Agency Information Collection Activities: Notice of Request for Approval of a New Information Collection, 17758-17760 [2016-07169]
Download as PDF
17758
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2016 / Notices
a relocated threshold.3 Removal of a
dislocated threshold is not considered a
runway extension.4 The definition of
major runway extension that appears in
Order 5050.4B, ¶9.l will be used in
interpreting Section 47106(c)(1)(A)(ii).
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
(4) Communities in Which the Project Is
Located
The term community is not defined in
the statute. In the enabling legislation,
this provision was entitled ‘‘Public
Participation With Respect to Airport
Projects.’’ The term ‘‘community’’ will
be defined as a jurisdictional authority,
that is, a political subdivision of a state,
such as a town, township, city, or
county. Defining community as a
jurisdictional authority is consistent
with the context of Section 47106(c).
For example, in subsection (A)(i) the
statute speaks of ‘‘objectives of any
planning that the community has
carried out.’’ Typically, only political
subdivisions of a state, such as those
described above, would have planning
authority. Similarly, in the FAA’s
experience, only a jurisdictional
authority or political subdivision would
be considered for voting representation
on the airport’s governing authority. It is
only in the absence of such voting
representation of a jurisdictional
authority or political subdivision that
the statute provides the opportunity to
petition the Secretary.
Defining community as a
jurisdictional authority or political
subdivision is also consistent with the
definition of community in Order
5050.4B, ¶1203(b)(1).
Accordingly, only a political
subdivision of a state that enjoys general
jurisdiction, or a Tribal government
meets the definition of community in
this context. Political subdivisions of a
state that have a specific, substantive
authority, such as water districts or
school districts, do not adequately
represent the interests of the community
at large. They are not required to
balance the interests of the whole
community on a wide range of issues.
Rather, they seek to promote their
specific substantive interest.
Additionally, water districts or school
districts would not normally be invited
to sit on an airport management board.
Thus, only a political subdivision of a
state which enjoys general jurisdiction
is a community entitled to file a petition
under Section 47106(c)(1)(A)(ii).
Finally, under the statute, a
community is only eligible to petition
3 A relocated threshold leaves the pavement
usable only for taxiing.
4 Pavement beyond a dislocated threshold is
available for takeoff.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:06 Mar 29, 2016
Jkt 238001
under Section 47106(c)(1)(A)(ii) if the
project is located in the community. If
land is disturbed in the community,
then the project is considered to be
located in that community. The courts
have also provided instruction on when
a project is located in a community. In
City of Bridgeton v. FAA, 212 F. 3d 448
(8th Cir. 2000), the court determined
that a community in which there was no
construction and no significant noise
impact could not challenge the failure to
notify it that it could petition the
Secretary. Thus, outside the
construction context, a project may be
located in a community only if the
project will have a significant impact on
the community. For example, where a
project will cause a significant noise
impact on a community, the project is
located in that community. If the project
does not create a significant impact in
the community, the community will
have no right to petition the Secretary.
E. Other Considerations
There are currently ten states that
participate in the FAA’s State Block
Grant Program (SBGP). Under the
program, the State agency (usually the
aviation division of the state
Department of Transportation) assumes
responsibility for administering AIP
grants for non-primary airports
(including several categories of AIP
funds). See 49 U.S.C. Section 47128. As
part of the responsibility, the state
assumes various responsibilities for the
FAA including reviewing and approving
proposed changes to the Airport Layout
Plan (ALP) and compliance with the
National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA).
The FAA interprets 49 U.S.C. Section
47106(c)(1)(A)(ii) as not being generally
applicable to a project approved and
administered as part of a state block
grant. The plain language of this
statutory provision states that this
Section is triggered when a proponent
submits a project grant application to
the FAA. In the case of the SBGP, no
such request is made because most of
the funds are given to the states as a
block (except for AIP Discretionary
funds), and the state assumes
responsibility for administering those
funds. Participants in the SBGP are
required to engage communities
according to FAA guidance and to
circulate the draft EA if warranted.
However, in cases where the project
may involve a request for AIP
Discretionary funding, or other
extraordinary circumstances, the FAA
may determine that a community
meeting the requirements set forth
herein may have the right to petition the
Secretary in connection with an AIP
PO 00000
Frm 00096
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
grant. Petitions involving a SBGP
project must include facts describing the
extraordinary circumstances that they
believe justify the Secretary entertaining
the petition.
F. Agency Response
The FAA will provide a written
response to a petition to the Secretary.
The FAA may respond by outlining the
issues raised in the petition and
providing its responses either within the
environmental ROD, or it may elect to
respond in a separate document.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 47106(c)(1)(A)(ii), 14
CFR part 1.
Issued in Washington, DC, on March 22,
2016.
Elliott Black,
Director, Office of Airport Planning and
Programming APP–001.
[FR Doc. 2016–07165 Filed 3–29–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Highway Administration
[Docket No. FHWA–2016–0010]
Agency Information Collection
Activities: Notice of Request for
Approval of a New Information
Collection
AGENCY:
Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of request for approval of
a new information collection.
SUMMARY:
The FHWA has forwarded the
information collection request described
in this notice to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for
approval of a new information
collection. We published a Federal
Register Notice with a 60-day public
comment period on this information
collection on June 23, 2015. We are
required to publish this notice in the
Federal Register by the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995.
DATES: Please submit comments by
April 29, 2016.
ADDRESSES: You may send comments
within 30 days to the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs,
Office of Management and Budget, 725
17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503,
Attention DOT Desk Officer. You are
asked to comment on any aspect of this
information collection, including: (1)
Whether the proposed collection is
necessary for the FHWA’s performance;
(2) the accuracy of the estimated
burden; (3) ways for the FHWA to
enhance the quality, usefulness, and
clarity of the collected information; and
E:\FR\FM\30MRN1.SGM
30MRN1
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2016 / Notices
(4) ways that the burden could be
minimized, including the use of
electronic technology, without reducing
the quality of the collected information.
All comments should include the
Docket No. FHWA–2016–0010.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Michael Nesbitt (michael.nesbitt@
dot.gov), 202–366–1179, Office of
Infrastructure, Federal Highway
Administration, Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
Office hours are from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Title:
National Transportation Performance
Management (TPM) Implementation
Review, TPM Toolbox, and TPM Stateof-Practice Questionnaires.
Type of request: New information
collection requirement.
Background: Moving The Moving
Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century
(MAP–21) Act and the subsequent
Fixing America’s Surface Transportation
Act (FAST Act) transformed the
Federal-aid highway program by
establishing new requirements for
transportation performance management
to ensure the most efficient investment
of Federal transportation funds.
Transportation performance
management increases the
accountability and transparency of the
Federal-aid highway program and
provides for a framework to support
improved investment decision making
through a focus on performance
outcomes for key national transportation
goals. State transportation agencies
(STAs) will be expected to use the
information and data generated as a
result of the new regulations to make
better informed transportation planning
and programming decisions. The new
performance aspects of the Federal-aid
program will allow FHWA to better
communicate a national performance
story and to more reliably assess the
impacts of Federal funding investments.
Under the ‘‘National Transportation
Performance Management (TPM)
Implementation Review Survey, TPM
State-of-Practice Questionnaires, and
TPM Toolbox’’ information collection
request (ICR), the FHWA will collect
information on the current state of the
practice, data, methods, and systems
used by State, metropolitan, regional,
local, and/or tribal transportation
entities to support their TPM processes
in accordance with 23 U.S.C. 119, 134–
135, and 148–150, as amended by MAP–
21 and the FAST Act. This information
will also be used to develop and deliver
existing and future Federal Highway
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:06 Mar 29, 2016
Jkt 238001
Programs through successful
partnerships, value-added stewardship,
and risk-based oversight. Underpinning
this effort will be a robust focus on
improving FHWA and its partners’
capacity to implement performance
provisions. The information collected
from these activities will translate into
having a better skilled workforce,
effective supporting systems, and
clearly articulated programs that are
optimally positioned and equipped to
deliver the FHWA’s mission. In general,
the components of the ‘‘National TPM
Implementation Review Survey, TPM
State-of-Practice Questionnaires, and
TPM Toolbox’’ will involve questions
related to:
1. TPM related implementation
efforts, programs, and activities,
2. Needs for TPM guidance and policy
concerning MAP–21 and FAST
provisions;
3. TPM capacity building needs;
4. Effectiveness implementing
performance based planning and
programming and TPM processes.
The most consequential activity
covered by this ICR is the ‘‘National
TPM Implementation Review Survey,’’
which is scheduled to be administered
in 2016 and again several years later.
Overview
In the summer of 2015, the Federal
Highway Administration (FHWA)
published the National TPM
Implementation Review Survey and
Information Collection Request, Docket
FHWA–2015–0013. In that 60-day
Federal Register Notice (FRN), FHWA
stated it would administer the first
National TPM Implementation Review
Survey in 2016 to establish a baseline
and assess:
1. FHWA and its partners’ progress
implementing MAP–21 performance
provisions and related TPM best
practices; and
2. The effectiveness of performancebased planning and programming
processes and transportation
performance management.
In that FRN, FHWA also stated that a
second National TPM Implementation
Review Survey will be conducted
several years after the first to assess
FHWA and its partners’ progress in
addressing any gaps or issues identified
during the first survey. The findings
from the first review survey will be used
in a pair of statutory reports to Congress
due in 2017 on the effectiveness of
performance-based planning,
programming processes, and
transportation performance management
(23 U.S.C. 119, 134(l)(2), and 135(h)(2)).
The findings from the second survey
will be used in a subsequent follow-up
PO 00000
Frm 00097
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
17759
report. It is important to note that this
is not a compliance review. The overall
focus of the National TPM
Implementation Review Survey is on
the TPM and performance-based
planning processes and practices used
by STAs and MPOs, not the
performance outcomes of those
processes.
FHWA received 20 comment letters
and over 24 unique comments. While a
number of concerns were expressed by
the commenters, they generally
supported the information collection
request outlined in the FRN. Regarding
the National TPM Implementation
Review Survey, stakeholders were most
concerned about the estimated burden
of effort and time for administration of
the survey. Based on those specific
comments to the docket, it became clear
that a majority of responding States,
MPOs, and their respective associations
want FHWA to: (1) ‘‘coordinate with
stakeholders when developing’’ the
design of any TPM surveys,
questionnaires, or related instruments;
(2) Provide more information on the
type of questions to be asked as part of
the National TPM Implementation
Review Survey and any State-of-Practice
Questionnaires; (3) Minimize the
burden of effort to the greatest extent
practicable; (4) Delay administration of
National TPM Implementation Review
Survey until after the final rulemakings;
and (5) Share data from the National
TPM Implementation Review Survey
with States, MPOs, and their respective
associations to support the development
of federally and state funded TPM
capacity building efforts.
To address the first three concerns
listed in the preceding paragraph,
stakeholders can provide input on the
design of National TPM Implementation
Review Survey by:
1. Submitting comments on the draft
survey questions and survey design
report to the docket.
2. Participating in one of two webinar
listening sessions on the design of the
National TPM Implementation Review
Survey. The date and time of these
webinars will be advertised at
www.fhwa.dot.gov/TPM. To receive an
email notification announcing the date
and time of these webinar listening
sessions, please visit www.fhwa.dot.gov/
TPM and subscribe to email updates.
To address the concern on the timing
of the National TPM Implementation
Review Survey, FHWA decided to delay
administering the review until after
publication of the Statewide and
Nonmetropolitan Transportation
Planning; Metropolitan Transportation
Planning Final Rulemaking.
E:\FR\FM\30MRN1.SGM
30MRN1
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
17760
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2016 / Notices
In addition to the more formal
National TPM Implementation Review
Survey, FHWA will conduct informal
voluntary TPM State-of-Practice
Questionnaires related to ongoing TPM
policy and guidance, technical
assistance, and capacity needs. To
address concerns expressed by
stakeholders regarding the burden of
effort and administration of these
additional questionnaires, FHWA is
proposing to sequence the National
TPM Implementation Review Survey
and other State-of-the-Practice
Questionnaires on a biennial cycle.
Under this biennial cycle, the first
National TPM Implementation Review
Survey would be administered in 2016
and the follow-up in 2020. The smaller,
less formal State-of-the-Practice
Questionnaires would be administered
in 2018 and 2022. The State-of-thePractice Questionnaires are essential to
helping FHWA coordinate with its
many stakeholders to reduce duplicative
survey efforts as the industry works to
implement and understand the TPM
practices.
Under this sequencing, the National
TPM Implementation Review Survey
will continue to serve the original
purpose of allowing FHWA to evaluate
the effectiveness of efforts to implement
TPM and PBPP. The State-of-thePractice Questionnaires will enable
FHWA and its stakeholders to
coordinate the collection of information
necessary to advance the state-of-thepractice and further TPM capacity
building efforts. This approach limits
the number of TPM related surveys to 4
over a number of years:
• National TPM Implementation
Review Survey (Baseline): 2016.
• State-of-the-Practice
Questionnaires: 2018.
• National TPM Implementation
Review Survey (Follow-up): 2020.
• State-of-the-Practice
Questionnaires: 2022.
After each survey or questionnaire,
FHWA and its stakeholders will explore
how to better align the information
collection requests with yet-to-be
determined performance management
reporting processes. The information
will be collected from State,
metropolitan, regional, local, and/or
tribal transportation agencies via
internet-based questionnaires or web
applications and will be used to help
FHWA and its partner organizations do
the following:
• Strategically plan to meet ever
growing demand for TPM technical
assistance needs;
• Develop and refine TPM policy and
guidance based on stakeholder
feedback;
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:06 Mar 29, 2016
Jkt 238001
• Channel resources to meet capacity
development and training needs; and
• Identify and prioritize TPM
research needs.
Lastly, as part of FHWA’s ongoing
technical assistance efforts, a TPM
Toolbox is being created to help
FHWA’s partners self-assess and
benchmark their TPM implementation
progress, capabilities, and gaps. The
TPM Toolbox will also help FHWA
streamline the integration and
administration of all the efforts
described above. To maximize the
effectiveness and efficiency of the TPM
Toolbox, FHWA will collect business
contact and organizational demographic
(size of organization, location, etc.)
information along with the responses
submitted as part of the TPM Toolbox’s
self-assessment applications.
Respondents: The 975 respondents
estimate is based on soliciting input
from 52 STA, 409 MPOS, and a
sampling of other State and local
transportation entities. In most cases,
only STAs and MPOs will be surveyed.
Frequency: Agencies will be solicited
to provide information via a survey 1
time every two years. Additionally,
transportation agencies may submit
information more frequently by using
the TPM Toolbox’s self-assessment tool.
Estimated Average Burden per
Response: The estimated average annual
burden hours is up to 20 hours per
response during a year with a survey/
questionnaire request.
Estimated Total Annual Burden
Hours: The estimated total annual
burden hours for all respondents is
estimated to be 19,500 burden hours
(975 respondents × 20 burden hours) per
year with survey/questionnaire requests.
Professional Staff Time During a Survey
Year
• 20 hours/respondent × 975
respondents × 1 questionnaire during
a survey year = 19,500 hours
Clerical Staff Time During a Survey
Year
• 2 hours/respondent × 975 respondents
× 1 questionnaire during a survey year
= 1,950 hours
The aggregated associated salary cost
to all respondents (975) during a survey
year is estimated to be $1,032,213 based
on an average salary of $38 per hour
(approximately $79,000 per year) for
professional staff and $18 per hour
(approximately $37,000 per year) for
clerical staff. Disaggregated, the total
average annual cost per respondent
during a survey year is estimated to be
$1,058.68. The burden hours and costs
are illustrated below.
PO 00000
Frm 00098
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Professional Staff Cost During a Survey
Year
• All respondents: 19,500 hours × $38
per hour = $741,000
Æ Per respondent: (20 × $38 = $760)
Clerical Staff Cost During a Survey Year
• All respondents: 1,950 hours × $18
per hour = $35,100
Æ Per respondent (2 hours × $18 per
hour = $36)
Total Annual Cost During a Survey Year
• Subtotal Direct Salaries (Professional
+ Clerical) $776,100
• Overhead/fringe benefits at 33%:
$256,113
• Total annual respondents cost during
survey year: $1,032,213
Æ Total average annual cost per
respondent during survey year:
$1,058.68
Public Comments Invited: You are
asked to comment on any aspect of this
information collection, including: (1)
Whether the proposed collection of
information is necessary for the U.S.
DOT’s performance, including whether
the information will have practical
utility; (2) the accuracy of the U.S.
DOT’s estimate of the burden of the
proposed information collection; (3)
ways to enhance the quality, usefulness,
and clarity of the collected information;
and (4) ways that the burden could be
minimized, including the use of
electronic technology, without reducing
the quality of the collected information.
The agency will summarize and/or
include your comments in the request
for OMB’s clearance of this information
collection.
Authority: The Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended;
and 49 CFR 1.48.
Issued On: March 25, 2016.
Michael Howell,
Information Collection Officer.
[FR Doc. 2016–07169 Filed 3–29–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–22–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA–2015–0083, Notice 2]
Decision That Nonconforming Model
Year 2014 Mercedes-Benz SLK Class
Passenger Cars Are Eligible for
Importation
AGENCY:
National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Grant of petition.
E:\FR\FM\30MRN1.SGM
30MRN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 61 (Wednesday, March 30, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 17758-17760]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-07169]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Highway Administration
[Docket No. FHWA-2016-0010]
Agency Information Collection Activities: Notice of Request for
Approval of a New Information Collection
AGENCY: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of request for approval of a new information collection.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The FHWA has forwarded the information collection request
described in this notice to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
for approval of a new information collection. We published a Federal
Register Notice with a 60-day public comment period on this information
collection on June 23, 2015. We are required to publish this notice in
the Federal Register by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
DATES: Please submit comments by April 29, 2016.
ADDRESSES: You may send comments within 30 days to the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget,
725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503, Attention DOT Desk Officer.
You are asked to comment on any aspect of this information collection,
including: (1) Whether the proposed collection is necessary for the
FHWA's performance; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden; (3) ways
for the FHWA to enhance the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the
collected information; and
[[Page 17759]]
(4) ways that the burden could be minimized, including the use of
electronic technology, without reducing the quality of the collected
information. All comments should include the Docket No. FHWA-2016-0010.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Nesbitt
(michael.nesbitt@dot.gov), 202-366-1179, Office of Infrastructure,
Federal Highway Administration, Department of Transportation, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. Office hours are from 8 a.m.
to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Title: National Transportation Performance
Management (TPM) Implementation Review, TPM Toolbox, and TPM State-of-
Practice Questionnaires.
Type of request: New information collection requirement.
Background: Moving The Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st
Century (MAP-21) Act and the subsequent Fixing America's Surface
Transportation Act (FAST Act) transformed the Federal-aid highway
program by establishing new requirements for transportation performance
management to ensure the most efficient investment of Federal
transportation funds. Transportation performance management increases
the accountability and transparency of the Federal-aid highway program
and provides for a framework to support improved investment decision
making through a focus on performance outcomes for key national
transportation goals. State transportation agencies (STAs) will be
expected to use the information and data generated as a result of the
new regulations to make better informed transportation planning and
programming decisions. The new performance aspects of the Federal-aid
program will allow FHWA to better communicate a national performance
story and to more reliably assess the impacts of Federal funding
investments.
Under the ``National Transportation Performance Management (TPM)
Implementation Review Survey, TPM State-of-Practice Questionnaires, and
TPM Toolbox'' information collection request (ICR), the FHWA will
collect information on the current state of the practice, data,
methods, and systems used by State, metropolitan, regional, local, and/
or tribal transportation entities to support their TPM processes in
accordance with 23 U.S.C. 119, 134-135, and 148-150, as amended by MAP-
21 and the FAST Act. This information will also be used to develop and
deliver existing and future Federal Highway Programs through successful
partnerships, value-added stewardship, and risk-based oversight.
Underpinning this effort will be a robust focus on improving FHWA and
its partners' capacity to implement performance provisions. The
information collected from these activities will translate into having
a better skilled workforce, effective supporting systems, and clearly
articulated programs that are optimally positioned and equipped to
deliver the FHWA's mission. In general, the components of the
``National TPM Implementation Review Survey, TPM State-of-Practice
Questionnaires, and TPM Toolbox'' will involve questions related to:
1. TPM related implementation efforts, programs, and activities,
2. Needs for TPM guidance and policy concerning MAP-21 and FAST
provisions;
3. TPM capacity building needs;
4. Effectiveness implementing performance based planning and
programming and TPM processes.
The most consequential activity covered by this ICR is the
``National TPM Implementation Review Survey,'' which is scheduled to be
administered in 2016 and again several years later.
Overview
In the summer of 2015, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
published the National TPM Implementation Review Survey and Information
Collection Request, Docket FHWA-2015-0013. In that 60-day Federal
Register Notice (FRN), FHWA stated it would administer the first
National TPM Implementation Review Survey in 2016 to establish a
baseline and assess:
1. FHWA and its partners' progress implementing MAP-21 performance
provisions and related TPM best practices; and
2. The effectiveness of performance-based planning and programming
processes and transportation performance management.
In that FRN, FHWA also stated that a second National TPM
Implementation Review Survey will be conducted several years after the
first to assess FHWA and its partners' progress in addressing any gaps
or issues identified during the first survey. The findings from the
first review survey will be used in a pair of statutory reports to
Congress due in 2017 on the effectiveness of performance-based
planning, programming processes, and transportation performance
management (23 U.S.C. 119, 134(l)(2), and 135(h)(2)). The findings from
the second survey will be used in a subsequent follow-up report. It is
important to note that this is not a compliance review. The overall
focus of the National TPM Implementation Review Survey is on the TPM
and performance-based planning processes and practices used by STAs and
MPOs, not the performance outcomes of those processes.
FHWA received 20 comment letters and over 24 unique comments. While
a number of concerns were expressed by the commenters, they generally
supported the information collection request outlined in the FRN.
Regarding the National TPM Implementation Review Survey, stakeholders
were most concerned about the estimated burden of effort and time for
administration of the survey. Based on those specific comments to the
docket, it became clear that a majority of responding States, MPOs, and
their respective associations want FHWA to: (1) ``coordinate with
stakeholders when developing'' the design of any TPM surveys,
questionnaires, or related instruments; (2) Provide more information on
the type of questions to be asked as part of the National TPM
Implementation Review Survey and any State-of-Practice Questionnaires;
(3) Minimize the burden of effort to the greatest extent practicable;
(4) Delay administration of National TPM Implementation Review Survey
until after the final rulemakings; and (5) Share data from the National
TPM Implementation Review Survey with States, MPOs, and their
respective associations to support the development of federally and
state funded TPM capacity building efforts.
To address the first three concerns listed in the preceding
paragraph, stakeholders can provide input on the design of National TPM
Implementation Review Survey by:
1. Submitting comments on the draft survey questions and survey
design report to the docket.
2. Participating in one of two webinar listening sessions on the
design of the National TPM Implementation Review Survey. The date and
time of these webinars will be advertised at www.fhwa.dot.gov/TPM. To
receive an email notification announcing the date and time of these
webinar listening sessions, please visit www.fhwa.dot.gov/TPM and
subscribe to email updates.
To address the concern on the timing of the National TPM
Implementation Review Survey, FHWA decided to delay administering the
review until after publication of the Statewide and Nonmetropolitan
Transportation Planning; Metropolitan Transportation Planning Final
Rulemaking.
[[Page 17760]]
In addition to the more formal National TPM Implementation Review
Survey, FHWA will conduct informal voluntary TPM State-of-Practice
Questionnaires related to ongoing TPM policy and guidance, technical
assistance, and capacity needs. To address concerns expressed by
stakeholders regarding the burden of effort and administration of these
additional questionnaires, FHWA is proposing to sequence the National
TPM Implementation Review Survey and other State-of-the-Practice
Questionnaires on a biennial cycle. Under this biennial cycle, the
first National TPM Implementation Review Survey would be administered
in 2016 and the follow-up in 2020. The smaller, less formal State-of-
the-Practice Questionnaires would be administered in 2018 and 2022. The
State-of-the-Practice Questionnaires are essential to helping FHWA
coordinate with its many stakeholders to reduce duplicative survey
efforts as the industry works to implement and understand the TPM
practices.
Under this sequencing, the National TPM Implementation Review
Survey will continue to serve the original purpose of allowing FHWA to
evaluate the effectiveness of efforts to implement TPM and PBPP. The
State-of-the-Practice Questionnaires will enable FHWA and its
stakeholders to coordinate the collection of information necessary to
advance the state-of-the-practice and further TPM capacity building
efforts. This approach limits the number of TPM related surveys to 4
over a number of years:
National TPM Implementation Review Survey (Baseline):
2016.
State-of-the-Practice Questionnaires: 2018.
National TPM Implementation Review Survey (Follow-up):
2020.
State-of-the-Practice Questionnaires: 2022.
After each survey or questionnaire, FHWA and its stakeholders will
explore how to better align the information collection requests with
yet-to-be determined performance management reporting processes. The
information will be collected from State, metropolitan, regional,
local, and/or tribal transportation agencies via internet-based
questionnaires or web applications and will be used to help FHWA and
its partner organizations do the following:
Strategically plan to meet ever growing demand for TPM
technical assistance needs;
Develop and refine TPM policy and guidance based on
stakeholder feedback;
Channel resources to meet capacity development and
training needs; and
Identify and prioritize TPM research needs.
Lastly, as part of FHWA's ongoing technical assistance efforts, a
TPM Toolbox is being created to help FHWA's partners self-assess and
benchmark their TPM implementation progress, capabilities, and gaps.
The TPM Toolbox will also help FHWA streamline the integration and
administration of all the efforts described above. To maximize the
effectiveness and efficiency of the TPM Toolbox, FHWA will collect
business contact and organizational demographic (size of organization,
location, etc.) information along with the responses submitted as part
of the TPM Toolbox's self-assessment applications.
Respondents: The 975 respondents estimate is based on soliciting
input from 52 STA, 409 MPOS, and a sampling of other State and local
transportation entities. In most cases, only STAs and MPOs will be
surveyed.
Frequency: Agencies will be solicited to provide information via a
survey 1 time every two years. Additionally, transportation agencies
may submit information more frequently by using the TPM Toolbox's self-
assessment tool.
Estimated Average Burden per Response: The estimated average annual
burden hours is up to 20 hours per response during a year with a
survey/questionnaire request.
Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: The estimated total annual
burden hours for all respondents is estimated to be 19,500 burden hours
(975 respondents x 20 burden hours) per year with survey/questionnaire
requests.
Professional Staff Time During a Survey Year
20 hours/respondent x 975 respondents x 1 questionnaire during
a survey year = 19,500 hours
Clerical Staff Time During a Survey Year
2 hours/respondent x 975 respondents x 1 questionnaire during
a survey year = 1,950 hours
The aggregated associated salary cost to all respondents (975)
during a survey year is estimated to be $1,032,213 based on an average
salary of $38 per hour (approximately $79,000 per year) for
professional staff and $18 per hour (approximately $37,000 per year)
for clerical staff. Disaggregated, the total average annual cost per
respondent during a survey year is estimated to be $1,058.68. The
burden hours and costs are illustrated below.
Professional Staff Cost During a Survey Year
All respondents: 19,500 hours x $38 per hour = $741,000
[cir] Per respondent: (20 x $38 = $760)
Clerical Staff Cost During a Survey Year
All respondents: 1,950 hours x $18 per hour = $35,100
[cir] Per respondent (2 hours x $18 per hour = $36)
Total Annual Cost During a Survey Year
Subtotal Direct Salaries (Professional + Clerical) $776,100
Overhead/fringe benefits at 33%: $256,113
Total annual respondents cost during survey year: $1,032,213
[cir] Total average annual cost per respondent during survey year:
$1,058.68
Public Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspect of
this information collection, including: (1) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for the U.S. DOT's performance,
including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the
accuracy of the U.S. DOT's estimate of the burden of the proposed
information collection; (3) ways to enhance the quality, usefulness,
and clarity of the collected information; and (4) ways that the burden
could be minimized, including the use of electronic technology, without
reducing the quality of the collected information. The agency will
summarize and/or include your comments in the request for OMB's
clearance of this information collection.
Authority: The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C.
Chapter 35, as amended; and 49 CFR 1.48.
Issued On: March 25, 2016.
Michael Howell,
Information Collection Officer.
[FR Doc. 2016-07169 Filed 3-29-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-22-P