ML20151S848

Notation Vote Approving W/Comments & edit,SECY-98-197, Proposed Rule Rev to Part 2 Establishing Subpart M to Govern Requests for License Transfer Approval & Associated Requests for Hearings

ML20151S848
Person / Time
Issue date:	09/01/1998
From:	Mcgaffigan E NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
To:	Hoyle J NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY)
Shared Package
ML20151S834	List: ML20151S832 ML20151S839 ML20151S843 ML20151S848
References
SECY-98-197-C, NUDOCS 9809090077
Download: ML20151S848 (9)

Text

_.

i NOTATION VOTE 1

1 I

BESPONSE SHEET TO:

John C. Hoyle, Secretary FROM:

COMMISSIONER MCGAFFIGAN

SUBJECT:

SECY-98-197 - PROPOSED RULE - REVISION TO PART 2 ESTABLISHING SUBPART M TO GOVERN REQUESTS FOR LICENSE TRANSFER APPROVAL AND ASSOCIATED REQUESTS FOR HEARINGS Approved i

Disapproved Abstain Not Participating 1

COMMENTS:

See attached comments and edited pages, i

e S'RE',,W DATE' Entered on "AS" Yes /I No i-9909090077 900904

e PDR COMMS tRCC CORRESPONDENCE PDR l /

_7,

4 Commissioner McGaffigan's Comments on SECY 98-197 I commend OGC for its good work on this promising new Subpart M. It is another long step in the direction of more sensible means for engaging the public in agency decisions. I have long thought that the agency was too wedded to a notion that trials on nuclear issues were somehow the ideal form of public participation and issue resolution. Such a notion is, of course, strange to someone with my Congressional background, but it is no less strange when considered against the background of American legal culture at large. There the trialis the exception, the mark of a breakdown in more desirable and less costly ways of reaching a reasonable accommodatio'n of differences. Yet somehow the trial has managed, in many minds, to become the ideal in NRC practice.

Trials should not be convened lightly, and attempts to judicialize all administrative decisionmaking should be resisted. The trial is not the ideal form of public participation in govemment, and certainly not in administrative decisions, because it is expensive in dollars and time and greatly restricts who can speak, what they can say, how they say it, and when and where they say it.

Especially in agency decisionmaking on advanced technology, an advocacy-based approach is of doubtful application. No other Federal agency regulates advanced technology by trial. For example, the FAA does not hold trials on design certifications or airworthiness certificates, the FDA does not hold courtroom trials on new drugs, and the EPA did not hold a trial on the safety of the Waste isolation Pilot Project. Public interest groups are not necessarily strong supporters of trials on nuclear safety. For example, the DOE Advisory Committee on External Regulation of DOE Nuclear Safety, in which public interest groups were well represented, said it had " great skepticism about the fruitfulness of the regulator's conducting a full-blown trial to settle a regulatory issue." The Committee recommended that legislation providing for external regulation of DOE facility safety " allow use of a process simpler and less formal than that for NRC licensing hearings for nuclear power plants." (See pages 36-39 of the Committee's Final Report.)

Over the years, the NRC, with the help of Congress in some cases, has been able to apply informal procedures in a significant number of kinds of proceedings under section 189a. -

rulemaking, certain materials license proceedings (though Subpart L has not have lived up to its promise), and hearings before operation under a combined license. Similarly, certification of the gaseous diffusion facilities proceeds informally. (The licensing of new uranium enrichment facilities under section 193 is an unfortunate exception to this trend toward less formality.) The licensing of power reactors remains a stronghold of trial-type procedures, but even here, the agency has taken steps toward informality: In the statement of considerations for Part 52, the agency said Several commenters.. argue that the (design] certification proceeding should be a formbi

' adjudication because cross-examination is an unsurpassed means for the discovering the truth.... [T]he argument proves too much, namely, that every rulemaking, indeed every species of lawmaking, should be formal adjudication. Part 52 does not assume the superiority, or even the usefulness, of formal procedures for resolving every issue.

We have come far, but we have far to go. The unregulated market now looming into view will be far too quick and agile for lumbering licensees and a regulator that idealizes trials. I therefore believe that the NRC should press for a more fundamental change in the hearings it conducts.

The agency is already on record 'in the second round of litigation over Part 52 as asserting that section 189a. of the Atomic Energy Act does not require formal adjudications, and the Court in t

h..

that litigation did not reject our assertion. I propose that we consider seeking legislation that supports our reading of section 189a., and that in any case we revise 10 CFR Part 2 to reflect that reading. Such legislation could be brief: In describing the post-construction, pre-operation, hearing under a combined license, section 189a. (1)(B)(iv) already says The Commission, in its discretion, shall determine appropriate hearing procedures, whether informal or formal adjudicatory, for any hearing under clause (i) [the post-construction, pre-operation hearing), and shall state its reasons therefor.

By replacing the reference to clause (i) with a reference to subsection a. of section 189, and moving the whole sentence to a nevi paragraph (3) under section 189a., the flexibility that the agency has already asserted that it has could be explicitly clarified in statute. Further, with USEC's application for a license for the AVLIS uranium enrichment process expected early next year, we should seek to modify section 193's inflexible approach to hearings. It could be modified in pertinent part as follows:

(b) Adjud:este iPublic Hearing.-

(1) In General.-The Commission shall conduct a single adjud;;;teripublic hearing en the-feeerd with regard to the licensing of the construction and operation of a uranium enrichment facility under sections 53 and 63. The Commission, in its discretion, shall determine appropriate hearing procedures, whether informal or formal adjudi atory, for the hearing.

I believe that the Commission should ask OGC to review and advise the Commission on the legislative and rulemaking options that would further enhance the Commission's ability to utilize informal procedures in any proceeding in which formalized trial-type procedures are currently used.

Since one of my major reasons for moving in this direction is to provide less rigid opportunities for public participation, I believe we need to articulate reasonably detailed descriptions for legislative-style hearings and other informal means of public participation that go beyond the so-called

" limited appearance" sessions provided for in 10 CFR 2.715(a). We can, of course, draw on Congressional models, but also on the agency's growing experience with public meetings, for example in the Waste Confidence proceeding, the decommissioning and decontamination rulemaking, and the Commission's recent two days of hearings on the restart of Millstone Unit 3.

j i

4 2

I

-. ~ ~.- - - - --_--.._.- -.

that litigation did not reject our assertion. I propose that we consider seeking legislation that supports our reading of section 189a., and that in any case we revise 10 CFR Part 2 to reflect that reading. Such legislation could be brief: In describing the post-construction, pre-operation, hearing under a combined license, section 189a. (1)(B)(iv) already says The Commission, in its discretion, shall determine appropriate hearing procedures, whether informal or formal adjudicatory, for any hearing under clause (i) (the post-l construction, pre-operation hearing], and shall state its reasons therefor.

By replacing the reference to clause (i) with a reference to subsection a. of section 189, and moving the whole sentence to a new paragraph (3) under section 189a., the flexibility that the agency has already asserted that it has could be explicitly clarified in statute. Further, with USEC's application for a license for the AVLIS uranium enrichment process expected early next year, we should seek to modify section 193's inflexible approach to hearings. It could be modified g

in pertinent part as follows:

(b) AdjuduteriPublic Hearing,-

(1) In General.-The Commission shall conduct a sinble adjuddteripublic hearing on the+ecord with regard to the licensing of the construction and operation of a uranium enrichment facility under sections 53 and 63. The Commission, in its discretion, shall determine appropriate hearing procedures, whether informal or formal adjudicatory, for the l

hearing.

l believe that the Commission should ask OGC to review and advise the Commission on the i

legislative and rulemaking options that would further enhance the Commission's ability to utilize informal procedures in any proceeding in which formalized trial-type procedures are currently i

used.

l Since one of my major reasons for moving in this direction is to provide less rigid opportunities for public participation, I believe we need to articulate reasonably detailed descriptions for legislative-l style hearings and other informal means of public participation that go beyond the so-called

" limited appearance" sessions provided for in 10 CFR 2.715(a). We can, of course, draw on

' Congressional models, but also on the agency's growing experience with public meetings, for 1

example in the Waste Confidence proceeding, the decommissioning and decontamination rulemaking, and the Commission's recent two days of hearings on the restart of Millstone Unit 3.

i s -

c:

disposed of, either voluntarily or involuntarily, directly or indirectly, through _

transfer of control of any license to any person, unless the Commission shall, after securing full information, find that the transfer is in accordance with the provisions of this Act, and shall give its consent in writing.

i

'42 U.S.C 9 2234; 10 C.F.R. $9 30.34(b),40.46, 50.80. Transfers falling within the foregoing provision include indirect transfers which might entail, for example, the establishment of a i

h Iding company ov'er an existing licensee, as well as direct transfers, such as transfer of an l

ownership interest held by a non-operating, minority owner, and the complete transfer of the ownership and operating authority'of a single or majority owner. Although other requirements of tha Commission's licensing provisions may also be addressed to the extent relevant to the pirticular transfer action, typical staff review of such applications consists largely of assuring that the ultimately licensed entity has the capability to meet financial qualification and decommissioning funding aspects of NRC regulations. These financial capabilities are important over the long term, but have no direct or immediate impact on the requirements for dIy-toay operations at a licensed facility. The same is generally true of applications involving the transfer of materials licenses.

Notwithstanding the nature of the issues relevant to a decision on whether to give consent to a licsnse transfer, past Commission practice has generally used formal hearing procedures in recordance with the provisions of 10 C.F.R. Part 2, Subpart G, for reactor license transfers or yY informal hearing procedures as provided by 10 C.F.R. Part 2, Subpart L, in connectio it(

materials licenses. As explained above, however, such transfers do not.

neral proposition, involve the type of complex technical issues with i e impact on the actual ope, ration of the facilities that could benefit from r y a multi-member, multi-disciplined l

Atomic Safety and Licensing Boar sed by the Commission in hearings on initial i

_ licensing or issuing amendments to licenses hat substantially affect the technical operations of a licensed reactor facility.pecordingly, the Commission has determined that requests for hearings on applications fc r license transfers would be more effectively handled by a separate Subpart of 10 C.F.R. Part which establishes an efficient and appropriate process for handling hearing requests associated ' h transfer applications commensurate with the nature of the issues involved and the rights o li parties.

The basic reqtiirement for an opportunity oghearing on a license transfer is found in Section 189.a of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, ended (AEA), which provides that:

(ijn any proceeding under this Act, for the granting, susp ing, revoking, or amending of any license or construction permit, or any appli

'on to transfer control,...the Commission shall grant a hearing apon the'reques of any persro P

It is a matter suitable for reasonable discussion whether such complex hearing procedures provide the best g

means for reaching decisions on such technical issues, bt, be they the best or not, they clearly are not required and are not the most efficient means for resolving the issues encountered in license transfers.

whose interest may be affected by the proceeding and shall admit any such person as a party to such proceeding.

1 42 U.S.C $ 2239(a)(1).~

The Commission believes AEA sections 184 and 189 give the Co mission the flexibility to f2shion procedures which provide for a fair process to consider a issues raised conceming license transfers while still proceeding in an expedited manner, in 1983, a hearing on a

materials license amendment was held not to be required by statute, i.e $189.a of the Atomic Energy Act, to be conducted "on the record". City of West Chicago v. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,701 F.2d 632,641-45 (7" Cir.1983). There, the court declined to read section 189.a as requiring "on-the-record' hearings, in the absence of clear Congressional " intent to l:

tngger the formal on-the-reco'rd hearing provisions of the APA." /d. at 641. The Commission i

has since stated that it interprets section 189.a as not requiring formal hearings in reactor l

licensing proceedings. En Banc Brief for Respondents dated August 30,1991 (filed in the U.S.

C:urt of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, No. 89-1381, NuclearInformation and R: source Service v. NRC at pp. 32-3h During the past several years, the Commission has, on several occasions, undertaken to tailor l

procedures appropriate to reaching decisions on particular types of proposed actions. These

- cpproaches have been upheld by the courts using the principles set forth in Chevron U.S.A. v.

1 NaturalResources Defense Council,467 U.S. 837,842 844 (1984). In NuclearInformation R: source Service V. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 969 F.2d 1169 (D.C. Cir.1992),

upho! ding the Commission's new procedures for issuance of a combined license for standardized reactor designs, the Court noted that While this section [189.a) plainly requires a " hearing upon request' before the

" granting" of a license, it provides no unambiguous instruction as to how the

" hearing" is to be held; nor does it speak in any direct fashion to the question of whether the Commission. must rehear issues already resolved at earlier stages in

. the licensing process.' As we noted in Union of Concemed Scientists v. NRC, 920 F.2d 50 (D.C. Cir.1990) ( "UCS II');

L

~ [t]he [ Atomic Energy) Act itself nowhere describes the content of a

{

hearing orprescribes the mannerin which this ' hearing"is to be rue...

t We are, of course, obliged to defer to the operating procedures employed by the agency [i.e., move to a. Chevron step 11 analysis]

when the goveming statute requires only that a " hearing" be held.

'(emphasis in original).

In Kelley v. Selin,42 F.3d 1501,1511 (6* Cir.1995), the court followed a similar line of rrasoning in concluding that the procedures adopted by the Commission to approve casks for l:

l l

A T

3 spent nucleft fuel storage,were acceptable. These decisions give the Commission confidence that an interpretation of section 189.a to permit the kind of procedures we propose here will find.

Judicial support. '

To promote uniformity, the proposed hearing procedures for license transfers will apply to both materials and reactor licenses. The procedures are designed to provide for public participation in the event of requests for a hearing under these, provisions, while at the same time providing cn efficient process that recognizes the time-sensitivity normally present in transfer cases.

The proposed procedures would cover any direct e r indirect transfer for which NRC approval is

. required pursuant to the regulatory provisions under which the license was issued. NRC regulations and the Atomic Energy Act require approval of any transfer of control of a license.

See AEA, Sec.184. 42 U.S.C. $ 2234. This would include those transfers that require license Cmendments and those that do not. It should be recognized that not all license transfers will -

. require license amendments. For example, the total acquisition of a licensee, without a change in the name of the licensee, (e.g., through the creation of a holding company which acquires the Exiting licensee but which, beyond ownership of the licensee, does not otherwise affect Ectivities for which a license is required), would require NRC approval, but would not necessarily require any changes in the NRC license for the facilities owned by the licensee.

These procedures do not expand or change the circumstances under which NRC approval of a transfer is necessary nor do they change the circumstances under which a licens mendment would be required to reflect an approved transfer. Amendments to licenses are nl. required o

(

the extent that ownership or operating authority of a licensee, as reflected in the license itself, is changed by a transfer. A discussion of the process for issuing amendments associated with an approved transfer, when necessary, is provided below.

The proposed procedures, similar to those used by the Commission in cases involving export cnd import licensing hearings under 10 C.F.R. Part 110, provide for a legislative type hearing for license transfers. These procedures will provide opportunities for meaningful public

participation while minimizing areas where a formal adjudicatory process could introduce delays without any commensurate benefit to the substance of the Commission's decisionmaking.

'Further, the Commission has specifically found that the statute does not mandate pre-effectiveness hearings for transfers of NRC licenses, an action which the Commission has noted

is not a licensing action under Section 189.a(1) of the AEA. Long Island Lighting Company (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1), CLI-92-4,35 NRC 69, 77 (1992). In this decision, the Commission determined that the consent called for by Section 184 of the AEA was to be granted by order, not by license amendment, though it was recognized that conforming license cmendments, of an administrative nature, might also be required to reflect a change in the name 4

[

of the licensee. 35 NRC at 76-77 and n.6.

5 L

.. ~.

l s

i

$2.1307 Answers and Replies (c) Unless otherwise specified by the Commission, an answer to a hearing request or

. intervention petition may be filed within 10 days after the request or petition has been served.

(b) Unless otherwise specified by the Commispn, a reply to an answer may be filed within 5 -

days after to:;:::;;: r; :::n::n:S.

-$ct VIce of 4%sk t.tsuchf4 (c) Answers'and replies should address the factors in 2.1308.

{

. $2.1308 Commission Action on a Hearing Request or intervention Petition l

(a) in considering a hearing request or intervention petition on an application for a transfer of cn NRC license, the Commission will consider:

(1)

The nature of the Petitioner's, alleged interest; j

(2)- Whether that interest will be affected by an approval or denial of the application for transfer; (3) ~ The possible effect of any order on that interest, including whether the relief requested is within the Commission's authority, and, if so, whether granting the relief requested would redress the alleged injury; and (4)

Whether the issues sought to be litigated are (i) within the scope of the proceeding, (ii)

. relevant to the findings the Commission must make to act on the application for license transfer, (iii) appropriate for litigation in the proceeding, and (iv) adequately supported by the statements, allegations and documentation required by $2.1306(b)(2)(iii) and (iv).

(b) Untimely hearing requests or intervention petitions may be denied unless good cause for fillure to file on time is established. In reviewing untimely requests or petitions, the Commission will also consider:

(1) ' The availability of other means by which the requestor's or petitioners' interest will be prote'eted or represented ~by other participants in a hearing; and i.

(2)

The extent to which the issues will be broadened or final action on the application delayed.

L (c)

The Commission will deny a request or petition to that the extent it pertains solely to matters outside its jurisdiction.

~ (d) (1) After consideration of the factors covered by paragraphs (a) through (c), the L

Commission will issue a notice or order granting or denying a hearing request or intervention

. petition, designating the issues for any hearing that will be held and designating the Presiding 17

,e (c) Service is completed by:

(1)

Delivering the paper tc the prson; or leaving it in her/his office with someone in charge; or, if there is no one in charge, ieaving it in a conspicuous place in the office; or, if the recipient has no office or it is closed, leaving it at her/his usual place of residence with

' some occupant of suitable' age and discretion; (2). Depositing it in the United States mail, properly stamped and addressed; or (3)

Any other manner authorized by law, when service cannot be made as provided in subparagraphs (1) or (2).

_(4)

For facsimile transmission, sending copies to the facsimile machine of the person being served; (5)

For e-mail, sending the filing in electronic form attached to an e-mail message directed to tiie person being served.

i

. (d) Proof of service, stating the name and address of the person sarved and the manner and d te of service, shall be shown, and may be made by-(1)

Written acknowledgment of the person served or an authorized representative; or

-(2)

The certificate or affidavit of the person making the service.

(e) The Commission may make special provisions for service when circumstances warrant.

92.1314-Computation of Time (a) In computing time, the first day of a designated time period is not included and the last day is included. If the last day is a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday at the place where the required action is to be accomplished, the time period will end on the next day which is not a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday.

(b) Ir(time periods of 7 days or less, Saturdays, Sundays and holidays are not counted.

(c) Whenever an action is required within a prescribed period by a paper served pursuant to

$2.1307,3 days shall be added to the prescribed period if service is by mail.

i g

$2.1315 - Generic Determination Regarding License Amendments o Reflect Transfers i

(a) Unless otherwise determined by the Commission with regard to a specific application, the

~

j Commission has determined that any utilization facility license amendment conforming the license to reflect the transfer action is administrative in nature and involves no significant hazards considerations.-

i l

4 r

20

~. -

F

4

/

l-

. {2.1319 - Presiding Officer (1) The Commission will ordinarily be the Presiding Officer at a hearing under this part.

i However, the Commission may provide in a hearing notice that one or more Commissioners, or cny other person permitted by law, will preside.

(D) A participant may submit a wntten motion for the disqualification of any person presiding.

l The motion shall be supported by an affidavit setting forth the alleged grounds for disquali-fication.lf the Presiding Officer.does not grant the' motion er the person does not disq'ualify

. himself,p Commission will decide the matter.

Ydnd fhe ATMA'y Ofist.< WMht!SUCh pmen u nd & Comwn r i

(c) If any person presiding deems himself or herself disqualified, he/she shall withdraw by "*

• notice on the record after notifying the Commission.

/

(d) If a Presiding Officer becomes unavailable, the Commission will designate a replacement.

I l

(74) Any motion concoming the designation of a replacement Presiding Officer shall be made l

withm 5 days after the designation.

l_

'(f) Unless otherwise ordered by the Commission, the jurisdiction of a P1esiding Officer other than the Commission commences as designated in the hearing notice ard terminates upon certification of the hearing record to the Commission, or when the Presid og Officer is.

disqualified.

l 5 2.1320-Responsibility and Power of the Presiding Officer in a n Oral Hearing i

_ (a) The Presiding Officer in any oral hearing shall conduct a fair hearint, develop a record that will contribute to informed decisionmaking, and, within the framework of the Commission's orders, have the power necessary.to achieve these ends. including the power to:

l-(1)

Take action to avoid unnecessary delay and maintain order; 1

.(2)

Dispose of procedural requests; (3) -Question participants and witnesses, and entertain suggestions as to questions which may be asked of participants and witnesses.

' (4)

Order consolidation of participants; (5)- Establish the order of presentation; (6). Hold conferences before or during the hearing; (7)

Establish time limits;

-(8)

Limit the number of witnesses; and (9)

Strike or reject duplicative or irrelevant presentations.

a

UNITED STATES o.

8' NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001

[

September 4, 1998

% e *,o OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY MEMORANDUM TO:

Karen D. Cyr ra Cou

/ L FROM:

n oyl, Secretary

SUBJECT:

STAFF REQUIREMENTS - SECY-98-13,.

'OSED RULE -

REVISION TO PART 2 ESTABLISHING SUBPART M TO GOVERN REQUESTS FOR LICENSE TRANSFER APPROVAL AND ASSOCIATED REQUESTS FOR HEARINGS The Commission has approved publication of the proposed rule to establish Subpart M to 10 CFR Part 2 to govern the procedures used for license transfer approval and associated requests for hearings.

' The Office of the General Counsel should incorporate the changes noted in the attachment and publish the proposed rule in the Federal Reaister for a 30-day comment period.

The staff should seek legislation that supports the NRC's reading of section 189a of the Atomic Energy Act to reflect the reading that formal adjudications are not required. Further, with the anticipated application from USEC for the AVLIS uranium enrichment process expected early next year, the NRC should consider seeking legislation that would modify section 193's inflexible approach to hearings.

The staff should review and advise the Commission on the legislative and rulemaking options that would further enhance the Commission's ability to utilize informal procedures in any proceeding in which formalized trial-type procedures are currently used.

(OGC) -

(SECY Suspense:

12/31/98)

Attachment:

As stated cc:

Chairman Jackson Commissioner Diaz Commissioner McGaffigan EDO CIO

'CFO OCA OlG Office Directors, Regions, ACRS, ACNW, ASLBP (via E-Mail)

PDR DCS i

hY0 hf

Changes to the Federal Reaister Notice in SECY-98-197 1.

On page 1, line 2, replace 'Part 2 of its regulations' with '10 C.F.R. Part 2.'

2.

On page 2, paragraph 1, line 2, delete the extra space after 'Section.' In paragraph 2, line 2, add a comma after the zip code.

3.

' On page 3, first full paragraph, line 1, add a period after the 'C.' In the second full paragraph, line 6, delete ' complex' and in line 8, replace ' typically' with

' historically.' Also in the second full paragraph, line 10, insert a new sentence after ' facility' as follows: "It is a matter suitable for reasonable discussion whether such complex hearing procedures provide the best means for reaching decisions on such technical issues, but, be they the best or not,- they clearly are not required and are not the most efficient means for resolving the issues encountered in license transfers." In the last indented paragraph, line 2, delete

'any.'

4.

On page 4, line 1, add a comma after ' proceeding.' in the heading (line 3), add a period after 'C.' in the first full paragraph, delete the extra space before the start of the new sentence, and in the last line, insert a comma after 'NRC' and a close -

parenthesis at the end. In the quotation at the end of the second full paragraph, cite a page number from the decision. Also in the second full paragraph, line 4, j

insert a hyphen between 842 and 844, and in line 5, change the 'V.' to lowercase.

5.

On page 5, in the third full paragraph, line 3, move 'only' to after ' required.'

i 6.

On page 8, in the paragraph underEnvironmental Issues, line 3, replace 'affects' with ' effects.'

7.

On page 11, last paragraph, line 8, remove the extra spaces in 'U.S.C.' in line 11, replace ' business' with ' businesses.'

L 8.

On page 12, in paragraph number 2, line 1, delete the extra space prior to the 4

l first comma.

9.

On page 13, in paragraph number 4, item (b), line 3, delete 'a.' In paragraph number 5, line 2, replace ' licensed' with ' license /

i l-10.

On page 16, insert a return between item (1) and (2).

11.

On page 17, under $2.1307, item (b), line 2, replace 'all timely answers have f:

been served' with ' service of that answer.' Under $2.1308, item (a)(3), line 1, replace 'any order' with 'an order granting the request for license transfer.' In item (c), line 1, delete 'that.'

12.

On page 19, last paragraph, line 2,' delete the extra _ space in 'U.S.'

1 c

13.

On page 20, under $2.1314, item (c), line 2, insert ' regular' prior to ' mail.'

14.

On page 21, under $2.1316, item (b), line 1, change '(8)' to '(7).'

15.

On page 22, under $2.1319, item (b), line 4, insert 'and the Presiding Officer or other such person is not the Commission or a Commissioner,' after 'himself,' In item (c), line 1, replace the '/' with 'or '

16.

On page 25, under $2.1324, items (a) and (b), replace the '/* with 'or' in the 4 i

places it appears.

17.

On page 27, under $2.1330, item (b), line 3, delete the extra space in 'U.S.'

4

-