[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 128 (Thursday, July 5, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 36754-36757]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-13007]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
[Docket No. PHMSA-2007-27181 (Notice No. 07-5]
Information Collection Activities
AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA)
DOT.
ACTION: Notice and request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, PHMSA
invites comments on an information collection under Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) Control No. 2137-0586, pertaining to
Hazardous Materials Public Sector Training and Planning Grants. PHMSA
will request approval from OMB for a revision to the current
information collection. The revision implements a statutory provision
authorizing PHMSA to
[[Page 36755]]
request information from states concerning fees related to the
transportation of hazardous materials. In addition, we are revising the
current information collection to include more detailed information
from grantees to enable us to more accurately evaluate the
effectiveness of the grant program in meeting emergency response
planning and training needs.
DATES: Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before
September 4, 2007.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by the docket number
(PHMSA-2007-27181) by any of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
Mail: Docket Management System, U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
Hand Delivery: Docket Operations, M-30, West Building
Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC
20590, from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays.
Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and
docket number or Regulation Identification Number (RIN) for this
notice. Internet users may access comments received by DOT at http://
dms.dot.gov. Note that comments received will be posted without change
to http://dms.dot.gov including any personal information provided.
Requests for a copy of the information collection should be
directed to Deborah Boothe or T. Glenn Foster, U.S. Department of
Transportation, Office of Hazardous Materials Standards (PHH-11),
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue, SE., East Building, 2nd Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001,
Telephone (202) 366-8553.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Deborah Boothe or T. Glenn Foster,
U.S. Department of Transportation, Office of Hazardous Materials
Standards (PHH-11), Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., East Building, 2nd Floor,
Washington, DC 20590-0001, Telephone (202) 366-8553.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 1320.8 (d), Title 5, Code of Federal
Regulations requires PHMSA provide interested members of the public and
affected agencies an opportunity to comment on information collection
and recordkeeping requests. This notice identifies an information
collection PHMSA is submitting to OMB for revision under OMB Control
Number 2137-0586. This collection is contained in 49 CFR Part 110,
Hazardous Materials Public Sector Training and Planning Grants. We are
proposing to revise the information collection to implement a statutory
provision authorizing PHMSA to request information from states
concerning fees related to the transportation of hazardous materials.
In addition, we are proposing to revise the current information
collection to include more detailed information from grantees to enable
us to more accurately evaluate the effectiveness of the grant program
in meeting emergency response planning and training needs.
State and Tribal Hazardous Materials Fees
Federal hazardous materials transportation law (Federal hazmat law;
49 U.S.C. 5101 et seq.) specifies that Hazardous Materials Emergency
Preparedness (HMEP) grant funds are to be allocated based on the needs
of states and Indian tribes for emergency response planning and
training, considering a number of factors including whether the state
or tribe imposes and collects a fee on the transportation of hazardous
materials and whether the fee is used only to carry out a purpose
related to the transportation of hazardous materials. 40 U.S.C.
5116(b)(4). Accordingly, the HMEP grant application procedures in Part
110 require applicants to submit a statement explaining whether the
applicant assesses and collects fees for the transportation of
hazardous materials and whether those fees are used solely to carry out
purposes related to the transportation of hazardous materials.
Section 5125(f) of the Federal hazmat law permits a State,
political subdivision of a state, or Indian tribe to impose a fee
related to the transportation of hazardous materials only if the fee is
fair and used for a purpose related to transporting hazardous
materials, including enforcement and planning, developing, and
maintaining a capability for emergency response. In accordance with
Sec. 5125, the Department of Transportation may require a state,
political subdivision of a State, or Indian tribe to report on the fees
it collects, including: (1) The basis on which the fee is levied; (2)
the purposes for which the revenues from the fee are used; and (3) the
total amount of annual revenues collected from the fee. Until now, we
have not proposed asking States, political subdivisions, or Indian
tribes to report this information.
In response to our February 26, 2007 notice [72 FR 8421] concerning
the renewal of the OMB approval of the information collection required
of applicants for HMEP grants, we received one comment from the
Interested Parties for Hazardous Materials Transportation urging us to
require grant applicants to report on the hazardous materials fees they
collect in accordance with Sec. 5125(f) of the Federal hazmat law. The
commenter states that such information is important for both the agency
and the regulated community to determine if States are in compliance
with applicable provisions of the Federal hazmat law.
We agree that we should ask States and Indian tribes to provide
more detailed information about hazardous materials fees they collect.
This information will help us to evaluate more fully the emergency
response funding needs of States and Indian tribes, thereby promoting
more effective use of HMEP grant funds. In addition, information about
fees will assist us in targeting our safety assistance team activities
to specific regions. Comprehensive information on the assessment,
collection, and use of State and tribal fees related to the
transportation of hazardous materials is not available from other
sources. Only the State or Indian tribe assessing the fee can be
expected to accurately report on the purposes for which the fees are
assessed and the total amount of fee revenue collected each year.
Therefore, we are revising the instructions for submitting an HMEP
grant application to request that applicants expand on the currently
required statement explaining whether the State or Indian tribe
assesses and collects fees on the transportation of hazardous materials
and whether such fees are used solely for purposes related to the
transportation of hazardous materials. Beginning with the application
for FY 2008 funds, applicants will be asked to respond to the following
additional questions:
1. Does your State or tribe assess a fee or fees in connection with
the transportation of hazardous materials?
2. If the answer to question 1 is ``yes,''
a. What State agency administers the fee?
b. What is the amount of the fee and the basis on which the fee is
assessed? Examples of the bases on which fees may be assessed include:
(1) An annual fee for each company which transports hazardous materials
within your state or tribal territory; (2) a fee for each truck or
vehicle used to transport hazardous materials within your State or
tribal
[[Page 36756]]
territory; (3) a fee for certain commodities or quantities of hazardous
materials transported in your State or tribal territory; or (4) a fee
for each hazardous materials shipment transiting your state or tribal
territory.
c. Is company size considered when assessing the fee? For instance,
do companies meeting the Small Business Administration's (SBA)
definition of a small business pay the same or lesser fee amount than
companies that do not meet the SBA definition?
d. For what purpose(s) is the revenue from the fee used? For
example, is the revenue used to support hazardous materials
transportation enforcement programs? Is the fee used to support
planning, developing, and maintaining an emergency response capability?
e. What is the total annual amount of the revenue collected for the
last fiscal year or 12-month accounting period?
We do not anticipate that responding to these questions will
significantly add to the total time required to complete the HMEP grant
application. First, it is our understanding that many States and Indian
tribes do not collect fees in connection with the transportation of
hazardous materials. For those entities, there will be no additional
time required to complete the application. For States and Indian tribes
that do collect such fees, we estimate that responding to the question
will add approximately two hours to the total time required to complete
the HMEP application. Last year, 12 States and Indian tribes reported
through their grant applications that they collect fees related to the
transportation of hazardous materials. Therefore, for purposes of this
information collection approval request, we estimate that 12 States and
Indian tribes collect fees for which the additional information will be
required.
HMEP Performance Reports
HMEP grant recipients are required to monitor the performance of
the activities supported by the grant funds to ensure compliance with
Federal requirements and achievement of performance goals. Recipients
must submit performance reports covering the activities funded by the
HMEP grants. The performance reports are to include a comparison of
actual accomplishments to the goals and objectives established for the
performance period and the reasons for not achieving those goals and
objectives, if applicable.
For planning grants, activities eligible for funding include:
(1) Development, implementation, and improvement of emergency plans
and exercises that test the plan;
(2) Assessments to determine hazardous materials flow patterns;
(3) Assessments of emergency response capabilities;
(4) Emergency response drills and exercises associated with
emergency preparedness plans; and
(5) Technical staff to support the planning effort.
For training grants, eligible activities include:
(1) Assessments of the number of public sector employees who need
training;
(2) Development and delivery of comprehensive training to public
sector employees, including activities necessary to monitor this
activity, such as examinations, critiques, and instructor evaluations;
(3) Management of the training program to achieve increased
benefits, proficiency, and rapid deployment of emergency responders.
Grant recipients generally provide performance reports detailing
how HMEP grants were expended and the state or Indian tribe's
achievements related to its planning and training efforts. These
performance reports are used to evaluate the effectiveness of the HMEP
grant program in improving hazardous materials transportation emergency
response programs nationwide. We note in this regard that the National
Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) recently completed its investigation
of a July 10, 2005 railroad accident involving a head-on collision of
two freight trains in Anding, Mississippi. As a result of its
investigation, the NTSB issued several recommendations concerning
emergency response communication and coordination. The NTSB
specifically recommended that PHMSA require and verify that states and
their communities receiving funds through the HMEP grant program
conduct training exercises and drills with the joint participation of
railroads and other transporters of hazardous materials as a means to
evaluate state, regional, and local emergency response plans. We are
considering how to address the NTSB recommendation; in the meantime, we
strongly encourage HMEP grant recipients to conduct such exercises and
drills.
To increase the transparency of the programs funded by HMEP grants
and to enable us to more accurately evaluate the effectiveness of the
HMEP program in meeting emergency response planning and training needs,
beginning in 2008, we are proposing to ask HMEP grant recipients to
report the following information in their performance reports:
Planning Grants
1. Did you complete or update assessments of commodity flow
patterns in your jurisdiction? If so, how many and what were the
results of those assessments? What was the amount of planning dollars
devoted to this effort? What percentage of total planning dollars does
this represent?
2. Did you complete or update assessments of the emergency response
capabilities in your jurisdiction? What factors did you consider to
complete such assessments? How many assessments were completed and what
were the results of those assessments? What was the amount of HMEP
planning grant funds devoted to this effort? What percentage of total
HMEP planning grant funds does this represent?
3. Did you develop or improve emergency plans for your
jurisdiction? If so, how many plans were either developed or updated?
Briefly describe the outcome of this effort. What was the amount of
HMEP planning grant funds devoted to this effort? What percentage of
total HMEP planning grant funds does this represent?
4. Did you conduct emergency response drills or exercises in
support of your emergency plan? How many exercises or drills did you
conduct? Briefly describe the drill or exercise (tabletop, computer
simulation, real-world simulation, or other drill or exercise), the
number and types of participants, including shipper or carrier
participants, and lessons learned. What was the amount of HMEP planning
grant funds devoted to this effort? What percentage of total HMEP
planning grant funds does this represent?
5. Did you use HMEP planning grant funds to provide technical staff
in support of your emergency response planning program? If so, what was
the amount of HMEP planning grant funds devoted to this effort? What
percentage of total HMEP planning grant funds does this represent?
6. How many Local Emergency Planning Committees (LEPCs) are located
in your jurisdiction? How many LEPCs were assisted using HMEP funds?
What was the amount of HMEP planning grant funds devoted to such
assistance? What percentage of total HMEP planning grant funds does
this represent?
[[Page 36757]]
Training Grants
1. Did you complete an assessment of the training needs of the
emergency response personnel in your jurisdiction? What factors did you
consider to complete the assessment? What was the result of that
assessment? What was the amount of HMEP training grant funds devoted to
this effort? What percentage of total HMEP training grants funds does
this represent?
2. Provide details concerning the number of individuals trained in
whole or in part using HMEP training grant funds. You should include
separate indications for the numbers of fire, police, emergency medical
services (EMS) or other personnel who were trained and the type of
training provided based on the categories listed in standards published
by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration at 29 CFR 1910.120
pertaining to emergency response training. (Note that ``other''
personnel include public works employees, accident clean-up crews, and
liaison and support officers. Note also that if HMEP training grant
funds were used in any way to support the training, such as for books
or equipment, you should show that the training was partially funded by
HMEP training grant funds.) What was the amount of training dollars
devoted to this effort? What percentage of total training dollars does
this represent?
3. Did you incur expenses associated with training and activities
necessary to monitor such training, including, for example,
examinations, critiques, and instructor evaluations? What was the
amount of HMEP training grant funds devoted to this activity? What
percentage of total HMEP training grant funds does this represent?
4. Did you provide incident command systems training? If so,
provide separate indications for the numbers of fire, policy, EMS, or
other personnel who were trained. What was the amount of HMEP training
grant funds devoted to this effort? What percentage of total HMEP
training grant funds does this represent?
5. Did you develop new training using HMEP training grant funds in
whole or in part, such as training in handling specific types of
incidents or specific types of materials? If so, briefly describe the
new programs. Was the program qualified using the HMEP Curriculum
Guidelines process? What was the amount of HMEP training grant funds
devoted to this effort? What percentage of total HMEP training grant
funds does this represent?
6. Did you use HMEP training grant funds to provide staff to manage
your training program to increase benefits, proficiency, and rapid
deployment of emergency responders? If so, what was the amount of HMEP
training grant funds devoted to this effort? What percentage of total
HMEP training grant funds does this represent?
7. Do you have a system in place for measuring the effectiveness of
emergency response to hazardous materials incidents in your
jurisdiction? Briefly describe the criteria you use (total response
time, total time at an accident scene, communication among different
agencies or jurisdictions, or other criteria). How many State and local
response teams are located in your jurisdiction? What is the estimated
coverage of these teams (e.g., the percent of state jurisdictions
covered)?
Overall Program Evaluation
1. Using a scale of 1-5 (with 5 being excellent and 1 being poor),
how well has the HMEP grants program met your need for preparing hazmat
emergency responders?
2. Using a scale of 1-5 (with 5 being excellent and 1 being poor),
how well do you think the HMEP grants program will meet your future
needs?
3. What areas of the HMEP grants program would you recommend for
enhancement?
We do not anticipate that responding to these questions will add
significantly to the total time required to complete performance
reports. HMEP grant recipients are required to submit performance
reports, most of which should include some or all of the information we
are requesting. We estimate that providing the specific information
requested will add approximately three hours to the total time required
for each grant recipient to complete its performance reports.
The questions listed above are intended to ensure that performance
reports focus on results and include quantitative data on the planning
and training programs funded by the HMEP grants. This data will enable
us to more accurately assess the planning and training activities
conducted by grant recipients and, thus, to evaluate the overall
effectiveness of the HMEP program in improving overall hazardous
materials transportation emergency preparedness and response. The data
and information requested is only available from the states and Indian
tribes participating in the HMEP grants program.
The total revised information collection budget for the HMEP grants
program follows:
Title: Hazardous Materials Public Sector Training and Planning
Grants.
OMB Control Number: 2137-0586.
Type of Request: Revision of a currently approved information
collection.
Abstract: Part 110 of 49 CFR sets forth the procedures for
reimbursable grants for public sector planning and training in support
of the emergency planning and training efforts of states, Indian tribes
and local communities to manage hazardous materials emergencies,
particularly those involving transportation. Sections in this part
address information collection and recordkeeping with regard to
applying for grants, monitoring expenditures, and reporting and
requesting modifications.
Affected Public: State and local governments, Indian tribes.
Recordkeeping:
Estimated Number of Respondents: 66.
Estimated Number of Responses: 66.
Estimated Annual Burden Hours: 4,302.
Frequency of collection: On occasion.
Issued in Washington, DC on June 29, 2007.
Edward T. Mazzullo,
Director, Office of Hazardous Materials Standards.
[FR Doc. E7-13007 Filed 7-3-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-60-P