Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 165 / Friday, August 24, 2018 / Notices 42973 

1Two anonymous commenters commented on 

EPA regulatory issues. One anonymous commenter 

commented on electric vehicle batteries. 

basis for any such claim and, if possible, 

a summary of your submission that can 

be made available to the public. 

Privacy Act 

In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), 

DOT solicits comments from the public 

to better inform its rulemaking process. 

DOT posts these comments, without 

edit, to www.regulations.gov, as 

described in the system of records 

notice, DOT/ALL–14 FDMS, accessible 

through www.dot.gov/privacy. To 

facilitate comment tracking and 

response, we encourage commenters to 

provide their name, or the name of their 

organization; however, submission of 

names is completely optional. Whether 

or not commenters identify themselves, 

all timely comments will be fully 

considered. If you wish to provide 

comments containing proprietary or 

confidential information, please contact 

the agency for alternate submission 

instructions. 

Authority: 49 CFR 1.93(a), 46 U.S.C. 

55103, 46 U.S.C. 12121 

* * * 

Dated: August 20, 2018. 

By Order of the Maritime Administrator. 

T. Mitchell Hudson, Jr. 

Secretary, Maritime Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2018–18270 Filed 8–23–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–81–P 

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

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 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
42974 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 165 / Friday, August 24, 2018 / Notices 

2Available online at https://

www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/docs/ 

TRCC%20Noteworthy%20Practices%20Guide

%20final%20september%202015.pdf. 

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 selfassessment using questions provided by 

NHTSA, that will result in generalized 

recommendations, to a more detailed 

NHTSA-facilitated and funded 

assessment, which will include inperson 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 selfassessment 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. 

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 selfassessment 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:// 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 165 / Friday, August 24, 2018 / Notices 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 

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 

Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade 

Bureau 

[Docket No. TTB–2018–0001] 

Proposed Information Collections; 

Comment Request (No. 71) 

AGENCY: Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and 

Trade Bureau, Treasury. 

ACTION: Notice and request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: As part of our continuing 

effort to reduce paperwork and 

respondent burden, and as required by 

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 

the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade 

Bureau (TTB) invites comments on the 

proposed or continuing information 

collections listed below in this 

document. 

DATES: Comments are due on or before 

October 23, 2018. 

ADDRESSES: As described below, you 

may send comments on the information 

collections listed in this document 

using the ‘‘Regulations.gov’’ online 

comment form for this document, or you 

may send written comments via U.S. 

mail or hand delivery. TTB no longer 

accepts public comments via email or 

fax. 

• https://www.regulations.gov: Use 

the comment form for this document 

posted within Docket No. TTB–2018– 

0001 on ‘‘Regulations.gov,’’ the Federal 

e-rulemaking portal, to submit 

comments via the internet; 

• U.S. Mail: Michael Hoover, 

Regulations and Rulings Division, 

Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade 

Bureau, 1310 G Street NW, Box 12, 

Washington, DC 20005. 

• Hand Delivery/Courier in Lieu of 

Mail: Michael Hoover, Alcohol and 

Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, 1310 G 

Street NW, Suite 400, Washington, DC 

20005. 

Please submit separate comments for 

each specific information collection 

listed in this document. You must 

reference the information collection’s 

title, form or recordkeeping requirement 

number, and OMB number (if any) in 

your comment. 

You may view copies of this 

document, the information collections 

listed in it and any associated 

instructions, and all comments received 

in response to this document within 

Docket No. TTB–2018–0001 at https://

www.regulations.gov. A link to that 

docket is posted on the TTB website at 

https://www.ttb.gov/forms/comment-onform.shtml. You may also obtain paper 

copies of this document, the 

information collections described in it 

and any associated instructions, and any 

comments received in response to this 

document by contacting Michael Hoover 

at the addresses or telephone number 

shown below. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Michael Hoover, Alcohol and Tobacco 

Tax and Trade Bureau, 1310 G Street 

NW, Box 12, Washington, DC 20005; 

telephone (202) 453–1039, ext. 135; or 

email informationcollections@ttb.gov 

(please do not submit comments on the 

information collections listed in this 

document to this email address). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Request for Comments 

The Department of the Treasury and 

its Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade 

Bureau (TTB), as part of a continuing 

effort to reduce paperwork and 

respondent burden, invite the general 

public and other Federal agencies to 

comment on the proposed or continuing 

information collections listed below in 

this notice, as required by the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). 

Comments submitted in response to 

this notice will be included or 

summarized in our request for Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) 

approval of the relevant information 

collection. All comments are part of the 

public record and subject to disclosure. 

Please do not include any confidential 

or inappropriate material in comments. 

For each information collection listed 

below, we invite comments on: (a) 

Whether the information collection is 

necessary for the proper performance of 

the agency’s functions, including 

whether the information has practical 

utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency’s 

estimate of the information collection’s 

burden; (c) ways to enhance the quality, 

utility, and clarity of the information 

collected; (d) ways to minimize the 

information collection’s burden on 

respondents, including through the use 

of automated collection techniques or 

other forms of information technology; 

and (e) estimates of capital or start-up 

costs and costs of operation, 

maintenance, and purchase of services 

to provide the requested information. 

Information Collections Open for 

Comment 

Currently, we are seeking comments 

on the following information collections 

(forms, recordkeeping requirements, or 

questionnaires): 

Title: Change of Bond (Consent of 

Surety). 

OMB Number: 1513–0013. 

TTB Form Number: F 5000.18. 

Abstract: The Internal Revenue Code 

(IRC), at 26 U.S.C. 5114, 5173, 5272, 

5354, 5401, and 5711, requires certain 

alcohol and tobacco industry 

proprietors to post a bond in conformity 

with regulations issued by the Secretary 

of the Treasury (Secretary) to ensure 

payment by the bonding company of 

Federal excise taxes due on such 

products should the proprietor default. 

When circumstances of a proprietor’s 

operation change from the original bond 

agreement, the TTB regulations 

authorized under those IRC sections 

allow the proprietor to complete form 

TTB F 5000.18, Change of Bond 

(Consent of Surety), in lieu of obtaining 

a new bond. Once executed by the 

proprietor and an approved surety 

company, the form is filed with TTB, 

which retains it as long as the revised 

bond agreement remains in force. 

Current Actions: This information 

collection remains unchanged, and TTB 

is submitting it only for extension 

purposes. However, TTB is decreasing 

the estimated number of annual 

respondents, responses, and burden 

hours associated with this information 

collection due to a decrease in the 

number of TTB-regulated alcohol 

industry members that are required to 

file bonds. As amended by section 332 

of the Protecting Americans from Tax 

Hikes Act of 2015 (PATH Act), the IRC 

no longer requires bonds for taxpayers 

who are eligible to pay excise taxes on 

distilled spirits, wines, and beer using 

quarterly or annual return periods, 

provided that such taxes are paid on a 

deferred basis and, with respect to 

distilled spirits and wine, the products 

are for nonindustrial use. 

Type of Review: Extension of a 

currently approved collection. 

Affected Public: Businesses and other 

for-profits. 

Estimated Number of Respondents: 

150. 

Estimated Total Annual Burden 

Hours: 150. 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES