Agency Request for Information; State Property Damage Only (PDO) Data Collection Practices, 83545-83547 [2024-23099]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 200 / Wednesday, October 16, 2024 / Notices
The project is identified in UDOT’s
adopted 2024–2029 State Transportation
Improvement Program as project
number 19854 with funding identified
for final design and construction. The
project is also included in the Wasatch
Front Regional Council’s (WFRC) 2023–
2050 Wasatch Front Regional
Transportation Plan approved in May
2023.
The actions by UDOT, and the laws
under which such actions were taken,
are described in the EIS and the ROD
(Combined Final Environmental Impact
Statement and Record of Decision for I–
15; Farmington to Salt Lake City Project,
in Davis and Salt Lake Counties, Utah,
Project No. S–I15–7(369)309 approved
on October 3, 2024, and other
documents in the UDOT project records.
The EIS and ROD is available for review
at the UDOT Central Complex, 4501
South 2700 West, Salt Lake City, Utah.
In addition, the EIS and ROD
documents can be viewed and
downloaded from the project website at
https://i15eis.udot.utah.gov/. This
notice applies to the EIS, the ROD, and
all other UDOT and Federal agency
decisions and other actions with respect
to the project as of the issuance date of
this notice and all laws under which
such actions were taken, including but
not limited to the following laws
(including their implementing
regulations):
1. General: National Environmental
Policy Act [42 U.S.C. 4321–4351];
Federal-Aid Highway Act [23 U.S.C. 109
and 23 U.S.C. 128]; MAP–21, the
Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st
Century Act [Pub. L. 112–141].
2. Air: Clean Air Act [42 U.S.C. 7401–
7671(q)].
3. Land: Section 4(f) of the
Department of Transportation Act of
1966 [49 U.S.C. 303]; Landscaping and
Scenic Enhancement (Wildflowers) [23
U.S.C. 319].
4. Wildlife: Endangered Species Act
[16 U.S.C. 1531–1544 and section 1536],
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act [16
U.S.C. 661–667(d)]; Migratory Bird
Treaty Act [16 U.S.C. 703–712]; The
Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act
[16 U.S.C. 668].
5. Historic and Cultural Resources:
Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966, as amended
[16 U.S.C. 470(f) et seq.]; Archeological
Resources Protection Act of 1977 [16
U.S.C. 470(aa)–470(ll)]; Archeological
and Historic Preservation Act [16 U.S.C.
469–469(c)]; Native American Grave
Protection and Repatriation Act
(NAGPRA) [25 U.S.C. 3001–3013].
6. Social and Economic: Civil Rights
Act of 1964 [42 U.S.C. 2000(d)–
2000(d)(1)]; American Indian Religious
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:43 Oct 15, 2024
Jkt 265001
Freedom Act [42 U.S.C. 1996]; Farmland
Protection Policy Act (FPPA) [7 U.S.C.
4201–4209].
7. Wetlands and Water Resources:
Clean Water Act (section 404, section
401, section 319) [33 U.S.C. 1251–1377];
Coastal Zone Management Act [16
U.S.C. 1451–1465]; Land and Water
Conservation Fund (LWCF) [16 U.S.C.
4601–4604]; Safe Drinking Water Act
(SDWA) [42 U.S.C. 300(f) –300(j)(6)];
Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 [33
U.S.C. 401–406]; Emergency Wetlands
Resources Act [16 U.S.C. 3921, 3931];
TEA–21 Wetlands Mitigation [23 U.S.C.
103(b)(6)(M, 133(b)(11)]; Flood Disaster
Protection Act [42 U.S.C. 4001–4128].
8. Hazardous Materials:
Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act [42 U.S.C. 9601–9675]; Superfund
Amendments and Reauthorization Act
of 1986; Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act [42 U.S.C. 6901–6992(k)].
9. Noise: Federal-Aid Highway Act of
1970, Public Law 91–605 [84 Stat.
1713]; [23 U.S.C. 109(h) & (i)].
10. Executive Orders: E.O. 11990
Protection of Wetlands; E.O. 11988
Floodplain Management; E.O. 12898,
Federal Actions to Address
Environmental Justice in Minority
Populations and Low-Income
Populations; E.O. 11593 Protection and
Enhancement of Cultural Resources;
E.O. 13287 Preserve America; E.O.
13175 Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments; E.O.
11514 Protection and Enhancement of
Environmental Quality; E.O. 13112
Invasive Species.
(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance
Program Number 20.205, Highway Planning
and Construction. The regulations
implementing Executive Order 12372
regarding intergovernmental consultation on
Federal programs and activities apply to this
program.)
Authority: 23 U.S.C. 139 (l)(1).
Ivan Marrero,
Division Administrator, Federal Highway
Administration, Salt Lake City, Utah.
[FR Doc. 2024–23820 Filed 10–15–24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–RY–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Transit Administration
Safety Advisory 24–1 Proterra Bus/
Phoenix Motorcars Technical Service
Bulletin
Federal Transit Administration
(FTA), Department of Transportation
(DOT).
ACTION: Notice of safety advisory.
AGENCY:
PO 00000
Frm 00100
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
83545
The Federal Transit
Administration (FTA) is issuing Safety
Advisory 24–1 to alert transit agencies
that Phoenix Motorcars (Phoenix) is
voluntarily recalling certain 2020–2021
800V Catalyst and 2020–2022 ZX5
transit buses. FTA is recommending
corrective actions to avoid and mitigate
the risk to public transportation posed
by the safety defect. The FTA’s Safety
Advisory 24–1, ‘‘Proterra Bus/Phoenix
Motorcars Safety Recall,’’ is available in
its entirety on the agency’s public
website. The National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA) recall
number is 24V–655.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Philip Herbert, Senior Accident
Investigator for Transit Safety and
Oversight, telephone (202) 366–5451 or
Philip.Herbert@dot.gov.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 5329; 49 CFR
1.91 and 670.29.
SUMMARY:
Veronica Vanterpool,
Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2024–23865 Filed 10–15–24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–57–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
Agency Request for Information; State
Property Damage Only (PDO) Data
Collection Practices
National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Request for information.
AGENCY:
This notice requests
information from interested parties to
assist the agency in researching property
damage only (PDO) crash data collection
practices across the United States. State
statutes dictate that law enforcement
should complete a crash report for PDO
crashes meeting a set of criteria
including when damage is above a
certain dollar threshold that varies by
State. When a crash is below the
reportable threshold, States may allow
civilians to complete a crash report
designed specifically for them. In some
cases, jurisdictions within States have
stopped collecting PDO crashes in an
effort to save officer time and/or money.
Other jurisdictions have stopped
sending sworn officers to respond to
PDO crashes. However, the impacts of
these changes on crash data collection
are not well documented or understood.
NHTSA is seeking to identify States and
jurisdictions that have modified their
PDO crash reporting threshold or are
using citizen or non-sworn officers to
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\16OCN1.SGM
16OCN1
83546
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 200 / Wednesday, October 16, 2024 / Notices
report PDO crashes, and to determine
the impacts of these practices on crash
data analyses and agencies’ budgets and
time. NHTSA seeks comments from all
interested parties, including State crash
data owners, highway safety offices, law
enforcement, and other stakeholders to
help inform NHTSA’s research into
State PDO crash data collection
practices.
Comments must be received on
or before December 16, 2024.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
using the Federal Docket Management
System Docket ID NHTSA–2024–0023
by any of the following methods:
• Federal Rulemaking Portal: Go to
https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
online instructions for submitting
comments.
• Mail: Send comments to: Docket
Management Facility, U.S. Department
of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE, West Building, Room W12–
140, Washington, DC 20590.
• Fax: Written comments may be
faxed to (202) 493–2251.
• Hand Delivery: If you plan to
submit written comments by hand or
courier, please do so at 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE, West Building Ground
Floor, Room W12–140, Washington, DC
20590 between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. eastern
time, Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays.
Please submit all comments to the
Docket by December 16, 2024.
When you submit your comments,
please remember to mention the agency
and the docket number of this document
within your correspondence. Please
note that all comments received will be
posted without change to https://
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided. Please
see the ‘‘Privacy Act’’ heading below.
Privacy Act: Anyone can search the
electronic form of all comments
received into any of our dockets by the
name of the individual submitting the
comments (or signing the comments, 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 at https://
www.transportation.gov/privacy.
Confidential Information: If you wish
to submit any information under a claim
of confidentiality, you should submit
three copies of your complete
submission, including the information
you claim to be confidential business
information, to the Chief Counsel,
NHTSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Washington, DC 20590. In addition, you
should submit two copies, from which
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
DATES:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:43 Oct 15, 2024
Jkt 265001
you have deleted the claimed
confidential business information, to
Docket Management at the address
given above under ADDRESSES. When
you send a comment containing
information claimed to be confidential
business information, you should
include a cover letter setting forth the
information specified in our
confidential business information
regulation (49 CFR part 512).
Docket: For access to the docket to
read the proposed changes to MMUCC,
background documents, or comments
received, go to https://
www.regulations.gov at any time and
follow the online instructions for
accessing the dockets. Or go to West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m.
and 5 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Please contact Beau Burdett, National
Center for Statistics and Analysis,
NHTSA (telephone: 202–366–7338 or
email: beau.burdett@dot.gov).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: From a
national perspective, data comparability
among States is important to
practitioners’ understanding of trends
and countermeasure effectiveness.
However, the United States does not
have a single, uniform crash reporting
standard. Fatal crashes are reported to
the Fatality Analysis Reporting System
(FARS) using a uniform set of data
elements and case-inclusion criteria. A
common way that States code crash
severity is using the KABCO scale.
KABCO is an abbreviation for the
different levels of injury severity: Killed
(fatal injury), A-level (suspected serious)
injury, B-level (suspected minor) injury,
C-level (possible) injury, or Property
Damage Only (no injury). Though not all
States use the KABCO scale, all are
required to use a uniform definition for
both fatalities and serious (A-level)
injuries. The Federal Highway
Administration’s (FHWA) Safety
Performance Management Measures (23
CFR part 490) and the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration’s
(NHTSA) Uniform Procedures for State
Highway Safety Grant Programs (23 CFR
part 1300) establish a single, national
definition for States to report serious (Alevel) injuries per the Model Minimum
Uniform Crash Criteria (MMUCC).
MMUCC supplies voluntary standard
definitions of other crash severity levels
(B- and C-level injuries, and property
damage only—PDO).
Crash reporting criteria vary widely
among States, especially concerning
PDO crashes. Variations include
PO 00000
Frm 00101
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
differences in reporting threshold
amounts, the use of full or abbreviated
reports, the reporter’s identity (sworn
officers, non-law enforcement
investigators, or citizens), and factors
other than monetary value, like
towaway necessity. The impact of
practice variations on crash data quality,
particularly PDO reporting, is unclear.
To better understand State PDO data
collection practices NHTSA began a
research project. To date the research
project has compiled State PDO
thresholds as outlined in State statutes
for the past 15 years, investigated the
use of abbreviated reports for PDO
crashes, and conducted a literature
review on the extent and costs of PDO
crashes, crash reporting thresholds, and
alternatives to PDO reporting by sworn
officers. The next phase of this research
effort moves from examining existing
literature and State statutes on PDO data
collection practices to speaking with
select States and agencies regarding
their practices and conducting crash
data analyses to investigate the impact
of different PDO data collection
practices on data quality and safety
analyses.
This notice requests information from
interested parties, including State crash
data owners, highway safety offices, law
enforcement, and other stakeholders to
assist NHTSA in conducting research to
investigate different PDO crash data
collection practices across the United
States and the impacts of these PDO
data collection practices (e.g., economic
impacts such as cost or time savings,
impacts to traffic safety analyses,
impacts to vulnerable road users, etc.).
NHTSA plans to utilize the information
provided under this Request for
Information to enhance and support the
development of the next phase in the
research project.
Request for Information
The agency is interested in
information that would help develop
and implement the next phase of
research into State PDO data collection
practices. This includes information
about States’ PDO thresholds (the
research team is examining all changes
in the property-damage aspects of
reporting thresholds: changes in the
minimum dollar amount of damage,
changes from a dollar-amount threshold
to a towaway threshold, and elimination
of the threshold altogether); the use of
citizen/driver report forms; and whether
States utilize non-sworn officers to
report PDO crashes. NHTSA hereby
seeks further information based on the
below questions. This list is not
exhaustive, and we encourage
commenters to provide any further
E:\FR\FM\16OCN1.SGM
16OCN1
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 200 / Wednesday, October 16, 2024 / Notices
information that they believe is relevant
to inform the agency as it seeks to
conduct the next phase of research into
State PDO data collection practices.
(1) How does your State/jurisdiction
determine if a crash report came from a
sworn law enforcement officer or from
a non-sworn officer?
a. Ideally, this would be a data
element in the crash report database
showing the type of person who
generated the report/data. If there are
codes for sworn officer, non-sworn
officer, and citizen (involved party), that
would answer this question and
Question #3 as well. However, having
the indicator for sworn or non-sworn is
important for this first question. Does
your crash database include a data
element that supports this?
b. Officer badge number could be a
second possible way to differentiate
crash reports from sworn- versus nonsworn officers. Do you have badge
numbers in the crash report/crash
database and badge number lists
identifying the type of officer (sworn
versus non-sworn)?
c. Can you provide information on
any training differences for sworn
versus non-sworn officers related to
their crash reporting processes,
knowledge, or duties?
(2) Can your State supply summary
statistics of crash data surrounding the
most recent change in the crash
reporting threshold (i.e., the frequency
of crashes before and after the change)?
a. We are most concerned with
threshold changes in the past 15 years
(i.e., 2009 or more recent). We would
hope to get the frequency of crashes for
each KABCO severity for 5 years before
and after the change. If your State
changed its threshold in 2009, for
example, we would ask for data from
two periods: 2004 to 2008, and 2009 to
2013. Based on that example, can your
system supply summary statistics of
crash data for the period 5 years before
and 5 years after the last threshold
change?
b. If the reporting threshold change
took place mid-year (rather than on
January 1st), we would need to know
the implementation date for the change.
In that case, we would like to receive
the frequency of crashes for the year the
change took place plus data for 5 years
before and 5 years after the change (11
years’ data total, including the change
year). Can your system provide data to
meet that request?
c. If it has been fewer than 5 years
since your most recent threshold
change, can you provide any available
post-change crash frequency data and
can we also obtain the crash frequency
for 5 years before that change?
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:43 Oct 15, 2024
Jkt 265001
d. If there has been more than one
change in threshold in the past 15 years,
can you please describe the before- and
after-change periods for each of the
successive threshold changes and tell us
if crash frequency data would be
available for those periods?
(3) Does your State use citizen/driver
report forms for crash reporting?
a. How does your State collect the
data from crash-involved persons?
b. How is the data from these reports
stored? Specifically, is it added to the
statewide crash database and, if so, are
those reports tagged in some way to
indicate that the data comes from a
citizen/driver report?
c. How is the data from citizen/driver
reports used? Specifically, is it used in
safety analyses and, if so, which types
of analyses (e.g., safety analyses of
locations, analyses of driver
contributing factors, indications of belt
use, other)?
d. If a crash results in both a report
written by a law enforcement officer
(sworn or non-sworn) and a citizen
report, are both versions stored in the
statewide crash database? Are both used
in safety analyses? Are the data blended
from both sources (and if so, how)?
This notice is for information
purposes only. The agency will review
and consider information provided in
response to this notice as it conducts the
next phase of research into State PDO
data collection practices but will not
respond to comments.
Chou-Lin Chen,
Associate Administrator for the National
Center for Statistics and Analysis.
[FR Doc. 2024–23099 Filed 10–15–24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Office of Foreign Assets Control
[Docket No.: OFAC–2024–0005]
Agency Information Collection
Activities; Proposed Collection;
Comment Request for Rough
Diamonds Control Regulations
Office of Foreign Assets
Control, Treasury.
ACTION: Notice and request for
comments.
AGENCY:
The Department of the
Treasury, as part of its continuing effort
to reduce paperwork and respondent
burden, invites the general public and
other Federal agencies to comment on
proposed or continuing information
collections, as required by the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00102
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
83547
Currently, the Office of Foreign Assets
Control (OFAC) within the Department
of the Treasury is soliciting comments
concerning OFAC’s information
collection requirements contained
within OFAC’s Rough Diamonds
Control Regulations.
DATES: Written comments must be
submitted on or before December 16,
2024 to be assured of consideration.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
via the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal:
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions on the website for
submitting comments. Refer to Docket
Number OFAC–2024–0005.
Email: OFACreport@treasury.gov with
Attn: Request for Comments (Rough
Diamonds Control Regulations).
Instructions: All submissions received
must include the agency name and refer
to Docket Number OFAC–2024–0005
and the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) control number 1505–
0198. All comments, including
attachments and other supporting
materials, will become part of the public
record and subject to public disclosure.
Sensitive personal information, such as
account numbers or Social Security
numbers, should not be included.
Comments generally will not be edited
to remove any identifying or contact
information.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Assistant Director for Licensing, 202–
622–2480; Assistant Director for
Regulatory Affairs, 202–622–4855;
Assistant Director for Compliance, 202–
622–2490 or https://ofac.treasury.gov/
contact-ofac.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Title: Rough Diamonds Control
Regulations.
OMB Number: 1505–0198.
Type of Review: Extension without
change of a currently approved
collection.
Description: The collections of
information are contained in section
592.301(a)(3) of OFAC’s Rough
Diamonds Control Regulations. The
person identified as the ultimate
consignee on the Customs Form 7501
Entry Summary or its electronic
equivalent is required to report that
person’s receipt of a shipment of rough
diamonds to the relevant foreign
exporting authority within 15 calendar
days of the date that the shipment
arrived at the U.S. port of entry.
Forms: Section 592.301(a)(3) states
that the report filed by the ultimate
consignee need not be in any particular
form and may be submitted
electronically or by mail or courier.
E:\FR\FM\16OCN1.SGM
16OCN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 200 (Wednesday, October 16, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Pages 83545-83547]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-23099]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Agency Request for Information; State Property Damage Only (PDO)
Data Collection Practices
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Request for information.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This notice requests information from interested parties to
assist the agency in researching property damage only (PDO) crash data
collection practices across the United States. State statutes dictate
that law enforcement should complete a crash report for PDO crashes
meeting a set of criteria including when damage is above a certain
dollar threshold that varies by State. When a crash is below the
reportable threshold, States may allow civilians to complete a crash
report designed specifically for them. In some cases, jurisdictions
within States have stopped collecting PDO crashes in an effort to save
officer time and/or money. Other jurisdictions have stopped sending
sworn officers to respond to PDO crashes. However, the impacts of these
changes on crash data collection are not well documented or understood.
NHTSA is seeking to identify States and jurisdictions that have
modified their PDO crash reporting threshold or are using citizen or
non-sworn officers to
[[Page 83546]]
report PDO crashes, and to determine the impacts of these practices on
crash data analyses and agencies' budgets and time. NHTSA seeks
comments from all interested parties, including State crash data
owners, highway safety offices, law enforcement, and other stakeholders
to help inform NHTSA's research into State PDO crash data collection
practices.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before December 16, 2024.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments using the Federal Docket Management
System Docket ID NHTSA-2024-0023 by any of the following methods:
Federal Rulemaking Portal: Go to https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
Mail: Send comments to: Docket Management Facility, U.S.
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building,
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590.
Fax: Written comments may be faxed to (202) 493-2251.
Hand Delivery: If you plan to submit written comments by
hand or courier, please do so at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590 between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m. eastern time, Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays.
Please submit all comments to the Docket by December 16, 2024.
When you submit your comments, please remember to mention the
agency and the docket number of this document within your
correspondence. Please note that all comments received will be posted
without change to https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal
information provided. Please see the ``Privacy Act'' heading below.
Privacy Act: Anyone can search the electronic form of all comments
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comments (or signing the comments, 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 at https://www.transportation.gov/privacy.
Confidential Information: If you wish to submit any information
under a claim of confidentiality, you should submit three copies of
your complete submission, including the information you claim to be
confidential business information, to the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590. In addition, you should
submit two copies, from which you have deleted the claimed confidential
business information, to Docket Management at the address given above
under ADDRESSES. When you send a comment containing information claimed
to be confidential business information, you should include a cover
letter setting forth the information specified in our confidential
business information regulation (49 CFR part 512).
Docket: For access to the docket to read the proposed changes to
MMUCC, background documents, or comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov at any time and follow the online instructions for
accessing the dockets. Or go to West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-
140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m.
and 5 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Please contact Beau Burdett, National
Center for Statistics and Analysis, NHTSA (telephone: 202-366-7338 or
email: [email protected]).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: From a national perspective, data
comparability among States is important to practitioners' understanding
of trends and countermeasure effectiveness. However, the United States
does not have a single, uniform crash reporting standard. Fatal crashes
are reported to the Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) using a
uniform set of data elements and case-inclusion criteria. A common way
that States code crash severity is using the KABCO scale. KABCO is an
abbreviation for the different levels of injury severity: Killed (fatal
injury), A-level (suspected serious) injury, B-level (suspected minor)
injury, C-level (possible) injury, or Property Damage Only (no injury).
Though not all States use the KABCO scale, all are required to use a
uniform definition for both fatalities and serious (A-level) injuries.
The Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA) Safety Performance
Management Measures (23 CFR part 490) and the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration's (NHTSA) Uniform Procedures for State Highway
Safety Grant Programs (23 CFR part 1300) establish a single, national
definition for States to report serious (A-level) injuries per the
Model Minimum Uniform Crash Criteria (MMUCC). MMUCC supplies voluntary
standard definitions of other crash severity levels (B- and C-level
injuries, and property damage only--PDO).
Crash reporting criteria vary widely among States, especially
concerning PDO crashes. Variations include differences in reporting
threshold amounts, the use of full or abbreviated reports, the
reporter's identity (sworn officers, non-law enforcement investigators,
or citizens), and factors other than monetary value, like towaway
necessity. The impact of practice variations on crash data quality,
particularly PDO reporting, is unclear.
To better understand State PDO data collection practices NHTSA
began a research project. To date the research project has compiled
State PDO thresholds as outlined in State statutes for the past 15
years, investigated the use of abbreviated reports for PDO crashes, and
conducted a literature review on the extent and costs of PDO crashes,
crash reporting thresholds, and alternatives to PDO reporting by sworn
officers. The next phase of this research effort moves from examining
existing literature and State statutes on PDO data collection practices
to speaking with select States and agencies regarding their practices
and conducting crash data analyses to investigate the impact of
different PDO data collection practices on data quality and safety
analyses.
This notice requests information from interested parties, including
State crash data owners, highway safety offices, law enforcement, and
other stakeholders to assist NHTSA in conducting research to
investigate different PDO crash data collection practices across the
United States and the impacts of these PDO data collection practices
(e.g., economic impacts such as cost or time savings, impacts to
traffic safety analyses, impacts to vulnerable road users, etc.). NHTSA
plans to utilize the information provided under this Request for
Information to enhance and support the development of the next phase in
the research project.
Request for Information
The agency is interested in information that would help develop and
implement the next phase of research into State PDO data collection
practices. This includes information about States' PDO thresholds (the
research team is examining all changes in the property-damage aspects
of reporting thresholds: changes in the minimum dollar amount of
damage, changes from a dollar-amount threshold to a towaway threshold,
and elimination of the threshold altogether); the use of citizen/driver
report forms; and whether States utilize non-sworn officers to report
PDO crashes. NHTSA hereby seeks further information based on the below
questions. This list is not exhaustive, and we encourage commenters to
provide any further
[[Page 83547]]
information that they believe is relevant to inform the agency as it
seeks to conduct the next phase of research into State PDO data
collection practices.
(1) How does your State/jurisdiction determine if a crash report
came from a sworn law enforcement officer or from a non-sworn officer?
a. Ideally, this would be a data element in the crash report
database showing the type of person who generated the report/data. If
there are codes for sworn officer, non-sworn officer, and citizen
(involved party), that would answer this question and Question #3 as
well. However, having the indicator for sworn or non-sworn is important
for this first question. Does your crash database include a data
element that supports this?
b. Officer badge number could be a second possible way to
differentiate crash reports from sworn- versus non-sworn officers. Do
you have badge numbers in the crash report/crash database and badge
number lists identifying the type of officer (sworn versus non-sworn)?
c. Can you provide information on any training differences for
sworn versus non-sworn officers related to their crash reporting
processes, knowledge, or duties?
(2) Can your State supply summary statistics of crash data
surrounding the most recent change in the crash reporting threshold
(i.e., the frequency of crashes before and after the change)?
a. We are most concerned with threshold changes in the past 15
years (i.e., 2009 or more recent). We would hope to get the frequency
of crashes for each KABCO severity for 5 years before and after the
change. If your State changed its threshold in 2009, for example, we
would ask for data from two periods: 2004 to 2008, and 2009 to 2013.
Based on that example, can your system supply summary statistics of
crash data for the period 5 years before and 5 years after the last
threshold change?
b. If the reporting threshold change took place mid-year (rather
than on January 1st), we would need to know the implementation date for
the change. In that case, we would like to receive the frequency of
crashes for the year the change took place plus data for 5 years before
and 5 years after the change (11 years' data total, including the
change year). Can your system provide data to meet that request?
c. If it has been fewer than 5 years since your most recent
threshold change, can you provide any available post-change crash
frequency data and can we also obtain the crash frequency for 5 years
before that change?
d. If there has been more than one change in threshold in the past
15 years, can you please describe the before- and after-change periods
for each of the successive threshold changes and tell us if crash
frequency data would be available for those periods?
(3) Does your State use citizen/driver report forms for crash
reporting?
a. How does your State collect the data from crash-involved
persons?
b. How is the data from these reports stored? Specifically, is it
added to the statewide crash database and, if so, are those reports
tagged in some way to indicate that the data comes from a citizen/
driver report?
c. How is the data from citizen/driver reports used? Specifically,
is it used in safety analyses and, if so, which types of analyses
(e.g., safety analyses of locations, analyses of driver contributing
factors, indications of belt use, other)?
d. If a crash results in both a report written by a law enforcement
officer (sworn or non-sworn) and a citizen report, are both versions
stored in the statewide crash database? Are both used in safety
analyses? Are the data blended from both sources (and if so, how)?
This notice is for information purposes only. The agency will
review and consider information provided in response to this notice as
it conducts the next phase of research into State PDO data collection
practices but will not respond to comments.
Chou-Lin Chen,
Associate Administrator for the National Center for Statistics and
Analysis.
[FR Doc. 2024-23099 Filed 10-15-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
