ML19296C511
| ML19296C511 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 01/31/1980 |
| From: | Ahearne J NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Cochran T National Resources Defense Council |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19296C512 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8002260389 | |
| Download: ML19296C511 (2) | |
Text
[
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION y,4 s
,g M
j WASH h 'GTON, D. C. 20555 hd4 January 31, 1980 CHAIRMAN b
Mr. Thomas B. Cochran Natural Resources Defense Council Inc.
1725 I Street, N.W.
Suite 600 Washington, D.C. 20006
Dear Mr. Cochran:
I write in response to your letter dated January 11 concerning Commission procedures for deciding F0IA appeals.
You attached a letter from the Executive Director for Operations denying your F0IA appeal for a document addressed to him from the Secretary of the Commission.
As you are aware, the Freedom of Information Act requires that appeals be decided by the " head of the agency." 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(6)(i).
The Commission has delegated this authority to the Executive Director for Operations (10 CFR 9.11) with certain exceptions, namely for " boards, panels, and offices reporting directly to the Commission, and the Office of the Executive Legal Director." 10 CFR 9.15.
The Executive Legal Director is included in this latter group (i.e. appeal of initial deter-minations decided by the Commission) because that office serves as legal counsel to the ED0 for F0IA appeals.
These provisions necessarily imply that the addressee or addressor of documents may rule on an F0IA appeal.
In any case involving memoranda sent to the Commission from one of its immediate staff offices, for example, and withheld by that office in response to an F0IA request, the appeal is decided by the Commission. The same would be true of memoranda sant by the Commission (or individual Commissioners) to its immediate staff.
As in the case you have cited, these procedures will also lead to appeal decisions by the ED0 for documents authored by him or addressed to him.
In practice, however, the Commission's legal offices (the Executive legal Director and the General Counsel) review all F0IA appeals to ensure that both the letter and spirit of the F0IA are satisfied.
Both the" Commission and the ED0 rely heavily on the independent analyses provided by these offices in deciding F0IA appeals.
In our view these procedures adequately provide for impartial review of F0IA appeals while at the r.ame time satisfying the " head of the agency" requirement of the F0IA.
80 0cc en 37f
Thomas B. Cochran 2
The courts, of course, are the final arbiter, and the Freedom of Infonna-e tion Act provides expedited procedures for review of agency F0IA denials.
5 U.S.C. 552(a)(3)(D). An F0IA requester who has reason to believe that
[
his or her request and appeal have not received fair considera*. ion may seek immediate recourse in Federal district court.
I note in closing that the example you have cited in your letter involves classified information.
In such a case, an independent classification
[
review of withheld material would be performed by staff offices other E
than the EDO (the same would be true if the Commission were deciding the appeal), and the amount of discretion exercised by the decisionmaker on appeal is largely circumscribed by the outcome of that review.
The
" addressee /addressor" issue you have raised would therefore have little impac' where classified material is withheld.
Sincerely, q
(Thairman
@hn F. Ahearne j
I:
Li i.
w I