Roadway Safety supportingstatement_

Supporting Statement

Roadway Safety Data Capability Assessment

2125-XXXX (this is a new collection)

Introduction:

This statement is in support of data collection for the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) effort titled Roadway Safety Data Capability Assessment. This is a new request designed to 1) create a mechanism by which a national and State-specific gap analyses could be conducted to identify opportunities to improve capabilities and 2) provide tools and assistance to assist States in overcoming those gaps. The results will provide a detailed understanding (for FHWA and the States themselves) of the needs for complete, accurate roadway, crash, and traffic volume data for use in safety analysis. It will be conducted in 50 States, including Washington D.C., and Puerto Rico.

Note that there is no intention to use the results for policy development or new rules.

Part A. Justification.

1. Circumstances that make collection of information necessary:

The assessment will yield both a quantitative understanding of each State’s capability (using a capability maturity model) and State-specific action plans in the key areas of:

• Roadway inventory data collection and technical standards

• Data analysis tools and uses

• Data management and governance

• Data integration and expandability

• Performance management

The results will also be useful for States and FHWA in their efforts to develop programs and make improvements in roadway safety management.

The assessment aligns directly with the USDOT Strategic Plan Goal for Safety. Specifically, the assessment will give the States and FHWA a very clear picture of where States are in meeting data requirements for supporting the Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS) and their current and planned uses of safety data, advanced analyses, and analytic tools to support safety decision making.

2. How, by whom, and for what purpose is the information used:

How will the information be used:
The information gathered during the assessment will be used in the following ways:

1. To describe, and quantify, the status of safety data collected in each State. This will include crash data (reports of individual crashes in the State), roadway inventory data (descriptions of roadway attributes for segments and intersections in the State), and traffic volume (quantified counts of traffic at each segment in the State).
   
   

2. To identify common data quality performance measurements and needs in the areas of data timeliness, accuracy, completeness, uniformity, integration and accessibility.
   
   

3. To assess States’ progress in meeting HPMS-related requirements for all-public-roads data and common linear referencing.
   
   

4. To identify data management practices including data governance, data standards and definitions, and shared responsibilities among State and local agencies.
   
   

5. To quantify States’ safety data capabilities using a capability maturity model, and assist States in identifying desired improvements.
   
   

6. Finally, to identify commonalities among States in all of the above so that FHWA can target programs designed to assist states with specific guidance, technical support, and sharing noteworthy practices.

By whom will the information be used:
There are two primary audiences for the information:

1. The State DOTs will benefit from the assessment because it will show each how they compare to a capability maturity model covering safety data, data analysis, data management, data integration, and performance management.
   
   

2. The FHWA, in particular the Office of Safety, will use the assessment information to identify common issues that States need help with, and where capabilities are lagging behind the anticipated improvements in safety data, data analysis, data management, data integration, and performance management.

For what purpose will the information be used:
This assessment helps the FHWA Office of Safety plan its Technical Assistance program, target peer exchanges and noteworthy practices case studies, and identify specific guidance that would benefit States. The information directly benefits States because they can use it in their own planning for data improvement, data governance, and expanding their analytic capabilities.

3. Extent of automated information collection:

FHWA will use its existing web-based tool to collect the data and expects 80% of the responses to be submitted through the web interface. We are estimated approximately 20% of the respondents to call in their responses.

4. Efforts to identify duplication:

The data set described in this proposal does not currently exist and is not a duplicated.

5. Efforts to minimize the burden on small businesses:

There are no small businesses required to contribute to the completion of the questionnaires.

6. Impact of less frequent collection of information:

This effort is designed to be updated on a five year cycle. The impact of less frequent collection would be that the descriptions of current practices become out of date and thus unreliable. For the Office of Safety to make best use of the information about common areas of need for the States, it needs to be of recent vintage. The problem with a longer-than-five-year cycle is that there is much turnover and much change in the State personnel and systems. Additionally, the five year cycle is meant to coincide with new Transportation Reauthorization bills from the U.S. Congress. Each new reauthorization directs USDOT and the States to pursue specific safety goals, including safety data goals. A five-year cycle is reasonable for the survey in order to assess how States are doing with respect those requirements as well as, in general, making improvements that directly affect safety decision making. For example, in the past five years, FHWA, based on the FAST Act requirements, has asked States to develop plans for establishing an all public roads linear referencing system, and to have a minimum set of roadway inventory data for each roadway segment. States are working to meet these requirements and FHWA needs to know how they plan to meet the requirements and if they need any help or guidance.

7. Special circumstances:

FHWA is not requesting any special circumstances.

8. Compliance with 5 CFR 1320.8:

The Federal Register notice was published on May 17, 2017. The comment period closed on July 17, 2017. The document citation is 82 FR 22717. Page number 22717 (1 page)

There were no comments received.

9. Payments or gifts to respondents:

There are no payments or gifts included as part of this assessment.

10. Assurance of confidentiality:

FHWA is not providing any assurance of confidentiality. FHWA will follow DOT/FHWA privacy and security guidance while handling this information.

States’ data is collected at a single point for creation of a database. Upon completion, Only FHWA Office of Safety will have access to the complete database identifying States. FHWA will not release this information to any entity, including its own contractors, without specific approval from a State, and then only on an individual basis. A redacted version of the database will be created by the contractor. This will have all State names, specific system names, and any other potentially identifying data removed and replaced with generic names or sequential numbers. The order of States’ data in the database will be randomized so that no one using the redacted database will be able to figure out which State a particular record describes. The redacted database will be made available to other users, but only on an as-needed basis with need determined by the FHWA Office of Safety.

Upon completion of the project, the contractor will delete all associated files so that they too do not have access to the identifiable data or support documentation.

11. Justification for collection of sensitive information:

No sensitive information will be collected.

12. Estimate of burden hours for information requested:

Over the course of a year, each State will devote approximately 36 hours to this assessment. Total hours over all States is approximately 1,872 hours.

52 States X 36 Hours = 1872 Hours

For ROCIS purposes we divided the hours by 5 to get the annual burden hours.

52 States X 7.2 Hours = 374.4 Hours Annually

The median earnings for a Transportation Engineer is $63,224 per year. or $28.53 per hour. The total burdened cost for the information collection is estimated at $53,408.

This information is from Payscale.com

Figures cited in their summary are based on replies to PayScale's salary questionnaire.

https://www.payscale.com/research/US/Job=Transportation_Engineer/Salary

13. Estimate of total annual costs to respondents:

There are no additional costs beyond the hour burden shown in Item 12.

14. Estimate of cost to the Federal government:

The budgeted cost for this effort is $589,207 for contractor services, overhead, and printing. USDOT labor adds approximately $25,000. The grand total is $614,207

15. Explanation of program changes or adjustments:

This is a new information collection.

16. Publication of results of data collection:

Two databases (complete and redacted) and an associated users’ guide are planned for 10/1/2018. The databases will be available only internally to FHWA Office of Safety authorized staff. Individual records may be shared from the database upon approval of the States involved.

A report summarizing findings (without identifying individual States) is planned for January 1, 2019. The report will provide high-level summaries of States’ capabilities in data collection, data analysis, data management, data integration, and performance management.

Marketing materials to inform States of the final report and summarize findings will be published by 3/1/2019.

17. Approval for not displaying the expiration date of OMB approval:

We know of no reason for not publishing the expiration date of OMB approval.

18. Exceptions to certification statement:

FHWA is not asking for an exception to the certification statement.