Hello! We noticed the following statement in a response provided to another posted question:

"Thank you for your question. This funding opportunity is specific to automated crash reporting software."

This response sparked some additional questions to us. We would love to ask for additional explanation about the government's desired mechanics and movement of data. Here is some elaboration:

1. ACN (Automated Crash Notification) data are contained within NEMSIS and other data systems.

2. However, they are not USER-mediated (indeed, they are called "automated"). Rather, the data are generated by a signal from the vehicle (i.e., OnStar) or in more recent variants, by a phone or similar (i.e., Android or iPhone crash notification, Cambridge Mobile Telematics, Samsara "harsh event notification," etc.).

3. By contrast, as we asked elsewhere, the topic states that one of its goals is to reduce documentation burden on Responders (specifically indicated as LEAs, but we assume that the same safety consideration applies to Fire and EMS providers):

"Completing the forms may take a significant portion of the officer’s time, which may lead to poor quality data as the officer may rush or not have enough time to complete their task. NHTSA is mindful of officer roadway exposure to secondary crashes and inaccuracies in data collection and looks for ways to reduce risk while improving data quality." (Page 26)

1. In older vehicles where ACN data must be collected via OBDII port or similar physical connection, there is no reasonable way for an LEA to collect such data in real-time on the road; doing so requires cables and computers. In newer vehicles, such data can "burst" from the vehicle and be captured within, for example, a NEMSIS v3 electronic patient care report using an app or other software.

THEREFORE: We wish to understand the government's goal with regards to capturing ACN and other data and using them together with (or distinct from) existing data sets like MMUCC, NEMSIS, NFIRS/NERIS, FARS, FIRST, etc.:

-- A. Is the goal to create a NEW dataset that is separate from the other data system mentioned above, and adds some additional dimension(s) of insight that they do not provide?

A2. If yes, then what insights does the government feel are MISSING from the existing data sets, such that an entirely new one is required?

--

B. Is the goal to create an integration engine that can ingest data in any/all of the formats listed mentioned, align them, provide a cross-walk for decision-making, then be able to pushing data back out to software systems that use one of the existing data standards?

--

C. If this project is LIMITED TO ACN -- as was stated in the aforementioned Q&A response -- yet ACN data already exists in NEMSIS, why are the NEMSIS data insufficient (particularly if they were to be aligned with MMUCC and others, as noted in #B above)?

--

D. IF THIS PROJECT IS LIMITED TO ACN TECHNOLOGY, then is it also geared toward firms (such as those listed above) which provide ACN software today but whose data do not currently interoperate with the other existing data standards? (Why do they not currently interoperate?)

--

E. Would it align with the topic for a company that specializes in NEMSIS data and interoperability -- and which therefore currently collects, aggregates, converts, aligns, and distributes ACN data on-demand (when available), but does not PRODUCE ACN data itself (because that is what the vehicle is responsible for generating) -- to propose to interoperate the existing data with MMUCC, FIRST, FARS, etc.?

Thank you so much!