ML20030D921
| ML20030D921 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 09/04/1981 |
| From: | Palladino N NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Bolling R HOUSE OF REP., RULES |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20030D922 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8109170157 | |
| Download: ML20030D921 (2) | |
Text
%,
UNITED STATES E
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION r
h WASHINGTON, D. C. 20566
(.....,/
September 4, 1981 g.
cgm d'
~/
/
Il t _) $
~
Ig7/
J
.-j S R 10 1981 = -
'hv.:.= N "
The' Honorable Richard Bolling, Chairman Committee on Rules Th
/
O b
United States House of Representatives
/g g Washington, D.C.
20515
Dear Mr. Chairman:
In response to your request of July 8,1981, we have reviewed H.R. 2,
" Sunset Act of 1981," and H.R. 58, " Sunset Review Act of 1981." We have already had an opportunity to comment on H.R. 2 at the request of Mr. Jack Brooks, Chairman, Committee on Government Operations; these earlier comments are enclosed.
Further consideration of that bill and H.R. 58 have led to the following additional views.
As in the past, the Commission continues to support the objectives of sunset legislation, i.e., the institution of more comprehensive and coordinated oversight of federal programs in order to promote governmental efficiency and effectiveness.
We believe that both H.R. 2 and H.R. 58 would further such objectives.
Because H.R. 2 provides for a 10 year reauthorization schedule, it appears to provide a more effective means to ensure the periodic in-depth rev'.ew and reauthorization of every governmental program.
H.R.
58, which sets forth no specific schedule, will prevent the agency from anticipating what year its review will occur, making it difficult to plan in advance for the addi~tional resources such a review would require.
However, H.R. 58 has the advantage that, should Congress not be able to complete a required review and reauthorization by a set date, the federal program involved would not tenninate by default.
There are two areas in which both H.R. 2 and H.R. 58 are vague and could benefit from further elucidation.
First, the use of the word " program" throughout the two bills is never adequately defined.
It is unclear whether " program" is meant to include NRC in its entirety or only some subpart or subfunction of NRC.
Second, the relationship between the proposed sunset review and reauthorization of NRC and the an.1ual/ biannual authorization of appropriations to which NRC is currently subject needs to be clarified. Would the authorization be deemphasized or eliminated in light of an established sunset review requirement?
If the authorization and sunset reviews and reauthorizations are to coexist, in what respects are they meant to differ or to overlap?
i 8109170157 810904 PDR COMMS NRCC CORRESPONDENCE PDR
2
'n'a appreciate the opportunity to coment on this proposed legislation Sincerely, i
Nunzio J. Pa adino
Enclosure:
Ltr to Rep. Brooks
- dated 3/27/81 re: H.R. 2 t
1 4
e g
y
+
[
UNIMD STATES 7 '", a,[*'%
i NUCLEAR REGULATORY CGMMISSION I
cAsamovcs. o. c.rosss g
65***
harch 27, 1981
, CHAIEMAN The Honorable Jack Brooks, Chairman Comittee on Government Operations United States House of Representatives
' ' ~
1 Washington, D.C.
20515
Dear Mr. Chairman:
At your request, we have reviewed H.R. 2, Sunset Act of 1981.
The NRC re-iterates its strong support for the ob'jectivc.s of this and prior sunset proposals, that is, to promote governmental efficiency through periodic in-depth analyses of selected programs and reviews of existing budget authority.
As set forth in our prior coments on H.R. 2 as introduced in the House on January 15, 1979, the NRC's budget authority is ordinarily granted on an annual basis (although there is an effort towards adoption of a two-year authorized cycle).
As a result, the Comission's programs have been subject to an even more frequent review schedule than is contemplated under the i
present sunset proposal. Assuming that the reauthorization process n ntem-plated by H.R. 2 is substantially similar to that currently employed oy Con-gress with respect to the NRC's programs, our agency may not be greatly af-fected by this bill in terms of budgetary procedures used or paperwork ro-quired.
4 However,.H.R. 2 does not provide clear guidance on what constitutes a pro-gram" for the purposes of a reauthorization review or a reexamination report under titles I or III respectively.
While section 201 of the proposal man-dates the preparation of a program inventory to assist Congress in implemen-ting titles I and III, it does not indicate whether the identified program is to be, in the case of the NRC, the.Comission's general regulatory programs under the. Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, each of the seven offices of the Comission, or each specific activity conducted by each office.
Absent such guidance, it is difficult to accurately assess the impact H.R. 2 may have on the current budgetary and paperwork procedures of the Comission or its ability to satisfy its regulatory responsibilities under the Atomic Energy Act should the reauthorization process not be completed in a timely manner.
Additionally, the present bill, like prior sunset bills, continues to raise a number of concerns on the part of the Comission.
It is not clear from o,ur re'ading of the language of H.R. 2 whether or how new single year programs, initiated between review cycles, will be examined.
Neither is it clear what effect the legislation would have on the scope or the incidence of reviews now conducted annually by tne NRC's three congressional oversight comittees. We continue to believe that the reauthorization review under the bilT could take the place of the annual authorization process when the Comission's programs are being reviewed, thereby avoiding duplication of det;ftL Cf
/
BicMcu3 V
~
The Honorable Jack Brooks 2
oversight functions.
We also recommend that section 205(b) of the bill be' modified to provide for consultation between the Congressional Budget Office and the Of fice of I' nagement and Budget in developing projections of amounti a
of increased. budget authority needed to maintain a particular level of author-ized services.
Such coordin,ation is currently authorized under section 203 with respect to compilation of the pro. gram inventory.
Such consultation would ensure that both the Executive Branch and the Congress developed similar bud-,
getary projections based on identical information.
\\
Finally, we note that H.R. 2 includes Title IV (formerly Ti'tle VII of H.R. 2 as introduced January 15,1979), which requires detailed review before tax expenditure provisions are reauthorized..
We reiterate our belief that this provision is consistent with the intent of the sunset legislation as it includes a significant portion of public expenditures.
We appreciate this opportunity to comment on the proposed legislation and would be happy to provide ye> with any further information.
Sincerely, 3dLL,
t[
Q._
(JgsphM.Hendrie 4
e a
i g
9 e
0 4
6 9
l, u
We appreciate the opportunity to coment on this propos'.d legislatior..
Sincerely, Original signed by ~
llunzio J. Ps11adina Nunzio J. Palladino
Enclosure:
Ltr to Rep. Brooks dated 3/27/81 re: H.R. 2 Cleared with all Cmrs.' Offices by SECY C/R.
Re f.-CR-81-124 NOTE:
Cmr. Ahearne, while concurring in this letter, reiterates his previous comments from the proposed response to Rep. Brooks.
Typed in final in the Office of the General Counsel.
of.d i'
C CM bJ 05b IL % Ild no
@pynllwlv/pl9/
/.......b..d...
...... g..
f "1
....sEcy4..
< ->....oaC................oaC..........
.... 0C4 f
er.... J ! h.. e
.....Fset.m..
~+
mTongow:cenw..t.s.iciwi.t..aa..TaCom8s.......
...cxamm
"">....aa uai..........a f. w a.1........e/..u/.8.1.......
...f......:.:..s....... 'l. /..l.. /.81......
. 3 /..h.81......
....../... /.8 N i aam p N R.3 M O 2 40