ML20209H724
| ML20209H724 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 07/14/1999 |
| From: | Diaz N NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Cyr K NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9907210056 | |
| Download: ML20209H724 (3) | |
Text
'l ( ,, .
o UNITED STATES " E~
ur,%
y "', NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION T ! t., . WASH!NGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 E
E
.....,# COMSECY-99-022 OFFICE oF THE GENERAL COUNSEL July 2,1999 Ap' proved subject to attached comments MEMORANDUM FOR: Chairman Dieus Commissioner Diaz * '**********************6 Commissioner McGaffigan
- RELEASED TOTHE PDR Commissioner Merrifield
- FROM: Karen D. Cy 9- ,'
9]I9/M date (aW initials General Counsel . . . . . . . . . ,. e e e e . e e e e e e ,t
SUBJECT:
SUNSHINE ACT COMMENT RESOLUTION We have prepared the attached Federal Register Notice for use by the Commission in responding to the comments received on the May 10,1999, Federal Register notice declaring its intent to begin implementing changes made in 1985 to the Govemment in the Sunshine Act regulations. The analysis of comments in the proposed Notice is essentially identical to that i provided earlier by this office in SECY 99-166, but the analysis has been put in a question and answer format similar to the approach used in the May 10th notice.
Attachment:
As stated !
cc: SECY EDO 1
t /
~
$D
[]
- g. 7 9907210056 990714 PDR i'
CONNS tGtCC <
CORRESPONDENCE PDR pa G ,j' t\ l-210005 -
h-Ii ' f.*<
d j
COMMISSIONER DIAZ'S COMMENTS ON COMSECY 99-22 As I stated in my vote on CR 99-126, I support a Federal Register notice responding to comments on the notice of our intent to implement our existing Sunshine Act rule, and I would not support implementing the rule until after the Federal Register notice is published and we have an opportunity to review and consider res-ponses (if comments are solicited).
Additionally, I would recommend a modification of our response to the public comments that clarifies further our prior Federal Register notice and the Commission's intent not to hold non-Sunshine Act discussions with outside interested parties. Although OGC's draft notice already speaks well to this Intent (Response to Comment H), I recommend that it be modified as follows:
The Commission's intent is that non-Sunshine Act discussions would be limited to NRC or other Federal agency personnel, with limited exceptions for persons (e.g.
representatives of the regulation body of a foreign nation, or a state regulator) who i' could not be considered interested parties to Commission adjudicatory or rulemaking proceedings. The Commission is committed to implementing this intent; the non-Sunshine Act discussions will not include discussions with representatives of licensees j or of organizations who could be considered to. be interested parties to NRC i i
adjudicatory or rulemaking proceedings orloth.e'rwise could influence. policy decisioni making.
The NRC's principles of independence and openness, in support of its Congressional mandate and servi c~ e to a'll citizens, provide a compelling rationale for this policy.
While I do not believe that the Commission should initiate a related rule change at this time in conjunction with the Commission's publication of its response to comments, I do believe the Commission should consider options for codification or further confirmation of the above j clarification through rulemaking or d3velopment of a policy statement. To this end, I recommend that OGC advise the Commission on appropriate approaches.
I also recommend that the following statement be added at the end of the first paragraph of the supplementary information:
During the period of its review of the comments, the Commission has not held any non-Sunshine Act discussions and has dec'ided not to hold any such discussions until 30 l days after the publication of these responses. l l
The summary statement and the last paragraph of the notice should be modified accordingly.
Finally, I propose an addition to the response to Comment L regarding record-keeping. In the l Federal Register notice on May 10,1999, the Commission advised that it would maintain a l record of non-Sunshine J.ct discussions for an initial six-month period and would revisit the
~
usefulness of the record-keeping practice after the six-month period. I suggest that we add the ;
following statement to the response: )
Nonetheless, the Commission will carefully evaluate the usefulness of the practice after ,
six-months and will not discontinue the practice in the absence of an advance notice to {
the public of its evaluation and any resulting decision. j
's 4
af 2
This would be consistent with the Commission's desire to conduct a careful review and should alleviate some stakeholders' concerns about implementation of the Sunshine Act. m ld S
l I
I
\
e 9
O