State Traffic Safety Information System Improvement Grants, 5729-5734 [E6-1426]

Download as PDF 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: http://www.mmucc.us/guideline.aspx and the NEMSIS data elements may be accessed at: http://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: http://
www.mmucc.us/guideline.aspx and the NEMSIS data elements may be 
accessed at: http://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