[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