b. Wednesday, Febrary 25, 1981.
Comission Staff Office coments, if any, should be submitted tc the Comissioners NLT February 18, 1981, with an infomation copy to the Office of the Secretary.
If the paper is of such a nature that it requires additional tine for analytical review and comment, the Comissioners and the Secretariat should be apprised of when coments ray be expected.
This paper is tantatively scheduled for affimation at an Open Meetina during the Week of March 9, 1981.
Please refer to the aopropriate Weekly Comission Schedule, when published, for a specific date and time.
DISTRIBUTION Comissioners Comission Staff Offices Exec Dir for Operations ACRS ASLBP ASLAP Secretariat
e Q.
o-
[LD P% /re..s
- uWro,
.. %?f spys NUCLEAR RE'GULATOF ' COMMISSION April 25,1980 WASHINGTON, D. c. 20sss SECY-80-212
'M
- v.
CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM For:
The Commissioners From:
Howard K. Shapar 8
Executive Legal Director Thru:
William J. Dircks d
Acting Executive Director for Operations
Subject:
PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE, AMENDMENT TO 10 CFR 2.732 ON BURDEN OF PROOF Puroose:
To obtain Comission consent to p'tblish an amendec 10 CFR 2.732 as a final rule.
Catecory:
This paper covers a routine matter.
Discussion:
On July 21, 1977 tne Commission published in the Federal Register n proposed rule change to 10 CFR 2.732 that would generally provide that the proponent of an order in an enforcement proceeding would have the burden of proof (Enclosure B).
The burden of proof was defined as including both the initial burden of going forward with evidence (producing enough evidence to make a case) and the ultimate burden of persuasion (the need to establish the validity of a contention, or :nercme opposing evidence).
The presiding officer in a pro-ceeding would be authorized to assign the burden of proof to a party other than the proponent.
A primary purpose of the proposed rule change, as explained ir, the Statement of Considerations accom-panying the proposal (Enclosure B), was to give expression to a basic concept of fairness that after a licensing and review process had been cmpleted and a constru:: tion pemit issued, it was generally unnecessary for effective enforcement and unreasonable to re:;uire the permittee continually to prove the absence of pemit violations.
g,2;tu % - _ na~.
d DUPLICATE DOCUMENT I
M
{f Entire document previously 7
enter d into system under-7
~
ANO P
ENCLOSURE A No. of pages:
w..
m s e # m 3, ) m ae & s:m ggn y v"pyyny, w~ p
.x qu wd,
g.3
,