13360 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 46 / Wednesday, March 9, 2022 / Notices 

7 82 FR 57650 (Dec. 06, 2017). 

8The agency wishes to minimize the 

administrative burden that section 543.10(c)(2) 

could place on exempted vehicle manufacturers 

and itself. The agency did not intend in drafting 

part 543 to require the submission of a modification 

petition for every change to the components or 

design of an antitheft device. The significance of 

many such changes could be de minimis. Therefore, 

NHTSA suggests that if a manufacturer with an 

exemption contemplates making any changes, the 

effects of which might be characterized as de 

minimis, it should consult the agency before 

preparing and submitting a petition to modify. 

of the key from the ignition switch 

when the vehicle is not being used. 

As required in section 543.6(a)(3)(v), 

Subaru provided information on the 

reliability and durability of its proposed 

device. To ensure reliability and 

durability of the device, Subaru 

conducted tests based on its own 

specified standards and provided a 

detailed list of the tests conducted. 

Subaru stated that it believes that its 

device is reliable and durable because it 

complied with its own specific design 

standards and the antitheft device is 

installed on other vehicle lines for 

which the agency has granted a partsmarking exemption. 

Subaru stated that its theft rates have 

been low per the National Insurance 

Crime Bureau’s 2019 report on 

America’s 10 most stolen vehicles. 

However, Subaru compared its 

proposed device to other Subaru 

antitheft devices that NHTSA has 

determined to be as effective in 

reducing and deterring motor vehicle 

theft as would compliance with the 

parts-marking requirements. 

Specifically, Subaru stated that the theft 

rate of the MY 2008 Impreza (not parts 

marked, standard engine immobilizer) 

decreased by almost 51% as compared 

to the MY 2007 Impreza (parts marked 

with optional engine immobilizer). 

Subaru stated that the antitheft system 

included on the BRZ vehicle line is the 

same system employed on the Subaru 

Ascent car line, for which NHTSA 

determined that the system was likely as 

effective in reducing and deterring 

motor vehicle theft as compliance with 

the parts-marking requirements of the 

theft prevention standard.7

Subaru also stated that the National 

Crime Information Center’s (NCIC) theft 

data showed that there was a 70% 

reduction in theft experienced when 

comparing the MY 1997 Ford Mustang 

vehicle thefts (with immobilizers) to MY 

1995 Ford Mustang vehicle thefts 

(without immobilizers). On the basis of 

the above and other cited comparisons, 

Subaru has concluded that its proposed 

immobilizer system is no less effective 

than those devices installed on lines for 

which NHTSA has already granted full 

exemptions. 

III. Decision To Grant the Petition 

Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 33106 and 49 

CFR 543.8(b), the agency grants a 

petition for exemption from the partsmarking requirements of part 541, either 

in whole or in part, if it determines that, 

based upon substantial evidence, the 

standard equipment antitheft device is 

likely to be as effective in reducing and 

deterring motor vehicle theft as 

compliance with the parts-marking 

requirements of part 541 or if deemed 

approved under 49 U.S.C. 33106(d). 

NHTSA finds that Subaru has provided 

adequate reasons for its belief that the 

antitheft device for its vehicle line is 

likely to be as effective in reducing and 

deterring motor vehicle theft as 

compliance with the parts-marking 

requirements of the theft prevention 

standard. This conclusion is based on 

the information Subaru provided about 

its antitheft device. 

The agency concludes that Subaru’s 

antitheft device will provide the five 

types of performance features listed in 

section 543.6(a)(3): Promoting 

activation; attracting attention to the 

efforts of unauthorized persons to enter 

or operate a vehicle by means other than 

a key; preventing defeat or 

circumvention of the device by 

unauthorized persons; preventing 

operation of the vehicle by 

unauthorized entrants; and ensuring the 

reliability and durability of the device. 

The agency notes that 49 CFR part 

541, Appendix A–1, identifies those 

lines that are exempted from the theft 

prevention standard for a given model 

year. 49 CFR 543.8(f) contains 

publication requirements incident to the 

disposition of all part 543 petitions. 

Advanced listing, including the release 

of future product nameplates, the 

beginning model year for which the 

petition is granted and a general 

description of the antitheft device is 

necessary in order to notify law 

enforcement agencies of new vehicle 

lines exempted from the parts-marking 

requirements of the theft prevention 

standard. 

If Subaru decides not to use the 

exemption for its requested vehicle line, 

the manufacturer must formally notify 

the agency. If such a decision is made, 

the line must be fully marked as 

required by 49 CFR 541.5 and 541.6 

(marking of major component parts and 

replacement parts). 

NHTSA notes that if a manufacturer 

to which an exemption has been granted 

wishes in the future to modify the 

device on which the exemption is 

based, the company may have to submit 

a petition to modify the exemption. 

Section 543.8(d) states that a part 543 

exemption applies only to vehicles that 

belong to a line exempted under this 

part and equipped with the antitheft 

device on which the line’s exemption is 

based. Further, section 543.10(c)(2) 

provides for the submission of petitions 

‘‘to modify an exemption to permit the 

use of an antitheft device similar to but 

differing from the one specified in the 

exemption.’’ 8

For the foregoing reasons, the agency 

hereby announces a grant in full of 

Subaru’s petition for exemption for the 

BRZ vehicle line from the parts-marking 

requirements of 49 CFR part 541, 

beginning with its MY 2023 vehicles. 

Issued under authority delegated in 49 CFR 

1.95 and 501.8. 

Raymond R. Posten, 

Associate Administrator for Rulemaking. 

[FR Doc. 2022–04928 Filed 3–8–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

[Docket No. NHTSA–2021–0009] 

Agency Information Collection 

Activities; Submission to the Office of 

Management and Budget for Review 

and Approval; Uniform Procedures for 

State Highway Safety Grant Programs 

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA), 

Department of Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Notice and request for 

comments on a reinstatement of a 

previously approved information 

collection. 

SUMMARY: In compliance with the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(PRA), this notice announces that the 

Information Collection Request (ICR) 

abstracted below will be submitted to 

the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) for review and approval. The ICR 

describes the nature of the information 

collection and its expected burden. This 

is a request for approval for 

reinstatement of a previously-approved 

collection of information for NHTSA’s 

Highway Grant Program, which 

includes State Highway Safety Program 

grants, the National Priority Safety 

Program grants, and a separate grant on 

racial profiling data collection. The 

purpose of the information collection is 

to collect information necessary for 

NHTSA to issue grants to States. To 

receive grants, a State must submit a 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 46 / Wednesday, March 9, 2022 / Notices 13361 

1While the grant programs are available for the 

50 States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, 

U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, the 

Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, 

and the Bureau of Indian Affairs on behalf of the 

Indian Country, NHTSA will refer to the 

respondents to the Uniform Procedures for State 

Highway Safety Grant Programs information 

collection as ‘‘States.’’ 

2Section 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. 

3Under occupant protection grants, one criterion 

that a State with a lower belt use rate may use to 

receive a grant is to complete an assessment of its 

occupant protection program once every three years 

(23 U.S.C. 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)). 

4The Uniform Guidelines for State Highway 

Safety Programs are available online at https://

one.nhtsa.gov/nhtsa/whatsup/tea21/ 

tea21programs/index.htm. 

5The Traffic Records Program Assessment 

Advisory is available online at https://

crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ 

ViewPublication/812601. 

Highway Safety Plan (HSP) that 

supports its qualifications for receiving 

grant funds. Specifically, the HSP 

consists 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. A Federal Register Notice 

with a 60-day comment period soliciting 

comments on the following information 

collection was published on February 9, 

2021. NHTSA received three comments. 

A summary of the comments and 

NHTSA’s response to those comments is 

provided below. 

DATES: Comments must be submitted on 

or before April 8, 2022. 

ADDRESSES: Written comments and 

recommendations for the proposed 

information collection, including 

suggestions for reducing burden, should 

be submitted to the Office of 

Management and Budget at 

www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. 

To find this particular information 

collection, select ‘‘Currently under 

Review—Open for Public Comment’’ or 

use the search function. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

additional information or access to 

background documents, 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. 

Please identify the relevant collection of 

information by referring to its OMB 

Control Number. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the 

PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), a Federal 

agency must receive approval from the 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) before it collects certain 

information from the public and a 

person is not required to respond to a 

collection of information by a Federal 

agency unless the collection displays a 

valid OMB control number. In 

compliance with these requirements, 

this notice announces that the following 

information collection request will be 

submitted to OMB. 

Title: Uniform Procedures for State 

Highway Safety Grant Programs. 

OMB Control Number: 2127–0730. 

Form Number: None. 

Type of Request: Reinstatement of a 

previously approved information 

collection. 

Type of Review Requested: Regular. 

Length of Approval Requested: Three 

years from date of approval. 

Summary of the Collection of 

Information: 

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 

(Public Law 109–59, Sec. 1906 or 

Section 1906, as amended by Sec. 4011, 

Public Law 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) that States 1

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, projects and 

funding amounts, certifications and 

assurances, and application materials 

that cover Section 405 grants and the 

reauthorized Section 1906 grant.2 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 improvement and impaired 

driving countermeasures, States may be 

required to receive assessments of their 

State programs in order to receive a 

grant.3 States must provide information 

and respond to questions as part of the 

assessment process. 

Consistent with the statute, NHTSA 

has implemented a final rule that 

creates uniform procedures for States to 

apply for grant funds (83 FR 3466, 

January 25, 2018). 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. 

As indicated above, States may be 

required to receive an assessment of 

certain covered programs in order to be 

eligible for some grants under Section 

405. Separate from these requirements, 

States also may request assessments in 

these areas at their discretion. NHTSA 

uses two different assessment 

approaches based on the traffic safety 

area covered. For occupant protection 

and impaired driving, assessments are 

based on NHTSA’s Uniform Guidelines 

for State Highway Safety Programs, 

which are required by Congress and 

periodically updated through a process 

that seeks public comment.4 State 

programs are assessed against these 

uniform guidelines by a team of subject 

matter experts. The assessment team 

produces a final report with 

recommendations on how the State can 

improve the effectiveness of its program. 

As part of the process, States provide 

written materials in response to requests 

from the assessment team and 

participate in a comprehensive 

interview process. For traffic safety 

information systems, States respond to 

questions based on NHTSA’s Traffic 

Records Program Assessment Advisory 

(DOT HS 812 601), which describes an 

ideal traffic records system. The 

questions cover nine topical areas and 

examine how well a State plans, 

collects, manages, and integrates 

information from several State traffic 

records systems.5 Responses are 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1
13362 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 46 / Wednesday, March 9, 2022 / Notices 

6 23 U.S.C. 402(k)(2). 

7See 85 FR 49506 (Aug. 13, 2020), effective 

November 12, 2020. 

evaluated by subject matter experts, and 

a final report is provided to the State 

with recommendations for 

improvement. 

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 required to receive an 

assessment of certain covered programs. 

In other instances, States may opt to 

receive an assessment in order to use 

that assessment as one of several 

options to qualify for a grant under 

Section 405. The information provided 

by a State allows subject matter experts 

to provide recommendations for the 

purpose of improving the covered areas. 

Public Comments 

A Federal Register notice with a 60- 

day comment period soliciting public 

comments on the information collection 

was published on February 9, 2021 (86 

FR 8832). NHTSA received three 

comments from the Governors Highway 

Safety Association (GHSA), the 

Tennessee Highway Safety Office, and 

an anonymous commenter. Comments 

addressed the timing of the Highway 

Safety Program applications and Annual 

Report, estimated burden hours, and the 

inclusion of other activities in the 

burden estimates. 

General 

In general, commenters indicated 

support for the agency’s collection of 

information and its use of a single, 

unified annual Highway Safety Plan. 

Commenters also included other topics 

unrelated to this PRA which will be 

addressed separately. 

Timing of Highway Safety Plan 

Application and Annual Report 

Commenters raised issues with the 

timing of the HSP application. 

Tennessee commented that the 

‘‘deadline is so early in the year’’ and 

that ‘‘States need time to look at the 

previous year’s uncertified FARS data 

(State data) to determine issue areas to 

address for the upcoming grant year and 

the most current certified FARS data.’’ 

Furthermore, the comment noted that 

the deadline of July 1 necessitates the 

use of amendments to supply 

information not available at the time of 

the application. 

While NHTSA recognizes the 

potential difficulty in submitting 

applications by the July 1 application 

date, NHTSA does not have discretion 

to adjust the application deadline. The 

July 1 application date is set forth in 

statute.6 However, NHTSA would like 

to reiterate that while FARS data is to 

be used to report progress on the core 

performance targets, States can use 

other sources of data to help determine 

their targets and priority problem areas. 

It is correct that States that do not know 

which projects will be funded at the 

time of application will need to follow 

up by providing a list of projects in an 

amendment to their application; 

however, States can provide this list in 

any format they choose as long as the 

four required data elements are 

included (project agreement number, 

subrecipient, amount of federal funds, 

and eligible use of funds). While 

NHTSA believes that this type of list is 

common and exists as a normal business 

practice in most States (and the majority 

of States (68%) provided a list with 

their 2021 application) we agree that 

extra time may be needed. Accordingly, 

we have adjusted our estimated burden 

hours (see below). 

Commenters also raised concerns 

regarding the timing of the annual 

report. GHSA commented that it is 

challenging to meet the due date for the 

annual report due to it coinciding with 

year-end closeout and the winter 

holidays. They also noted the new 

option in the revised 2 CFR 200 7 that 

allows NHTSA to extend the closeout 

and reporting deadline from 90 days to 

120 days beginning with FY22. The 

timing of the annual report is set forth 

in NHTSA’s regulation at 23 CFR 

1300.35 and was created to align with 

the 90-day government-wide timing 

requirements that existed at the time our 

regulation was published in 2018. As 

GHSA notes, the government-wide 

regulation has since been updated to 

allow a longer, 120-day time frame for 

closeout and reporting; NHTSA will 

take this into consideration when we 

next revise our own implementing 

regulation. Another commenter said that 

automating the annual report could help 

reduce the burden. 

Estimated Burden Hours 

Both GHSA and the anonymous 

commenter stated that they believe 

NHTSA under-estimated the burden of 

time involved in developing the HSP 

and annual report. One State that 

supplied comments to GHSA suggested 

that preparing the HSP, including both 

the Section 402 and 405 grant programs, 

likely takes over 400 hours. In support, 

GHSA commented that ‘‘HSP 

development involves not just planning 

within the SHSO but interaction with 

other partners as well to select projects 

and develop agreements.’’ GHSA 

acknowledged, however, the difficulty 

of developing an estimate across States 

since the number will ‘‘differ 

significantly from State to State.’’ They 

added that States do not track time 

spent meeting these requirements and 

‘‘are involved in preparing HSPs and 

Annual Reports intermittently over time 

in addition to implementing programs 

and performing other duties.’’ 

NHTSA agrees that an average may 

not be reflective of the experience of 

some States. While our initial burden 

hour estimate is not too dissimilar from 

GHSA’s (380 vs 400), after meeting to 

discuss the details of their comments, 

we agree that more time should be 

added to account for HSP planning 

activities which were not part of our 

original estimate. We agree that working 

with partners is necessary for planning 

and carrying out the program, but these 

activities are also normal every-day 

program planning and operation 

activities that are not solely needed for 

the application process. In response to 

GHSA’s comment and after further 

review of the issues, we have increased 

the estimate for the HSP application to 

410 hours. We also revised our estimate 

for completing the annual report. One 

State reported to GHSA that it could 

take 100–120 hours. While we believe 

this estimate is high, we have increased 

our estimate to 80 hours, which is an 

increase of 40 hours from our original 

estimate. 

GHSA also noted that the time burden 

required for an assessment is significant. 

While no commenters provided any 

estimates for how long assessments take, 

they expressed that assessments are 

similar to conference planning and 

include preparing materials, scheduling 

participants, making travel 

arrangements, arranging for audio 

visual, and coordination of facilities. 

NHTSA’s estimate only covered the 

background material collection, 

responding to questions and 

participating in interviews during the 

assessment week. In response to these 

comments, NHTSA has increased the 

estimated burden hours for occupant 

protection and impaired driving 

assessments to 88 hours. For traffic 

records assessments, NHTSA continues 

to estimate that the burden hours for a 

traffic records assessment will be 123 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 46 / Wednesday, March 9, 2022 / Notices 13363 

8Please note that the burden estimates for 405 

and 1906 applications are based on every applicant 

applying for a grant under all program areas. 

Marginally, this may overestimate the total burden 

as all applicants will not apply for a grant in each 

program area each year. 

9Assessment average is based on the total number 

of assessments conducted each year and divided by 

the number of years since the inception of 

assessment requirements for certain grants under 

MAP–21, Public Law 112–141. 

hours per respondent because these 

assessments are conducted virtually and 

involve submission of information 

submitted via email as opposed to 

through interviews. 

Other Comments 

While commenting on the 60-day 

notice, GHSA took the opportunity to 

include comments regarding other 

aspects of the grant program, not 

necessarily related to the information 

collection request. Some of the 

comments addressed aspects of the 

grant program which cannot be changed 

since they are part of the grant program 

regulation (23 CFR 1300) or statutes. 

NHTSA acknowledges these additional 

topics raised that are unrelated to this 

information collection request and will 

respond to them separately through 

other means. 

Affected Public: 

This collection impacts the fifty-seven 

entities that are eligible to apply for 

grants under the NHTSA Highway Grant 

Program (the fifty States, the District of 

Columbia, Puerto Rico, American 

Samoa, Guam, the Commonwealth of 

the Northern Mariana Islands, the U.S. 

Virgin Islands, and the Bureau of Indian 

Affairs on behalf of the Indian Country). 

This collection also impacts the 

subject matter experts and 

administrative assistants who are 

involved in assessments for the grant 

program. These subject matter experts 

are recruited by NHTSA based on 

recommendations from NHTSA 

Regional Offices and the State Highway 

Safety Offices. All new occupant 

protection and impaired driving 

assessors complete an e-learning course, 

Conducting Highway Safety Program 

Assessments.The course is self-paced 

and entirely on-line. Each impaired 

driving and occupant protection 

assessment team consists of five (5) 

assessors and an administrative 

assistant. For traffic records 

assessments, NHTSA uses a contractor 

to recruit and train the assessors for the 

online traffic records assessment 

conducted using NHTSA’s Traffic 

Records Improvement Program 

Reporting System (TRIPRS). All subject 

matter experts are current or former 

members of State Traffic Records 

Coordinating Committees. There are 

between 10 to 14 assessors for each 

traffic records assessment. 

Estimated Number of Respondents: 

There are 57 potential State 

respondents (the fifty States, the District 

of Columbia, Puerto Rico, American 

Samoa, Guam, the Commonwealth of 

the Northern Mariana Islands, the U.S. 

Virgin Islands, and the Bureau of Indian 

Affairs on behalf of the Indian Country). 

NHTSA estimates there will be 

approximately 260 assessors per year. 

This estimate includes assessors and 

administrative assistants. Each occupant 

protection or impaired driving 

assessment involves five (5) subject 

matter experts and one (1) 

administrative assistant. NHTSA 

estimates that 13 occupant protection 

and impaired driving assessments will 

be completed each year, for a total of 78 

respondents. Each traffic records 

assessment involves approximately 

thirteen (13) subject matter experts. 

NHTSA estimates that 14 traffic records 

assessments are completed each year, 

for a total of 182 traffic records 

assessors. 

Frequency: 

Applications for grant funding and 

annual reporting are submitted once a 

year and assessments are conducted 

once every three or five years. 

Number of Responses: 

NHTSA estimates that it will receive 

57 Section 402 grant applications, 56 

Section 405 grant applications (except 

for impaired driving countermeasures, 

motorcyclist safety and nonmotorized 

grants), and 52 Section 405 impaired 

driving countermeasures, motorcyclist 

safety and nonmotorized grant 

applications. These estimates are based 

on the number of eligible respondents 

each year for each of the grants. 

NHTSA estimates that there will be 9 

State responses for assessments for 

Section 405 occupation protection 

grants, 14 State responses for 

assessments for Section 405 traffic 

safety information system improvement 

grants, and 4 State responses for 

assessments for Section 405 impaired 

driving countermeasures grants 

annually. Further, NHTSA estimates 

that there will be 54 subject matter 

expert responses for Section 405 

occupation protection grants, 182 

subject matter expert responses for 

assessments for Section 405 traffic 

safety information system improvement 

grants, and 24 subject matter expert 

responses for assessments for Section 

405 impaired driving countermeasures 

grants. 

Estimated Total Annual Burden 

Hours: 39,550. 

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). 

Under the grant application and 

annual report requirements for Sections 

402 and 405, we estimate that it will 

take each respondent approximately 490 

hours to collect, review and submit the 

required information to NHTSA (220 

burden hours for 402 grant applications, 

190 for 405 and 1906 grant applications, 

and 80 hours for annual reports).8

Therefore, NHTSA estimates the total 

annual burden for Section 402 grant 

applications to be 12,540 hours (57 

respondents × 220 hours), the total 

annual burden for Section 405 and 1906 

grant applications to be 10,640 hours 

(56 respondents × 190 hours), and the 

total annual burden for annual reports 

to be 4,560 (57 respondents × 80 hours). 

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: 9 NHTSA estimates 

that there will be 9 assessments for 

Section 405 occupant protection grants, 

14 assessments for the Section 405 

traffic safety information system 

improvement grants, and 4 assessments 

for the Section 405 impaired driving 

grant each year. Based on this 

information and the hours listed below, 

the estimated annual burden hours for 

all State respondents is 2,866 hours. 

As the requirements for the program 

assessments vary, the burden for each 

type is calculated separately. For traffic 

safety information system improvement 

grants, we estimate that it takes 123 

hours to respond to questions under the 

assessment. For occupant protection 

and impaired driving countermeasures 

grants, we estimate that it takes 88 hours 

to provide the required information and 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1
13364 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 46 / Wednesday, March 9, 2022 / Notices 

10See May 2019 National Industry-Specific 

Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates, 

NAICS 336100—Motor Vehicle Manufacturing, 

available at https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/ 

naics4_999200.htm (accessed January 6, 2021). 

11See Table 1. Employer Costs for Employee 

Compensation by ownership, available at https://

www.bls.gov/news.release/ecec.t01.htm 

respond to questions under an 

assessment. 

Commenters did not question 

NHTSA’s estimates for labor cost. For 

the costs associated with respondents 

preparing application materials NHTSA 

used the estimated average wage for 

‘‘Management Analysts,’’ Occupation 

Code 13–1111. The Bureau of Labor 

Statistics estimates that the average 

hourly wage for management analysts in 

State and local government is $31.95.10

The Bureau of Labor Statistics estimates 

that wages for State and local 

government workers represent 61.8% of 

total compensation costs.11 Therefore, 

NHTSA estimates the hourly labor costs 

to be $51.70 and estimates that hourly 

labor cost associated with preparing 

materials to be $24,056 per respondent. 

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 on all State 

respondents would be $1,582,329. 

These estimates are based on every 

eligible respondent submitting the 

required information for every available 

grant. However, 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. 

TABLE 1—ESTIMATED BURDEN HOURS AND LABOR COSTS FOR STATE RESPONDENTS

Information collection Frequency Number of 

respondents 

Burden hours 

per 

respondent 

Hourly labor 

costs 

Total labor 

costs 

Total burden 

hours 

Section 402 Grant Application ............. Yearly ................. 57 220 $51.70 $648,318 12,540 

405 and 1906 Grant Applications ........ Yearly ................. 56 190 51.70 550,088 10,640 

Annual Report ...................................... Yearly ................. 57 80 51.70 235,752 4,560 

405b Assessment ................................ Every 3 years .... 9 88 51.70 40,946 792 

405c Assessment ................................ Every 5 years .... 14 123 51.70 89,027 1,722 

405d Assessment ................................ Every 3 years .... 4 88 51.70 18,198 352 

Totals ............................................ ............................ ........................ ........................ ........................ $1,582,329 30,606 

In addition to the burden hours for 

State respondents, this information 

collection also involves burden hours 

for subject matter experts who assess the 

States and burden hours for 

administrative assistants. NHTSA 

estimates the burden on subject matter 

experts based on the number 

assessments that will be performed each 

year, the number of individuals 

involved with each assessment, and the 

estimated time for each assessor. As 

stated above, NHTSA estimates that 

there will be 9 assessments for Section 

405 occupant protection grants, 14 

assessments for the Section 405 traffic 

safety information system improvement 

grants, and 4 assessments for the 

Section 405 impaired driving grant each 

year. Each impaired driving and 

occupant protection assessment team 

consists of five (5) assessors and an 

administrative assistant. For traffic 

records assessments, there are between 

10 to 14 assessors. For purposes of 

estimate the total annual burden hours, 

NHTSA estimates that there will be 

approximately 13 assessors for each 

traffic records assessment. 

For occupant protection and impaired 

driving assessments NHTSA estimates 

that assessors spend approximately 80 

hours of work on each assessment, 

based on the following assumptions: 46 

hours for the interviews and panel 

discussions and 34 hours for pre- and 

post- assessment activities, to include 

reviewing: (1) Briefing book materials; 

(2) resources on the State Highway 

Safety Office’s website, and (3) 

reviewing comments and/or suggestions 

submitted from the State after their 

review of the assessment final report.In 

addition, an administrative assistant is 

expected to spend approximately 46 

hours preparing for the interviews and 

panel discussions and 18 hours for preand post- assessment activities, to 

include coordinating logistics, assisting 

team members and editing the 

document. Therefore, NHTSA estimates 

the total annual burden for Section 405b 

(occupant protection) assessment 

subject matter experts to be 4,176 hours 

((5 SME × 80 hours × 9 assessments) + 

(1 Admin × 64 hours × 9 assessments)) 

and the total annual burden for Section 

405d (impaired driving) assessment 

subject matter experts to be 1,856 hours 

((5 SME × 80 hours × 4 assessments) + 

(1 Admin × 64 hours × 4 assessments)). 

For traffic records assessments 

(Section 405c), NHTSA estimates that 

each subject matter expert will spend 

approximately 16 hours on an 

assessment. Therefore, NHTSA 

estimates the total annual burden for 

traffic records subject matter experts to 

be 2,912 hours (13 SME × 16 hours × 14 

assessments). 

To calculate the cost associated with 

the assessors time, NHTSA uses the 

costs paid to the assessors. For occupant 

protection and impaired driving 

assessments, the State pays each subject 

matter expert $2,700, which translates 

to $33.75 per hour and pays each 

administrative assistant $2,100, which 

translates to $32.80 per hour. For traffic 

records assessments NHTSA pays each 

assessor $2,100 for their time, or 

$131.25 per hour. Table 2 provides a 

summary of the burden hours for subject 

matter expert respondents. 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 46 / Wednesday, March 9, 2022 / Notices 13365 

TABLE 2—ESTIMATED BURDEN HOURS AND LABOR COSTS FOR SUBJECT MATTER EXPERT RESPONDENTS

Information collection 

Number of 

respondents 

per assessment 

Number of 

assessments 

per year 

Burden hours 

per 

respondent 

Hourly labor 

costs 

Total labor 

costs 

Total burden 

hours 

405b Assessment (every 3 years) ......... 5 SME ..................

1 Admin ...............

9 

......................

80 

64 

$33.75 

32.80 

$121,500 

18,893 

3,600 

576 

405c Assessment (every 5 years) ......... 13 SME ................ 14 16 131.25 382,200 2,912 

405d Assessment (every 3 years) ......... 5 SME ..................

1 Admin ...............

4 

......................

80 

64 

33.75 

32.80 

54,000 

8,397 

1,600 

256 

Total ................................................ .............................. ...................... ...................... ........................ 584,990 8,944 

Accordingly, NHTSA estimates the 

total burden hours for this information 

collection request is 39,550 hours and 

the associated labor costs is estimated to 

be $2,167,319. 

Estimated Total Annual Burden Cost: 

$422,500. 

Apart from the costs incurred by 

States for labor associated with the 

burden hours, States are expected to 

incur other costs in conjunction with 

the assessments. There are other costs 

involved related to conducting the event 

such as subject matter expert stipend, 

travel and per diem. These costs are 

approximately $32,500 per occupant 

protection and impaired driving 

assessment. For the thirteen planned 

assessments, the cost is estimated to be 

$422,500. 

Public Comments Invited: You are 

asked to comment on any aspects of this 

information collection, including (a) 

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; 

(b) 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; 

(c) ways to enhance the quality, utility 

and clarity of the information to be 

collected; and (d) ways to minimize the 

burden of the collection of information 

on respondents, 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. 

Authority: The Paperwork Reduction 

Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as 

amended; 49 CFR 1.49; and DOT Order 

1351.29. 

Issued on March 3, 2022. 

Barbara F. Sauers, 

Acting Associate Administrator for Regional 

Operations and Program Delivery. 

[FR Doc. 2022–04932 Filed 3–8–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials 

Safety Administration 

Hazardous Materials: Notice of Actions 

on Special Permits 

AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous 

Materials Safety Administration 

(PHMSA), Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Notice of actions on special 

permit applications. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with the 

procedures governing the application 

for, and the processing of, special 

permits from the Department of 

Transportation’s Hazardous Material 

Regulations, notice is hereby given that 

the Office of Hazardous Materials Safety 

has received the application described 

herein. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before April 8, 2022. 

ADDRESSES: Record Center, Pipeline and 

Hazardous Materials Safety 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Transportation Washington, DC 20590. 

Comments should refer to the 

application number and be submitted in 

triplicate. If confirmation of receipt of 

comments is desired, include a selfaddressed stamped postcard showing 

the special permit number. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Donald Burger, Chief, Office of 

Hazardous Materials Safety General 

Approvals and Permits Branch, Pipeline 

and Hazardous Materials Safety 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Transportation, East Building, PHH–13, 

1200 New Jersey Avenue Southeast, 

Washington, DC 20590–0001, (202) 366– 

4535. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Copies of 

the applications are available for 

inspection in the Records Center, East 

Building, PHH–13, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue Southeast, Washington DC. 

This notice of receipt of applications 

for special permit is published in 

accordance with part 107 of the Federal 

hazardous materials transportation law 

(49 U.S.C. 5117(b); 49 CFR 1.53(b)). 

Issued in Washington, DC, on March 02, 

2022. 

Donald P. Burger, 

Chief, General Approvals and Permits 

Branch. 

Application No. Applicant Regulation(s) affected Nature of the special permits thereof 

Special Permits Data—Granted 

10511–M ............ Schlumberger Technology 

Corp.

173.304a ................................ To modify the special permit to authorize an additional 

packaging configuration. 

11650–M ............ Autoliv Asp, Inc ...................... 173.301(a)(1), 173.302(a) ...... To modify the special permit to authorize cylinder weld 

studs. 

13112–M ............ Cobham Mission Systems Orchard Park Inc.173.302a(a)(1) ....................... To modify the special permit to update the drawing revision 

number of the packaging. 

14919–M ............ Joyson Safety Systems Acquisition LLC.173.301(a)(1), 173.302a, 

178.65(f)(2).

To modify the special permit to authorize a different pressure test and alternative safety control measures. 

20907–M ............ Versum Materials Us, LLC ..... 171.23(a)(1), 171.23(a)(3) ..... To modify the special permit to replace paragraph 7.b.(6) 

with a 5-year service life restriction. 

20963–M ............ Lg Energy Solution Wroclaw 

SP ZOO.

172.101(j) ............................... To modify the special permit to include additional cells in 

the authorized battery modules. 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1