Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 96 / Thursday, May 16, 1996 / Notices 24771

in subject areas and as teaching

practices change and evolve, pressures

arise to change the test frameworks and

tests to keep them current. But, if

frameworks, specifications and tests

change too frequently, trends may be

lost, costs go up, and reporting time may

increase.

Recommendations

• Test frameworks and test

specifications developed for the

National Assessment generally should

remain stable for at least ten years;

• To ensure that trend results can be

reported, the pool of test questions

developed in each subject for the

National Assessment should provide a

stable measure of student performance

for at least ten years;

• In rare circumstances, such as

where significant changes in curricula

have occurred, the Governing Board

may consider making changes to test

frameworks and specifications before

ten years have elapsed;

• In developing new test frameworks

and specifications, or in making major

alterations to approved frameworks and

specifications, the cost of the resulting

assessment should be estimated. The

Governing Board will consider the effect

of that cost on the ability to test other

subjects before approving a proposed

test framework and/or specifications.

Use an Appropriate Mix of MultipleChoice and ‘‘Performance’’ Questions

To provide information about ‘‘what

students know and can do,’’ the

National Assessment uses both

multiple-choice questions and questions

in which students are asked to provide

their own answers, such as writing a

response to an essay question or

explaining how they solved a math

problem. Questions of the latter type are

sometimes called ‘‘performance items.’’

The two types of questions may require

students to demonstrate different kinds

of skills and knowledge.

Performance items are desired

because they provide direct evidence of

what students can do. Individuals

confronted with problems in the real

world are seldom handed four possible

answers, one of which is correct.

Although they may be desirable,

performance items are more expensive

than multiple-choice to develop,

administer, and score.

Multiple-choice questions are desired

because conclusions are more practical

to obtain about the kinds of skills and

knowledge assessed by these items,

given the time available for testing.

However, multiple-choice questions are

more subject to guessing than are

performance items.

Currently, all students tested by the

National Assessment are given both

types of questions. Generally, about half

the testing time is devoted to each type

of question, but the amount of time for

each differs based on the skills and

knowledge to be assessed, as established

in the National Assessment test

framework. For example, in a writing

assessment, all students are asked to

write their responses to specific

‘‘prompts.’’ In other subjects, the

appropriate mix of multiple-choice and

performance items varies.

Recommendations

• Both multiple-choice and

performance items should continue to

be used in the National Assessment;

• In developing new test frameworks,

specifications, and questions, decisions

about the appropriate mix of multiplechoice and performance items should

take into account the nature of the

subject, the range of skills to be

assessed, and cost.

Objective 3: To help states and others

link their assessments with National

Assessment and use National

Assessment data to improve education

performance.

The primary job of the National

Assessment is to report frequently and

promptly to the American public on

student achievement. The resources of

the National Assessment must be

focused on this central purpose if it is

to be achieved. However, the products

of the National Assessment—test

questions, test data, frameworks and

specifications, are widely regarded as

being of high quality. They are

developed with public funds and,

therefore, should be available for public

use as long as such uses do not threaten

the integrity of the National Assessment

or its ability to report regularly on

student achievement.

The National Assessment should be

designed in a way that permits its use

by others while protecting the privacy of

students, teachers, and principals who

have participated in the National

Assessment. This should include

making National Assessment test

questions and data easy to assess and

use, and providing related technical

assistance upon request. Generally, the

costs of a project should be borne by the

individual or group making the

proposal, not by the National

Assessment. Examples of areas in which

particular interest has been expressed

for using the National Assessment

include linking state and local tests with

the National Assessment and

performing in-depth analysis on

National Assessment data. States that

link their tests to the National

Assessment would have an unbiased

external benchmark to help make

judgments about their own tests and

standards and would also have a means

for comparing their tests and standards

with those of other states.

Recommendations

• The National Assessment should

develop policies, practices and

procedures that enable states, school

districts and others who want to do so

at their own cost, to conduct studies to

link their test results to the National

Assessment;

• The National Assessment should be

designed so that others may access and

use National Assessment test questions,

test data and background information;

• The National Assessment should

employ safeguards to protect the

integrity of the National Assessment

program, prevent misuse of data, and

ensure the privacy of individual test

takers.

Dated: May 13, 1996.

Roy Truby,

Executive Director, National Assessment

Governing Board.

[FR Doc. 96–12264 Filed 5–15–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4000–01–M

National Educational Research Policy

and Priorities Board; Meeting

AGENCY: National Educational Research

Policy and Priorities Board; Education.

ACTION: Notice of cancellation and

rescheduled closed committee meeting.

SUMMARY: This notice amends a notice

originally published in Vol. 61, No. 67,

April 5, 1996, p. 15232 of a closed

meeting of the Search Committee of the

National Educational Research Policy

and Priorities Board. The meeting has

been rescheduled.

DATES: June 5 and 6, 1996.

TIME: June 5, 1 to 6 p.m.; June 6, 8:30

a.m. to 2 p.m.

LOCATION: First Floor Conference Room,

80 F Street NW., Washington, D.C.

20208.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Charles E. Hansen, Designated Federal

Official, Office of Educational Research

and Improvement, 555 New Jersey

Avenue NW., Washington, D.C. 20208–

7579, Telephone: (202) 219–2050.

Sharon P. Robinson,

Assistant Secretary.

[FR Doc. 96–12337 Filed 5–15–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4000–01–M
24772 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 96 / Thursday, May 16, 1996 / Notices

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste

Management; Safe Transportation and

Emergency Response Training;

Technical Assistance and Funding

AGENCY: Office of Civilian Radioactive

Waste Management, Department of

Energy.

ACTION: Notice of proposed policy and

procedures.

SUMMARY: The Department of Energy

(the Department) publishes for public

comment a proposed policy statement

setting forth its plans for implementing

a program of technical and financial

assistance to states for training public

safety officials of appropriate units of

local government and to Indian tribes

through whose jurisdiction the

Department plans to transport spent

nuclear fuel or high-level radioactive

waste. The training would cover both

safe routine transportation procedures

and emergency response procedures.

DATES: Written comments should be

sent to the Department and must be

received on or before August 15, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should

be directed to: Corinne Macaluso, U.S.

Department of Energy, c/o Lois Smith,

TRW Environmental Safety Systems,

Inc., 600 Maryland Avenue, S.W., Suite

695, Washington, D.C. 20024, Attn.:

Section 180(c) Comments.

Persons submitting comments should

include their names and addresses.

Receipt of comments in response to this

Notice will be acknowledged if a

stamped, self-addressed postal card or

envelope is enclosed.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION: For further

information on the transportation of

spent nuclear fuel and high-level

radioactive waste under the Nuclear

Waste Policy Act, please contact: Ms.

Corinne Macaluso, Environmental and

Operational Activities, Office of Civilian

Radioactive Waste Management, (RW–

45), U.S. Department of Energy, 1000

Independence Avenue, S.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20585, Telephone:

202–586–2837.

Information packets are available for

interested persons who want

background information about the

Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste

Management transportation program

and the Section 180(c) program prior to

providing comments. To receive an

information packet, please call 1–800–

225–NWPA (or call 202–488–6720 in

Washington, D.C.) or write to the

OCRWM Information Center, Post Office

Box 44375, Washington, D.C. 20026 or

the Yucca Mountain Science Center,

4101B Meadows Lane, Las Vegas,

Nevada 89107.

Copies of comments received will be

available for examination and may be

photocopied at the Department’s Public

Reading Room at 1000 Independence

Avenue, S.W., Room 1E–190,

Washington, D.C.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Purpose and Need for Agency Action

Under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act

of 1982, as amended (42 U.S.C. 10101 et

seq.) (NWPA or ‘‘the Act’’), the

Department of Energy (Department) is

responsible for the disposal of highlevel radioactive waste and civilian

spent nuclear fuel in a deep geologic

repository. The Department is also

responsible for the possible monitored

retrievable storage (MRS) of spent

nuclear fuel prior to disposal.

Additionally, the Department is

responsible for transportation of spent

nuclear fuel and high-level nuclear

waste to the Department’s disposal or

storage sites. To carry out these

responsibilities, the Department is

required to implement Section 180(c) of

the Act. Section 180(c) of the Act

requires the Department to provide

technical assistance and funds to States

for training for public safety officials of

appropriate units of local government

and Indian tribes through whose

jurisdiction the Secretary plans to

transport spent nuclear fuel or highlevel radioactive waste. Section 180(c)

further provides that training cover

procedures required for safe routine

transportation of these materials, as well

as procedures for dealing with

emergency response situations. Section

180(c) identifies the Nuclear Waste

Fund under the Act as the source of

funds for work carried out under this

subsection. [42 U.S.C. 10175]

II. Section 180(c) History

The Department issued a Notice of

Inquiry in the Federal Register on

January 3, 1995, (60 FR 99) which

briefly described various options to

delineate Section 180(c) of the Nuclear

Waste Policy Act policy and procedures.

Members of the public were invited to

submit comments on the Notice of

Inquiry. In the March 14, 1995, Federal

Register (60 FR 13715) the Department

extended the deadline for comments to

May 18, 1995. In response to requests

for additional information, the

Department issued another, more

detailed Notice of Inquiry in the Federal

Register on July 18, 1995 (60 FR 36793).

Members of the public were again

invited to submit comments on the

Notice of Inquiry. In a continuing effort

to include stakeholders in predecisional

discussions, the Department has

developed the proposed Section 180(c)

policy and procedures, presented below,

that comprise the Department’s

proposed approach to implementing

Section 180(c) of the Nuclear Waste

Policy Act. Included in this Notice is a

summary of the comments received

from the two prior Notices of Inquiry

and the Department’s response to those

comments. The Department welcomes

comments in response to this Federal

Register notice on the proposed Section

180(c) policy and procedures.

The Department plans to publish, in

1997, a Notice of Final Policy and

Procedures that the Department intends

to follow in implementing the Section

180(c) program. The Section 180(c)

program encompasses the shipment of

spent nuclear fuel and high-level

radioactive waste to a geologic

repository or a monitored retrievable

storage facility pursuant to the NWPA.

The Department’s work to date on the

Section 180(c) policy and

implementation procedures has been

discussed primarily in Transportation

Coordination Group meetings and

Transportation External Coordination

(TEC) Working Group meetings. The

Transportation External Working Group

will continue to meet periodically to

identify and discuss issues related to the

transport of radioactive materials. In

addition, the Department has ten

cooperative agreements with national

and regional organizations representing

state, local and tribal constituencies to

provide information and solicit input

regarding the transportation aspects of

the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste

Management program.

The Department has also released two

documents that discuss Section 180(c)

policy and implementation. These two

documents are the Strategy for OCRWM

to Provide Training Assistance to State,

Tribal, and Local Governments

(November 1992, DOE/RW–0374P) (the

Strategy document), and the Preliminary

Draft Options for Providing Technical

Assistance and Funding Under Section

180(c) of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act,

as Amended (November 1992) (the

Options paper). These documents are

available by requesting the information

packet from the OCRWM National

Information Center or the Yucca

Mountain Science Center.

III. Proposed Section 180(c) Policy and

Procedures

Introduction

This section is divided into four

subject areas. It includes a discussion of

the proposed funding mechanism,
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 96 / Thursday, May 16, 1996 / Notices 24773

definitions of key terms, eligibility and

timing of the grants, and allowable

activities. This proposal is based on

information gained by studying industry

regulations, legal requirements, and

stakeholder comments. Funding

Mechanism describes the method by

which funds would be disbursed to

states and tribes, hereafter referred to as

jurisdictions. Definition of Key Terms

describes the definition of safe routine

transportation and technical assistance

for the purposes of the Section 180(c)

program. Eligibility and Timing of the

Grants Program describes when

jurisdictions are eligible and the timing

of the grants process. Allowable

Activities describes the types of

activities the funding could be used for

as well as some activities that would be

disallowed. The final policy and

procedures may differ based on

comments received on this proposal,

any new legislation, and any program

and policy changes caused by new

Congressional direction.

The Appendix to this Notice provides

the cost basis for this proposed Section

180(c) program.

Funding Mechanism

The Department intends to implement

Section 180(c) through an OCRWM

grants program. Funding would be

provided every year beginning

approximately three years prior to the

first shipment through a state or tribal

land. The Department would administer

the grants but the grants would be

specific to the Section 180(c) program

and would not be combined with any

other Department-sponsored

transportation preparedness or training

programs, although coordination by

jurisdictions would be encouraged.

The grant program would be

administered in accordance with the

DOE Financial Assistance rules (10 CFR

600), which implement OMB Circular

A–87, Cost Principles for Grants,

Contracts and Other Agreements with

Local Governments, OMB Circular A–

102, Grants and Cooperative

Agreements with State and Local

Governments, and OMB Circular A–128,

Audits of State and Local Governments.

In order to preserve flexibility, the

Department does not presently plan to

codify the policy and procedures in this

notice as substantive regulations.

Definitions of Key Terms

The definition of safe routine

transportation for the purposes of

determining eligibility or allowable

activities under the Section 180(c)

program would be as follows:

• Safe routine transportation means

the enforcement of standards and

inspection of shipments of spent

nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive

waste to a repository or an MRS

pursuant to the NWPA through state,

tribal, and local jurisdictions in a

manner compliant with applicable

Federal, state, tribal, and local laws and

regulations. Safe routine highway

transportation is characterized by

adequate vehicle, driver, and package

inspection and enforcement of the

Federal Motor Carrier Safety

Regulations and the Hazardous

Materials Regulations. Safe routine

transportation is also characterized by

compliance with rail and barge

transportation regulations including

Federal Railroad Administration (FRA)

and Coast Guard regulations.

The definition of technical assistance

for the purposes of the Section 180(c)

program would be as follows:

• Technical assistance means

assistance, other than financial

assistance, that the Secretary of Energy

can provide that is unique to the

Department to aid training that will

cover procedures for the safe, routine

transportation and emergency response

situations during the transport of spent

nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive

waste to a repository or MRS pursuant

to the NWPA, including, but not be

limited to, the provision of training

materials, the provision of public

information materials, and access to

individuals involved in the shipments.

Technical assistance, as defined,

would include access to the

Department’s regional and headquarters

representatives involved in the planning

and operation of NWPA transportation

or emergency preparedness, provision of

information packets that include

information about the OCRWM program

and shipments, and attendance and

support from OCRWM program

representatives for public meetings

upon request and consistent with the

OCRWM budget. It would not include

the provision of equipment, although

recipients would be able to budget up to

ten percent of their allocated funds to

purchase equipment if they chose to do

so.

Eligibility and Timing of the Grants and

Technical Assistance Program

The Department intends to provide

grants and technical assistance under

the Section 180(c) program for the safe

routine transportation of NWPA

shipments as these terms are defined

above. The Department intends that the

application process for grants and

technical assistance begin

approximately four years prior to

transportation (about one year for the

application process, about three years to

implement the program) through a

jurisdiction. The Department intends to

notify the governor or tribal leader of

the jurisdiction with a letter and

information packet, including an

application. The Department intends to

calculate the base amount and variable

amount available to each jurisdiction

and include that information in the

application package. The governor or

tribal leader would be requested to

select one agency or representative

within the jurisdiction to apply for and

administer the Section 180(c) grant and

technical assistance. The administering

agency or representative would indicate

in the application how it intends to use

its budget. If funding needs to be passed

on to other agencies (for example, from

the emergency services agency to the

highway patrol to pay for inspector

training) then that would be the

responsibility of the recipient state or

tribe. That information should be

identified in the application.

Eligible jurisdictions would submit an

application to the Department beginning

approximately four years prior to the

first shipment through a jurisdiction.

The application would include a threeyear plan detailing how the funds

would be spent each year. Funding

would be disbursed annually based on

the applicant’s three-year plan. Each

jurisdiction would receive a base

amount of funding for each year of

eligibility. A variable amount of

funding, based on route miles, would be

available after the first year of eligibility

for those jurisdictions that qualify

pursuant to the plan discussed in the

Appendix.

Local governments would not apply

for Section 180(c) grants or technical

assistance directly. Local participation

would be coordinated through the state

or tribe, if they have subjurisdictions.

However, the applicant would be

required to demonstrate in its plan how

the local jurisdictions are benefiting

from the program. Each jurisdiction

would be requested to submit a

description of the coordination

procedure as part of its grant

application. This approach builds

flexibility into the use of the funds and

responds to commenters’ concerns that

assistance may not reach the local level.

The Department anticipates knowing

three to four years prior to shipment

which states or tribal land the

shipments will travel through, even if

routes have not been selected. Using

this information, the Department would

notify these jurisdictions about their

potential eligibility for the Section

180(c) program. The Department would

include in the information to the

jurisdiction the total amount of budget
24774 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 96 / Thursday, May 16, 1996 / Notices

it would be eligible for as determined by

the cost estimates described in the

Appendix to this Notice. Two years

prior to the shipments going through a

jurisdiction, the Department would

announce proposed routes.

Within the first year of eligibility to

receive funding (Transportation Year

[defined as the year that shipments will

commence] minus 3 or TY–3), a base

grant would be available.

Within the second year of eligibility

(Transportation Year minus 2 or TY–2),

a base grant and a variable amount of

money for those jurisdictions that

qualify would be available. Proposed

routes would be announced during the

second year of eligibility.

Within the third year of eligibility

(Transportation Year minus 1 or TY–1),

a base grant and a variable amount of

money for those jurisdictions that

qualify would be available.

A state or tribe would continue to be

eligible for and receive Transportation

Year grants as long as NWPA shipments

go through its jurisdiction each year. If

there is a lapse of NWPA shipments for

three or more years, the state or tribe

would receive no funds for those years

and would only regain eligibility three

years prior to another NWPA shipment

through its jurisdiction. Three years

prior to the resumption of shipments

through its borders, a state or tribe may

again apply for TY–1 grants. If the lapse

is of two years or less between

shipments, the Transportation Year

grants would continue as if shipments

had been traversing that jurisdiction

during the lapse.

A significant route change made later

than two years prior to the expected

start of NWPA shipments through a

jurisdiction could generate some

difficulty in administering Section

180(c). The Section 180(c) program

would include contingencies for

changes in schedule and route. In

general, jurisdictions may receive an

additional amount of funding and

technical assistance if asked to complete

activities in shorter amounts of time,

i.e., a state may receive TY–1 and TY–

2 funding in the same year. If the route

change is made too close to the time of

shipment to allow for Section 180(c)

preparations, OCRWM may use escorts

with more training and equipment than

those currently used for the purpose of

safeguards until a reasonable time

period for training has expired.

Allowable Activities for Funding

This section describes the types of

activities that would be allowed under

this proposal and some of the specific

activities that would be disallowed.

This is not meant to be a comprehensive

list, but merely a guide to the types of

activities an applicant jurisdiction

might consider and some of the

activities that would be considered

outside the scope of the program and

therefore not eligible for Section 180(c)

funding.

For the most part, it would be the

applicant’s decision as to who gets

trained, the level of training obtained,

and the organization that administers

the training. Applicants would be

encouraged to describe in their threeyear plans how the budget would be

integrated with other available training

such as that offered through the

Hazardous Materials Transportation

Act, the Federal Emergency

Management Agency, the Conference on

Hazardous Materials Enforcement

Development, the state, or regional

organizations. The application package

would request information on how the

applicant would use the budget as part

of a larger effort to augment their

current infrastructure for safe routine

transportation procedures and

emergency response as well as how the

applicant anticipates using technical

assistance.

Specifically, an applicant would be

able to budget up to ten percent of each

year’s 180(c) funds to purchase

appropriate (i.e., training-related)

equipment provided the equipment is

identified in its application and

approved in the grant.

Funding may be used for refresher

training and to train new public safety

personnel. During the years NWPA

transportation is occurring in a

jurisdiction (Transportation Year), twothirds of the budget provided in TY–1

would help offset the costs of refresher

and new personnel training. The twothirds multiplier is a conservative

estimate based on the assumption that

after the initial training in TY–1 and

TY–2, each jurisdiction would

experience a personnel turnover rate of

approximately two-thirds of its staff

each year. The turnover of personnel,

particularly in the emergency response

area, means that new people will need

training if shipments continue through

a jurisdiction over an extended period

of time. It would be the jurisdiction’s

choice, within the limits of their Section

180(c) annual budget, to determine who

receives refresher training and with

what frequency. It would also be the

jurisdiction’s choice, within the limits

of its annual Section 180(c) budget,

which new personnel receive training

and the type and location of the

training.

Section 180(c) funds would not be

available for the conduct of drills and

exercises. The Department anticipates

that it will conduct drills and exercises

which will be conducted in conjunction

with states, tribes and local

governments in preparation for NWPA

shipments. However, drills and

exercises are generally considered a

means to measure preparedness, an

activity the Department views as beyond

the scope of the 180(c) program which

is limited by statute to provision of

funds and technical assistance for

training.

IV. Discussion of Comments Received

on the NOIs

The Department received 38

comments in response to the January 3,

1995, Notice of Inquiry and an

additional 13 comments in response to

the July 18, 1995, Notice of Inquiry:

Supplemental Information. Comments

were received from the Council of State

Governments—Midwestern Office,

Council of State Governments/Eastern

Regional Conference, Southern States

Energy Board, Western Interstate Energy

Board, two private citizens, Ohio

Division of Emergency Medical

Services, State of California Department

of Transportation, White Pine County

Nuclear Waste Project Office,

Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance,

International Association of Fire

Fighters, Texas Department of Public

Safety, Lander County Commission,

Yakima Indian Nation, Nevada Agency

for Nuclear Projects, Association of

American Railroads, Nye County

Nuclear Waste Repository Project Office,

Oregon Department of Energy, State of

Kansas, Eureka County Yucca Mountain

Information Office, New Mexico Energy,

Minerals and Natural Resources

Department, National Conference of

State Legislatures, County of Inyo

Planning Department, Nuclear Waste

Repository Oversight Program, National

Congress of American Indians,

Conference of Radiation Control

Program Directors, Federal Emergency

Management Agency, Lincoln County

Nuclear Waste Project, Nuclear Energy

Institute, Vermont Department of Public

Service, Commonwealth Edison

Company, Ohio Emergency

Management Agency, Clark County

Department of Comprehensive Planning,

Public Utilities Commission of Ohio,

Northern States Power Company, Ohio

Emergency Management Agency,

Virginia Power, State of Nebraska Civil

Defense Agency and the State of

Colorado. The commenters held very

diverse opinions; no single theme for

implementing Section 180(c) was

apparent.

The following section discusses

general categories and summarizes
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 96 / Thursday, May 16, 1996 / Notices 24775

major points of the comments and the

Department’s response.

Major Issues

A. Section 180(c) Policy

The commenters raised many topics

related to defining a Section 180(c)

policy. Although the Department

recognizes that these topics are closely

related and overlap each other, this

section divides those topics into the

following subsections: general themes

for a Section 180(c) program, safe

routine transportation, emergency

response procedures, eligibility criteria,

funding allocation formula, allowable

use of funds, technical assistance and

equipment, and concerns of rural and

tribal governments.

General Themes

A number of commenters offered

ideas about the philosophy and general

structure of the 180(c) program. These

ranged from developing a needs-based

type of program to one that offers

assistance for an additional incremental

level of training in existing hazardous

materials transportation training to

cover NWPA shipments. An example of

comments related to a needs-based

program is the Colorado Emergency

Planning Commission recommendation

to conduct a risk assessment that

balances the likelihood of an accident,

the response capability of the

jurisdiction to react, and the likely

affected population, then, from that

assessment, identify the preparedness,

response, and recovery needs of each

jurisdiction. Similarly, the Western

Governors’ Association (WGA), through

the Western Interstate Energy Board,

submitted straw man regulations for a

program that assesses the current

capabilities of jurisdictions, assesses the

needed level of readiness for NWPA

shipments, and then provides Section

180(c) assistance to make up the

difference. WGA suggested that

planning grants could be used to fund

jurisdictions to complete the

capabilities assessment while

implementation grants could be used to

carry out the identified activities. They

recommended the Department fund one

national and several regional training

advisory committees to help states and

tribes coordinate their training

activities. Most of the comments

supporting a needs-based program

either implied or stated the belief that

Section 180(c) assistance should cover

all costs associated with the Federal

government’s transportation of spent

nuclear fuel.

In contrast, other comments urged the

Department to only provide training and

assistance as an increment above what

currently exists. These comments urged

the Department to take into account the

low level of risk presented by spent

nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive

waste shipments and proportion the

assistance and training among recipients

accordingly. These commenters

maintained that current hazardous

materials transportation training for safe

routine and emergency response

procedures is sufficient to handle any

transportation radiological accident that

may occur. Creating a Section 180(c)

program that goes beyond current

hazardous materials transportation

training would send a message that the

NWPA shipments are more hazardous

than they really are. Still other

commenters stated that nuclear utilities

will, in effect, pay twice for emergency

response and safe routine practices

through contributions to the Nuclear

Waste Fund, the Hazardous Materials

Transportation Uniform Safety Act fees

for transporters of hazardous material,

and through various state and local fee

assessments and programs.

Other recurring comments urged the

Department to either not ship or to limit

the number of shipments until a Section

180(c) program is in place. This

comment was frequently presented in

conjunction with the belief that the

Department has an obligation to accept

waste in 1998, and if Congress identifies

a storage facility, shipping may well

begin in 1998 or shortly thereafter. In

addition, these commenters urged the

Department to accelerate Section 180(c)

implementation and to ask for a Section

180(c) budget allocation in the 1996

budget request to Congress.

Several commenters encouraged the

Department to begin as soon as possible

the process of route selection, in

cooperation with the states, to give

jurisdictions sufficient time to assess

their training needs. They argued that

jurisdictions need to know what routes

will be used so that they may begin

planning immediately for shipments

and be prepared if shipping occurs

within the next few years.

Response

It is the Department’s position that the

purpose of a Section 180(c) program is

to provide jurisdictions assistance in an

increment above their current level of

preparedness rather than to supply

complete emergency response or safe

routine transportation capabilities along

NWPA transportation routes. Other

Federal agencies such as FEMA and the

Department of Transportation, as part of

their respective missions, assist states

and tribes in the creation of more

comprehensive emergency response and

safe routine transportation capabilities.

Therefore, this proposal is designed to

provide incremental assistance, above

what currently exists, to help

jurisdictions prepare for NWPA

shipments. This program, in

combination with the Department’s

emergency response capabilities, will

help jurisdictions train for these

shipments and increase their

preparedness level.

While the Department has not

adopted the Western Governor’s

Association straw man regulations

specifically, the Department’s proposal

would allow states and tribes the

flexibility to implement many

provisions of the straw man regulations

as they choose. The Department’s

proposed technical assistance would

help provide the planning and

coordination called for in the straw man

regulations at a reasonable cost to the

program. In addition, the proposed

training advisory groups could drain

financial assistance away from recipient

jurisdictions. Training up to two years

prior to shipments will provide

inspectors and emergency responders

with current information about the

NWPA shipments.

Regarding the concern that shipments

will occur with less than three years’

preparation, this proposed policy

includes a contingency plan should the

Department have to ship spent fuel

through a jurisdiction with less than

three years notice. In addition, the

Department will work with jurisdictions

on a case-by-case basis to meet the

intent of Section 180(c) prior to any

shipments through a jurisdiction.

Regarding the comments that the

Department should request Section

180(c) funding in fiscal year 1996 and

announce routes as soon as possible,

funding requests for Section 180(c) and

a determination of routes cannot be

completed until a destination and initial

shipping date have been identified.

Safe Routine Transportation

Commenters offered several

suggestions concerning the definition of

safe routine transportation as used in

180(c). Four commenters specifically

supported the Transportation External

Coordination Working Group definition

while other commenters wrote more

expansive definitions to include

combinations of alternate route analysis,

inspection and enforcement training, en

route contingency plans, transportation

infrastructure improvements, shipment

notification and tracking, escorts, public

information, and development and

distribution of training curricula and

course materials. The Western

Governor’s Association straw man
24776 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 96 / Thursday, May 16, 1996 / Notices

regulations would add record-keeping

audits, operating protocols, and

improving confidence in the shipping

package to the definition.

A number of viewpoints were

expressed on inspections as part of safe

routine transportation activities. For

example, the Public Utility Commission

of Ohio stated that safe routine

transportation includes more than

inspections and should include detailed

carrier and shipper compliance reviews

pursuant to 49 CFR 100–177

requirements. The Department was also

encouraged to develop inspection

standards for rail transport serving the

same purpose as the Commercial

Vehicle Safety Alliance’s enhanced

inspection standards for truck

shipments.

Regarding the relative emphasis and

scope of safe routine transportation

activities, the Council of State

Governments—Midwestern Office and

the Public Utility Commission of Ohio

recommended placing equal emphasis

on safe routine transportation activities

as on emergency response activities. In

contrast, the Ohio Emergency

Management Agency recommended

placing more emphasis on emergency

response activities. One commenter said

Section 180(c) assistance should fully

fund state costs for state inspections and

escorts related to NWPA shipments.

The need for and training of escorts

was also a topic. The Conference of

Radiation Control Program Directors

questioned the need for escorts as an

expensive option considering the actual

level of risk compared to other

hazardous material shipments. Two

commenters called for the Department

to examine the possibility of either state

or Federal response teams traveling with

the shipments to reduce the need for

local first-responder training.

A global positioning system for

shipment tracking was encouraged as a

way to build trust in the safety of the

shipments and work more closely with

the corridor jurisdictions.

Response

The definition of safe routine

transportation proposed in this notice

combines part of the TEC definition and

the Strategy document definition. The

complete TEC definition was not used

because it is very broad and does not

indicate specifically what training for

safe routine transportation activities

would be covered by Section 180(c)

assistance. Many activities suggested in

the comments are already required of

the shipper or carrier such as

developing operating protocols and

using escorts. This negates the need to

include the activities in the definition of

safe routine transportation for the

purposes of providing Section 180(c)

assistance. Some other requested

activities, such as alternate route

analysis and record-keeping audits, are

outside the realm of training for safe

transport of NWPA shipments, and

therefore not included in the definition.

Regarding the comments that the

Department should develop rail

inspection standards, the Department

representatives will work cooperatively

with the railroad companies and the

Federal Railroad Administration (FRA)

on inspection and enforcement matters.

Both the rail companies and the FRA

have stringent standards for the

transportation of spent nuclear fuel and

high-level nuclear waste. The

Department has no plans to develop rail

inspection criteria.

The proposed policy permits enough

flexibility that a recipient jurisdiction

may distribute the money between

training for emergency response

procedures and safe routine

transportation procedures as they

choose. Again, this proposal is intended

to assist jurisdictions to incrementally

increase their level of preparedness for

NWPA shipments. However, the

Department maintains the position that

to pay for all costs associated with state

inspections and escorts is beyond the

scope of the Section 180(c) program and

is not necessary for shipment safety.

These shipments will be made in

accordance with NRC safeguards and

security requirements. The issue of

whether escorts must be used is

partially answered by NRC regulations,

which require escorts (10 CFR 73.37).

Emergency Response Procedures

The comments on providing

assistance for emergency response

training procedures were particularly

varied. In keeping with the needs-based

approach to assistance, a number of

commenters recommended funding

planning activities to determine the type

and amount of training. These

suggestions include Departmental

delineation of the roles and

responsibilities of each jurisdiction in

an emergency response situation and

assistance to each jurisdiction in

carrying out that role; funding to

jurisdictions to conduct route and risk

assessments prior to deciding whom to

train and to what standards; or using the

State Emergency Response Commissions

and the Local Emergency Planning

Committees as points of contact to

decide who should receive assistance

and to determine the needed level of

training.

Various training standards for

different levels of responders were also

suggested. These included awareness

training for local first-responders and

higher-level training for more

specialized responders, refresher

training for first-responders,

maintenance of on-call systems for

radiological responders, and periodic

exercises for personnel responding to

accidents. The Western Governor’s

Association straw man regulations

recommended the above activities plus

accident notification, safe parking

procedures, equipping personnel

responding to NWPA accidents,

development and/or revision of courses

and course materials, and assessing

opportunities to coordinate training,

emergency response, and exercises. One

commenter praised the emergency

response training at the Department’s

Nevada Test Site and asked that it be

used for Section 180(c) funded training.

A frequent comment supported

integration of emergency response

training for local public safety officials

into existing hazardous materials

training because the response

requirements for radiological incidents

fall within the requirements for other

hazardous materials shipments.

The Council of State Governments—

Midwestern Office asserted that current

capabilities at the state, tribal and local

level are inadequate in most

jurisdictions to handle the number and

frequency of planned OCRWM

shipments. In contrast, two other

commenters recommended only

incremental assistance to firstresponders because current

Departmental resources can support any

incident that may occur during

transport.

Comments on training for hospital

personnel ranged from the need to

provide awareness training to

specialized decontamination equipment

and training. Two commenters argued

that training for hospital personnel was

not necessary at all. The Council of

State Governments/Eastern Regional

Conference said assistance was not

necessary for hospitals because the Joint

Commission on Accreditation of Health

Care Organizations requires hospitals to

be able to treat patients exposed to

radioactive contamination before

receiving their accreditation.

Response

This proposed policy is flexible

enough that a recipient jurisdiction

could conduct many of the suggested

activities. The Department recognizes

the need for clear lines of responsibility

and communication during a

transportation emergency and

anticipates working with recipient

jurisdictions on these matters through
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 96 / Thursday, May 16, 1996 / Notices 24777

the provision of technical assistance

and, as budget allows, by conducting

exercises and drills. While exercises and

drills, will be conducted separately from

the Section 180(c) program, the

assistance may be used to support

participation in, or observation of,

exercises and drills if the recipient

jurisdiction desires. Similarly, reliance

on the State Emergency and Response

Commissions and Local Emergency

Planning Committees infrastructure will

be left to the applicant jurisdiction’s

discretion. This proposal does not allow

Section 180(c) assistance to be used to

conduct route and risk assessments

because these activities are outside the

scope of training for emergency

response and safe routine transportation

activities.

Regarding the specific activities

allowed under this proposal, each

jurisdiction will be allowed to choose

the training they wish and to train the

public safety personnel of their

choosing. The funding provided is

intended to defray the costs of attending

advanced courses such as those offered

by the Department. In many cases, the

applicants will have their own less

expensive training programs (FEMA and

the Department do not charge tuition,

although this proposal uses the cost of

tuition as a basis of the estimate for the

cost of each trainee) and may use the

remaining assistance for other activities

related to training for safe routine and

emergency response transportation

procedures.

The Department will provide

awareness training materials for local

responders and public information

material to the recipient jurisdictions.

For more advanced training courses, it

is expected the recipient jurisdictions

will either use their own training

courses, if available, or attend existing

hazardous materials or radiological

emergency response classes. Equipment

will not be provided for directly, but up

to ten percent of a recipient’s funds may

be used to purchase equipment of the

recipient’s choosing. Again, the basis of

estimate in the proposal does not

explicitly provide for training hospital

personnel, but recipient jurisdictions

may use their funds for this purpose if

they choose. The Department’s

awareness materials will include

information about Oak Ridge National

Laboratory’s Radiological Emergency

Assistance Center and Training Site and

its 24-hour on-call assistance.

Regarding the preparedness level of

state and tribal jurisdictions, the

Department understands that there are

greatly varying levels of preparedness.

The financial and technical assistance

provided through this proposed

program, in combination with the

Department’s resources, will assist

recipient jurisdictions to incrementally

increase their level of preparedness for

NWPA shipments. The Department will

work with a jurisdiction to provide

information about the shipments, the

safety precautions taken, and the

Department’s resources to assist the

jurisdiction in case of an accident or

incident.

Eligibility Criteria

Comments on eligibility criteria

focused on which jurisdictional level

should be eligible to apply for funds.

Some argued that if local governments

were eligible to receive funds directly,

then this would reduce administrative

costs and give local governments more

control over the assistance. Several

counties simply requested that they be

guaranteed an amount of budget and

given some discretion in using the

assistance. Other commenters said only

state and tribal agencies are eligible to

apply for assistance. Some commenters

made suggestions regarding how the

timing of NWPA shipments through a

jurisdiction impacts eligibility. The

WGA straw man regulations defined an

eligible state or tribe as ‘‘a host(s) and

corridor states or Indian tribes through

which shipments under the NWPA are

planned within six years.’’ Others said

training should begin from one to three

years prior to shipment.

One commenter said that eligibility

should not be restricted by waste type

or destination, but rather should help

local governments prepare for all types

of hazardous materials transportation

emergencies.

The point was also raised that tribes

and states near, but not on,

transportation routes should be eligible

for assistance, since their lands and

people would be at risk in case of a

transportation accident or incident.

Another commenter disagreed, saying

that only jurisdictions traversed by

NWPA shipments should be eligible for

assistance.

Response

The Department based its proposed

requirements for eligibility on the

wording in the NWPA and the

Department’s prior discussions with

stakeholders about beginning assistance

three to five years prior to

commencement of shipping through a

jurisdiction. The statute provides that

state governments determine how best

to allocate the assistance to local

jurisdictions. The Department plans to

assist tribal governments directly unless

requested otherwise by the tribal

government. Recipients will be required

to encourage local government

participation in planning and training

and to provide awareness training

materials and public information

supplied by the Department to local

public safety officials along the

shipment routes.

The Department does not propose to

use the Western Governor’s Association

straw man regulations indicating that

eligible jurisdictions should receive

assistance six years prior to

transportation. Since states and tribes

have primary responsibility to plan for

hazardous materials transportation

through their jurisdictions regardless of

Federal shipments, and given the high

rate of turnover among emergency

response personnel, the Department

believes that assistance provided so far

in advance of shipments would not be

effective.

In response to the request to provide

assistance regardless of destination or

type of waste, Section 180(c) provides

that assistance is only available for

those jurisdictions through whom the

Secretary [of Energy] plans to ship spent

nuclear fuel and high-level nuclear

waste to a repository or MRS under the

NWPA. Assistance will not be provided

to jurisdictions that do not have NWPA

shipments through their borders, nor

will assistance be provided for other

types of wastes.

Funding Allocation Formula

Once eligibility criteria are

determined, the total assistance

available will have to be allocated

among the eligible parties. Commenters

were explicit in their views of how

funds should be allocated. A frequent

comment was that funds should be

allocated according to the shipment

miles through a jurisdiction. The

Western Governor’s Association defined

shipment miles as the product of the

expected number of shipments

multiplied by the distance of such

shipments. The Western Governor’s

Association straw man regulations

recommended annual implementation

grants of 75% of the funds allocated

according to shipment miles and 25%

allocated to ensure minimum funding

levels and program capabilities. The

Nuclear Energy Institute countered that

the number of shipment miles through

a jurisdiction does not automatically

result in greater impact to a jurisdiction

and therefore should not qualify them

for additional assistance.

Other commenters suggested funding

be allocated to each eligible jurisdiction

based on a formula that includes both

the number of route miles in the

jurisdiction and the population at risk

along the shipment route(s), with
24778 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 96 / Thursday, May 16, 1996 / Notices

consideration given to existing

capabilities, and to the number of

shipments. Population was frequently

mentioned as a valid determinant of

funding allocations. Several

commenters stated that there should be

a base level of funding for each

jurisdiction.

The Council of State Governments—

Midwestern Office and Commonwealth

Edison Company recommended that the

Department consult with recipients to

determine their funding level based on

the impact of the shipments to that

jurisdiction. The Council of State

Governments/Eastern Regional

Conference said the funds for firstresponders should be proportional to

the number of responders along a route

and the funding available for inspectors

should be a function of the number of

shipments.

The Texas Department of Public

Safety recommended using the

Hazardous Materials Transportation Act

Training and Planning Grants approach

to allocating funds.

Response

The Department agrees with many

commenters that a base level of

assistance should be available to all

jurisdictions to be crossed by NWPA

shipments. Number of shipments was

not used as a determinant of funding

level because training of safety officials

is required no matter how many

shipments cross their jurisdiction. A

jurisdiction may need additional

inspectors as the number of shipments

increases. Population was not used to

determine funding levels because the

same level of effort is required in

responding to an emergency no matter

how many people may be affected.

The Department does not foresee

working with each eligible jurisdiction

to determine assistance levels because

the number of eligible jurisdictions in a

given year would make such an

interactive process prohibitively costly,

lengthy and administratively

burdensome. It would require

significant resources from both the

Department and the applicant with little

or no increased level of safety.

Jurisdictions will be able to obtain

guidance from Department

representatives to determine how best to

allocate the funds and what type of

training to obtain.

The Hazardous Materials

Transportation Act model for fund

allocation has merit but the Department

believes the allocation method proposed

in this Notice is more appropriate to a

Section 180(c) program. The Hazardous

Materials Transportation Act program

has virtually the same number of

eligible jurisdictions from year to year

whereas the Section 180(c) program may

have large annual variations in the

number of eligible jurisdictions. The

funding allocation method proposed in

the appendix of this Notice would allow

the Department to prepare its draft

annual budget request based on

anticipated needs for each year of

shipment. Finally, both the Department

and some commenters maintain that the

reimbursement aspect of the Hazardous

Materials Transportation Act is not

appropriate for a Section 180(c)

program.

Allowable Use of Funds

Elements of this discussion overlap

with the discussion of program scope

and the definitions of key terms. Several

state agencies and organizations said

that states and tribes should prioritize

their own training needs. They argued

that the Department must balance

accountability with an applicant’s need

for latitude in deciding how to spend

funds because of the varying levels of

preparedness, divisions of

responsibility, and other differences.

Commenters suggested the Department

could help recipient jurisdictions by

supplying information and expertise to

help beneficiaries determine how best to

use the funds.

Many commenters, however, said that

the final allocation of funding should

guarantee a specific portion of the

funding for local governments to use as

they see best. Other suggestions were to

give local governments explicit standing

on any planning, training or advisory

groups formed as a result of Section

180(c), to reserve a certain percentage of

the funds for distribution to local

governments, and to require recipients

to notify local governments of the

program and to encourage their

participation. One commenter objected

to exclusively funding training for local

governments and excluding training for

state personnel and recommended the

Department check the intent of Congress

in this regard.

Other commenters argued that the

Hazardous Materials Transportation Act

grant program provides a good model

for allowable activities. These

regulations require recipient

jurisdictions to describe existing

programs and explain how the

requested funds supply necessary

improvements to the existing

capabilities. They also provide for

monitoring of the program’s

effectiveness. The Department’s Waste

Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) assistance

program was also mentioned as a

successful model to help determine

allowable activities.

Two states said that Section 180(c)

assistance should pay for infrastructure

improvements along routes. Another

frequently mentioned point was that the

Section 180(c) program should not

require any matching funds from the

jurisdiction in order to receive

assistance. The Western Governor’s

Association straw man regulations

provide that the funds be distributed for

training along specific shipment routes,

unlike FEMA programs that work to

enhance overall preparedness. Several

comments recommended that exercises

and drills be funded by Section 180(c)

assistance, either to test the adequacy of

the training or to determine the training

needed.

Response

The Department’s proposal would

allow states and tribes to determine

their own training needs as long as it is

in accordance with their current public

safety infrastructure. The Department

took this approach because it allows

maximum flexibility for applicants to

tailor the assistance to their priorities.

Because of the need for flexibility, the

proposal does not require applicants to

provide a guaranteed percentage of

funds to local public safety officials.

The Department’s existing grants

process under 10 CFR Part 600 would

provide for accountability with 10 CFR

Part 600 without being too cumbersome

for the Department or the applicants and

would allow Department representatives

to provide advice and answer questions.

We do not intend to request matching

funds because most commenters and the

Department found no basis for such a

requirement and there is no legal

requirement for matching funds.

The Hazardous Materials

Transportation Act and WIPP examples

for allowable use of funds both have

merit. If a jurisdiction wishes to follow

the Hazardous Materials Transportation

Act or WIPP example in prioritizing use

of their grant monies, that would be

described in the grant application.

Similarly, recipients may decide to

provide funds only along a route or

throughout their jurisdiction as they

choose. Recipients would not be

prevented from using the assistance to

participate in, or observe, exercises and

drills but they are not included in the

Department’s proposed basis for

estimating funding levels.

Section 180(c) authorizes assistance

only for training. Therefore, the

Department does not intend to allow the

use of 180(c) funds for infrastructure

improvements.
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 96 / Thursday, May 16, 1996 / Notices 24779

Technical Assistance and Equipment

Almost every comment that addressed

the issue of technical assistance

identified the need for equipment. Some

commenters suggested that the

Department use the Transportation

External Coordination Working Group

definition of technical assistance.

Another suggested using the

Department’s 1992 Draft Options Paper

definition. The Council of State

Governments—Midwestern Office

offered the following definition, ‘‘The

term ‘technical assistance’ as it is used

in Section 180(c) of the Nuclear Waste

Policy Act means a variety of activities

designed to ensure that state, tribal and

local governments are trained for safe

routine transportation practices as well

as responding to transportation

emergencies within their jurisdictions,

including but not limited to planning

guidance, training support, practical

support, funding of pre-identified

equipment, and expertise.’’ They also

believe the Department should supply

funding for equipment, its maintenance

and calibration, and that states should

have funding to purchase computer

software and hardware to assist with

monitoring and response activities.

New Mexico specifically stated it

preferred the TEC definition’s greater

specificity and clarity over the

definition offered by the Council of

State Governments—Midwestern Office.

‘‘However, [it] recommend[ed] two

revisions to the definition: (1) The first

sentence should read ‘* * * to ensure

that States and tribal governments are

trained for safe routine transportation

practices as well as capable of

responding safely and effectively to

spent nuclear fuel and high-level waste

transportation emergencies with their

jurisdictions.’ (2) The second sentence

should read ‘* * * and for public

information, outreach, and participation

efforts.’ ’’

Other suggestions were broader in

their application, encompassing such

things as emergency response

equipment, inspection equipment,

assistance in route planning, emergency

response plan development, course

development and exercises, tracking

capability, equipment and training for

hospital personnel, 24-hour access to

Federal radiological safety personnel,

carrier qualifications, and funding,

among others.

The Conference of Radiation Control

Program Directors questioned the need

for equipment, especially for local

responders. They argued that the low

risk of these shipments does not justify

a response capability beyond what

currently exists. FEMA, on the other

hand, offered its assistance to the

Department in providing technical

assistance and equipment to responders

through its role as provider of

emergency and disaster preparedness

for state, tribal, and local governments.

Response

The definition of technical assistance

proposed in this Notice combines parts

of the Strategy definition and the

Transportation External Coordination

Working Group definition. The bulk of

the Transportation External

Coordination Working Group definition

was not included because many of the

activities listed, such as assistance in

route planning, maintaining equipment,

providing on-site emergency response

assistance, and remediation assistance

are outside the scope of training and

therefore not covered by Section 180(c).

The Department has resources already

available, upon request of the state or

tribe, to provide monitoring and

recovery advice if there has been an

accident or incident. In addition, the

shipper and carrier can provide

shipment-specific assistance.

The definition in this proposal allows

for Department representatives to

provide technical support on training

needs and response strategies as budget

constraints allow. As explained in the

proposal, conduct of drills and exercises

are not included under the definition of

technical assistance although it is

anticipated that the NWPA

transportation staff, or DOE

representatives, may, as budget allows,

conduct exercises and drills with state,

local, and tribal jurisdictions along the

transportation routes.

Concerns of Rural and Tribal

Governments

Few additional comments that dealt

specifically with the concerns of rural

and tribal governments were received in

response to the July 18, Notice of

Inquiry. Both New Mexico and the

Council of State Governments—

Midwestern Office reiterated the

Department’s responsibility to work

with tribes on a government-togovernment basis. Other comments

stressed the Department’s Trust

responsibility towards tribal

governments. One comment encouraged

the Department to begin direct

communications with tribal

governments near reactor locations to

address their particular concerns. The

Department was also encouraged to

contact tribal governments who may not

know they could have NWPA shipments

crossing their lands.

Commenters encouraged the

Department to take extra steps to

address the lack of infrastructure and

resources on many of the tribal lands

that will be crossed by NWPA

shipments. Recommendations included

providing resources to allow tribes to

participate in the OCRWM program and

beginning early to build an emergency

response infrastructure for those tribes

lacking basic infrastructure. One

comment urged expansion of the

cooperative agreement with the National

Congress of American Indians to help

facilitate communication with tribal

governments.

Other commenters suggested how a

Section 180(c) program could address

the concerns specific to rural areas.

Rural jurisdictions often rely heavily on

volunteer public safety personnel with

high turnover rates, serve large areas

with few staff, have few resources for

training, with little or no ability to travel

to obtain training. The commenters

encouraged the Department to offer

training in the communities where the

local responders reside and to guarantee

that certain levels of training and

equipment would be supplied.

Response

The Department recognizes that there

is a lack of infrastructure and trained

personnel on many tribal lands and in

many rural counties across the nation.

Typically, these areas may rely more

heavily on technical assistance than

other recipient jurisdictions. As stated

earlier, the Department believes that a

jurisdiction’s lack of emergency

response infrastructure does not

compromise shipment safety when a

jurisdiction is aware of the steps taken

to ensure safety and the Department’s

readiness to provide on-site assistance.

The basic awareness training modules

will be provided to jurisdictions to

distribute to responders along each

shipping route and will not require

public safety officials to travel outside

their jurisdiction. These training

modules will inform local public safety

officials of what steps to take in case of

a transportation emergency in their

jurisdiction and what staff will be

traveling with the shipments that can be

a source of information and assistance.

The Department has agreed to work

directly with tribal governments unless

requested otherwise by the applicant.

As far as working with tribes located

near reactors sites, the Department will

continue to work through the

mechanism of its cooperative agreement

with the National Congress of American

Indians to reach out to tribes across the

nation and encourage their participation

in the program.
24780 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 96 / Thursday, May 16, 1996 / Notices

B. Section 180(c) Procedures

The comments received from both

Notices showed a preference among the

commenters for an OCRWM grants

program. While twelve commenters

recommended a Department or OCRWM

grants program, eight commenters

supported the next most popular option,

the use of existing Federal programs. Of

these, four recommended using FEMA,

two recommended the Department of

Transportation’s Hazardous Materials

Transportation Act program, and two

recommended other Federal programs.

At the same time, eight commenters

specifically criticized the use of existing

Federal programs. Three commenters

either requested a combination of

options or expressed moderate support

for a combination of options; one

commenter said this was not viable.

Three commenters were opposed to

disbursing the funds through

cooperative agreements, whereas eight

commenters said cooperative

agreements were either a very good idea

or gave conditional support for the idea.

Several commenters identified a

preferred option but also listed other

options as acceptable.

The most common theme among the

comments on procedural options was

the importance of minimizing the

administrative burden on all parties.

Another common theme was to limit the

layers of bureaucracy and

administration through which funding

must pass.

The following describes more detailed

comments provided about each option.

Use Established Federal Agency

Programs Other Than the Department’s

The Council of State Governments/

Eastern Regional Conference, the Ohio

Emergency Management Agency, the

Texas Department of Public Safety,

Division of Emergency Management and

FEMA all commented that receiving

additional assistance through FEMA’s

Comprehensive Cooperative Agreement

program (to be replaced with the

Performance Partnership Agreements

beginning in FY96) would be the least

administratively burdensome since they

already participate in this FEMA

program. The Council of State

Governments—Midwestern Office

commented that FEMA should be a

vehicle for assistance only after the

Department and the recipient have

agreed to use FEMA for that recipient.

The Hazardous Materials Transportation

Act grant program was mentioned by

the Nuclear Energy Institute and

Northern States Power Company as a

desirable option to reduce multiple

Federal programs and the chance that

utilities would pay twice for emergency

response through hazardous materials

transportation fees and the Nuclear

Waste Fund.

FEMA provided descriptions of their

current regulatory authority to monitor

and assess emergency management

plans and preparedness, and a proposal

for how they could administer the

Section 180(c) program. FEMA

discussed its current training programs

and expertise in the emergency

management field and stressed its allhazards approach to preparedness that

includes radioactive materials

shipments within the larger scope of

emergency preparedness.

The most common concern from the

state and county perspective was that

other Federal programs would add

administrative layers and reduce the

funds available for the recipients. The

Western Interstate Energy Board, in

particular, felt that FEMA was not an

appropriate avenue because ‘‘FEMA’s

Comprehensive Cooperative Agreement

program has been the subject of

substantial disagreement with several

western states and is viewed by experts

in our region as ineffective and

inappropriate for dealing with spent

nuclear fuel or high-level radioactive

waste.’’ In fact, one commenter

criticized FEMA for placing emphasis

on preparations for nuclear attacks

rather than transportation incidents.

The Hazardous Materials Transportation

Act and FRA programs were seen as too

narrowly focused to work well as a

vehicle to implement a Section 180(c)

program.

From the tribal perspective, the most

common critique of other Federal

programs was that none of the options

discussed in the Notices has an effective

mechanism in place to work with tribes.

Commenters advocated exploration of

other funding mechanisms that tribes

use more frequently, such as the

Department of Housing and Urban

Development Community Development

and Block Grant Program, and suggested

establishing a separate funding

mechanism for tribal governments.

Other commenters were concerned

that using other Federal programs

would diminish focus on NWPA

shipment safety and increase impacts

from government downsizing. The

Commercial Vehicle Safety Association

also pointed out that it may put

expertise and training further away from

the intended delivery point.

Establish Agreements With State, Local,

Tribal, and Other Organizations

This option prompted a variety of

interpretations. Agreements or

Memoranda of Understanding among

recipients, agreements between the

Department and recipients, or

agreements between the Department and

regional or national coordinating

organizations were all discussed. Some

identified the potential improvements

in regional cooperation and efficiency as

the biggest benefit to establishing

agreements with regional or national

organizations. One commenter

suggested cooperative agreements

would allow negotiations each year

between recipients and the Department

that would permit adjustment among

recipients’ with dissimilar training

goals. The Colorado Emergency

Planning Commission said

consideration should be given to

working through the WGA or a similar

organization to promote coordination.

The Commission suggested that WIPP’s

cooperative agreement with WGA could

be a useful mechanism to mimic.

Expanding the cooperative agreement

with the National Congress of American

Indians was recommended as a possible

way to ensure up front consultation

with tribal recipients. Such expansion

of cooperative agreements with tribes

could balance the differences between

tribes and other recipients governments.

Many commenters, however, saw the

development of cooperative agreements

as a lengthy, involved process that

could take too long to implement

effectively. Two commenters

specifically noted the WIPP cooperative

agreements worked well because there

was a smaller group of participants and

it was developed over several years.

NWPA requirements may not be

compatible with this experience. This

option was criticized for creating an

unnecessary administrative layer that

would take away from total funding to

be spent on training.

Other comments encouraged

cooperative agreements with

organizations that could, in turn, train

state, local and tribal public safety

officials. The Association of American

Railroads’ Technical Training Center in

Pueblo, Colorado and the Commercial

Vehicle Safety Alliance were both

identified as organizations with the

capability to train recipients for

emergency response for rail incidents

and for truck inspections, respectively.

Establish a Department-Wide Grant

Program

Response to this option was mixed.

Some called a Department-wide

program inappropriate, citing the

difficulty of co-mingling Nuclear Waste

Fund money with other Department

transportation activities. Commenters

expressed concern over coordinating the

diverse shipping campaigns of the
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 96 / Thursday, May 16, 1996 / Notices 24781

Department in a timely manner.

Supporting this option, one commenter

noted that the fewer points-of-contact

between the Department and

stakeholders would be beneficial.

Establish an OCRWM Grant Program

Many commenters saw this as the best

option, listing such benefits as

minimizing bureaucracy and

administration and increasing

flexibility. Some commented on the

benefit of distributing Section 180(c)

assistance without involving other

programs as would happen through a

Department-wide grant program. Others

noted that an OCRWM grant program

would more easily adjust to the

diversity and number of recipient

jurisdictions and thus, Department

control and accountability would be

easier.

The Western Interstate Energy Board

commented on this option favorably,

provided that such a grant program

incorporates flexibility to allow states to

coordinate the training and funding.

The Southern States Energy Board and

the National Conference of State

Legislatures both identified this option

as favorable if additional national or

regional coordination efforts were also

supported.

Many county commenters interpreted

this option as similar to the direct

payments made to local governments

through Yucca Mountain oversight

programs. They were generally in favor

of options that assist local governments

as directly as possible.

Use Elements From the Previous Four

Groups

Three commenters agreed that a

combination of options would be best

because it could provide the proper

degree of direct contact between the

Department and recipient governments

while encouraging national or regional

planning, coordination, and uniformity.

The Council of State Governments—

Midwestern Office said the Department

should negotiate with the recipients to

provide assistance through a variety of

mechanisms ‘‘to accommodate the

needs of as many states and tribes as

possible.’’ Commonwealth Edison

Company concurred with the Council of

State Government’s opinion. The

Southern States Energy Board

recommended using a combination of

direct grants to states and tribes with

cooperative agreements to regional

organizations to provide coordination

and consultation.

Response

This proposal recommends

distributing funds through an OCRWM

grants program because the Department

believes this is the most flexible, least

administratively burdensome and least

costly method of all the procedural

options investigated. This mechanism

will allow the greatest amount of

appropriated funds to be distributed

directly to the recipients rather than

diverted to cover administrative costs.

Distributing the funds through a grant

program rather than a cooperative

agreement program lowers the cost of

administration for both recipients and

the Department, and gives the recipients

more discretion in use of the funds.

Under the proposed policy, recipients

would have a great deal of flexibility in

use of the grants and could account for

varying levels of preparedness.

The Department did not choose to

implement Section 180(c) through

another Federal program for many of the

same reasons commenters were critical

of this option. While the FEMA option

may have been flexible enough to meet

the requirements of a Section 180(c)

program, the time and effort to set up a

program at another agency would have

increased administrative cost, decreased

the program’s flexibility and reduced

the funds available for recipients. Since

the Department can perform the same

function, there is no reason to involve

another agency. The Department of

Transportation programs were not

similar enough to the requirements for

a Section 180(c) program and would

have required significant effort to meld

the programs together.

A Department-wide grants program

would require overcoming difficult legal

and logistical problems. The logistical

problems of creating one Departmentwide emergency response and safe

routine transportation grants program

for all eligible recipients would require

extensive administrative work. It would

also likely create legal and procedural

paperwork tangles to keep from

mingling the appropriations for various

programs within the Department. As

long as the various Department offices

cooperate on an informal basis, there

appears to be little benefit to formally

combining programs.

Combining elements of each option

was not selected because it would create

logistic difficulties and would not be

very efficient or cost effective. For

example, if the Department sent some

recipients’ assistance through the

Hazardous Materials Transportation Act

program, some through FEMA, and

some directly from the Department, it

would significantly increase the

administrative costs, increase oversight

and accountability problems and create

a very confusing and disjointed program

for both the Department and the

recipients.

C. Applicability of Section 180(c) to

Private Shipments

Many states, counties, and regional

groups urged that the Section 180(c)

program should apply to all commercial

spent nuclear fuel or defense high-level

radioactive waste shipments ultimately

destined for an NWPA facility, whether

or not those shipments are transported

to and stored on an interim basis at a

private facility. Commenters cited that

any large-scale shipping campaign of

such materials will have virtually the

same impact on states and tribes as that

envisioned in the NWPA.

Response

The Department is currently

authorized to implement the Section

180(c) program of financial and

technical assistance only for shipments

to a repository or MRS constructed

under the NWPA. However, the many

comments on this issue have been

noted.

D. Policy Development Process

A few commenters questioned the

Department’s plans to issue a Notice of

Policy and Procedures rather than

establish the program in regulations.

They voiced concern that

implementation of Section 180(c)

through regulations is necessary to

ensure stability through changes of

leadership within the Department and

that an interpretation of policy and

procedures is ‘‘less robust.’’ An

expedited rulemaking process was

suggested to accommodate time

constraints.

Response

The Department is developing the

Policy and Procedures after receipt and

consideration of extensive public

comments. At some future date, the

Department may decide to promulgate

regulations. At this time, however, it is

the Department’s intent to remain

flexible in order to work through

unforeseen problems without

committing to binding regulations.

V. Conclusion and Request for

Submission

This paper has presented the

Department’s proposal for a policy and

procedures for the Section 180(c)

program. It has also presented the

Department’s summarization of and

response to comments received on prior

Notices of Inquiry about Section 180(c)

policy and procedures. Comments on

this proposal will be included in the

Notice of Final Policy and Procedures,
24782 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 96 / Thursday, May 16, 1996 / Notices

which the Department intends to

publish in 1997. The purpose of this

document has been to share with

stakeholders the progress to date on

developing Section 180(c) policy and

procedures and to request additional

comments from interested parties. The

final policy and procedures may reflect

changes as a result of comments, new

Congressional direction, and any policy

changes caused by the new

Congressional direction.

The Department solicits comments

from the public on this proposal to issue

Section 180(c) policy and procedures.

Issued in Washington, D.C., on May 10,

1996.

Daniel A. Dreyfus,

Director, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste

Management.

Appendix—Basis for Cost of Program

To determine the cost of the program and

a feasible approach to allocate funding

among eligible participants, the Department

intends to estimate reasonable activities that

could be achieved each year to use, not as

prescribed activities for the applicants, but to

determine the dollar amount of the grant

each recipient should receive. Since the

Department has found no industry or

regulatory standards on what constitutes a

sufficient emergency response to a spent fuel

transportation accident, it expects to rely on

training standards and regulations (discussed

below) to reach conclusions about what type

of training would be reasonable. To reach

conclusions with regard to which and how

many people should be trained and to what

levels, the Department intends to look at

industry regulations, the Department’s own

capabilities to support state and tribal

governments, and the comments provided by

stakeholders. Based on the information from

these sources, the Department intends to

determine the activities on which it would

base its grant allocations and then estimate

the costs for these activities.

The training standards the Department

intends to use for emergency response are

consistent with the level of training

recommended by the International Atomic

Energy Agency (IAEA) (Safety Series No. 87,

1988), the Occupational Safety and Health

Administration (OSHA) (29 CFR 1910.120)

and the National Fire Protection Association

(NFPA) (NFPA 471 and 472). The training

standards we intend to use for safe routine

transportation are consistent with current

practices and the regulatory limitations

placed on states and tribes for safe routine

transportation activities. Recognizing that not

everyone will agree with this application of

the standards to the training goals, there

would be few limitations on how the

recipient actually spends its budget, as long

as they are used for training related to safe

routine transportation of spent nuclear fuel

and high-level radioactive waste and

emergency response procedures.

The training goals for both safe routine

transportation and emergency response

procedures that the Department intends to

use as a basis for determining a grant

allocation are as follows:

Emergency Response

• First-on-scene and first responder

personnel: Self-directed awareness training

material would be supplied by the

Department. The Department-provided

awareness material would include

information for medical personnel. Up to two

people from each state or tribe would be

funded to attend train-the-trainer classes of

the jurisdiction’s choice to teach the

classroom awareness training to firstresponders. Section 180(c) funding would

partially offset the cost of in-state training.

• State/tribal hazardous materials or

radiological response: Up to three people

would receive funding to attend more

specialized training, selected by the

jurisdiction. Additional personnel may be

trained, depending on route miles.

• Transportation Public Information:

Another one person from each state or tribe

would be funded to attend public

information training (such as that offered at

the Nevada Test Site [NTS]).

Safe Routine Transportation

• State/tribal inspectors for highway and

rail: In addition to the funding for emergency

response activities, up to three inspectors

from each state or tribe may be funded to

attend training of their choice in either rail

or highway inspection procedures.

Jurisdictions without an inspection program

may use the funds to coordinate observation

of another jurisdiction’s inspection. Rail

inspections may be limited because of legal

restrictions on inspecting rail shipments for

both states and tribes. Funding may be used

to coordinate observation of other agencies’

inspection of the shipments, including the

Department of Transportation’s Federal

Railroad Administration’s (FRA), the Nuclear

Regulatory Commission’s (NRC), the

Department of Energy’s or the state of origin’s

inspections of both highway and rail

shipments and to coordinate with rail and

trucking companies on safety and inspection

issues.

Along with the training activities described

above, the Department intends to provide

funding to cover some planning and

coordination costs, as estimated below.

If an eligible jurisdiction takes the training

activities described above and the method of

estimating the costs for these activities (the

Department did not actually attach dollar

figures to these activities in this proposal), it

could estimate how much assistance it would

be eligible for each year. However, the

Department is proposing some time

restrictions on the funding. These would be

as follows:

Within the first year of eligibility to receive

funding (Transportation Year [defined as the

year that shipments will commence] minus 3

or TY–3): A base grant would be available to

help offset planning and coordination costs.

Within the second year of eligibility

(Transportation Year minus 2 or TY–2): A

base grant would be available to help offset

estimated travel and tuition costs to send

personnel to train-the trainer training,

emergency response training, and planning

and coordination activities. A variable

amount of budget would be available, for

those jurisdictions that qualify, to train

additional emergency response personnel.

Proposed routes would be announced during

the second year of eligibility.

Within the third year of eligibility

(Transportation Year minus 1or TY–1): The

base grant would be available to offset

estimated travel and tuition costs to train

transportation public information staff,

inspectors, three trips for the awareness

trainers to train local responders, and

planning and coordination activities. A

variable amount of money, if a jurisdiction

qualifies, would be available to help offset

estimated travel and tuition costs to train

additional emergency response personnel, if

necessary. The Department would send out

self-taught awareness packages to states and

tribes to distribute to first-on-scene and first

responder personnel.

Within the Transportation Year (TY): Twothirds of the budget provided in TY–1 would

help offset refresher and new personnel

training. The two-thirds multiplier is derived

from a conservative estimate that after the

initial training in TY–1 and TY–2, each

jurisdiction would experience a personnel

turnover rate of approximately two-thirds of

their staff each year.

The information below describes the

assumptions that the Department intends to

use to form cost estimates for the

Department’s annual allocations to

recipients.

The Base Amount

Planning and Coordination Costs—The

Department intends to make these estimates

by taking the estimated salary of a health

physicist employed full-time by a state

government and providing a percentage of

that salary. The salary estimate can be made

either by using a Conference of Radiation

Control Program Directors’ salary quote or by

sampling health physicist salaries in various

states and taking the average of the sample.

One planning and coordination trip would

also be estimated in this cost (see travel costs

for the cost estimate of this trip).

Travel Costs—Planning and coordination

trips would be estimated to last three days.

Travel for hazardous materials responder,

inspector, train-the-trainer, and public

communications training would be estimated

to last five days. In-state awareness training

would be estimated to last five days and

include planning and coordination costs. Air

travel cost would be estimated by calculating

the average airfare from several locations

around the country to the NTS and Federal

Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)

training centers. Per diem costs would be

estimated by using the Federal government’s

per diem costs for the NTS and FEMA

training locations.

Tuition Costs—Tuition costs would be

estimated by taking the estimated cost to the

DOE of an NTS Radiological Emergency

Operations course and dividing it by 25

students per class. This tuition cost would be

applied to each trainee in a hazardous

materials emergency response, inspector and

train-the-trainer class.
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 96 / Thursday, May 16, 1996 / Notices 24783

The base amount of money would be

determined from these cost estimates of the

training activities described above.

The Variable Amount

To determine the variable amount of

money, each eligible jurisdiction would

receive funds to train three additional

hazardous materials personnel for every 160

miles along a route. If routes through a

jurisdiction intersect, or are less than 80

miles apart, the route miles could not be

double-counted if they fall within an 80 mile

radius of another route.

The Department intends to provide a

variable amount of funding based on route

miles because it believes that it is the best

measure to capture any variation in impact

on a jurisdiction’s ability to prepare for

NWPA shipments. The 160 mile estimate was

used because other emergency response

organizations have used a two-hour response

time as the limit to how frequently hazardous

materials response teams should be placed.

From the two-hour measure, one can

conservatively say it would take an

emergency response vehicle an hour to travel

80 miles in either direction.

[FR Doc. 96–12283 Filed 5–15–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P

Alaska Power Administration

Proposed Rate Adjustment for Eklutna

Project

AGENCY: Alaska Power Administration,

DOE.

ACTION: Notice of public forum, review

and comment.

SUMMARY: Alaska Power Administration

(APA) is proposing to adjust the rates

for the Eklutna Project. Rates of 18.7

mills per kilowatt-hour for firm energy,

10 mills per kilowatt-hour for non-firm

energy and .3 mills per kilowatt-hour for

wheeling expire September 30, 1999.

Due to a decrease in combined projected

overhead and O&M costs, APA proposes

to lower the rate for firm and nom-firm

energy to 8.8 mills per kilowatt-hour

beginning September 1, 1996 for a

period of up to five years. The rate for

wheeling would remain the same. APA

will finalize the proposal giving full

consideration to comments received.

The final proposal may differ from the

present. The proposed rates will be

submitted to the Deputy Secretary of

Energy for interim approval and to the

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

for review and final approval.

DATES: Written comments will be

considered until August 14, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should

be submitted to Mr. Nicki J. French,

Alaska Power Administration, 2770

Sherwood Lane, Suite 2B, Juneau,

Alaska 99801.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mr. Nicki J. French, Assistant

Administrator, Alaska Power

Administration, 2770 Sherwood Lane,

Suite 2B, Juneau, AK 99801, (907) 586–

7405.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

proposed rates apply for power sold

from the Eklutna Hydroelectric Project

to three electric utilities serving the

Anchorage and Matanuska Valley areas

of Alaska. Details of the proposed rates,

including supporting studies, are

available for inspection at Alaska Power

Administration, 2770 Sherwood Lane,

Suite 2B, Juneau, Alaska; and the

Eklutna Project Office, Mile 4.0, Old

Glenn Highway, Palmer, Alaska. A

public information and comment forum

is scheduled to be held June 24, 1996,

at 6:00 PM, in the public conference

room of the Loussac Library, 3600

Denali, Anchorage, Alaska. APA is

requesting that the parties interested in

attending the public information and

comment forum notify APA of this

intent in writing by June 17, 1996. If

APA has not received any written

notices of intent to attend the forum the

APA Administrator will cancel the

forum, as allowed in 10 CFR 903.15(c)

and 10 CFR 903.16(c). Authorities for

the proposed rate action are the Eklutna

Project Act of July 31, 1950 (64 Stat.

382, as amended) and the Department of

Energy Organization Act (Public Law

95–91). Alaska Power Administration is

developing these rates in accordance

with DOE financial reporting policies,

procedures and methodology (DOE

Policy RA 6120.2 [September 20, 1979]),

and the procedures for public

participation in rate adjustments found

in 10 CFR Part 903 (1987) as amended.

The present rates went into effect in

October, 1994. APA has repaid over

82% of the project investment. The

proposed rate results in an 53% rate

decrease. APA has notified its

customers that a new rate would be

developed based on decreased overhead

costs and elimination of Eklutna O&M

costs. APA will continue its rate

evaluation based on projected staffing

and include the results in the final rate

proposal. Alaska Power Administration

Asset Sale and Termination Act was

signed by the President on November,

1995. As part of the transition to new

ownership, APA is entering an O&M

agreement with the purchasing utilities.

With the new O&M agreement between

APA and the purchasing utilities, APA

expects the utilities to incur all O&M

and replacement costs throughout the

term of the agreement. The reduction in

costs to APA have been included in the

repayment study supporting the

proposed rates. APA will continue

formulating and executing transition

plans based on the existing purchase

agreements and signed legislation for

the sale of the Eklutna project to the

Anchorage utilities. This proposed rate

action continues present rate policies

under existing law.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT: The proposed

rate action will have no significant

environmental impact within the

meaning of the National Environmental

Policy Act of 1969. The proposed action

meets the requirements of a categorical

exclusion as defined in 40 CFR 1508.4

and is listed as a categorical exclusion

for DOE in 10 CFR 1021, Appendix

B4.3. An Environmental Assessment

and an Environmental Impact Statement

is not required.

Issued at Juneau, Alaska, May 6, 1996.

Lloyd A. Linke,

Administrator.

[FR Doc. 96–12282 Filed 5–15–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P

Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission

[Docket No. RP96–235–000]

Algonquin Gas Transmission

Company; Notice of Proposed

Changes in FERC Gas Tariff

May 10, 1996.

Take notice that on May 8, 1996,

Algonquin Gas Transmission Company

(Algonquin) tendered for filing as part of

its FERC Gas Tariff, Fourth Revised

Volume No. 1, Ninth Revised Sheet No.

1100. The proposed effective date of the

tariff sheet is June 8, 1996.

Algonquin states that the purpose of

this filing is to indicate the removal of

the Index of Customers from

Algonquin’s FERC Gas Tariff, Fourth

Revised Volume No. 1.

Algonquin states that the removal of

the removal of the Index of Customer’s

from the Tariff is in compliance with

the Commission’s revised regulations in

Sections 284.106 and 284.223.

Algonquin requests that the

Commission grant any waiver that may

be necessary to place this tariff sheet

into effect on the date requested.

Algonquin states that copies of this

filing were mailed to all customers of

Algonquin and interested state

commissions.

Any person desiring to be heard or to

protest said filing should file a motion

to intervene or protest with the Federal

Energy Regulatory Commission, 888

First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426,

in accordance with 18 CFR 385.214 and

385.211 of the Commission’s Rules and