Request for Approval of a New Information Collection, 7545-7549 [2018-03515]

Agencies

• National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
• DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 35 (Wednesday, February 21, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 7545-7549]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-03515]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2017-0096]


Request for Approval of a New Information Collection

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: Before a Federal agency can collect certain information from 
the public, it must receive approval from the Office of Management and 
Budget (OMB). In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 
this notice announces that the Information Collection Request (ICR) 
abstracted below is being forwarded to the OMB for review and comment. 
A Federal Register Notice with a 60-day comment period soliciting 
comments on the following information collection was published on 
November 27, 2017.

DATES: Written comments should be submitted by March 23, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Send comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory 
Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street NW, 
Washington, DC 20503, Attention: NHTSA Desk Officer.

[[Page 7546]]


FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For programmatic issues, contact 
Barbara Sauers, Regional Operations and Program Delivery, NRO-011, 
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U.S. Department of 
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590; 
Telephone: 202-366-0144. For legal issues and background information, 
contact Roland (R.T.) Baumann III, Office of the Chief Counsel, NCC-
300, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U.S. Department of 
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590; 
Telephone: 202-366-1834.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 
before an agency submits a proposed collection of information to OMB 
for approval, it must first publish a document in the Federal Register 
providing a 60-day comment period and otherwise consult with members of 
the public and affected agencies concerning each proposed collection of 
information. OMB has promulgated regulations describing what must be 
included in such a document. Under OMB's regulation (at 5 CFR 
1320.8(d)), an agency must ask for public comment on the following:
    (i) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for 
the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including 
whether the information will have practical utility;
    (ii) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the 
proposed collection of information, including the validity of the 
methodology and assumptions used;
    (iii) How to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the 
information to be collected;
    (iv) How to minimize the burden of the collection of information on 
those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, 
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or 
other forms of information technology, e.g. permitting electronic 
submission of responses.
    In compliance with these requirements, NHTSA sought public comment 
on the following proposed collection of information for which the 
agency is seeking approval from OMB:
    OMB Control Number: Not assigned.
    Title: State Highway Safety Grant Programs.
    Form Numbers: N/A (Highway Safety Plan, Annual Report, Assessment).
    Type of Review: New Collection.
    Requested Expiration Date of Approval: Three years from the 
approval date.
    Abstract: In response to the 60-day notice, the following groups 
submitted comments to the public docket on www.regulations.gov: 
Governors Highway Safety Association (GHSA) and a joint submission by 
the Departments of Transportation of Idaho, Montana, North Dakota, 
South Dakota and Wyoming (5-State DOTs). Both groups offered comments 
on State obligations related to the grant application and assessment 
requirements under the collection of information. These comments 
included examples of burden hours and costs associated with meeting the 
requirements. These comments are addressed in the agency's response 
below.
    The Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act (FAST), Public Law 
114-94, authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 
(NHTSA) to issue highway safety grants to States under Chapter 4 of 
Title 23, U.S.C. Specifically, these grant programs include the Highway 
Safety Program grants (23 U.S.C. 402 or Section 402), the National 
Priority Safety Program grants (23 U.S.C. 405 or Section 405) and a 
separate grant on racial profiling data collection contained in a 
previous authorization that was revised and restored under the FAST Act 
(Pub. L. 109-59, Sec. 1906 or Section 1906, as amended by Sec. 4011, 
Pub. L. 114-94).
    For all of these grants, as directed in statute, NHTSA uses a 
consolidated application process that relies on the Highway Safety Plan 
(HSP) States submit under the Section 402 program as a single 
application. The information required to be submitted for these grants 
includes the HSP, consisting of information on the highway safety 
planning process, performance report, performance plan, problem 
identification, highway safety countermeasure strategies, planned 
activities and funding amounts, certifications and assurances, and 
application materials that cover Section 405 grants and the 
reauthorized Section 1906 grant.\1\ States also must submit an annual 
report evaluating their progress in achieving performance targets. In 
addition, as part of the statutory criteria for Section 405 grants 
covering the areas of occupant protection, traffic safety information 
system improvements and impaired driving countermeasures, States may be 
required to receive assessments of their State programs in order to 
receive a grant. States must provide information and respond to 
questions as part of the assessment process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Section 405 grants cover the following: Occupant Protection 
Grants; State Traffic Safety Information System Improvements Grants; 
Impaired Driving Countermeasures Grants (including Alcohol-Ignition 
Interlock Grants and 24-7 Sobriety Program Grants); Distracted 
Driving Grants; Motorcyclist Safety Grants; State Graduated Driver 
Licensing Incentive Grants; and Nonmotorized Safety Grants. Section 
1906 is a separate racial profiling data collection grant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Consistent with the statute, NHTSA recently issued a Final Rule (83 
FR 3466, Jan. 25, 2018) that creates uniform procedures for States to 
apply for grant funds. These procedures specify the information that is 
required to be submitted to receive a grant and the type of information 
required to verify performance under the grants. Under these efforts, 
NHTSA has taken actions to streamline the required application 
procedures, including the expanded use of an electronic submission 
process identified as the Grants Management Solutions Suite (GMSS). 
This system will replace the current grants management tracking system 
and allow States to apply for and receive grants electronically. 
Implementation is scheduled to occur after several participating States 
have completed system usability testing, and NHTSA has reviewed and 
considered any feedback provided. With the application requirements set 
as part of the issuance of the Final Rule, this process addresses the 
burden estimates covering hours and costs associated with meeting the 
established application requirements. Separately, it addresses the 
burden estimates covering the assessment process required under three 
of the individual grant programs.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Under occupant protection grants, one criterion that a State 
with a lower belt use rate may use to get a grant is to complete an 
assessment of its occupant protection program once every three years 
(23 U.S.C. Sec.  405(b)(3)(B)(ii)(VI)(aa)) and another criterion is 
a comprehensive occupant protection program that includes a program 
assessment conducted every five years as one of its elements (23 
U.S.C. 405(b)(3)(B)(ii)(V)(aa), 23 CFR 1300.21(e)(5)(i)). Under 
traffic safety system information system improvement grants, a State 
must have an assessment of its highway safety data and traffic 
records system once every 5 years in order to receive a grant (23 
U.S.C. 405(c)(3)(E)). Under impaired driving countermeasure grants, 
a State with high average impaired driving fatality rates must have 
an assessment of its impaired driving program once every 3 years in 
order to receive a grant (23 U.S.C. 405(d)(3)(C)(i)(I)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Description of the Need for the Information and Proposed Use of the 
Information: As noted above, the statute provides that the HSP is the 
application basis for grants each fiscal year. The information is 
necessary to determine whether a State satisfies the Federal criteria 
for grant awards. The annual report tracks progress in achieving the 
aims of the grant program. The information is necessary to verify 
performance under the grants and to provide a basis for improvement. As 
specified in statute, States may be

[[Page 7547]]

required to receive an assessment of certain covered programs. The 
information provided by a State allows subject matter experts to 
provide recommendations for the purpose of improving the covered grant 
area.
    In general, both commenters indicated support for the agency's 
collection of information. GHSA stated that it ``strongly supports the 
role of a single, unified annual Highway Safety Plan,'' and further 
supported ``the use of Annual Reports to document progress on 
performance'' and the ``assessment process as a mechanism to help 
States improve programs.'' The 5-State DOTs noted separately that 
``NHTSA must have an application process and that States must provide 
periodic reports.'' However, both commenters requested simplification 
of the application requirements contained in the Interim Final Rule 
published on May 23, 2016 (81 FR 32554). NHTSA addressed substantially 
similar comments from both commenters about the Interim Final Rule 
through a separate process that established the Final Rule for these 
requirements published on January 25, 2018 (83 FR 3466). In the Final 
Rule, NHTSA explained that it adopted some of the commenter's 
recommendations, clarified NHTSA expectations about requirements where 
the actual burdens were potentially misunderstood, and further 
explained the importance of a requirement where a commenter's request 
was not adopted. As with the prior effort, NHTSA sought to achieve a 
balance between the minimum need to ensure proper stewardship of 
Federal funds and the States' need for flexibility and efficiency in 
the use of their funds.
    Similarly, for the statutorily-mandated assessments that also are 
part of the Final Rule and about which the commenters raise issues, 
NHTSA developed the assessment tools through a separate public comment 
process. For occupant protection and impaired driving grants, the 
assessment tools are identified in the Final Rule as the Highway Safety 
Uniform Guidelines that have been in place for many years and are 
familiar to all States under the grant program. States use the 
guidelines as a basis to develop the Section 402 portion of their HSPs. 
For traffic records assessments, NHTSA developed the current approach 
based on comments provided by several States and other interested 
parties in 2012. Currently, NHTSA is reviewing the traffic records 
assessment tool under a separate public comment process that recently 
closed. (82 FR 49473, Oct. 25, 2017) We note that both commenters 
provided comments to that process as well and their comments are being 
considered as part of the agency's overall effort to refine the traffic 
records assessment process.
    Estimated Burden: Under the grant application and annual report 
requirements for Section 402 grants, with 57 potential respondents, we 
estimated that it will take each respondent approximately 240 hours to 
collect, review and submit the required information to NHTSA. For 
Section 405 grants, with 56 potential respondents, we estimated that it 
will take each respondent approximately 180 hours to collect, review 
and submit the required information to NHTSA.
    In response to these estimates, both commenters provided anecdotal 
examples of time and cost spent by States to meet application 
requirements, concluding that the agency underestimated the time 
burdens involved. According to GHSA, the examples suggest that NHTSA's 
burden estimates ``fall far short of actual time commitments in many 
States.'' Separately, the 5-State DOTs commented that ``the burden of 
complying with these processes is significantly underestimated by 
NHTSA.'' GHSA also acknowledged the difficulty of developing an 
estimate across States with ``different size grant programs and 
staff.'' We agree that an average may be not reflective of the 
experience of some States. However, our view is that the estimates 
properly reflect what should be the average time spent on the required 
application. As GHSA notes, the estimates suggest that States spend 
52.5 days to provide the required HSP and annual report under this 
program. In most cases, HSP applications are between 100 and 200 pages 
in length and consist of revising or updating a previously produced 
document. The agency's estimate is in line with updating and revising a 
document of this size over a 50-day period. Recognizing that 
variability exists among States, we believe that this is a reasonable 
estimate of the average burden. Regardless, we plan to reach out to 
GHSA to gain more specific information about the examples provided and 
will work with those States that may be spending an excessive amount of 
time (and cost) on application activities.
    We note further that, while we appreciate the anecdotal examples 
provided, the information provided by the commenters is based on 
meeting the prior IFR requirements. States have not yet submitted an 
application based on the Final Rule just released, which sought to 
reduce burdens where possible. In addition, these comments do not take 
into account the more automated application process NHTSA intends to 
use this year under GMSS. Although the 5-State DOTs provide their view 
that the system will not achieve time savings, we do not agree with the 
assessment. As an improvement over the current paperwork-intensive 
process, GMSS will align directly with the applicable program 
requirements, tying discrete fields within GMSS to the specific 
regulatory component. Such an approach should reduce uncertainty about 
what level of information must be provided to meet the application 
requirements, resulting in increased efficiency in State applications. 
Understandably, there may be some additional time spent providing the 
necessary application information the first year GMSS operates, but the 
system will save the information each year and only require that a 
State revise and update information in a succeeding year to apply for a 
grant. As stated in the Final Rule, we believe that GMSS will 
streamline and simplify the application process, decrease the overall 
size of HSPs by eliminating content unnecessary to satisfy statutory 
requirements, and reduce duplicative entries related to grants.
    The estimate totals covering hours and costs also are based on the 
universe of potential applicants submitting the required information 
for every available grant, and in this regard overestimate the burden, 
as not all States apply for and receive a grant each year under each of 
these programs. In addition, under Section 405 grants, some 
requirements permit States to submit a single application covering 
multiple years, allowing States to simply recertify in subsequent 
years. Considering the agency's steps to streamline the current 
submission process, including increased use of prepopulated information 
fields in GMSS and greater reliance on electronic submission in 
general, we believe that the approach represents the highest possible 
burden hours and costs for States submitting the required information.
    NHTSA plans to deploy GMSS as soon as possible. NHTSA recently 
worked with GHSA and States on user acceptance testing, making system 
enhancements based on the feedback provided as part of the process.\3\ 
In the future, NHTSA will complete a second round of user acceptance 
testing based on States using the enhanced system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ In its comments, GHSA recognized that NHTSA included GHSA 
and State highway Safety Offices ``as partners in the development 
and testing of GMSS.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    GHSA included within its comments some ``high-level concerns'' 
about the

[[Page 7548]]

system, including that NHTSA provide opportunity for training and 
additional technical support during deployment; that the system offer a 
template that States can use to organize their application content and 
upload data; and that system functionality allow States to produce a 
formatted HSP document. In response to these comments, in line with 
prior information provided to GHSA, NHTSA plans regular contact with 
GHSA and the States throughout GMSS implementation. These activities 
include several planned training sessions with States and the 
development of an extensive user manual. NHTSA also will provide help 
desk services and additional support through its regional offices with 
dedicated system experts available in each office. GMSS also will 
include system capabilities that cover the ability to accept State 
submissions via a template-based system, with capability for bulk 
uploads of certain information found in many State e-grant systems. 
Finally, the system will be capable of exporting information in a 
printed format. We believe these steps will be responsive to the noted 
concerns. We plan to have GMSS available to accept application 
submissions in late March and will continue to work with States 
throughout the system's deployment and use.
    In addition to the application process, this collection also covers 
the assessment process that is a requirement of three separate grant 
areas under Section 405--occupant protection, impaired driving 
countermeasures and traffic safety system improvement grants. For 
occupant protection and impaired driving countermeasures grants, we 
estimated that it takes 80 hours to respond to questions under an 
assessment. For traffic safety information system improvement grants, 
we estimated that it takes 165 hours to respond to questions under the 
assessment.
    In response to these estimates, the commenters provided anecdotal 
examples of time and cost for States responding to assessments. On this 
basis, GHSA concluded that the estimates ``do not reflect the time 
needed to carry out the assessment.'' Although not specific to the 
estimates, the 5-State DOTs added that ``the assessment process for the 
programs has become costly and very wide-ranging.'' More specifically, 
both commenters shared concerns about the time and cost necessary for a 
State to respond to a traffic records assessment. On the basis of these 
comments, however, with one exception explained below, we do not 
believe that our estimates need to be revised.
    Assessments serve as a critical evaluation of a State's traffic 
safety programs, resulting in recommendations from a panel of experts. 
Congress has recognized the value of the assessment process as well, 
making these statutorily-mandated components of the grant requirements. 
Federal grant funds are available to States to defray the costs of 
these assessments. While we understand that some grant funds may be 
diverted from program uses to support the assessment process (as the 5-
State DOTs assert), a State that continues its same approach without 
review may spend funds in inefficient ways or focus on areas that do 
not improve traffic safety. Assessments are not carried out on an 
annual basis, but rather occur on a 3- or 5-year basis depending on the 
statutory requirement. Some anecdotal examples of assessment costs 
cited by the commenters may not have taken this into account. For 
example, for FY19 grants, NHTSA estimates that only 6 States will need 
occupant protection assessments and only 2 States will need traffic 
records assessments to qualify for grants. (These States will not need 
another assessment for several years.) This is far smaller than the 
total number of jurisdictions that are eligible for grants (and smaller 
than the average number of assessments per year the agency used to 
develop the burden estimates). In addition, the period between 
assessments may be even longer if a State improves its performance in 
certain grant areas, as the statute identifies the need for assessment 
relating to programs such as occupant protection and impaired driving 
on the basis of performance in key safety metrics (e.g., seat belt use 
rate or average impaired driving fatality rate).
    Separately, both commenters expressed concern about the number of 
questions that might be raised during an assessment. Assessments are 
intended to be comprehensive and by their nature can entail an 
extensive review. Occupant protection and impaired driving 
countermeasures assessments do not limit the number of questions that 
may be asked but instead set a time limit on the actual process. States 
provide background materials in advance, which are reviewed by a team 
of experts prior to the assessment, with the actual assessment process 
taking place over a single week. States participate in an interview 
process (based on the review of background material) during the first 
half of the week (2.5 days), with the remaining period spent by the 
team of experts producing and presenting recommendations. For these 
types of assessments, the agency estimated 80 hours of time needed for 
State participation. This covers the background material collection, 
responding to questions and participating in interviews during the 
assessment week. For traffic records assessments, NHTSA estimated 165 
hours of time needed to respond to questions through a web-based 
interface. These responses are reviewed by a team of experts 
separately, and a final report is provided to the State. NHTSA 
developed this estimate based on system usage time by States (i.e., 
records of time logged in to the system). It also presumes that States 
have access to a Traffic Records Coordinating Committee--a requirement 
of the Section 405 grant statute--that represents each of the traffic 
records disciplines in a State. With this mechanism in place, the State 
should be able to draw readily on the required expertise to answer the 
questions, limiting the amount of time needed to respond. In general, 
we expect States to be familiar with their own programs and to be able 
to identify the expertise and decision-making authority required for a 
response.
    Our estimates do not take into account the possibility that 
coordination issues within a State may exist that delay responses. 
However, with regard to traffic record assessments, we recognize that 
our burden estimates are more than double that of other assessments. 
The agency is reviewing this assessment tool under a separate process, 
in light of comments received from GHSA, the 5-State DOTs, and other 
stakeholders.\4\ We will pay careful attention to issues of burden as 
we work to refine that process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The notice seeking public comment on the traffic records 
assessment advisory appears at 82 FR 49473, Oct. 25, 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on GHSA's comment regarding the costs of on-site assessment 
teams used for occupant protection and impaired driving assessments, we 
are revising the cost estimates to include the travel, per diem, and 
honoraria paid to assessment team members. Although States are allowed 
to use Section 402 grant funds to cover these costs, we agree with GHSA 
that they should be included in the estimate of overall cost under this 
collection of information. Although GHSA's anecdotal examples indicate 
that these costs are lower, our estimate is that States spend on 
average $25,000 per assessment to cover the costs of the on-site team 
members and related expenses. Using thirteen (13) as

[[Page 7549]]

the average number of assessments for impaired driving and occupant 
protection grants per year, the overall increase in cost would be 
$325,000. We have added this amount to the total estimated costs for 
the collection.
    Estimate of the Total Annual Reporting and Recordkeeping Burden 
Resulting from the Collection of Information: \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The total number of respondents is based on every eligible 
respondent submitting the required information for every available 
grant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) Estimated Number of Respondents
    The estimated burden hours for the grant application and annual 
report part of the collection of information are based on all eligible 
respondents each year for each of the grants:
     Section 402 grants: 57 (fifty States, the District of 
Columbia, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, 
the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and the Bureau of 
Indian Affairs);
     Section 405 Grants (except Impaired Driving 
Countermeasures, Motorcyclist Safety and Nonmotorized Grants) and 
Section 1906 Grant: 56 (fifty States, the District of Columbia, Puerto 
Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the 
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands); and
     Section 405, Impaired Driving Countermeasures, 
Motorcyclist Safety and Nonmotorized Grants: 52 (fifty States, the 
District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico).
    The estimated burden hours for the assessment part of the 
collection of information are based on the average number of State 
assessments that are carried out each year in each of the covered grant 
areas: \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Assessment average is based on the total number of 
assessments conducted each year divided by the number of years since 
the inception of assessment requirements for certain grants under 
MAP-21, Pub. L. 112-141.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Section 405, Occupant protection grants: 9 assessments;
     Section 405, Traffic safety information system improvement 
grants: 11 assessments; and
     Section 405, Impaired driving countermeasure grants: 4 
assessments.
(2) Estimated Hours per Respondent
 Section 402 and 405 Grant Applications/Annual Report: 420
 Occupant Protection Grant Assessments: 80
 Traffic Safety Information System Improvement Grant 
Assessments: 165
 Impaired Driving Countermeasures Grant Assessments: 80
(3) Estimated Annual Burden Hours: 26,615
    Under the grant application and annual report requirements for 
Sections 402 and 405, we estimate that it will take each respondent 
approximately 420 hours to collect, review and submit the required 
information to NHTSA. For traffic safety information system improvement 
grants, we estimate that it will take 165 hours to respond to questions 
under the assessment. For occupant protection and impaired driving 
countermeasures grants, we estimate that it will take 80 hours to 
provide the required information and respond to questions under an 
assessment. Based on the above information, the estimated annual burden 
hours for all respondents are 26,615 hours.
    Assuming the average salary of the individuals preparing the 
application materials or assessment responses is $50.00 per hour, the 
estimated cost for each respondent to respond is $23,350. If all 
eligible States applied for and received grants for all programs (and 
including the annual number of assessment responses required from 
States), the total labor costs for all respondents would be $1,330,750.
    In addition to these labor costs, NHTSA is revising the total costs 
to include the assessment team costs paid for by States under occupant 
protection and impaired driving assessments. Annually, these additional 
costs are $25,000 per assessment, totaling $325,000 based on the 
average estimated number of assessments conducted each year for these 
programs. Based on these additional costs, the overall total cost is 
revised to be $1,655,750.

    Authority: The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44. U.S.C. 
Chapter 35, as amended; 5 CFR part 1320; and 49 CFR 1.95.


    Issued in Washington, DC, on: February 14, 2018.
Mary D. Gunnels,
Associate Administrator for Regional Operations and Program Delivery.
[FR Doc. 2018-03515 Filed 2-20-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-59-P