Traffic Records Program Assessment Advisory; Notice of Availability |
|---|
|
Terry T. Shelton
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
24 August 2018
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 165 (Friday, August 24, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 42973-42975]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-18325]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA-2017-0081]
Traffic Records Program Assessment Advisory; Notice of
Availability
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Notice of availability.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: States need timely, accurate, complete, accessible, and
uniform traffic records to identify and prioritize traffic safety
issues and to choose appropriate safety countermeasures and evaluate
their effectiveness. Traffic records program assessments provide States
with the information needed to plan traffic records improvement
projects. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)
announces the availability of a revised Traffic Records Program
Assessment Advisory following review of comments received from States,
associations, non-profit organizations, and individuals.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
For programmatic issues: John Siegler, Office of Traffic Records
and Analysis, NSA-221, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone (202) 366-
1268; email: John.Siegler@dot.gov.
For legal issues: Megan Brown, Attorney-Advisor, Office of the
Chief Counsel, NCC-300, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590; telephone: (202) 366-
1834; email: Megan.Brown@dot.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
States need timely, accurate, complete, uniform, integrated, and
accessible traffic records data to identify and prioritize traffic
safety issues, and choose appropriate safety countermeasures and
evaluate their effectiveness. The purpose of traffic records
assessments is to provide States with useful information on the status
of the many systems that make up the traffic records system.
Federal statute requires States to certify that ``an assessment of
the State's highway safety data and traffic records system was
conducted or updated during the preceding 5 years'' in order to qualify
for a State traffic safety information system improvements grant. 23
U.S.C. 405(c). NHTSA regulations require that the assessment comply
with ``procedures and methodologies'' outlined by NHTSA. 23 CFR
1300.22(b)(4). NHTSA published the Traffic Records Program Assessment
Advisory (Advisory) (DOT HS 811 644) in 2012 to provide guidance on
conducting these assessments.
This notice announces the availability of a revised Traffic Records
Program Assessment Advisory following review of comments received from
States, associations, non-profit organizations, and individuals.
II. Comments
NHTSA received submissions from 23 commenters in response to the
October 25, 2017 request for comment. 82 FR 49473-49475. Commenters
included the following eleven State agencies and commissions:
California Office of Traffic Safety (CA OTS); Colorado Department of
Transportation (CO DOT); Connecticut Department of Transportation (CT
DOT); Delaware Office of Highway Safety (DE OHS); Massachusetts
Department of Public Health (MA DPH); Michigan Crash Section (MI
Crash); New York State Governor's Traffic Safety Committee (NY GTSC);
Injury and Violence Prevention Branch of the NC Division of Public
Health (NC DPH); Puerto Rico Traffic Safety Commission (PR TSC); joint
submission by the Washington Traffic Safety Commission and Washington
Traffic Records Committee (WA Traffic); and joint submission by the
Departments of Transportation of Idaho, Montana, North Dakota, South
Dakota & Wyoming (5-State DOTs). Three associations and consortiums
provided comments: Association of Transportation Safety Information
Professionals (ATSIP); Governor's Highway Safety Association (GHSA);
and National Safety Council (NSC). One non-profit organization,
Consumers Union (CU), provided comments. Eight individual commenters
also provided comments: Brook Chipman; Joe McCarthy; Mario Damiata;
Nathan Dean; Jay Wall; and three anonymous commenters. Of these
comments, three were out of the scope of this notice.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Two anonymous commenters commented on EPA regulatory issues.
One anonymous commenter commented on electric vehicle batteries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Three broad categories of comments accounted for more than half of
the comments received: comments stating that the assessment is too
burdensome, comments seeking more personalized recommendations, and
comments seeking more in-person meetings as part of the assessment
process.
Ten commenters, including States, associations and an individual,
stated that the existing Traffic Records Assessment process is
burdensome. Specifically, commenters stated that the assessment is
burdensome due to the number of questions (some of which they consider
redundant), the high standards of evidence required for responses, the
time required to respond, and the number of agencies within the State
that are required to participate in assessments.
Seven commenters, including States, associations, and individuals,
requested that assessors provide more personalized recommendations to
States at the conclusion of each assessment. Several commenters further
asserted that it would be helpful to States if assessors prioritized
the most important recommendations to assist States in planning traffic
records improvement projects.
Twelve commenters, including States, associations, and individuals,
argued that the assessment process would be easier and more useful if
there were more opportunities for in-person meetings.
As a result of these comments, NHTSA has taken a fresh look at the
Advisory, as it was not our intent to impose undue burdens on States.
In revising the Advisory, we strove to provide maximum flexibility and
reduce
[[Page 42974]]
the burden on States, while still providing States with guidance and
assistance in conducting assessments. Therefore, as explained further
below, NHTSA has revised the Advisory to provide States with three
options for conducting assessments. These options range from an
entirely State-run assessment, in which States control the process and
outcomes, to a self-assessment using questions provided by NHTSA, that
will result in generalized recommendations, to a more detailed NHTSA-
facilitated and funded assessment, which will include in-person
meetings and will result in a personalized final report.
In addition to reducing burden on States by providing three options
for conducting assessments, NHTSA strove to further reduce burden in
the optional assessment questions provided in Appendix E of the
Advisory. Previously the questions were required for all States and
accounted for the majority of the Advisory. Now, however, those
assessment questions have been reduced by 16 percent and States are not
required to use the questions. The questions in Appendix E will be used
only if a State opts to complete an assessment using NHTSA's questions.
Several commenters offered suggestions for specific changes to the
questions, which we will address briefly.
NY GTSC and the 5-State DOTs argued that using an ``ideal'' system
as a baseline for the assessment sets an unattainable standard. The 5-
State DOTs further requested that the Advisory not refer to findings as
``deficiencies'' because an ``ideal'' is not a real standard. While
NHTSA understands that an ``ideal'' system is a very high standard, we
believe that it provides a useful measure for States strive for, but we
do not require States to meet the ideal. We agree that failure to meet
an ``ideal'' does not represent a ``deficiency'' and have therefore
replaced ``deficiency'' with ``area of opportunity.''
Seven State commenters requested more flexibility in the evidence
required to respond to each question. While States may choose their own
standard of evidence when conducting a self-assessment under either of
the first two assessment options provided in the new Advisory, NHTSA-
facilitated assessments still require States to provide sufficient
evidence. However, NHTSA agrees that this evidence may come in
different forms. Therefore, NHTSA no longer prescribes ``required
evidence,'' but instead provides guidance for ``suggested evidence''
that States may want to use to respond to each question.
Four commenters requested more flexibility in the structure of the
Traffic Records Coordinating Committee. In response, NHTSA has updated
both the TRCC narrative and questions to align with the best practices
identified in the State Traffic Records Coordinating Committee
Noteworthy Practices \2\ report, which focuses more on the
responsibilities of the TRCC than a specific structure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Available online at https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/docs/TRCC%20Noteworthy%20Practices%20Guide%20final%20september%202015.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
GHSA suggested that all performance measure questions be combined
into a single question in each section of the assessment. While that
would reduce the number of questions, it would not reduce the burden on
the State to respond to each performance measure and would make it more
difficult to identify limitations in any specific performance measure.
NHTSA declines to make this change.
The ID, MT, ND, SD, and WY DOTs commented that the advisory text
implies that States are required to adopt elements beyond the MMUCC
minimum and Joe McCarthy asked for clarification that MMUCC is
voluntary. MMUCC is a voluntary standard. NHTSA's intent in the
Advisory is to suggest that States can add the MMUCC elements and
attributes that are unique to their own environment and operation. We
have updated both the text of the Advisory and the questions to reflect
this clarification. Several commenters (CO DOT, WA TSC & TRC, 5-State
DOTs and Joe McCarthy) stated that the Roadway system outlined in the
Advisory should be updated to match the requirements set out by the
Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA) Highway Safety Improvement
Program (HSIP). NHTSA agrees and has aligned the Advisory and questions
to FHWA's required elements.
Three commenters (ATSIP, MA DPH, and NC DPH) found the Injury
Surveillance System (ISS) section burdensome, stating that the number
of questions in that section was disproportionate to the rest of the
assessment questions. NHTSA recognizes that the ISS section has more
questions than the other data system sections. However, the ISS system
contains five separate component data systems, which is substantially
more component data systems than the other sections. MA DPH asked
whether the evidence provided for the Injury Surveillance System
section of the assessment must be related to traffic data. States may
provide any evidence from the system, regardless of whether it is
traffic-related.
III. Overview of the Traffic Records Program Assessment Advisory
As highlighted above, NHTSA believes it is important to provide
States with flexibility in meeting the requirement to conduct an
assessment of the State's highway safety data and traffic records
system. Therefore, the Advisory provides guidance on three different
assessment processes so that States may choose the process that best
fits their needs.
First, States may design their own assessment of their traffic
safety information systems. NHTSA regulations require States to list
all recommendations from their most recent highway safety data and
traffic records system assessment and identify whether and how they
intend to address those recommendations. 23 CFR 1300.22(b)(2)(ii-iv). A
State's assessment should, therefore, result in a comprehensive set of
recommendations that will improve the State traffic safety information
systems and inform the State's traffic records strategic plan. The
Advisory lays out noteworthy practices that States may wish to consider
when assessing their data systems.
Second, NHTSA has developed a self-assessment tool that States may
use. The assessment tool consists of a series of questions developed by
NHTSA, with the input of subject matter experts, which will generate
recommendations based on the States' responses. This assessment tool is
available online at https://www.nhtsa.gov/research-data/traffic-records. The questions are in Appendix E of the Advisory.
Third, States may opt to participate in NHTSA's State Traffic
Records Assessment Program (STRAP) at no cost to the State. STRAP is a
peer assessment process using the questions from NHTSA's assessment
tool. Qualified independent assessors will evaluate the State's
responses and provide recommendations; specific and actionable
considerations; and a final report. An experienced facilitator supports
this process, which includes two onsite meetings and a webinar report-
out.
Regardless of which process a State chooses to conduct its
assessment, NHTSA GO Teams remain available to States who wish to apply
for additional technical assistance. GO Teams provide technical
expertise and guidance on specific small- to mid-scale projects that
the States want to undertake but that may require other, specialized
knowledge. Application forms are available on the NHTSA website http://
[[Page 42975]]
www.nhtsa.gov/DOT/NHTSA/NVS/TrafficRecords/
Training_Technical_Assistance_Application.docx.
The full Traffic Records Program Assessment Advisory is posted
online at https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/812601.
Authority: 23 U.S.C. Section 405(c)(3)(E).
Issued in Washington, DC.
Terry T. Shelton,
Associate Administrator, National Center for Statistics and Analysis.
[FR Doc. 2018-18325 Filed 8-23-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P