83 FR 42973 - Traffic Records Program Assessment Advisory; Notice of Availability
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Federal Register Volume 83, Issue 165 (August 24, 2018)
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Federal Register Volume 83, Issue 165 (August 24, 2018)
| Page Range | 42973-42975 | |
| FR Document | 2018-18325 |
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 165 (Friday, August 24, 2018)] [Notices] [Pages 42973-42975] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [FR Doc No: 2018-18325] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION National Highway Traffic Safety Administration [Docket No. NHTSA-2017-0081] Traffic Records Program Assessment Advisory; Notice of Availability AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Notice of availability. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: States need timely, accurate, complete, accessible, and uniform traffic records to identify and prioritize traffic safety issues and to choose appropriate safety countermeasures and evaluate their effectiveness. Traffic records program assessments provide States with the information needed to plan traffic records improvement projects. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) announces the availability of a revised Traffic Records Program Assessment Advisory following review of comments received from States, associations, non-profit organizations, and individuals. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For programmatic issues: John Siegler, Office of Traffic Records and Analysis, NSA-221, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone (202) 366- 1268; email: John.Siegler@dot.gov. For legal issues: Megan Brown, Attorney-Advisor, Office of the Chief Counsel, NCC-300, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590; telephone: (202) 366- 1834; email: Megan.Brown@dot.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background States need timely, accurate, complete, uniform, integrated, and accessible traffic records data to identify and prioritize traffic safety issues, and choose appropriate safety countermeasures and evaluate their effectiveness. The purpose of traffic records assessments is to provide States with useful information on the status of the many systems that make up the traffic records system. Federal statute requires States to certify that ``an assessment of the State's highway safety data and traffic records system was conducted or updated during the preceding 5 years'' in order to qualify for a State traffic safety information system improvements grant. 23 U.S.C. 405(c). NHTSA regulations require that the assessment comply with ``procedures and methodologies'' outlined by NHTSA. 23 CFR 1300.22(b)(4). NHTSA published the Traffic Records Program Assessment Advisory (Advisory) (DOT HS 811 644) in 2012 to provide guidance on conducting these assessments. This notice announces the availability of a revised Traffic Records Program Assessment Advisory following review of comments received from States, associations, non-profit organizations, and individuals. II. Comments NHTSA received submissions from 23 commenters in response to the October 25, 2017 request for comment. 82 FR 49473-49475. Commenters included the following eleven State agencies and commissions: California Office of Traffic Safety (CA OTS); Colorado Department of Transportation (CO DOT); Connecticut Department of Transportation (CT DOT); Delaware Office of Highway Safety (DE OHS); Massachusetts Department of Public Health (MA DPH); Michigan Crash Section (MI Crash); New York State Governor's Traffic Safety Committee (NY GTSC); Injury and Violence Prevention Branch of the NC Division of Public Health (NC DPH); Puerto Rico Traffic Safety Commission (PR TSC); joint submission by the Washington Traffic Safety Commission and Washington Traffic Records Committee (WA Traffic); and joint submission by the Departments of Transportation of Idaho, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota & Wyoming (5-State DOTs). Three associations and consortiums provided comments: Association of Transportation Safety Information Professionals (ATSIP); Governor's Highway Safety Association (GHSA); and National Safety Council (NSC). One non-profit organization, Consumers Union (CU), provided comments. Eight individual commenters also provided comments: Brook Chipman; Joe McCarthy; Mario Damiata; Nathan Dean; Jay Wall; and three anonymous commenters. Of these comments, three were out of the scope of this notice.\1\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ Two anonymous commenters commented on EPA regulatory issues. One anonymous commenter commented on electric vehicle batteries. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Three broad categories of comments accounted for more than half of the comments received: comments stating that the assessment is too burdensome, comments seeking more personalized recommendations, and comments seeking more in-person meetings as part of the assessment process. Ten commenters, including States, associations and an individual, stated that the existing Traffic Records Assessment process is burdensome. Specifically, commenters stated that the assessment is burdensome due to the number of questions (some of which they consider redundant), the high standards of evidence required for responses, the time required to respond, and the number of agencies within the State that are required to participate in assessments. Seven commenters, including States, associations, and individuals, requested that assessors provide more personalized recommendations to States at the conclusion of each assessment. Several commenters further asserted that it would be helpful to States if assessors prioritized the most important recommendations to assist States in planning traffic records improvement projects. Twelve commenters, including States, associations, and individuals, argued that the assessment process would be easier and more useful if there were more opportunities for in-person meetings. As a result of these comments, NHTSA has taken a fresh look at the Advisory, as it was not our intent to impose undue burdens on States. In revising the Advisory, we strove to provide maximum flexibility and reduce [[Page 42974]] the burden on States, while still providing States with guidance and assistance in conducting assessments. Therefore, as explained further below, NHTSA has revised the Advisory to provide States with three options for conducting assessments. These options range from an entirely State-run assessment, in which States control the process and outcomes, to a self-assessment using questions provided by NHTSA, that will result in generalized recommendations, to a more detailed NHTSA- facilitated and funded assessment, which will include in-person meetings and will result in a personalized final report. In addition to reducing burden on States by providing three options for conducting assessments, NHTSA strove to further reduce burden in the optional assessment questions provided in Appendix E of the Advisory. Previously the questions were required for all States and accounted for the majority of the Advisory. Now, however, those assessment questions have been reduced by 16 percent and States are not required to use the questions. The questions in Appendix E will be used only if a State opts to complete an assessment using NHTSA's questions. Several commenters offered suggestions for specific changes to the questions, which we will address briefly. NY GTSC and the 5-State DOTs argued that using an ``ideal'' system as a baseline for the assessment sets an unattainable standard. The 5- State DOTs further requested that the Advisory not refer to findings as ``deficiencies'' because an ``ideal'' is not a real standard. While NHTSA understands that an ``ideal'' system is a very high standard, we believe that it provides a useful measure for States strive for, but we do not require States to meet the ideal. We agree that failure to meet an ``ideal'' does not represent a ``deficiency'' and have therefore replaced ``deficiency'' with ``area of opportunity.'' Seven State commenters requested more flexibility in the evidence required to respond to each question. While States may choose their own standard of evidence when conducting a self-assessment under either of the first two assessment options provided in the new Advisory, NHTSA- facilitated assessments still require States to provide sufficient evidence. However, NHTSA agrees that this evidence may come in different forms. Therefore, NHTSA no longer prescribes ``required evidence,'' but instead provides guidance for ``suggested evidence'' that States may want to use to respond to each question. Four commenters requested more flexibility in the structure of the Traffic Records Coordinating Committee. In response, NHTSA has updated both the TRCC narrative and questions to align with the best practices identified in the State Traffic Records Coordinating Committee Noteworthy Practices \2\ report, which focuses more on the responsibilities of the TRCC than a specific structure. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \2\ Available online at https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/docs/TRCC%20Noteworthy%20Practices%20Guide%20final%20september%202015.pdf. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- GHSA suggested that all performance measure questions be combined into a single question in each section of the assessment. While that would reduce the number of questions, it would not reduce the burden on the State to respond to each performance measure and would make it more difficult to identify limitations in any specific performance measure. NHTSA declines to make this change. The ID, MT, ND, SD, and WY DOTs commented that the advisory text implies that States are required to adopt elements beyond the MMUCC minimum and Joe McCarthy asked for clarification that MMUCC is voluntary. MMUCC is a voluntary standard. NHTSA's intent in the Advisory is to suggest that States can add the MMUCC elements and attributes that are unique to their own environment and operation. We have updated both the text of the Advisory and the questions to reflect this clarification. Several commenters (CO DOT, WA TSC & TRC, 5-State DOTs and Joe McCarthy) stated that the Roadway system outlined in the Advisory should be updated to match the requirements set out by the Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA) Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP). NHTSA agrees and has aligned the Advisory and questions to FHWA's required elements. Three commenters (ATSIP, MA DPH, and NC DPH) found the Injury Surveillance System (ISS) section burdensome, stating that the number of questions in that section was disproportionate to the rest of the assessment questions. NHTSA recognizes that the ISS section has more questions than the other data system sections. However, the ISS system contains five separate component data systems, which is substantially more component data systems than the other sections. MA DPH asked whether the evidence provided for the Injury Surveillance System section of the assessment must be related to traffic data. States may provide any evidence from the system, regardless of whether it is traffic-related. III. Overview of the Traffic Records Program Assessment Advisory As highlighted above, NHTSA believes it is important to provide States with flexibility in meeting the requirement to conduct an assessment of the State's highway safety data and traffic records system. Therefore, the Advisory provides guidance on three different assessment processes so that States may choose the process that best fits their needs. First, States may design their own assessment of their traffic safety information systems. NHTSA regulations require States to list all recommendations from their most recent highway safety data and traffic records system assessment and identify whether and how they intend to address those recommendations. 23 CFR 1300.22(b)(2)(ii-iv). A State's assessment should, therefore, result in a comprehensive set of recommendations that will improve the State traffic safety information systems and inform the State's traffic records strategic plan. The Advisory lays out noteworthy practices that States may wish to consider when assessing their data systems. Second, NHTSA has developed a self-assessment tool that States may use. The assessment tool consists of a series of questions developed by NHTSA, with the input of subject matter experts, which will generate recommendations based on the States' responses. This assessment tool is available online at https://www.nhtsa.gov/research-data/traffic-records. The questions are in Appendix E of the Advisory. Third, States may opt to participate in NHTSA's State Traffic Records Assessment Program (STRAP) at no cost to the State. STRAP is a peer assessment process using the questions from NHTSA's assessment tool. Qualified independent assessors will evaluate the State's responses and provide recommendations; specific and actionable considerations; and a final report. An experienced facilitator supports this process, which includes two onsite meetings and a webinar report- out. Regardless of which process a State chooses to conduct its assessment, NHTSA GO Teams remain available to States who wish to apply for additional technical assistance. GO Teams provide technical expertise and guidance on specific small- to mid-scale projects that the States want to undertake but that may require other, specialized knowledge. Application forms are available on the NHTSA website http:// [[Page 42975]] www.nhtsa.gov/DOT/NHTSA/NVS/TrafficRecords/ Training_Technical_Assistance_Application.docx. The full Traffic Records Program Assessment Advisory is posted online at https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/812601. Authority: 23 U.S.C. Section 405(c)(3)(E). Issued in Washington, DC. Terry T. Shelton, Associate Administrator, National Center for Statistics and Analysis. [FR Doc. 2018-18325 Filed 8-23-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
![Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 165 / Friday, August 24, 2018 / Notices 42973
basis for any such claim and, if possible, Analysis, NSA–221, National Highway joint submission by the Washington
a summary of your submission that can Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Traffic Safety Commission and
be made available to the public. Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC Washington Traffic Records Committee
20590. Telephone (202) 366–1268; (WA Traffic); and joint submission by
Privacy Act
email: John.Siegler@dot.gov. the Departments of Transportation of
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), For legal issues: Megan Brown, Idaho, Montana, North Dakota, South
DOT solicits comments from the public Attorney-Advisor, Office of the Chief Dakota & Wyoming (5-State DOTs).
to better inform its rulemaking process. Counsel, NCC–300, National Highway Three associations and consortiums
DOT posts these comments, without Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New provided comments: Association of
edit, to www.regulations.gov, as Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC Transportation Safety Information
described in the system of records 20590; telephone: (202) 366–1834; Professionals (ATSIP); Governor’s
notice, DOT/ALL–14 FDMS, accessible email: Megan.Brown@dot.gov. Highway Safety Association (GHSA);
through www.dot.gov/privacy. To SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: and National Safety Council (NSC). One
facilitate comment tracking and non-profit organization, Consumers
response, we encourage commenters to I. Background
Union (CU), provided comments. Eight
provide their name, or the name of their States need timely, accurate, individual commenters also provided
organization; however, submission of complete, uniform, integrated, and comments: Brook Chipman; Joe
names is completely optional. Whether accessible traffic records data to identify McCarthy; Mario Damiata; Nathan Dean;
or not commenters identify themselves, and prioritize traffic safety issues, and Jay Wall; and three anonymous
all timely comments will be fully choose appropriate safety commenters. Of these comments, three
considered. If you wish to provide countermeasures and evaluate their were out of the scope of this notice.1
comments containing proprietary or effectiveness. The purpose of traffic Three broad categories of comments
confidential information, please contact records assessments is to provide States accounted for more than half of the
the agency for alternate submission with useful information on the status of comments received: comments stating
instructions. the many systems that make up the that the assessment is too burdensome,
Authority: 49 CFR 1.93(a), 46 U.S.C. traffic records system. comments seeking more personalized
55103, 46 U.S.C. 12121 Federal statute requires States to recommendations, and comments
* * * certify that ‘‘an assessment of the State’s seeking more in-person meetings as part
Dated: August 20, 2018.
highway safety data and traffic records of the assessment process.
By Order of the Maritime Administrator. system was conducted or updated Ten commenters, including States,
T. Mitchell Hudson, Jr. during the preceding 5 years’’ in order associations and an individual, stated
to qualify for a State traffic safety that the existing Traffic Records
Secretary, Maritime Administration.
information system improvements grant. Assessment process is burdensome.
[FR Doc. 2018–18270 Filed 8–23–18; 8:45 am]
23 U.S.C. 405(c). NHTSA regulations Specifically, commenters stated that the
BILLING CODE 4910–81–P
require that the assessment comply with assessment is burdensome due to the
‘‘procedures and methodologies’’ number of questions (some of which
outlined by NHTSA. 23 CFR they consider redundant), the high
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
1300.22(b)(4). NHTSA published the standards of evidence required for
National Highway Traffic Safety Traffic Records Program Assessment responses, the time required to respond,
Administration Advisory (Advisory) (DOT HS 811 644) and the number of agencies within the
in 2012 to provide guidance on State that are required to participate in
[Docket No. NHTSA–2017–0081] conducting these assessments. assessments.
This notice announces the availability Seven commenters, including States,
Traffic Records Program Assessment of a revised Traffic Records Program
Advisory; Notice of Availability associations, and individuals, requested
Assessment Advisory following review that assessors provide more
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic of comments received from States, personalized recommendations to States
Safety Administration (NHTSA), associations, non-profit organizations, at the conclusion of each assessment.
Department of Transportation (DOT). and individuals. Several commenters further asserted
ACTION: Notice of availability. II. Comments that it would be helpful to States if
SUMMARY: States need timely, accurate, NHTSA received submissions from 23 assessors prioritized the most important
complete, accessible, and uniform traffic commenters in response to the October recommendations to assist States in
records to identify and prioritize traffic 25, 2017 request for comment. 82 FR planning traffic records improvement
safety issues and to choose appropriate 49473–49475. Commenters included the projects.
Twelve commenters, including States,
safety countermeasures and evaluate following eleven State agencies and
their effectiveness. Traffic records associations, and individuals, argued
commissions: California Office of Traffic
program assessments provide States that the assessment process would be
Safety (CA OTS); Colorado Department
with the information needed to plan easier and more useful if there were
of Transportation (CO DOT);
traffic records improvement projects. more opportunities for in-person
Connecticut Department of
The National Highway Traffic Safety meetings.
Transportation (CT DOT); Delaware As a result of these comments,
Administration (NHTSA) announces the Office of Highway Safety (DE OHS); NHTSA has taken a fresh look at the
availability of a revised Traffic Records Massachusetts Department of Public Advisory, as it was not our intent to
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
Program Assessment Advisory following Health (MA DPH); Michigan Crash impose undue burdens on States. In
review of comments received from Section (MI Crash); New York State revising the Advisory, we strove to
States, associations, non-profit Governor’s Traffic Safety Committee provide maximum flexibility and reduce
organizations, and individuals. (NY GTSC); Injury and Violence
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Prevention Branch of the NC Division of 1 Two anonymous commenters commented on
For programmatic issues: John Public Health (NC DPH); Puerto Rico EPA regulatory issues. One anonymous commenter
Siegler, Office of Traffic Records and Traffic Safety Commission (PR TSC); commented on electric vehicle batteries.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:17 Aug 23, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00115 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\24AUN1.SGM 24AUN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/83_FR_43138/page/1.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 165 / Friday, August 24, 2018 / Notices 42975
www.nhtsa.gov/DOT/NHTSA/NVS/ listed in this document. You must other forms of information technology;
TrafficRecords/Training_Technical_ reference the information collection’s and (e) estimates of capital or start-up
Assistance_Application.docx. title, form or recordkeeping requirement costs and costs of operation,
The full Traffic Records Program number, and OMB number (if any) in maintenance, and purchase of services
Assessment Advisory is posted online at your comment. to provide the requested information.
https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/ You may view copies of this
Public/ViewPublication/812601. Information Collections Open for
document, the information collections
Comment
Authority: 23 U.S.C. Section 405(c)(3)(E). listed in it and any associated
instructions, and all comments received Currently, we are seeking comments
Issued in Washington, DC.
in response to this document within on the following information collections
Terry T. Shelton,
Docket No. TTB–2018–0001 at https:// (forms, recordkeeping requirements, or
Associate Administrator, National Center for www.regulations.gov. A link to that questionnaires):
Statistics and Analysis.
docket is posted on the TTB website at Title: Change of Bond (Consent of
[FR Doc. 2018–18325 Filed 8–23–18; 8:45 am] https://www.ttb.gov/forms/comment-on- Surety).
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P form.shtml. You may also obtain paper OMB Number: 1513–0013.
copies of this document, the TTB Form Number: F 5000.18.
information collections described in it
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY and any associated instructions, and any Abstract: The Internal Revenue Code
comments received in response to this (IRC), at 26 U.S.C. 5114, 5173, 5272,
Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade document by contacting Michael Hoover 5354, 5401, and 5711, requires certain
Bureau at the addresses or telephone number alcohol and tobacco industry
shown below. proprietors to post a bond in conformity
[Docket No. TTB–2018–0001]
with regulations issued by the Secretary
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Proposed Information Collections; of the Treasury (Secretary) to ensure
Michael Hoover, Alcohol and Tobacco payment by the bonding company of
Comment Request (No. 71) Tax and Trade Bureau, 1310 G Street Federal excise taxes due on such
AGENCY: Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and NW, Box 12, Washington, DC 20005; products should the proprietor default.
Trade Bureau, Treasury. telephone (202) 453–1039, ext. 135; or When circumstances of a proprietor’s
ACTION: Notice and request for email informationcollections@ttb.gov operation change from the original bond
comments. (please do not submit comments on the agreement, the TTB regulations
information collections listed in this authorized under those IRC sections
SUMMARY: As part of our continuing document to this email address). allow the proprietor to complete form
effort to reduce paperwork and SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: TTB F 5000.18, Change of Bond
respondent burden, and as required by
Request for Comments (Consent of Surety), in lieu of obtaining
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,
a new bond. Once executed by the
the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade The Department of the Treasury and proprietor and an approved surety
Bureau (TTB) invites comments on the its Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade company, the form is filed with TTB,
proposed or continuing information Bureau (TTB), as part of a continuing which retains it as long as the revised
collections listed below in this effort to reduce paperwork and bond agreement remains in force.
document. respondent burden, invite the general
Current Actions: This information
DATES: Comments are due on or before public and other Federal agencies to
collection remains unchanged, and TTB
October 23, 2018. comment on the proposed or continuing
is submitting it only for extension
ADDRESSES: As described below, you information collections listed below in
purposes. However, TTB is decreasing
may send comments on the information this notice, as required by the
the estimated number of annual
collections listed in this document Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
respondents, responses, and burden
using the ‘‘Regulations.gov’’ online U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
hours associated with this information
comment form for this document, or you Comments submitted in response to
collection due to a decrease in the
may send written comments via U.S. this notice will be included or
number of TTB-regulated alcohol
mail or hand delivery. TTB no longer summarized in our request for Office of
industry members that are required to
accepts public comments via email or Management and Budget (OMB)
file bonds. As amended by section 332
fax. approval of the relevant information
of the Protecting Americans from Tax
• https://www.regulations.gov: Use collection. All comments are part of the
Hikes Act of 2015 (PATH Act), the IRC
the comment form for this document public record and subject to disclosure.
no longer requires bonds for taxpayers
posted within Docket No. TTB–2018– Please do not include any confidential
who are eligible to pay excise taxes on
0001 on ‘‘Regulations.gov,’’ the Federal or inappropriate material in comments.
distilled spirits, wines, and beer using
e-rulemaking portal, to submit For each information collection listed
quarterly or annual return periods,
comments via the internet; below, we invite comments on: (a)
provided that such taxes are paid on a
• U.S. Mail: Michael Hoover, Whether the information collection is
deferred basis and, with respect to
Regulations and Rulings Division, necessary for the proper performance of
distilled spirits and wine, the products
Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade the agency’s functions, including
are for nonindustrial use.
Bureau, 1310 G Street NW, Box 12, whether the information has practical
utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency’s Type of Review: Extension of a
Washington, DC 20005.
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
currently approved collection.
• Hand Delivery/Courier in Lieu of estimate of the information collection’s
Mail: Michael Hoover, Alcohol and burden; (c) ways to enhance the quality, Affected Public: Businesses and other
Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, 1310 G utility, and clarity of the information for-profits.
Street NW, Suite 400, Washington, DC collected; (d) ways to minimize the Estimated Number of Respondents:
20005. information collection’s burden on 150.
Please submit separate comments for respondents, including through the use Estimated Total Annual Burden
each specific information collection of automated collection techniques or Hours: 150.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:17 Aug 23, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00117 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\24AUN1.SGM 24AUN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/83_FR_43138/page/3.svg)
Document Created: 2018-08-24 04:13:59
Document Modified: 2018-08-24 04:13:59
| Category | Regulatory Information | |
| Collection | Federal Register | |
| sudoc Class | AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106: | |
| Publisher | Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration | |
| Section | Notices | |
| Action | Notice of availability. | |
| Contact | For programmatic issues: John Siegler, Office of Traffic Records and Analysis, NSA-221, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone (202) 366- 1268; email: [email protected] | |
| FR Citation | 83 FR 42973 |
2024 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR