ML20056B466
| ML20056B466 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 06/21/1990 |
| From: | Cho J NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC) |
| To: | Meyer D NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION (ADM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19336C343 | List: |
| References | |
| FRN-55FR27645, RULE-PR-2 AD60-1-03, AD60-1-3, NUDOCS 9008280321 | |
| Download: ML20056B466 (22) | |
Text
i
[\\
jyb y.l I
s.
l'b R
(
.[cp ue, *k UN11ED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION j
a 5
l WASHINGTON, D C,20555
(
/
s June 21. 1990 MEMORANDUM FOR:
David L. Meyer, Chief
]
Regulatory Publications Branch i
Division of Freedom of Information and Publications Services Office of Administration FROM:
John Cho I
Office of the General Counsel
SUBJECT:
REVIEW OF PROPOSED RULE ENTITLED, " PROCEDURES TO ISSUE ORDERS; CHALLENGES TO ORDERS TMAT s
ARE MADE IMMEDIATELY EFFECTIVE" j
Enclosed are:
1.
The subject rule for publication in the Federal Register.
It incorporates those suggested changes marked on the rule we previously sent you for publication that were agreed upon by Ms. Golden of your
-j office and me.
2.
Letters to the chairmen of the relevant Congressional committees, signed by the General Counsel, advising them of the publication of the proposed rule.
I understand your office will review and forward the rule to the Secretary for signature in accordance with the SRM on this matter and will forward the letters to GPA/CA for dispatch when the signed rule-is sent to the Federal Register.
1 6{Ls/
John Cho Office of the General Counsel
Enclosures:
As stated l
I 9008280321 900821 PDR PR 2 55FR27645 PDR c
c A
[7d90-01]
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 10 CFR Part 2 RIN 3150-AD60 Revisions to Procedures To issue Orders: Challenges to Orders that are made immediately Effective AGENCY:
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION:
Proposed rule.
SUMMARY
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) proposes to revise its
]
regulations governing orders to provide for the expeditious consideration of challenges to orders that are made immediately effective. The proposed 1
amendments specifically allow challenges to the immeciate effectiveness of an order to be made at the outset of a proceeding and provide procedures for the expedited consideration and disposition of such ch611ec.ges. The proposed amendments also require that challenges to the merits of an innediately effective order be heard expeditiously, except where good cause exists for delay.
DATES:
The comment period expires on (60 days after publi'. tion in the Federal Register).
Comments received after this date wil' oe considered if
~it is practical to do so, but assurance of consideration cannot be given except as to comments received on or before this date.
...c
r i.
ADDRESSES:
Send written comments to the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555, Attention:
Docketing and Service Branch.
Comments nay also be delivered to the Office of the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, One White Flint North, 115bb Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, between /:45 am and 4:15 pm Federal Workdays. Copies of any comments received may be examinea and copled f or a fee at the NRC Public Document Rocm, 2120 L Street, NW (Lower Level), Washington, DC between the hours at 7:45 am and 4:15 pm Federal Workdays.
l FOR FURTHER INFORMAL 10N CONTACT: John Cno, Uttice of the General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC, 20b55, Telephone:
301-492 1685.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION-
Background
On April 3, 1990 (bb FR 12370), the Commission published in the Federal Register proposed changes to 10 CFR Part 2, Subpart B.
Ine proposed changes, if adopted, would make clear that the provisions governing the issuance of orders include within their scope all persons subject to the jurisdiction of the Commission, licensees as well as non-licensees. As it exists now, except for orders imposing civil penalties, subpart B addressas issuance of orders only to licensees.
Other changes were also proposed to clarify that hearing rights attach only to orders, in contrast to demands to 2
-l 1
show cause; e.g., demands for explanation or other information. Upon turther consideration, the Commission has decided that additional changes should be made to subpart B.
These additional changes pertain to orders that are made immediately effective.
Under current subpart B, as well as under the emendments proposed on April 3, orders can be made immediately ettective when required to protect the public health, safety, or interest or when there has been willful n.isconduct. There are no provisions, however, under the existing rule or under the proposed changes, that specifically require that challenges to such orders, including challenges to the imned1 ate effectiveness of such orders, be heard expeditiously.
The revisions proposed herein address this and other rel'ated matters.
As the rule ts structured, currently and under the April 3 proposal, the recipient of an order may answer it by consenting to the order or by challenging it by demanoing a hearing. Where the hearing demand concerns an order that is innediately effective, the person or persons.to whom the order 1
is issued are nevertheless requ1 red to comply with its provisions pending l'
the completion of the hearing. The imposition of this requirement is l
l necessary to enable the Commission to carry out its responsibility for l
l protecting the public health, safety, and interest. The public health, l
safety, and interest must be held paramount over any conflicting private interests. At the same time, fairness considerations dictate that the interests of the recipients be accommodated to the extent it can be done without impediment to the Commission's exercise of its responsibility.
10 3
this end, the Comission is proposing further changes to 6 2.202, in addition to those publisned on April 3 The Commission believes that a proper balance between the private and governmerital interests involved is achieved by a hearing conducted on an accelerated basis. The revisions proposed herein add a provision to the ear 11er proposed i 2.202 directing that any requested hearing on an imediately ef fective order wiIi be conducted expeditiously, giving due consideration to the rights of the parties. Another added provision allows challenges to be made at the outset on the need for inmediate effectiveness.
ducn a challenge can be in1tlated by a motion by the recipient of the order to set aside the immediate effectiveness of the order.
A motion to set aside immeoiate effectiveness must be based on one or both of the following grounds:
the w111tui misconduct charged is unfounded or the public health, safety or interest does not require the order to be mace immediately effective. No other ground for challenge 1s permitted inasmuch as no other ground is relevant.
The motion must set out specifically its supporting reasons and must be accompanied by any necessary affidavits providing the factual basis for the request.
The added provision also specifies that a motion to set aside the immediate effectiveness of an order will be decided promptly by the presiding otticer (an atomic safety and licensing board or an administrative law judge as oesignated by the Commission) before the presiding officer takes up any other matter nnt necessary to the resolution of that request.
4
o 1
To assure prompt decision, the provision establishes short time periods for cction by the parties es well as by the presiding officer.
It is expected that the presiding officer normally will decide the question of immediate effectiveness solely on the basis of the order and other filings in the record.
The presiding officer may call for oral argument. However, an evidentiary hearing is to be held only it the presiding officer t5nds the record is inadequate to reach 6 proper decision on immeciete ettectiveness.
Such a situation is expected to occur only rarely.
In dec1cing the question of immeciate effectiveness under ta 2.202 as proposed herein, the presiding otticer will apply an adequate evidence standard.
This standard is analogous to the evidence necessary to find probable cause to make an arrest, to obtain a search warrant, or to obtain a preliminary hearing on a criminal matter.
In a criminal enforcement context, "[p]robable cause is deemed to exist where facts and circumstances within a'fiant's knowledge, and of which he has reascnably trustworthy inf ormation, are sufficient unto themselves to warrant a man of reasonable caution to believe that an offense has been or 1s being committed."
(United States v. Hill, 500 F.2d 315, 317 (5th Cir. 1974)).
In the context of the proposed rule, adequate evidence is deemed to exist when facts and circumstances within the NRC staff's knowledge, of which it has reasonably trustworthy information, are sufticient tu warrant a person of reasonable caution to believe that the charges of willful misconduct, it any, contained in the order are true end/or that the action specified in the order is necessary to protect the public health, safety or interest.
5
i'.
6 p
The Commission believes that the " probable cause" standard, adapted es the adequate evidence standard f or use in the Conn 1ssion's proceedings involving challenges to the immediate ettectiveness of orders, serves the public Interest. Commission orders of ten deal with willful misconduct or other circumstances that threaten h6rm to the public health, safety or interest.
In some instances, the threat may be imminent.
In other instances, while no violation may be involved, information available to the Commission may indicate the need for certain immediate action to provide reasonable assurance that the public health, safety, and interest will be protected, in all coses, it is imperative that the Commission be able to take whatever measures that may be necessary to protect the public health, safety, and interest. The adequate evidence standard for deciding questions of immediate ettectiveness enables the Commission to proceed with necessary protective action on the basis of reasonably trustworthy information without having to await the completion of a full hearing on the nerits of the order.
At the same time, it provides the affected parties a measure of protection against forced compliance, before a hearing, with an order that is insubstantially founded.
The adequate evidence standard has been applied to allow an agency to suspend persons from bidding on government contracts (and thus allowing the suspension to rema1n in effect for a reasonable period withoutahearing),wheresignific6ntgovernmentalinterestsareinvolved and the risk of erron&.ous deprivation of an individual's interest is slight.
4 See Transco Security Inc. v. Freeman, 639 F.2d 318 (6th Cir.1981), cert.
denied, 4b4 U.S. 820 (1981); Horne Brothers, Inc. v. Laird, 463 F.2d 1268, (D.C. Cir. 1972). Those same considerotions support adoption of the adequate evidence rule here.
6
4
.)
I lhe f ollowing example illustrates how the Commission intends that the adequate evidence standard will be applied. A common type of crder directs a licensee to take or desist from taking certain action because of an asserted willful violation of. a license or regulation.- An affidavit by a cognizant NRC official that sets forth facts sutticient to lead a reasonably cautious person to believe that tile asserted willful violation did occur is sufficient to sustain the immediate effectiveness of the order.
As another example, an order directs a licensee to take certain action because the Commission is in possession of inf ormation indicating thot the oroered I
i action is necessary to protect the public health, safety or interest.
l Similarly,- an af fidavit by a cognizant NRC official that sets forth l
L L
. sufficient information to lead a reasonaDly cautious person to believe that 1:
the ordered action is necessary to 3rotect the public.healit safety, or l
interest is sufficient to sustain the immeciate effectiveness of the order.
Ihis standard does not require evidence by persons with first hai,0 knowledge of the tacts.
Nor does it call f or a balancing of evidence between that provided by the NRC staff and that provided by the person seeking to set l
asioe 1minediate effectiveness.
It is not a preponderance of the evidence test. Rather, it the steff's evioence is sutticient to cause a persoa of reasonable caution to believe that the order is properly founded, that is, l
the conduct or activities of the person identified in the order present a j
l
~ public health, safety, or interest threat that requires immed1 ate remedial l
l' action, the presiding officer is required to uphold the immediate i
1 effectiveness of the order.
In this regard, the presiding officer must view 1
1 the evidence presented in a 11gnt most favorable to the staff and resolve l
bil interences in the staff's favor, i
l l
l 2
+
T The burden of going forward on the immediate effectiveness ist,ue is with the party who moves to set aside the immediate effectiveness provision.
The burden of persuasion on the appropriateness of immediate effectiveness is on the NRC staff.
The Commission intends that a motion to set aside the immediate effectiveness of an order will be the only mechanism for challenging immediate effectiveness.
In the circumstance, a presiding otticer will not entertain any motion to stay the immediate effectiveness of an order; nor will a presiding officer issue sua sponte such a-stay.
In general, the Commission expects that, through the licensing board's imposition of snortened response periot s and expedited filing mechanism:,, a motion to set i
aside immediate ef fectiveness will be decided within t1f teen (15) days of the Jate the hearing request and accompanying motion are referred to the-presiding officer.
See10CFR2.772(j).
L A presiding-officer's order uphoiding the immediate effectivness of an i
order w111 constitute the final agency action on immediate effectiveness. A l
l presiding otticer's order setting aside immediate effectiveness will be referred promptly to the Commission for review and will not be effective pending further order of the Commission.
1-The Commission's authority under 6 2.202 to issue immediately ettective orders includes the authority to issue amendatory or supplemental orders that are immediately effective.
Section 2.202 will rema1n the same in ttis respect.
If such an order is issued by the staff af ter a hearing has been l-I
r Il,
' ordered, the licensee or othcr person affected may move that the immediate ettoctiveness of the amendatory or supplemental order be set aside pending completion of the hearing on the merits. Such a motion will be given expedited consideration by the presiding officer and decided on the basis described obOve, i
Notwithstanding the factors that call for expedited resolution of disputes arising out of immediately effective orders, there may be instances when overriding public interest considerations require delay ir. the proceeding on the merits. TF <e<isions proposed herein to the earlier l
proposed 5 2.202 include a provision allowing reasonable delays in the conduct of the proceedings on the merits where good cause exists.
As an example of the kind of good cause w6rrenting delay, there may be a need for further investigation by the Commission or the U.S. Department of Justice.
In such instances, to allow the Commission to investigate further into the nwtter or the Department of Ju3tice to undertake criminal investigation without prejudice to possible prosecution of any discovered crime, it may be necessary to hold the hearing on the immediately effective orcer in abeyance for a reasonable period of time. The proposed revision to 5 2.202 allows the Commission, either en motion by the statt or any other party, to delay the hearing in such cases, toe such periods as may be appropriate in the circumstances. The proposed revision, however, does not authorize delay in the proceeding on a motion to set eside immediate effectiveness. The length of a oelsy in the proceeding on the merits should be based on a balance of the competlng interests involved.
See Logan v. Zimmerman Brush Co., 455 9
.l."
'U.S.422,434(1982). Such a motion will be expeditiously heard and decided.
Environmental Impact:
Categorical Exclusion
. The NRC has determined th0t this proposed rule is the type of action described in categorical exclusion 10 CFR 51.22(c)(1).
Therefore neither an environmental impact statement nor an environmental assessment has been prepared for this proposed rule.
Paperwork Reduction Act Statement Tnis proposed rule contains no information collection requirements and therefore is not subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
Regu latory Analysis The existing regulations in 10 CFH 2.202 authorize the NRC,. through its designated officials, to institute o proceeding to modity, suspend, or revoke a license by service of an order to show cause on a licensee. The regulations, as currently written, do not provide procedures for the NRC to take direct action against unlicensed persons whose willful misconduct-causes a licensee to violate commission requirements or places in question reasonable assurance of adequate protection of the public health and safety, 10
4 A
y although such act.1on _1s authorized by the Atomic Energy Act of ~1954, as-amended.
On April 3,1990 (55 FR 12370), the Commission proposed amendments to-make the Commission's Rules of Practice more consistent with the Commission's existing statutory authority and to provide the Commission with the appropriate procedural framework to take action, in appropriate cases, 1n. order to protect the public health and safety. The proposed amendments also were to.make clear the distinction between orders - e.g., directions to take or desist trom taking certain actions - and demands for information.
Only orders were proposed to be made immediately effective and subject to hearin;,
insistent with existing regulations.
Neither the existing regulations nor the proposed amendments, however, contained provisions requir1ng that any such hearing be conducted expeditiously.
The amendments proposed by this rulemaking supplement the earlier proposal by adding provisions directing the expeoitious conduct of any hearing on an immediately~ eff ective order but allowing delays in the conduct of such hearings in certain circumstances where good cause for delay is shown, and establishing e separate, informal procedure for dealing rapidly with challenges to the innediate effectiveness of sucn order.
The proposed rule constitutes the preferred course of action and the cost involved in its promulgation and application is necessary and appropriate.
The foregoing discussion constitutes the regulatory analysis for this proposed rule.
11
a Regulatory Flexibility Certitication As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C..
bob (b)), the Commission certifies that this rule, if adopted, will not nave
- a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entit1es.
ihe proposed rule establishes the procedural mechanism for dealing with orders that are made immediately effective, v proposed rule, by itself, does not impose any obligations on entities including any regulated entities I'
that may tall within the definition of "small entities" as set forth in section 601(3) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, or within the definition of "small butir ws" as found in section 3 of the Small Business Act,15 U.S.C. 632, or..hin the Small Business S1ze Standards found in 13 CFR Part 121.
Such obligations would not be created untiI an order is issued, at which time the person subject to the order would have a right to a hearing in accordance with the regulations.
Backfit Analysis This proposed rule does not involve any new provisions which would impose backfits as definea in 10 CFR 50.109(a)(1). Accordingly no backt1t analysis pursuant to 10 CtR 50.109(c) is required for this proposed rule.
List af Subjects in 10 CFR Part 2 Administrative practice and procedure, Antitrust, Byproduct material, Classitled information, Environmental protection, Nuclear materials, Nuclear 12
y
+
..j power plants and reactors, Penalty Sex discrimination, Source material, Special nuclear materiali Waste treatment and disposal.
For the reasons set out in the preamble and under the authority of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, the Energy. Reorganization Act of 1974, as emended, and 5 U.S.C. 553, the NRC is proposing to adopt the folicwing amendnwnts to 10 CFR Part 2.
Part 2 -- Rules of Practice for Domestic Licensing Proceedings 1.
The authority citation for Part 215 revised to read as follows:
l Authority: Secs. 161, 181,-68 Stat. 948, 953, u amended (42 U.S.C.-
2201, 2231); sec.191, as amended. Pub. L.87-615, 76 Stat. 409-(42 U.S.C.
2241): sec. 201, 88 Stat. 1242, as amended (42 U.S.C. 5841); 5 U.S.C. 552.
1 L
Sec. 2.101 also issued under secs. 53, 62,_63, 81, 103, 104, 105, 68 Stat. 930, 932, 933, 935, 936, 937, 938, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2073, 2092, 2093,2111,2133,2134,2135);sec.114(f), Pub.L.97-426,96 Stat.2213, as amended (42 U.S.C.10134(f)); sec.102, Pub. L.91-190, 83 Stat. 853 as amended (42 U.S.C. 4332); sec. 301, 88 Stat. 1248 (42 U.S.C. 5871).
Sections 2.102, 2.103, 2.104, 2.105, 2.721 also issued under secs. 102, 103, 104, 105, 183, 189, 68 Stat. 936, 937, 938, 954, 955, as amended (42 U.S.C.
2132, 2133, 2134, 2135, 2T:3, 2239). Section 2.105 also issued under Pub..
L.97-415, 96 Stat. 2073 (42 U.S.C. 2239). Sections 2.200-2.206 also issued under secs. 161b, 1, o. 182, 186, 234, 68 Stat. 948-951, 955, 83 Stat. 444, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2201(b)), (1), (o), 2236, 2282); sec. 206, Bu Stat.
124b (42 U.S.C. 5846).
Sections 2.600-2.606 also issued unner S.ac. 102, 13
e Pub.L.91-190,83. Stat.853,asamended(42U.S.C.4332).
Sections 2./006, 2.719 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 554.
Sections 2.754, 2./60, 2.770, 2.780 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 557. Section 2./b4 ano Table 1A of Appendix C also issued under secs. 136, 141, Pub. L.97-425, 96 Stat. 2232, 2241 (42 U.S.C. 10155,-10161). Section 2.790 also issued under sec. 103, 68 Stat.
936, as amended (42 U.S.C. 21331 and.5 U.S.C. 552. Sections 2.800 and 2.808 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 553. Section 2.809'also issued under b U.S.C.
553 and sec. 29, Pub. L.85-256, 71 Stat. 579, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2039).
Subpart K also issued under sec.169, 68 Stat. 95E (42 U.S.C. yyau): sec. 134, Pub. L. 9/-425, 96 Stat. 223L (42 U.S.C. 10154).. Subpart L also issued under sec.189, 68 Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C. 2239). Appendix A also issued under sec. 6, Pub. L.91-560, 84 Stat. 1473 (42 U.S.C. 2135). Appendix 8 also issuedundersec.'10, Pub.L.99-240,99 Stat.1842(42U.S.C.2021 bet seq.).
2.
Section 2.202 is revised to read as follows:
G 2.202 Urder.
(a) The Commission may institute a proceeding to modify, suspend, or revoke a license or to take such other action as may be proper by serving on the licensee or other person subject to the Jurisdiction of the Commission an order that will:
(1) Allege the violations with whict the licensee or other person subject to the Connission's jurisdictico is charged, or the potentially 14
-t
- hazardous conditions or other tacts deemed to be sutticient ground for the proposed action, end specify the action proposed; (2) Provide that the licensee or other person must t11e a written answer to the order under oath or affirmation within twenty (20) days of its date, or such other time as may be spe'c1 tied in the order; (3). Inform the licensee or other person of his or her rignt, within twenty (20) days of the date of the order, or such other time as may be specified in the order, to demand a hearing on all or part of the order, except 1n a case where the licensee or other person has consented in writing to the order; (4)- Specify the issues for hearing; (d) State the effective date of the order, and I
(6) Provide, for stated reasons, that the proposed action be immediately effective, pending further order, where the Commission find', tnat the public health, safety or interest so requ1res or that the violation or conduct causing the violation is willful.
l tb) The licensee or other person to whom the Commission has issued an l
l order under paragraph (a) of this section must respond to the order by filing a written answer under oath or affirmation.
The answer shali specifically admit or deny each allegation or charge made in the order, and i
15
e shall set forth the matters of fact and law on which the licensee or other t
person relies, and, if the order is not consented to, the reasons as to.why the order should not have been issued.
Except as provided in paragraph (d) of this section, the answer may include a demand for a hearing.
(c)(1) It a hearing is demanded, the Commission will issue an order designating the time and place of hearing.
If a hearing is demanded with respect to an 1mmediately effectwe order, the hearing will be conducted expeditiously, giving due consideration to the rights of the parties.
(2) The licensee or other person to whom the Commission has issued an l-order nay, in addition to demanding a hearing, move to set aside the immediate effectiveness of the order. The motion shall state with i
particularity the reasons why the immediate ettectiveness of the order l
should be set aside and shall be accompanied by affidavits or other l
l
.ev1dence relied on. The Commission staff shall respond within(5) days.of the filing of the motion.
The motion shalI be decided by the presiding l
L otticer expeditiously before any other matter unnecessory to the disposition of the motion.
The presiding otticer shall exercise its powers to regulate the conduct of the proceeding, including reducing the times 1
specified 1n subpart U for particular actions, to assure expeditious
~
consideration and disposition of the motion. During the pendency of the motion or at any other time, the presiding otticer shall not stay the l
immediate effectiveness of the order, either on its own motion, or upon motion of the licensee or other person.
The presiding officer shall uphold the innediate ef'ectiveness of the order if it finds that there I
16
_?
.E
~'
' s adequate evidence to support immediate effectiveness. An order i
upholding immediate effectiveness will constitute the tinal agency action on immediate effectiveness. An order setting aside immediate effectiveness will be referred promptly to the Commission itselt and will not be effective pending turther order of the Commission.
(3)- Except as provided in paragraph (c)(2) of this section, the Commissien may, on motion by the staff or any other party to the proceidi'19, where good cause exists, delay the hearing on the-immediately effective order at any time for such periods'as are consistent with the due process rights of the licensee and other affected parties.
(d) An answer may consent to the entry c* an order in substantially the form ptoposed in the order with respect to -
or some of the actions proposed in the order. The consent of the licensee or other person to whom the order has been issued to the entry of a consent order shall constitute a waiver by the licensee or other person of-a hearing, findings of fact and conclusions of law, and ot all right to seek Commission and judicial review or to contest the validity of the order in any torum as to those matters which have been consented to or agreed to or on which a hearing has not been requested. The consent order shall have the same force and effect as an order made after hearing by a presiding officer or the Commission, and shall be effective as provided in the order.
17
1 7
- t (e) 17 the' order involves the modification of a Part bu licensee end.
I is a _backfit, the requirements of G 50.109 of this chapter shall be tollowed unless the licensee has consented to the action required..
. 3,;
Dated at' Rockville, Maryland, this day of,
1990.
Eor the Nuclear Regulatory Con.ai ssion.
Samue l J. Chil k, Secretary of the Commission.
7 E
m 7
18
1 y
p t.so
/
'o,, '
UNITED STATES 4:
I I
8' NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION n
(
h$
WASHINGTON, D. L. 20555 j.-
k, l
,o The Honorable Bob Graham, Chairman
. Subcommittee on Nuclear Regulation 1
- Committee on Environment and Public Works United States Senate Washington, DC 20b10
Dear Mr. Chairman:
~
Enclosed f or your information is a copy of a proposed rule to be published in the Federa l Register.
On April 3,1990, the Commission published in the Federal Register a proposed rule to revise the Commission's procedures in 10 C.F.R. Part 2, Subpart B, for issuing orders to include persons not licensed by the Commission but who are otherwise subject to the Conunission's jurisdiction.
The rulemaking was initieted to reflect more fully the Commission's existing statutory authority to issue orders than is presently the case, and tc clarify the types of Commission orders-to which hearing rights attach.
The current rulemaking supplements the earlier proposed changes by proposing additional amendments to Subpart B.
These amendments are designed to expedite the conduct of hearings involving immediately effective orders.
Sincerely,
/ William C. Parler General Counsel
Enclosure:
As stated 4
cc: The Honorable Alan K. Simpson i
'l
e=
. p uo
,'9, UNITED STATES
[.
gr ' j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g
g
,c E.
WASHINGTON, o. C. 20555
?-
1,
~%;
the Honorable Morris K. Udall, Chairman Subcomittee on Energy and the Environment Committee on Interior and Insular Aftairs United States House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515
Dear Mr. Chairman:
Enclosed for your information is a copy of a proposed rule to be published in'the Federal Register.
On April.3,1990, the Comission published in the Federal Register a proposed rule to revise the Commission's procedures in 10 C.F.R. Part 2, Subpart B, for issuing orders to include persons not licensed by the t,ommission but who are otherwise subject to the Commission's jurisdiction.
ihe rulemaking was initiated to reflect more fully the Commission's existing statutory authority to issue orders than is presently the case, and to clarify the types of Commission orders to which hearing rights attach.
The current rulemaking supplements the earlier proposed changes by proposing additional amendments to Subpart B.
These amendments are designed to expedite the conduct of hearings involving immediately effective orders.
Sincerely, William C. Parler General Counsel
Enclosure:
As stated cc: The Honorable James V. Hansen
s.z
=
k
'o{
UNITED STATES
- I' E
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION.
n.
[
WASHINGTO N, D. C. 20555
- f. ?
~
f
....+
The Honorable Philip R. Sharp, Chairman Subcommittee on Energy and Power Comittee on Energy and Comerce United States House of Representatw es Washington, DC 20515
Dear Mr. Chairman:
Enclosed for your information is a copy of a proposed rule to be published in the Federal Register.
Or, April 3,1990, the Comission published in the Fede al Register a proposed rule to revise the Commission's procedures in l' C.F.R. Part 2, Subpart B, for issuing orders to include persons not licinsed by the Commission but who 1.re otherwise subject to the Commissian's jurisdiction.
The rulemaking was initiatea to reflect more tully the Commission's existing statutory authority to issue orders than is presently the case, and to
' clarify the types of-Commission orders to which hearing rights attach.
The current rulemaking supplements the earlier proposed changes by proposing additional amendments tr Subpart B.
These amendments are designed to expedite the conduct of hearings involving immediately effective orders..
Sincerely, William C. Parler General Counsel
Enclosure:
As stated cc:- The Honorable Carlos J. Moornead