Uniform Data Collection and Reporting Program

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