State Traffic Safety Information System Improvement Grants, 5729-5734 [E6-1426]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 22 / Thursday, February 2, 2006 / Notices
lllllllllllllllllllll
(include legal citations to all relevant
provisions)
is (check one):
bin effect and being enforced,
bwill be in effect on lll (date) and will
be enforced on lll (date);
(2) that the State maintains and allows
public inspection of statistical information
on the race and ethnicity of the driver and
any passengers for each motor vehicle stop
made by a law enforcement officer on a
Federal-aid highway, pursuant to the
following official document(s) (e.g., State
law, Executive Order, or policy) available at
lllllllllllllllllllll
(include legal or other citations to all relevant
provisions)
and
(3) that, if awarded Section 1906 grant
funds, the State:
• Will use the funds in accordance with
the requirements of Section 1906 of
SAFETEA–LU, Pub. L. 109–59; and
• Will administer the funds in accordance
with 49 CFR Part 18.
lllllllllllllllllllll
Governor’s Highway Safety Representative
Date
lllllllllllllllllllll
Appendix 2: Racial Profiling Incentive Grant
hsrobinson on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
Assurances State Certification
Issued on: January 30, 2006.
Jacqueline Glassman,
Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. E6–1427 Filed 2–1–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA–2006–23771]
State Traffic Safety Information System
Improvement Grants
National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration, DOT.
ACTION: Announcement of grants to
support state traffic safety information
system improvements.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA)
announces a grant program to improve
State traffic safety information systems
under Section 2006 of the Safe,
Accountable, Flexible, Efficient
Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy For
Users (SAFETEA–LU). This Notice
informs the 50 states, the District of
Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Virgin
Islands, Guam, American Samoa, the
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana
Islands, through their Governors’
Representatives for Highway Safety, and
the Bureau of Indian Affairs (on behalf
of the Indian tribes), of the application
procedures to receive grants to be made
available in fiscal years 2006 through
2009.
DATES: Applications must be received
by the appropriate NHTSA Regional
Office on or before June 15 of the fiscal
year for which a State seeks a grant.
ADDRESSES: Applications must be
submitted to the appropriate Regional
Administrator.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
program issues, Jack Oates, Office of
Traffic Injury Control, Injury Control
Operations and Resources (NTI–200),
NHTSA, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Room
5118, Washington, DC 20590, by phone
at (202) 366–2121 or by e-mail at
jack.oates@nhtsa.dot.gov. For legal
issues, Dana Sade, Office of Chief
Counsel, NCC–113, NHTSA, 400
Seventh Street, SW., Room 5219,
Washington, DC 20590, by phone at
(202) 366–1834 or by email at
dana.sade@nhtsa.dot.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
State (or Commonwealth): llllllll
Fiscal Year: lllllllllllllll
I certify that:
(1) the State is undertaking activities to
prohibit the use of racial profiling in the
enforcement of State laws regulating the use
of all Federal-aid highways, as described in
the following official document(s) (e.g., State
law, Executive Order, policy) available at
lllllllllllllllllllll
(include legal and other citations to all
relevant provisions)
(2) the State is undertaking activities to
maintain and allow public inspection of
statistical information on the race and
ethnicity of the driver and any passengers for
each motor vehicle stop made by a State or
local law enforcement officer on a Federalaid highway, as described in the following
official document(s) (e.g., State law,
Executive Order, policy) available at
lllllllllllllllllllll
(include legal and other citations to all
relevant provisions)
and
(3) that, if awarded Section 1906 grant
funds, the State:
• will use the funds in accordance with
the requirements of Section 1906 of
SAFETEA–LU, Pub. L. 109–59; and
• will administer the funds in accordance
with 49 CFR Part 18.
lllllllllllllllllllll Background
Governor’s Highway Safety Representative
Section 2006 of the Safe, Accountable,
lllllllllllllllllllll Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity
Act: A Legacy For Users (SAFETEA–LU)
Date
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:26 Feb 01, 2006
Jkt 208001
PO 00000
Frm 00092
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
5729
establishes a State traffic safety
information system improvement grant
program, administered by NHTSA. The
purpose of this grant program is to
support the development and
implementation of effective programs by
the States to: (1) Improve the timeliness,
accuracy, completeness, uniformity,
integration, and accessibility of the
safety data that States need to identify
priorities for national, State and local
highway and traffic safety programs; (2)
evaluate the effectiveness of efforts to
make such improvements; (3) link the
State data systems, including traffic
records, with other data systems within
the State, such as systems that contain
medical, roadway, and economic data;
and (4) improve the compatibility and
interoperability of the States’ data
systems with national traffic safety data
systems and data systems of other States
and enhance NHTSA’s ability to observe
and analyze national trends in crash
occurrences, rates, outcomes, and
circumstances. Section 2006 authorizes
$34.5 million in funding for each of four
fiscal years from FY 2006 through FY
2009. The Section 2006 grant program is
codified in 23 U.S.C. 408 (‘‘the Section
408 Program’’).
Today’s Notice solicits applications
for grants under this program.
SAFETEA–LU provides that the amount
of each first fiscal year grant shall be the
higher of $300,000 or an amount
determined by multiplying the amount
appropriated to carry out the Section
408 Program for that fiscal year by the
ratio that the funds apportioned to the
State under section 402 for FY 2003
bears to the funds apportioned to all
eligible States under section 402 for FY
2003. Each State that qualifies for a
successive fiscal year grant shall be
eligible to receive the higher of $500,000
or an amount determined by
multiplying the amount appropriated to
carry out the Section 408 Program for
that fiscal year by the ratio that the
funds apportioned to the State under
section 402 for FY 2003 bears to the
funds apportioned to all eligible States
under section 402 for FY 2003. No State
may receive a grant under this section
in more than four years.
Requirements To Receive a Grant
First Year Grants
SAFETEA–LU provides that a State
may qualify for a first year grant by
demonstrating that it has: (a)
Established a highway safety data and
traffic records coordinating committee
(a ‘‘TRCC’’); and (b) developed a
multiyear highway safety data and
traffic records system strategic plan (a
‘‘Multiyear Plan’’ or ‘‘Strategic Plan’’).
E:\FR\FM\02FEN1.SGM
02FEN1
5730
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 22 / Thursday, February 2, 2006 / Notices
In addition, the State must certify that
it has adopted and uses model data
elements identified under the Section
408 Program, or that the 408 grant funds
it receives will be used toward adopting
and using the maximum number of
Model Data Elements as soon as
practicable.
TRCC Requirement
In order to satisfy the TRCC
requirement for a first year grant,
SAFETEA–LU provides that a State
TRCC must have a multidisciplinary
membership that includes, among
others, managers, collectors, and users
of traffic records and public health and
injury control data systems, and the
authority to approve the State’s Strategic
Plan.
The role and function of a TRCC in
the section 408 program is very similar
to that of a ‘‘coordinating committee’’ in
section 408’s predecessor program on
data improvements (23 U.S.C. 411).
Therefore, consistent with the section
411 requirements, under which States
already have established the necessary
organizational structure, a TRCC should:
(a) Include representatives from
highway safety, highway infrastructure,
law enforcement and adjudication,
public health, injury control and motor
carrier agencies and organizations; (b)
have authority to review any of the
State’s highway safety data and traffic
records systems and to review changes
to such systems before the changes are
implemented; (c) provide a forum for
the discussion of highway safety data
and traffic records issues and report on
any such issues to the agencies and
organizations in the State that create,
maintain and use highway safety data
and traffic records; (d) consider and
coordinate the views of organizations in
the State that are involved in the
administration, collection and use of the
highway safety data and traffic records
system; (e) represent the interests of the
agencies and organizations within the
traffic records system to outside
organizations; and (f) review and
evaluate new technologies to keep the
highway safety data and traffic records
systems up-to-date.
hsrobinson on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
Strategic Plan Requirement
SAFETEA–LU provides that a
Strategic Plan shall be: (a) Approved by
the State’s TRCC; (b) address existing
deficiencies in a State’s highway safety
data and traffic records system; 1 (c)
1 Consistent with concern expressed by the
Government Accountability Office about the need
for States to link traffic records assessment, strategic
plans and progress reports, in addressing existing
deficiencies, States should identify and discuss the
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:26 Feb 01, 2006
Jkt 208001
specify how deficiencies in the system
were identified; (d) prioritize the needs
and set goals for improving the system;
(e) identify performance-based measures
by which progress towards those goals
will be determined; and (f) specify how
the State will use section 408 and other
funds of the State to address the needs
and goals identified in its Strategic Plan.
The Section 408 Program, like the
Section 411 Program, requires that a
State identify in its Strategic Plan
specific performance-based measures.
When Congress first introduced this
performance-based measure
requirement, NHTSA received
numerous requests from States for
technical assistance in identifying
performance-based measures applicable
to their highway safety data and traffic
records systems. In response, NHTSA
incorporated into its Traffic Records
Highway Safety Advisory (the relevant
portion of which is set forth in
Appendix 3 to this guidance), a chapter
detailing performance-based measures
applicable to each of a State’s
information systems, including its
crash, vehicle, driver, citation/
adjudication, and injury surveillance
systems.
States have incorporated the
performance measures identified in
NHTSA’s Traffic Records Highway
Safety Advisory into their Strategic
Plans under section 411, and also have
relied on those measures in establishing,
updating and analyzing the performance
of their highway safety data and traffic
records systems. Therefore, under the
Section 408 Program states should
continue to incorporate into their
Strategic Plans performance-based
measures identified in Appendix 3, both
as baselines or benchmarks for and as
gauges of their progress towards
achieving the goals and objectives
identified in their Strategic Plans.
Among other baseline measures
identified in Appendix 3, States should
specify in their Strategic Plans which
MMUCC and NEMSIS data elements
they currently use.
Model Data Elements Requirement
SAFETEA–LU provides that the
Secretary shall, in consultation with the
States and appropriate elements of the
law enforcement community, determine
the model data elements that are useful
for observation and analysis of State and
national trends in occurrences, rates,
outcomes, and circumstances of motor
vehicle traffic accidents, including the
impact on traffic safety of the use of
electronic devices while driving. As
recommendations contained in their most recent
traffic records assessment or audit.
PO 00000
Frm 00093
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
explained in more detail below, two sets
of model data elements have been
developed through collaborative efforts
among NHTSA, the States, and other
Federal and State stakeholders: the
Model Minimum Uniform Crash Criteria
(‘‘MMUCC’’) and the National
Emergency Medical Services
Information System (NEMSIS).2
Therefore, in order to satisfy the model
data elements requirement, a State must
certify that it has adopted and uses the
MMUCC and NEMSIS data elements,3
or that the 408 grant funds it receives
will be used toward adopting and using
the maximum number of MMUCC and
NEMSIS data elements as soon as
practicable.
The MMUCC resulted from requests
for technical assistance received by
NHTSA from States interested in
improving and standardizing their crash
data systems. In response, NHTSA and
the Federal Highway Administration
worked with the Governors Highway
Safety Association (‘‘GHSA’’),4 as well
as numerous other Federal, State and
academic stakeholders, to develop a
voluntary minimum set of crash data
elements that are accurate, reliable and
credible within states, among states, and
at the national level. Known as the
MMUCC, these model data elements
were incorporated into the assessment
requirement of the section 411 program,
so States already should be applying
them to their crash data systems. One of
the MMUCC elements, Data Element P–
16 covering driver distraction,
specifically addresses driver distraction
by electronic communications devices,
including cell phones, pagers,
navigation devices, palm pilots and
other such devices, as mandated by
SAFETEA–LU.
NEMSIS was developed in 2001 by
the National Association of State EMS
Officials (‘‘NASEMSO’’),5 with the
assistance of NHTSA and the
Department of Health and Human
Services, in response to a need for
2 The MMUCC data elements may be accessed at:
https://www.mmucc.us/guideline.aspx and the
NEMSIS data elements may be accessed at:
https://www.nemsis.org/PDFs
/NEMSIS%20Version%202.2%20
Data%20Dictionary%20Final.pdf.
3 Other data elements may be relevant to a State’s
Highway Safety Data and Traffic Records systems
such as data elements required by the Federal
Motor Carrier Safety Administration and Federal
Highway Administration. Funding sources other
than section 408 are available to support the
adoption of those data elements.
4 At that time, GHSA was known as the National
Association of Governors’ Highway Safety
Representatives or NAGHSR.
5 At that time, NASEMSO was known as the
National Association of State EMS Directors or
NASEMSD. NASEMSO is an organization made up
of representatives of State EMS Officials.
E:\FR\FM\02FEN1.SGM
02FEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 22 / Thursday, February 2, 2006 / Notices
greater uniformity and consistency in
Emergency Medical Services data.
NEMSIS is a voluntary set of data
elements related to patient care and
emergency response that has received
widespread endorsement by the States
for application to their EMS data
systems.6
hsrobinson on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
Successive Year Grants
SAFETEA–LU provides that a State
may qualify for a successive year grant
by (a) certifying that an assessment or
audit of its highway safety and data and
traffic records system has been
conducted or updated within the
preceding 5 years (an ‘‘assessment’’ or
‘‘audit’’), (b) certifying that its TRCC
continues to operate and supports the
Strategic Plan, (c) specifying how
section 408 grant funds and any other
funds of the State are to be used to
address the needs and goals identified
in the Strategic Plan, (d) demonstrating
measurable progress toward achieving
the goals and objectives identified in its
Strategic Plan (‘‘measurable progress’’),
and (e) submitting a current report on
the State’s progress in implementing its
Strategic Plan (a ‘‘Current Report’’). In
addition, the State must certify that it
has adopted and uses the Model Data
Elements, or that section 408 grant
funds it receives will be used toward
adopting and using the maximum
number of such Model Data Elements as
soon as practicable.
Assessment or Audit Requirement
In order to qualify for a successive
year grant, SAFETEA–LU requires a
State to certify that an assessment or
audit of its highway safety data and
traffic records system has been
conducted or updated within the
preceding 5 years. The section 411
program contained a similar assessment
requirement. In arranging for
assessments of their highway safety data
and traffic records systems since 2000,
States have relied on the assessment
requirement detailed in the section 411
regulation. Consequently, consistent
with State practice under section 411,
an assessment or audit used by a State
to meet the section 408 Program’s
assessment or audit requirement should
be (a) an in-depth, formal review of a
State’s highway safety data and traffic
records system that addresses the
criteria in NHTSA’s Traffic Records
Highway Safety Program Advisory, (b)
that generates an impartial report on the
status of the highway safety data and
6 After finalizing NEMSIS, NASEMESO prepared
a memorandum of understanding to be signed by
each State when it was prepared to commit to work
toward becoming NEMSIS compliant. Currently, all
but two states have signed the memorandum.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:26 Feb 01, 2006
Jkt 208001
5731
traffic records system in the State, and
(c) that is conducted by an organization
or group that is knowledgeable about
highway safety data and traffic records
systems, but independent from the
organizations involved in the
administration, collection and use of the
highway safety data and traffic records
systems in the State.
adequately identify the State’s
expenditures in support of its Strategic
Plan, as required by SAFETEA–LU. A
State that submits an outdated or
incomplete Annual Report in lieu of a
Current Report runs the risk of failing to
qualify for a successive year grant.
Measurable Progress Requirement
SAFETEA–LU requires that a State
demonstrate measurable progress
towards achieving the goals and
objectives identified in its Strategic
Plan. As discussed above, under the
section 411 program, States
incorporated into their Strategic Plans
the performance-based measures
detailed in Appendix 3. Consistent with
State practice under section 411 and to
avoid the imposition of new burdens, in
demonstrating measurable progress in a
Current Report, States should reference
performance-based measures identified
in Appendix 3, both as baselines or
benchmarks for and as gauges of their
progress in implementing their Strategic
Plans.
The 50 states, the District of
Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Virgin
Islands, Guam, American Samoa, the
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana
Islands, and Indian tribes through the
Bureau of Indian Affairs are eligible to
apply for grants under the Section 408
Program.
Current Report Requirement
SAFETEA–LU requires that a State
submit a Current Report on its progress
in implementing its Strategic Plan. The
section 411 program contained a similar
report requirement in order to qualify
for a successive year grant. In
accordance with SAFETEA–LU, a
Current Report should (a) use
performance-based measures, including
baseline or benchmark measures, to
demonstrate measurable progress
toward achieving the goals and
objectives identified in a State’s
Strategic Plan and (b) specify how the
State will use new or additional section
408 grant funds and other State funds to
address the needs and goals identified
in its Strategic Plan. A Current Report
also should discuss a State’s planned
expenditures and measurable progress
in terms of specific projects and
systems, document any changes in its
Strategic Plan, and address
recommendations contained in the
State’s most recent traffic records
assessment or audit.7
In lieu of submitting a Current Report
in support of a successive year section
408 grant application, a State may
submit its most recent Annual Report
(discussed below in the section entitled
Reporting Requirements). However, in
order to satisfy section 408’s Current
Report requirement, an Annual Report
must demonstrate Measurable Progress
using performance-based measures and
7 See
PO 00000
footnote 1 above.
Frm 00094
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Eligibility
Application Procedures
To apply for a first fiscal year grant,
a State must submit the certification
required by Appendix 1, signed by the
Governor’s Representative for Highway
Safety, to the appropriate NHTSA
Administrator no later than June 15 of
the fiscal year. To apply for a successive
fiscal year grant, a State must submit the
certification required by Appendix 2,
signed by the Governor’s Representative
for Highway Safety, to the appropriate
NHTSA Administrator no later than
June 15 of the fiscal year.
Award Notification
NHTSA will review the information
referenced in each State’s certification
for compliance with section 408 and
notify qualifying States in writing of
grant awards.
Eligible Uses of Grant Funds
As prescribed in SAFETEA–LU,
States may use section 2006 grant funds
for:
Æ Improving the timeliness, accuracy,
completeness, uniformity, integration
and accessibility of State traffic safety
data needed to identify national, State
and local highway and traffic safety
priorities; 8
Æ Evaluating the effectiveness of
efforts to improve State traffic safety
data;
Æ Linking State traffic safety data
systems with other State data systems,
including those containing medical,
roadway and economic data; and
Æ Improving the compatibility and
interoperability of State data systems
with national traffic safety data systems
and data systems of other States to
enhance the observation and analysis of
national trends in crash occurrences,
rules, outcomes, and circumstances.
8 This would include the use of section 408 grant
funds to adopt and use the MMUCC and NEMSIS
data elements.
E:\FR\FM\02FEN1.SGM
02FEN1
5732
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 22 / Thursday, February 2, 2006 / Notices
hsrobinson on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
Financial Accounting and
Administration
Within 30 days after notification of
award, but in no event later than
September 12, States must submit
electronically to the agency a program
cost summary (HS Form 217) obligating
the funds to the Section 408 Program.
Submission of the program cost
summary is necessary to ensure proper
accounting for federal funds and is a
precondition to receiving grant funds.
SAFETEA–LU requires that a State
maintain its aggregate expenditures
from all other sources for highway
safety data programs at or above the
average level of such expenditures
maintained by the State in FY 2003 and
FY 2004. The Federal share of programs
funded under this section shall not
exceed 80 percent, except that the
Federal share may be increased for
Indian tribes, as provided by 23 U.S.C.
402(d).
• Has adopted and is using the MMUCC
and NEMSIS data elements, or that 408 grant
funds it receives will be used toward
adopting and using the maximum number of
MMUCC and NEMSIS data elements as soon
as practicable; and
• Will make available or submit to NHTSA
its Strategic Plan and documentation of the
TRCC’s membership, organization and
authority;
and that, if awarded Section 408 grant funds,
the State will:
• Use the funds only to evaluate, improve
and link its highway safety data and traffic
records system, in accordance with the
eligible uses detailed in 23 U.S.C. 408;
• Administer the funds in accordance with
49 CFR Part 18; and
• Maintain its aggregate expenditures from
all other sources for highway safety data
programs at or above the average level of
such expenditures maintained by the State in
FY 2003 and FY 2004.
lllllllllllllllllllll
Governor’s Highway Safety Representative
lllllllllllllllllllll
Date
lllllllllllllllllllll
Governor’s Highway Safety Representative lllllll
Date
Appendix 3: Performance-Based Measures
Following are the standardized,
quantitative measurements of data quality
used to gauge both a State’s baseline or
benchmark for and its progress towards
achieving the goals and objectives identified
in its Strategic Plan:
Timeliness
Consistency
Completeness
Accuracy
Accessibility
Data integration with other information
The definition of each performance-based
measure and its relative significance may
vary for each of a State’s information
systems, including its crash, vehicle, driver,
enforcement/adjudication, and injury
surveillance systems.
Crash Information Quality
Timeliness—The information should be
available within a time frame to be currently
Reporting Requirements
meaningful for effective analysis of the
Appendix 2: State Traffic Safety Information State’s crash experience, preferably within 90
Each fiscal year until all section 408
days of a crash.
grant funds are expended, States should System Improvement Grant (23 U.S.C. 408)
Consistency—The information should be
carefully document how they intend to
Successive Year Certification
consistent with nationally accepted and
use the NHTSA-administered funds in
State (or Commonwealth) lllllllll published guidelines and standards, for
the Highway Safety Plan they submit
Fiscal Year: lllllllllllllll example:
pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 402 (or in an
Model Minimum Uniform Crash Criteria
I hereby certify that, pursuant to Section 408,
amendment to that plan) and detail the
(MMUCC).
the State has:
program activities accomplished in the
Manual on Classification of Motor Vehicle
• Had an Assessment or Audit of the
Annual Report they submit pursuant to
Traffic Accidents, 6th Edition, ANSI D16.1–
State’s highway safety data and traffic
1996.
23 CFR 1200.33. In addition, an Annual records systems, conducted or updated
Data Element Dictionary for Traffic
Report needs to account for the status of within the preceding 5 years;
Records Systems, ANSI D20.1, 1993.
all funds awarded under section 408
• A TRCC that continues to operate and
EMS Data Dictionary (Uniform Preand include a list of projects
supports the Strategic Plan; and
Hospital Emergency Medical Services Data
implemented in the past fiscal year,
• Adopted and is using the MMUCC and
Conference). (Note: Currently the National
NEMSIS data elements, or that 408 grant
brief descriptions of activities
EMS Information System (NEMSIS) Dataset
funds it receives will be used toward
completed, and any problems
and Data Dictionary, Version 2.2 or later.)
adopting and using the maximum number of
encountered. As discussed above in the
The information should be consistent
MMUCC and NEMSIS data elements as soon
section entitled Current Report, a State
among reporting jurisdictions; i.e., the same
as practicable;
submitting its Annual Report in
reporting threshold should be used by all
and that the State will make available or
jurisdictions and the same set of core data
satisfaction of section 408’s Current
provide to NHTSA:
elements should be reported by all
Report Requirement should ensure that
• A Current Report or Annual Report
jurisdictions.
its Annual Report also contains
demonstrating the State’s measurable
Should it become necessary to change or
adequate project and system-specific
progress in implementing the Strategic Plan;
modify a data element or to change the
information to demonstrate Measurable
• An Assessment or Audit of the State’s
values of data elements, this should be
Progress, using performance-based
highway safety data and traffic records
clearly documented. Frequently, data
measures, and adequately identifies the
systems, conducted or updated within the
element values are expanded to provide
State’s expenditures in support of its
preceding 5 years; and
greater detail than previously (e.g., trucks
• To the extent that the TRCC charter or
Strategic Plan.
involved in crashes were previously coded as
membership has changed since the State’s
light or heavy; the new values are changed
Appendix 1: State Traffic Safety
previous 408 application, an updated charter to ‘‘under 10,000 pounds, 10,001–20,000
Information System Improvement
or membership list;
pounds, greater than 20,000 pounds).
Grant (23 U.S.C. 408)
and that, if awarded Section 408 grant funds,
Completeness—The information should be
the State will:
complete in terms of:
First Year Certification
All reportable crashes throughout the State
• Use the funds only to evaluate, improve
State (or Commonwealth): llllllll
are available for analysis.
and link its highway safety data and traffic
Fiscal Year: lllllllllllllll records systems, in accordance with the
All variables on the individual crash
I hereby certify that, pursuant to Section 408, eligible uses detailed in 23 U.S.C. 408;
records are completed as appropriate.
the State:
Accuracy—The State should employ
• Administer 408 grant funds in
quality control methods to ensure accurate
accordance with 49 C.F.R. Part 18; and
• Has established a highway safety data
• Maintain its aggregate expenditures from and reliable information to describe
and traffic records coordinating committee
individual crashes (e.g., validity and
all other sources for highway safety data
(‘‘TRCC’’);
consistency checks in the data capture and
programs at or above the average level of
• Has developed a multiyear highway
such expenditures maintained by the State in data entry processes, feedback to
safety data and traffic records system
FY 2003 and FY 2004.
strategic plan (‘‘Strategic Plan’’);
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:26 Feb 01, 2006
Jkt 208001
PO 00000
Frm 00095
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\02FEN1.SGM
02FEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 22 / Thursday, February 2, 2006 / Notices
jurisdictions submitting inaccurate reports)
and the State crash experience in the
aggregate (e.g., edit checks to determine if
specific data variables or categories are
possibly under- or over-reported such as
putting all unknown crash times into a
specific category rather than using
imputation methods).
Accessibility—The information should be
readily and easily accessible to the principal
users of these databases containing the crash
information for both direct (automated)
access and periodic outputs (standard
reports) from the system.
Data Integration—Crash information
should be capable of linkage with other
information sources through the use of
common identifiers where possible and
permitted by law. Where common file
identifiers or linking variables are not
available, some consideration should be
given to file linkage using probabilistic
linkage methods.
hsrobinson on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
Roadway Information Quality
Timeliness—The information should be
updated as required to produce valid
analysis. This implies that changes on the
roadway (e.g., construction, sign
improvements) should be available for
analysis as soon as the project is completed.
Consistency—The same data elements
should be collected over time and for various
classes of roadways. Should it become
necessary to change or modify a data element
or to change the values of data elements, this
should be clearly documented.
Completeness—The information should be
complete in terms of the miles of roadway,
the trafficway characteristics, the highway
structures, traffic volumes, traffic control
devices, speeds, signs, etc.
Accuracy—The State should employ
methods for collecting and maintaining
roadway data that produces accurate data
and should make use of current technologies
designed for these purposes.
Accessibility—The information should be
readily and easily accessible to the principal
users of these databases containing the
roadway information for both direct
(automated) access and periodic outputs
(standard reports) from the files.
Data Integration—In order to develop
viable traffic safety policies and programs,
the roadway information must be linked to
other information files through common
identifiers such as location reference point.
Integration should also be supported between
State and local systems.
Vehicle Information Quality
Timeliness—The information should be
updated at least annually.
Consistency—The same data elements
should be collected over time and they
should be consistent with the data elements
contained in the other components of the
traffic records system. Should it become
necessary to change or modify a data element
or to change the values of data elements, this
should be clearly documented.
Completeness—The information should be
complete in terms of vehicle ownership,
registration, type, VIN, etc. Information on
vehicle miles traveled (VMT) by type or class
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:26 Feb 01, 2006
Jkt 208001
of vehicle should be available. For
commercial vehicles, completeness also
involves collection and availability of
standard data elements (such as the NGA
elements, a set of data developed and
recommended by the National Governors’
Association for collection of data from
crashes involving commercial vehicles).
Accuracy—The State should employ
methods for collecting and maintaining
vehicle data that produces accurate data and
should make use of current technologies
designed for these purposes. This includes
the use of bar-coded vehicle registration
forms that allow scanning of vehicle
registration information directly onto
appropriate forms (citation, crash, other
forms).
Accessibility—The information should be
readily and easily accessible to the principal
users of these databases containing the
vehicle information for both direct
(automated) access and periodic outputs
(standard reports) from the system, consistent
with State confidentiality requirements.
Data Integration—Vehicle information
should be capable of linkage with other
information sources and use common
identifiers (e.g., VIN, Crash Reports Number,
etc.) where possible and permitted by law.
Driver Information Quality
Timeliness—Routine license issuance
information should be updated at least
weekly. Adverse actions (license suspension,
traffic conviction) should be posted daily.
Consistency—Information maintained on
the State’s Driver File should be compatible
for exchange with other driver-related
systems such as the National Driver Register
(NDR), the Commercial Driver License
Information System (CDLIS), and other
applications for interstate exchange of driver
records, especially those facilitated via the
American Association of Motor Vehicle
Administrators Telecommunications
Network (AAMVANet).
Completeness—The information should be
complete in terms of data elements (e.g.,
unique personal identifiers and descriptive
data such as name, date of birth, gender) and
complete in terms of all prior driving history,
especially adverse actions received from
other States either while licensed elsewhere
or while driving in other States.
Accuracy—The State should employ
methods for collecting and maintaining
driver information that makes use of current
technologies (e.g., magnetic-stripe, bar-codes,
smart-cards).
Accessibility—The information should be
readily and easily accessible to the principal
users of these databases, including driver
licensing personnel, law enforcement
officers, the courts, and for general use in
highway safety analysis. The information
should be available electronically for
individual record access, and technology
should be available to support automated
downloading of summary data sets for
analytical purposes, provided that
appropriate safeguards are in place to protect
individual confidentiality within the
guidelines established by the State.
Data Integration—Driver information
should be capable of linkage with other
PO 00000
Frm 00096
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
5733
information sources and use common
identifiers (e.g., driver license number,
citation number, crash report number) where
possible and permitted by law. Updates of
driver information from courts should be
accomplished through linkages, preferably
electronic, to the driver history data.
Citation/Adjudication Information Quality
Timeliness—Information from an issued
citation should be recorded on a statewide
citation file as soon as the citation is filed in
the court of jurisdiction. Information
regarding the disposition of a citation should
be entered on the citation file, as well as on
the driver history record, immediately after
adjudication by the courts.
Consistency—All jurisdictions should use
a uniform traffic citation form, and the
information should be uniformly reported
throughout all enforcement jurisdictions.
Completeness—All citations issued should
be recorded in a statewide citation file with
all variables on the form completed including
the violation type; the issuing enforcement
agency; violation location; a cross reference
to a crash report, if applicable; and BAC,
where applicable, etc. All dispositions from
all courts should be forwarded for entry on
the driver history record.
Accuracy—The State should employ
quality control methods to ensure accurate
and reliable information is reported on the
citation form and updated on the citation and
driver history files. The use of mag-stripe,
bar-code, smart-card scanner technology to
directly input driver information onto the
citation form is encouraged.
Accessibility—The information should be
readily and easily accessible to the principal
users, particularly:
Driver control personnel—to take timely
license sanction actions when appropriate.
Law enforcement personnel—for operational
analysis and allocation of resources.
Agencies with administrative oversight
responsibilities related to the courts—for
monitoring court activity regarding the
disposition of traffic cases.
Court officials—to assess traffic case
adjudication workload and activity.
Data Integration—Citation information
should be capable of linkage with other
information sources, such as the crash and
driver history data, and use common
identifiers (e.g., crash report number, driver
license number) where possible and
permitted by law.
Injury Surveillance Systems Information
Quality
Timeliness—Ideally, the medical data on
an injury should be available within an
Injury Surveillance System (ISS) in the same
time frame as data about the crash is
available elsewhere within the traffic records
system. However, the medical record on the
individual may be incomplete initially
because local protocols dictate that the
medical record is only placed in the ISS
when the patient leaves the health care
system (e.g., discharged). Every effort should
be made to integrate the ISS record with the
crash data as soon as the medical records
become available.
Consistency—The reporting of EMS run
data, hospital ED and admission data, trauma
E:\FR\FM\02FEN1.SGM
02FEN1
5734
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 22 / Thursday, February 2, 2006 / Notices
registry data, and long term health care data
should be consistent with statewide formats
which should follow national standards such
as ICD–9–CM, as published by the Centers for
Disease Control (CDC), the use of Injury
Severity Scale standards, etc.
Completeness—Although a traumaregistry-based ISS can provide a valuable
source of ISS information, it cannot provide
a complete picture of the injuries within a
community or State. Where possible, the ISS
should represent a consensus of all injuries
that occur within the community. The ISS
should, where feasible, be maintained at a
State level but, at a minimum, should be
maintained at the local level.
Accuracy—The State should provide local
heath care providers with training and
support in the accurate coding of injuries and
should foster the proper use of the resulting
ISS data through education of data users in
proper interpretation of these data.
Accessibility—Recognizing the issues of
patient and institutional confidentiality,
there should be mechanisms in place to
balance the demands for data accessibility
from end users and the requirements of State
and local privacy rules. At a minimum, the
traffic safety and injury control communities
should be able to access these data in
summarized reports designed to address
specific needs, including injury type and
severity cost data. Ideally, the system should
support the creation of ‘‘sanitized’’ extracts of
the ISS data for use in research, problem
identification, and program evaluation
efforts.
Data Integration—The true power of the
ISS is recognized when the ISS data are
integrated with other traffic records system
data such as traffic crash, roadway, and crime
data, as well as internally between EMS runs,
hospital/ED admission data and discharge
data. The ISS should be implemented in a
fashion that supports this integration in as
efficient a manner as possible. Often GIS
systems provide the ideal platform for
linkage and interpretation of the ISS and
traditional traffic records system data. The
use of common identifiers whenever possible
within the traditional traffic records system
and ISS data systems will facilitate this
integration effort.
Issued on: January 30, 2006.
Jacqueline Glassman,
Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. E6–1426 Filed 2–1–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
and milepost 42.70, near Cody, in Park
County, WY. The line traverses United
States Postal Service Zip Code 82414.
BNSF has certified that: (1) No local
traffic has moved over the line for at
least 2 years; (2) there is no overhead
traffic on the line; (3) no formal
complaint filed by a user of rail service
on the line (or by a state or local
government entity acting on behalf of
such user) regarding cessation of service
over the line either is pending with the
Surface Transportation Board or with
any U.S. District Court or has been
decided in favor of complainant within
the 2-year period; and (4) the
requirements of 49 CFR 1105.7
(environmental report), 49 CFR 1105.8
(historic report), 49 CFR 1105.11
(transmittal letter), 49 CFR 1105.12
(newspaper publication), and 49 CFR
1152.50(d)(1) (notice to governmental
agencies) have been met.
As a condition to this exemption, any
employee adversely affected by the
abandonment shall be protected under
Oregon Short Line R. Co.—
Abandonment—Goshen, 360 I.C.C. 91
(1979). To address whether this
condition adequately protects affected
employees, a petition for partial
revocation under 49 U.S.C. 10502(d)
must be filed.
Provided no formal expression of
intent to file an offer of financial
assistance (OFA) has been received, this
exemption will be effective on March 4,
2006, unless stayed pending
reconsideration. Petitions to stay that do
not involve environmental issues,1
formal expressions of intent to file an
OFA under 49 CFR 1152.27(c)(2),2 and
trail use/rail banking requests under 49
CFR 1152.29 must be filed by February
13, 2006. Petitions to reopen or requests
for public use conditions under 49 CFR
1152.28 must be filed by February 22,
2006, with: Surface Transportation
Board, 1925 K Street, NW., Washington,
DC 20423–0001.
A copy of any petition filed with the
Board should be sent to BNSF’s
representative: Sidney L. Strickland, Jr.,
Sidney Strickland and Associates,
PLLC, 3050 K Street, NW., Suite 101,
Washington, DC 20007.
Surface Transportation Board
hsrobinson on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
[STB Docket No. AB–6 (Sub-No. 436X)
BNSF Railway Company—
Abandonment Exemption—in Park
County, WY
BNSF Railway Company (BNSF) has
filed a notice of exemption under 49
CFR 1152 Subpart F—Exempt
Abandonments to abandon a 0.11-mile
line of railroad between milepost 42.59
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:26 Feb 01, 2006
Jkt 208001
1 The Board will grant a stay if an informed
decision on environmental issues (whether raised
by a party or by the Board’s Section of
Environmental Analysis (SEA) in its independent
investigation) cannot be made before the
exemption’s effective date. See Exemption of Outof-Service Rail Lines, 5 I.C.C.2d 377 (1989). Any
request for a stay should be filed as soon as possible
so that the Board may take appropriate action before
the exemption’s effective date.
2 Each OFA must be accompanied by the filing
fee, which currently is set at $1,200. See 49 CFR
1002.2(f)(25).
PO 00000
Frm 00097
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
If the verified notice contains false or
misleading information, the exemption
is void ab initio.
BNSF has filed environmental and
historic reports which address the
effects, if any, of the abandonment on
the environment and historic resources.
SEA will issue an environmental
assessment (EA) by February 7, 2006.
Interested persons may obtain a copy of
the EA by writing to SEA (Room 500,
Surface Transportation Board,
Washington, DC 20423–0001) or by
calling SEA, at (202) 565–1539.
[Assistance for the hearing impaired is
available through the Federal
Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1–
800–877–8339.] Comments on
environmental and historic preservation
matters must be filed within 15 days
after the EA becomes available to the
public.
Environmental, historic preservation,
public use, or trail use/rail banking
conditions will be imposed, where
appropriate, in a subsequent decision.
Pursuant to the provisions of 49 CFR
1152.29(e)(2), BNSF shall file a notice of
consummation with the Board to signify
that it has exercised the authority
granted and fully abandoned the line. If
consummation has not been effected by
BNSF’s filing of a notice of
consummation by February 2, 2007, and
there are no legal or regulatory barriers
to consummation, the authority to
abandon will automatically expire.
Board decisions and notices are
available on our Web site at
www.stb.dot.gov.
Decided: January 27, 2006.
By the Board, David M. Konschnik,
Director, Office of Proceedings.
Vernon A. Williams,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 06–969 Filed 2–1–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4915–01–M
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Surface Transportation Board
[STB Docket No. AB–290 (Sub–No. 265X)]
Norfolk Southern Railway Company—
Abandonment Exemption—in Calhoun
County, AL
Norfolk Southern Railway Company
(NSR) has filed a notice of exemption
under 49 CFR 1152 subpart F—Exempt
Abandonments to abandon a 5.8-mile
line of railroad between milepost 55.3N at Fort McClellan, and milepost 61.1N, at Anniston, in Calhoun County, AL.
The line traverses United States Postal
Service Zip Codes 36201, 36203, 36205,
36206 and 36207.
E:\FR\FM\02FEN1.SGM
02FEN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 22 (Thursday, February 2, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5729-5734]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-1426]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA-2006-23771]
State Traffic Safety Information System Improvement Grants
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, DOT.
ACTION: Announcement of grants to support state traffic safety
information system improvements.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)
announces a grant program to improve State traffic safety information
systems under Section 2006 of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible,
Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy For Users (SAFETEA-LU).
This Notice informs the 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto
Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the
Northern Mariana Islands, through their Governors' Representatives for
Highway Safety, and the Bureau of Indian Affairs (on behalf of the
Indian tribes), of the application procedures to receive grants to be
made available in fiscal years 2006 through 2009.
DATES: Applications must be received by the appropriate NHTSA Regional
Office on or before June 15 of the fiscal year for which a State seeks
a grant.
ADDRESSES: Applications must be submitted to the appropriate Regional
Administrator.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For program issues, Jack Oates, Office
of Traffic Injury Control, Injury Control Operations and Resources
(NTI-200), NHTSA, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Room 5118, Washington, DC
20590, by phone at (202) 366-2121 or by e-mail at
jack.oates@nhtsa.dot.gov. For legal issues, Dana Sade, Office of Chief
Counsel, NCC-113, NHTSA, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Room 5219,
Washington, DC 20590, by phone at (202) 366-1834 or by email at
dana.sade@nhtsa.dot.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Section 2006 of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient
Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy For Users (SAFETEA-LU) establishes
a State traffic safety information system improvement grant program,
administered by NHTSA. The purpose of this grant program is to support
the development and implementation of effective programs by the States
to: (1) Improve the timeliness, accuracy, completeness, uniformity,
integration, and accessibility of the safety data that States need to
identify priorities for national, State and local highway and traffic
safety programs; (2) evaluate the effectiveness of efforts to make such
improvements; (3) link the State data systems, including traffic
records, with other data systems within the State, such as systems that
contain medical, roadway, and economic data; and (4) improve the
compatibility and interoperability of the States' data systems with
national traffic safety data systems and data systems of other States
and enhance NHTSA's ability to observe and analyze national trends in
crash occurrences, rates, outcomes, and circumstances. Section 2006
authorizes $34.5 million in funding for each of four fiscal years from
FY 2006 through FY 2009. The Section 2006 grant program is codified in
23 U.S.C. 408 (``the Section 408 Program'').
Today's Notice solicits applications for grants under this program.
SAFETEA-LU provides that the amount of each first fiscal year grant
shall be the higher of $300,000 or an amount determined by multiplying
the amount appropriated to carry out the Section 408 Program for that
fiscal year by the ratio that the funds apportioned to the State under
section 402 for FY 2003 bears to the funds apportioned to all eligible
States under section 402 for FY 2003. Each State that qualifies for a
successive fiscal year grant shall be eligible to receive the higher of
$500,000 or an amount determined by multiplying the amount appropriated
to carry out the Section 408 Program for that fiscal year by the ratio
that the funds apportioned to the State under section 402 for FY 2003
bears to the funds apportioned to all eligible States under section 402
for FY 2003. No State may receive a grant under this section in more
than four years.
Requirements To Receive a Grant
First Year Grants
SAFETEA-LU provides that a State may qualify for a first year grant
by demonstrating that it has: (a) Established a highway safety data and
traffic records coordinating committee (a ``TRCC''); and (b) developed
a multiyear highway safety data and traffic records system strategic
plan (a ``Multiyear Plan'' or ``Strategic Plan'').
[[Page 5730]]
In addition, the State must certify that it has adopted and uses model
data elements identified under the Section 408 Program, or that the 408
grant funds it receives will be used toward adopting and using the
maximum number of Model Data Elements as soon as practicable.
TRCC Requirement
In order to satisfy the TRCC requirement for a first year grant,
SAFETEA-LU provides that a State TRCC must have a multidisciplinary
membership that includes, among others, managers, collectors, and users
of traffic records and public health and injury control data systems,
and the authority to approve the State's Strategic Plan.
The role and function of a TRCC in the section 408 program is very
similar to that of a ``coordinating committee'' in section 408's
predecessor program on data improvements (23 U.S.C. 411). Therefore,
consistent with the section 411 requirements, under which States
already have established the necessary organizational structure, a TRCC
should: (a) Include representatives from highway safety, highway
infrastructure, law enforcement and adjudication, public health, injury
control and motor carrier agencies and organizations; (b) have
authority to review any of the State's highway safety data and traffic
records systems and to review changes to such systems before the
changes are implemented; (c) provide a forum for the discussion of
highway safety data and traffic records issues and report on any such
issues to the agencies and organizations in the State that create,
maintain and use highway safety data and traffic records; (d) consider
and coordinate the views of organizations in the State that are
involved in the administration, collection and use of the highway
safety data and traffic records system; (e) represent the interests of
the agencies and organizations within the traffic records system to
outside organizations; and (f) review and evaluate new technologies to
keep the highway safety data and traffic records systems up-to-date.
Strategic Plan Requirement
SAFETEA-LU provides that a Strategic Plan shall be: (a) Approved by
the State's TRCC; (b) address existing deficiencies in a State's
highway safety data and traffic records system; \1\ (c) specify how
deficiencies in the system were identified; (d) prioritize the needs
and set goals for improving the system; (e) identify performance-based
measures by which progress towards those goals will be determined; and
(f) specify how the State will use section 408 and other funds of the
State to address the needs and goals identified in its Strategic Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Consistent with concern expressed by the Government
Accountability Office about the need for States to link traffic
records assessment, strategic plans and progress reports, in
addressing existing deficiencies, States should identify and discuss
the recommendations contained in their most recent traffic records
assessment or audit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Section 408 Program, like the Section 411 Program, requires
that a State identify in its Strategic Plan specific performance-based
measures. When Congress first introduced this performance-based measure
requirement, NHTSA received numerous requests from States for technical
assistance in identifying performance-based measures applicable to
their highway safety data and traffic records systems. In response,
NHTSA incorporated into its Traffic Records Highway Safety Advisory
(the relevant portion of which is set forth in Appendix 3 to this
guidance), a chapter detailing performance-based measures applicable to
each of a State's information systems, including its crash, vehicle,
driver, citation/adjudication, and injury surveillance systems.
States have incorporated the performance measures identified in
NHTSA's Traffic Records Highway Safety Advisory into their Strategic
Plans under section 411, and also have relied on those measures in
establishing, updating and analyzing the performance of their highway
safety data and traffic records systems. Therefore, under the Section
408 Program states should continue to incorporate into their Strategic
Plans performance-based measures identified in Appendix 3, both as
baselines or benchmarks for and as gauges of their progress towards
achieving the goals and objectives identified in their Strategic Plans.
Among other baseline measures identified in Appendix 3, States should
specify in their Strategic Plans which MMUCC and NEMSIS data elements
they currently use.
Model Data Elements Requirement
SAFETEA-LU provides that the Secretary shall, in consultation with
the States and appropriate elements of the law enforcement community,
determine the model data elements that are useful for observation and
analysis of State and national trends in occurrences, rates, outcomes,
and circumstances of motor vehicle traffic accidents, including the
impact on traffic safety of the use of electronic devices while
driving. As explained in more detail below, two sets of model data
elements have been developed through collaborative efforts among NHTSA,
the States, and other Federal and State stakeholders: the Model Minimum
Uniform Crash Criteria (``MMUCC'') and the National Emergency Medical
Services Information System (NEMSIS).\2\ Therefore, in order to satisfy
the model data elements requirement, a State must certify that it has
adopted and uses the MMUCC and NEMSIS data elements,\3\ or that the 408
grant funds it receives will be used toward adopting and using the
maximum number of MMUCC and NEMSIS data elements as soon as
practicable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The MMUCC data elements may be accessed at: https://
www.mmucc.us/guideline.aspx and the NEMSIS data elements may be
accessed at: https://www.nemsis.org/PDFs/NEMSIS%20Version%202.2%20
Data%20Dictionary%20Final.pdf.
\3\ Other data elements may be relevant to a State's Highway
Safety Data and Traffic Records systems such as data elements
required by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration and
Federal Highway Administration. Funding sources other than section
408 are available to support the adoption of those data elements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The MMUCC resulted from requests for technical assistance received
by NHTSA from States interested in improving and standardizing their
crash data systems. In response, NHTSA and the Federal Highway
Administration worked with the Governors Highway Safety Association
(``GHSA''),\4\ as well as numerous other Federal, State and academic
stakeholders, to develop a voluntary minimum set of crash data elements
that are accurate, reliable and credible within states, among states,
and at the national level. Known as the MMUCC, these model data
elements were incorporated into the assessment requirement of the
section 411 program, so States already should be applying them to their
crash data systems. One of the MMUCC elements, Data Element P-16
covering driver distraction, specifically addresses driver distraction
by electronic communications devices, including cell phones, pagers,
navigation devices, palm pilots and other such devices, as mandated by
SAFETEA-LU.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ At that time, GHSA was known as the National Association of
Governors' Highway Safety Representatives or NAGHSR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NEMSIS was developed in 2001 by the National Association of State
EMS Officials (``NASEMSO''),\5\ with the assistance of NHTSA and the
Department of Health and Human Services, in response to a need for
[[Page 5731]]
greater uniformity and consistency in Emergency Medical Services data.
NEMSIS is a voluntary set of data elements related to patient care and
emergency response that has received widespread endorsement by the
States for application to their EMS data systems.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ At that time, NASEMSO was known as the National Association
of State EMS Directors or NASEMSD. NASEMSO is an organization made
up of representatives of State EMS Officials.
\6\ After finalizing NEMSIS, NASEMESO prepared a memorandum of
understanding to be signed by each State when it was prepared to
commit to work toward becoming NEMSIS compliant. Currently, all but
two states have signed the memorandum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Successive Year Grants
SAFETEA-LU provides that a State may qualify for a successive year
grant by (a) certifying that an assessment or audit of its highway
safety and data and traffic records system has been conducted or
updated within the preceding 5 years (an ``assessment'' or ``audit''),
(b) certifying that its TRCC continues to operate and supports the
Strategic Plan, (c) specifying how section 408 grant funds and any
other funds of the State are to be used to address the needs and goals
identified in the Strategic Plan, (d) demonstrating measurable progress
toward achieving the goals and objectives identified in its Strategic
Plan (``measurable progress''), and (e) submitting a current report on
the State's progress in implementing its Strategic Plan (a ``Current
Report''). In addition, the State must certify that it has adopted and
uses the Model Data Elements, or that section 408 grant funds it
receives will be used toward adopting and using the maximum number of
such Model Data Elements as soon as practicable.
Assessment or Audit Requirement
In order to qualify for a successive year grant, SAFETEA-LU
requires a State to certify that an assessment or audit of its highway
safety data and traffic records system has been conducted or updated
within the preceding 5 years. The section 411 program contained a
similar assessment requirement. In arranging for assessments of their
highway safety data and traffic records systems since 2000, States have
relied on the assessment requirement detailed in the section 411
regulation. Consequently, consistent with State practice under section
411, an assessment or audit used by a State to meet the section 408
Program's assessment or audit requirement should be (a) an in-depth,
formal review of a State's highway safety data and traffic records
system that addresses the criteria in NHTSA's Traffic Records Highway
Safety Program Advisory, (b) that generates an impartial report on the
status of the highway safety data and traffic records system in the
State, and (c) that is conducted by an organization or group that is
knowledgeable about highway safety data and traffic records systems,
but independent from the organizations involved in the administration,
collection and use of the highway safety data and traffic records
systems in the State.
Measurable Progress Requirement
SAFETEA-LU requires that a State demonstrate measurable progress
towards achieving the goals and objectives identified in its Strategic
Plan. As discussed above, under the section 411 program, States
incorporated into their Strategic Plans the performance-based measures
detailed in Appendix 3. Consistent with State practice under section
411 and to avoid the imposition of new burdens, in demonstrating
measurable progress in a Current Report, States should reference
performance-based measures identified in Appendix 3, both as baselines
or benchmarks for and as gauges of their progress in implementing their
Strategic Plans.
Current Report Requirement
SAFETEA-LU requires that a State submit a Current Report on its
progress in implementing its Strategic Plan. The section 411 program
contained a similar report requirement in order to qualify for a
successive year grant. In accordance with SAFETEA-LU, a Current Report
should (a) use performance-based measures, including baseline or
benchmark measures, to demonstrate measurable progress toward achieving
the goals and objectives identified in a State's Strategic Plan and (b)
specify how the State will use new or additional section 408 grant
funds and other State funds to address the needs and goals identified
in its Strategic Plan. A Current Report also should discuss a State's
planned expenditures and measurable progress in terms of specific
projects and systems, document any changes in its Strategic Plan, and
address recommendations contained in the State's most recent traffic
records assessment or audit.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See footnote 1 above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In lieu of submitting a Current Report in support of a successive
year section 408 grant application, a State may submit its most recent
Annual Report (discussed below in the section entitled Reporting
Requirements). However, in order to satisfy section 408's Current
Report requirement, an Annual Report must demonstrate Measurable
Progress using performance-based measures and adequately identify the
State's expenditures in support of its Strategic Plan, as required by
SAFETEA-LU. A State that submits an outdated or incomplete Annual
Report in lieu of a Current Report runs the risk of failing to qualify
for a successive year grant.
Eligibility
The 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Virgin
Islands, Guam, American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana
Islands, and Indian tribes through the Bureau of Indian Affairs are
eligible to apply for grants under the Section 408 Program.
Application Procedures
To apply for a first fiscal year grant, a State must submit the
certification required by Appendix 1, signed by the Governor's
Representative for Highway Safety, to the appropriate NHTSA
Administrator no later than June 15 of the fiscal year. To apply for a
successive fiscal year grant, a State must submit the certification
required by Appendix 2, signed by the Governor's Representative for
Highway Safety, to the appropriate NHTSA Administrator no later than
June 15 of the fiscal year.
Award Notification
NHTSA will review the information referenced in each State's
certification for compliance with section 408 and notify qualifying
States in writing of grant awards.
Eligible Uses of Grant Funds
As prescribed in SAFETEA-LU, States may use section 2006 grant
funds for:
[cir] Improving the timeliness, accuracy, completeness, uniformity,
integration and accessibility of State traffic safety data needed to
identify national, State and local highway and traffic safety
priorities; \8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ This would include the use of section 408 grant funds to
adopt and use the MMUCC and NEMSIS data elements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[cir] Evaluating the effectiveness of efforts to improve State
traffic safety data;
[cir] Linking State traffic safety data systems with other State
data systems, including those containing medical, roadway and economic
data; and
[cir] Improving the compatibility and interoperability of State
data systems with national traffic safety data systems and data systems
of other States to enhance the observation and analysis of national
trends in crash occurrences, rules, outcomes, and circumstances.
[[Page 5732]]
Financial Accounting and Administration
Within 30 days after notification of award, but in no event later
than September 12, States must submit electronically to the agency a
program cost summary (HS Form 217) obligating the funds to the Section
408 Program. Submission of the program cost summary is necessary to
ensure proper accounting for federal funds and is a precondition to
receiving grant funds. SAFETEA-LU requires that a State maintain its
aggregate expenditures from all other sources for highway safety data
programs at or above the average level of such expenditures maintained
by the State in FY 2003 and FY 2004. The Federal share of programs
funded under this section shall not exceed 80 percent, except that the
Federal share may be increased for Indian tribes, as provided by 23
U.S.C. 402(d).
Reporting Requirements
Each fiscal year until all section 408 grant funds are expended,
States should carefully document how they intend to use the NHTSA-
administered funds in the Highway Safety Plan they submit pursuant to
23 U.S.C. 402 (or in an amendment to that plan) and detail the program
activities accomplished in the Annual Report they submit pursuant to 23
CFR 1200.33. In addition, an Annual Report needs to account for the
status of all funds awarded under section 408 and include a list of
projects implemented in the past fiscal year, brief descriptions of
activities completed, and any problems encountered. As discussed above
in the section entitled Current Report, a State submitting its Annual
Report in satisfaction of section 408's Current Report Requirement
should ensure that its Annual Report also contains adequate project and
system-specific information to demonstrate Measurable Progress, using
performance-based measures, and adequately identifies the State's
expenditures in support of its Strategic Plan.
Appendix 1: State Traffic Safety Information System Improvement Grant
(23 U.S.C. 408)
First Year Certification
State (or Commonwealth):-----------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year:-----------------------------------------------------------
I hereby certify that, pursuant to Section 408, the State:
Has established a highway safety data and traffic
records coordinating committee (``TRCC'');
Has developed a multiyear highway safety data and
traffic records system strategic plan (``Strategic Plan'');
Has adopted and is using the MMUCC and NEMSIS data
elements, or that 408 grant funds it receives will be used toward
adopting and using the maximum number of MMUCC and NEMSIS data
elements as soon as practicable; and
Will make available or submit to NHTSA its Strategic
Plan and documentation of the TRCC's membership, organization and
authority;
and that, if awarded Section 408 grant funds, the State will:
Use the funds only to evaluate, improve and link its
highway safety data and traffic records system, in accordance with
the eligible uses detailed in 23 U.S.C. 408;
Administer the funds in accordance with 49 CFR Part 18;
and
Maintain its aggregate expenditures from all other
sources for highway safety data programs at or above the average
level of such expenditures maintained by the State in FY 2003 and FY
2004.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Governor's Highway Safety Representative
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date
Appendix 2: State Traffic Safety Information System Improvement Grant
(23 U.S.C. 408)
Successive Year Certification
State (or Commonwealth)------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year:-----------------------------------------------------------
I hereby certify that, pursuant to Section 408, the State has:
Had an Assessment or Audit of the State's highway
safety data and traffic records systems, conducted or updated within
the preceding 5 years;
A TRCC that continues to operate and supports the
Strategic Plan; and
Adopted and is using the MMUCC and NEMSIS data
elements, or that 408 grant funds it receives will be used toward
adopting and using the maximum number of MMUCC and NEMSIS data
elements as soon as practicable;
and that the State will make available or provide to NHTSA:
A Current Report or Annual Report demonstrating the
State's measurable progress in implementing the Strategic Plan;
An Assessment or Audit of the State's highway safety
data and traffic records systems, conducted or updated within the
preceding 5 years; and
To the extent that the TRCC charter or membership has
changed since the State's previous 408 application, an updated
charter or membership list;
and that, if awarded Section 408 grant funds, the State will:
Use the funds only to evaluate, improve and link its
highway safety data and traffic records systems, in accordance with
the eligible uses detailed in 23 U.S.C. 408;
Administer 408 grant funds in accordance with 49 C.F.R.
Part 18; and
Maintain its aggregate expenditures from all other
sources for highway safety data programs at or above the average
level of such expenditures maintained by the State in FY 2003 and FY
2004.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Governor's Highway Safety Representative
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date
Appendix 3: Performance-Based Measures
Following are the standardized, quantitative measurements of
data quality used to gauge both a State's baseline or benchmark for
and its progress towards achieving the goals and objectives
identified in its Strategic Plan:
Timeliness
Consistency
Completeness
Accuracy
Accessibility
Data integration with other information
The definition of each performance-based measure and its
relative significance may vary for each of a State's information
systems, including its crash, vehicle, driver, enforcement/
adjudication, and injury surveillance systems.
Crash Information Quality
Timeliness--The information should be available within a time
frame to be currently meaningful for effective analysis of the
State's crash experience, preferably within 90 days of a crash.
Consistency--The information should be consistent with
nationally accepted and published guidelines and standards, for
example:
Model Minimum Uniform Crash Criteria (MMUCC).
Manual on Classification of Motor Vehicle Traffic Accidents, 6th
Edition, ANSI D16.1-1996.
Data Element Dictionary for Traffic Records Systems, ANSI D20.1,
1993.
EMS Data Dictionary (Uniform Pre-Hospital Emergency Medical
Services Data Conference). (Note: Currently the National EMS
Information System (NEMSIS) Dataset and Data Dictionary, Version 2.2
or later.)
The information should be consistent among reporting
jurisdictions; i.e., the same reporting threshold should be used by
all jurisdictions and the same set of core data elements should be
reported by all jurisdictions.
Should it become necessary to change or modify a data element or
to change the values of data elements, this should be clearly
documented. Frequently, data element values are expanded to provide
greater detail than previously (e.g., trucks involved in crashes
were previously coded as light or heavy; the new values are changed
to ``under 10,000 pounds, 10,001-20,000 pounds, greater than 20,000
pounds).
Completeness--The information should be complete in terms of:
All reportable crashes throughout the State are available for
analysis.
All variables on the individual crash records are completed as
appropriate.
Accuracy--The State should employ quality control methods to
ensure accurate and reliable information to describe individual
crashes (e.g., validity and consistency checks in the data capture
and data entry processes, feedback to
[[Page 5733]]
jurisdictions submitting inaccurate reports) and the State crash
experience in the aggregate (e.g., edit checks to determine if
specific data variables or categories are possibly under- or over-
reported such as putting all unknown crash times into a specific
category rather than using imputation methods).
Accessibility--The information should be readily and easily
accessible to the principal users of these databases containing the
crash information for both direct (automated) access and periodic
outputs (standard reports) from the system.
Data Integration--Crash information should be capable of linkage
with other information sources through the use of common identifiers
where possible and permitted by law. Where common file identifiers
or linking variables are not available, some consideration should be
given to file linkage using probabilistic linkage methods.
Roadway Information Quality
Timeliness--The information should be updated as required to
produce valid analysis. This implies that changes on the roadway
(e.g., construction, sign improvements) should be available for
analysis as soon as the project is completed.
Consistency--The same data elements should be collected over
time and for various classes of roadways. Should it become necessary
to change or modify a data element or to change the values of data
elements, this should be clearly documented.
Completeness--The information should be complete in terms of the
miles of roadway, the trafficway characteristics, the highway
structures, traffic volumes, traffic control devices, speeds, signs,
etc.
Accuracy--The State should employ methods for collecting and
maintaining roadway data that produces accurate data and should make
use of current technologies designed for these purposes.
Accessibility--The information should be readily and easily
accessible to the principal users of these databases containing the
roadway information for both direct (automated) access and periodic
outputs (standard reports) from the files.
Data Integration--In order to develop viable traffic safety
policies and programs, the roadway information must be linked to
other information files through common identifiers such as location
reference point. Integration should also be supported between State
and local systems.
Vehicle Information Quality
Timeliness--The information should be updated at least annually.
Consistency--The same data elements should be collected over
time and they should be consistent with the data elements contained
in the other components of the traffic records system. Should it
become necessary to change or modify a data element or to change the
values of data elements, this should be clearly documented.
Completeness--The information should be complete in terms of
vehicle ownership, registration, type, VIN, etc. Information on
vehicle miles traveled (VMT) by type or class of vehicle should be
available. For commercial vehicles, completeness also involves
collection and availability of standard data elements (such as the
NGA elements, a set of data developed and recommended by the
National Governors' Association for collection of data from crashes
involving commercial vehicles).
Accuracy--The State should employ methods for collecting and
maintaining vehicle data that produces accurate data and should make
use of current technologies designed for these purposes. This
includes the use of bar-coded vehicle registration forms that allow
scanning of vehicle registration information directly onto
appropriate forms (citation, crash, other forms).
Accessibility--The information should be readily and easily
accessible to the principal users of these databases containing the
vehicle information for both direct (automated) access and periodic
outputs (standard reports) from the system, consistent with State
confidentiality requirements.
Data Integration--Vehicle information should be capable of
linkage with other information sources and use common identifiers
(e.g., VIN, Crash Reports Number, etc.) where possible and permitted
by law.
Driver Information Quality
Timeliness--Routine license issuance information should be
updated at least weekly. Adverse actions (license suspension,
traffic conviction) should be posted daily.
Consistency--Information maintained on the State's Driver File
should be compatible for exchange with other driver-related systems
such as the National Driver Register (NDR), the Commercial Driver
License Information System (CDLIS), and other applications for
interstate exchange of driver records, especially those facilitated
via the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators
Telecommunications Network (AAMVANet).
Completeness--The information should be complete in terms of
data elements (e.g., unique personal identifiers and descriptive
data such as name, date of birth, gender) and complete in terms of
all prior driving history, especially adverse actions received from
other States either while licensed elsewhere or while driving in
other States.
Accuracy--The State should employ methods for collecting and
maintaining driver information that makes use of current
technologies (e.g., magnetic-stripe, bar-codes, smart-cards).
Accessibility--The information should be readily and easily
accessible to the principal users of these databases, including
driver licensing personnel, law enforcement officers, the courts,
and for general use in highway safety analysis. The information
should be available electronically for individual record access, and
technology should be available to support automated downloading of
summary data sets for analytical purposes, provided that appropriate
safeguards are in place to protect individual confidentiality within
the guidelines established by the State.
Data Integration--Driver information should be capable of
linkage with other information sources and use common identifiers
(e.g., driver license number, citation number, crash report number)
where possible and permitted by law. Updates of driver information
from courts should be accomplished through linkages, preferably
electronic, to the driver history data.
Citation/Adjudication Information Quality
Timeliness--Information from an issued citation should be
recorded on a statewide citation file as soon as the citation is
filed in the court of jurisdiction. Information regarding the
disposition of a citation should be entered on the citation file, as
well as on the driver history record, immediately after adjudication
by the courts.
Consistency--All jurisdictions should use a uniform traffic
citation form, and the information should be uniformly reported
throughout all enforcement jurisdictions.
Completeness--All citations issued should be recorded in a
statewide citation file with all variables on the form completed
including the violation type; the issuing enforcement agency;
violation location; a cross reference to a crash report, if
applicable; and BAC, where applicable, etc. All dispositions from
all courts should be forwarded for entry on the driver history
record.
Accuracy--The State should employ quality control methods to
ensure accurate and reliable information is reported on the citation
form and updated on the citation and driver history files. The use
of mag-stripe, bar-code, smart-card scanner technology to directly
input driver information onto the citation form is encouraged.
Accessibility--The information should be readily and easily
accessible to the principal users, particularly:
Driver control personnel--to take timely license sanction
actions when appropriate. Law enforcement personnel--for operational
analysis and allocation of resources. Agencies with administrative
oversight responsibilities related to the courts--for monitoring
court activity regarding the disposition of traffic cases.
Court officials--to assess traffic case adjudication workload
and activity.
Data Integration--Citation information should be capable of
linkage with other information sources, such as the crash and driver
history data, and use common identifiers (e.g., crash report number,
driver license number) where possible and permitted by law.
Injury Surveillance Systems Information Quality
Timeliness--Ideally, the medical data on an injury should be
available within an Injury Surveillance System (ISS) in the same
time frame as data about the crash is available elsewhere within the
traffic records system. However, the medical record on the
individual may be incomplete initially because local protocols
dictate that the medical record is only placed in the ISS when the
patient leaves the health care system (e.g., discharged). Every
effort should be made to integrate the ISS record with the crash
data as soon as the medical records become available.
Consistency--The reporting of EMS run data, hospital ED and
admission data, trauma
[[Page 5734]]
registry data, and long term health care data should be consistent
with statewide formats which should follow national standards such
as ICD-9-CM, as published by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC),
the use of Injury Severity Scale standards, etc.
Completeness--Although a trauma-registry-based ISS can provide a
valuable source of ISS information, it cannot provide a complete
picture of the injuries within a community or State. Where possible,
the ISS should represent a consensus of all injuries that occur
within the community. The ISS should, where feasible, be maintained
at a State level but, at a minimum, should be maintained at the
local level.
Accuracy--The State should provide local heath care providers
with training and support in the accurate coding of injuries and
should foster the proper use of the resulting ISS data through
education of data users in proper interpretation of these data.
Accessibility--Recognizing the issues of patient and
institutional confidentiality, there should be mechanisms in place
to balance the demands for data accessibility from end users and the
requirements of State and local privacy rules. At a minimum, the
traffic safety and injury control communities should be able to
access these data in summarized reports designed to address specific
needs, including injury type and severity cost data. Ideally, the
system should support the creation of ``sanitized'' extracts of the
ISS data for use in research, problem identification, and program
evaluation efforts.
Data Integration--The true power of the ISS is recognized when
the ISS data are integrated with other traffic records system data
such as traffic crash, roadway, and crime data, as well as
internally between EMS runs, hospital/ED admission data and
discharge data. The ISS should be implemented in a fashion that
supports this integration in as efficient a manner as possible.
Often GIS systems provide the ideal platform for linkage and
interpretation of the ISS and traditional traffic records system
data. The use of common identifiers whenever possible within the
traditional traffic records system and ISS data systems will
facilitate this integration effort.
Issued on: January 30, 2006.
Jacqueline Glassman,
Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. E6-1426 Filed 2-1-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
