ML19281B531
| ML19281B531 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 12/19/1978 |
| From: | Stoiber C NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC) |
| To: | Frey J OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT & BUDGET |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19281B526 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7905250326 | |
| Download: ML19281B531 (2) | |
Text
,.....
- arg c
UNITED STATES
.r. g,1 tJUCLEAR REGULATORY CoMMISSIOfJ
- i.,,M,E wAssincTon. o. c.20sss 0
g N.O,/
December 19, lyte Mr. James M. Frey Assistan; Direc;or for legislative Reference Executive Office of the President Office of Management and Budget Washington, D. C.,
20503
Dear Mr. Frey:
This letter responds to your request for the views of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission on the Sunset legislation (S. 2), as passed by the Senate on October 11, 1978.
We support the policies reflected in the Sunset legislation as an aid to eliminating waste and duplication in the Federal government.
The thorough review of program categories contemplated by the legislation would permit both the Congress and the taxpayers to have a greater insight into the scope of Federal government activities.
At -this itine,
we have only a few specific comments to make concerning the proposal, as it now stands.
First, it is not clear from our reading of the language of S. 2 whether or how new single year progr9ne, initiat ed 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 Regulatcry Co--$ ssion's three congressional over-sight committees.
We believe that the reauthorization review under the legislation could take the place of the annual authorization process when the Commission's program is being reviewed, thereby avoiding duplication of oversight functions.
Second, Executive Order 12044, which the Co= mission has '
agreed to implement, already provides for a review of existing ragulatory programs, especially for their impact on the U.S'.
economy.
To this extent, the Sunset legis-lation may duplicate existing Presidential efforts to eliminate 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 Regulatory 7905250k
Mr. James M. Frey December 19, 1978 Council could have important implications for the Sunset
~
proposal, and should be carefully reviewed as the legis-lation is developed.
While we support the idea of a Citizen's Cenmission to evaluate government activities, we have questions about the scope and nature of access to information which would be provided to this citizen group.
Presumably, the legis-lation would not recuire release of so-called " embargoed" material and internal working papers not normally provided
-to OM3 or to the Congress until after the President com-pletes his budget mark.
The legislation should be clarified to reflect this concern.
Finally, Commissioner Bradford notes, as far as it relates to the NRC, he knows of no justification for the extraordi-narily broad condemnation of adjudicatory proceedings in Section 501(a)(4).
Regulatory " adjudication" is usually not "after the fact," and it is often the only fair way to resolve contested technical and f actual issues in a manner fair to all those affected by an agency's decisions.
We appreciate this opportunity to comment on the proposed legislation.
Sincerely,
,W Carlton R. Stoiber Assistant General Counsel for International and Legislative Affairs
.