ML19263G957
| ML19263G957 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 04/25/1980 |
| From: | Shapar H NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19219A599 | List: |
| References | |
| REF-10CFR9.7, TASK-CC, TASK-SE SECY-80-212, NUDOCS 8007070498 | |
| Download: ML19263G957 (15) | |
Text
.
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION April 25,1980 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 SECY-80-212 CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM For:
The Commissioners From:
Howard K. Shapar Executive Legal Director Thru:
William J. Dircks v'
Acting Executive Director for Operations
~
Subject:
PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE, AMENDMENT TO 10 CFR 2.732 ON BURDEN OF PROOF
Purpose:
To obtain Commission consent to publish an amended 10 CFR 2.732 as a final rule.
Category:
This paper covers a routine matter, Discussion:
On July 21, 1977 the Commission published in the Federal Register 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 (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 overecme opposing evidence).
The presiding officer in a pro-ceeding would be authorized to assign the burden of proof to a part;y other than the proponent.
.A primary purpose of the proposed rule change, as explained in 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 completed and a construction pemit issued, it was generally unnecessary for effective enforcement and unreasonable to require the pemittee continually to prove the absence of pemit violations.
Contact:
Robert L. Fonner 492-8692 THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS 800707.o k {3 POOR QUAUTY PAGES
The Commissioners In SECY-76-528, and SECY-77-226 (Enclosures C and D),
the staff also noted ddaitional policy reasons for the proposed change.
First, as a practical matter the staff must go "all out" to prove its case in an enforcement action regardless of who fomally bears the burden of persuasion.
Second, a reviewing court can uphold the agency on evenly divided evidence so long as the agency's finding is based upon substantial evidence, but is likely to reverse if the agency erred in procedurally assigning the burden of proof to the wrong party. Thus, assigning the burden to the proponent of an order (in this case the agency) is a ccnservative approach.
Thirteen letters of comment were received on ;he pro-posed rule.
Ten of the commenters were in favor of the proposed rule change without reservation.
One commenter favored the proposal but generally without the grant of discretionary authority to the presiding officer to shif t the burden of proof that the pre;;W rule would allow. This commenter, however, als1 agreed that under current law the Commission could let the presiding officer assign the burden of persuasion in his discretion, but was firmly convinced that allowing a discretionary shifting of the burden of going forward with the evidence would be contrary to Section 7(c) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 556(d))
in absence of a statute authorizing such a shift.
(It should be noted that in the Statement of Considerations accompanying the proposed rule, the Commission stated that it believed that the Atomic Energy Act did not provide any statutory) exception to the general ru stated in Section 7(c of the APA.) The basis of this commenter's position is Environmental Defense Fund v.
EPA, 548 F.2d 998 (D.C. Cir.1977), cert denied 431 U.S. 925 (1977) which held that under Section 7(c) the proponent of an order has the burden of going forward with the evidence.
One commenter recommended " strict" adherence to the interpretation of Section 7(c) of the APA set forth in Environmental Defense Fund v. EPA. He supported allo-cation of the burden of going forward to the proponent 1/
The " general rule" in Section 7(c) of the APA (5 U.S. 556(d)) is, "Except as otherwise provided by statute, the proponent of a rule or order has the burden of proof. * * * "
The Commissioners of an order, but not the ultimate burden of persuasion, which he believed should remain with the licensee. He also opposed any grant of discretion to the presiding officer.
These last two commenters both made the point strongly that under Section 7(c) of the APA, as interpreted by the court in Environmental Defense Fund v. EPA, the burden of going forward with the evidence is always on the proponent of an order, and therefore no discretion should be allowed to the presiding officer to shift that burden.
In our analysis that is a correct statement of the present law, and the revised rule for final approval has been changed to accord with it.
(See Enclosure A).
An option remains of not changing 10 CFR 2.732.
This option would, however, leave in place a rule that on its face appears contrary to present law; that is, it appears to permit a presiding officer to shift the burden of going forward with evidence to someone other than the proponent of an order.
Further, it leaves open the possibility of procedural error occurring in an enforce-ment proceeding if the burden of going forward with evidence is placed rpon the licensee, as noted earlier in this paper.
Such a course of inaction would also leave as agency law the holding on burden of proof of Consumers Power Comoany (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2)
ALAB-283, 2 NRC 11 (1975), ALAB-315, 3 NRC 101 (1976),
which appears to be at odds with Environmental Defense Fund v. EPA.
It was the Midland case that raised Commis-sioner concern about the question of burden of proof (See SECY-76-528), and abandonment of the rulemaking proceed-ing would indicate Commission acquiescence in the Midland holding.
It should be noted that the changes of substance in 10 CFR 2.732 relate only to proceedings taken under Subpart B of Part 2, dealing with enforcement-type actions.
Special allocations of burden of proof devel-oped by the licensing and appeal boards in CP and OL licensing proceedings under Subparts D, E, F, and G, of Part 2 are not affected by this amendment of 10 CFR 2.732.
(See e.o., Cleveland Electric Illuminatino Co.
(Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB 443, 6 NRC 741, 752-754 (1977), allocating)the burden of proof on motions for summary dispositions.
The Comissioners Recommendation:
That the Commission approve publication of the final effective rule.
The Office of Inspection and Enforcement concurs.
Coordination:
Sunshine Act:
Recommended for an open meeting, if discussed.
dk Y,,L
- If Howard K. Shapar Executive Legal Director
Enclosures:
A - Notice of Final Rule B - Notice of Proposed Rule C - SECY-76-528 (without its enclosures)
D - SECY-77-226 (without its enclosures)
Comissioners' coments or consent should be provided directly to the Office of the Secretary by c.o.b. Monday, May 12, 1980.
Comission Staff Office comments, if any, should be submitted to the Comissioners NLT May 5,1980, with an information copy to the Office of the Secretary.
If the paper is of such a nature that it requires additional time for analytical review and comment, the Comissioners and the Secretariat should be apprised of when coments may be expected.
This paper is tentatively scheduled for affirmation at an Open Meeting during the Week of May 19, 1980. Please refer to the appropriate Weekly Comission Schedule, when published, for a specific date and time.
DISTRIBUTION:
Comissioners Comission Staff Offices Executive Director for Operations ACRS Secretariat
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[10 CFR Part 2]
Burden of Proof in Hearings AGENCY:
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission ACTION:
Final Rule
SUMMARY
- The Commission is amending its rule on burden of proof in hearings to provide that the proponent of an order in an enforcement action has the burden of proof, including the burden of going forward with the evidence and the burden of persuasion.
DATES:
Effective date:
, 1980 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Robert L. Fonner, Office of the Executive Legal Director, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C.
20555 (telephone: 301-492-8692).
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION:
On July 21, 1977 the Commission published in the Federal Register a proposed rule change to 10 CFR 2.732 that would provide that the proponent of an order in an enforcement proceeding would have the burden of proof (42 FR 37406). The burden of proef was defined as including both the initial burden of going forward with evidence (producing enough ENCLOSURE A evidence to make a case) and the ultimate burden of persuasion (the need to establish the validity of a contention, or overcome opposing evidence). The presiding officer in a proceeding 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 in the Statement of Considerations accompanying the proposal, was to give expression to a basic concept of fairness that after a licensing and review process had been completed and a construction pemit issued, it was generally unnecessary for effective enforcement and unreasonable to requira the permittee continually to prove the absence of pemit violations.
Thirteen letters of comment were received on the proposed rule. Ten of the commenters were in favor of the proposed rule change without reservation.
One commenter favored the proposal but generally without the grant of dis-cretionary authority to the presiding officer to shift the burden of proof that the proposed rule would allow.
This commenter, however, agreed that under current law the Cocnission could let the presiding officer assign the burden of persuasion in his discretion, but was firmly convinced that allowing a discretionary shifting of the burden of going forward with the evidence would be contrary to Section 7(c) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA)
(5 U.S.C. 556(d)) in absence of a statute authorizing such a shift.
(It should be noted that in the Statement of Considerations accompanying the proposed rule, the Comission stated that it believed that the Atomic Energy Act did not provide any statutory exception to the general rule stated in ENCLOSURE A Section 7(c) of the APA that except as otherwise provided by statute the proponent of a rule or order has the burden of proof).
The basis of this commenter's position is Environmental Defense Fund v. EPA, 548 F.2d 998 (D.C. Cir.1977), cert denied 431 U.S. 925 (1977) which held that under Section 7(c) the allocation of burden of proof meant that the proponent of an order has the burden of going forward with the evidence.
One commenter recommended " strict" adherence to the interpretation of Sec-tion 7(c) of the APA set forth in Environmental Defense Fund v. EPA. He supported allocation of the burden of going forward to the proponent of an order, but not the ultimate burden of persuasion, which he believed should remain with the licensee. He also opposed any grant of discretion to the presiding officer.
These last two commenters both made the point strongly that under Section 7(c) of the APA, as interpreted by 'the court in Environmental Defense Fund v. EPA, the burden of going forward with the evidence is always on the proponent of an order, and therefore no discretion should be allowed to the presiding ofcicer to shift that burden.
In the Commission's opinion that is a correct statement of the present law, and the revised rule for final approval has been changed to accord with it.
The Commission has, however, retained the grant of discretionary authority to the presiding officer to shift the burden of persuasion.
Prior experi-ence under 10 CFR 2.732 does not validate the argument made by a commenter ENCLOSURE A
. that the grant of discretion to shift the burden of persuasion would simply create one more contestable issue and for that reason should be dropped altogether.
One commenter addressed a matter beyond the scope of the proposed rule, and advocated a rule change that would expressly place a full burden of proof on environmental intervenors in licensing proceedings as to their contentions.
This is an issue not addressed in the proposed rule and, therefore, not appropriate to consider in this rulemaking proceeding.
It should be noted, however, that the general rule applied in adjudicatory proceedings in NRC is that an environmental intervenor has the burden of going forward with evidence with respect to issues raised by his contentions.
Philadelphia Electric Co.
(Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2) ALAB-262,1 NRC 163,191 (1975).
The quantum of proof necessary to discharge this bu deii is stated in the r
"threshhold" test established in Consumers Power Co. (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2) CLI 74-5, 7 AEC 19, 32 (1974).
The "threshhold" test requires some affirmative showing " sufficient to require reasonable minds to inquire further." This burden was upheld by the Supreme Court in Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. NRDC, 435 U.S. 519 (1978), and the Commission has no present intention to change it.
The changes in 10 CFR 2.732 effected by this amendment relate only to pro-ceedings taken under Subpart B of Part 2, dealing with enforcement-type actions.
Special allocations of burden of proof developed by the licensing and appeal boards in construction permit and operating license licensing ENCLOSURE A
. proceedings under Subparts D, E, F, and G, of Part 2 are not affected by this amendment of 10 CFR 2.732.
(See e_.J,.. Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co. (Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB 443, 6 NRC 741, 752-754 o
(1977), allocating the burden of proof on motions for sumary dispositions).
The Commission also notes that the revision of the proposed rule has the general effect of overturning the Appeal Board's decision regarding burden of proof in Consumers Power Company (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2) ALAB-283, 2 NRC 11 (1975), ALAB-315, 3 NRC 101 (1976), yet also allows the burden of persuasion, in an appropriate enforcement case, to be shif ted to the licensee, for example, in a case seeking modification of the construction pennit to account for some newly discovered safety issue early rather than waiting for the operating license stage.
Pursuant to the Atomic Enegy Act of 1954, as amended, the Energy Reorgani-zation Act of 1974, as amended, and Sections 552 and 553 of Title 5, United States Code, the following amendment to Title 10, Chapter 1, Code of Federal Regulations is published as a document subject to codification.
1.
10 CFR 2.732 is revised to read as follows:
92.732 Burden of Proof.
(a)
For the purposes of this section, burden of proof shall mean (1) the initial burden of going forward with evi-dence and (2) the ultimate burden of persuasion.
ENCLOSURE A
. (b) Unless otherwise ordered by the presiding officer, the applicant or the proponent of an order (other than an order of the type referred to in paragraph (c) of this section) has the burden of proof.
(c)
In a proceeding under Subpart B of this Part, the pro-ponent of an order to modify, suspend, or revoke a license, (including a construction permit) or to impose a civil peaalty or ta=.e such other enforcement action as may be proper has the burden of proof.
The presiding officer n.y assign the burden of persuasion to a party other then the proponent of an order.
(Sec.161, Pub. L.83-703, 63 Stat. 948 (52 U.S.C. 2701); Sec. 201, Pub.
L.93-438, 88 Stat. 1242 (42 U.S.C. 5841), 5 U.S.C.
557).
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Samuel J. Chilk Secretary of the Commission Dated at Washington, D.C. this day of
, 1980.
ENCLOSURE A
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION RULES and REGULATIONS TITLE 10, CHAPTEM 1, CODE OF PEDERAL REGULATIONS-CNEFIQY PART RULES OF PRACTICE FOR DOMESTIC LICENSING PROCEEDINGS 2
PROPOSED RULE MAKING Under the proposed amendment to land Plant, Unit Nos.1 and 2) ALAB-28) p i fyy 15 h
1'g7 S of go C8"*at Pwled exokes 9/8/77 both orward t
and the burden of persuasion.'Ihis allo-Aenmta Safety and v.trensing Appeal
[ 10 CFR Part 2 ]
Board indicated that the holder of a con-BURDEN OF PROOF IN ENFORCEhlENT w! e of A
nistra struction permit has the burden of per-PROCEEDING 5
=- Act 5 UE.C. I 554(d). Secuan snaaian in an enforcemet proceeding 1
7(c) of the APA, as recently interpreted seeking revocation, suspension or mod 10-AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commis-in Entgronmenf41 Defense Fund v. KPA, est&on of the parmit. 'Ihe Appeal Board ston (NRC; ctr.19m, prwides in that case also indicated that the pro-
'a M sane statutor/ ponent of the order did have the burden AUrION: Proposed rule.
that th a
SUMMARY
- The Nuclear Regulatory excepuon, the proponent of sa order has. of going forward Mth some mtntmum Commission is considering amending its.the burden of going forward with evi*
quantum of evidence to support enforce-rules so as to provide genemlly that the dence.'Its Commtmas n believes that the m6nt action during the in2tial stage of proponent of an order in an enforcement Atomic Energy Act does not provide for the prcceeding. However, the outcome of action has the burden of proof.The pro-any statutory esception to this geners!
the Midland proceeding did not depend posed ruis would overrule an earlier
- rule, on resoluuon of the burden of proof opinion by the Cnmmta=1on's Atomic Kas(ronmental Defense Fund y, KPA question, since the Appeal Board con-Safety end Licensing Appeal Board and further held that the allocation of the ciuded that the construction prmittee in take account of a recent decision by the burden of bersuasion is not spec 1 Sed by that car
- had met the burden which the UA. Court of Appeals for the District of section 1(c) cf the Artmentatrative Pro-Appeal Board believed.the law imposed Columbia Circuit.
cedure Act.In determining that both the on it. The Corrmianinn chose not to re-burden of going forward and the burden view the Midland procMding. ' Ibis rule-DATE: Comments on the proposed rule of persuasion should be on the proponent maung proceeding is intended to address are due by September 8,1977.
of an enforcement order, the Commianian the burden of proof quesuon on a generic ADDRESdES: Written comments should has given careful cocalderation to basic baats.
be submitted to the Secretary of the concepts of fairness, the need for proce.
As indicated, the proposed rule would Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regula'ory dures that will facilitate efectivo en-overrule the Midlsad op nion and gen-Cnmmtuion, Washington, D.C. 20535.
forcement action where warranted, the erally place both the burden of persus-Attention. Docketing and Service nature of the two-step nuclear facult/ ston and the Mn W W foM on h
licensing process, and the need for some the proponent of an order, as is the usual FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CON-stability in faculty licensing declatons. anocation adopted by Federal adminta-Once the licensing review and hearing trative agencies. 'Ibero appear to be no TACT:
process has been completed and a valid discern!hte impacts on astety from the th rule change, which would as a practical
[o*m' tive gal' r, U N ear Regu 1
tha gene matter afect the etcome only of those latory Commission. Washington, D.C.
matter it is unnecessary to aqsure an cases in which the evidence for and 20555, telephone 301-492-7203, efective enforcement program andam-SUPPr NNTARY INPVRMATION:
remainable to require the construction 'against the proposed order is evenly The Nuclear Regulatory Commission permittee conttruaHy to prove the ab-divided.
sence of permit violations as a condition
'Ibere is no legal requirement that
("Commtalon")
is considering an amendment to 12.733 of its " Rules of of continuing with plant ' construction. these proposed rules be pathitalmed for Practice" in 10 CFR Part 2 which would The proposed rule would. however, per-public comment before adoption sina state that as a general rule the propo-mit the presiding of5cer in the entwee-
" rules of agency organization, procedure, nent of an order to amend, suspend, or Enent proceeding to make excepticos to or practice" are exempt from that gen-revoke a license or to impose a civu pen-the general rule as to burden 2 particu-eral requirement of the Mministrative alty in an enforcement proceeding lar cases. For example, a casts as=Hnr Procedure Act. 6 UE.C. 553 f b). 'Ibe com-against a license
- in@Mn? a licensee modiacation of the constrttion permit-mission, hows, believes that pubuc under 10 CFR Part 50 (a person licensed to account for some newly discovered participation beyond the legal minimum safety issue can properly be regarded as can make a valuable contribution to its to construct or operate a production or utilization facility), has the burden of an eEort to resolve the safety issue early, decisions. Accordingly, pursuant to the proof, unless otherwise ordered by the rather than waiting for the operating, Atnmin Energy Act of 1954, as amended, license stage. In such a case, the burden the Energy Reorganitation Act of 1974, presiding of5cer in a given case. 'Its of persuasjon.an properly be placed on as amended, and section 553 of title 5 of familiar term " burden of proof" is com-monly used to denote two distinct con.
'the applicant, since the applicant must the United States Code, '20tice is hereby cepts: the burden of going forward and bear the burden of persuasion on the given that adoption of the fonowing the ultimate burden of persuasion (es-1ssue at the operating license stage in amendment of 10 CFR Part 2 is contem-plated. Allinterested persons who desire tab 11shing the validity of a contention by sur event.
to submit written comments or sugges-the necessary quantum of the evidence).
In consumers Potoer Company (Mid-November 9,1979 (rnet) 2-44 ENCLOSURE B
l PAR 48ans for etWaratf in cosmecton
- with the proposed amWment should send them to the Secretary of the com.
adasion. UA Nuclear Regulatory Com-adasson. Washington, Dr. 20555. Atien-taan: Docketing and servlee Branch, by asptember s 1977.
- 1. section 2.732 le revised to read as foBows:
$2.722 Bardem of proof.
(a) For the purposes of this section.
burden of proof shall mean (1) the initial burden of going forward with evi-dance and (2) the ultunate burden of persuasion.
,Jb) Unless otherwsse ordered by the presiding otBoer, the appucant or the proponent of an order has the burden of proof. Unless otherwise ordered by the prooiding otBeer, in a pracaswitnr imdar Bahpart B, th's. proponent of the order to Ebedify, suspend, or reVChe the hp.
(including a construction permst) or to impose a civil penalty or take such other enforcement action as may be proper has the burden of proof.
e 2
0
CFFECH L USE ONLYszcy_7s_ s2s
~
Cetober 29, 1976 UNITED STATES
~
NUCLEAR REculAToRY COMMISSION CONSENY CALENDAR ITEM For,:
The Commissioners From:
Howard K. Shapar, Executive Legal Of rector Thru:
Executive Director for Operations.?
Subject:
EU?. DEN OF PROOF IN ENFORCEMENT PROCEEDINGS Catecorv:
A ainor policy question Furacse:
To obtain a Cornission decision on initiation of a rule making proceeding to establish clearly, by rule, that the proponent of the orde.r has the burden of proof in enforcement actions against both construction permittees and operating licensees. 1/
Alternatives:
(1) knend 10 CFR Part 2 to establish clearly that the proponent of an order in any enforcement pro-ceedings has the burden of proof.
(2)
Do nothing, with the result that under an Appeal Board decision a construction permittee has the burden of proof in an enforcement pro-ceeding directed against him.
Discussion:
Tnis paper has its genesis in the decision of the mtfority of the Appeal Ecard in the Midland enforcement proceeding (Messrs. Saltzman and Farrar, with Dr. Quaries dissenting) that the ccastruction permittee has the burden of prcof in a proceeding to determine whether the permit should be suspended, revoked, or modified, notwithstanding the general statutory rule of law that the proponent of an order (the Staff, in the case of the usual enforcement proceeding) bears this burden. 2f By burden of prcof the Appeal Ecard was referring to pw;rw a m
. m w s z. A m p 3 "
1/
This paper does not touch up '
DUPLICATE DOCUMENT j
evidentiary-type burdens on J
caedings.
It deais solei ~v w Entire docurnent previously o
entered into system under:
2/
Consumers' Fewer Ccm:any (Mi kOO O[
~
AL/.S-315 (Feo. 27,1975 ) and ANo 7
H. K. Shapar N o.
of pages:
dog or:ntact: 4ga-uc.a y agaundy' GWTCiw
~.~
wn w - e n:1
v..,
ua., m,._: u ~,,;.
..i;,q w h.
.n.
um ro srarzs SEC.Y-77-2p_
NUCLEAR REGULMO RY COM.*.1:SSICN C Ohw.(
- N~rt ALEN D AR ITEM
-C r-m FrCn:
HCward K. Sha:ar D a e... t. <i v a. L:.-,.. n.i rc.e '.o r Thru:
Lee V. GossiCk e..v. a ".u.'i v e
's e r a. ". '.. -#. -. r " n." = '. # "... -
,i a
s.
r.,'s C -.j. u e. i.ic 1]...-.w ;... tic-.,..-
cr.
n
- c.,s. 4 4.
Osg e.t cd v r
- f. U p.-
t
.i. U
.v :u w.
v j "d i. #.l d a.C' # s # ^ n ii.."2 c.t 0.~
a ". c. u- =..'i v lO iC,C"S5
's "..$
d.
?u. n. e.i c. o..
~..
i i i,,,
i o n i. n. :.C v..*/.: :9. 2 c.
0 n
- t. '. z.
. a e. n...... o d.- '. t e
e i C s 'i.. s."1 e.-
.n. n C ". 4..a e:
t f.s, d v
- e..,.
q :C'l ~/ o. ;; 2 o rc.e....z.e./. =. A
..kl a t.-
ar s
s.
a
- 0 C.c:, 5. 7 7. ?.
r.c ren.e.d2 s.. o r. a.
e FC n.,O S c-A.
T.J i 0 r. 3.'r,,44 F.,
v.v, 3,
1 em g
3 Ci c.'. r'I y'
.=.?.
V..'.".
y' f r,,, y'"s *.e r '. ^ #.
c " #. u r ". =. ~.. *. ".. '. ' ". 'i. i. o#
i s, e 1 r. a :.. :. a
(' r.. Oe C L ')
- e. a st.u..a.
l4i C.e e..: e s t.
c 3 w s.e..
- s. e n G :. :i. e,..,
t a
b,Jr% n CT-
!.. m :..
~ u. )' e.. t4 6,.a.
ty../ s.,
a a=
- i..
in
- n 4'4. # d l
- o* d,
g c. o. e. r 5 c*.. + ". ".
e' C. ". c..'l 0.. *. "d ' a" E 'v l d i..". C.,
i au 2.f.*.o *f v ": 2 r. A,.
r.'L :.:.. 1 :s,
'u i..s. t '.n. c - c. e.. 6 - c... Iu. 3..s. e a
h
..ww..
. y
.s bu e.d,, a,.ri o f e yc.o. a.i g.
1 m.
g e. '.- i.... t.9 e a. s n. '.* a., s u a-m. a..e.u',. C r e
.e m f t.,
- t. h. e Cn n - t. r.,u- + 2. v... % s..,.o.
o, c s..tu3 c:r.y.T.:. W
.n-d.
t
.o
+ ii, o a r
u. e r.J c.
- 1. i,.,
C...+.
.H. -
e'.t c 3,.T. a m a m v: :. e.
- 2. A, i.., t. u k..e. n *.
a ed ei.
c m.
< p. ' e.u ', '4 C.'1 7 ( c. ') "8.
- t. '"..^
.e
,.n.
9 tw. o + 3. e... gi.c ;n.n i
.u s
c.
,n r..
Administrative FroCedure Act had its traditiCnal
=,.rsus.ic t..p.., r,.../.... r. o... a u
e F a.,.n ; i,.. a :e u.,r.
o-n. :i u
a..
- s *...^. ".a r 'i.;
<a".o " 'i v 5 =_ '
'c h.a. b U ". d =. i o#..=~.2".=.'i.-
d n
6 s
i a
o c,1. 5 e. :. W..e c.
,e. v. i. e z. e.c a. :u V...1
'.e.. s. p i n a., 15
- c. y s.,},y 4
t h.a.
i divided).
pa F.ps.
("D.C. C2i r. t :. /,; \\
n r e,. e m. n *. C.3. 5
. c a. :
./.
.n, nd i C a'.a s wh.: ' r"-"rd.a ". C.,. r w" C. "
d..'.
C. 2. "'.10. s I, C,I i
- . "..& 2.. # ^ n '.' ".. "'.', U '. u" c. r. c. 'i' "3,'.'. # ^. :-
e..e.s n s (iv v
- k. ". A. c. C.
4.
i
- ~'. # ~ '. U ". #.. "a O Fi Ja
/*b
- n(. p p,e
(... e.
,,y
..4. 0'.'* '..". 5 w.
w
...,... b. 2 i e..e 3 #.
n o piv
. r. e.. g 66.s - 2 e.f j e.
.. a.
4-
,. m 2.w.
i s.
is y,
- s e :.-
'..c..$. r i. r. -
- e. r. w ".o.
u u. j A.c.c..e s i. s ". 2 i ". c. d.
2 ?.
.3 t
w.
-~ 'e. a.1, =,..: '
.- 2,. J.
- 2.. M t 4. *i p. a +:', ' 1 r..i s.k.a n :...*. : ::
v
....a
.v.,
.. 6 g,
4 r>
%,J e d _. e.
.m..* ;.. 2. -
i y a.a.. \\.)
" a. s -
- r. %. s..C.1..
, :.. 5 s...
. i. :
. v
-.CS v..o...
F i
,w to w.e.
- . :. v- ( c a.... n.-r. e e. = =. f z - n.
I t.
- c y.;.p e A 4-
..e 7
iiij
. u i.a..e.6 e.:..i. u. m 0..a r. s A...r. n.
- J d t q =.,.. +c. n n / b' - ) C
- .
- L.s 4
c r p i/. 7 3 '.
w.i.
.e r4Ct COSS r.Ct assi n t.9 CUTCan CT. per5UcsiCG EC Eny particular party in in snf0rCE Snt actiCn.
'dC'.;av sr,
t.h o. < *. :, :. '. c. 'I i : ". e. c.
ew:
w'.. c. r e.2 r a.
.C C U ". '.#".. ( v^ r. s..*.. ;"
i u
s.
". c.. e... '. A. k e. :. s.
.'.1 k., e. f e. n.
u
,23 g
,.=e.u7c-1
...: s s :..
y 6i y..
.1 i
ww.
-,aae.
51 C n i n.,: r. - me-
+.....i.5.
.. v
- .*$.....I.
- $.."."$.8 f3 3 f I r.*, y
- 3. (.
8 (4, N j.4
.4
.T.,, 4.
..p
.g
.4 y.
Jt
.<,/..,. 3 L0aO s,
4.
a.
t "i.**
p.
s %. d.6w0..
.,.5. y 36.
w 6.
.. a s..p
.u.
e
..,.)...0. 700
..J
- ~.. 2..;. L-F. C,..
.t 2,
.e.
. n O n i I.. O. C... G.... e.
i0
" =
s i
... i s i. f.
%.1 s.,j=i. :...
E a
4
- c e. 1 c. P. e. 3
- 1. e. e.: s c. 'i.)
1..,..~.e, A
C, e.
u..
p:
.u.
e.:p-a :. :.(a,.. a.... J.. %.. :...uo.:
kn s
.. :.a. -,. -.n... :........
. u. : :.. ;.
u.
c :4 e.e.sa.,
~..
r p - r.. s..- 5...
v
.-w
.m--.-..,
,,s
.,s ENCLOSURE D v
Q < <-.
- 4 r..
. 'U., y2 g
.a
./. -
1o09 %
. cccclusions of the presiding officer (normally an atomic safety and licensing board).
Second, a court cn judicial review will uphold the agency's findings of fact even if the court believes (in contrast to the agency) that the evidence is evenly divided--so long as the court believes that agency's findings are based on substantial evidence.
However, a court may more readily reverse an agency's decision if it concludes that the agency erred by assigning the burden of persuasion to the wrong party.
- Thus, assignment of the burden of persuasion to the Staff is " conservative" from the standpoint of assuring that Cornission enforcement decisions. are upheld on judicial review.
As indicated above this " con-L F
servative" posture is not at the extense of effective H
enforcement action at the agency level or increased wcrkicid en the ?taff.
The Federal Communications Comnission, Federal l'aritime Commission, Civil Service Commission, Federal Trace Ccmmissicn, Civil Aeronautics Ecard, i:ational Labor Relations Board and Securities Exchange Commission all assign the burden of persuasion to their staff in an enforcerent action, and no cases have been found where these acancies have been reversed for allocating the burden in i
this manner.
The procosed rule would permit the presiding officer to make exceptions to the general rule in carticular cases.
For examole, while the Staff should properly have the burden in cases seeking suspensien or, revocation of a construction permit, or ictosition of a civil penalty on a ccnstruction termittee for a violation of pernit re uirements, scme cases involving a croposed Tcdification to a ccnstruction permit to account for a newly disccvered safety issue can be regarded as effcrts to resolve an issue early rather than waiting until the cperating license stage.
In tnis latter categcry of cases, the burden of persuasion can properly be placed on the applicant since applicant must bear the burden at the operating license stage in any event.
Reccrrenda ticn:
Thus, the Staff adheres to its basic reccrr.endation in SECY-76-523.
Mcwever, the notice of crcposed rulemakinc has been revised to reflect the decision in EDF v. EFA.
A revised no: ice is attached.
i e
b
. Coordination:
The Director of th_ Jffice of Inspection and Enforce-ment and the Ganeral Counsel concur.
Sunshine Act:
Reccmmended for an open mee'fqg, if iscu s d. OGC and OPE concur.
Anticioated e
Seneculino:
Week of May 30.
'Howar K. S apar Executive Legal Director Office of the Executive Legal Director Encicsure:
Federal Register Notice.
Ccamissioners' comments or consent should be provided directly to the Office of the secretary by close of business Monday, May 16, 1977.
g ni.
Commission staff office comments, if any, should be submitted to the Commissioners NLT May 11, with an information copy to the Office of L
the Secretary.
If the paper is of such a nature that it requires
!?
additional time for analytical review and comment, the Commissioners F~
and the Secretariat should be apprised of when comments 'may be expected.
.If DISTRIBUTIO:t b
Commissioners Commission Staff Offices Exec Dir for Operations Secretariat e