[Federal Register: July 10, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 133)]
[Notices]
[Page 39780-39785]
[DOCID:fr10jy08-131]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

[Docket No. PHMSA-2007-27181 (Notice No. 08-6)]

Information Collection Activities

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

ACTION: Notice of information collection approval.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
approval and extension until March 28, 2011 for an information
collection request entitled ``Hazardous Materials Public Sector
Training and Planning Grants,'' under OMB Control No. 2137-0586. This
ICR was revised to implement a statutory provision authorizing PHMSA to
request information from states concerning fees related to the
transportation of hazardous materials. We are reserving these questions
for use in a pilot project we are currently developing. In addition,
this ICR was 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.
These questions are to be answered during the close-out procedures
conducted and submitted at the end of the application cycle.

DATES: The expiration date for this information collection is March 28,
2011.

ADDRESSES: Requests for a copy of an information collection should be
directed to 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,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

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,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
regulations (5 CFR 1320) implementing provisions of the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13) require that interested members
of the public and affected agencies have an opportunity to comment on
information collection and recordkeeping activities (see 5 CFR
1320.8(s)) and specify that no person is required to respond to an
information collection unless it displays a valid OMB control number.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, PHMSA has
received OMB approval for renewal of the following ICR:
    OMB Control Number: 2137-0586.
    Title: ``Hazardous Materials Public Sector Training and Planning
Grants.''
    Expiration Date: March 28, 2011.
    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
submitted to OMB for revision under OMB Control Number 2137-0586. This
collection is contained in 49 CFR Part 110, Hazardous Materials Public
Sector Training and Planning Grants. We are 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. We are reserving these questions
for use in a pilot project we are currently developing. 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. These questions are to be
answered during the close-out procedures conducted and submitted at the
end of the application cycle.

State and Tribal Hazardous Materials Fees

    Federal hazardous materials transportation law (Federal hazmat law;
49 U.S.C. 5101 et seq.) specifies that Hazardous Materials Emergency
Preparedness (HMEP) grant funds are to be allocated based on the needs
of states and Indian tribes for emergency response planning and
training, considering a number of factors including whether the state
or tribe imposes and collects a fee on the transportation of hazardous
materials and whether the fee is used only to carry out a purpose
related to the transportation of hazardous materials. 40 U.S.C.
5116(b)(4). Accordingly, the HMEP grant application procedures in Part
110 require applicants to submit a statement explaining whether the
applicant assesses and collects fees for the transportation of
hazardous materials and whether those fees are used solely to carry out
purposes related to the transportation of hazardous materials.
    Section 5125(f) of the Federal hazmat law permits a state,
political subdivision of a state, or Indian tribe to impose a fee
related to the transportation of hazardous materials only if the fee is
fair and used for a purpose related to transporting hazardous
materials, including enforcement and planning, developing, and
maintaining a capability for emergency response. In accordance with
section 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.

I. Background

    In response to our February 26, 2007 Notice [72 FR 8421] concerning
the three-year renewal of the OMB approval of the information
collection required of applicants for HMEP grants, we received one
comment from the Interested Parties for Hazardous Materials
Transportation urging us to require grant applicants to report on the
hazardous materials information fees they collect in accordance with
section 5125(f) of the Federal hazmat law. The commenter stated that
such information is important for both the agency and the regulated
community to determine if states are in compliance with applicable
provisions of the Federal hazmat law.
    We agreed that we should ask states and Indian tribes to provide
more detailed information about hazardous materials fees they collect
in order 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. Therefore, we published a Federal Register Notice on July 5,
2007 with a 60-day comment period soliciting comments on revisions to
the instructions for submitting an HMEP grant application to request
that applicants expand on the currently required statement explaining
whether the state or Indian tribe assesses and collects fees on the
transportation of hazardous materials and whether such fees are used
solely for purposes related to the transportation of hazardous
materials. In the 60-day notice, we indicated that, beginning with the
application for FY 2008 funds, applicants will be asked to respond to
an additional set of questions pertaining to state fees, specific
information regarding planning and training grants, and an overall
program evaluation in their performance reports.
    The comment period for the 60-day notice closed on September 4,
2007. PHMSA received comments from the following companies,
organizations, and individuals: The American Trucking Association
(ATA); Colorado Emergency Planning Commission; Kevin Crawford; Robert
E. Dopp; Delaware Emergency Management Agency; the Institute of Makers
of Explosives (IME); Lyle Milby; Timothy Gablehouse; Steven Goza;
Donald K. Hall; the National Tank Truck Carriers (NTTC); the Nuclear
Energy Institute (NEI); Oklahoma Hazardous Materials Emergency Response
Commission; James J. Plum; Daniel Roe; and the State of
Wisconsin[bs]Department of Military Affairs Wisconsin
Emergency Management.
    Commenters generally agree that additional information from
grantees will assist in PHMSA's evaluation of the emergency response
funding needs of states and Indian tribes, and will promote a more
effective use of HMEP grant funds. However, many commenters express
concern that

funding may be reduced or eliminated as a result of responses by the
applicants to the additional questions; the additional questions were
an excessive burden on applicants without a measurable benefit or a
specific use of the information; and the rationale and motivation of
the petitioner were questionable.
    In response to these comments, we published a Federal Register
Notice on November 21, 2007 [72 FR 65638] with a 30-day comment period
to address the concerns of the commenters. We also revised the more
burdensome of the proposed questions and provided an abbreviated
version of the questions in a less time-consuming and more user-
friendly format. In addition, we also recalculated the information
collection burden based on the revisions to the proposed questions. The
revised questions outlined in the November 21, 2007 notice were as
follows:
    1. Does your state or tribe assess a fee or fees in connection with
the transportation of hazardous materials? Yes or No
    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. 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?
    d. What is the total annual amount of the revenue collected for the
last fiscal year or 12-month accounting period?

Planning Grants

    1. Did you complete or update assessments of commodity flow
patterns in your jurisdiction? Yes or No. If so, how many? Please
describe in one or two sentences the results of each assessment
    2. Did you complete or update assessments of the emergency response
capabilities in your jurisdiction? Yes or No. If yes, what factors did
you consider to complete such assessments? How many assessments were
completed? Please describe in one or two sentences the results of those
assessments.
    3. Did you or local emergency planning committees develop or
improve emergency plans in your state? If so, how many plans were
either developed or updated? Briefly describe the outcome of this
effort.
    4. Did you or local emergency planning committees in your state
conduct emergency response drills or exercises in support of their
emergency plans? Yes or No. 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.
    5. How many Local Emergency Planning Committees (LEPCs) are located
in your jurisdiction? How many LEPCs were assisted using Hazardous
Materials Emergency Preparedness (HMEP) funds?

Training Grants

    1. Did you complete an assessment of the training needs of the
emergency response personnel in your jurisdiction? Yes or No. What
factors did you consider to complete the assessment? What was the
result of that assessment?
    2. Provide details concerning the number of individuals trained in
whole or in part using HMEP training grant funds on the following
chart:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Funded in part**            Funded fully
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  a. Fire...................................................                   ______                    ______
  b. Police.................................................                   ______                    ______
  c. Emergency Medical Services (EMS).......................                   ______                    ______
  d. Refresher..............................................                   ______                    ______
  e. Other*.................................................                   ______                    ______
    Total...................................................                   ______                    ______
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Please indicate the hazmat training level for the persons trained
in the above chart by the following training levels:

Awareness.....................................                   ______
Operations....................................                   ______
Technician....................................                   ______
Refresher.....................................                   ______
Incident Command System (ICS).................                   ______
Site Specialist...............................                   ______

    3. 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? Yes or No. If so, briefly
describe the new programs. Was the program qualified using the HMEP
Curriculum Guidelines process? Yes or No.
    4. Do you have a system in place for measuring the effectiveness of
emergency response to hazardous materials incidents in your
jurisdiction? Yes or No. 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. Given the amount of assistance available, using a scale of 1-5
(with 5 being excellent and 1 being poor), how well has the HMEP grant
program met your need for preparing hazmat emergency responders?
    2. Given projected increases, using a scale of 1-5 (with 5 being
excellent and 1 being poor), how well do you think the HMEP grant
program will meet your future needs?
    3. What areas of the HMEP grant program would you recommend for
enhancement?
    The comment period for the 30-Day Notice closed on December 21,
2007. PHMSA received comments from the following companies,
organizations, and individuals: The American Samoa Government; Cathy
Canty; Don Cary; Cleveland County Local Emergency Planning Committee;
Jack Cobb; Colorado Emergency Planning Commission; Eddy D. Cooke;
Montressa Jo Elder; Stephen T. Grayson; Glenn K. Grove; Senator James
M. Imhofe (R-Oklahoma); Monty Matlock; Lyle Milby; Greg Moser; Randall
J. McConnell; National Association of SARA Title III Program Officials
(NASTTPO); Pueblo Local Emergency Planning Committee; Daniel Roe; Keith
Shadden; Greg

Stasinos; LaRiea Thompson; Amanda Vargas; Pete Weaver; and Tim Zaremba.
    Many of the commenters share PHMSA's goal of more accurately
evaluating the effectiveness of the grant program in meeting emergency
response planning and training needs. However, most of the commenters
oppose the revisions and cite many of the same reasons enumerated in
response to the 60-day notice, i.e.; the additional questions are an
excessive burden on applicants without a measurable benefit or a
specific use of the information. Other commenters warn that excessive
burden generated by additional questions will have far-reaching
ramifications on the grantees. For instance, Tim Zaremba, coordinator
for the Navajo County, Arizona LEPC states that he ``strongly concurs
with the comments that seek to avoid increased burdens on grassroots
communities that are already doing our level best to meet existing
requirements and be successful in our activities,'' and that PHMSA
``should realize that any increase in information seeking will
ultimately filter down to where the data exists, namely at the local
level.'' In its comments in a letter dated February 27, 2008, NASTTPO,
an organization whose membership includes many HMEP grantees, indicates
that there is a shared ``goal of providing a measure of the success of
the program relative to the preparedness continuum.'' In the letter,
NASTTPO objects to the burden PHMSA's proposed questions would place on
grantees and suggests alternative questions which are less burdensome.
PHMSA reviewed the NASTTPO recommendation along with other comments
received to the docket, and while our objective of program
accountability does not change, we believe an approach that
incorporates comments and addresses concerns of all interested parties
is possible. Such an information collection package would reduce and
clarify the information collection requirements, change when
information needs to be reported, include a simplified method to report
accounting information, and incorporate information already provided by
grantees. We believe this will assist us in evaluating the
effectiveness of the grant program while reducing the burden on
grantees to collect and report the information. Therefore, we revised
the list of questions from the December 21, 2007, 30-day notice into
three sections, re-calculated the information collection, and provided
an alternative list of questions to OMB as an amendment to the
information collection submitted to OMB for review on December 4, 2007.
The amended information collection was subsequently approved by OMB
with an expiration date of March 28, 2011. The sections are identified
below along with an explanation of the relationship to questions and
comments in the docket.
     Part I--State or Tribe Assessment of Hazardous Materials
Transportation Fees. PHMSA reduced the information collected on
hazardous materials transportation fees to only those areas reflected
in the Federal hazardous materials transportation law, 49 U.S.C.
5125(f). This revision eliminates two questions: one pertains to the
agency that collects the fee; the other pertains to whether company
size was considered in the assessment. We intended this information be
collected at the end of the grant period as part of the close-out
report to alleviate the concerns of several commenters that grant
funding may be reduced or eliminated as a result of responses to this
information. However, we have decided to reserve these questions for
use in a pilot project we are currently developing. The pilot program
will collect information on hazardous materials fees from a small
number of states. The pilot approach will allow us to ``test'' the
questions with a limited number of states and establish a process that
might allow for full implementation of the questions at a later date.
     Part II--Reporting of Authorized Expenditures. To reduce
the burden on grantees and to ensure more consistent reporting of
expenditures, PHMSA developed a spreadsheet to be used to report total
amounts and percentages of HMEP grant funds used. The spreadsheet
provides a standardized format to assist grantees to report authorized
expenditures as specified in 49 CFR 110.40(a) through (b)(4), and was
derived from questions previously listed in the 30-day notice. The
authorized activities should total 100% of the grant funds used, and
should provide PHMSA with an appropriate level of accountability.
     Part III--Report of HMEP Grantee Accomplishments. Based on
comments and alternative questions submitted to the docket by NASTTPO,
PHMSA developed a list of questions to be used by grantees to report
the accomplishments and successes the HMEP grant program has achieved
through the year. These questions address both the planning and
training categories of the grant program. PHMSA believes these
questions will provide the information we are seeking, while posing
less of a burden on grantees. The questions are presented in a
narrative format for easier and more precise understanding. In
addition, to provide clarification and to further ease the burden on
grantees, we also provide examples of the types of information
requested.
    The questions in the information collection were approved by OMB
with an expiration date of March 28, 2011, and are as follows:

Part I--State or Tribe Assessment of Hazardous Material Transportation
Fees

    Please answer the questions as part of the grant close-out report.
    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 is the amount of the fee and the basis on which the fee is
assessed? Examples of the basis 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.
    b. 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?
    c. What is the total annual amount of the revenue collected for the
last fiscal year or 12-month accounting period?

Part II--Reporting of Authorized Expenditures

    Please complete the table on the funds spent on planning and
training grants. The totals should account for 100 percent of the funds
granted to a State, Territory, or Tribal government.

 Accounting of Hazardous Materials Emergency Preparedness (HMEP) Grant Funds Expended in the Reported Grant Year
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Expenditures     Percent of
        Section of 49 CFR                       Authorized activity                  (dollars)      Total Grant
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.   110.40(a).................                     Planning
Sec.   110.40(a)(1)..............  Provide total dollar amount expended to
                                    develop, improve, and implement emergency
                                    plans, as well as exercises which test the
                                    plan and enhancements to the plan to include
                                    hazard analysis & response procedures to
                                    hazmat transportation.
Sec.   110.40(a)(2)..............  Provide total dollar amount expended to
                                    assess flow patterns of hazardous materials
                                    within a state and between states.
Sec.   110.40(a)(3)..............  Provide total dollar amount expended to
                                    assess the need for regional hazardous
                                    materials emergency response teams.
Sec.   110.40(a)(4)..............  Provide total dollar amount expended to
                                    assess local response capabilities.
Sec.   110.40(a)(5)..............  Provide total dollar amount expended to
                                    conduct emergency response drills and
                                    exercises.
Sec.   110.40(a)(6)..............  Provide total dollar expended for the use of
                                    technical staff to support the planning
                                    effort.
Sec.   110.40(a)(7)..............  Provide total dollar amount expended for
                                    additional activities the Associate
                                    Administrator deems appropriate to implement
                                    the scope of work for the proposed project
                                    and approved in the grant.
                                   Provide the total dollar amount expended by    ..............  ..............
                                    grantees to administer the HMEP planning
                                    grant to include improvement to emergency
                                    response planning; update or complete
                                    assessments; conduct exercises; and other
                                    authorized planning activities by the
                                    grantee to include other authorized
                                    expenditures allowed under the law.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         SubTotal Planning Expenditures
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.   110.40(b).................                     Training
Sec.   110.40(b)(1)..............  Provide total dollar amount expended to
                                    assess the number of public sector employees
                                    who need proposed training in accordance
                                    with the local emergency response plan.
Sec.   110.40(b)(2)..............  Provide total dollar amount expended on
                                    delivery of preparedness and response
                                    training to include tuition, travel
                                    expenses, room & board.
Sec.   110.40(b)(3)..............  Provide total dollar amount expended for
                                    emergency response drills and exercises,
                                    course of study, tests and evaluations of
                                    emergency response plans.
Sec.   110.40(b)(4)..............  Provide total dollar amount expended for
                                    expenses associated with giving training and
                                    monitoring training to include, but not
                                    limited to examinations, critiques and
                                    instructor evaluations.
Sec.   110.40(b)(5)..............  Provide total dollar amount expended for
                                    staff to manage the training effort designed
                                    to result in increased benefits,
                                    proficiency, and rapid deployment of local
                                    and regional responders.
Sec.   110.40(b)(6)..............  Provide total dollar amount expended for
                                    additional activities the Associate
                                    Administrator deems appropriate to implement
                                    the scope of work for the proposed project
                                    and approved in the grant.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         SubTotal Training Expenditures
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Total Planning and Training Expenditures.....  ..............             100
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Part III--Report of Hazardous Materials Emergency Preparedness (HMEP)
Grant Accomplishments

    The questions below are to be used by grantees to report the
accomplishments and successes the HMEP grant program has achieved
through the year. These questions address both the planning and
training categories of the grant program. Please answer each question
to the best of your ability.

Questions Pertaining to Planning

    1. Provide the total number of Local Emergency Planning Committees
(LEPC's) and break out the total number of active and inactive LEPC's.
Provide the number of LEPCs that received funding and the amount
received by each.
    2. Provide the number of LEPCs that have identified or further
evaluated risks in their communities. Provide a brief description of
the methods used by the LEPCs to identify these risks, such as:
Community meetings; review of Tier 2 reports; commodity flow study;
written or windshield surveys; hazard analysis; and vulnerability
assessment as part of the emergency operations plan (EOP) process.
Provide the number of commodity flow studies and hazard risk analyses
accomplished.
    3. Provide the methods used to update the emergency plan such as:
LEPC meetings; types of infrastructure update information; point of
contact lists; location of vulnerable populations; updates of maps; and
response capabilities. Provide the number of LEPCs that have updated or
written their emergency plan in the past year to be consistent with the
changing conditions of the community and the identified risks.
    4. Provide the number of LEPCs that exercised their emergency
operations plan in the past year. Explain the type and total number of
exercises conducted, for example: Table top, real world simulation, or
multiple jurisdictional drills; the agencies involved; and the number
of people who participated. Provide information on whether the exercise
involved a fixed facility, a mode of transportation, or a combination
of both. If a mode of transportation was involved, indicate whether it
was rail, water, road, or air; and whether a hazardous material(s) was
used as part of the exercise scenario. If a hazardous material(s) was

used, indicate the type(s) of material exercised. How many total
exercises were accomplished?
    5. Were lessons learned from the exercise incorporated into
response planning and the community emergency plan?
    6. Provide the number of LEPC members who attend meetings,
conferences, or other opportunities for preparedness and response
education.
    7. Provide the number of LEPCs with the different types of
preparedness projects and outreach initiatives they conducted to
improve community awareness and safety.
    8. For those LEPCs that retained HMEP funding, describe the type of
projects that were funded and the cost associated with each along with
a description of the process used to award the project (risk analysis,
needs assessment, etc.).
    9. Provide the total number of hazardous materials response teams
located in each of the states/tribe/territory to include industry
teams.

Questions Pertaining to Training

    10. Did state grantees provide training directly? Did they go
through an outside contracted organization to provide training, or a
combination of both?
    11. If state grantees provided training, how many people (fire,
police, emergency medical services (EMS), other*) received hazmat
training in the past year in accordance with Occupational Safety and
Health Administration (OSHA) 1910.120; and to what level of training
did they receive: Awareness, Operation, Specialist, Technician and
refresher training of these levels. Was the training fully funded or
funded in part** by HMEP grant funds?
    12. Did people receive Incident Command System (ICS) or other types
of response related training? Examples of other type of training events
would be Transportation Community Awareness and Emergency Response
(TRANSCAER), regional or national hazmat training conferences etc.
    13. Were there classes offered other than those in accordance with
National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) or OSHA standards? If so,
how was the offering of the course determined, the number of people
trained, and the type of training conducted?
    14. For those states that provided funding to LEPCs for training,
provide the number of LEPCs to receive funding for training with the
amount received for each. Provide the number of people (fire, police,
EMS, other) in each level who received hazmat training in the past year
in accordance with OSHA 1910.120. Break down the number of people
trained in each hazmat level: Awareness, Operation, Specialist,
Technician, and annual refresher training by level in accordance with
OSHA 1910.120. Provide information on who provided the training, the
number trained for each, and the type of training delivered. Was the
training fully funded or funded in part** by HMEP grant funds?
    15. For those states that provided funding to LEPCs, were classes
offered other than those in accordance with NFPA or OSHA standards? If
so, how was the offering of the course determined, the number of people
trained, and the type of training conducted?
    16. Was the training provided based on a change in the emergency
plan or lessons learned through exercises? If so, explain.
    \*\``Other'' may include Public Works, Emergency Operations Center
(EOC), emergency support functions, liaison officer, safety officer
personnel, etc.
    \**\If HMEP funds are used in any way, it counts as in part (e.g.,
books, prerequisite training, training equipment, etc.).

II. Implementation of Additional Questions

    PHMSA acknowledges that the revision of the list of questions from
the December 21, 2007, 30-day notice into three sections as outlined
above may continue to represent a source of concern to grantees already
faced with limited resources. We base this belief on comments received
by PHMSA in response to both the 60-day and 30-day notice. Therefore,
in a further effort to minimize the burden on grantees and to also meet
our goal to evaluate the effectiveness of the program, we are including
only the questions from Part II, ``Reporting of Authorized
Expenditures,'' and Part III, ``Reporting of Hazardous Materials
Emergency Preparedness (HMEP) Grant Accomplishments,'' in the 2008 HMEP
application kit. These questions are to be answered during the close-
out procedures conducted and submitted at the end of the application
cycle. We are reserving the questions from Part I ``State or Tribe
Assessment of Hazardous Materials Transportation Fees'' for use in a
pilot project that we are currently developing. The pilot program will
collect information on hazardous materials fees from a small number of
states. The pilot approach will allow us to ``test'' the questions with
a limited number of states and establish a process that might allow for
full implementation of the questions at a later date.

III. Information Collection Burden for the HMEP Grant Program

    The total revised information collection burden for the HMEP grant
program follows:
    Title: Hazardous Materials Public Sector Training and Planning
Grants.
    OMB Control Number: 2137-0586.
    Type of Request: Revision of a currently approved information
collection. Abstract: Part 110 of 49 CFR sets forth the procedures for
reimbursable grants for public sector planning and training in support
of the emergency planning and training efforts of states, Indian tribes
and local communities to manage hazardous materials emergencies,
particularly those involving transportation. Sections in this part
address information collection and recordkeeping with regard to
applying for grants, monitoring expenditures, and reporting and
requesting modifications.
    Affected Public: State and local governments, Indian tribes.
    Recordkeeping:

Estimated Number of Respondents: 68.
Estimated Number of Responses: 68.

    Estimated Annual Burden Hours: 5,290.
    Frequency of Collection: On occasion.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on July 3, 2008.
Edward T. Mazzullo,
Director, Office of Hazardous Materials Standards.
[FR Doc. E8-15653 Filed 7-9-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-60-P