[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 118 (Tuesday, June 20, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32203-32206]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-15067]



-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
[Docket No. 95-26; Notice 1]


Uniform Data Collection and Reporting Program

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This notice invites comments, suggestions and recommendations 
from individuals and organizations with an interest in data support for 
highway and traffic safety problem identification and countermeasure 
activities. In particular, it solicits participation from the traffic 
safety community regarding a uniform data collection methodology and 
process pursuant to the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency 
Act (ISTEA) of 1991, which required that the Secretary establish a 
highway safety program for the collection and reporting of data on 
traffic related deaths and injuries by the States. Comments should 
address the specific questions listed in the notice and any relevant 
data-related concerns applicable to the concept of a national uniform 
data system or to the ISTEA requirement.

DATES: Comments are due no later than July 20, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should refer to the docket number of this 
notice and should be submitted to: Docket Section, NHTSA, Room 5109, 
Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC 20590. (Docket 
hours are 9:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.)

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Janet Johnson, Office of Strategic 
Planning and Evaluation, NPP-11, National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration, 400 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC 20590; telephone 
202/366-2571.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: When the Highway Safety Act of 1966 was 
enacted, state central traffic records systems generally contained 
basic files on crashes, drivers, vehicles and roadways. Highway Safety 
Program Standard 10, issued by NHTSA in 1967, established a formal 
traffic records program. It provided: ``Each State, in cooperation with 
its political subdivisions, shall maintain a traffic records system. 
The Statewide system shall include data for the entire State. 
Information regarding drivers, vehicles, accidents, and highways shall 
be compatible for purposes of analysis and correlation.''
    Since that time, an increasingly comprehensive traffic records 
program has emerged to meet the need for planning (problem 
identification), operational management, evaluation of motor vehicle 
fleet characteristics and state highway safety program activities. 
States receive funds under the NHTSA/FHWA Section 402 State and 
Community Highway Safety Grant program. These funds may be used by 
states to support their traffic records programs. Traffic Records has 
been identified by NHTSA and FHWA as a priority program under Section 
402.
    NHTSA's National Center for Statistics and Analysis (NCSA) 
maintains a number of systems that either collect data or use state-
collected data to diagnose problems in motor vehicle safety, analyze 
potential safety improvements, and evaluate the effects of safety 
measures that are in place. These data systems include the Fatal 
Accident Reporting System (FARS), the National Accident Sampling 
System's Crashworthiness Data System (CDS) and the General Estimates 
System (GES). NCSA also obtains the crash data files from 17 states for 
use in its analysis.
    While existing data sources meet many of the highway safety 
community's data needs, it is necessary to periodically examine those 
needs to see how well they are being satisfied and to identify any new 
safety areas for which it might become necessary to collect data. 
Fortunately, the advanced capabilities of computerized data collection, 
storage and manipulation have made sophisticated information creation 
and exchange a plausible activity. The availability of uniform or 
standard data elements enhances the [[Page 32204]] usefulness of these 
data for all highway safety related activities, not the least of which 
is the potential for injury and fatality data to become an increasingly 
valuable resource for purposes of more pinpointed problem 
identification.

Uniform Data

    NHTSA and FHWA support the ANSI Standard D20.1, Data Element 
Dictionary for Traffic Record Systems, and ANSI Standard D16.1, Manual 
on Classification of Motor Vehicle Traffic Accidents. Neither, however, 
specifies those variables and elements that should be included in a 
typical motor vehicle crash reporting system or identifies those 
variables which, if collected and automated, would be appropriate for a 
full range of problem identification and analytical activities.
    NHTSA's most recent activity to focus on standardized data was its 
development of the CADRE (Critical Automated Data Reporting Elements). 
CADRE is a set of variables NHTSA believes, if uniformly collected, 
would improve the usability of state crash data for analytical 
purposes. CADRE was not intended to serve as a minimal set of elements 
to cover all aspects of crash data collection. Although the definition 
of variables to be collected on police crash reports is clearly a state 
determination, the lack of standardization both of variables across 
states and of the application of variable definitions within states 
makes comparison and analysis difficult for all highway safety data 
users.

Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA)

    On December 18, 1991, the Intermodal Surface Transportation 
Efficiency Act (ISTEA) (Pub. L. 102-240) was signed into law. Section 
2002 (a) of ISTEA was enacted to ensure national uniform data on 
traffic related deaths and injuries in the U.S. It requires that the 
following action be taken:

    The Secretary shall establish a highway safety program for the 
collection and reporting of data on traffic related deaths and 
injuries by the States. Under such program, the States shall collect 
and report such data as the Secretary may require. The purposes of 
the program are to ensure national uniform data on such deaths and 
injuries and to allow the Secretary to make determinations for use 
in developing programs to reduce such deaths and injuries and making 
recommendations to Congress concerning legislation necessary to 
implement such programs. The program shall include information 
obtained by the Secretary under section 4007 1 of the 
Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 and provide 
for annual reports to the Secretary on the efforts being made by the 
States in reducing deaths and injuries occurring at highway 
construction sites and the effectiveness and results of such 
efforts. The Secretary shall establish minimum reporting criteria 
for the program. Such criteria shall include, but not be limited to, 
criteria on deaths and injuries resulting from police pursuits, 
school bus accidents, and speeding, on traffic-related deaths and 
injuries at highway construction sites and on the configuration of 
commercial motor vehicles involved in motor vehicle accidents.

    \1\ The reference to Section 4007 is incorrect. We believe the 
intended reference was Section 4003, which added a new section 407 
to Part A of title IV of the Surface Transportation Assistance Act 
of 1982 (49 U.S.C. App. 2301-2305).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 1994, NHTSA began a strategic planning process intended to 
develop a comprehensive, long-range approach to crash and injury 
prevention. NHTSA's Strategic Plan was crafted to support the goals of 
DOT's Strategic Plan and the legislative mandates of the Agency. Eleven 
strategic goals were developed and derived from the Agency's mission. 
One of these goals addressed the improvement of data collection and 
analysis so as to ``* * * better identify and understand problems and 
to support and evaluate programs * * *''
Uniform Data Issues

    Section 2002(a) of ISTEA requires the Secretary to ``establish a 
highway safety program for the collection and reporting of data.'' It 
further provides that the Secretary ``shall establish minimum reporting 
criteria for the program,'' and that ``the states shall collect and 
report such data as the Secretary requires.'' The Agency solicits 
comments on these requirements, and is particularly interested in 
answers to the following questions:
    1. Commenters should indicate whether they believe there is a need 
to create a set of uniform definitions for all states to use and should 
provide a rationale for their position. How would data analysis 
activities for which commenters have responsibility, use, or benefit 
from, be specifically affected by having a uniform set of definitions? 
Is there already an acceptable level of uniformity? If yes, please 
provide a basis for that determination.
    2. If commenters support the development of a uniform set of 
elements, they should indicate what they believe to be the best way to 
go about establishing standard or uniform data elements or sets. Who 
would be best qualified to take on this task? What forum should be used 
to explore the establishment and adoption of a national uniform data 
set: a series of public meetings? another Federal Register Notice? 
Other?
    3. Commenters should identify financial impacts of establishing a 
uniform system and assess their capability to meet those funding 
commitments. What solutions might be proposed to accomplish this? 
Commenters should describe what they see as DOT's role in establishing 
and implementing such a system, the state's role, and the role of the 
highway safety community.
    4. Besides the CADRE elements, commenters should indicate what 
other elements might serve as a core set of elements sufficient to 
allow for meaningful inter/intrastate comparisons and analyses. Are 
there any CADRE elements that should be deleted? If so, please include 
a rationale.
    5. If commenters have adopted some or all of the CADRE elements, 
what adjustments were made to the police accident report (PAR) to 
accommodate this activity? If commenters have made a decision not to 
adopt CADRE, what are the impediments to implementation that have been 
identified? What nationally uniform data elements would the commenter 
consider adopting?

Minimum Reporting Criteria Issues

    Section 2002(a) provides that the Secretary shall establish 
``minimum reporting criteria'' and that the criteria ``shall include, 
but not be limited to, criteria on deaths and injuries resulting from 
police pursuits, school bus accidents, and speeding, on traffic-related 
deaths and injuries at highway construction sites and on the 
configuration of commercial motor vehicles involved in motor vehicle 
accidents.''
    Many states currently collect some information about these crash 
characteristics on their PARs. However, not all states do so, and for 
those that do, the data definitions and variables collected vary 
widely. Included below is a brief discussion of issues relating to each 
of these areas and questions to which NHTSA seeks input from 
commenters.

Police Pursuits

    To determine the nature and extent of the relationship of police 
pursuit to motor vehicle crashes, DOT believes it may be useful to 
develop a uniform definition of police pursuit and a data element(s) to 
properly identify and code whether a police pursuit may have been a 
contributing factor to a crash. Since the 1994 Fatal Accident Reporting 
System (FARS) data collection year, police pursuit has been coded as a 
special circumstance in the Accident Level-Related Factors section and 
also as a factor in the Driver Level section. [[Page 32205]] FARS is 
NHTSA's and FHWA's only data system that codes police pursuit related 
data. Because there is no uniform variable across all states, the NASS 
General Estimates System (GES), which codes only data collected on PARs 
cannot collect this information.
    During 1994, FARS conducted a special study to determine if police 
pursuit-related crashes were being reported on state police crash 
reporting forms. A national news clipping service was engaged to 
collect news stories where police pursuit was reported in a fatal 
crash. Preliminary results indicate that for 26 percent of the news 
clips reviewed, information identifying that a police pursuit was 
involved was not included on the PAR. Accordingly, we solicit input on 
the following questions:
    6. How does your State currently define a police pursuit? Is 
information related to police pursuits collected on your PAR? If yes, 
what is the nature of that information?
    7. Is information collected when a police pursuit may have been a 
contributing factor to the crash or was terminated immediately prior to 
the crash?
    8. What would be an appropriate definition of police pursuit and 
police pursuit-related crashes? What type of variable would be 
necessary to capture this information on a PAR?
    9. Would information on police pursuit-related crashes be more 
appropriately collected under a special study? What types of special 
studies would be most useful? Please be specific.
    10. Identify any impediments to obtaining and collecting accurate 
data on police pursuit-related crashes. How can these impediments be 
eliminated?

Work Zones

    Work zone safety is a national priority for DOT. FHWA has developed 
a National Work Zone Safety Program and recently held a national 
conference to discuss this issue. Since 1981, FARS has identified work 
zone-related crashes in the Accident Level section. In 1995, GES added 
a similar variable. Both systems distinguish between motorist and 
nonmotorist fatalities and injuries. However, if information 
distinguishing highway construction projects from utility company 
projects or construction workers from nonworkers is needed, both 
systems can do so only if the information is readily available on the 
PAR. Recent research on work zone safety has included the testing and 
recommendation of various types of work zone equipment, barriers, 
signs, pavement markings, and worker practices. However, more detailed 
crash statistics are needed to better understand the cause and 
characteristics of work zone crashes. Preliminary investigations have 
indicated that work zone crashes may be understated due to the lack of 
a standard definition and the practice of recording (on PARs) these 
types of crashes as part of other variables, such as ``Road Defects.'' 
Consequently, we invite comments on the following issues:
    11. How does your state currently define a work zone? Is any 
information on work zone related crashes collected on any of your state 
PARs?
    12. Does this definition discriminate between highway construction 
and utility company operations? If so, how is this information used?
    13. Does this definition discriminate between construction workers 
and nonworkers involved in the crash? If so, how is this information 
used?
    14. DOT is considering developing a standard definition for work 
zone crashes and recommending that states include this as a separate 
variable on PARs. What would be an appropriate definition of a work 
zone and a work zone-related crash? What type of variable would be 
necessary to capture this information on a PAR?
    15. Would information on work zone related crashes be more 
appropriately collected by means of a special study? What types of 
special studies would be most useful? Please be specific.

School Buses

    Currently all states collect data on school bus and school bus 
related crashes. Consequently, the information can be collected and 
coded by both FARS and GES. Although there does not appear to be a need 
to collect any additional data at this time or to propose any changes 
to the existing national data collection systems, some in the safety 
community believe these crashes to be underreported.
    16. Do commenters believe these crashes are underreported? If so, 
do you believe changes in collecting school bus data should be made to 
address this? What specific changes do you recommend?
    17. If commenters agree that collection of additional data at this 
time is not necessary, please state this and include your reasons.

Speeding

    Many states currently collect some data on speed, usually as a 
contributing cause of crashes. One of the difficulties in using current 
data is that speed can be a contributing factor in a number of ways, 
e.g., exceeding the posted speed limit or driving too fast for 
conditions. In addition, the recording of speed as a contributing cause 
presents some difficulties. Police officers might report speeding as a 
contributing cause when the crash cause is not clear. On the other 
hand, a police officer might suspect that speed was a contributing 
cause but not have enough evidence to issue a citation and 
consequently, be reluctant to indicate speed as a contributing factor. 
NHTSA and FHWA also recognize that a research study may be more 
appropriate to collect the type of information required to fully 
understand the impacts of speed. We are considering periodic studies of 
the speed/crash relationship where detailed data would be collected. 
However, there is still a need for continuous collection of the number 
and types of speed-related crashes by states and by DOT through its 
FARS, GES and CDS to provide the problem identification data needed for 
program development. Therefore, we solicit responses to the following 
questions:
    18. How does your state define a speed-related crash? Do PARs 
contain a variable to collect this information?
    19. What would be an appropriate definition of a speed-related 
crash? What type of variable would be necessary to capture this 
information on a PAR?
    20. Would information on speed-related crashes be more 
appropriately collected under a special study? What types of special 
studies would be most useful? Please be specific.

Commercial Vehicle Related Crashes

    Currently DOT, through FHWA's Office of Motor Carriers, collects 
crash data on commercial vehicles involved in interstate and intrastate 
commerce (as long as the crash meets the National Governors' 
Association [NGA] reportable accident criteria). Uniform data elements 
have been defined and recommended, and all states collect some of the 
elements. These data elements will be reviewed in 1997, and may be 
updated to accommodate changes in vehicle and highway travel. With 
these data and those collected on truck-involved crashes by FARS and 
GES, NHTSA and FHWA currently plan no major changes in these data 
collection systems, but solicit comments on this determination and on 
the following additional issues:
    21. Do commenters agree that there is currently no need for any 
major changes in these data collection systems? If not, please include 
a rationale.
    22. The definition of ``longer commercial vehicle'' (LCV) is not 
standard. Should a standard definition be established? If so, by what 
method? [[Page 32206]] 
    23. If some double combinations are to be classified as LCV's and 
others are not to be classified as LCV's, how shall the difference be 
defined?

Injury Severity Determinations

    NHTSA and FHWA are interested in the public's comments and 
suggestions regarding data collection issues not only on the specific 
safety areas addressed above, but also relating to the issue of injury 
severity determinations. There is currently no consistent application 
of the standard definition of injury severity found in the ANSI D16.1 
Manual on Classification of Motor Vehicle Traffic Accidents: fatal, 
incapacitating, nonincapacitating, possible, no injury. Application of 
this injury scale depends on evaluation at the crash scene by police 
officers with little or no medical training. Consequently, people with 
injuries of different medical severities are often included within the 
same class because of differing interpretations of how severely a crash 
victim is injured. Frequently, emergency medical services transport of 
a victim for treatment is enough to code ``incapacitating injury.'' On 
the other hand, some injuries are not immediately evident at the scene 
of the crash, and a victim who is later diagnosed with a serious injury 
can be initially classified as ``not injured.'' This lack of standard 
application makes it difficult to determine the extent of the injury 
problem or to combine data from various jurisdictions. We are 
soliciting information on the following issues:
    24. Is it feasible to standardize or change the application of the 
injury classification scale in a way that would allow valid judgments 
by officers on the scene?
    25. If so, how should the highway safety community accomplish this?
    26. Are there other methods for determining the nature and extent 
of the injury problem without requiring the collection of these data at 
the crash site? What are these methods?
    27. Is it feasible to collect this information through the linking 
of EMS and hospital data with PARs?
    NHTSA seeks public comment on the issues discussed above. 
Interested individuals or groups are invited to submit comments on 
these and any related issues. It is requested, but not required that 
ten copies of each comment be submitted. Written comments to the docket 
must be received on or before July 20, 1995. In order to expedite the 
submission of comments, simultaneous with the issuance of this notice, 
copies will be mailed to all State Governor's Highway Safety 
Representatives. Comments should not exceed 15 (fifteen) pages in 
length. Necessary attachments may be appended to those submissions 
without regard to the 15 page limit. This limitation is intended to 
encourage commenters to detail their primary arguments in a concise 
manner. All comments received before the close of business on the 
comment closing date listed above will be considered and will be 
available for examination in the docket room at the above address both 
before and after that date. To the extent possible, comments filed 
after the closing date will be considered. The Agency will continue to 
file relevant information as it becomes available. It is recommended 
that interested persons continue to examine the docket for new 
material. Those people desiring to be notified upon receipt of their 
comments by the docket section should include a self-addressed, stamped 
postcard in the envelope with their comments. Upon receipt of their 
comments, the docket supervisor will return the postcard by mail.

    Issued on: June 15, 1995.
Donald C. Bischoff,
Associate Administrator for Plans and Policy.
[FR Doc. 95-15067 Filed 6-19-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P