Daniel Roe - Comments

BY ON-LINE POSTING ? December 20, 2007 (11:30 PM MST) Office of Management and Budget Attention: Desk Officer for PHMSA 725 17th Street, NW Washington, DC 20503 Reference: Docket No. PHMSA-2007-27181 (Notice No. 07-10) Information Collection Activities Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), DOT Notice and request for comments. These comments should be considered with my previous comments on this subject as well as the inputs provided to Ted Wilke at the National Association of SARA Title Three Program Officials (NASTTPO?s) Mid-Year Conference Meeting in November, 2007. 1. PHMSA?s proposed collection of information is NOT necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Department. RSPA and its successor PHMSA have clearly established one of the finest track records, (as attested to by GAO evaluations, grantee comments and national acclaim), for the proper execution of the Hazardous Materials Emergency Preparedness Grants program for both Planning and Training. The additional information being sought by PHMSA, over and above what is already collected, will have little practical utility and contribute minimally, if at all, to program enhancements. There?s an old expression that seems to clearly fit these proposed changes to PHMSA regulations that PHMSA?s leadership/management should heed: ?If it ain?t broke? don?t fix it!? If PHMSA believes something is ?broke? you have a long listing of grantees with whom to discuss the issue and work to resolve those issues. Dictating changes because of whatever pressures are being felt at PHMSA that will ultimately impair community safety by diverting valuable time needed to plan, train and exercise to completing questionably valuable paperwork isn?t a logical path to follow. It?s a dangerous path to follow. I suggest that PHMSA management stand back and take a deep breath and if you are compelled by Congress to provide additional information, then get the stakeholders together by whatever practical means necessary BEFORE publishing rules that are going to significantly and negatively impact on grassroots accomplishment of safety related missions. There is an apparent infatuation with numbers and metrics that doesn?t pass the common-sense tests at the grassroots levels. Planners and responders are doing their best to keep their communities safe. They know what they need and they therefore plan and train to meet those needs. They are supported in those efforts by their Local Emergency Planning Committees and State Emergency Response Commissions. That successful functionality has been in existence for two decades and while levels of activities vary throughout the nation, you?d be hard pressed to find a planner or a responder that isn?t exhaustively doing their level best to save lives, protect property, work problems, report accurately and ensure recovery to normalcy in minimum time. That?s what the HMEP funds support and the funds support it positively because of the logic in which the basic law was created that allowed and encouraged creative thinking and use of funds within clear guidelines, with minimal reporting. Again? ?if it ain?t broke? don?t fix it!? If you believe it to be broken, discuss that. PHMSA should be specific, not on a fishing expedition that will significantly burden tribes, states, and local jurisdictions. Does PHMSA have a system in place for measuring the effectiveness of emergency responses to hazardous materials incidents? What is it? Has PHMSA hosted workshops to discuss that issue? When? If not, why not? Why shift the burden to tribes, states and local jurisdictions rather than work to solve problems at the national level using the stakeholder and partnership processes that have proven so successful. How were the questions you arrived at derived? 2. The Department?s estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection is, in my opinion, way?way off base. Where were the stakeholders in the creation of these questions? Where were the grantees and their sub-grantees in this derivation? PHMSA?s sister agencies who have failed to involve stakeholders have paid the price of failure, time and time again, for not involving their stakeholders properly. In this instance, the key stakeholders are the ones you are looking to burden, namely: local, parish, county, tribal and state partners. How were they engaged in the promulgation of these proposed rules? How were TERCs, SERCs , LEPCs engaged? Were their daily burdens recognized and were they given ample time to study, evaluate and participate in providing inputs? Have you asked yourself, what?s the rush? Why only a 30 day period for this and why so close to the holidays? This whole process only started in July, 2007. Again, what?s the rush? And once again, before fixing something that isn?t broken, ensure you need to make these changes. If there are factions pushing for changes, and factions opposed to these changes, get them together and work on consensus. Let the true political rather than the dictatorial process work. Don?t rush it through a 30 day comment period. Take a deep breath and take your time to get it done right. After all, you?re looking to change nearly two decades of success. How sure is PHMSA that this will improve what is is already functioning in a sound manner? How can you be sure if the stakeholders didn?t assist you in coming up with your additional questions? You noted that the HMEP grant program was established over 15 years ago and has continued with few changes since its initial implementation. You cite what the funds can be used for and how the grant is funded. Sure seems that there?s an underlying concern and agitation that something should change. Why? There?s a continuum that is an accepted truth in community readiness, namely planning, training and exercising. It?s been that way for thousands of years and will continue to be that way for thousands more if we?re careful to preserve logic in how we conduct our affairs. Let PHMSA continue to lead the fold in accepting that continuum as a basic truth, knowing that State Emergency Response Commissions, Tribal Emergency Response Commissions, and Local Emergency Planning Committees, use HMEP funds to complete that entire cycle. Perhaps PHMSA needs assistance from the grassroots levels to understand that process. Come on down! 3. PHMSA should certainly bring the stakeholders together to ascertain the methods to enhance the quality, utility, clarity of information that is to be collected. If a survey is needed, PHMSA should use the grantees to help develop that survey so that the right information is gathered. PHMSA should host a key partner meeting that has a clear, participative agenda so that appropriate discussions can take place. What is it that PHMSA believes is wrong with the quality, utility and clarity of information gathered now? I would think that PHMSA must have something in mind in that arena if it?s looking to enhance those information qualifiers. 4. Once PHMSA, through the stakeholder process, minimizes the questions being asked to only essential elements of information and ensures that the change to process will not prove to be the straw that breaks the camel?s back, then?and only then, should the method of collection be further explored. At first blush, my suggestion would be reporting through a secure website into an online database managed by PHMSA would be the way to go?but that?s at first blush. In summary PHMSA should put some brakes on this train and re-approach the issue through key stakeholder sessions that involve interested parties that are pushing for change and those who do not see a need for the change before traveling down tracks that may cause derailment of a successful program. Respectfully submitted, Daniel Roe Mesa, AZ