Request for Approval of a New Information Collection |
|---|
|
Mary D. Gunnels
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
21 February 2018
[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