ML20031E504
| ML20031E504 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 09/14/1981 |
| From: | Palladino N NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Roth W SENATE, GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20031E505 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8110160031 | |
| Download: ML20031E504 (3) | |
Text
!
.a g
p wac o
UNITED STATES
['
]>
NUCLEAR REGUL ATORY COMMISSION E
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
/ %l1% -
~
~
\\]M /
NN bQ
-c [C CHA R N q
o w to M t -
2,
\\
gh
\\d The Honorable William V. Roth, Jr., Chairman
'O li %
Committee on Governmental Affairs United States Senate Washington, D.C.
20510
Dear Mr. Chairman:
By letter dated May 14, 1981, you requested the views of the Nuclear Regulatory Comission on S.1080.
In addition, your letter of July 30, 1981 sought the Commission's views on the particular portion of that bill, Section 624.
That Section would give the President or his designee authority:
(a) to establish procedures for agency compliance with the bill's requirements for a regulatory analysis for major rules, and (b) to monitor, review, and ensure agency implementation of those procedures.
The Commission supports the purposes and objectives of the bill's requirement for preparation of a regulatory analysis for major rules subject to the specific comments that follow in this letter.
The agency currently e
has procedures for preparation of a value-impact analysis for rulemaking actions. This analysis is essentially a cost-benefit study designed to help the agency make more informed judgments.
{
The Commission intends to conduct a study to determine what particular changes, consistent with law, might bring current agency procedures more into line with President Reagan's recently promulgated Executive Order 12291 on this general subject.
We share the Congressional concern, as indicated by S.1080, that agencies better un'derstand the economic costs imposed by regulatory requirements.
The Commission utes that S.1030 requires an agency to adopt the most cost-effective alternative unless its statute directs otherwise. While the language of the NRC's organic statutes is not explicit, the Commission has consistently interpreted the intent of Congress to be that considerations' of public health and safety are paramount.
The Commission does not interpret S.1080 to reve. se this paramount role.
If our understarding is in error, we request your clarification.
With regard to the Executive Branch oversight of a Congressionally imposed regulatory analysis requirement, we believe that allowing the President or his designee to interpose themselves directly into the agency's regulatory procedures can only weaken, and perhaps ultimately destroy, 8110160031 810914 PDR COMMS NRCC CORRESPONDENCE PDR.-
g.
The Honorable William V. Roth, Jr. the independence that Congress intended for NRC.
Cooperation ~between the Executive Branch officials and independent agencies i; to be encouraged; nonetheless, S.1080 goes beyond simply fostering cooperation.
- Indeed, it provides the opportunity for direct intervention in, and partial control of, an aspect of agency rulemaking. The framework established
.by Congress to guarantee that the decisionmaking prccesses of independent agencies are free from undue influence by the Executive Branch officials and entities, as well as the unique relationship between Congress and the independent agencies, could be eroded by this provision.
In the event your committee cnnsiders it necessary to provide for the Executive Branch oversight, we believe you should also consider the following clarifications and additions to the bill.
First, the Executive Branch review should generally be confined to the period after the notice of proposed rulemaking is published. Prenotice submission of an independent agency's proposed regulation or corresponding regulatory analysis unnecessarily risks undue Executive Branch influenc2 of the agency's decisionmaking. Second, it should be made clear that the authority of the President or his designee is limited to a determination whether the agency correctly decided that a rule is, or is not, " major" and has followed the procedural requirements imposed in developing its regulatory analysis.
The substantive conclusion reached in any cost-benefit analysis should not be a proper subject for the Executive Branch review.
In addition, we are concerned that the bill's grant of authority to the President or his designee to identify rules as major and to amend an independent agency's schedule for the timing of a rule's review would provide the Executive Branch unnecessarily wide latitude in establishing
' the priorities of the NRC's review process.
We urge that such executive authority be eliminated from the bill.
Finally, we would also like to comment on the bill's requirements in section 553(f)(2) relating to the use of information in rulemakings that is otherwise exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act (F0IA). NRC's authority in several areas, including those concerning physical security and safeguards accounting for special nuclear miterials, involves the agency in rulemaking actions that necessarily are based on classified, confidential, or proprietary information that would otherwise be exempt from public disclosure under F0IA. To the extent the NRC has been given the responsibility in areas that necessarily require the agency to consider sensitive information that Congress previously has determined should be exempt from disclosure, e.g., 47 U.S.C. f 2167 (special nuclear material safeguards information exempt from F0IA disclosure), the goal of effective regulation is not served by now requiring even partial disclosure, in the form of a sanitized summary, as S.1080 would require.
- c The Honorable William V. Roth, Jr. Thank you for this opportunity to provide the Commission's views on S. 1080.
Sincerely,
/
Nun '
J.
I adinc cc: Sen. Thomas F. Eagleton
..... - -.