30 Day Notice

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 187 / Friday, September 26, 2014 / Notices
stage manufacturers of vehicles built in
two or more stages, and vehicle alterers,
will need to comply with the
certification labeling requirements of
part 567.
Estimate of the Total Annual
Reporting and Recordkeeping Burden of
the Collection of Information: 542 hours
for supplying required VIN-deciphering
information to NHTSA under part 565;
60,000 hours for meeting the labeling
requirements of part 567.
Estimate of the Total Annual Costs of
the Collection of Information: Assuming
that the letter and table that is used to
submit part 565 information is
completed by company officers or
employees compensated at an average
rate of $30.00 per hour, the agency
estimates that $16,260 will be expended
on an annual basis by all manufacturers
required to submit that information.
Additionally, assuming that it will take
an average of .005 hours to affix a
certification label to each of the
approximately 12,000,000 vehicles
produced each year for sale in the
United States, at an average cost of
$20.00 per hour, the agency estimates
that roughly $1,200,000 will be
expended by all manufacturers to
comply with the labeling requirements
of part 567.
Comments are invited on: 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; the accuracy of
the Department’s estimate of the burden
of the proposed information collection;
ways to enhance the quality, utility and
clarity of the information to be
collected; and ways to minimize the
burden of the collection of information
on respondents, including the use of
automated collection techniques or
other forms of information technology.
Nancy Lumman Lewis,
Associate Administrator for Enforcement.
[FR Doc. 2014–22933 Filed 9–25–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials
Safety Administration

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

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

Information Collection Activities
Pipeline and Hazardous
Materials Safety Administration
(PHMSA).
ACTION: Notice and request for
comments.
AGENCY:

VerDate Sep<11>2014

19:14 Sep 25, 2014

Jkt 232001

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.

SUMMARY:

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

DATES:

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 OIRA_
[email protected].
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.

ADDRESSES:

PO 00000

Frm 00163

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

58031

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 transportationrelated 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

E:\FR\FM\26SEN1.SGM

26SEN1

58032

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 187 / Friday, September 26, 2014 / Notices

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
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.

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

B. MAP–21 and Enhanced Grant PostAward 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
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.
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.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

19:14 Sep 25, 2014

Jkt 232001

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 subgrantee?
iii. What is the amount expended by the
close of the reporting period for each subgrantee?
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?

PO 00000

Frm 00164

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

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?
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?
3 Outputs are measures of a program’s activities;
outcomes are changes that result from the activities.

E:\FR\FM\26SEN1.SGM

26SEN1

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 187 / Friday, September 26, 2014 / Notices
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.

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 Arizona’s State
Emergency Response
Commission.
International Association of
Fire Chiefs (IAFC).

PHMSA–
2013–0241–
0002

California Governor’s Office
of Emergency Services
(California).
National Association of
SARA Title III Program Officials (NASTTPO).
Institute of Makers of Explosives (IME).
Oklahoma Hazardous Materials Emergency Response
Commission (Oklahoma).

PHMSA–
2013–0241–
0003
PHMSA–
2013–0241–
0004
PHMSA–
2013–0241–
0005
PHMSA–
2013–0241–
0006
PHMSA–
2013–0241–
0007

9. Hazmat Transportation Fees

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

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)

VerDate Sep<11>2014

19:14 Sep 25, 2014

Jkt 232001

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

PO 00000

Frm 00165

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

58033

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

E:\FR\FM\26SEN1.SGM

26SEN1

58034

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 187 / Friday, September 26, 2014 / Notices

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

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.
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
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 30Day 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
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.
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.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

19:14 Sep 25, 2014

Jkt 232001

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 × 0.17 hour per
respondent = 11 hours) to 28 hours (62
respondents × .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 30Day 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

PO 00000

Frm 00166

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

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 11⁄2 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 2hour 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 30Day 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

E:\FR\FM\26SEN1.SGM

26SEN1

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 187 / Friday, September 26, 2014 / Notices
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:

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

‘‘[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 overburdening 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

VerDate Sep<11>2014

19:14 Sep 25, 2014

Jkt 232001

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 × .33 hour per
respondent = 20 hours) to 62 hours (62
respondents × 1 hour per respondents =
62 hours).

PO 00000

Frm 00167

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

58035

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 30Day 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.’’

E:\FR\FM\26SEN1.SGM

26SEN1

58036

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 187 / Friday, September 26, 2014 / Notices

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.’’

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

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

VerDate Sep<11>2014

19:14 Sep 25, 2014

Jkt 232001

process for non-profit organizations and to
non-profit employee organizations which
demonstrate expertise in hazardous materials
response planning and training.’’

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 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 trainthe-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 hazmatrelated 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:

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 60Day Notice. For these reasons, we
cannot ask the question of HMEP
grantees.
IAFC further suggests 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 subrecipients. 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

PO 00000

Frm 00168

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

‘‘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.

E:\FR\FM\26SEN1.SGM

26SEN1

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 187 / Friday, September 26, 2014 / Notices

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

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 60Day 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 60Day 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

VerDate Sep<11>2014

19:14 Sep 25, 2014

Jkt 232001

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 60Day 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 60Day 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

PO 00000

Frm 00169

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

58037

‘‘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

E:\FR\FM\26SEN1.SGM

26SEN1

58038

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 187 / Friday, September 26, 2014 / Notices

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:
‘‘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
6 See

NTSB P–93–17.
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.
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.’’

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

7 See

VerDate Sep<11>2014

19:14 Sep 25, 2014

Jkt 232001

responders (including schedules); and
methods and schedules for exercising
emergency response plans.
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.’’
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 subgrant budget will remain under the
Other’’ category. Detail of sub-grantee
expenditures would be required in the
10 See

29 CFR 1910.1200.
11 California pointed out that in the 60-Day Notice
there was a typographical error. PHMSA intended
to state ‘‘personnel’’ not ‘‘personal.’’

PO 00000

Frm 00170

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

proposed midyear and final report
forms.
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

E:\FR\FM\26SEN1.SGM

26SEN1

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 187 / Friday, September 26, 2014 / Notices
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,

VerDate Sep<11>2014

19:14 Sep 25, 2014

Jkt 232001

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

PO 00000

Frm 00171

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

58039

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.

E:\FR\FM\26SEN1.SGM

26SEN1

58040

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 187 / Friday, September 26, 2014 / Notices

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, costsharing, 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):

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

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

VerDate Sep<11>2014

19:14 Sep 25, 2014

Jkt 232001

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
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?
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.

PO 00000

Frm 00172

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

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.

E:\FR\FM\26SEN1.SGM

26SEN1

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 187 / Friday, September 26, 2014 / Notices
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:
General Grantee
and Sub-grantee
information:
Information on
LEPCs:
Assessment of Potential Chemical
Threats:
Assessment of Response Capabilities for Accidents/Incidents.
HMEP Planning
and Training
Grant Reporting.
HMEP Planning
Goals and Objectives.
HMEP Training
Goals and Objectives.
HMEP Training
and Planning
Assessment.
Hazmat Transportation Fees.
Grant Applicant is
NIMS Compliant/
Grant Application Is Reviewed
By SERC.
HMEP Grant Program Administration.

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Total Information
Collection Burden:

62 respondents × 1 hr.

= 62 hours.

62 respondents × 1 hr.
62 respondents × 1 hr.

= 62 hours.

62 respond= 31 hours.
ents × 0.5 hr.

62 respond= 31 hours.
ents × 0.5 hr.
62 respond= 31 hours.
ents × 0.5 hr.
62 respond= 20.46
ents × 0.33
hours.
hr.
62 respond= 31 hours.
ents × 0.5 hr.
62 respond= 27.9 hours.
ents × 0.45
hr.
62 respond= 4.96 hours.
ents × .08 hr.

[FR Doc. 2014–22903 Filed 9–25–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–60–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Submission for OMB Review;
Comment Request
September 23, 2014.

The Department of the Treasury will
submit the following information
collection requests to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for
review and clearance in accordance
with the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995, Public Law 104–13, on or after the
date of publication of this notice.
DATES: Comments should be received on
or before October 27, 2014 to be assured
of consideration.
ADDRESSES: Send comments regarding
the burden estimate, or any other aspect
of the information collection, including
suggestions for reducing the burden, to
(1) Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs, Office of Management and
Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for
Treasury, New Executive Office
Building, Room 10235, Washington, DC
20503, or email at OIRA_Submission@
OMB.EOP.gov and (2) Treasury PRA
Clearance Officer, 1750 Pennsylvania
Ave. NW., Suite 8140, Washington, DC
20220, or email at [email protected].
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Copies of the submission(s) may be
obtained by calling (202) 927–5331,
email at [email protected], or the entire
information collection request may be
found at www.reginfo.gov.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS)

62 respondents × 0.17
hr.

= 10.54
hours.

62 respondents.

373.86 hours.

Increase in Estimated Annual
Burden Hours:
Increase in Estimated Annual
Burden Costs:
Frequency of collection: Up to
four (4) times.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

= 62 hours.

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.

20:29 Sep 25, 2014

373.86.
$3,738.60.
a year.

Jkt 232001

OMB Number: 1545–0731.
Type of Review: Extension without
change of a currently approved
collection.
Title: LR–262–82—T.D. 8600 (final)
Definition of an S Corporation.
Abstract: The regulations provide the
procedures and the statements to be
filed by certain individuals for making
the election under section 1361(d)(2).
The statements required to be filed
would be used to verify that taxpayers
are complying with requirements
imposed by Congress under subchapter
S.
Affected Public: Private Sector:
Businesses or other for-profits.
Estimated Annual Burden Hours:
1,005.

PO 00000

Frm 00173

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

58041

OMB Number: 1545–1672.
Type of Review: Extension without
change of a currently approved
collection.
Title: T.D. 9047—Certain Transfers of
Property to Regulated Investment
Companies (RICs) and Real Estate
Investment Trusts (REITs).
Abstract: Regulations apply to certain
transactions or events that result in a
Regulated Investment Company (RIC) or
a Real Estate Investment Trust (REIT)
owning property that has a basis
determined by reference to a C
corporation’s basis in the property;
affect RICs, REITs, and C corporations
and clarify the tax treatment of transfers
of C corporation property to a RIC or
REIT.
Affected Public: Private Sector:
Businesses or other for-profits.
Estimated Annual Burden Hours: 70.
OMB Number: 1545–1780.
Type of Review: Extension without
change of a currently approved
collection.
Title: TD 9472 (Final)—Notice
Requirements for Certain Pension Plan
Amendments Significantly Reducing the
Rate of Future Benefit Accrual.
Abstract: Regulations provide
guidance relating to the application of
the section 204(h) notice requirements
to a pension plan amendment that is
permitted to reduce benefits accrued
before the plan amendment’s applicable
amendment date and reflect certain
amendments made to the section 204(h)
notice requirements by the Pension
Protection Act of 2006.
Affected Public: Private Sector:
Businesses or other for-profits.
Estimated Annual Burden Hours:
40,000.
OMB Number: 1545–2191.
Type of Review: Extension without
change of a currently approved
collection.
Title: TD 9641—Suspension or
Reduction of Safe Harbor Contributions
(REG–115699–09).
Abstract: This rule relates to certain
cash or deferred arrangements under
section 401(k) and matching
contributions and employee
contributions under section 401(m). The
collection of information relates to the
new supplemental notice requirements
in the case of a reduction or suspension
of safe harbor non-elective or matching
contributions and the requirement to
include additional information in the
notice for certain plans that would be
permitted to reduce or suspend safe
harbor non-elective or matching
contributions for a plan year even if the
employer had not experienced a
business hardship.

E:\FR\FM\26SEN1.SGM

26SEN1