FMCSA Publishes 30-day ICR for HAZMAT Routing

Today the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) published a 30-day information collection request (ICR) in the Federal Register (79 FR 9034-9035) supporting the requirement (49 USC §5112) that States identify designated/restricted routes and restrictions or limitations affecting how motor carriers may transport certain hazardous materials on their highways.

Previous Public Comment

ICR’s always include provisions for public comment on the collection request, but rarely are such comments submitted. The 60-day ICR notice on this collection did draw one comment (.PDF Download) from the American Trucking Association (ATA). The ATA comment addresses three issues:

• ATA objection to permissive wording for the submission of State routing data;

• Change in reporting frequency (adds ‘within 60-days of making a change) requirement from MAP-21; and

• Requirement for FMCSA to publish annual update to hazmat routing lists in Federal Register.

FMCSA acknowledges receipt of the ATA comment and notes that it will consider the comment. It would have been more appropriate for it to address the issues raised (it only specifically mentions the second issue described above in this notice) in this ICR notice so that concerned parties could comment on the changes if it was deemed appropriate.

For example, while the abstract for the currently approved ICR clearly states that “are required to provide information to the FMCSA” described in this ICR, this notice continues to state that FMCSA has “the authority to request that each State and Indian tribe” provide that information.

While that may be question of semantics that has no real effect on this ICR, the question of addressing the 60-day update requirement certainly could affect the burden estimates in this notice. I suspect that this was not addressed because FMCSA has not yet made the regulatory changes that support this legislative change in requirements, but this notice should have specifically noted that.

The final ATA comment is not really pertinent to this ICR notice and that is acknowledged to be the case in the actual language in the ATA comment. Still, FMCSA should have acknowledged the existence of that specific comment and noted that it was not pertinent to the ICR under consideration.

Public Comment Solicited

As is usual and required, FMCSA is soliciting comments on this 30-day ICR notice. The notice states that comments should be sent directly to the OMB’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (oira_submission@omb.eop.gov). To ensure proper consideration of those comments, they should be submitted by March 17^th, 2014. A copy of this blog post is being submitted as a comment.

CFATS Knowledge Center Update – 02-03-14

Today the folks at DHS Infrastructure Security Compliance Division (ISCD) updated their CFATS Knowledge Center web site. They added a brief note in the ‘Latest News’ section of the page about today’s publication in the Federal Register of the 30-day ICR notice for the CFATS Personnel Surety Program (PSP). That note included a link to the Federal Register notice.

In addition, the ‘Document’ section of the Knowledge Center now includes a link to a Fact Sheet concerning the 30-day ICR notice. That fact sheet provides a brief description of the CFATS requirements for a PSP and the options facilities will have to complete the Terrorist Screen Database vetting of their personnel and visitors.

Still in the ‘Document’ section are links to:

• The 60-day ICR fact sheet;

• The 60-day ICR Federal Register notice;

• The PSP Privacy Impact Assessment;

• The PSP Notice of Proposed Rulemaking;

• The PSP Notice of Privacy Act System of Records; and

• The PSP Response to Comments

PHMSA Revises Forms in 30-Day ICR for Pipeline Reports

On Wednesday the Pipeline and Hazardous Material Safety Administration (PHMSA) published their 30-day information collection (ICR) notice in the Federal Register (78 FR 71033-71036) for planned revisions to the various pipeline incident and MFF reporting forms. The notice includes responses to three sets of industry comments, including further changes to the reporting formats covered under the ICR.

The 60-day notice was published back in June and covered 6 separate incident and MFF reports required to be submitted by various pipeline operators. PHMSA received comments on that ICR notice from three organizations:

• Norton McMurray Manufacturing Company (NORMAC);

• Interstate Natural Gas Association of America (INGAA); and

• Pipeline Safety Trust (PST)

In response to these comments PHMSA is making the following additional changes to the forms:

(F 7100.1) PHMSA has revised the note in Part G1 of the instructions to clarify that non-corrosion bonnet, packing, or other gasket failures could be reported under “Incorrect Operations” or under “Equipment Failure.”

(F 7100.1 and F 7100.2) PHMSA has modified the instructions for Incorrect Operations and Equipment Failure in response to NORMAC's proposal for language clarification.

(F 7100.2) In a report titled, “PIPELINE SAFETY Better Data and Guidance Needed to Improve Pipeline Operator Incident Response” (GAO-13-168) the Government Accountability Office recommends that PHMSA improve the reliability of incident response data. PHMSA concurs with the GAO recommendation and has proposed this change to collect more meaningful data from which to calculate operator response time. PHMSA will calculate response time as “arrival on-site” minus “failure awareness.”

(F 7100.2) PHMSA has modified the instructions to accept onshore reports without a valid value for County/Parish and will ensure the database is appropriately configured.

(F 7100.2-1) PHMSA has modified the instructions for Part C so that all gas transmission operators are required to submit volume transported data. 

(F 7100.2-1) PHMSA is making a number of changes to the instructions for Parts Q and R as suggested by INGAA.

(F 7100.2-1) PHMSA is modifying the instructions to clarify the effective date for the form.

(F 7100.2-1) PHMSA has modified the “General Instructions” of Part Q to clarify that supplemental reports to change the record status are optional.

(F 7100.2-1) PHMSA has expanded some details in Parts H thru R to explain the consistency between the requirements.

(F 7100.2-1) PHMSA has revised the instructions in Part M to clarify that only Third Party damages are to be reported under the heading “Third Party Damage/Mechanical Damage”.

Revised copies of the reports and instructions can be downloaded here (LNG Incident Report Form) and here (MFF Report Form).

PHMSA is soliciting comments on the revised forms and the revised information collection request. Comments may be submitted directly to OMB (oira_submissions@omb.eop.gov). Comments should be received by OIRA by December 27^th, 2013.

PHMSA Pipeline Accident Report ICR 30-day Notice

Today the Pipeline and Hazardous Material Safety Administration (PHMSA) published a 30-day information collection request (ICR) notice in the Federal Register (78 FR 55775-55776). The notice includes a response to the one comment PHMSA received from the American Petroleum Institute to the 60-day notice for proposed changes to the PHMSA hazardous liquid pipeline accident reporting program.

API Comment – PHMSA Response

API listed four objections to the proposed changes in to the reporting program. They suggested the following changes:

• That “facility” be replaced with “system” in the instructions for Volume Spilled and Volume Recovered;

• That a new option is needed when a NRC Report was not submitted and proposes that “NRC notification not required at time of release” be added as an option; and

• That changes to both the instructions and form to make clear that the information will be available to the public.

PHMSA adopted the first recommendation and did not take any actions on the other three.

The fourth API comment was an objection “to the instructions regarding the use of the phrase ‘when the operator became aware of the accident’ to describe the earliest date and time an operator identifies a pipeline failure”. PHMSA was not persuaded to make any changes to that wording.

Public Participation

PHMSA is soliciting public comments on this ICR and related changes to the accident reporting program. Responses should be made directly to the Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB) Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA). Comments may be submitted via email (OIRA_Submission@omb.eop.gov). Comments need to be submitted by October 11^th, 2013.

NPPD Publishes 30-Day ICR for PCII Officers Questionnaire

The DHS National Protection and Programs Directorate’s Infrastructure Information Collection Division (IICD) published a 60-Day information collection request (ICR) notice in Monday’s Federal Register (78 FR 29375-29376; available on-line today) supporting a questionnaire targeted at State and local Protected Critical Infrastructure Information (PCII) Officers. The questionnaire would help the Department “to gather information from PCII Officers that can be used to assess their programs, their compliance with PCII rules and requirements, and the specific needs of their accredited programs”.

The Importance of PCII Programs

The Department posted a 60-day ICR notice in the Federal Register back in November, 2012. In a post about that notice I expressed some concerns about the Department’s just now getting around to assessing these State and local programs with which DHS shares selected PCII information. Since the promise of limited disclosure is the only incentive that DHS can provide critical infrastructure organizations to share security information with DHS, any questions about the efficacy of State and local PCII programs will act as a disincentive to information sharing.

The new Cybersecurity Framework under development will depend on PCII programs to protect the information about critical infrastructure computer systems and networks provided to the government. This means that the PCII protections are going to have to be a critical part of the Framework. Again, this makes assessment of State and local PCII programs all that more important.

Earlier Comments

The current notice states that “DHS received no comments”. A review of the Docket (DHS-2012-0046) at www.Regulations.gov shows that there was a comment submitted on November 28^th. Terry Frank from Shell Oil Company noted that it would be difficult to assess the accuracy of the collection effort since a copy of the questionnaire is not made available. This is a point I also made in my earlier blog post. This is particularly aggravating since NPPD is required to include the questionnaire when it files this ICR with OMB. It could easily be placed in the current docket.

Mr. Frank also notes a discrepancy in the description of information disclosure protections provided by the PCII program. Since that comment is not really germane to the ICR in question, I suppose that DHS was justified in ignoring that portion of the comment. Still the comment should have been noted in this ICR notice.

Public Comments

NPPD is soliciting public comments on this 30-day ICR notice. Comments may be filed via the Federal eRulemaking Portal (www.Regulations.gov; Docket # DHS-2012-0046). The notice does not contain the customary ‘submit comments by’ information, but this is a 30-day notice so comments should be filed within 30 days of the publishing of the notice on Monday; so June 18^th, 2013.

NOTE: With the failure to acknowledge the comment filed on the 60-day notice and the failure to include a comment closure date in this notice, perhaps NPPD should consider re-submitting this 30-day ICR notice in proper form.

TSA Publishes 30-Day ICR Notice for Pipeline CSR

Today the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) published a 30-day information collection request (ICR) notice in the Federal Register (78 FR 26057-26058) in support of their corporate security review (CSR) program for pipeline security. This is a follow-up to the 60-day notice published in February of this year.

Apparently there were no public comments submitted on the 60-day notice and there are no additional changes reported in the ICR. Public comments are being solicited and should be sent directly to OMB (oira_submission@omb.eop.gov) by June 3, 2013.

TSA Pipeline Corporate Security Review 30-Day ICR

Yesterday the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) published a 30-day information collection request (ICR) notice in the Federal Register for the proposed Pipeline Corporate Security Review (PCSR) program. This would be a follow-up to their 60-day notice that I discussed back in August. TSA proposes to conduct “likely 12” (75 FR 73117) of these PCSRs each year at selected facilities from up to 2,200 potential locations.

Public comments on this ICR are being solicited and should be submitted by December 29th, 2010. Comments should be submitted the Office of Management and Budget’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. Those comment submissions should be addressed to Desk Officer, Department of Homeland Security/TSA, and sent via electronic mail to oira_submission@omb.eop.gov or faxed to (202) 395-6974.

ICR Description Revised

The information provided in this ICR notice is substantially less complete than that provided in the earlier 60-day notice (75 FR 42086-87). Since the reference to the earlier notice does not mention if comments were received, it is not clear if this constitutes a change in the ICR because of comments received on the original notice or if this is just due to a condensation of the description. To be fair the current notice lists the description as an ‘Abstract’ rather than a full listing of the ‘Purpose and Description of the Data Collection’.

There are, however, two apparent substantive differences in the descriptions of the information collection processes. The first difference involves the scope of the information collection. In the 60-day notice the on-site visit is specifically described as a two-phase visit. The first portion would be conducted at the corporate headquarters with follow-ups at “one or two of the owners/operators assets to further assess the implementation of the owner's/operator's security plan” (75 FR 42086). There is no such reference to assessing security plan implementation in the current notice.

To my mind the most important difference in the two ICR notices is that the current notice contains no mention of TSA’s responsibility to protect the information collected. The original submission contains the following language:

“TSA assures respondents that the portion of their responses that is deemed Sensitive Security Information (SSI) will be protected in accordance with procedures meeting the transmission, handling, and storage requirements of SSI set forth in 49 CFR parts 15 and 1520.” (75 FR 42087)

One would like to assume that this lack of SSI language is merely a bureaucratic oversight, but if I were a pipeline operator I would prefer to have this clearly documented since there is no specific regulatory mention of such protections, there being no current pipeline security regulations.