[Federal Register: November 21, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 224)]
[Notices]
[Page 65638-65643]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr21no07-114]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
[Docket No. PHMSA-2007-27181 (Notice No. 07-10)]
Information Collection Activities
AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA),
DOT.
ACTION: Notice and request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Information Collection Request (ICR) entitled ``Hazardous
Materials Public Sector Training and Planning Grants'' is being revised
to implement a statutory provision authorizing PHMSA to request
information from states concerning fees related to the transportation
of hazardous materials. In addition, this ICR is being revised 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. In compliance with the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces that the ICR
will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for
revision and extension.
DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before December 21, 2007.
ADDRESSES: Send comments regarding the burden estimates, including
suggestions for reducing the burden, to the Office of Management and
Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for PHMSA, 725 17th Street, NW.,
Washington, DC 20503.
We invite commenters to address the following issues: (1) Whether
the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper
performance of the functions of the Department, including whether the
information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the
Department'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, including the use of
automated collection techniques or other forms of information
technology.
A comment to OMB is most effective if OMB receives it within 30
days of publication.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Deborah Boothe or T. Glenn Foster,
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:
I. Background
Section 1320.8(d), Title 5, Code of Federal Regulations 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 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
[[Page 65639]]
Grants. We are revising 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 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.
A. HMEP Program
The Hazardous Materials and Emergency Preparedness (HMEP) grants
program, as mandated by the Federal hazardous materials transportation
law (Federal hazmat law; 49 U.S.C. 5101 et seq.) provides Federal
financial and technical assistance to states and Indian 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 grants are used to
develop, improve, and implement emergency plans; to train public sector
hazardous materials emergency response employees to respond to
accidents and incidents involving hazardous materials; to determine
flow patterns of hazardous materials within a state and between states;
and to determine the need within a state for regional hazardous
materials emergency response teams. 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.
Federal hazmat law specifies that 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. 49 U.S.C. 5116(b)(4). Accordingly, the HMEP grant
application procedures in 49 CFR 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.
In addition, 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.
B. 60-Day Notice
On July 5, 2007, we published a Federal Register notice [72 FR
36754] with a 60-day comment period, soliciting comments on revisions
to the instructions for submitting an HMEP grant application. The
revisions are intended 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. Specifically, in accordance with the
statutory mandate in 49 U.S.C. 5116(b)(4) and 5125(f), we proposed to
revise the grant application to request applicants to respond to the
following 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 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?
In addition, to assist us to evaluate the effectiveness of the HMEP
grant program, we proposed to ask grant recipients to report the
following specific information regarding the planning and training
activities funded by the HMEP grants and to provide an overall
evaluation of the effectiveness of their programs:
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
[[Page 65640]]
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?
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 of 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?
II. Discussion of Comments
The comment period for the 60-Day notice closed on September 5,
2007. PHMSA received 16 comments from the following companies,
organizations, and individuals: (1) The American Trucking Association
(ATA); (2) Colorado Emergency Planning Commission; (3) Kevin Crawford;
(4) Robert E. Dopp; (5) Delaware Emergency Management Agency; (6) the
Institute of Makers of Explosives (IME); (7) Lyle Milby; (8) Timothy
Gablehouse; (9) Steven Goza; (10) Donald K. Hall; (11) the National
Tank Truck Carriers (NTTC); (12) the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI);
(13) Oklahoma Hazardous Materials Emergency Response Commission; (14)
James J. Plum; (15) Daniel Roe; and (16) the State of Wisconsin/
Department of Military Affairs Wisconsin Emergency Management. On
October 12, 2007, we received an additional comment from the Interested
Parties for Hazardous Materials Transportation (Interested Parties)
which had been filed with OMB. In addition, the National Association of
SARA Title III Program Officials and the Oklahoma Hazardous Materials
Response Commission submitted letters to OMB and copied PHMSA in
response to the October 12 comment from the Interested Parties. All
comments are included in the docket for this notice and are available
for review at the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov
.
Commenters expressing support for revisions to the HMEP application
kit include ATA, IME, NEI, and NTTC. These commenters generally agree
that additional information from grantees will assist PHMSA to evaluate
the emergency response funding needs of states and Indian tribes and
promote more effective use of HMEP grant funds. For example, in
expressing its support, ATA, the national representative of over 37,000
trucking companies, states that the information being sought by PHMSA
is critical to the effective administration of the HMEP grant program.
In its support of the proposed revisions, NEI states that although
limited resources will be expended responding to the additional
questions, the net result is a better use of funds nationwide and
improved responses to events involving hazardous materials. Similarly,
NTTC, a trade association comprised of 210 trucking companies, states
the additional information resulting from the HMEP revisions is
necessary to ``ensure proper funds allocation based on need under the
HMEP grant program,'' and will enable PHMSA ``to better determine
whether states' fees are properly apportioned and being utilized for
purposes associated with hazardous materials transportation.''
In its comments, IME, the safety and security association of the
commercial explosives industry, states that because its members are
both shippers and carriers subject to fees that support the HMEP grants
program, it has a keen interest in how these funds are used. The
commenter supports PHMSA's efforts to accurately evaluate the
effectiveness of its grants program through the proposed questions, and
asserts that utilizing the HMEP grant application process is the least
burdensome method to capture the information authorized by section 5125
of the Federal hazmat law.
In its October 12 comment sent to OMB and copied to PHMSA, the
Interested Parties suggest that the additional questions will aid the
[[Page 65641]]
agency's risk-based approach while ensuring that legislative intent is
achieved.
Commenters opposing the revisions include Colorado Emergency
Planning Commission; Kevin Crawford; Delaware Emergency Management
Agency; Robert E. Dopp; Lyle Milby; Timothy Gablehouse; Steven Goza;
Donald K. Hall; Oklahoma Hazardous Materials Emergency Response
Commission; James J. Plum; Daniel Roe; and the State of Wisconsin/
Department of Military Affairs Wisconsin Emergency Management. The
comments address three inter-related areas: (1) The need for the
additional information, particularly the information on fees; (2)
concern that funding may be reduced or eliminated based on grantees'
responses to the additional questions; and (3) whether the additional
information collection burden resulting from the additional questions
is off-set by measurable benefits. These comments are addressed below.
In addition, the National Association of SARA Title III Program
Officials and the Oklahoma Hazardous Materials Response Commission
submitted letters to OMB and copied PHMSA in response to the October 12
comment from the Interested Parties. Both commenters question the
motivation of the Interested Parties for submitting its comment and
express opposition to the revisions of this ICR.
A. Need for the Additional Information
Several commenters suggest that PHMSA's motivation in proposing to
collect more detailed information on hazardous materials fees is to
make it easier for hazardous materials shippers and carriers to
challenge the fees. These commenters assert that aggrieved industry
parties already have sufficient tools to pursue challenges to specific
fees by utilizing the preemption provisions in Federal hazmat law and
that information on hazardous materials fees assessed by state or
tribal governments is already available through other sources. One
commenter suggests that PHMSA ``should have the industries claiming
that they pay fees to the states and tribes (and perhaps local
entities), identify themselves to PHMSA, at the Secretary of
Transportation's request. The facility could identify the state/tribe
and agency to which they pay those fees and the amount of the fees, so
that U.S. DOT nationally could wrap its arms around the issue to
determine if there is, in fact, an identifiable problem.'' A second
commenter suggests that PHMSA conduct a further study of the proposed
revisions to the grant application kit, such as convening a
stakeholder's forum to include both state and tribal governments and
industry representation to discuss issues related to the assessment and
uses of hazardous materials fees.
Commenters are not correct that PHMSA is proposing to require HMEP
grant applicants to submit information concerning hazardous materials
fees as a means to assist hazardous materials shippers or carriers to
challenge those fees through preemption or other means. In awarding
HMEP grants, PHMSA is required by the Federal hazmat law to consider
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. The information we are requesting in the revised grant
application kit is consistent with our statutory mandate.
We disagree with the commenters that suggest information concerning
hazardous materials fees assessed by state or tribal governments is
readily available through other sources. We have considered utilizing
internet or other resources, but generally we have found that the
information is not consistently available or reliably accurate. We note
in this regard that commenters' suggestions concerning other methods
for collecting information on state or tribal hazardous materials fees,
such as through a separate survey or stakeholder meeting, would impose
a similar or greater burden on respondents as the questions we propose
to add to the grant application kit. Moreover, the overall response
from state or tribal governments to such methods would likely be
somewhat less than the overall response to the questions in the grant
application kit and would not provide data to evaluate the
effectiveness of the grant program.
B. Reduced Funding
A number of commenters express concern that HMEP grant funding for
individual state or tribal governments may be reduced or eliminated as
a result of responses by the applicants to the additional questions.
For instance, Mr. Johnnie L. Smith of the State of Wisconsin/Department
of Military Affairs Wisconsin Emergency Management states that ``It
would be inappropriate to withhold or reduce a state's HMEP funding not
supported by the appropriate legal action.'' The commenter continues by
stating that ``* * * there is no reason why the emergency management
community should be penalized by lost or reduced funding and why
essential planning and training should not be performed.'' The Colorado
Emergency Planning Commission writes that ``The collection of
additional information in the manner advocated by petitioner and other
commenters is unjustified because their suggested use of that
information is improper.'' Mr. Kevin Crawford comments that ``As HMEP
funding is the bulk of the resources * * * industry's efforts to
penalize states by artificially evaluating the use of funds is ill-
conceived at best.''
In proposing additional questions for inclusion in the grant
application kit, PHMSA has no intent to penalize grant recipients by
the reduction or elimination of grant funds. Rather, our purpose in
proposing the revised questions is to enable us to work with grantees
to promote the effective use of HMEP grant funds and identify
additional state or Indian tribe emergency response planning and
training needs.
We note in this regard that the HMEP grant program was established
over 15 years ago and has continued with few changes since its initial
implementation. HMEP grantees have used program funds to train first
responders; conduct commodity flow studies; write or update emergency
plans; conduct emergency response exercises; and assist local emergency
planning committees. As indicated above, the HMEP grant program is
funded by registration fees paid by hazardous materials shippers and
carriers. It is incumbent on the agency administering the grant program
as well as the grantees themselves to ascertain that the program is
accountable to those who fund it and is as effective as possible in
meeting its emergency response planning and training goals.
The information we are requesting will provide data to evaluate
emergency response planning and training programs conducted by states
and Indian tribes. The development of accurate output information will
also summarize the achievements of the HMEP grant program. This is
especially important in light of the increase in grant funding
authorized under the Hazardous Materials Safety and Security
Reauthorization Act (Title VII of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible,
Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users), enacted on
August 10, 2005. Under the Act, authorized funding for the HMEP grant
program effectively doubles, from $14.3 million to $28 million. The
information we seek from grantees will enhance emergency response
preparedness and response by allowing PHMSA and its state and tribal
partners to target gaps in current planning and training efforts and
focus
[[Page 65642]]
on strategies that have been proven to be effective.
C. Increased Information Collection Burden
Many of the commenters who oppose the proposed revisions to the
grant application kit consider them to be an excessive burden on
applicants without a measurable benefit or an identified use of the
information. For example, Ms. Montressa Jo Elder of the Oklahoma
Hazardous Materials Emergency Response Commission comments that ``These
burdens are not trivial. Our local emergency planning committees and
most of our rural fire departments are volunteer groups. Devoting time
and energy to reports detracts from their other very important
missions.'' Mr. Daniel Roe states that ``the proposed notice is going
to place quite a burden not only on states, but on all funding
recipients, to include tribes, locals and others.'' The commenter
further states that ``funds that clearly are productively used for
planning and training functions and are now adequately documented will
be diverted to administrative burdens, the utility of which is quite
questionable.'' Mr. Timothy Gablehouse states that ``it is unclear how
the addition of the proposed questions to the ICR would enable PHMSA to
glean any additional information about how effectively HMEP grant money
is spent.'' Similarly, Mr. Robert E. Dopp states that ``We do not
believe that DOT/PHMSA should impose the burden of information
collection without a clear plan and purpose to use the information in a
fashion that comports with statute and regulation. At this point all we
really have is the advocacy of outsiders regarding the use of the
information. Until and unless DOT/PHMSA is clear in its plans for the
use of the information it appears that the proposed collection activity
is simply an increased burden without a purpose.'' The Colorado
Emergency Planning Commission also notes that, as stated in PHMSA's
previous Federal Register notice, a large percentage of the information
is already collected.
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 we initially proposed to modify
those for which information can be obtained through other means, such
as through discussions at our meetings and conferences with grant
recipients. We have also reconfigured the questions to provide a more
user-friendly format. We believe these adjustments will help to
minimize the impact of the information collection burden on grantees.
We have also identified two additional grantees and have revised the
total number of respondents. Subsequently, we 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 under the ``Revised HMEP
Questions and Information Collection Burden'' section of this notice.
III. Revised HMEP Questions and Information Collection Burden
Beginning with the application for FY 2008 funds, applicants will
be asked to respond to the following additional questions:
Hazardous Materials Fees
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 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?
Planning Grants
1. Of the total amount of HMEP planning grant funds, what amount
was used to assist Local Emergency Planning Committees (LEPCs)? How
many were assisted using HMEP funds?
a. Did the LEPCs complete or update assessments of commodity flow
patterns in their jurisdictions? If so, how many? What was the total
amount of HMEP planning grant funds devoted to this effort?
b. Did the LEPCs complete or update assessments of the emergency
response capabilities in their jurisdictions? If so, how many? What was
the total amount of HMEP planning grant funds devoted to this effort?
c. Did the LEPCs develop or improve emergency plans for their
jurisdictions? If so, how many plans were either developed or updated?
What was the total amount of HMEP planning grant funds devoted to this
effort?
d. Did the LEPCs conduct exercises to support their emergency
plans? If so, how many exercises were conducted? Did any of these
exercises include shipper or carrier participation? What was the total
amount of HMEP planning grant funds devoted to emergency response
drills or exercises of all types?
e. What was the total amount of HMEP planning grant funds devoted
to other authorized activities by LEPCs (e.g., providing technical
staff in support of emergency response planning efforts)?
2. Other than to assist LEPCs as addressed in Question 1, of the
total amount of HMEP planning grant funds, what amount was used by the
grantee (state or tribal government) to improve emergency response
planning within the grantee's jurisdiction?
a. Did the grantee complete or update an assessment of commodity
flow patterns in its entire jurisdiction? What was the total amount of
HMEP planning grant funds devoted to this effort?
b. Did the grantee complete or update an assessment of emergency
response capabilities in its entire jurisdiction? What was the total
amount of HMEP planning grant funds devoted to this effort?
c. Did the grantee develop or improve an emergency plan for its
entire jurisdiction? What was the total amount
[[Page 65643]]
of HMEP planning grant funds devoted to this effort?
d. Did the grantee conduct exercises to support its emergency plan?
How many exercises were conducted? Did any of these exercises include
shipper or carrier participation? What was the total amount of HMEP
planning grant funds devoted to emergency response drills or exercises
of all types?
e. What was the total amount of HMEP planning grant funds devoted
to other authorized planning activities by the grantee (e.g., providing
technical staff in support of emergency response planning efforts)?
3. Based on the activities outlined above, how well has the HMEP
grants program met emergency response planning needs within your
jurisdiction? Does your current ability to provide planning enable you
to meet the needs you have identified? Do you have any recommendations
for additional activities or programs that could further enhance your
emergency response planning capabilities?
Training Grants
1. What was the total amount of HMEP training grant funds utilized
to assess training needs and provide training for emergency response
personnel in your jurisdiction?
a. Did you complete or update an assessment of the training needs
of the emergency response personnel in your jurisdiction? What was the
total amount of HMEP training grant funds devoted to this effort?
b. How many individuals were trained in whole or in part using HMEP
training grant funds? You should include separate totals for numbers of
fire, police, emergency medical services (EMS) or other personnel who
were trained and the type of training provided. (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 total amount of HMEP training
grant funds devoted to this effort?
c. 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 total amount of HMEP
training grant funds devoted to this effort?
d. Did you develop new training using HMEP training grant funds in
whole or in part, such as training in handling specific types of
incidents of specific types of materials? If so, briefly describe the
new programs. Did a commodity flow assessment influence the development
of new training programs? Was the program qualified using the HMEP
Curriculum Guidelines process? What was the total amount of HMEP
training grant funds devoted to this effort?
e. What was the total amount of HMEP planning grant funds devoted
to other authorized training activities (e.g., activities necessary to
monitor training, including examinations, critiques, and instructor
evaluations; management activities to increase the benefits,
proficiency, and rapid deployment of emergency responders)?
2. Do you have a system in place for measuring the effectiveness of
emergency response to hazardous materials incidents in your
jurisdiction? 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)?
3. Based on the activities outlined above, how well has the HMEP
grants program met emergency response training needs within your
jurisdiction? Does your current ability to provide training enable you
to meet the needs you have identified? Do you have any recommendations
for additional activities or programs that could further enhance the
effectiveness of emergency response to hazardous materials incidents in
your jurisdiction?
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:
Number of Respondents: 68.
Total Number of Responses: 68.
Total Annual Burden Hours: 5,428.
Frequency of collection: On occasion.
Issued in Washington, DC on November 15, 2007.
Edward T. Mazzullo,
Director, Office of Hazardous Materials Standards.
[FR Doc. E7-22689 Filed 11-20-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-60-P