60 Day 86FR29354

29354

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 103 / Tuesday, June 1, 2021 / Notices

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA–2021–0039]

Agency Information Collection
Activities; Notice and Request for
Comment; State Data Transfer for
Vehicle Crash Information
National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Notice and request for
comments on a request for approval of
a new information collection.
AGENCY:

The National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA) is reissuing an announcement of our
intention to request approval from the
Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for a new information collection
and inviting public comments. Before a
Federal agency can collect certain
information from the public, it must
receive approval from OMB. Under
procedures established by the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,
before seeking OMB approval, Federal
agencies must solicit public comment
on proposed collections of information,
including extensions and reinstatement
of previously approved collections. This
document describes a collection of
information for which NHTSA intends
to seek OMB approval on State Data
Transfer for Vehicle Crash Information
collection. On May 31, 2018 NHTSA
published a notice in the Federal
Register soliciting public comments
with 60-day comment period. On July
23, 2018, NHTSA extended the
comment period to September 14,
2018.1 Four comments were received
before the comment period expired. One
comment from Governors Highway
Safety Association was submitted after
the comment period expired. Given the
extended time since the publication of
that notice, NHTSA is publishing this
new 60-day notice to request comment
on its proposed State Data Transfer
information collection. This new notice
addresses comments received on the
original 60-day notice. This notice also
announces that NHTSA has requested
emergency clearance from OMB for this
information collection.
DATES: Comments must be submitted on
or before August 2, 2021.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
identified by the Docket No. NHTSA–
2021–0039 through any of the following
methods:

jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES

SUMMARY:

1 83

FR 34912.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:20 May 28, 2021

Jkt 253001

• Electronic submissions: Go to the
Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
• Fax: (202) 493–2251.
• Mail or Hand Delivery: Docket
Management, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE, West Building, Room W12–
140, Washington, DC 20590, between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except on Federal holidays. To
be sure someone is there to help you,
please call (202) 366–9322 before
coming.
Instructions: All submissions must
include the agency name and docket
number for this notice. Note that all
comments received will be posted
without change to http://
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided. Please
see the Privacy Act heading below.
Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search
the electronic form of all comments
received into any of our dockets by the
name of the individual submitting the
comment (or signing the comment, if
submitted on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). You may
review DOT’s complete Privacy Act
Statement in the Federal Register
published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR
19477–78) or you may visit https://
www.transportation.gov/privacy.
Docket: For access to the docket to
read background documents or
comments received, go to http://
www.regulations.gov or the street
address listed above. Follow the online
instructions for accessing the dockets
via internet.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
additional information or access to
background documents, contact Michael
Frenchik, Office of Data Acquisition,
Safety Systems Management Division,
(NSA–0130), (202) 366–0641, National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration,
W53–303, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), 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. The 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: (a)

PO 00000

Frm 00122

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

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) how to enhance the quality, utility,
and clarity of the information to be
collected; and (d) 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 asks for public
comments on the following proposed
collection of information for which the
agency is seeking approval from OMB.
Title: Stata Data Transfer (SDT) for
Vehicle Crash Information.
OMB Control Number: New.
Form Number(s): None.
Type of Request: New.
Type of Review Requested: Regular.
Requested Expiration Date of
Approval: 3 years from date of approval.
Summary of the Collection of
Information
The State Data Transfer (SDT)
program is a voluntary collection of
motor vehicle crash data. State agencies
collect this information about motor
vehicle crashes on Police Accident
Reports (PARs) 2 for their own needs. In
general, a PAR includes information
about the vehicles and individuals
involved in a crash, injuries or fatalities
resulting from a crash, roadway
information, environmental
information, information to reconstruct
the crash scenes, etc. The SDT is a
process through which participating
States transfer their PAR data to
NHTSA. SDT has two components that
NHTSA’s National Center for Statistics
and Analysis (NCSA) calls protocols:
1. The State Data System (SDS)
protocol obtains PAR crash data from
States that submit data on an annual
basis to NCSA. The data is submitted
via electronic media, such as encrypted
CD–ROM/DVD, or through secured mail
or a secure file transfer protocol (SFTP).
Files submitted through the SDS
protocol are referred to as ‘‘annual crash
files.’’
2. The Electronic Data Transfer (EDT)
protocol obtains PAR crash data, crash
reports or crash images from
2 Police Accident Reports are also known as
Police Crash Reports (PCRs) in some jurisdictions.

E:\FR\FM\01JNN1.SGM

01JNN1

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 103 / Tuesday, June 1, 2021 / Notices
participating State crash systems
through an electronic data transfer.
Generally, this transfer occurs on a
nightly basis following State data
quality control checks and acceptance
from each State’s centralized database.
The information is transmitted using
Extensible Markup Language (XML) or
JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) files
through a web service using Hypertext
Transfer Protocol Secure (HTTPS)
protocol between a State’s crash data
system and NHTSA.
The SDT process allows States to
submit all of their PAR data to NHTSA.
NCSA will then use this data to develop
a census of the participating State’s
crashes. The dataset will help NCSA
identify existing and emerging highway
safety trends and assess the
effectiveness of motor vehicle safety
standards and new and emerging
technologies on vehicle and highway
safety programs. NHTSA will also use
the dataset to support NHTSA’s
Corporate Average Fuel Economy
(CAFE) program. Specifically, NHTSA
will use the data to analyze the effects
vehicle mass has on fatalities in cost
benefit analyses for CAFE rulemakings.

jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES

Description of the Need for the
Information and Proposed Use of the
Information
NHTSA plans to utilize the SDT data
to identify existing and emerging
highway safety trends, assess the
effectiveness of motor vehicle safety
standards, and study the impact of new
and emerging technologies on vehicles
and highway safety programs. For
example, NHTSA plans to combine data
from the SDT with information about
the type of advanced driver assistance
systems (ADAS) on crash-involved
vehicles to estimate the effectiveness of
vehicles equipped with ADAS
technologies such as lane keeping
support, automatic emergency braking,
blind spot detection, etc.
NHTSA also plans to use the SDT
data to automatically pre-populate the
motor vehicle crash data it collects for
several other NHTSA data collection
programs. The following are brief
descriptions of these data collection
programs:
• FARS (OMB Control No. 2127–
0006) is a nationwide census of fatalities
caused by motor vehicle traffic crashes.
In addition to PAR data, FARS includes
detailed information regarding the
location of the crash, the vehicles, and
the people involved. FARS cases can
also include toxicology report data,

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:20 May 28, 2021

Jkt 253001

medical records, medical examiner
reports, etc.3
• CRSS (OMB Control No. 2127–
0714) is a nationally representative
sample of police-reported crashes
involving all types of motor vehicles,
pedestrians, and cyclists, ranging from
property-damage-only crashes to those
that result in fatalities. CRSS data
elements are a subset of the data
elements on each State’s PAR.4
• CISS (OMB Control Number 2127–
0706) is a nationally representative
sample of minor, serious, and fatal
crashes involving at least one passenger
vehicle—cars, light trucks, sport utility
vehicles, and vans—towed from the
scene. CISS collects data at both the
crash level through scene analysis and
the vehicle level through vehicle
damage assessment together with injury
coding. Data collected through CISS
expands upon the information that is
collected in a PAR.5
• The SCI Program provides NHTSA
with the most in-depth crash data
collected by the agency. The data
collected ranges from basic information
contained in routine police and
insurance crash reports, to
comprehensive data from special reports
produced by professional crash
investigation teams. Hundreds of data
elements relevant to the vehicle,
occupants, injury mechanisms,
roadway, and safety systems are
collected for each of the over 100
crashes designated for study annually.
• NTS is a virtual data collection
system designed to provide counts and
details regarding fatalities and injuries
that occur in non-traffic crashes and in
non-crash incidents. NTS non-traffic
crash data is obtained through NHTSA’s
information collections for CRSS and
FARS. NTS non-crash injury data is
based upon emergency department
records from a special study conducted
by the Consumer Product Safety
Commission’s National Electronic Injury
Surveillance System (NEISS) All Injury
Program. NTS non-crash fatality data is
derived from death certificate
information from the Centers for Disease
Control’s National Vital Statistics
System.
• CIREN combines crash data
collection with professional
3 Additional details about FARS and how the
agency collects this information are available in the
supporting statements for the ICR with OMB
Control No. 2127–0006.
4 Additional details about CRSS and how the
agency collects this information are available in the
supporting statements for the ICR with OMB
Control No. 2127–0714.
5 Additional details about CISS and how the
agency collects this information are available in the
supporting statements for the ICR with OMB
Control No. 2127–0706.

PO 00000

Frm 00123

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

29355

multidisciplinary analysis of medical
and engineering evidence to determine
injury causation in every crash
investigation conducted. The mission of
the CIREN is to improve the prevention,
treatment, and rehabilitation of motor
vehicle crash injuries to reduce deaths,
disabilities, and human and economic
costs.
Until recently, the transfer of vehicle
crash data from a State’s crash data
system to NHTSA’s FARS, CRSS and
CISS required individuals to manually
enter State vehicle crash data into each
of the crash data systems operated by
NHTSA. The SDT program will allow
NHTSA to automate the transfer of State
motor vehicle crash data into NHTSA’s
other data collection efforts that use this
information. NHTSA’s SDT program
will reduce the burden for manual data
entry and result in more accurate, high
quality and timely data to help save
lives, prevent injuries, and reduce
economic costs due to motor vehicle
crashes.
In addition, the SDT data will be
made available to other DOT agencies,
such as the Federal Highway
Administration and the Federal Motor
Carrier Safety Administration, to
support their mission to save lives on
our national roadways.
Request for Emergency Clearance
NHTSA has requested emergency
clearance from OMB for the SDT
information collection. NHTSA has
requested emergency clearance for the
maximum permissible period under 5
CFR 1320.13(f) to allow NHTSA to
collect the information while it
completes the normal clearance
procedures. NHTSA has sought
emergency clearance because the data
collected through the SDT program are
critical to several high priority projects
for this administration. The SDT data
will be used to analyze the effects
vehicle mass has on fatalities in cost
benefit analyses for CAFE rulemakings.
E.O. 13990 requires NHTSA to ‘‘as
appropriate and consistent with
applicable law, [. . .] consider
publishing for notice and comment a
proposed rule suspending, revising, or
rescinding’’ the SAFE II Rule ‘‘by July
2021.’’ Following the normal clearance
procedures will not allow NHTSA to
receive approval to collect and use this
data before the deadline.
The Partnership for Analytics
Research in Traffic Safety (PARTS) also
needs this data to determine the
effectiveness of automated driver
assistance systems (ADAS) with
Departmental leadership expecting
initial analyses later this year.

E:\FR\FM\01JNN1.SGM

01JNN1

29356

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 103 / Tuesday, June 1, 2021 / Notices

jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES

Given the priorities identified above,
this information is needed before
NHTSA can complete the normal
clearance procedures under 5 CFR part
1320. NHTSA requested that OMB
approve or disapprove the collection of
information within 3 days.
Public Comments
NHTSA published a notice in the
Federal Register with a 60-day public
comment period to announce the
proposed EDT protocol part of SDT
information collection on May 31, 2018
(83 FR 25112). On July 23, 2018,
NHTSA extended the comment period
to September 14, 2018, at the request of
State-based stakeholders. The agency
received five comments in response to
the 60-day notice on the proposed
information collection titled ‘‘State Data
Transfer.’’ 6 NHTSA received comments
from the Transportation Departments of
Idaho, Montana, North Dakota, South
Dakota, and Wyoming in a joint
submission (referred to as ‘‘joint State
commenters’’ in this document); 7 the
Oregon Department of Transportation
(ODOT); Commercial Vehicle Safety
Alliance (CVSA); Governors Highway
Safety Association (GHSA); and the
Insurance Institute for Highway Safety
(IIHS).
CVSA and IIHS were generally
supportive of the program while State
commenters expressed some concerns
about program. The IIHS encouraged
NHTSA to move forward with the State
Data Transfer effort because the effort
would allow for more timely analyses of
the data and enable other opportunities
to improve the accuracy of the
information collected. GHSA expressed
support for NHTSA’s objective to
provide more timely, complete, and
high-quality data on motor vehicle
crashes and stated that the electronic
transfer of State crash data to NHTSA
provides new opportunities to achieve
this goal, as well as reduce time and
cost for State data management
activities. However, GHSA also
commented that some States face
significant barriers to participating.
After reviewing the comments,
NHTSA has revised its estimates for
number of respondents based on interest
from the States and has reclassified the
labor costs associated with the burden
hour calculations. NHTSA believes the
other concerns raised by the
commenters can be addressed by
providing clarification about the
program and its impact on States.
6 83 FR 25112, May 31, 2018. NHTSA
subsequently extended the comment deadline to
September 14, 2018 (83 FR 34912, July 23, 2018).
7 The South Dakota Department of Public Safety
concurs in these comments.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:20 May 28, 2021

Jkt 253001

Discussion of the comments is
organized by topic below. NHTSA
received comments and questions about
the program as a whole and program
participation; funding; cost and burden
estimates; data compatibility and
standardization; data confidentiality;
additional data elements; and data
sharing.
General Program Clarifications
The joint State commenters stated that
the notice included few specifics about
the program and they were uncertain
whether implementation of this
proposal would result in only the same
information being provided by the
States to NHTSA as is provided today,
via different means, or whether
implementation of this proposal would
result in States providing more
information than they do today.
NHTSA Response: The SDT program
does result in States providing more
information to NHTSA than they do
today. Currently, NHTSA only collects
crash data on a subset of all vehicle
crashes. NHTSA collects data on all
crashes involving fatalities through
FARS and then collects samples of
crashes through CRSS and CISS. This
means that there are some crashes that
States collect data on that are not
reported to NHTSA. The SDT program
allows States to submit crash data on all
of their crashes to NHTSA. While the
scope of the crashes NHTSA will collect
data on is expanded, it is not NHTSA’s
intention to use the SDT program to
seek any additional data elements
beyond what the States are providing to
NHTSA today. However, because State
crash databases may contain more data
elements than NHTSA currently collects
in its existing collections, NHTSA may
receive more data elements from some
States than is currently collected. This
will vary by State and is dependent on
what data elements the State chooses to
send to NHTSA. Additionally,
participating States may choose to only
send data on crashes to pre-populate the
existing crash databases (i.e., FARS,
CRSS, and CISS).
While the SDT program will collect
data beyond what States currently
provide to NHTSA, NHTSA expects that
the EDT protocol will reduce the overall
burden for participating States. The EDT
protocol is expected to reduce manual
data entry in connection with NHTSA’s
existing collections of crash data.
Participation in either SDT protocol is
completely voluntary and NHTSA
expects States to participate only if they
deem it beneficial to them. If a State
chooses to participate in the EDT
protocol, NHTSA will work with them
to set up a data feed, which NHTSA will

PO 00000

Frm 00124

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

use to pre-populate existing crash
databases. For example, a subset of the
data will be pre-populated into the
FARS system. Instead of State analysts
manually inputting all of data into
FARS program, they can focus on
validating the data in the system and
completing the FARS entry. This precoding of data is expected to reduce
time spent on manual data entry and
result in more accurate and higher
quality data.
Program Participation
NHTSA received comments on
program participation from ODOT, the
joint State commenters, and GHSA.
ODOT asked whether NHTSA has the
authority to compel States to share or
transfer data and ODOT, the joint State
commenters, and GHSA commented on
the voluntary nature of the program.
The joint State commenters said that a
voluntary approach would be preferred
because of substantial legal and
financial challenges to participation.
GHSA commented that States are wary
about new technology directives and
concerned that the State Data Transfer
will become mandatory. As support for
this concern, GHSA mentioned the
significant technical challenges that
States faced with the launch of the
Grants Management Solutions Suite
(GMSS) by NHTSA’s Office of Regional
Operations and Program Delivery.
NHTSA Response: Participation in the
SDT program is completely voluntary.
NHTSA recognizes that some States
would face considerable challenges to
participation. Not all States currently
have centralized data systems that
would allow integration with NHTSA’s
interface. Because a centralized data
system is necessary for participation in
SDT, some States would not be able to
participate or would need to first create
a centralized data system, which would
require significant time and financial
resources.
Funding
The joint State commenters and
ODOT commented about the availability
of funding to help States achieve
compliance with the proposed
collection requirement. The joint State
commenters state that States do not
have unlimited fiscal or personnel
resources to address these data issues
and, absent new funding from USDOT,
to implement this ‘‘information
collection,’’ States will have to meet
these new obligations by using Federal
and/or State funds that otherwise would
go to other safety programs and efforts.
ODOT pointed out that no funding has
been identified or provided to aid states
in creating the software packages and

E:\FR\FM\01JNN1.SGM

01JNN1

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 103 / Tuesday, June 1, 2021 / Notices

jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES

translation modules to port the data
from the state to NHTSA or to cover the
costs of the creation of a statewide crash
database in jurisdictions where none
exists today. ODOT also stated that the
SDT program would require reallocation
of States’ resources from other major
information programs and information
systems.
NHTSA Response: NHTSA notes that
participation in the SDT program is
voluntary. NHTSA understands the
challenges of integrating data systems
and, therefore, assesses each State’s
readiness for SDT implementation on a
case-by-case basis. In order to assist a
State wishing to improve its data
systems, NHTSA offers incentive grants
to states that improve State safety data
systems, including to improve the
compatibility and interoperability of the
State and national data systems. States
that are unable to support data transfer
may contact NHTSA’s regional office
about whether the State may apply for
a 405(c) State Traffic Safety Information
System Improvement grant to improve
its data systems.
Cost and Burden Estimates
ODOT, the joint State commenters,
CVSA, and GHSA commented on
NHTSA’s cost and burden estimates for
the EDT protocol. ODOT, the joint State
commenters, and CVSA raised concerns
that NHTSA underestimated the cost of
participation. Specifically, ODOT stated
that it thought that the estimates
significantly underestimated the cost to
States in full-time employee resources
and budget by thousands of dollars. The
joint State commenters pointed out that
relevant data is not always housed in
the transportation agencies and it may
require a great deal of coordination
between State agencies to gather the
data. The joint State commenters also
raised concerns about the cost of
creating and testing software programs
that may be needed. CVSA commented
that many States would need to undergo
significant information technology
system changes to deliver the electronic
data in the necessary format and that
NHTSA underestimated the costs. The
joint State commenters further
expressed concerns that NHTSA has not
issued specifications for the data to be
transferred and its format, which makes
estimating costs difficult. They also
expressed concern that the EDT program
would involve changes in the way data
is input.
GHSA expressed concerns that if
NHTSA’s estimates are averages, there
may be significant deviation based on
State needs. However, GHSA
acknowledged that some of the States
that have already participated in SDT

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:20 May 28, 2021

Jkt 253001

agreed with the estimates. GHSA also
stated participating States report that
SDT programs were lengthy to set up
prior to implementing, which could
include several months of coordinating
calls between the State and NHTSA
information technology staff focused
chiefly on coordinating computer code.
NHTSA Response: The agency has
updated the burden estimates for the
EDT protocol to better reflect associated
costs and anticipated number of new
participants. These estimates were
informed by the actual level of effort
and costs incurred by States that have
fully implemented the EDT protocol.
The EDT State burden estimate covers
the initial establishment of the StateNHTSA connection and subsequent,
annualized data transmission and
management requirements for
submitting data to NHTSA. This cost
does not cover any other cost, such as
the design and implementation of a
centralized crash database in a State.
While such a centralized State system is
required for SDT participation, the
establishment of a centralized State
crash database is outside the purview of
this supplemental Federal program. SDT
does not include the means for which
crash data is collected and centralized
and should only be considered the
mechanism through which the States
provide State crash data, voluntarily, to
NHTSA using an electronic
transmission process.
Data Compatibility and Standardization
ODOT commented on data
compatibility and stated that different
State agencies have responsibility for
collecting crash data, inconsistent
legislative reporting requirements,
levels of transparency, and public data
reporting limits. CVSA commented on
the related topic of data standardization
between States. CVSA stated that it
encourages the adoption of the Model
Minimum Uniform Crash Criteria
(MMUCC) which provides a
standardized data set for describing
vehicle crashes. By further
standardizing crash data collected, a
more useful and robust data sample can
be accumulated at the Federal level.
NHTSA Response: NHTSA has, in
helping States implement EDT,
encountered issues with data
compatibility. NHTSA understands that
States may have different reporting
requirements and will work with the
State to seek a mutually acceptable way
to implement the EDT protocol.
Regarding data standardization, the
more compliant a State is with MMUCC,
the easier it is for NHTSA to integrate
a State’s data system into the EDT
program. NHTSA cross-references crash

PO 00000

Frm 00125

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

29357

data to the MMUCC 5th Edition for
internal use. While compliance with
MMUCC is optimal for EDT
implementation, it is not required.
Data Confidentiality
ODOT stated that there are security
risks to a State’s responsibility to protect
personal identifying data and expressed
concerns that by sending the data to a
Federal agency, it would become a
public record and be discoverable.
ODOT and the joint State commenters
are concerned that access to Federal
data adds litigation risks to States and
individuals. ODOT stated that it has a
significant liability settlement threshold
and NHTSA’s data system is likely to
generate new court cases that the State
must defend. The joint State
commenters concern that this data
transfer to USDOT–NHTSA could create
tension with, if not conflict with, State
confidentiality protocols and
requirements. The joint State
commenters stated, 23 U.S.C. 148,
‘‘Highway safety improvement
program,’’ includes paragraph (h)(4),
which provides that ‘‘Notwithstanding
any other provision of law, reports,
surveys, schedules, lists, or data
compiled or collected for any purpose
relating to this section, shall not be
subject to discovery or admitted into
evidence in a Federal or State court
proceeding or considered for other
purposes in any action for damages
arising from any occurrence at a
location identified or addressed in the
reports, surveys, schedules, lists, or
other data.’’ The joint State commenters
expressed concern that, given the
relationship of any highway safety data
to the safety purposes of 23 U.S.C. 148,
moving data from State control to
Federal control, at a minimum, risks
undercutting the intent of 23 U.S.C.
148(h)(4), which includes allowing a
State to review safety trends on specific
routes for program purposes without
having to disclose such information
(protection from discovery). The joint
State commenters noted that nothing in
the notice states that consideration has
been given to the potential implications
for 23 U.S.C. 148(h)(4), as well as for
tort exposure more generally.
GHSA recommended that NHTSA
may be able to encourage State
participation by clarifying the specific
data elements sought in this program
and whether and how States might
‘‘scrub’’ personal data, HIPAA
information, or other sensitive data
before submission. GHSA stated NHTSA
clearly has robust procedures in place to
comply with 23 U.S.C. 403 (e), which
prohibits the public release of crash data
that identifies individuals, but the

E:\FR\FM\01JNN1.SGM

01JNN1

29358

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 103 / Tuesday, June 1, 2021 / Notices

States would benefit from some
additional perspective.
NHTSA Response: Data collected by
NHTSA is subject to Federal law.
Consistent with Federal law, and
NHTSA policy, personally identifiable
information (PII) contained in SDT data
will not be disclosed to the public. All
SDT data is encrypted during transfer
and maintained in a password protected
network drive, with limited access. SDT
data is not directly published or made
available to analysts outside of DOT
because of States concerns. Study data
(e.g., FARS, CRSS, CISS, etc.) is
published annually only after thorough
quality control that ensures PII is
withheld from disclosure. NHTSA may
also publish aggregated SDT data in
reports that analyze the data without
disclosing any PII to the public.

jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES

Additional Data Elements
The IIHS commented that, to increase
the value of the data collected, the
agency should collect vehicle specific
(VIN-based) information on advanced
crash avoidance and driving automation
technologies, particularly in vehicles for
which the features are optional. The
information could be obtained from
manufacturers and included in the final
publicly-available crash databases. This
would be a major step in enabling
researchers to estimate how such
features affect crash risk.
NHTSA Response: We appreciate
IIHS’s suggestions about identifying
vehicle specific information for the
purposes of analyzing the data when
safety equipment is optional on a
vehicle line and not standard. However,
collecting vehicle specific information
on the type of safety features the vehicle
is equipped is outside the scope of this
information collection clearance.
Data Sharing
GHSA and CVSA commented about
data sharing. GHSA commented that
States want details on how NHTSA
plans to use SDT data on the Federal
level and asked about how the data
would be made available to other
Federal agencies. CVSA commented that
the data that is collected at the Federal
level should be made available to more
than just the U.S. Department of
Transportation and other Federal
agencies. CVSA recommended that the
collected data be made available to
States, academia, organizations and
other interested parties that can utilize
the data to help improve highway
safety.
NHTSA Response: NHTSA intends to
share the data to other DOT agencies,

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:20 May 28, 2021

Jkt 253001

such as the Federal Highway
Administration and the Federal Motor
Carrier Safety Administration, to
support their mission to save lives on
our national roadways. However,
NHTSA will not be making the data
available to analysts outside of DOT
because of concerns expressed by some
of the State participants.
Affected Public: State Governments.
This voluntary information collection
involves State governments, and
specifically the State agencies that
collect crash data.
Estimated Number of Respondents:
38.
Currently, 31 States are voluntarily
submitting their annual crash database
to NHTSA using the SDS protocol once
the Annual file is complete and 19
States are voluntarily submitting their
State’s data using the EDT protocol
where the transfer occurs on a nightly
basis. NHTSA estimates that, on
average, in each of the next three years,
there will be 31 States submitting data
using the SDS protocol and 23 States
submitting data using the EDT protocol.
NHTSA estimates that there will be 15
States submitting data through both EDT
and SDS. Therefore, NHTSA estimates
the total number of respondents to be
38.
Frequency
The frequency of this information
collection varies State-by-State,
potentially from daily to annually, as
agreed upon by NHTSA and the
individual States. State participating in
the SDS protocol typically send a file to
NHTSA once a year with all the crashes
occurring during a calendar year. States
send these files when it has completed
its quality control process. For the EDT
States, the data is usually transferred
every night with the crash cases that
have completed the quality control
process since the last nightly transfer.
Estimated Total Annual Burden
Hours: 683 hours.
SDT receives the crash data from
States in two different ways. SDS
information is obtained annually from
States submitted in a more traditional
method via electronic media through
secured mail or a Secure File Transfer
Protocol (SFTP). NHTSA assumes a
participating State already has a
centralized electronic crash database.
Currently, 31 States are voluntarily
submitting their annual crash database
to NHTSA, with five States sending
electronic media and 26 states
uploading the database to an SFTP site.
Since NHTSA accepts the States’
centralized electronic crash database

PO 00000

Frm 00126

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

without changes, NHTSA estimates that
it will required eight hours for a State
Database Administrator to save a copy
of the State’s annual crash database onto
a SFTP site or electronic media. We
estimate an additional four hours will
be required for an administrative
assistant to package and send the
electronic media to NHTSA.
To estimate the labor cost associated
with submitting the SDS information,
NHTSA looked at wage estimates for the
type of personnel involved with
copying, packaging and sending the
database. NHTSA estimates the total
labor costs associated with copying the
database by looking at the average wage
for Database and Network Administrator
and Architects. The Bureau of Labor
Statistics (BLS) estimates that the
average hourly wage for Database and
Network Administrator and Architects
(Standard Occupational Classification
#15–1240, May 2020) is $47.80.8 The
Bureau of Labor Statistics estimates that
State and local government workers’
wages represent 61.9% of total labor
compensation costs.9 Therefore, NHTSA
estimates the hourly labor costs for
copying the database to be $77.22
($47.80 ÷ 61.9%) for Database and
Network Administrator and Architects.
The cost associated with the eight hours
of Database and Network Administrator
labor is estimated to be $617.76 per
respondent.
For the 5 States sending electronic
media, NHTSA estimates the total labor
costs for packing and sending the
database by looking at the average wage
for Secretaries and Administrative
Assistants. The BLS estimates that the
average hourly wage for Secretaries and
Administrator Assistants (Standard
Occupational Classification #43–6014,
May 2020) is $19.43 10 By using the
same estimate that wages represent
61.9% of the total compensation cost of
labor, NHTSA estimates the total labor
hour for packing and sending the
database on electronic media to be
$31.39. Therefore, the cost associated
with the four hours to send the
electronic media is estimated to be
$125.56 per respondent.
8 See May 2020 National Occupational
Employment and Wage Estimates United States,
available at https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_
nat.htm (accessed April 16, 2021).
9 See Table 1. Employer Costs for Employee
Compensation by ownership (Dec. 2020), available
at https://www.bls.gov/news.release/ecec.t01.htm
(accessed April 16, 2021).
10 See May 2020 National Occupational
Employment and Wage Estimates United States,
available at https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_
nat.htm (accessed April 16, 2021).

E:\FR\FM\01JNN1.SGM

01JNN1

29359

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 103 / Tuesday, June 1, 2021 / Notices
Combining these copying and packing
and sending burden estimates for SDS,
NHTSA estimates that the total burden
hours associated with this collection
will be 268 (248 + 20 hours) hours and
total labor cost associated with the
collection will be $19,151 ($617.76 × 31
States) for copying and $628 ($125.56 ×
5 States) for packing and sending, for a
total of $19,779 ($19,151 + $628) for the
SDS protocol.
The EDT protocol burden hour
estimate is based on the level of effort
reported by the States that have fully
implemented SDT. NHTSA estimates
that in each of the next three years,
there will be two new States joining the
19 States already participating in SDT
program using the EDT protocol.
Therefore, NHTSA estimates that there
will be, on average, 23 EDT protocol
States in each of the next three years.
Cost and burden estimates for the EDT
protocol are divided in two: A one-time
implementation effort, and an annual
maintenance effort. Both estimates
assume a participating State already has
a centralized electronic crash database.
The burden for the one-time
implementation of the SDT program is
estimated at 200 hours. NHTSA
estimates that these hours will account
for work done by State IT (150hrs) and
FARS program personnel (50hrs).

Once implemented, the hourly burden
on States associated with SDT
maintenance is estimated at five hours
per year, based upon currently
participating States’ experiences. This
time is generally used to troubleshoot
any connection issues or refine mapping
protocols for any data elements that
have changed.
NHTSA estimates the cost for IT
personnel burden hours using the
Bureau of Labor Statistics’ mean wage
estimate for Software developers and
Programmers (Standard Occupational
Classification #15–1250) of $52.86.11
The Bureau of Labor Statistics estimates
that for State and local government
workers, wages represent 61.9% of total
compensation.12 Therefore, the total
hourly cost associated with the IT
burden hours is estimated to be $85.40
per hour. The cost associated with the
150 hours of IT personnel labor is
estimated to be $12,810.00 per
respondent. Initial SDT implementation
is also expected to involve 50 hours of
FARS program personnel time. There is
no additional cost to the States
associated with these hours because
these costs may be charged to the
Federal Government through the FARS
cooperative agreements. Thus, total
labor cost for EDT implication costs per
State are estimated to be $12,810.00.

The total annual implementation
burden cost per year is estimated to be
$25,620 ($12,810.00 × 2 new State
respondents).
After initial implementation of a SDT
interface, the ongoing cost burden to
participating States is estimated at 5
hours per State annually, based on a
survey of currently participating States.
Per the loaded labor rates for State IT
staff outlined above, 5 hours of work
translates to an estimated total annual
maintenance burden of $427.00 per
State respondent maintaining
participation in the SDT program.
NHTSA estimates that there will be, on
average, 23 States participating in EDT
program in each of the next three years.
Therefore, the annual maintenance cost
for the States is a total of $9,821.00
($427.00 × 23 States) per year.
Combining these implementation and
maintenance burden estimates for the
EDT protocol, NHTSA estimates that the
total burden hours associated with this
collection will be 415 hours and total
labor cost associated with the collection
will be $35,441.00.
The total estimated burden for SDT is
683 (268 SDS + 415 EDT) and total
estimated labor cost is $55,220 ($19,779
SDS + $35,441 EDT).
A summary of the burden estimates is
provided in the table below.

SDT BURDEN ESTIMATE SUMMARY

jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES

Burden type

Burden per
respondent

Respondents

Total
burden hours

Cost per
burden hour

Cost per
respondent

SDS Copying ...........................................

31

8

248

$77.22

$617.76

SDS Packing and sending .......................

5

4

20

31.39

125.56

EDT IT Implementation ............................

2

150

300

85.40

12,810.00

EDT Maintenance ....................................

23

5

115

85.40

427.00

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

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

683

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

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

Estimated Total Annual Burden Cost:
$0.
NHTSA does not expect that
participating states will incur any costs
beyond the labor hour cost associated
with the burden hours.
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
Department, including whether the
information will have practical utility;

(b) the accuracy of the Department’s
estimate of the burden of the proposed
information collection; (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
automated collection techniques or
other forms of information technology.

11 See May 2020 National Occupational
Employment and Wage Estimates United States,
available at https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_
nat.htm (accessed April 16, 2021).

12 Employer Costs for Employee Compensation by
ownership (Dec. 2020), available at https://
www.bls.gov/news.release/ecec.t01.htm (accessed
April 16, 2021.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:20 May 28, 2021

Jkt 253001

PO 00000

Frm 00127

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 9990

Total
labor cost
$19,150,56
19,151
627.80
628
25,620.00
25,620
9,821.00
9,821
55,220

Authority: The Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended;
49 CFR 1.49; and DOT Order 1351.29.
Chou-Lin Chen,
Associate Administrator, National Center for
Statistics and Analysis.
[FR Doc. 2021–11499 Filed 5–28–21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P

E:\FR\FM\01JNN1.SGM

01JNN1