ML20056B487
| ML20056B487 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 05/17/1989 |
| From: | Meyer D NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION (ADM) |
| To: | Cho J NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19336C343 | List: |
| References | |
| FRN-55FR27645, RULE-PR-2 AD60-1-07, AD60-1-7, NUDOCS 9008280345 | |
| Download: ML20056B487 (22) | |
Text
N
/]t)(sO -I j'/)K I
n ~ [ca:
'o,,
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i
o
(
W ASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 I
\\
[
gay 171939 l
4 MEMORANDUM FOR:
John Cho Office of the General Counsel FROM:
David L. Meyer, Chief i
Regulatory Publications Branch 4
Division of Freedom of Information and Publications Services Office of Administration SU'1 JECT :
REVIEW OF PROPOSED RULE ENTITLED,
" PROCEDURES TO ISSUE ORDERS THAT ARE MADE IMMEDIATELY EFFECTIVE" The Regulatory Publications Branch has reviewed the proposed rule that would amend the provisions in 10 CFR Part 2 governing orders to provide for the expeditious consideration of challenges to orders that are made immediately effective.
We have enclosed a marked-up copy of the proposed rule that presents editorial and format corrections.
We have added language to the summary statement so that it more clearly meets the requirements of the Office of the Federal Register (OFR) set out in 1 CFR 18.12.
In addition, we have made adjustments to the amendatory language and the presentation sf the amendments that are necessary to comply with OFR publication-requirements.
In order to assist you in preparing the list of documents centrally reinvant to this proposed rule that is required by NRC's regulatory history procedures, you should place the designator "AD60-1" in the upper right-hand corner of each document concerning the rule that you forward to the Nuclear Document System.
We have forwarded a copy of the proposed rule to the Information and Records Management Branch, IRM, for their comment and concurrence concerning the paperwork management aspects of this rulemaking action.
9008280345 900821 PDR PR 2 55Fi'27645 PDR
~,..
t MAY I I 1989 John Cho If you have assy' questions concerning this matter, please have a member of your staff contact Betty K. Golden, Regulatory Publicationo Branch, ADM (extension 24268) or Michael T. Lesar, Chief, Rules Review Section, Regulatory Publications Branch, ADM (exten '.on 27758).
I k.) _) 4 M.*., <-
Ps.vid L. Meyer, Chief
' Regulatory Publications Branch Division of Freedom of Information and Publications Services Office of Administration Enclosures i
As stated I
cc:
Brenda Shelton-l
)
f I
l
p, N
s
,_._7 5(10 - o 1 a
- Enclenre A D
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION (40 10 CFR Part 2 RIN 315o-A060 d
Revisions-to Procedures To Issue Orderst ak crr e l%dt AGENCY:
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION:
Proposed rule.
SUMMARY
- The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) proposes to revise its rcy Wboos e governing orders to provide f or the expeditious consideration of y
challenges to orders that are made immediately effective. The proposed amendments specifically allow challenges to the immediate effectiveness of an order to be made at the outset of a proceeding and provide procedures for g-/Aen The the expedited consideration and disposition of Suck challenges.
proposed amendments also require that challenges to the merits of an imediately effective order be heard expeditiously, except where good cause d
a.# '!Pge'/ exists f or delay.
M l^ c4 me rd m e 045 W 'Nf"/n/
{# paw /.C M c't wd g g4,)dy h,c profec{MfC3 4hC 7 g g-gj g
p' publW.s hecd % 5odeh op\\d id e M bI -
c DATES:
The comment period expires on (60 days after publication in the Federal Register). Coments received af ter this date will be considerer' if it is pr4ctical to do so, but assurance of consideration cannot be given except as to comments received on or before this date.
ADDRESSES:
Send written comments to the Secretary of the Comission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington ]C 20 C, Attention:
Docketing and Service Branch. Comments may also be delivered to the Ottice of the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, between 7:{tf a and 4:15 'np fede
/*O 45 o
l l
l L
= key Copies of any comments received may be examined ano copied f or a N W.
Washington, OC fee at the NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L Street 4
, weekdayg (l ouau levelh between the hours of 7:45 a m and 4:15 p FeA ered v>oCN A)5 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Cho, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D, 20555 Telephone:
301-492-lb8b.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
(65 F P, t > S 7 0 OnApril3,1990l[theCommissionpublishedintheFederalRegister R 12370, proposed changes to 10 CFR Part 2, Subpart B.
The 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 addresses P
issuance of orders only to licensees. Other chhnges were also proposed to clarify that hearing rights att6ch only to orders, in contrast to demands to show cause; e.g., demands for explanation or other informati%.
Upon further consideration, the Commissinn has decided that additional changes s
should be madt. to subpart B.fThese aaditional changes pertain to orders that a #;,,,.!)
3 are made immediately ef f ectived
+nt
.m iv w Under[ current /ubpartB,aswellasunderthe pril 3 roposed changes orders can be made immediately effective when required to protect the public 2
h
~
$'/O health, saf ety, or interest or when there has been willf ul misconduct.
There are no provisions, however, under the existing rule or under the 4 hese proposed changes, that specifically require that challenges to suc(orders, qts 4 including challenges to the immediate effectiveness of +ttch orders, be heard preposed The(serevisions p e re n d herein address this and other related expeditiously.
matters.
As the rule is structured currently,and under the April 3 proposal, the reciptent of an order may answer it by consenting to the order or by challeng1ng it by demanding a hearing. Where the hearing demand concerns an order that is immedis?41y effective, the person or persons te whom the order is issued are nevertheless required to comply with its provisions pending the completion the hearing. The imposition of this requirement is necessary to enable the Comission to carry out its responsibility for protecting the public health, safety and interest. The public health, g
saf etgand 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. To this end, the Commission is proposing further changes to s c+ ion 2.202, in
//f#q) addition to those published on April 37 l
The Commission believes that a proper balance between the private and j
governrrental interests involved is achieved by a hearing conducted on an se rn/wd accelerated basis. Thefrevisions pr-opeeed-iieret a provision to the earlier proposed ection 2.202 directing that any requested hearing on en immediately ef fective order will be conducted expeditiously, giving due considerat ion to the rights of the parties. Another added provision allows 1
3 p
challenges to be made at the outset on the need for immediate effectiveness.
7hs type of bch-+r.hallengecanbeinitiatedbyamotionbytherecipientoftheorder to set aside the inr.ediate ef f ectiveness of the order.
A motion to set aside immediate effectiveness must be based on one or both of the following grounds: the willful misconduct charged is unfounded od or the public health, safety,0f interest does not require the order to be made immediately effective. No other ground for challenge is permitted inasmuch as no other ground is relevant, The motion must set out specifically its supporting reasons and must be accompanied by any necessary af fidevits providing the f actual basis f or 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 officer (an atomic safety and licensing board or an administrative B
3 S
E law judge as designated by the Comission) before the presiding of ficer takes up any other matter not necessary to the resolution of that request.
To assure prompt decision, the provision establishes rapid times for action by the parties as well as by the presiding officer.
It is expected that the i
l presiding officer normally will decide the questior of immediate f
ef fectiveness solely on the basis of the order and Other iilings in the n
s record.[The presiding officer may call for oral argument.[However, an evidentiary hearing is to be held only it the presiding officer finds the record is iride uate to reach a proper decision on immediate effectiveness.
This e 0 :
stre s
ation is expected to occur only rarely, in deciding the question of immediate effectiveness under ksetion/\\2.202 jothuconn es proposed here4k the presiding officer will apply an adequate evids ce standard.j This stancard is analogous to the evicence necessary to fino 4(
4
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, "[pJrobable cause is deemed to exist where f acts and circumstances within attiant's knowledge, and of which he has reasonably trustworthy information, are sufficient unto themselves to warrant a man of reasonable caution to believe that an offense has been or is being :omitted."
r~
! 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 f acts and circumstanceswithintheNPCstafQknowledgeofwhichithasreasonably trustworthy information are sufiicient to warrant a person of reasonable caution to believe that the charges of willful misconduct, if any, contained in the order are true end/or that the action specified in the order is necessary to protect the public health, safety terest.
The Commission believes that the " probable cause" standard, adapted as the adequatc evidence standard f or use in the Commission's proceedings involving challenges to the imediate effectiveness of orders, serves the public interest. Con. mission orders of ten ceal with willful misconduct or other circumstances thet threaten harm to the public health, safety,or i
E interest.
In some instances, the threat may be iminent.
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 cases, it is inperative thet the Commission be able to take whatever measures that may be necessery to protect the public heblth, safety, % interest. The adequate evidence standard for deciding questions of imr?dicte effectiveness encbles the Commission to proceed with necessary 5
protective action on the basis of reasonably trustworthy information without having to await the completion of a tuli hearing on the merits 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 f rom bidding on government contracts (and thus allowing the suspension to remain in effect for a reasonable period without a hearing), where significant governmental interests are involveo and the risk of erroneous deprivation of an individual's interest is slight.
See Transco Security.inc. v. Freeman, 639 F.2d 318 (6th Cir. 1981), cert.
denied, 454 U.S. 820 (1981); Horne Brothers, Inc. v. Laird, 463 F.2d 1268, (D.C.Cir.1972). 1 hose same considerations support Ldoption of the adequate evidence rule here.
The following example illustrates how the Commission intends that the adequate evidence standard will be applied.
A common type of order directs a licensee to take or desist from taking certain action because of an asserted willf ul violation of-a license or regulation.
An affidavit by a cognirant NRC official that sets forth facts sufficient to lead a reasonably cautious persor. to believe that the asserted willful violation did occur is sutticient to sustain the immediate effectiveness of the order. As another example, an order directs a licenste to take certain action because the Commission is in possession of information indicating that the ordered onb action is necessary to protect the public health, saf ety or interest.
7 Similarly, an affidavit by a cognizant NRC otticial that sets forth suf ficient information to lead a reasonably cautiou.t person to believe that the ordered ection is necessary to protect the public health, safety, p a d n
p 6
i interest is sufficient to sustain the immediate effectiveness of the order.
This standard does not require evioence by persons with first hand knowledge of the f acts of the sort that would be required at the f ull adjudicatory hearing. Nor does it call for a balancing of evidence between that provided by the NRC staff and that provided by the person seeking to set aside immediate effectiveness.
It is not a preponderance of the evidence test.
Rather, if the staff's evidence is sufficient to cause a person of reasonable caution to believe that the order is properly founded, the presiding officer is required to uphold the immediate effectiveness of the order.
In this regard, the presiding officer must view the evidence presented in a light most favorable to the staff and resolve all inferences in the staff's favor.
The Comission intends that a motion to set aside the imediate eff ectiveness of an order will be the only mechanism for challenging immediate effectiveness. In the circumstance, a presiding officer will not entertain any motion to stay the immediate effectiver.ess of an order; nor will e presiding officer issue sua sponte such a stay.
In general, the Commission expects that a motion to set aside immediate effectiveness will be decided within fif teen (15) days of the date of the Comission order designating the time and place of hearing.
A presiding officer's orde,' upholding the imediate effectiveness of an A
order will constitute the final ag sney action on immediate ef fectiveness.
presiding officer's order setting aside immediete effectiveness will be referred promptly to the Commission for review and will not be effective pending further order of the Comission.
h'v The Commission's authority under cctiom 2.202 to issue imediately effective orders includes the authority to issue amendatory or supplemental orders that sco immediately effective. Section 2.202 will remain the same in this respect.
If such an order is issued by the staff af ter a hearing has been ordered, the licensee or other person affected may move that the immediate effectiveness of the amendatory or supplemental order be se4 aside
%is \\ qp t ch pending completion of the hearing on the merits.
udi+ motion will be given expedited consideration by the presiding officer and decided on the basis described above.
Notwithstanding the f actors that call for expedited resolution of disputes arising out of immediately effective orders, there may be instances when overriding public interest considerations require delay in the proceeding on the merits. The revisions proposed herein to the earlier proposed ctton 2.202 include a provision allowing reasonable delays in the a
6 l
conduct of the proceedings on the merits where good cause exists. As an l
example of the kind of good cause warranting 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 Comission to investigate further into the matter or the Department of Justice to undertake criminal investigation l
1 without prejudice to possible prosecution of any discovered crime, it may be necessary to hold the hearing on the immediately effective order in abeyance for a reasonable period of time. The proposed revision to sect-fo 2.202 3
allows the Comission, either on motion by the steff or any other party, to Oes e. kiPf G oC
/
delay tne hearing in stich ases, for suc eriods as-may-l appropriate Mfo the circumstances. The proposed revision, however, does not authorize delay in the proceeding on a motion to set asioe immediate eftectiveness. The 8
7-1 i
1 length of a delay in the proceeding on the merits should be based on a k ('
i balance of the competing interests involved. See q%SV Looan v. Zimmerman Brush Co., 455 U.S. 422, 434 (1982). Sucint motion will be expeditiously heard and decided.
Environmental Impact: Categorical Exclusion The NRC has determined that 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 en environmental essessment has been preparco for this proposed rule.
Paperwork Reductior Act Statement This proposea 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.).
Regulatory Analysis Theexistingregulationsin10CFR$)P 2.202 authorize the NRC, through its designated ottici61s, to institute a proceeding to modify, 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, 9
L, l
although such action is authorized by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended.
On April 3 1990 (55 FR 12370), the Comission proposed amendments to ib. r e p%b o n, s 4o be
-eake-the-Comisston% Ales-et-Preet44 more consistent with the y
.__Comission't existing statutory authority and to provide the Comission with the appropriate procedural framework to take action, in appropriate cases, in order to protect *he public health and safety. The proposed amendments also were to make clear the distinction between orders - e.g., directions to tele or desist from taking certain actions - and demanos for information.
Only orders were proposed to be made immediately effective and subject to hearing, consistent with existing regulations. Neither the existing regulations nor the proposed emendments, however, contained provisions The amendments requiring that any such hearing be conducted expeditiously.
proposed by this rulemaking supplement the earlier proposal by adding provisions directing the expeditious conduct of any hearing on an immeaiately effective order,but allowing delays in the conduct of we by hearings in certain circumstances where good cause for delay is shown, and establishing a separate, informal procedure f or dealing rapidly with th e.
challengestotheimmediateettectivenessofsucyrder.
The proposed rule ccostitutes the preferred course of action and the etst involved in its promulg6 tion and application is necessary and r
appropriate.f;The foregoing discussion constitutes the regulatory analysis for this proposed rule, p.egulatory flexibility Certific6 tion 10
4 As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C.
605(b)), the Commission certifies that this rule, if adopttd, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The proposed rule establishes the procedural mechanism for dealing with orders that are made immediately effective. The proposed rule, by itself, does not impose any obligations on entities including any regulated entities that may f all within the definition of "small entities" as set forth in gect"- 601(3) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, or within the definition
- siness" as found in section 3 of the Small Business Act,15 x
.J f-e within the Small usiness Size Standards found in 13 CFR Fe d
,,t;f sigations would not be created until an order is issued, at whic., ume the person subject to the order would have a right to a hearing in accordance with the regulations.
B 9 0 4pS Backfit Analysis This prop 5 md rule does not involve o new pWitfFwould 6 50.109(aJt11. -sccordinjly no backfit impose backtits as defi 3
anal ursuant to 10 CFR i 50.109(c) is required for this pr e7 j g
List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 2 Administrative practice and procedure, Antitrust, Byproduct material, Classified information, Environmental protection, Nuclear materials, Nuclear power plants and reactors,' enalty. Sex discrimination, Source material, P
Special nuclear materiel, Waste treatment end disposal.
For the reasons set cut in the preamble and under the authority of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, the Energy Reorganization Act of l
11 1
4
-Tosect Backfit Analysis The NRC has determined that the backfit rule, 10 CFR 50.109, does not unply to this proposed rule. and therefore, that a backfit analysis is not required for this proposed rule, because these amendments do not involve any provisions which would impose backfits as defined in 10 CFR 50.109(a) (1).
1 i
1974, as amended, and 5 U.S.C. 553, the NRC is proposing to adopt the following amendments to 10 CFR Part 2.
Part 2 -- Rules of Practice for Domestic Licensing Proceedings 1.
The authority citation for Part 2 is revised to recd as follows:
Authority: Secs 161,181, 68 Stat. 948, 953, as amended (42 J.S.C.
2201, 2231); sec.191, as amended, Pub. L.87-615,76 Stat.409(42U.S.C.
2241): sec. 201, 88 Stat.1242, as amended (42 U.S.C. 5841); 5 U.S.C. 552.
53, 62,4, 81, 103, 104, 105, 68 63 Sec. 2.101 clso issued under secs.
Stat. 930, 932, 933, 935, 936, 937, 938, asamended(42U.S.C.2073,2092, 2093, 2111, 2133, 2134, 2135); sec.114(f), Pub. L.97-425, 96 Stat. 2213, a s @H"ded (42 U.S.C.10134(t)); sec.102, Pub. L.91-190, 83 Stat. 853 as amended (42 U.S.C. 4332); sec. 301, 88 Stet. 1248 (42 U,S.C. 587 Sections 2.102, 2.103, 2.iO4, 2.105, 2.721 also issued under secs, 102, 103, 104, 105, 183, 189, 68 Stat. 936, 937, 938, SS4, 955, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2132, 2133,
?134,2135,2233,2239). Section 2.105 also 1ssued under Pub. L.97-415, 96 Stat. 2073 (42 U.S.C. 2239). Sections 2.200-2.206 also issued under secs.
161b, i, o, 182, 186, 234, 68 Stat. 948-951, 955, 83 Stat. 444, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2201(b)[, (i), (o), 2236, 2282); sec. 206, 88 Stat.1246 (42 U.S.C. 5846).
Sections 2.600-2.606 also issued under sec. 102, Pub. L.91-190, 83 Stat. 853, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4332). Sections 2.700a, 2.719 L
also issued under 5 U.S.C. 554 Sections 2.754, 2.760, 2.770, 2.780 also issued undei 5 U.S.C. 557.
Section 2.764 and Table 1A of Appendix C -ere #
also issueo unaer secs. 135, 141, Pub. L.97-425, 96 Stat. 2232, 2241 (42 U.S.C. 10155, 10161 ). Section 2.790 61so issued under sec.103, 68 Stat.
I 12
~
936, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2133) and 5 U.S.C. 552. Sections 2.800 end 2.808 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 553. Section 2.809 also issued under 5 U.S.C.
553 and sec. 29, Pub. L.85-256, 71 Stat. 579, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2039).
Subpert K also issued under sec. 189, 68 Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C. 2i39); sec. 134, Pub. L.97-425, 90 Stat. 2230 (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). Apper. dix B also issued under sec. 10, Pub. L.99-240, 99 Stat. 1842 (42 U.S.C. 2021b et
[
seq.).
2.
Section 2.20? 1s revised to read as follows:
b 2.202 Order.
(a) The Comission may institute a proceeding to modify, suspend, or revoke a license or to take such other ection as may be proper by serving on the licensee or other person subject to the jurisdiction of the Commission ar. order that will:
(1) Altege the violations with which the litersee or otht:r person subject to the Commission's jurisciction is charged, or the potentially hazardous conditions or other facts oeemed to be sufficient ground for the proposed action, and specify the action proposed; I
1 l
13 I
, a
(
- 2) Provide that the; licensee or other person ile a written' 6nswer to the~ order under oath or affirmation within twenty (20) days of its I
.date, or such other time as may be specified in the order; (3) Inform the licensee or other person of his or her right, within i
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. cart of the order, except in a case where.the licensee or other person has consenteci-in writing to the order;
-(4) Specify the issues for hearing; (5). State the effective date of the order, and O
Provide, for stated reasons, that the proposed action be
.-jmmediate'ly effective, pending further order, where the Commission' finds that gesd r.
the public health, cafety or* interest so requires or that the violation or
>E ccnduct causing the violation is willful.
(b) The. licensee or other person to whom the Ccmmission has' issued an revern
}
- order under h eet4en (a)j respond to the order by filing a written
^
t-J,,.r eda n mash
. answer under oath or aftirmation. The answer q specifically admit t.r 0W5.
deny each allegation or charge made in the order, and sha4 set forth the matters of f act and law cn which the licensee or other person relies, and, if the order is not consented to, the reasons as to why the order should not j
gg/ J ll l
/,g,g gp f,s$GYC ' [c y,,g, jr yijpu f,-f fcx,rAv/
&r/kr, f
yj W" WWwwd 14 i
4 have been issued. Except as provided in (d) below, the answer may include aM demand for a hearing.
Q (c) (1)
If 4the-answe= d r :eds a hearing is demanded, the Commission M
- will' issue an order designating the time and place of hearing.
If a hearingd.
is demanded with respect to an immediately effective order, the hearing will 4
s be conducted expeditiously, giving due consideration to the rights of theUC parties.
(2) The licensee or other person to whom the Commission has issued an order may, in addition to dem6r. ding a hearing, move to set aside the
_4 The motion b tate with e_
inanediate eff ectiveness of the order.
particularity the reasons why the immediate eff ectiveness of the order- %j should be set aside and shall be accompanied by affidavits or other.
M evidence relied on. The Coninission staff shall respond within (5) days'ot j --
MWW G the filing of the motion. The motion shall'*oe decided by the presidina^%-. k n, L officer expeditiously before any /Other matter unnecessary to the f(
disposition of the motion. The presiding officer shall exercise its powersN to regulate the conduct of the proceeding, including reducing the ti'aes%L specified in subpart G for particular actions, to assure expeditious c
consideration and disposition of the inotion. During the pendency of the-L.
in y motion or at any other tiae, the presiding officer sh d not stay the_ c3 1mmediate effectiveness of the order, either on its own motion, or upon g motion of the licensee or other persty. The presiding officer shall _4 uphold the irrmediate effectiveness et the order if it finds that there
.. A is adeouate evidence tn support irrediate effectiveness.
R Ib
'n go cei t
4
- An order upholding immediate effectiveness will constitute the final agencyg action on immediate effectiveness. An order setting aside immediate effectiveness will be referred promptly to the Commission ii.as1# and willg.-
not be effective pending further order of the Comission.
(O
%L f "',pn
- g f),is J " N '"'
(3) Except as provided in (E) abav[the Commission may, on motiong i
by the staff or any other party to the proceeding, where good cause exists,O.
delay' the hearing on the immediately eff
.. Order at any time for such+- L periods as are consistent with the due process rights of the licensee and%L-j other affected parties.
(d) An answer may consent to the entry of an order in substPJulally the form proposed in the order with respect to all or some of the actions proposed in the order. ' The consent of the licensee or other pe* son to whom the order has been issued to the entry of a consent order shall con:;titute a waiver by the licensee or other person of-a hearing, findings of f act and conclusions of law, and of all right.to seek Commission and judicial review or to contest the validity of the order in any forum as to those matters to or ag{ reed to or on which a hearing has not been which have been consenteu (nus requested. The consent order sheM have the same force and ef fect as an b
md order made af ter hearing by a presiding officer or the Commissian, and -sha44 be eftective as provided in the order.
16
/
h, t
(e) If the order involves the modification of a Part 50 licensee and MV bk is.a backfit, the requirements of 5 50.109 of_this chapter be followed., unless the-licensee has consented to the action required.
bl Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this day of 1990.
$deor kst34b\\0i3 For the Comissiong
/
Sktf J. Chilk" Secretary of the Comissiog 17
u~,-mn-.,me-,--w-w--
n--n S
> 1 a
6 I
ja.
L i
e.ts
,I
.M..
n Li 4
'f.!-
9 3
t
-s i
N 1
'h t
S I
s
.]
t p.
y 1-ENCLOSURE B i
d x
s f-
[p -
P u
h i
b
{!:
s p-(, ?
J. !
4-t p.r.-
i y
..v, p
g t'
!y I
L i.
\\
l '.'-
i T
l 1b>
U-Qw%m_.4%% e.
.,--v_=-
~
r
- -- J
- i J.:
4
- Yg.arg'og e
. UNITED STATES
,f' Ig NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION W ASHINGTON, D, C. 20%S j
- 7,i j'
k.....,/
Enclosure B-Th'e Honorable John B. Breaux, Chairman Subcomittee. on Nuclear Regulation Comittee on Environment and Public Works United States Senate
-Washington, DC -20510
~
Dear Mr. Chairman:
e, g, g,p3 v
Enclosed for your information +], ccpics a proposed rule to be published' in the Federal Register.
On. April 3 1990, the Commission published in the Federal Register a proposed rule to revise the Comission's procedures in 10 C F R art 2. #
Subpart B,'for issuing orders to include persons not license y the Comission-but who are otherwise subject.to the Comission's jurisdiction.
~ The rulemakin9 was initiated to reflect more-fully the Commission's existing statutory av tity to issue orders than.s presently the case, and to clarify the N ' of _Comission orders to which hearing rights attach.
The current ru.c.aaking sup;lements the earlier proposed changes by proposing additional emendments 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 i
cc:.The Honorable Alan K. Simpson
(
- -