ML20209H842
| ML20209H842 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 07/13/1999 |
| From: | Mcgaffigan E NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Cyr K NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9907210080 | |
| Download: ML20209H842 (2) | |
Text
,g' . 1 s th fj l ~ _l l ,Y _ .m
,4 v c UNITED STATES
[pa aro ,% NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION R 3 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 E
E f
%,. J COMSECY-99-022 OFFICE cF THE "71, cer w ed GENERAL COUNSEL July 2,1999'"g
,f MEMORANDUM FOR: Chairman Dieus a k. ),7{
Commissioner Diaz '********'**?********ae* Commissioner McGaffigan RELEASEDTOTHE PDR Commissioner Merrifield a e FROM: Karen D. Cygha- : Wh9 &gg ~ gg General Counsel ,.....................eq
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 ir. 085 to the Government in the Sunshine Act regulations. The analysis of comments in the proposed Notice is essentially identical to that 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 slated cc: SECY EDO 1 IO _ Lj _ l [ 7 q f r i \lc S /h b ' 210000 9907210080 990706 PDR COMMS NRCC CORRESPONDENCE PDR
1 } \ v i 0 l Commissioner McGaffigan's comments on COMSECY 99 22 j i As I said in my response to CR 99-126, I believe that the Commission should issue a ; Federal Register notice that responds to comments on the notice of our intent to implement the existMg rule. The draft noticciin COMSECY 99-22 is, like the response to Rep. Markey, quite well done and timely, and I generally appcove it.- I continue to think, however, that we should rnake a stronger response to the legitimate , concern that the rule does not exoticitly bar the Commission from having a non- l Sunshine Act discussion with, say, industry representatives. OGC's preference is simply to state clearly in the Federal Register notice that the Commission never I intended to, and will not, have such meetings, and the draft notice is written in accord with that preference (see ihe paragraph over the break between pages 8 and 9). I would prefer to say the same thing la the rule, though not in any way that would detract from the clarity with which tF e existing rule incorporates the Supreme Court's standard for determining what is a " meeting" under the Government in the Sunshine Act. I would ! therefore propose that the following words, taken almost verbatim from the draft notice's discussion of this issue, be added to 10 CFR @ 9.102, so that it would read as follows (new material is underiined): 9 9.102 General requirements Commissioners shall not jointly conduct or dispose of Commission business in Commission meetings other than in accordance with this subpart Except as provided in @ 9.104, every portion of every meeting of the Commission shall be open to public observation. No auorum of Commissioners shall conduct non-Sunshine Act discussions with representatives of licensees or of oraanizations who could be considered to be interested carties to NRC
.adiudicatory or rulemakina proceedinas.
I would urge that we complete action on this COMSECY as soon as possible. We announced that we would implement the existing rule on July 1. Our responses to comments should not trail too far behind. If rnodifying the draft notice to incorporate a rule change would slow down issuance of the notice, I would be willing to have the notice be modified to say that, based on the comments received, the Commission will promptly issue a direct final rule that will prohibit the Commission from having non-Sunshine Act discussions with licensee representatives or parties to adjudications or rulemakings.
'}}