29354 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 103 / Tuesday, June 1, 2021 / Notices 

1 83 FR 34912. 

2Police Accident Reports are also known as 

Police Crash Reports (PCRs) in some jurisdictions. 

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 

AGENCY: 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. 

SUMMARY: 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: 

• 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) 

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 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 103 / Tuesday, June 1, 2021 / Notices 29355 

3Additional 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. 

4Additional 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. 

5Additional 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. 

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. 

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, 

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 

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. 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
29356 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 103 / Tuesday, June 1, 2021 / Notices 

6 83 FR 25112, May 31, 2018. NHTSA 

subsequently extended the comment deadline to 

September 14, 2018 (83 FR 34912, July 23, 2018). 7The South Dakota Department of Public Safety 

concurs in these comments. 

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. 

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 

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 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 103 / Tuesday, June 1, 2021 / Notices 29357 

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 

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 

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 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
29358 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 103 / Tuesday, June 1, 2021 / Notices 

8See 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). 

9See 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). 

10See 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). 

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. 

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, 

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 

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. 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 103 / Tuesday, June 1, 2021 / Notices 29359 

11See 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). 

12Employer Costs for Employee Compensation by 

ownership (Dec. 2020), available at https://

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

April 16, 2021. 

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

Burden type Respondents Burden per 

respondent 

Total 

burden hours 

Cost per 

burden hour 

Cost per 

respondent 

Total 

labor cost 

SDS Copying ........................................... 31 8 248 $77.22 $617.76 $19,150,56 

19,151 

SDS Packing and sending ....................... 5 4 20 31.39 125.56 627.80 

628 

EDT IT Implementation ............................ 2 150 300 85.40 12,810.00 25,620.00 

25,620 

EDT Maintenance .................................... 23 5 115 85.40 427.00 9,821.00 

9,821 

........................ ........................ 683 ........................ ........................ 55,220 

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. 

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 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES