ML19248C527
| ML19248C527 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 03/16/1979 |
| From: | Hendrie J NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Bolling R HOUSE OF REP., RULES |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19248C528 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7905290465 | |
| Download: ML19248C527 (5) | |
Text
w...
gd. N UNITED STATES
- 'e n';
t NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
, Y' I E
E $(ge'[/
8
! o WASHINGTON. D. C. 20555 7
E
\\"'
i' 9 (f.c a..v :
.y -d g
March 16, 1979 CHAIRMAN The Honorable Ri. chard Bolling Chairman, Committee on Rules United States House of Representatives Washington, D.C.
20515
Dear Mr. Chairman:
We are pleased to respond to your request for comments on H.R. 2 and H.R. 65, both Sunset bills introduced in the 96th Congress.
In general the NRC strongly supports the objectives of these bills; that is, to
~
promote governmental efficiency through elimination of inactive and, J"
_~
-overlapping federal programs and by periodic. review of existing budget authority.
~
i
~
Since the llRC's budget authority is ordinarily granted on an annual basis, this agency's programs are scrutinized even more frequently than would be required by H.R. 2 or H.R. 65.
It might better serve the intent of these bills to have an annual review of the agency's five year budget plan jointly conducted by the Congressional Budget Office and the Office of Management and Budget.
Such a review would have the advantage of eliminating possible overlap between the Executive Branch and the '
Congress and also provide a mechanism for automatically updating these projections on an annual basis.
Because of the budget system which is currently in use at the NRC, we already have the mechanism in place to comply with the basic provisions of H.R. 65.
Therefore our agency would not be greatly affected by this bill. The Commission has previously commented on H.R. 2 and other Sunset legislation.
We are therefoce enclosing those comments for you'r Committee's study.
\\ Sincerely, 7
e h M. Hendrie
Enclosures:
1.
Letter to Rep. Brooks dated 3/16/79-2.
Letter to James Frey dated 12/19/78 g,.-
cc:
Rep. Trent Lott h gcfo6Y[fo(
, w
\\2B
p= *rc
.k p
o UNITED STATES
-[);,s..fI tJUCLEAR REGULATORY CoMMISSlott
- W**Mf,n j wAsmucTon. o. c.2osss f
g-5.,,<
December 19, lyto Mr. James M. Frey Assistant Director for Legislative P.eference Executive Office of the President Office of Management and Budget Washington, D. C.,
20503
Dear Mr. Frey:
This letter responds to your recuest for the views of the
. Nuclear Regulatory Cor-ission on the Sunset legislation
~
=,
(S. 2), as passed by the Senate on October. ll, 1978.
We l_.
T.
support the policies reflected in _the Sunset legislation-as
. a =
7,-
L.
En aid to eliminating-waste and duplication in the Federal. '.- " ?, " ' S
[
government.
The thorough review of program categories
?Vi contemplated by the legislation would permit both the
i'----
Congress and the taxpayers to have a greater insight into the scope of Federal governoent activities.
At -this ' tine, we have only a few specific connents to make concerning the proposal, as it now stands.
First, it is not clear from our reading o'f the language of
~'
S. 2 whether or how new single year prograns, initiated between review cycles, will be examined.
Neither is it clear what effect the legislation would have on the extent or the incidence of reviews now conducted annually by the Nuclear Regulatory Co--ission's three congressional over-sight connittees.
We believe that the reauthorization
' review under the legislation could take the place of the annual authorization process when the Connission's program is being reviewed, thereby avoiding duplication of oversight functions.
T
...,2 Second, Executive Order 12044, which the Connission has '....'
agreed to implement, already provides for a review of existing regulatcry programs, especially for their inpact on the U.S. economy.
To this extent, the Sunset legis-lation may duplicate existing Presidential efforts to eld ' nate regulatory waste.
In the spirit of the Sunset legislation, these initiatives should be reconciled to avoid overlapping reviews and actions.
In addition, we believe 'the work of the recently established Re5ulatory A
OO1 D**
0 JL m.
129
,z
e..
~
Mr. James M. Prey December 19, 1978 Cc" ao' could have important inplications for the Sunset proposal, and should be carefully reviewed as the legis-laticn is developed.
lihile we support the idea of a Citizen's Conmission to evaluate government activities we have questions about the secpe and nature of access,to information which would be provided to this citizen group.
Presumably, the legis-lation would not require release of so-called " embargoed" caterial and internal working papers not normally provided to C.'5 or to the Congress until after the President com-pletes his budget cark.
to reflect this concern. The legislation should be clarified Finally, Co -issioner Bradford notes, as far as it. relates to the NRC, he knows of no justification for the extraordi-narily bread condemnation of adjudicatory. proceedings in T
net "after the fact," Regulatory " adjudication" 'is usually ~~ ~... ~ _ - -
Section 501(a)(4).
and.it is often the only fair way to rssolve contested technical and factual issues in a nanner ~
~_. -
fair to all those affected by an agency's decisions.
We appreciate this opportunity to comment on the proposei legislation.
Sincerely, I i s--
g y
Q b
I Carlton R. Stoiber Assistant General Counsel
~
for International and Legislative Affairs e
- me.
. i e
se m 4 vo' 130 YkEhA
~**'**
.am.---..*
= **' **
---j-.
_