ML19261B661

Transcript of 790208 Meeting in Washington,Dc,Re Proposed Amend to 10CFR73.55.Pp 1-19

ML19261B661
Person / Time
Issue date:	02/08/1979
From:	Ahearne J, Hendrie J, Kennedy R NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
To:
Shared Package
ML19261B662	List: ML19261B661 ML19261B665
References
REF-10CFR9.7 SECY-79-059, SECY-79-59, NUDOCS 7902280366
Download: ML19261B661 (19)

Text

1 e

as ll j,';

l1 U'!ITED STATES OF A' ERICA CR2642 2 '!

E.Shev all BiUCLEAR REGULATORY COF'IISSIO? /

~

1 s

s x

/,n,-

3'j

\\'/~d, [-

~'

x

,l

'l

' s,'%

is 5,

CCy_'t!SSION VIETING

'2

'N 3

'l PROPOSED A'END:ENT O 10 CFR 7 3. 5 5 7 :l i

8 Room 1130 1717 H Stree, N.

W.

9 Mashington, D.

C.

10 i Thursday, February 8, 1979 11 The Commission met, pursuant to notice, at 3:25 p.m.

12 BEFORE:

}

13 DR. JOSEPH M.'HENDRIE, Chairman 14 JOHN AHEARNE, Commissioner 15 RICHARD T.

KENNEDY, Commissioner 16 PETER A.

BRADFORD, Commissioner 17 ALSO PRESENT:

18 R.

PURPLE 19 R.

MINOGUE 20 J.

KELLEY I

21 S.

CHILK 22 0

23 l

,t e.Feceral Reporters, Inc.

25 7902280$$$

ga2642

.s

(

3 G

.F

\\

DISCLc.IMER This is an unofficial trar. script of a meeting of the United States Nuclear Regulatory C =ission held on t=sday, 8 F2raarv 1979 in the Commission's offices at 1717 H Street, ii. W., Wasni ngt:n, D. C.

The meeting was open to pu' lic attendance and observation.

This transcript a

has not been reviewed, corrected, or edited, and it may contain inaccuracies.

C The transcript is intended solely for ceneral informa'tional ourposes.

As provided by 10 CFR 9.103, it is not cart of the formai or inforr.al record of decision or the matters discussed.

coressions or cpinion in this transcript do not necessarily rev..iec: 71 n al c.e:eminations or beliefs.

o pleading or other paper may be filed witn the Cc=ission in any proceeding as the result of or addressed to any state = ant or argument contained herein, except as the Cc=ission may authorize.

T 6-Q e

6

2 i

e g

e CR 2642 1.

P ROCEEDING S t

EShev all l

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

Let's go.

The subject this 2 j!

i 3 I afternoon is 10 CFR 73.55, discussion of a proposed mmendment to same, to extend the implementation date for certain measures 4

5 that help protect against insider threats.

d 6 1 I guess Bob Minogue is the leader of the party, and i

7hBob Purple will assist.

I I

O Please go ahead.

9 MR. MINOGUE:

I will give Mr. Gossick's apologies:

10 l he had to run off.

Bob Purple, who is the Assistant Director 11 for Radiological Health and Safeguards Standards will act as 12 the staff spokesman on this paper.

t (Slide.)

())

13 MR. PURPLE:

As you have already mentioned, Mr.

i Chairman, the purpose of SECY-79-59 is to obtain your approval f

Id 15 of a three month delay for the final implementation date in i

16 section 73.55 for physical pat down searches of regular employees, i

17 two man rule, and compartmentalization.

IO The reason for this recuest is that there has been 19 an unanticipated delay in the final resolution of the Materials 20 Access Authorization Program.

I hope to show that these two 21 are very closely linked, and in fact, the Commission has

'2 previousiv decided that the need for pat down searches deoends

(]h 23 on this final decision of the Materials Access Authorization 2

Ace.e at Reporters, Inc, ; Program.

I'd like to call that the MAAP program as I continue

'S talking.

M-A-A-P.

i i

3 1

Second viewgraph, please.

2 (Slide.)

(]h 3

By way of background, to remind you of how we cc.t I

(]h 4

to where we are today, it was in February o'

'77 that section 5

73.55 was published as an effective rule, and it required, 6

among other things, that search procedures be in effec: by l

C 7:

that year.

This, as you may recall, stirred censiderable I.May of e

8 controversy, leading to September 29,

'77, when the Com-l 9

mission granted a 15-month's delay of the search requirements 10 ' for regular employees, and the delay was limited to just that 11 feature.

12 I think it would be useful to cuote from the Federal 13 Register notice that accompanied that delay, to show some of I

g;g) s i

14 the interrelationships of pat down searches and material i

15 access authorization.

I 16 "The Commission is reassessing the implicarions of 17 physical pat down searches of licensee employees, and their 18 value as a part of a total physical system considering their i

19 relations to other features of the security systems required 20 by the new amendments.

The issue is quite complex, and involves.

21 ramifications of employee morale, and the effectiveness of the

{

22 search, per se, and in the context of the total security system..

f.:

I 23 The Commission believes that the question of pat down searches i

24 warrants more deliberate and thorough review, with extensive af Reporters, Inc.1 Ace-,

25 solicitation of public review and comments, before the utility

,i e

4 4

s 1 ' licensees are required to use such searches for their employees."

l i

2l Third viewgraph.

j l

3i (Slide.)

i 4'

This viewgraph is one of uhose used by the staff in 5 !. Sec. tember '77 in suc.c. ort of that delav_, and I show it onlv_ to l

6 9 emphasize the interrelationship between the clearance programs il beinc delayed.

7, and these other features we are talkinc about 8

For instance, it shows in the middle section there, 9

that high assurance protection against an insider can be pro-10 ! vided by a combination of several things, which includes a 11 clearance program, and that there are other alternatives that 12 the staff has concidered.

I (hh 13 Fourth viewgraph, please.

i 14 (Slide.)

15 We are turning now to the background.

The most 16 recent action was.on August 7th of this past year, when the 17 Commission granted a further six-month's delay for full imple-18 mentation, which would have delayed implementation up to 19 February 23, which is two weeks from now.

20 In this case, there were two reasons.

One reason I

i 21 was delays that the licensees were experiencing in receiving, 22 installing and testing of physical protection equipment.

l

(]

l 23 Not necessarily equipment associated with searches, but equip-l (f

24 ment associated with implementation of all the requirements.

AceJNeral Reporters, Inc,I 25 Secondly, that we still had not determined that 1

i t

_3 1, a final need for pat down searches, as it tras stated acain in I

(])

2.that Federal Register notice, that will not be known until the i3: Commission has made a final decision on the proposed MAAP.

Where we are today, with respect to ecuipment --

4 i'

5, (Slide.)

--and the delays that were being experienced, the 6

staff believes that there is no need or justification for further e

e extension of the implementation date.

9 With respect to search requirenents, we do have 10 t interim search procedures in effect, and they have been in 11 effect since September of

'77.

I will outline those briefly 12 in the next slide.

The materials authorization program is not (k

13 yet decided; the hearing board recommendations are not expected i i

1 14 before February 17, somewhere near the end of this month.

That :

15 is a change from what was in our Comnission paper, which said i

16 January 29.

I 17

'( Slide. )

i 18 I'll talk about the impact of that in a few minutes.

19 With respect to interim search procedures, just to remind you 20 i how those work, and they have been effective since September of 21

'77, for regular employees, there is no regular search.

They l

22 are searched in a hands on manner only if there is cause to be 23 suspicious.

For nonregular employces, and these are employees l

(

24 l of a licensee who don't go to the site more than once a week Ace,Feceral Reporters, Inc, 'l 25 l on a regular basis, the degree, the number of people who are i

8

6 1

searched depends upon the amount of physical equipment in the f

2 place.

]g i

3 In other words, iten 2(a) says that if you have k

4-both a metal detector, and an explosive search device, you 5

only search five percent or a random basis.

If you have a l

6 l metal detector only, you search 10 percent; if you have l7 :l explosive search devices only, or no device at 211, you dc 8

20 percent of the nonregular employees.

9 For all other individuals coming to the site, it is 10 I every one of them get a hands on pat down search, and a search 11 of outer garments of everyone except regular employees.

12 (Slide.)

I i

(h 13 So the staff recommendation is to gran a three-month i

14 delay of pat down searches, two man rule, and compartmentaliza-i 15 tions.

Our basis for this reconmendation is that first, the 16 licensees will have met all the other requirements of 73.55, 17 and these combined with the interim search procedures, provide 18 adequate protection, in our judgnent against the insiders 19 threat in the short additional time involved.

20 Secondly, the need for pat down searches, two man 21 rule, and compartmentalization, as I have said before, is closelv 22 tied to, and dependent upon the final Commiccion decision en the, t

23 MAAP.

i 24 We believe, third, that the Commission needs additional Ace.Feceral Reoorters, Inc.

25 time to evaluate the need for these alternative measures in i

I e

7 e

l conte::t with the decision on the MAAP, and you had, essentiall--

1 2 d only at best from the 17tn or February to the 23rd of February

f 3

to make that finding.

I 4 ll UL i

CO!".MISSIONER AHEARNE:

Three is really related to two.

t 5,

MR. PURPLE:

Verv_ closelv, "3s.

ll 6

COMMISSIONER AHEARNE :

The additional tine is to 7! evaluate M3.AP.

o i

8 MR. MINOGUE:

The complexity of some of the issues 9

that have been identified at some of the hearings on MAAP 10 ' were such that we feel --

Il COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:

I was just trying to under-12 stand whether you were saying, in addition to the MAAP issue, i

t.

13 you were recommending that the Commission needs additional i

14 time for review other than --

i 15 MR. MINOGUE:

No, just the MAAP issue.

16 MR. PURPLE:

What I'd like to point out at this 17 point, we just brought it up a few minutes aco, is that 18 selected the date of May 23, which amounts to a three-month l

19 extension, on the basis of our best estimate of the time 20 needed by the Commission to reach a decision, and that was i

1 21 based on the fact that we thought you would have before the i

22 hearing board by January 29, which has already slipped at l

23 laaet thrae weeks.

So, it ic an option available to you in h

24 this matter before you now, it is not to pick May 23, but to Ac? Sederal Reporters, Inc. I 25 pick a date, for example, it could be three months after we i

i

8 i

i I

1 see the hearing board's reco=mendations, whenever that is.

i COMMISSIONER AHEAREE:

But you just previously 2l i

3 ! recommended three weeks after receipt.

i i

(}.

' ~

4 MR. PURPLE:

Three weeks because our best situation t

5 as of today, is that it would be February 17.

t 6i COMMISSIONER AHEARNE.

I thought your recommendations, l

7 when you originally made your recommendations, which led to 8

February 23rd, did you have a hearing board date?

i i

9 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

I think we were looking for it 10 i to be in last fall.

11 MR. PURPLE:

The hearing was held in July of last 12 year, and we thought it would be --

h 13 COMMISSIONER KENNEDV:

First of November, I think.

i 14 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

In fact, we pushed back, and said i

15 let's take a good delay so there would be ample time after 16 the board recommendations come in, and we said we would take a i

i 17 good one and only do it once.

We are probably now going to have.

18 to eat that.

19 MR. MINOGUE:

Not only was there a long time allowed, 20 but I think at that time, we did not recognize the complexity i

i 21 of the record it would appear the hearing board developed.

22 They really did a very thorough job, and brought out a lot of 23 difficult factors.

I don't think we cuite recognized, at that l

(]h 24 time, some six months ago, or so, that this was going to be Acst Eectf al RfDOffert, Inc, 25 as complex an issue as it turned about to be.

i 1

a

9 1

i 1

MR. PURPLE:

Well, finally, the fourth basis for I

2 iour request that you consider delaying the implementation date

(]g l

~

3 is that a failure to do that would result in the imposirion

.e..

f 4; on February 23rd of c_at down searches of regular emo_lovees at I

I 5! rcactors, plus a requirement for two n2r procedures to be ir 4,

I 6

effect as of that date.

7!

That concludes my prepared remarks.

n B

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

Now, let me ask you a question.

l 9

In 73.55, does the regulation deal explicitly with i

10 1 pat down searches, compartmentalization and two man rules?

Il MR. PURPLE:

It does not deal with those very words.

12 It does provide a basis for a search recuirement, which can

(

13 be met either by equipment or by personal search.

It does not l

l.

14 specifically call that two man rule, o_ compartmentalization.

l I

15 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

So the nature of the -- I'm trying; I

16 to grope toward how one would characterize what is proposed to l

17 be deferred here.

I understand what is to be deferred, it is 18 the implementation of those particular things, but in terms of 19 language which would be c_.tpatible with the language in the 20 proposed 73.55.

l 21 How would that be?

Elements of the search?

l 22 MR. MINOGUE:

It's really the performance require-

]

23 These are elements that have been identified as meeting !

ments.

(h

'a Aa Federal Reporters, Inc. l performance requirements.

25 l MR. PURPLE:

The wav it would be handled is in i

e l

I E

I

10 1l.enclosureA, where it is addressed, where it recognizes that h

2ithese measures --

v.

i 3

CHAIFlGl; HENDRIE:

-- These other measures ccm-h l

4' bined with search procedures presently being followed will i

5 i.n total provide for the interim, adecuate protection, and 6

hence, presumably, fulfillment of the requirements of the rule.

I 7 !f MR. MIIIOGUE -

• hat is said explicitly about two-l 8

thirds of the way down on page 3.

9 CHAIRMAN HENDRIF:

Okay.

10 1 CCM'4ISSIONER KENNEDY :

Will you tell me what actually II is in place?

As I understand it, pat down searches are not 12 being performed except for cause, for regular er.ployees, and

()k 13 that is because in lieu thereof, there is some manner of sur-14 veillance devices.

That is, either explosive, or metal.

ie.

MR. PU RPLE :

You have to separate, with respect to 16 regular e7ployees at the site, the staff position in imple-I7 menting 73.55 since September c#

'77, has been that if there 18 is ecuipment there, they will pass through it: they won't be 19 searched unless there is cause.

If the ecuipment isn't there, 20 or it is broken down, they still won't be searched except for 21 cause.

The regular employees.

,l 2,

For everyone else, it follows the pattern of what I t

23 lhad on the viewgraph.

(])

24 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

So there is no regular m.r...., n,~,,,,.. m.,

25 ' employees in situations in which the cuipment has not been I

e

A, i

1 installed?

Il 20 tiR. PURPLE:

That's right.

f 3i COMMISSIONER KEMMEDY:

In how many situation is i49that true?

5 MR. CASE:

Two, as I understand it.

1 6

CHAIR!G.:: HENDRIE:

Nhy don't you stand up and sai 7 k that in a more coordinated fashion.

I a

MR. CASE:

The licensees have been diligent in 9

following the suggestions of the Commission that they obtain 10 I explosive detectors and metal detectors, and there are one 11 or two sites where they do not have both pieces of ecuipment i

12 but there are no sites where they don't have one or the other.

i) 13 COfiMISSIONER KENNEDY:

Thank you.

14 CHAIR}Gu'I HENDRIE:

I must say, I don't have any 15 problem with it.

The only question I raise is, I think in 16 ' fact that May 23rd, that the 90 days from February 23rd is 17 in view of what I know of the record in that hearing, is pretty 18 optimistic, and I'm not cuite sure how to frame this tp.at doesn't 19 1 lead every so often -- well, there may be a merit in being l

20 i driven back to the table to look the schedule in the eye i

21 periodically, but I must say, considering that the balance of l

22 this month, and the first week or two in March are going to be 23 pretty well chewed up with hearings, testimony, discussion

()

24, of whatever, legislative proposals might be made for this sc.peoe,ai seporte,s. ine. l 25 ' session, I don't think the Commission will begin to focus on 5

l 12 1

1 that until mid March, and it's a complex -- by God, they talked II 2 !! about more things in that hearing than you can shake a stick t

i i

3' at.

I

'~

l 4'

I am fascinated to see how the board will, in fact, 5i pull that record together in scne sort of summary fashion for a

6 us.

7l COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:

Is ne estimate of February 17, 8

which is so close at hand, is that based upon reasonably good t

9 assurance that it is going to be made?

10 I MR. KELLEY:

I have some information in that regard.

11 Not directly, but our liaison left me a note, she is out of 12 town today, but she said she talked to them just in the past

(])

13 few days, not before the 19th, and perhaps the latter.

It 14 will be something like late February.

15 I think they were aware of tne fact that, and let 16 me add, too, that I do know that there does exist in draft, 17 and they are working away at that.

I am told, I have not 18 read it myself, that it has proved to be a complex thing, and 19 I think we may well be confronted with somethinc that raises 20 some difficult issues, so that in assessing how long it is 21 going to take to wrap it all up, I think it might be well to

{

22 bear that in mind.

l 23 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

With regard to the board's getting l

(]h 24 at it, I hope they will go for quality.

I would rather have Ace Feceral Reporters. Inc. ;

25 ' a report a week and a half later, and have it reflect their l

13 1

1 1, further careful consida- on, thar not.

ll i

2 I've got a notion that even with a verv finelv l

34 assembled and drawn report from the board the Commission will t

4llhave difficulty in coming to a policy decision.

l t-l 5,

Well, is there -- whar sort of reasonable way is 6d there?

There is an effective date.

If we are not going to II 7

.ake it February 23, we are goinc to ha'.re to say what it is.

8 Either we say for these provisions, it is indefinitely deferred, l

9 or we set some date, right?

10 '

MR.KELLEY:

There is one interin option, but you 11 might want to see some time period from the receipt of the 12 report which would at least factor in, however long it takes i

(

13 the, to finish.what they are doing.

Ninety days following i

14 receipt, indefinite, or some specific date, seem to be the 15 options.

16 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Are we sure that given the 17 complexity of the problem, and I don't know what the board 18 is doing, but I am wondering, if given the complexities, 19 one would hope they are looking at a variety of rather flexible 20 kinds of options on the interrelationships; of a variety of I

1 21 systems, and not just the merits pro and con of any particular l

t 22 system, but rather how that system relates to a lot of others.

i

(

I 23 If that is the sort of thing it is doing, and

(

24 hopefully, it is, and it provides the Commission with a report Ace.Fm;eral Aerorters, Inc, i 25 ! and views in that regard, based upon the record.

i i

I I

14 i

6 1

I suggest it is going to take a considerable amount f,1 is l

2 p of review and consideration by the Commission before it s '

l 3' going to arrive at conclusions.

Not that I am sucgesting we v-l 4' shouldn't keep our own feet to the fire; I an, but I'm also 5

looking at the problem fron a realistic standpoint, and as 1

6 h you suggest, ccming back here to the nanle to decide that we d

i 71 should take two or three more weeks every two or three weeks 8

doesn't sound like good practice, either.

9 I am suggesting maybe we ought to think maybe in 10 ' terms o# longer than that 90 days.

II MR. KELLEY:

I pulled that out of the air, I'm not I

12 endorsing it.

1

(])

13 MR. CASE:

I am reminded of the ol'd adage that i

14 fools rush in where angels fear to tread.

15 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

You always do that, Ed.

16 I assumed that was because you were an angel.

17 MR. CASE:

I would suggest a definite period of 18 time.

Otherwise, it is rather ahrd to make a finding of 19 adequateness, if there is no time.

Six months would be per-20 fectly acceptable to the staff.

Frem February 23rd, that would 21 bring you out August 23.

f 22 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

Sounds reasonable to me.

23 l

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

John, do you have a feeling?

i I. k 24 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:

I really don't have a feeling AwFeceral Reporters, Inc. I i

25 would have been willing of that much, one way or the othn-T h

I 15 1

1,to go with three months after receipt c' the decision, but 4

2 l! Ed's noint, he is much more familiar with the specifics.

3 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: I guess we do need -- well, it 4

is helpful in that regard to have a date in terms of what the 5l interim period is.

5 CO "2CSSIONE? A2EA??'E : I'd pull it bac:. a r.on:h 7[ only because in the middle of August, you will run into where a

we will be going through out budget.

9 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

August 23rd is indistinguishable i

10 ' from August 1st, for our purposes in view of the budget review.

11 So, you might do that, but I wouldn't come up much earlier than 12 July lot, which would be about four months from the expected l

I I) 13 issue.

i 14 Do you want to try that?

I 15 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:

It's all right with me.

16 Have you covered, before I came in, the basis for -- let me 17 drop back a step.

What is the richt way to say what an individual' 18 status is between the time you apply for clearance and the 19 time you get it.

Is he presumed cleared?

20 MR. MINOGUE:

Not under any present clearance system.

21 He is not cleared until the investigation is completed, and i

22 the record reviewed by the security people.

Under a new system l f.

l I

23 set up from scratch, that could be set up any number of ways.

24 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

You remember, Peter, occasionally, Ace Feceral Report,rs. Inc.

25' for our own folks, where there is urgem need to bring someone i

1

16 1

on board, and the clearance hasn't cone throuch, we hate the m

I2 ', power here to provide an exemption.

3 CO.Ni'CSSIONER BRADFORD :

Well, I have nn objection I

f I

W 4

to August 1st.

It looks to me as if there are going to be more 5

tancles in timine in this before we are done eith it.

n 6 ['i CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

I was going to say, this time, 7 ) in punting to August ist, to allow time to come to grips with 8

the clearance hearing recommendations, I am goin: to carefully 9j abstain from saying this is the last extension, because I l

10 i think it is going to be a difficult issue in sorting out this 11 search business, and how it all comes down.

12 I must say, I'm not going to hesitate, in spite

(]h 13 of the fact that time does seem to drag on apace here in this 14 matter.

If we come down toward the latter days of July, and 15 I am not satisfied that ere is a reasonable and prudent 16 position in hand to go forward with, I'm not going to hesitate 17 to advocate further extension until we get to that point.

18 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:

So, in my question 19 where there are almost going to be extensions within extensions, 20 ! you have to adopt a rule, and then allow time for --

l 21 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

-- For it to be implemented, and 22 so on, oh, yes, well, that could very well be.

You are right, i

23 because once we decide on exactly how this all fits together,

(])

24 then there will be the question, how soon can all of that Aes.Ecceral Reoorters, Inc.

25 l come into place.

17 ij CCFMIS5!ONER 3 RAD 70RD:

So we are not talking ja l

2 about a finding of adequacy that just covers a period of 3t from now til then, but it is from now to when you have a rule, 11

}*.

I adequacy comes sometime in the indefinite future.

Long 4

but I, term adequacy sometime in the indefinitt future after you 5:

6 ]s adopt the rule.

7[

MR. "IUOGUE:

In takes time to impler.ent some ':ind t

8 of material access authorization program, regardless of how you 9

come at it.

So, there is a relatively long transicion period 10 ! when people are in die process of being cleared.

Il CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

That is just what Peter is saying, 12 that when you talk about the adequacy of'the measures for the (h

13 iderim, the interim is not from whenever we did that, from 14 the 23rd on to August 1st of this year, but you better con-15 template it may go on.

16 COMMISSIONER AHEAR:'E:

Could I ask a minor question I about the order that they have?

On nage 2, this is enclosure 17 I

1 18 A,

down at the bottom, where you are saying the material 19 access authorization program, or an equivalent will provide, 20 are you positive we are.

21 MR. KELLEY:

We have got to change it.

22 CHAIFbmN HENDRIE:

There was, I wanted to say with 23 regard to it, if we seem to be coming toward a clear conclu-(

24, sion, that I was going to recommend to you that we vote rather Ace-Feceral Reporters, ine. l 25 ' than leaving it dangle for notation and subsequent affirmation,

18 I

i 1.,that we vote that the implementation, the effective date be i

i t

i 2! changed to in this draft order be chanced to August 1st,1979.

i

,g las il 3i Secondly, there were several reactmendations for I

l I

4 language changes of a modest sort that had been made by OPE, l

lql t

5s and I believe the counsel agrees 'eith.

Did you hare others, 6

in addition?

7 'l MR. KELLEY-I think there may be ar overlap there.

i 8

MR. MINOGUE:

It is the cuestion that Mr. Ahearne 9

raised, there is wording in this paragraph hat implies a finding I

10 I on the part of the Conmission.

It was not our intention to 11 put those words in your mouth, and General Counsel's office 12 has suggested that that sentence would be better read, " Materials I

s e

r[h 13 Access Authorization Program, or a similar program," rather t

14 than an equivalent program, and then change the term "will" 15 to "should."

But more correctly, what the Commission has 16 decided or not decided.

17 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:

Or you micht even say, could 18 if approved by the Commission.

l9 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

I think the language in the OPE 20 memo does it adequately well.

It says, an ecuivalent program, 21 etc. when coupled with other aspects, could, if approved by-i 22 the Commission provide -- well, what I was going to recommend 23 to you, because it seems to me that all of the proposed changes ;

(hh 24 in the OPE meno were changes that I would like to make, I would AceJederal Reporters. Inc.

25 propose that, (a) that August 1st in the draft order, and (b) i

19 1

those changes out o# this mano that we sinply vote on that 2 g order and then have that a final decision o' the Commission.

o I

COP 11ISSIO:IER AHEAPl:E :

I a ri r c e.

3 f

4 COM14ISSIO!;ER KENNEDY:

Aye.

I 5 ',

C'i AI ?lG:! E " D ?.E E :

I.1

? for it.

Peter, can fou!

J 6 lql COP 24ISSIONER BRADFORD:

Yes, I'm trving to keep e

7 up with you Joa, on page 2.

I know I voted fcr it, I'-

j tu r i

8 not sure I voted for the way you say it.

9 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

Have you got the OPE memo handy?

10 I MR. MINOGUE:

Yes.

11 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

And then you need the draft order.

12 Page 2, or number 2?

i 13 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:

Let's see. Yes.

14 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

So ordered.

Thank you very much.

15 (Whereupon, at 4:2a p. n.., the meeting was adjourned.)

16 17 t

18 19 20 21 7.

22 i

\\

23

(

24 Ace Feoetal Recerters, Inc.

25

,