Information Collection Activities, 36754-36757 [E7-13007]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
36754
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 128 / Thursday, July 5, 2007 / Notices
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
FRA expects to be able to determine
these matters without an oral hearing.
However, if a specific request for an oral
hearing is accompanied by a showing
that the party is unable to adequately
present his or her position by written
statements, an application may be set
for public hearing.
All communications concerning this
proceeding should be identified by
Docket Number FRA–2007–28293 and
may be submitted by one of the
following methods:
• Web site: https://dms.dot.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting
comments on the DOT electronic site;
• Fax: 202–493–2251;
• Mail: Docket Management Facility,
U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200
New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building
Ground Floor, Room W12–140,
Washington, DC 20590; or
• Hand Delivery: Room W12–140 of
the U.S. Department of Transportation,
West Building Ground Floor, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC,
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
Communications received within 45
days of the date of this notice will be
considered by FRA before final action is
taken. Comments received after that
date will be considered as far as
practicable. All written communications
concerning these proceedings are
available for examination during regular
business hours (9 a.m.–5 p.m.) at the
above facility. All documents in the
public docket are also available for
inspection and copying on the Internet
at the docket facility’s Web site at
https://dms.dot.gov.
FRA wishes to inform all potential
commenters that anyone is able to
search the electronic form of all
comments received into any of our
dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or signing the
comment, if submitted on behalf of an
association, business, labor union, etc.).
You may review DOT’s complete
Privacy Act Statement in the Federal
Register published on April 11, 2000
(Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477–
78), or you may visit https://dms.dot.gov.
Issued in Washington, DC, on June 28,
2007.
Grady C. Cothen, Jr.,
Deputy Associate Administrator for Safety
Standards and Program Development.
[FR Doc. E7–13027 Filed 7–3–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–06–P
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:43 Jul 03, 2007
Jkt 211001
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Maritime Administration
Reports, Forms and Recordkeeping
Requirements; Agency Information
Collection Activity Under OMB Review
Maritime Administration, DOT.
Notice and request for
comments.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
SUMMARY: In compliance with the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this
notice announces that the Information
Collection abstracted below has been
forwarded to the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) for review and
approval. The nature of the information
collection is described as well as its
expected burden. The Federal Register
Notice with a 60-day comment period
soliciting comments on the following
collection of information was published
on April 23, 2007. No comments were
received.
DATES: Comments must be submitted on
or before August 6, 2007.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Linden Houston, Program Manager,
Maritime Administration, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC
20590. Telephone: (202) 366–4839, or email: Linden.Houston@dot.gov. Copies
of this collection also can be obtained
from that office.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Maritime
Administration (MARAD).
Title: Application for Conveyance of
Port Facility Property.
OMB Control No.: 2133–0524.
Type of Request: Extension of
currently approved collection.
Affected Public: Eligible port entities.
Forms: MA–1047.
Abstract: Public Law 103–160, which
is included in 40 U.S.C. 554 authorizes
the Department of Transportation to
convey to public entities surplus
Federal property needed for the
development or operation of a port
facility. The information collection will
allow MARAD to approve the
conveyance of property and administer
the port facility conveyance program.
The collection is necessary for MARAD
to determine whether the community is
committed to the redevelopment/reuse
plan; the redevelopment/reuse plan is
viable and is in the best interest of the
public; and the property is being used
in accordance with the terms of the
conveyance and applicable statutes and
regulations.
Expiration Date of Approval: Three
years from date of approval by the
Office of Management and Budget.
Summary of Collection of
Information: Public Law 103–160,
PO 00000
Frm 00108
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
which is included in 40 U.S.C. 554
authorizes the Department of
Transportation to convey to public
entities surplus Federal property needed
for the development or operation of a
port facility. The information collection
will allow MARAD to approve the
conveyance of property and administer
the port facility conveyance program.
Annual Estimated Burden Hours:
1280 hours.
Addressee: Send comments to the
Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs, Office of Management and
Budget, 725 17th Street, NW.,
Washington, DC 20503, Attention:
MARAD Desk Officer.
Comments are invited on: Whether
the proposed collection of information
is necessary for the proper performance
of the functions of the agency, including
whether the information will have
practical utility; the accuracy of the
agency’s estimate of the burden of the
proposed information collection; ways
to enhance the quality, utility and
clarity of the information to be
collected; and ways to minimize the
burden of the collection of information
on respondents, including the use of
automated collection techniques or
other forms of information technology.
A comment to OMB is best assured of
having its full effect if OMB receives it
within 30 days of publication.
Dated: June 29, 2007.
Daron T. Threet,
Secretary, Maritime Administration.
[FR Doc. E7–13015 Filed 7–3–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–81–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials
Safety Administration
[Docket No. PHMSA–2007–27181 (Notice
No. 07–5]
Information Collection Activities
Pipeline and Hazardous
Materials Safety Administration
(PHMSA) DOT.
ACTION: Notice and request for
comments.
AGENCY:
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
E:\FR\FM\05JYN1.SGM
05JYN1
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 128 / Thursday, July 5, 2007 / Notices
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: https://
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 https://dms.dot.gov. Note that
comments received will be posted
without change to https://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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:43 Jul 03, 2007
Jkt 211001
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
§ 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
PO 00000
Frm 00109
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
36755
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 § 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
E:\FR\FM\05JYN1.SGM
05JYN1
36756
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 128 / Thursday, July 5, 2007 / Notices
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.
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
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:
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:43 Jul 03, 2007
Jkt 211001
(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
PO 00000
Frm 00110
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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, realworld 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?
E:\FR\FM\05JYN1.SGM
05JYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 128 / Thursday, July 5, 2007 / Notices
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
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?
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:43 Jul 03, 2007
Jkt 211001
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:
PO 00000
Frm 00111
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
36757
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
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Surface Transportation Board
[STB Finance Docket No. 35051]
Progressive Rail Inc.—Acquisition of
Control Exemption—Central Midland
Railway Company
Progressive Rail Inc. (PRI), a Class III
rail carrier,1 has filed a verified notice
of exemption to acquire control of
Central Midland Railway Company
(CMR), also a Class III rail carrier,
pursuant to a stock purchase
agreement.2 CMR currently leases and
operates a rail line of Missouri Central
Railway Co., and a rail line of Union
Pacific Railroad Company.3
The transaction is scheduled to be
consummated on or about July 19, 2007.
1 PRI owns rail property interests in the States of
Minnesota, Wisconsin and Iowa.
2 A redacted version of the stock purchase
agreement between CMR and PRI was filed with the
notice of exemption. The full version of the
agreement, as required by 49 CFR 1180.6(a)(7)(ii),
was concurrently filed under seal along with a
motion for protective order. The request for a
protective order is being addressed in a separate
decision.
3 Both rail lines are located in the State of
Missouri.
E:\FR\FM\05JYN1.SGM
05JYN1
]]>Agencies
[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: https://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 https://
dms.dot.gov. Note that comments received will be posted without change
to https://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
