20448 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 70 / Tuesday, April 12, 2011 / Notices 

circumstances a null value is valid for 

a particular data element. For accuracy 

measures, a data element with missing 

data or a null value is not considered an 

error. It is up to the State—specifically, 

the custodians of a database—to decided 

if null codes should be accepted as 

legitimate entries or treated as missing 

values. 

How to define ‘‘entered into a 

database’’: Some records do not have all 

their data entered into a database at the 

same time. In general, an event is 

considered to be ‘‘entered into a 

database’’ when a specified set of critical 

data elements has been entered. In fact, 

many databases will not accept a record 

until all data from a critical set are 

available. States may define ‘‘entered 

into a database’’ using their own data 

entry and data access processes. 

How to calculate a timeliness 

measure: For all systems, there will be 

a period of time between the event 

generating the record and when the 

information is entered into the file (or 

is available for use). The model 

performance measures include several 

methods to define a single number that 

captures the entire distribution of times. 

Each method is appropriate in different 

situations. 

The median time for events to be 

entered into the file can be calculated as 

the point at which 50 percent of events 

within a period of interest are entered 

into the file. 

The mean time for events to be 

entered into the file (counting all 

events). The mean can be calculated as 

the average (the sum of the times for all 

events divided by the number of 

events). 

The percentage of events on file 

within some fixed time (such as 24 

hours or 30 days). 

Tradeoffs between timeliness and 

completeness: Generally speaking, the 

relationship between timeliness and 

completeness is inversely proportional: 

The more timely the data, the less 

complete it is and vice versa. This is 

because many data files have records or 

data elements added well past the date 

of the event producing the record, so the 

files may be incomplete when the 

performance measure is calculated. 

There are three methods of choosing 

data to calculate the performance 

measures that offer different 

combinations of timeliness and 

completeness. Depending on the need 

for greater timeliness or completeness, 

users should choose accordingly. 

For example, if timeliness is 

important when calculating the first 

Crash Completeness measure C–C–1— 

the percentage of crash records with no 

missing critical data elements—could be 

calculated in the following manner: (1) 

Select the period: Calendar year 2007 

crash file; (2) Select the date for 

calculation: April 1 of the following 

year. So calculate using the 2007 crash 

file as it exists on April 1, 2008; (3) 

Calculate: Take all crashes from 2007 on 

file as of April 1, 2008; calculate the 

percentage with missing data for one or 

more critical data elements. 

This method offers several 

advantages. It is easy to understand and 

use, and can produce performance 

measures in a timely manner. Its 

disadvantage is that performance 

measures calculated fairly soon after the 

end of the data file’s period may not be 

based on complete data. For example, 

NHTSA’s Fatality Analysis Reporting 

System (FARS) is not closed and 

complete for a full year; the 2007 file 

was not closed until Dec. 31, 2008. 

Timeliness measures will exclude any 

records that have not yet been entered 

by the calculation date, so timeliness 

measures may make the file appear to be 

timelier than it will be when the file is 

closed and completed. Completeness 

measures will exclude any information 

entered after the calculation date for 

records on file. Completeness measures 

calculated on open files will make those 

files appear less complete than 

measures calculated on files that are 

closed and completed. 

When completeness is most important 

the performance measure could be 

calculated after a file (say an annual file) 

is closed and no further information can 

be added to it. This method reverses the 

simple method’s advantages and 

disadvantages, providing performance 

measures that are accurate but not 

timely. The final FARS file, for example, 

is a very complete database. Its 

completeness, however, comes at the 

expense of timeliness. In comparison, 

the annual FARS file is less complete, 

but is more timely. 

Another-preferable-method calculates 

a performance measure using all records 

entered into a file during a specified 

period. The timeliness measures 

produced by this method will be 

accurate but the completeness and 

accuracy measures may not, because the 

records entered during a given time 

period may not be complete when the 

measure is calculated. For example, the 

Crash Timeliness measure C–T–1—the 

median or mean number of days from 

(A) the crash date to (B) the crash report 

is entered into the database—could be 

calculated as follows: (1) Select the 

period: calendar year 2007; (2) Take all 

records entered into the State crash file 

during the period: if the period is 

calendar year 2007 the crashes could 

have occurred in 2007 or 2006 (or 

perhaps even earlier depending on the 

State’s reporting criteria); (3) Calculate 

the measure: The median or mean time 

between the crash date and the date 

when entered into the crash file. 

States should choose methods that are 

accurate, valid, reliable, and useful. 

They may choose different methods for 

different measures. Or they may use two 

different methods for the same measure, 

for example calculating a timeliness 

measure first with an incomplete file 

(for example the 2007 crash file on April 

1, 2008) and again with the complete 

and closed file (the 2007 crash file on 

January 1, 2009, after it is closed). Once 

methods have been selected for a 

measure, States should be consistent 

and use the same methods to calculate 

that measure using the same files in the 

same way each year. To accurately 

gauge progress, States must compare 

measures calculated by the same 

method using the same files for 

successive years. 

Privacy issues in file access and 

linkage: Data file access and linkage 

both raise broad issues of individual 

privacy and the use of personal 

identifiers. The Driver Privacy 

Protection Act (DPPA), the Health 

Insurance Portability and 

Accountability Act (HIPAA), and other 

regulations restrict the release of 

personal information on traffic safety 

data files. Information in many files may 

be sought for use in legal actions. All 

data file linkage and all data file access 

actions must consider these privacy 

issues. 

Authority: 44 U.S.C. Section 3506(c)(2)(A). 

Jeffrey Michael, 

Acting Associate Administrator, National 

Center for Statistics and Analysis. 

[FR Doc. 2011–8738 Filed 4–11–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 

Submission for OMB Review; 

Comment Request 

April 7, 2011. 

The Department of the Treasury will 

submit the following public information 

collection requirements to OMB for 

review and clearance under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 

Public Law 104–13 on or after the date 

of publication of this notice. A copy of 

the submissions may be obtained by 

calling the Treasury Bureau Clearance 

Officer listed. Comments regarding 

these information collections should be 

addressed to the OMB reviewer listed 

and to the Treasury PRA Clearance 

Officer, Department of the Treasury, 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 70 / Tuesday, April 12, 2011 / Notices 20449 

1750 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Suite 

11010, Washington, DC 20220. 

DATES: Written comments should be 

received on or before May 12, 2011 to 

be assured of consideration. 

Internal Revenue Service (IRS) 

OMB Number: 1545–0002. 

Type of Review: Extension without 

change of a currently approved 

collection. 

Title: Employee Representative’s 

Quarterly Railroad Tax Return. 

Form: CT–2. 

Abstract: Employee representatives 

file Form CT–2 quarterly to report 

compensation on which railroad 

retirement taxes are due. IRS uses this 

information to ensure that employee 

representatives have paid the correct 

tax. Form CT–2 also transmits the tax 

payment. 

Respondents: Individual or 

Household. 

Estimated Total Burden Hours: 127. 

OMB Number: 1545–1634. 

Type of Review: Extension without 

change of a currently approved 

collection. 

Title: REG–106902–98 (Final) 

Consolidated Returns—Consolidated 

Overall Foreign Losses and Separate 

Limitation Losses. 

Abstract: The regulations provide 

guidance relating to the amount of 

overall foreign losses and separate 

limitation losses in the computation of 

the foreign tax credit. The regulation 

affect consolidated groups of 

corporations that compute the foreign 

tax credit limitation or that dispose of 

property used in a foreign trade or 

business. 

Respondents: Private sector: 

Businesses or other for-profits. 

Estimated Total Burden Hours: 3,000. 

OMB Number: 1545–1770. 

Type of Review: Extension without 

change of a currently approved 

collection. 

Title: REG–115054–01 (Final) 

Treatment of Community Income for 

Certain Individuals Not Filing Joint 

Returns. 

Abstract: The regulations provide 

rules to determine how community 

income is treated under section 66 for 

certain married individuals in 

community property states who do not 

file joint individual Federal income tax 

returns. The regulations also reflect 

changes in the law made by the IRS 

Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998. 

Respondents: Individuals or 

Households. 

Estimated Total Burden Hours: 1. 

OMB Number: 1545–1800. 

Type of Review: Extension without 

change of a currently approved 

collection. 

Title: Reportable Transaction 

Disclosure Statement and Pre-CAP/CAP 

Application Form. 

Form: 8886. 

Abstract: Form 8886 is used to 

disclose participation in reportable 

transactions by taxpayers as described 

in regulations 1.6011–4. The 

Compliance Assurance Process (CAP) is 

a strictly voluntary program available to 

LMSB taxpayers that meet the selection 

criteria. CAP is a real-time review of 

completed business transactions during 

the CAP year with the goal of providing 

certainty of the tax return within 90 

days of the filing. The Pre-CAP/CAP 

Application Form is used by taxpayers 

wanting to join the program each year. 

Participation in the CAP program is 

completely voluntary and is only 

available for LMSB Taxpayers. 

Respondents: Private sector: 

Businesses or other for-profits. 

Estimated Total Burden Hours: 9,112. 

OMB Number: 1545–2083. 

Type of Review: Extension without 

change of a currently approved 

collection. 

Title: Applicable Insurance Contracts 

Information Return. 

Form: 8921. 

Abstract: To comply with IRC section 

6050V, as added by the Pension 

Protection Act of 2006, an applicable 

exempt organization must file a Form 

8921 for each structured transaction 

under which it makes reportable 

acquisitions of applicable insurance 

contracts. 

Respondents: Private sector: Not-forprofit institutions. 

Estimated Total Burden Hours: 

1,794,500. 

OMB Number: 1545–2098. 

Type of Review: Extension without 

change of a currently approved 

collection. 

Title: Rev. Proc. 2007–99 (RP– 

127367–07), 9100 Relief Under Sections 

897 and 1445. 

Abstract: The IRS needs certain 

information to determine whether a 

taxpayer should be granted permission 

to make late filings of certain statements 

or notices under sections 897 and 1445. 

The information submitted will include 

a statement by the taxpayer 

demonstrating reasonable cause for the 

failure to timely make relevant filings 

under sections 897 and 1445. 

Respondents: Private sector: 

Businesses or other for-profits. 

Estimated Total Burden Hours: 4. 

OMB Number: 1545–2195. 

Type of Review: Extension without 

change of a currently approved 

collection. 

Title: Statement of Foreign Financial 

Assets. 

Form: 8938. 

Abstract: The collection of 

information in Form 8938 will be the 

means by which taxpayers will comply 

with self-reporting obligations imposed 

under section 6038D with respect to 

foreign financial assets. 

Respondents: Individuals or 

Households. 

Estimated Total Burden Hours: 

378,000. 

OMB Number: 1545–2197. 

Type of Review: Extension without 

change of a currently approved 

collection. 

Title: Bond Tax Credit. 

Form: 1097–BTC. 

Abstract: This is an information 

return for reporting tax credit bond 

credits distributed to holders of tax 

credit bonds. The taxpayer holding a tax 

credit bond on an allowance date during 

a tax year is allowed a credit against 

Federal income tax equivalent to the 

interest that the bond would otherwise 

pay. The bondholder must include the 

amount of the credit in gross income 

and treat it as interest income. The 

issuers and holders of the tax credit 

bond will send Form 1097–BTC to the 

bond holders quarterly and file the 

return with the IRS annually. 

Respondents: Private sector: 

Businesses or other for-profits. 

Estimated Total Burden Hours: 

828,287,508. 

Bureau Clearance Officer: Yvette 

Lawrence, Internal Revenue Service, 

1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20224; (202) 927–4374. 

OMB Reviewer: Shagufta Ahmed, 

Office of Management and Budget, New 

Executive Office Building, Room 10235, 

Washington, DC 20503; (202) 395–7873. 

Dawn D. Wolfgang, 

Treasury PRA Clearance Officer. 

[FR Doc. 2011–8675 Filed 4–11–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4830–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 

Submission for OMB Review; 

Comment Request 

April 6, 2011. 

The Department of the Treasury will 

submit the following public information 

collection requirements to OMB for 

review and clearance under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 

Public Law 104–13 on or after the date 

of publication of this notice. A copy of 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES