FINAL supporting statements MAP-21 S 405 12-13-12

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

INFORMATION COLLECTION SUPPORTING STATEMENT

National Priority Safety Programs

_{OMB Control Number 2127-XXXX}

INTRODUCTION

The request is for public comment on proposed collection of information for State grants covering National Priority Safety Programs.

JUSTIFICATION

1. Explain the circumstances that make the collection of information necessary. MAP-21, the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (P.L. 112-141),

authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to issue grants to States for National Priority Safety Programs for fiscal years (FY) 2013-2014. The authorization consolidates six previously separate grant programs that are available to help States address national priorities for reducing highway deaths and injuries. Specifically, these consolidated grant programs include the following: (1) Occupant Protection Grants; (2) State Traffic Safety Information System Improvements Grants; (3) Impaired Driving Countermeasures Grants; (4) Distracted Driving Grants; (5) Motorcyclist Safety Grants; and (6) State Graduated Driver Licensing Grant.

Consistent with these statutory requirements, the agency is implementing a regulation that creates an application process for States to apply for grant funds. In order to meet the statutory requirements, a State will be required to submit information to the agency that supports its qualifications for receiving grants funds. The information requested includes data, plans, legislation and other evidence that demonstrates the State is implementing a strategic and evidence-based traffic safety program.

The individual grant programs that have been consolidated under the reauthorization are as follows:

(A) Occupant Protection Grants: The purpose of this program is to encourage States to adopt and implement occupant protection laws and programs to reduce highway deaths and injuries from individuals riding unrestrained in motor vehicles.

A State may qualify for a grant under one of two categories as either a (1) high seat belt use rate State- a State that has an observed seat belt use rate of 90 percent or higher or (2) lower seat belt use rate- a State has an observed seat belt use rate below

90 percent. Depending on the seat belt use rates, States will be required to submit additional information indicating compliance with certain statutorily-specified

programmatic requirements. State seat belt use rates will be based on the most recent data from a survey design approved under 23 CFR Part 1340 (OMB Control Number

2127-0597).

(B) State Traffic Safety Information System Improvements Grants:. The purpose of this program is to support State efforts to improve the data systems needed to help identify priorities for Federal, State and local highway and traffic safety programs, to link intra-State data systems, and to improve the compatibility and interoperability of these data systems with national data systems and the data systems of other States for highway safety purposes, such as enhancing the ability to analyze national trends in crash occurrences, rates, outcomes and circumstances.

A State may qualify for a grant under this program if it demonstrates it has the following: (1) a functioning traffic records coordinating committee (TRCC) that meets at least three times a year; (2) a traffic records strategic plan that has been approved by the TRCC and describes quantifiable and measurable improvements to its safety databases; (3) a valid and unequivocal method of demonstrating quantitative improvement in the data attributes of accuracy, completeness, timeliness, uniformity, accessibility, and integration in acore database by showing an improved consistency within the State's record system; and (4) an assessment of the State's highway safety data and traffic records system that was conducted or updated during the preceding five years.

(C) Impaired Driving Countermeasures Grants: The purpose of this program is to support State efforts to reduce the problem of impaired driving.

A State may qualify for a grant based on the State’s average impaired driving fatality rate. Specifically, a State may qualify under one of three categories: (1) Low-range State (based on an average rate of .30 or lower); (2) Mid-range State (based on an average rate higher than .30 and lower than .60); or (3) High-range State (based on an average rate of .60 or higher). A State may also receive grant funding under this program by implementing and enforcing a mandatory ignition interlock law for all individuals convicted of driving under the influence of alcohol or driving while intoxicated.

(D) Distracted Driving Grants: The purpose of this program is to encourage States to enact and enforce distracted driving legislation.

States can qualify by enacting and enforcing a law that prohibits drivers from texting while driving. The law must make the violation a primary offense and establish a minimum fine for the first violation and increased fines for repeat violations. States can also qualify by enacting and enforcing a law that prohibits youths (drivers under the age of 18) from using cell phones while driving. The law must make the violation a primary offense, establish a minimum fine for the first violation, increased fines for repeat violations, and require distracted driving issues to be tested as part of the

State’s driver license examination.

(E) Motorcyclist Safety Grants: The purpose of this program is to encourage the implementation of effective programs to reduce the number of single-and multi­ vehicle crashes involving motorcyclists.

A State may qualify for a grant by meeting two of the six following criteria: (1) conducting a state-wide motorcycle rider training course; (2) conducting a state-wide program to enhance motorists' awareness of the presence of motorcycles; (3) achieving a reduction of fatalities and crashes involving motorcycles from a prior year; (4) conducting a statewide program to reduce impaired motorcycle operation; (5) achieving a reduction of fatalities and accidents involving impaired motorcyclists from a prior year; and (6) using all fees collected from motorcyclists for the purpose of funding motorcycle training and safety programs.

(F) State Graduated Driver Licensing Grant: The purpose of this program is to encourage States to develop and implement a graduated driver’s licensing system in law that consists of a multi-staged process for issuing driver’s licenses to young, novice drivers.

_I

_I

A State may qualify for a grant by having a graduated driver's licensing law that creates a multi-stage process including a learner's permit stage that remains in effect until the driver reaches age 16 and an intermediate stage that remains in effect until the driver reaches age 18. MAP-21 sets statutory conditions that must be met be a driver at each stage. In addition, the State must submit a process that is used to distinguish a license at each permit stage.

2. Indicate how, by whom, and for what purpose the information is to be used.

_{A State would submit, through its State Highway Safety Agency, an application which}

_{identifies the grant criteria under which it seeks to qualify and submits information}

,:

necessary to meet the minimum qualification requirements. NHTSA would use the information provided to determine the State's eligibility to receive grant funds under the

:^I

^I program.

_:^I

^{3. Describe whether, and to what extent, the collection of information is automated.}

_I

The collection of information consists of an application process. Although the application itself is submitted to NHTSA electronically, no other parts of the process are automated. In the future, we may consider automating certain parts of the application process.

_I

^{4. Describe efforts to identify duplication.}

Because the information is unique to the requirements directed in Federal statute and the implementing regulation, there is virtually no possibility that this data is being collected

through another source in the manner requested in the interim final rule that would allow a grant determination to be made.

5. Describe efforts to minimize burden on small businesses.

This item does not apply. State governments are the only eligible recipients for these grant programs.

6. Describe the impact if the collection of information is not collected or collected less frequently.

This collection of information occurs annually. Without the collection of information or a collection that occurs on a less frequent basis, the agency would not be made to make grant determinations in a timely fashion. The State's affirmative presentation of its qualifications through the application process greatly expedites the time necessary to make grant determinations. This approach allows the agency to meet the deadlines required under MAP-21.

7. Explain any special circumstances that require the collection to be conducted in a manner inconsistent with the guidelines set forth in 5 CPR 1320.6.

Due to the expedited timeframe for FY 2013 awards, we are requesting emergency approval of this collection of information so that these awards can be made on a timely basis. The agency will resubmit the information collection in subsequent fiscal years that does not require emergency approval following the guidelines set forth in 5 CPR 1320.6.

8. Provide a copy of the FEDERAL REGISTER document soliciting comments on extending the collection of information, a summary of all public comments responding to the notice, and a description of the agency's actions in response to the comments.

The agency will explain its need for an emergency approval for FY 2013 grant awards in the publication of the interim final rule implementing the application requirements for the grant program.

9. Explain any decision to provide any payment or gift to respondents, other than remuneration of contractors or grantees.

This item is not applicable. No payments or gifts are provided to the respondents.

10. Describe any assurance of confidentiality provided to respondents.

This item is not applicable. The information is collected from public documents, records and other sources and is not subject to confidentiality.

11. Provide additional justification for any collection of sensitive information.

This item is not applicable. There is no personal or sensitive information collected.

12. Provide estimate of the burden hours for the collection of information requested.

(I) Estimated number of respondents.............................................................

-56 (fifty States, the District of Columba, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northem Mariana Islands) for Occupant Protection Grants; State Traffic Safety Information System Improvements Grants; Impaired Driving Countermeasures Grants; Distracted Driving Grants; and State Graduated Driver Licensing Grant.

-52 (fifty States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico) for the Motorcyclist Safety

Grants.

(2) Estimated hours per respondent........................................................ 180 (3) Estimated annual burden hours ........................................................10,080

The estimated number of respondents is based on the number of eligible States, as prescribed by MAP-21, under each program. We estimate that for each of these grant programs, it will take approximately 30 hours to collect, review and submit the reporting information to NHTSA.

Based on the estimated cost of $50 per hour, each response to all programs is estimated to cost each respondent $9,000. If all eligible States applied for and receive grants for all programs, the total cost on all respondents would be $504,000. As a result, these estimates present the highest possible burden hours and amounts possible. All States do not apply for and receive a grant each year under each of these programs.

13. Provide estimate of the total annual cost burden.

Not applicable. There are no capitals, start-up or annual operation and maintenance costs involved with the collection of information.

14. Provide estimates of annualized cost to the Federal Government.

The estimated annualized costs to the Federal Government are based on the amount of time spent on review by program staff in NHTSA's Office of Regional Operations and Program Delivery. We estimate that at an average cost of $50 per hour and an estimated level of 10 hours per respondent, the total cost, if every State applies for each grant program, would be $166,000.

15. Explain the reasons for any program changes or adjustments

This is a new information collection. MAP-21, the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (P.L. 112-141), authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to issue grants to States for National Priority Safety Programs for fiscal years (FY) 2013-2014. This new information collection adds 10,080 hours to NHTSA’s overall total.

16. For collections of information whose results will be published, outline plans for tabulation, and publication.

This item is not applicable. There are no plans to publish this information.

17. If seeking approval to not display the expiration date for OMB approval of the information collection, explain the reasons that display would be inappropriate.

Approval is not being sought to not display the expiration date for OMB approval of the information collection.

18. Explain each exception to the certification statement identified in Item 19, "Certification for Paperwork Reduction Act Submissions," ofOMB Form 83-1.

There are no exceptions.