Steve Fischer PHMSA/Office of Pipeline Safety US Department of Transportation (202) 366-6855

1. Steve Fischer PHMSA/Office of Pipeline Safety US Department of Transportation (202) 366-6855 steve.fischer@dot.gov Technical Assistance Grants to CommunitiesPipeline Safety Trust ConferenceNew OrleansNovember 20, 2008

2. Presentation Overview • Origin of the Technical Assistance Grant (TAG) • TAG – Requirements in the Law • History • What is a TAG? • Definitions • TAG Criteria • Demonstration Grants • Federal Register Notice • TAG Appropriations • Summary

3. Origin of the Technical Assistance Grant (TAG) • First authorized in the Pipeline Safety Improvement Act of 2002 (Pub. L. 107-355, codified at 49 U.S.C. 60130) • Authorized in 49 U.S.C. 60130 and section 5 of the Pipeline Inspection, Protection, Enforcement, and Safety (PIPES) Act of 2006

4. TAG – Requirements in the Law • The amount of any grant may not exceed $50,000 for a single grant recipient. • Funds authorized for these grants may not be derived from user fees. • Section 5 of the PIPES Act requires the first three Technical Assistance Grants to be demonstration grants in amounts not exceeding $25,000 each.

5. TAG – Requirements in the Law • Competitive procedures - Beginning in 2005, PHMSA has used the Federal government-wide, web-based system Grants.gov for posting and processing all new grants programs. • PHMSA plans to use a committee of stakeholder representatives to assist in reviewing and evaluating applications under the TAG selection criteria. • Required to develop criteria • PHMSA worked closely with the Pipeline Safety Trust in developing and finalizing the TAG criteria.

6. TAG – Requirements in the Law • Each recipient of a grant under Section 5 must ensure that: • 1. The technical findings made possible by the grants are made available to the relevant operators • 2. Open communication is maintained between the grant recipients, local operators, local communities and other interested parties. • Funds may not be used for lobbying or in direct support of litigation.

7. History • Prohibited from using user fees to fund TAG • No appropriations • Competing initiatives delayed the development of the TAG criteria • Didn’t want to inflate community expectations on the availability of grants

8. What is a TAG? • DOT vs. EPA • Grants to local communities and organizations for technical assistance relating to pipeline safety issues. • Grants would allow communities and groups of individuals (not including for-profit entities) to obtain funding for technical assistance in the form of engineering or other scientific analysis of pipeline safety issues and help promote public participation in official proceedings.

9. Definitions • Communitiesare defined as cities, towns, villages, counties, parishes, townships, and similar governmental subdivisions, or consortiums of such subdivisions. • A nongovernmental group of individuals is eligible for a grant under the TAG program if its members are affected or potentially affected individuals who are, or are willing to become, incorporated as a non-profit organization in the state where they are located.

10. TAG Criteria • The extent to which the Applicant’s project scope is focused on areas where a pipeline failure could pose a significant risk to people or to unusually sensitive environmental areas; • The extent to which the proposed project scope demonstrates an understanding of the specific concern the Applicant wishes to address, as well as the range of risks affected pipelines pose to the affected geographic area and the risks the community poses to the pipelines; • The extent to which the proposal demonstrates the Applicant’s experience with and commitment to open communication with affected operators and to partnerships with other key members of the community;

11. TAG Criteria • The extent to which the Applicant’s project is designed to improve performance and safety over time in areas such as engineering, damage prevention, land use, public education, emergency response, and community awareness; • The extent to which the Applicant’s project plan establishes clear goals, objectives, milestones, and estimates of project costs; • The extent to which the Applicant has a plan for evaluating and disseminating results; and • The extent to which the Applicant’s project scope provides the potential for learning or technology transfer to other groups and communities.

12. Demonstration Grants • The Pipelines and Informed Planning Alliance (PIPA) project offers an excellent opportunity to pilot test the TAG program in the context of an ongoing, previously-authorized community information project. • Pilot communities to test draft recommended practices developed by the three PIPA task teams • Protecting Communities, Protecting Pipelines and Communications • Award three $25,000 grants from general revenue • PHMSA has worked closely with the PIPA Steering Committee and has identified communities interested in participating in the demonstration grants phase of the TAG program.

13. Federal Register Notice • Federal Register Notice published Thursday, November 6, 2008 • Error in the summary of the recent FR Notice – states the TAG is from section 2(e) of the PIPES Act and it should read section 5. • http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2008/pdf/E8-26506.pdf

14. TAG Appropriations • Continuing Resolution through March 2009 • Senate appropriations Committee has strong support in FY 2009 budget; House has yet to act • Senate markup includes $1,000,000 for TAG • Waiting beyond demonstration pilot for signed budget to proceed

15. Summary • PHMSA and PST have worked together to develop and finalize the TAG criteria. • PHMSA has published the TAG criteria in a Federal Register Notice dated Nov. 6, 2008. • Grants.gov and a stakeholder review committee will provide the competitive procedures necessary for TAG. • PHMSA has worked with the PIPA Steering Committee to identify communities for the TAG demonstration grants. • PHMSA is waiting to see if there are TAG appropriations in the final FY 2009 signed budget.

16. Thank YouSteve Fischer (202) 366-6855steve.fischer@dot.gov http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2008/pdf/E8-26506.pdfQuestions?