
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 187 (Friday, September 26, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 58031-58041]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-22903]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

[Docket No. PHMSA-2013-0241; Notice No. 14-2]


Information Collection Activities

AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA).

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, PHMSA 
is inviting comments on an information collection under Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) Control No. 2137-0586 entitled ``Hazardous 
Materials Public Sector Training and Planning Grants.'' In a previous 
60-Day Notice published under Docket No. PHMSA-2013-0241, Notice No. 
13-18, in the Federal Register on December 4, 2013 [78 FR 72972], PHMSA 
invited comments on its intent to collect additional information from 
Hazardous Materials Emergency Preparedness (HMEP) grantees on the 
ultimate recipients of HMEP grants. PHMSA is requesting the additional 
information to respond to a statutory requirement in the Moving Ahead 
for Progress in the 21st Century Act (Pub. L. 112-141, July 6, 2012) 
(MAP-21) to submit an annual report to Congress that identifies the 
ultimate recipients of HMEP grants and contains a detailed accounting 
and description of each grant expenditure by each grant recipient, 
including the amount of, and purpose for, each expenditure. This 30-Day 
Notice acknowledges comments received regarding the 60-Day Notice and 
provides details on the information PHMSA will be collecting in order 
to comply with MAP-21.

DATES: Comments on this notice must be received by October 27, 2014 to 
be assured of consideration.

ADDRESSES: Send comments by mail to the Office of Information and 
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Attention: Desk 
Officer for DOT-PHMSA, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503, by 
fax, 202-395-5806, or by email, to OIRASubmission@omb.eop.gov.
    We invite commenters to address the following issues: (1) Whether 
the proposed collection of information is necessary for PHMSA to comply 
with the MAP-21 requirements, including whether the information will 
have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of PHMSA's estimate of the 
burden of the proposed information collection; (3) ways to enhance the 
quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and 
(4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on 
respondents.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and 
docket number for this notice at the beginning of the comment. All 
comments received will be posted without change to the Federal Docket 
Management System (FDMS), including any personal information.
    Docket: For access to the dockets to read background documents or 
comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov or DOT's Docket 
Operations Office (see ADDRESSES).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Aaron Mitchell, Director, Outreach, 
Training, and Grants Division, Office of Hazardous Materials Safety 
(PHH-50), Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, (202) 
366-1634, PHMSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 1320.8(d), Title 5, Code of Federal 
Regulations (CFR) requires PHMSA to provide interested members of the 
public and affected agencies an opportunity to comment on information 
collection and recordkeeping requests. This notice identifies a revised 
information collection PHMSA will submit to OMB under OMB Control 
Number 2137-0586, entitled ``Hazardous Materials Public Sector Training 
and Planning Grants,'' to comply with Moving Ahead for Progress in the 
21st Century Act (Pub. L. 112- 141, July 6, 2012) (MAP-21). This 
collection of information is contained in 49 CFR, part 110, Hazardous 
Materials Public Sector Training and Planning Grants. We are revising 
the information collection to implement the statutory requirement that 
PHMSA must identify the ultimate recipients of HMEP grants and provide 
to Congress a detailed accounting and description of each grant 
expenditure by each grant recipient, including the amount of, and 
purpose for, each expenditure.

A. HMEP Grants

    PHMSA is responsible for administering the HMEP grant program. The 
HMEP grant program, as mandated by Federal hazardous materials 
transportation law (Federal hazmat law; 49 U.S.C. 5101 et seq.) 
provides Federal financial and technical assistance to states, 
territories, and Native American tribes to ``develop, improve, and 
carry out emergency plans'' within the National Response System and the 
Emergency Planning and Community Right-To-Know Act of 1986 (Title III), 
42 U.S.C. 11001 et seq. The program was established in 1993 to ensure 
that the needed planning, training, and infrastructure are in place to 
protect the public in the event of a transportation-related hazardous 
materials incident. The grants are used to develop, improve, and 
implement emergency plans; train public sector hazardous materials 
emergency response employees to respond to accidents and incidents 
involving hazardous

[[Page 58032]]

materials; determine flow patterns of hazardous materials within a 
state and between states; and determine the need within a state for 
regional hazardous materials emergency response teams.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The HMEP grants program is funded by registration fees 
collected from persons who offer for transportation or transport 
certain hazardous materials in intrastate, interstate, or foreign 
commerce.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Among the statutory requirements for HMEP grants are funding for 
planning and training with pass-through requirements \2\, recipient 
sharing in 20 percent of the total costs of the planning and training 
activities, and maintenance of the level of aggregate expenditures by a 
recipient for the last five (5) fiscal years. The program is a 
discretionary grant program. PHMSA is not obligated to make an award if 
an applicant does not meet PHMSA's requirements. PHMSA has provided 
funding to eligible states, territories, or Native American tribal 
applicants that submit a completed, thorough application with the 
required documentation. Annual obligations for all recipients are 
approximately $22 million, while individual award amounts range from 
less than $50,000 to more than $1 million.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ With pass-through grants, states apply to the Federal 
government for a grant. After receiving the grant, the state then 
passes a certain percentage of the Federal funds on to sub-grantees. 
At least 75 percent of the Federal training funds must be used to 
provide training to local responders, including volunteers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. MAP-21 and Enhanced Grant Post-Award Monitoring

    On July 6, 2012, President Obama signed into law the Moving Ahead 
for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21), which among other 
requirements, stipulates that in its annual Report to Congress, PHMSA 
must identify the ultimate recipients of HMEP grants and include a 
detailed accounting and description of each grant expenditure by each 
grant recipient, including the amount of, and purpose for, each 
expenditure. In the past, PHMSA has not collected this information. 
Requiring this information now constitutes a revision to an existing 
information collection under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) and 
necessitates approval by OMB.
    The additional information will provide a better understanding of 
how the allocated funds are being used and will enable PHMSA to help 
grantees to better develop, improve, or implement emergency plans; 
train emergency response employees; determine flow patterns of 
hazardous materials within a state and between states; and determine 
the need within the state, territory, or Native American tribal land 
for regional hazardous materials emergency response teams.

C. 60-Day Notice

    On December 4, 2013, PHMSA published a Federal Register Notice [78 
FR 72972] with a 60-day comment period, soliciting comments on 
revisions to the information we collect from HMEP grantees on the 
ultimate recipients of the HMEP funds. The revisions are intended to 
comply with a statutory requirement that PHMSA must report to Congress 
the ultimate recipients of HMEP grants and include a detailed 
accounting and description of each grant expenditure by each grant 
recipient, including the amount of, and purpose for, each expenditure. 
Specifically, in accordance with the statutory mandate in 49 U.S.C. 
5116(k) we proposed to request of HMEP grant recipients, up to four 
times a year, the following questions:

1. General Grantee and Sub-grantee Information

a. Grantee Information

    i. What is the grantee's name?
    ii. What is the name of the point of contact?
    iii. What is the telephone number of the point of contact?
    iv. What is the email address of the point of contact?
    v. What is the HMEP Grant number?
    vi. What is the reporting period for which the report is being 
submitted?

b. Sub-grantee information

    i. What are the names and requested funding amount for each sub-
grantee?
    ii. What is the award amount of each sub-grantee?
    iii. What is the amount expended by the close of the reporting 
period for each sub-grantee?
    iv. What was the grantee's selection process and how did the 
grantee choose the funding allocated to each sub-grantee?
    v. How did the grantee ensure that no less than 75% of HMEP 
training grant funds are available to benefit public sector 
employees?

2. Information on Local Emergency Planning Committees

    a. What is the number of active Local Emergency Planning 
Committees or equivalent?
    b. What is the number of inactive Local Emergency Planning 
Committees or equivalent?
    c. What is the number of emergency response plans currently in 
place?
    d. What is the number of Local Emergency Planning Committees 
participating on the grant?

3. Assessment of Potential Chemical Threats

    a. What is the total number of hazards chemicals produced, used, 
or stored within the applicant's state/tribe/territory?
    b. What is the total number of facilities that produce, use, or 
store hazardous chemicals within the applicant's state/tribe/
territory?
    c. What is the total number of facilities that produce, use, or 
store extremely hazardous substances within the applicant's state/
tribe/territory?

4. Assessment of Response Capabilities for Accidents/Incidents 
Involving the Transportation of Hazardous Materials

    a. What is the total number of emergency responders in the 
following disciplines?
i. Police
ii. Fire
iii. EMS
iv. Other
    b. What is the number of emergency response teams with a HAZMAT 
specialty unit?

5. HMEP Planning and Training Grant Reporting

    a. Provide completed activities for the reporting period, 
including:
    i. What is the name of the activity?
    ii. What is the purpose of the activity?
    iii. What is the number of participants involved in the 
activity?
    iv. What are the name and description of supplies needed to 
conduct the activity (if applicable)?
    v. What are the name and description of any equipment needed to 
conduct the activity (if applicable)?
    vi. What is the expected start and end time for the activity (if 
applicable)?
    b. What is the outcome \3\ of each completed activity?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Outputs are measures of a program's activities; outcomes are 
changes that result from the activities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    c. What is the expected output of each completed activity?
    d. Provide actual cost of each completed activity using the 
following object categories:
    i. What are the personnel costs?
    ii. What are the fringe benefits costs?
    iii. What are the travel costs?
    iv. What are the equipment costs?
    v. What is the cost of supplies?
    vi. What are the contractual costs?
    vii. What are the indirect costs?
    viii. What are other costs not listed?
    e. What is the amount of non-Federal funds contributed to this 
activity, if any?
    f. What are the aggregate expenditures exclusive of Federal 
funds for the last five years?

6. HMEP Planning Goal and Objectives

    PHMSA intends to ask each planning grant recipient to explain 
the following goals and objectives.
    a. What are the current abilities and authorities of the grant 
recipient's program for preparedness planning?
    b. What is the need to sustain or increase program capability?
    c. What is the current degree of participation in regional 
hazardous materials emergency preparedness teams?
    d. Do you intend to assess the need for a regional hazardous 
materials emergency preparedness team?
    e. What is the impact that the grant has/will have on the 
program?

[[Page 58033]]

7. HMEP Training Goals and Objectives

    a. What are the overall training needs of the jurisdiction, 
quantified in terms of number of persons needing training and the 
number of persons currently trained in the different disciplines and 
planning and response functions?
    b. What are the ways in which the training grant will support 
the diverse needs in the jurisdiction, such as decentralized 
delivery of training to meet the needs and time considerations of 
local responders or how the grant program will accommodate the 
different training needs for rural versus urban environments?

8. HMEP Training and Planning Assessment

    PHMSA intends to ask each grant recipient to provide a progress 
report during the course of the grant cycle on the following:
    a. A narrative detailing how goals and objectives for the HMEP 
planning grant were achieved;
    b. A narrative detailing how the state/tribe/territory, through 
the use of HMEP planning funds, is better suited to handle accidents 
and incidents involving the transport of hazardous materials;
    c. Number of emergency plans updated during the performance 
period;
    d. Number of emergency response plans written during the 
performance period;
    e. Number of commodity flow studies conducted during the 
performance period;
    f. Number of hazard risk analyses conducted during the 
performance period;
    g. Number of hazardous materials drills or exercises conducted 
during the performance period involving air, water, highway, and 
rail;
    h. A narrative detailing how the state/tribe/territory, through 
the use of HMEP planning and training funds, is better suited to 
handle accidents and incidents involving the transport of hazardous 
materials; and
    i. Number of fire, police, EMS, and any additional disciplines 
that received awareness, operation, technician, refresher, Incident 
Command System, site specialist training.

9. Hazmat Transportation Fees

    a. Are fees collected solely for the transportation of hazardous 
materials in the grant recipient's state, territory, or Native 
American tribe? (yes or no)
    b. If such fees are collected, are they used to carry out 
purposes related to the transportation of hazardous materials? (yes 
or no)
    c. If fees are used to carry out purposes related to the 
transportation of hazardous materials, what is the dollar amount 
collected?

10. Grantee Complies with National Incident Management System and 
Grant Application Is Reviewed By SERC

    a. Does your program comply with the National Incident 
Management System? (NIMS) (yes or no)
    b. Is each member of the SERC given the opportunity to review 
the HMEP Grant application before submitting it to PHMSA? (yes or 
no)

11. HMEP Grant Program Administration

    a. If applicable, what changes have been made in the grant 
program since the last report; i.e., program priorities, points of 
contact, tax or employee identification numbers?
    b. If applicable, what issues have impacted performance of the 
grant; i.e., response to natural disasters or loss of key personnel?

D. Discussion of Comments

    The comment period for the 60-Day Notice closed on February 3, 
2014. PHMSA received six comments from national organizations 
representing grant recipients, grant recipients themselves, and trade 
association representing hazmat shippers. The comments are sorted into 
four categories: In opposition; in support; beyond-the-scope; and 
questions seeking clarification.
    Comments in the Docket for this action may be viewed at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket Number PHMSA-2013-0241. A listing of 
the Docket entries is provided below.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Commenter                        Docket ID. Number
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Roe, Past Executive Director of      PHMSA-2013-0241-0002
 Arizona's State Emergency Response
 Commission.
International Association of Fire Chiefs    PHMSA-2013-0241-0003
 (IAFC).
California Governor's Office of Emergency   PHMSA-2013-0241-0004
 Services (California).
National Association of SARA Title III      PHMSA-2013-0241-0005
 Program Officials (NASTTPO).
Institute of Makers of Explosives (IME)...  PHMSA-2013-0241-0006
Oklahoma Hazardous Materials Emergency      PHMSA-2013-0241-0007
 Response Commission (Oklahoma).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Most of the comments in opposition to the information collection 
request are from representatives of grantees, e.g., NASTTPO, and 
grantees themselves, i.e., California and Oklahoma. Generally, these 
comments indicate that some of the data requested is not relevant to 
the HMEP program, is not readily available, or getting the information 
would take much more time than stated in the 60-Day Notice. The 
comments in favor of the information collection are from IME and IAFC. 
These comments support collecting information that will improve the 
accountability and transparency of the HMEP grant program. The comments 
beyond-the-scope are from IAFC, IME, and California. They request that 
PHMSA ask grantees for information in addition to that requested in the 
60-Day Notice or change the way in which grant funds are distributed. 
The questions that seek clarification of the terminology in the 60-Day 
Notice are from California.

1. Comments Opposed to the Information Collection

    Many of the commenters, who oppose the proposed revisions to the 
HMEP grant information collection request, consider the proposed 
questions to be an excessive burden on applicants without a measurable 
benefit or an identified use of the information.
    California's comment to this point is indicative of many of the 
concerns voiced by other commenters. California states:

    ``The proposed data collection effort may be soliciting 
information that PHMSA needs for internal purposes or for their 
report to Congress, but much of it seems to be misplaced within the 
HMEP Grant Program. The data being requested will place an undue 
burden on Grantees and [Local Emergency Planning Committees] LEPCs, 
does not provide meaningful information, and will further erode the 
level of interest and participation by eligible sub-grantees. There 
is an overall question of why much of this information is being 
requested, particularly at the level of detail that is indicated. 
Some of it is problematic--if not downright impossible--to obtain, 
and makes it appear that the HMEP Grant Program is administered by 
staff who do not understand the beneficiaries' roles and 
responsibilities.''

    PHMSA understands that many HMEP grant and sub-grant recipients do 
not have the time or resources to collect and record vast quantities of 
information. While PHMSA has a responsibility to collect the 
information required by MAP-21, in addition to the information that was 
already required by statute and regulations, it does not intend to 
collect information that is inaccessible or otherwise unattainable to 
our grantees. In this 30-Day Notice, PHMSA has removed questions that, 
to PHMSA's knowledge, are beyond what is required by law. They are 
enumerated in the following paragraphs.
a. Information Requested Is Inaccessible or Nonexistent
    In the 60-Day Notice, PHMSA proposed to ask grantees to report the 
total number of facilities that produce, use, or store hazardous 
chemicals; and information on the total number of chemicals produced, 
used, or stored. NASTTPO and Oklahoma point out correctly that grantees 
cannot determine the total number of facilities that produce, use, or 
store hazardous chemicals and further indicate that information on the 
total number of chemicals produced, used, or stored is nonexistent. In 
this 30-Day Notice, we

[[Page 58034]]

are revising these questions to indicate that PHMSA intends to collect 
information on facilities with hazardous chemicals \4\ in quantities 
that equal or exceed the following thresholds: For Extremely Hazardous 
Substances (EHSs)(see 40 CFR part 355 Appendix A and Appendix B), 
either 500 pounds or the Threshold Planning Quantity (TPQ), whichever 
is lower; and for all other hazardous chemicals, 10,000 pounds from 
sources other than HMEP applicants and grantees. As such, we are not 
requiring the grantees to provide the total number of facilities and 
the total number of chemicals; rather, we are asking that grantees only 
provide the indicated threshold quantities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Hazardous chemicals are any substances for which a facility 
must maintain a MSDS under the OSHA Hazard Communication Standard, 
which lists the criteria used to identify a hazardous chemical.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the 60-Day Notice, PHMSA proposed to ask grantees the number of 
emergency response plans in the state, territory or Native American 
tribal land. Oklahoma indicates that emergency response plans created 
by private facilities are not available to grantees; whereas, emergency 
operations plans, which are created by counties or cities, and reviewed 
by LEPCs and SERCs, are available. For clarification, PHMSA is seeking 
plans prepared by LEPCs according to 42 U.S.C. 11003(a).\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 42 U.S.C. 11003(a) Plan required, Each local emergency 
planning committee shall complete preparation of an emergency plan 
in accordance with this section not later than two years after 
October 17, 1986. The committee shall review such plan once a year, 
or more frequently as changed circumstances in the community or at 
any facility may require.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the 60-Day Notice, PHMSA asked ``what is the number of emergency 
response teams with a HAZMAT specialty unit?'' NASTTPO responded by 
stating ``[i]ndustry is not required to report hazmat response teams. 
Many do have such capacity and LEPCs include these teams in their 
planning. Nonetheless, grantees cannot reasonably obtain this 
information.'' The emergency response teams to which PHMSA referred are 
not responders in private industry, rather they are state and local 
enforcement personnel. However, it is possible that HMEP grantees do 
not have the information statewide. For that reason, in this 30-Day 
Notice, PHMSA is revising the question to request only the number of 
public sector Hazmat response teams.
    PHMSA proposed to ask specific information on all LEPCs in the 
state, territory, or Native American tribal land. Oklahoma states that 
some of the information PHMSA requests on LEPCs are not required by 
Federal or state regulations to be reported and, as such, the 
information is unavailable. Oklahoma contends that:

    ``If an LEPC receives HMEP money, it is reasonable and 
appropriate for the grantee to require such things as lists of 
attendees to meetings and exercises. However, if an LEPC does not 
receive HMEP funding, the grantee has no mechanism to compel an LEPC 
to provide such information.''

PHMSA recognizes that only LEPCs that receive HMEP funds are required 
to report attendees of meetings and exercises. For that reason, in this 
30-Day Notice we are revising the questions regarding LEPCs to include 
only LEPCs receiving HMEP funds.
    PHMSA proposed to gather information on transportation fees 
collected by each state. Oklahoma responded by stating that ``[i]t 
would seem more reasonable for US DOT, of which PHMSA is a part, to 
inquire of state DOTs about hazardous materials transportation fees. To 
put that burden on a grantee is unreasonable.'' The current HMEP 
application includes a narrative section in which the second question 
pertains to state transportation fees. States that do not assess a fee, 
such as Oklahoma, simply state that fact; states that do collect fees, 
such as California, have provided a narrative. Furthermore, in awarding 
HMEP grants, PHMSA is required by the Federal hazmat law to consider 
whether the state or Native American 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. The information we are requesting is consistent 
with our statutory mandate. While commenters did not provide an 
estimate of the burden hours, in this 30-Day Notice PHMSA maintains the 
questions regarding hazmat transportation fees, but is increasing the 
total additional information collection burden from 11 hours (62 
respondents x 0.17 hour per respondent = 11 hours) to 28 hours (62 
respondents x .45 hour per respondent = 28 hours (rounded up)). We also 
note that in the 60-Day Notice, we indicated that we have 65 grantees. 
The current number of grantees is 62, so in this 30-Day Notice we are 
revising our information collection numbers accordingly.
b. PHMSA Currently Collects the Proposed Information
    As indicated in the 60-Day Notice, PHMSA proposes to collect 
information that ``identifies the ultimate recipients of HMEP grants 
and contains a detailed accounting and description of each grant 
expenditure by each grant recipient, including the amount of, and 
purpose for, each expenditure.'' NASTTPO contends that PHMSA already 
collects ``detailed accounting and description of each grant 
expenditure.'' It states: ``Grantees have been subjected to detailed, 
multi-day, audits of their use of the grant funds where this 
information is demanded.''
    Since 2011, PHMSA has performed site visits and desk audits to 
ensure that grantees are complying with the HMEP grant requirements. 
PHMSA's goal is to conduct site visits to roughly five out of 
approximately 62 grantees, depending on resource availability, are 
performed during the course of each year. The site visits are 1\1/2\ to 
2 days long and include interviews on the first day, limited review of 
documentation on the first day and the first part of the second day, 
and informal feedback to the state representatives at a closeout 
session. Desk audits are performed on approximately 10 out of 62 
grantees each year. The format for the desk audits includes advance 
request for certain materials, an approximately 2-hour conference call 
with state representatives, and a feedback session. These types of 
audits of the grant program may require select review of the detailed 
information required by Congress.
    PHMSA understands that collecting detailed information is time-
consuming. While Congress is requiring PHMSA to collect more detailed 
information, as indicated above, in this 30-Day Notice, PHMSA has 
removed the questions that commenters have indicated are unanswerable 
due to information unavailability to the grantees or nonexistence, 
unless it is required under statute or regulation. Furthermore, in 
response to commenters expressing frustration with the amount of 
information required, PHMSA has streamlined other questions so that 
grantees may answer in a more simplified way. Specifically, in this 30-
Day Notice, PHMSA is simplifying all certification questions by placing 
them on one form that requires an initial next to each certification 
and/or compliance statement. This will eradicate the need for grantees 
to type out a certification or statement of compliance during the 
application process.
c. Information PHMSA Requests Does Not Relate to Hazmat Transportation 
Risks
    In the 60-Day Notice, PHMSA proposed to request information on 
chemicals that are stored or used in the grantee's jurisdiction. 
NASTTPO states that ``the potential for an accident in hazardous 
materials transportation has

[[Page 58035]]

almost nothing to do with the amount of hazardous material used or 
stored in the state.'' While many factors contribute to hazmat 
incidents, PHMSA disagrees with NASTTPO's contention that there is not 
a positive correlation between proximity of chemical facilities and 
hazmat incidents. In fact, the HMEP grant program was established to 
increase state, territorial, Native American tribal, and local 
effectiveness in safely and efficiently handling hazardous materials 
accidents and incidents, enhance implementation of the Emergency 
Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986 (EPCRA), and encourage 
a comprehensive approach to emergency training and planning by 
incorporating the unique challenges of responses to transportation 
situations. EPCRA was signed by President Reagan in October 1986 and 
implemented in 1987 in response to deaths and injuries as a result of 
incidents at fixed facilities in Bhopal, India and in West Virginia. 
Furthermore, 49 USC, chapter 51, section 5116 (b)(4)(A) requires that 
PHMSA, when determining the grant funds allotted to each grantee, 
consider ``the number of hazardous material facilities in the state or 
on land under the jurisdiction of the tribe.'' As such, we intend to 
collect the information required by law, but in this 30-Day Notice, we 
propose to collect only information of which or to which applicants and 
grantees have access. As previously stated, we acknowledge the 
difficulty that applicants and grantees may have in obtaining data on 
facilities with Extremely Hazardous Substances in quantities of either 
500 pounds, or the Threshold Planning Quantity (TPQ), whichever is 
lower, or other hazardous chemicals in quantities of 10,000 pounds or 
more. As such, PHMSA will look to other sources to retrieve this 
information.
d. Burden Hours are Underestimated
    Daniel Roe commented that:

    ``[T]he simpler you keep reporting procedures and the fewer and 
more meaningful those procedures are, the more successful and 
enduring those programs will remain. PHMSA, in these proposals, is 
over-burdening an already over-burdened structure and will destroy 
it through excessive administrative taskings which these proposals 
are.''

    NASTTPO indicates that the burden hours PHMSA estimated in the 60-
Day Notice were too low, stating:

    ``To the extent that any of the information requested by PHMSA 
exists, much of it exists on paper rather than in an electronic 
form. Further, much of this information will be in the hands of 
state or tribal agencies other than the grantee agency. The grantees 
are not in control of the level of cooperation or how expeditiously 
these other agencies will respond.''

    NASTTPO indicates that ``twenty minutes is not enough time to 
answer a set of questions for which the grantee does not have nor can 
obtain the information. Given that some of this information is simply 
impossible to obtain under current laws and regulations because it does 
not exist within any government agency, grantees will spend time for 
which no result is even possible.''
    NASTTPO further indicated that PHMSA fails to understand that the 
grantee agency within many states or tribes may not be the agency that 
collects the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) 
information. Sections 301 to 303 of EPCRA require the governor of each 
state to designate a State Emergency Response Commission (SERC) that is 
responsible for implementing EPCRA provisions within its state. In 
accordance with the HMEP grant terms and conditions, all members of the 
SERC must be provided the opportunity to review both the training and 
planning grant applications. While the agency responsible for 
overseeing the HMEP grant program may not be the same as the agency 
collecting EPCRA information, the two agencies within the state (if 
they are different) must maintain a close relationship to comply with 
the terms and conditions of the HMEP grant.
    PHMSA estimated that it will take each respondent approximately 60 
minutes to answer the list of questions. California asks ``What is the 
methodology for determining this? It is this grant program manager's 
estimation that the coordination and research that will be required to 
obtain the requested data will far exceed this estimate.''
    In response to comments from grantees and their representatives, in 
this 30-Day Notice PHMSA is either removing proposed questions or 
refining the questions to include information PHMSA perceives as being 
available to the grantees. Furthermore, PHMSA has streamlined its 
proposed application template to conform with its proposed reporting 
templates. By doing so, applicants will be able to seamlessly transfer 
and relate back to data in their applications, midyear reports, and 
final reports. Finally, we have increased the estimated number of hours 
it will take to assess potential chemical threats from 22 hours (62 
respondents x .33 hour per respondent = 20 hours) to 62 hours (62 
respondents x 1 hour per respondents = 62 hours).

2. Comments in Support of the Information Collection

In general support of the information collection proposed, IME states:

    ``We support PHMSA's initiative to begin the important task of 
collecting information that will improve the accountability and 
transparency of the HMEP. We believe this information is essential 
to making decisions about the strategic allocation of grant funds. 
Informed, prepared, and capable first responder organizations are 
the best asset communities can have in the event of an emergency.''

    PHMSA recognizes IME's interest in the HMEP grant program as a 
trade association that represents hazardous materials manufacturers who 
pay registration fees that support the HMEP grant program. PHMSA's goal 
in this 30-Day Notice is to comply with the MAP-21 requirements and 
improve accountability and transparency with HMEP grant recipients.
a. More Accountability With Information Collected Throughout the Grant 
Cycle
    In support of the proposed information collection throughout the 
grant cycle, IME states:

    ``The questions PHMSA proposes to collect under the headings 
``HMEP Planning and Training Grant Reporting'' and ``HMEP Training 
and Planning Assessment'' are critical to establishing a baseline of 
information about how the HMEP funds have been used and what has 
been accomplished. This retrospective reporting is the kind of 
accountability Congress intends.''

    PHMSA intends to use the information collected to better determine 
how the funds are used throughout the grant cycle, and what has 
actually been accomplished with their use. With this information, PHMSA 
will be able to fulfill its legal obligation. More importantly, it will 
also be able to better understand why some grant programs are 
successful and why others are not. From that information, PHMSA intends 
to work closely with its grantees, NASTTPO, and other stakeholders to 
help the less successful programs improve their programs. Further, we 
will continue to perform desk audits and site visits to ensure the 
programs are in compliance with the HMEP program requirements.
    IAFC suggests that:

    ``PHMSA should also require quarterly milestone reports from the 
grant recipients to ensure that grant expenditures are on track and 
on time. The justification for this recommendation is that there are 
a large number of grant dollars that go unspent each year and are 
returned to the PHMSA. Quarterly milestone reports would keep grant 
recipients and sub-recipients on task so that grant deadlines are 
met.''


[[Page 58036]]


    PHMSA currently collects quarterly financial reports and grant 
specialists are familiar with the progress of the use of the grant 
funds throughout the grant cycle through reimbursement requests, 
regular emails, and telephone calls, and the more formal bi-monthly 
calls to grantees. However, PHMSA does not collect the level of 
detailed accounting mandated by MAP-21. PHMSA agrees with IAFC that the 
proposed reporting requirements will better enable the hazmat grant 
program to monitor the progress of the activities funded by the HMEP 
grant throughout the grant cycle and become aware earlier in the grant 
cycle when proposed activities are not conducted. PHMSA shares the 
IAFC's concern with grantees who do not expend all of their HMEP 
awards. However, the program believes that this may in part be a result 
of emergencies that impacted local staff to administer the grant. As 
such, in this 30-Day Notice, PHMSA is proposing to ask grantees 
information on any emergencies or known accidents and incidents of 
national recognition that may have impacted its ability to administer 
HMEP grants during the program year. This will allow the program to 
work closely with grant recipients experiencing a hardship and provide 
additional technical assistance and extend deadline as needed.
b. Assessment of State Hazmat Fees in HMEP Grant Allocation of Funds
    IME correctly states that:

    ``When Congress established the HMEP in the 1990 HMTA 
amendments, PHMSA was directed to consider whether a state imposed 
and collected hazardous materials transportation fees and whether 
those fees were used to carry out a purpose related to such 
transportation in determining grant allocation needs.'' ``In the 
2012 amendments, Congress removed PHMSA's discretion and directed 
the agency to collect this information every two years.''

    During FY2015-16, PHMSA plans to assess and update its methodology 
for allocating grant funds in future grant years to better determine 
the needs of each grant applicant and allocate funds where needed most.

3. Comments Beyond-the-Scope

    IAFC supports the continued funding of HMEP grants through hazmat 
shipper and carrier registration fees, and believes that ``additional 
funding must be allocated to help prepare America's first responders to 
respond to these new and emerging challenges.'' To accomplish this, 
IAFC suggests that:

    ``HMEP Grants Program should be changed to require that a fixed 
percentage of the annual funding be subject to a competitive process 
for non-profit organizations and to non-profit employee 
organizations which demonstrate expertise in hazardous materials 
response planning and training.''

    PHMSA fully supports use of HMEP funds to train emergency 
responders to respond to hazmat transportation incidents. In fiscal 
year 2012, 97,900 emergency responders were trained to the NFPA 472 
standard or to 29 CFR 1910.120 using HMEP grant funds. Further, the 
Hazardous Materials Instructor Training (HMIT) grant is made available 
to non-profit organizations that demonstrate: (1) Expertise in 
conducting a training program for hazmat employees and (2) the ability 
to reach and involve, in a training program, a target population for 
hazmat employees. $3,472,336.00 in HMIT grant funds was made available 
in fiscal year 2012 to non-profit hazmat employee organizations to fund 
train-the-trainer instruction to hazmat employees. Trainers developed 
from this grant program are familiar with their workplaces, the jobs 
that they and their co-workers perform, and the hazards they encounter 
on a daily basis; therefore, they are in an ideal position to train and 
work with their co-workers and employers to ensure that the workplace 
is safe relative to hazmat, and offer assistance and advice on hazmat-
related issues.
    PHMSA supports the use of HMEP funds to identify national hazmat 
training gaps. However, IAFC's request to change HMEP grant fund 
allocation to: ``require that a fixed percentage of the annual funding 
be subject to a competitive process for non-profit organizations and to 
non-profit employee organizations which demonstrate expertise in 
hazardous materials response planning and training,'' would require a 
change in the statutory language for the HMEP grant. As such, it is 
beyond-the-scope of this Notice.
    IAFC suggests that PHMSA collect all requests from sub-grantees 
that were funded and, more importantly, all requests that were not 
funded. IAFC believes that:

    ``[T]he information would provide a clear and holistic picture 
of the needs for a grant recipient and a sub-grantee. This 
information could then be used to identify gaps and gauge how HMEP 
grant funds are being used and distributed within the jurisdiction 
to sub-recipients. Any unmet needs and gaps could then be used for 
justification to continue the HMEP grant program.''

    IAFC further suggests that:

    ``PHMSA should require a report from each grant recipient 
detailing each sub-recipient that did not spend its allocation and 
an explanation as to why the funding was returned. The IAFC believes 
that requiring such a report will motivate the grant recipient to 
stay on task and complete the grant within the grant compliance 
period.''

    PHMSA agrees with IAFC that information that provides detailed 
accounting as to why each sub-recipient did not spend its allocation 
and an explanation as to why the funding was returned would be 
informative. This is not information that is required by MAP-21, nor 
was it proposed in the 60-Day Notice. For these reasons, we cannot ask 
the question of HMEP grantees.
    IAFC further suggests that:

    ``Any allocation of funds should include the reinstatement of 
funding for the National Hazardous Materials Fusion Center, 
additional training to improve rural hazmat emergency response, and 
a comprehensive approach for providing funding to locally train 
first responders.''

    PHMSA's HMEP grant program currently oversees the state, territory, 
and Native American tribal use and distribution of funds to ensure that 
the funds are used in accordance with 49 U.S.C., chapter 51, section 
5116 and 49 CFR part 110, through review of the application, quarterly 
and final reports, approval or denial of reimbursement requests, desk 
audits, and site visits. MAP-21 requires that PHMSA collect even 
further information that identifies the ultimate recipients of HMEP 
grants and contains a description of each grant expenditure by each 
grant recipient, including the amount of, and purpose for, each 
expenditure.
    While not directly, PHMSA does support the activities in the 
National Hazardous Materials Fusion Center, additional training to 
improve rural hazmat emergency response, and a comprehensive approach 
for providing funding to locally train first responders; however, the 
law does not provide that PHMSA oversee the decision making of the HMEP 
grantees as to how it chooses to allocate funds to sub-grantees. 
Through an aggressive outreach program, PHMSA attempts to work with 
local emergency responders and LEPCs and educate them as to 
transportation hazmat law and the grant opportunities available to them 
through their state, territorial or Native American tribal designated 
agencies.
    IME suggests that PHMSA ask states whether or not they would 
benefit from PHMSA's exercise of its discretionary authority to 
transfer planning funds to augment the training grant program. While 
this question is beyond-the-scope of this Notice, states do benefit 
from PHMSA's discretionary authority to transfer planning funds to 
augment the training grant program, and vice versa.

[[Page 58037]]

    California states that ``[i]t appears that the public is the 
intended beneficiary of the grant activities. However, currently PHMSA 
requires that the public sector hazmat response employees are the 
beneficiaries, disallowing projects that involve public awareness & 
training efforts.'' 49 U.S.C., section 5116 is specific as to how the 
HMEP funds may be used. For planning grants, section 5116(a)(2)(B) 
requires that ``the state agrees to make available at least 75% of the 
amount of the grant under paragraph (1) of this subsection in the 
fiscal year to local emergency planning committees established under 
section 301(c) of the Act (42 U.S.C. 11001(c)) to develop emergency 
plans under the Act.'' For training grants, section 5116(b)(2)(C) 
requires that the funds will be awarded to a state ``only if the state 
agrees to make available at least 75% of the amount of the grant under 
paragraph (1) of this subsection in the fiscal year for training public 
sector employees a political subdivision of the state employs or 
uses.''

4. Questions Seeking Clarification

    California asked a number of questions that seek clarification of 
the proposed information collection activities. These questions are 
listed and answered below.
    In response to the statement in the 60-Day Notice, ``The HMEP grant 
program, as mandated by Federal hazardous materials transportation law 
(Federal hazmat law; 49 U.S.C. 5101 et seq.) provides Federal financial 
and technical assistance to states, territories, and Native American 
tribes to ``develop, improve, and carry out emergency plans,'' 
California asks: ``What is the intent under the grant program? 
Response/operational-related activities are not currently allowed by 
PHMSA under the HMEP Grant program. Is this a change in the scope of 
the grant?''
    The scope of the grant has not changed. Since the HMEP grant was 
established, 49 U.S.C. 5116(a)(1)(A) has provided that planning grants 
will be made available ``to develop, improve, and carry out emergency 
plans under the Emergency Planning and Community Right-To-Know Act of 
1986 (42 U.S.C. 11001 et seq.).''
    In response to the statement in the 60-Day Notice that ``the 
program was established in 1993 to ensure that the needed planning, 
training, and infrastructure are in place . . .,'' California asked: 
``What is included in infrastructure under the grant program? Response/
operational-related activities are not currently allowed by PHMSA under 
the HMEP Grant program. Is this a change in the scope of the grant?'' 
The scope of the grant has not changed. The infrastructure in this 
context is intended to mean active LEPCs and emergency responders in 
communities.
    In response to the statement in the 60-Day Notice that ``the 
program was established . . . to protect the public in the event of a 
transportation-related hazardous materials incident,'' California 
commented: ``It appears that the public is the intended beneficiary of 
the grant activities. However, currently PHMSA requires that the public 
sector hazmat response employees are the beneficiaries, disallowing 
projects that involve public awareness & training efforts.'' While 
public awareness and training may mitigate the risks associated with 
hazmat transportation incidents, the direct correlation is not always 
apparent. It is PHMSA's statutory obligation to allocate the funds to 
be awarded to LEPCs and public sector employees. According to 49 U.S.C. 
5116(a)(2)(B), for planning grant funds at least 75 percent of the 
amount of the grant is intended for local emergency planning 
committees; and according to 49 U.S.C. 5116(b)(2)(C), for training 
grant funds, at least 75% of the amount of the grant is intended for 
training public sector employees a political subdivision of the state 
employs or uses. PHMSA would consider certain public awareness and 
training activities as eligible for HMEP grant funds if the grantee can 
clearly show that the activities support emergency planning and 
training as described in 49 U.S.C. 5116 and 49 CFR part 110.
    In response to the information PHMSA proposed to request in the 60-
Day Notice: ``An explanation of how the grantee made no less than 75% 
of HMEP training grant funds available to benefit public sector 
employees,'' California asked ``Does this apply only to the training 
grant?'' The answer is yes. As stated in 49 CFR 110.30(b)(3), 
pertaining to planning, A written statement agreeing to make at least 
75% of the Federal funds awarded available to LEPCs and an explanation 
of how the applicant intends to make such funds available to them for 
developing, improving, or implementing emergency plans is required. 
Similarly, 49 CFR 110.30(c)(3) pertaining to training, requires 
applicants to provide a written statement agreeing to make at least 75% 
of the Federal funds awarded available for the purpose of training 
public sector employees employed or used by political subdivisions.
    In response to PHMSA's statement that ``PHMSA is seeking to collect 
information regarding LEPCs or comparable entities,'' California asks 
``What is comparable entity to LEPC?'' EPCRA mandates that LEPC 
membership must include; (1) Elected state and local officials, (2) 
Police, fire, civil defense, and public health professionals, (3) 
Environment, transportation, and hospital officials, (4) Facility 
representatives, (5) Representatives from community groups and the 
media. A body appointed by the SERC/TERC that meets these requirements 
and is the ultimate recipient of HMEP funds, such as a Regional Review 
Committee as established in Minnesota, would be considered comparable 
to a LEPC.
    In response to PHMSA's statement that ``one way in which PHMSA 
achieves its mission is to provide funding to grantees, who, in turn, 
fund LEPCs to prepare the public and first responders to reduce 
consequences if an incident does occur,'' California asks ``Currently 
PHMSA does not allow LEPC activities that accomplish public 
preparedness activities. Is this a change in the scope of allowable 
activities?'' The answer is no, there has been no change in scope of 
allowable activities. The HMEP funds are to go towards LEPC planning 
activities for developing, improving, and implementing emergency plans 
for hazardous materials transportation incidents, not public 
preparedness activities.
    Additionally, in response to PHMSA's statement: ``One way in which 
PHMSA achieves its mission is to provide funding to grantees who, in 
turn, fund LEPCs to prepare the public and first responders to reduce 
consequences if an incident does occur,'' California stated: ``In 
California, the LEPCs do not have a mechanism for accepting any type of 
funds. They are a volunteer conglomerate of public and private 
stakeholder entities that all come together (using their own agencies 
financial support) to comply with their mandates under the law. The 
funds are sub-granted to local government jurisdictions, with the 
approval of the LEPC.'' While California does not pass through its HMEP 
grant funds directly to LEPCs, many other states do.
    California asked if there are data or statistics to support the 
following statement in PHMSA's 60-Day Notice: ``the consequences of 
incidents involving hazardous materials transportation could be greatly 
reduced when a locality has an active LEPC with information on what 
hazardous materials are passing through its community.'' While PHMSA 
has no hard data to support this claim, LEPCs were established in EPCRA 
to identify chemical hazards, develop and maintain emergency plans in 
case of an

[[Page 58038]]

accidental release, and encourage continuous attention to chemical 
safety, risk reduction, and accident prevention in their communities. 
Because of their broad-based membership, LEPCs are able to foster a 
valuable dialogue within the emergency response community to prevent 
and prepare for accidental releases of hazardous chemicals. Their 
usefulness, when they actively plan for hazardous materials releases in 
transportation, is recognized by the National Transportation Safety 
Board (NTSB) and the Chemical Safety Board (CSB) in their analysis of 
incidents and accidents. Many of the NTSB and CSB reports indicate that 
had emergency responders been prepared, people could have been 
evacuated \6\ more readily, emergency responders would have been aware 
of the nature of the hazardous materials involved in an accident,\7\ 
and lives could have been saved.\8\ California acknowledges that:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See NTSB P-93-17.
    \7\ See NTSB RAR-07-01 and NTSB-RAB-06-04.
    \8\ See Emergency Preparedness: Findings from CSB Accident 
Investigations at: www.youtube.com/watch?v=R2Ez7lkjg1Y.

    ``While grant funding to support LPEC planning initial responses 
to foreseeable HazMat transportation incidents would most likely 
reduce the consequences of these incidents and accidents, the myriad 
factors involved in the reducing the number of accidents or 
incidents is within the purview of initial response planning 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
activities.''

    California asks that we define ``emergency response plan.'' EPCRA 
\9\ defined the required elements of a community emergency response 
plan to include: Identification of facilities and transportation routes 
of extremely hazardous substances; description of emergency response 
procedures, on and off site; designation of a community coordinator and 
facility emergency coordinator(s) to implement the plan; outline of 
emergency notification procedures; description of how to determine the 
probable affected area and population by releases; description of local 
emergency equipment and facilities and the persons responsible for 
them; outline of evacuation plans; a training program for emergency 
responders (including schedules); and methods and schedules for 
exercising emergency response plans.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See 42 U.S.C. 11003(e), ``Review by state emergency response 
commission, After completion of an emergency plan under subsection 
(a) of this section for an emergency planning district, the local 
emergency planning committee shall submit a copy of the plan to the 
State emergency response commission of each state in which such 
district is located. The commission shall review the plan and make 
recommendations to the committee on revisions of the plan that may 
be necessary to ensure coordination of such plan with emergency 
response plans of other emergency planning districts. To the maximum 
extent practicable, such review shall not delay implementation of 
such plan.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    California asks that PHMSA define ``hazardous chemicals.'' For the 
purposes of this information collection, ``hazardous chemicals'' means 
``any substances for which a facility must maintain a Material Data 
Safety Sheet under the Occupational Safety and Health Administration's 
Hazard Communication Standard,\10\ which lists the criteria used to 
identify a hazardous chemical.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See 29 CFR 1910.1200.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    California asks that we define ``emergency responders.'' For the 
purposes of this Notice, the emergency responders from whom PHMSA seeks 
information are public sector fire, police, and emergency medical 
service department employees or volunteers.
    California asks PHMSA to define a ``hazmat specialty unit.'' For 
the purposes of this Notice, a ``hazmat specialty unit'' is a public 
sector fire, police, emergency medical service, or a combination 
thereof, that responds to and investigates incidents involving 
hazardous materials.
    In response to PHMSA's question regarding the number of emergency 
response teams with a HAZMAT specialty unit that receives HMEP funds,'' 
California asks, ``what if the personnel making up these teams are 
already included in the other separate discipline totals, should they 
be accounted for under both categories?'' The answer is yes. PHMSA 
seeks to collect information on the number of emergency responders and 
the number of hazmat teams.
    In the 60-Day Notice, PHMSA proposes to request grantees to show 
the ``actual cost of each completed activity using the following 
categories: Personnel \11\ costs; fringe benefits costs; travel costs; 
equipment costs; supplies costs; contractual costs; indirect costs; and 
other costs not listed.'' California asks ``does `completed activities' 
include all sub-grants and contracts?'' The answer is yes. California 
further asks, ``Currently all Sub-grant expenditures are allocated to 
the `Other' budget category. Will each sub-grant budget be broken out 
to these categories? If so, these figures will not match the SF-242A?'' 
No, each sub-grant budget will remain under the Other'' category. 
Detail of sub-grantee expenditures would be required in the proposed 
midyear and final report forms.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ California pointed out that in the 60-Day Notice there was 
a typographical error. PHMSA intended to state ``personnel'' not 
``personal.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the 60-Day Notice, PHMSA states that it seeks to collect ``the 
aggregate expenditures exclusive of Federal funds for the last five 
years.'' California asks PHMSA to clarify what this means. In 
authorizing a grant program, Congress sometimes includes language in 
the authorizing statute that requires a recipient to use the grant 
funds to augment or supplement funds that the entity has previously 
devoted to the purposes for which grant funds may now be provided. 
These requirements, depending on their phrasing, may be cited as 
maintenance of a specified level of expenditures or as a ``supplement 
not supplant'' requirement. The HMEP program has ``aggregate 
expenditure'' requirements, specified in 49 CFR 110.30(b)(2) for 
planning and 49 CFR 110.30(c)(2) for training, as grant application 
requirements.
    In response the PHMSA's proposal to: ``ask each planning grant 
recipient to explain the following goals and objectives: the current 
abilities and authorities of the grant recipient's program for 
preparedness planning; and the need to sustain or increase program 
capability,'' California asks that PHMSA ``Please define the `program' 
for the purposes of this report.'' ``Program'' in this context is 
intended to mean the grantee's ability and authority to carry out 
proposed project and budgetary requirements outlined in the grant 
proposal.
    PHMSA indicated in the 60-Day Notice that it seeks to ask for: 
``the number of fire, police, EMS, and any additional disciplines that 
received awareness, operation, technician, refresher, Incident Command 
System, and site specialist trainings.'' California asked, ``Are we to 
report the number of people who attended each class, or the number of 
people who completed the training to a certain certification level? For 
multi-week classes, are we reporting the number of people who attended 
each week, or those who completed the full course?'' For clarification, 
PHMSA seeks to know the number of people who attended each class on a 
particular subject, and the number of people who completed training to 
certification level, e.g., multiple classes to receive a certificate. 
For multi-week classes, if it is one subject that involves multiple 
days to complete the class, PHMSA seeks to know the number of people 
who completed the full course.

E. Revised HMEP Questions and Information Collection Burden

    While MAP-21 mandates that PHMSA collect detailed information at

[[Page 58039]]

the sub-grantee level, PHMSA acknowledges that some of the additional 
information proposed in the 60-Day Notice may be difficult to obtain at 
the grantee level. In this 30-Day Notice, we remove some of the 
questions that grantees have indicated are impossible to answer.
    PHMSA appreciates commenters' concerns that the additional burden 
resulting from the proposed revisions to the way grantees report on the 
programs funded by the HMEP grants may detract from grantees planning 
and training efforts. We continue to believe, however, that grantees' 
performance reports should include both quantitative and qualitative 
data in sufficient detail to enable the grantees and PHMSA to evaluate 
the programs, identify effective planning and training strategies, and 
target areas where improvements are needed. Grantees are currently 
required to provide data on the planning and training programs they 
administer; the more detailed information we are requesting should be 
readily available.
    Nonetheless, in an effort to address the commenters' concerns, we 
have revised the list of questions to only include information required 
by law and accessible to grantees. We believe these adjustments will 
help to minimize the impact of the information collection burden on 
grantees. PHMSA has previously required applicants to include a 
narrative detailing progress made toward achieving agency goals and 
objectives, and accomplishing planning and training needs using HMEP 
Grant funds for previous budget periods. However, in response to 
concerns regarding increased reporting requirements, PHMSA will no 
longer require this narrative and will rely on the previously submitted 
progress report for any past data. In addition, PHMSA has removed some 
previous questions regarding a statement or detailed explanation in 
place of a simplified certification form. In response to commenters, 
PHMSA has reviewed the burden hours and have re-calculated the 
information collection burden associated with responding to the 
questions. The revised questions and information collection burden 
estimates are detailed below.
    Beginning with the application for FY 2015 funds, applicants will 
be asked to respond to the following additional questions:

1. General Grantee Information

    a. What is the designated agency's name?
    b. What is the agency's full address?
    c. Provide the full contact information for the authorized 
representative, program manager, and finance program manager (or 
equivalent). Contact information includes the full name, title, phone/
fax numbers, and email address.

2. Hazmat Transportation Fees

    a. Are fees collected for the transportation of hazardous materials 
in the grant recipient's state, territory, or Native American tribe? 
(yes or no)
    b. If fees are collected, what is the dollar amount?
    c. If such fees are collected, what percentage of the fee is used 
to carry out purposes related to the transportation of hazardous 
materials?

3. Hazmat facilities in the State, Territory or Tribal land

    a. Provide the total number of Hazmat Facilities with hazardous 
chemicals in quantities that equal or exceed 500 pounds or the 
threshold of TPQ, whichever is lower.
    b. Provide the total number of Hazmat Facilities with hazardous 
chemicals in quantities of 10,000 pounds or more.

4. HMEP Planning Grant Statement of Work

    a. Provide a brief summary of what your agency plans to accomplish 
with the HMEP planning award in line with your program's goals and 
PHMSA's mission and priorities.
    b. HMEP Federal planning grant amount requested.
    c. Total Non-federal match required for planning grant.
    d. Planning grant Goals and Objectives. List program goals and 
objectives to be achieved. For each goal planned, list the projected 
outcomes.
    e. Planned Activities Supporting Program Goals. List planned 
activities to be performed under each goal previously listed above. 
Provide the estimated activity cost, projected activity start date and 
end date, and expected activity output.
    f. Activities planned under Section 303 of EPCRA. List number of 
planned activities by each category: No. of Commodity Flow Studies to 
be Conducted, Number of Hazardous Risks Analyses to be Performed, 
Number of Emergency Plans to be Written, Number of Emergency Plans to 
be Updated, Number of Emergency Plans to be exercised.

5. LEPC Sub-Award Information

    a. List the total number of LEPCs in your state, territory, or 
Tribal land, both active and inactive, and total number of LEPCs you 
plan to sub-award planning funds to.
    b. Briefly explain your LEPCs/subgrantees selection process or the 
methodology you have used or plan to use to make subawards.
    c. List the names of LEPCs you plan to sub-award HMEP planning 
funds to. If proposals have already been received, provide planned 
activities and estimated activities and estimated activity cost per 
LEPC.

6. HMEP Planning Supplemental Funding (Optional)

    a. Briefly explain what additional planning activities you would 
complete with supplemental funding, if available.
    b. Provide the estimated amount of supplemental funding that would 
be required to complete the proposed activities.

7. HMEP Training Grant Statement of Work

    a. Provide a brief summary of what your agency plans to accomplish 
with the HMEP training award in line with your program's goals and 
PHMSA's mission and priorities.
    b. HMEP Federal training grant amount requested.
    c. Total Non-federal match required for training grant.
    d. Training grant Goals and Objectives. List program goals and 
objectives to be achieved. For each goal planned, list the projected 
outcomes.
    e. Planned Activities Supporting Program's Training Goals. List 
planned activities to be performed under each goal previously listed 
above. Provide the estimated activity cost, projected activity start 
date and end date, and expected activity output.
    f. Activities planned under NFPA `472 Core Competency Standards. 
List number of individuals expected train under the following 
categories: Initial training (awareness, operational, specialist, 
technician) and Refresher Training (awareness, operational, specialist, 
technician).
    g. Other training activities planned. List other training 
activities that you plan to carry out with HMEP training funds. Provide 
the number of courses planned and projected number of individuals to be 
trained.

8. LEPC Sub-Award Information

    a. List the number of LEPCs you plan to sub-award training funds 
to.
    b. Briefly explain your LEPCs/subgrantees selection process or the 
methodology you have used or plan to use to make training subawards.
    c. If LEPC training proposals have already been received, provide 
the proposed training activities and estimated activity cost per LEPC.

[[Page 58040]]

9. HMEP Supplemental Training Funding (Optional)

    a. Briefly explain what additional training activities you would 
complete with supplemental funding, if available.
    b. Provide the estimated amount of supplemental funding that would 
be required to complete the proposed training activities.
    10. Budget Narrative: complete a budget narrative to explain each 
line item of your project costs under both the Planning and Training 
grant applications. The budget narrative is extremely important as it 
provides transparency for proposed costs and Justification for costs 
that may appear questionable to the granting agency, and it provides 
details of how and where the applicant will satisfy cost-sharing 
requirements (matching). The following categories should be addressed: 
personnel costs, fringe benefits, consultants and outside contractors, 
supplies and equipment, travel, cost-sharing, other.
    11. Indirect Costs. If indirect costs are included in the budget, 
identify the cognizant Federal agency for negotiation of the indirect 
cost rate and the approved indirect rate. Provide a copy of the most 
recent negotiated agreement. If your organization does not have a 
cognizant Federal agency, note that in the proposal and provide a brief 
explanation for how you calculated your indirect cost rate.
    12. Certification. The agency must certify to the best of its 
knowledge and belief that the submitted application is correct and 
complete for the planned activities under the HMEP Grant Program 
Funding Requirements.

Reporting (Midyear and Final)

In addition to submitting an application, applicants will be required 
to provide the following information two times a year (midyear progress 
report and yearend report):

HMEP Training and Planning Assessment

    PHMSA intends to ask each grant recipient to provide a midyear 
progress and an annual progress report during the course of the grant 
cycle on the following:
    1. A narrative detailing how goals and objectives for the HMEP 
planning grant were achieved;
    2. A brief description of any issues or delays that impacted the 
agency's ability to utilize or administer its HMEP award.
    3. An explanation for an unexpended balance, if applicable.
    4. A narrative detailing how the state/tribe/territory, through the 
use of HMEP planning funds, is better suited to handle accidents and 
incidents involving the transport of hazardous materials;

5. Sub-grantee information for reporting period

    a. What are the names and requested funding amount for each sub-
grantee?
    b. What is the award amount of each sub-grantee?
    c. What is the amount expended by the close of the reporting period 
for each sub-grantee?
    d. Provide a list of the planning activities that occurred and the 
amount expended per LEPC.
    e. LEPC EPCRA activities: provide the number of Commodity Flow 
Studies Conducted, Number of Hazardous Risks Analyses Performed, Number 
of Emergency Plans Written, Number of Emergency Plans Updated, Number 
of Emergency Plans or Drills Exercised, per LEPC.
    f. Number of hazardous materials drills or exercises conducted 
during the performance period by mode of transport: air, water, 
highway, and rail;
    g. The type of hazmat involved in planning exercises/drills

6. Information on Local Emergency Planning Committees

    a. What is the total number of Local Emergency Planning Committees 
(LEPCs) (or equivalent) in the jurisdiction of the state, territory or 
Native American tribal land?
    b. What is the number of Local Emergency Planning Committees 
(LEPCs) (or equivalent) that receives HMEP grant funds?
    c. What is the number of Emergency Response Plans prepared or 
reviewed by LEPCs that receive HMEP grant funds in this grant cycle? 
\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 42 U.S.C. 11003(a) Plan required, Each local emergency 
planning committee shall complete preparation of an emergency plan 
in accordance with this section not later than two years after 
October 17, 1986. The committee shall review such plan once a year, 
or more frequently as changed circumstances in the community or at 
any facility may require.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

7. Assessment of Response Capabilities for Accidents/Incidents 
Involving the Transportation of Hazardous Materials

    a. What is the total number of public sector emergency responders 
in the following training categories?
i. Initial/Refresher
ii. Awareness
iii. Operational
iv. Specialist
v. Technician
    b. What is the number of emergency response teams with a HAZMAT 
specialty unit that receive HMEP funds?
    8. Provide ongoing and completed activities for each reporting 
period, including:
    a. What is the name of the activity?
    b. What is the purpose of the activity?
    c. What is the number of participants involved in the activity?
    d. What are the name and description of supplies needed to conduct 
the activity (if applicable)?
    e. What are the name and description of any equipment needed to 
conduct the activity (if applicable)?
    f. What was the start and end date for the activity (if 
applicable)?
    g. What was the outcome of each completed activity?
    h. What is the expected output of each completed activity?
    i. Provide actual cost of each activity and state whether the 
activity is in progress or completed.

Certifications

    1. I certify that the aggregate expenditure of funds, exclusive of 
Federal funds, for training public sector employees to respond to 
accidents and incidents involving hazardous materials under EPCRA will 
be maintained at a level that does not fall below the average level of 
such expenditures for the 5 fiscal years prior to the grant project. 

    2. I certify that the aggregate expenditure of funds of the state 
or territory, exclusive of Federal funds, for developing, improving, 
and implementing emergency plans under EPCRA will be maintained at a 
level that does not fall below the average level of such expenditures 
for the 5 fiscal years prior to the grant project. 

    3. I certify that the designated agency is complying with Sections 
301 and 303 of EPCRA. 


    4. I certify that the designated agency will make available not 
less than 75 percent of the funds granted for the purpose of training 
public sector emergency response 
employees.

    5. I certify that the designated agency will make at least 75 
percent of the amount of the grant in the fiscal year to local 
emergency planning committees established under section 301(c) of the 
Act (42 U.S.C. 11001 (c)) to develop emergency plans under the Act. 


    6. I certify that the agency is compliant with the National 
Incident Management System (NIMS). 

    Title: Hazardous Materials Public Sector Training and Planning 
Grants
    OMB Control Number: 2137-0586
    Type of Request: Revision of a currently approved information 
collection.

[[Page 58041]]

    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
    Affected Public: State and local governments, territories, and 
Native American tribes.

Recordkeeping

    The total revised information collection budget for the HMEP grants 
program follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               q
------------------------------------------------------------------------
General Grantee and Sub-grantee   62 respondents x 1  = 62 hours.
 information:                      hr.
Information on LEPCs:             62 respondents x 1  = 62 hours.
                                   hr.
Assessment of Potential Chemical  62 respondents x 1  = 62 hours.
 Threats:                          hr.
Assessment of Response            62 respondents x    = 31 hours.
 Capabilities for Accidents/       0.5 hr.
 Incidents.
HMEP Planning and Training Grant  62 respondents x    = 31 hours.
 Reporting.                        0.5 hr.
HMEP Planning Goals and           62 respondents x    = 31 hours.
 Objectives.                       0.5 hr.
HMEP Training Goals and           62 respondents x    = 20.46 hours.
 Objectives.                       0.33 hr.
HMEP Training and Planning        62 respondents x    = 31 hours.
 Assessment.                       0.5 hr.
Hazmat Transportation Fees......  62 respondents x    = 27.9 hours.
                                   0.45 hr.
Grant Applicant is NIMS           62 respondents x    = 4.96 hours.
 Compliant/Grant Application Is    .08 hr.
 Reviewed By SERC.
HMEP Grant Program                62 respondents x    = 10.54 hours.
 Administration.                   0.17 hr.
                                 ---------------------------------------
Total Information Collection      62 respondents....  373.86 hours.
 Burden:
------------------------------------------------------------------------


------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Increase in Estimated Annual Burden Hours:  373.86.
Increase in Estimated Annual Burden Costs:  $3,738.60.
Frequency of collection: Up to four (4)     a year.
 times.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


    Issued in Washington, DC, on September 22, 2014, under authority 
delegated in 49 CFR 1.97.
William S. Schoonover,
Deputy Associate Administrator, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety 
Administration.
[FR Doc. 2014-22903 Filed 9-25-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-60-P


