Uniform Procedures for State Highway Safety Grant Programs, 731-735 [2024-31487]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 3 / Monday, January 6, 2025 / Notices
khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with NOTICES
not mean vehicle occupants have not
experienced a safety issue, nor does it
mean that there will not be safety issues
in the future.4 Further, because each
inconsequential noncompliance petition
must be evaluated on its own facts and
determinations are highly factdependent, NHTSA does not consider
prior determinations as binding
precedent. Petitioners have the burden
of persuading NHTSA that the
noncompliance is inconsequential to
safety.
NHTSA has evaluated the merits of
the inconsequential noncompliance
petition submitted by Transamerica and
grants the petitioner’s request for an
exemption from the notification and
remedy requirements of 49 U.S.C. 30118
and 49 U.S.C. 30120 based on the
following:
1. NHTSA believes, based on
information provided by the
manufacturer, that the tires otherwise
meet the performance criteria of FMVSS
No. 119 and that the subject labeling
noncompliance likely has no effect on
the operational safety and performance
of the affected tires.
2. NHTSA agrees that the additional
characters in the TIN do not affect the
ability of the manufacturer or consumer
to identify the affected tires in the event
of a recall. The agency has also verified
with the manufacturer that the affected
tires with additional characters in the
TIN may be registered. Transamerica
has also ensured that any future safety
related recalls will include the
incorrectly marked TIN numbers if
needed.
This grant exempts Transamerica
from its obligations under 49 U.S.C.
30118 and 30120 to provide notification
of, and a free remedy for, the
noncompliance with FMVSS No. 119.
However, erroneous TIN marking is also
a violation of 49 CFR part 574. Grants
of petitions for inconsequential
noncompliance do not absolve entities
subject to regulations other than the
FMVSS from their obligations under
those regulations. Although NHTSA has
chosen not to do so in this instance,
NHTSA may consider seeking civil
penalties in the future for violations of
part 574 by tire manufacturers and
importers.
4 See Morgan 3 Wheeler Limited; Denial of
Petition for Decision of Inconsequential
Noncompliance, 81 FR 21663, 21666 (Apr. 12,
2016); see also United States v. Gen. Motors Corp.,
565 F.2d 754, 759 (D.C. Cir. 1977) (finding defect
poses an unreasonable risk when it ‘‘results in
hazards as potentially dangerous as sudden engine
fire, and where there is no dispute that at least some
such hazards, in this case fires, can definitely be
expected to occur in the future’’).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:04 Jan 03, 2025
Jkt 265001
VII. NHTSA’s Decision
In consideration of the foregoing,
NHTSA finds that Transamerica has met
its burden of persuasion that the subject
FMVSS No. 119 noncompliance in the
affected tires is inconsequential to
motor vehicle safety. Accordingly,
Transamerica’s petition is hereby
granted and Transamerica is
consequently exempted from the
obligation of providing notification of,
and a free remedy for, that
noncompliance under 49 U.S.C. 30118
and 30120.
NHTSA notes that the statutory
provisions (49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and
30120(h)) that permit manufacturers to
file petitions for a determination of
inconsequentiality allow NHTSA to
exempt manufacturers only from the
duties found in sections 30118 and
30120, respectively, to notify owners,
purchasers, and dealers of a defect or
noncompliance and to remedy the
defect or noncompliance. Therefore, this
decision only applies to the subject tires
that Transamerica no longer controlled
at the time it determined that the
noncompliance existed. However, the
granting of this petition does not relieve
tire distributors and dealers of the
prohibitions on the sale, offer for sale,
or introduction or delivery for
introduction into interstate commerce of
the noncompliant tires under their
control after Transamerica notified them
that the subject noncompliance existed.
(Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120;
delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.95 and
501.8)
Otto G. Matheke III,
Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2024–31753 Filed 1–3–25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA–2024–0037]
Uniform Procedures for State Highway
Safety Grant Programs
National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Notice of availability.
AGENCY:
This notice transmits the
revised minimum performance
measures that State Highway Safety
Offices use in their triennial Highway
Safety Plans.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
For program issues: Barbara Sauers,
Associate Administrator, Regional
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00149
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
731
Operations and Program Delivery,
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration; Telephone number:
(202) 366–0144; Email: barbara.sauers@
dot.gov.
For legal issues: Megan Brown,
Attorney Advisor, Litigation & General
Law, Office of the Chief Counsel,
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590;
Telephone number: (202) 366–1834;
Email: Megan.Brown@dot.gov
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Background
II. Performance Measure Development
III. Comment Response
IV. Performance Measure Framework
V. Best Practices for Performance
Management
VI. Applicability Date
I. Background
Roadway deaths are unacceptable and
preventable and State Highway Safety
Office (SHSO) officials have a critical
role in eliminating crashes that result in
deaths and serious injuries. Performance
management is a vital tool for States to
use in developing and implementing
their highway traffic safety programs.
Performance measures increase
transparency and can help improve
program outcomes by providing a
greater understanding of how safety
issues are being addressed with
highway safety grant funds. This notice
sets forth the revised minimum
performance measures that SHSO will
use in their triennial Highway Safety
Plans (3HSP) to develop and implement
their programs.
The highway safety grant program
statute 1 requires States to submit
performance measures to support State
safety goals and for each
countermeasure strategy for
programming funds that a State includes
in its 3HSP. These performance
measures must demonstrate constant or
improved performance and provide
documentation of the current safety
levels for each performance measure,
quantifiable performance targets for
each performance measure, and a
justification for each performance
target.2
NHTSA first established minimum
performance measures in coordination
with the Governor’s Highway Safety
Association (GHSA) in 2008.3 Congress
1 23
U.S.C. 402(k)(4)(A).
2 Id.
3 ‘‘Traffic Safety Performance Measures for States
and Federal Agencies’’ (DOT HS 811 025) (August
2008).
E:\FR\FM\06JAN1.SGM
06JAN1
732
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 3 / Monday, January 6, 2025 / Notices
mandated the use of performance
measures for all States in MAP–21 and
continued the requirements under the
FAST Act and BIL. Under statute,
NHTSA must develop minimum
performance measures in consultation
with GHSA.4 Beginning with fiscal year
(FY) 2010 HSPs, submitted to NHTSA in
July 2009, all States and territories
voluntarily agreed to include fourteen
minimum performance measures. States
were required to report targets
beginning with their FY 2014 HSPs. In
2014, NHTSA and GHSA added a
fifteenth measure addressing bicyclist
fatalities.
This year, NHTSA, in consultation
with GHSA, undertook the first
comprehensive update of the minimum
performance measures since they were
originally published in 2008. This
notice contains a description of that
process and the resulting updated
minimum performance measures.
khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with NOTICES
II. Performance Measure Development
NHTSA, in consultation with GHSA,
identified a diverse and representative
list of stakeholders from NHTSA,
SHSOs, and other organizations. This
step was crucial to ensuring that the
engagement process included
perspectives from various sectors and
individuals who could offer valuable
insights into the performance measures.
Additionally, an expert panel consisting
of members of GHSA and NHTSA
provided input and direction to the
overall process. The expert panel
regularly met to discuss feedback from
the stakeholders and to help develop
this framework.
Once stakeholders were identified, 57
listening sessions were held. There were
78 participants, comprised of
representatives from NHTSA, GHSA,
Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA), National EMS Quality Alliance
(NEMSQA), and additional State
university research officials.
Stakeholders shared their views on the
effectiveness of the current core
performance measures while suggesting
opportunities for improvements.
On August 21, 2024, NHTSA hosted
a virtual public listening session,
allowing all interested parties to share
their insights both orally and through
written submissions to the online
docket. A summary of the comments
and NHTSA’s responses are below.
NHTSA used the results of the
stakeholder and public listening
sessions to develop this updated
performance measure framework.
4 23
U.S.C. 402(k)(4)(A).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:04 Jan 03, 2025
Jkt 265001
III. Comment Response
On August 21, 2024, NHTSA hosted
a virtual public listening session,
allowing all interested parties to share
their insights both orally and through
written submissions to the online
docket. Several speakers delivered
remarks during the session. A total of
eighteen written comments representing
seventeen organizations were submitted
online by GHSA, the American
Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials (AAHSTO), the
American Association of Motor Vehicle
Administrators (AAMVA), Center for
Policing Equity, Coalition for Cyclist,
Detroit Greenways Coalition, Driving
School Associations of the Americas,
Georgia Governor’s Office of Highway
Safety, Health by Design, Fines and Fees
Justice Center, Idaho Office of Highway
Safety, National Safety Council, The
League of American Bicyclists, The
Policing Project at New York University
School of Law, Who Poo App, and a
joint comment by Vera Institute of
Justice, Color of Change, and Center for
American Progress. Complete comments
may be viewed at regulations.gov.5
Several commenters 6 submitted
comments about NHTSA’s programs
and activities that fall outside the scope
of this performance measure effort and
will not be addressed further in this
document. NHTSA appreciates those
comments and will consider them
where appropriate.
Many commenters submitted broad
comments about the nature of NHTSA’s
performance measure program and how
performance measures should be used.
Several commenters 7 recommended
that NHTSA ensure that the Safe System
Approach is integrated into DOT grants.
NHTSA encourages States to adopt the
Safe System approach and incorporate
its principles into their performance
management framework. AASHTO
requested that the revisions to the
minimum performance measures
decrease associated burdens and costs
on the State. The performance measure
framework developed and laid out in
this notice was developed to provide
States with increased flexibility to use
5 www.regulations.gov/document/NHTSA–2024–
0037–0001/comment.
6 AAMVA; Center for Policing Equity; Coalitions
4 Cyclists; Driving School Associations of the
Americas; Fines and Fees Justice Center; Georgia
Governor’s Office of Highway Safety; Healthy By
Design; National Safety Council; Policing Project at
New York University School of Law; Vision Zero
Network; Who Poo App; joint comment by Vera
Institute of Justice, Color of Change, and the Center
for American Progress.
7 AASHTO; Fines and Fees Justice Center; GHSA;
Idaho Office of Highway Safety; The League of
American Bicyclists; National Safety Council;
Vision Zero Network.
PO 00000
Frm 00150
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
performance measures that are most
useful to their program. That increased
flexibility should decrease burden. In
addition, NHTSA plans to deploy an
electronic grants management system
(eGrants) that SHSOs will use to submit
the 3HSPs due on July 1, 2026. NHTSA
expects that eGrants will further
streamline the process for submitting
and reporting on performance measure
information provided to NHTSA.
Finally, GHSA recommended that
NHTSA create resources and provide
technical assistance to States to
empower States in better programspecific evaluations. NHTSA currently
offers training to States through the
Transportation Safety Institute (TSI) on
program evaluation and NHTSA’s
Regional Offices are available to provide
technical assistance.
Many commenters 8 stressed the
diversity and unique safety needs and
priorities across States, and asked
NHTSA to allow flexibility. The
proposed framework allows States to
select strategic core measures specific to
their problem identification and to set
other State-developed performance
measures specific to their needs.
Healthy by Design argued that States
should not be allowed to establish
targets that anticipate an increase in
fatalities. Conversely, AAMVA, the
Georgia Governor’s Office of Highway
Safety, and GHSA all argued that the
BIL’s requirement for constant and
improved performance has divorced
performance targets from the data and
has imposed penalties, such as
increased oversight, on States that fail to
meet their targets. AAMVA, AASHTO,
and GHSA also argued that performance
measures should be limited to areas
where SHSOs have direct control over
outcomes. As NHTSA has previously
emphasized, 9 NHTSA strongly
disagrees that constant or improved
performance targets are contrary to the
data or that States lack the ability to
influence safety numbers. Targets
should reflect the outcomes that States
expect to achieve after implementing
their planned programs. If a projected
outcome shows worsening safety levels,
the State needs to change its planned
program. Further, BIL requires States to
submit only constant or improved
performance measures, so NHTSA does
not have the discretion to allow States
to set worsening targets.
Some commenters suggested various
combinations of required measures
based on measures currently required by
8 AASHTO; Georgia Governor’s Office of Highway
Safety; GHSA.
9 87 FR 56756, 56767 (Sept. 15, 2022); 88 FR
7780, 7788 (Feb. 6, 2023).
E:\FR\FM\06JAN1.SGM
06JAN1
khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 3 / Monday, January 6, 2025 / Notices
both NHTSA and FHWA. GHSA and the
Idaho Office of Highway Safety said that
States should only be required to submit
to NHTSA the five measures already
required by FHWA.10 In this new
framework, NHTSA requires three of the
FHWA measures (number of fatalities,
rate of fatalities, and number of serious
injuries) as universal core performance
measures. Healthy by Design requested
that the rate of serious injuries and
number of non-motorized injuries be
classified as core performance measures.
Those two measures are programdependent, and their use will vary by
State. As such, they are classified as
State-developed performance measures
that States can include if they have
relevant programs and countermeasures.
Six commenters 11 requested that
NHTSA remove the activity measures
that were included in the minimum
performance measures established in
2008, and that NHTSA not include any
measures that incentivize law
enforcement quota systems. Center for
Policing Equity requested that NHTSA
not include any measures that
incentivize law enforcement quota
systems but asked that NHTSA include
new activity measures specific to law
enforcement activities, including nontraditional enforcement actions. The
League of American Bicyclists requested
that NHTSA add an activity measure
related to interagency collaboration on
priority issues. NHTSA has removed all
activity measures requirements from
this new performance measure
framework. However, State-developed
performance measures may include
activity measures.
Various commenters requested
specific performance measures. The
Georgia Governor’s Office of Highway
Safety recommended that NHTSA
include performance measures for all
nationally prioritized program areas.
Both the Policing Project at New York
University School of Law and the joint
comment of Vera Institute of Justice,
Color of Change, and the Center for
American Progress recommended that
NHTSA include performance measures
specific to details of pursuit by law
enforcement and traffic stops. Healthy
by Design recommended that NHTSA
consider adding a measure related to
geographic location and post-crash care
injury severity and treatment. The
League of American Bicyclists and
10 Separately, the Idaho Office of Highway Safety
also said that States should only be required to
submit four of the five measures required by
FHWA.
11 AASHTO; Center for Policing Equity Fines and
Fees Justice Center; Healthy by Design; League of
American Bicyclists; Policing Project at New York
University School of Law.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:04 Jan 03, 2025
Jkt 265001
Vision Zero Network both
recommended a performance measure
related to observed speeding behavior.
The Georgia Governor’s Office of
Highway Safety recommended a
measure of ‘‘suspected: distracted
driving crashes.’’ In this update of the
performance measure framework,
NHTSA was guided in large part by a
desire to provide States with flexibility
to implement programs in response to
their unique safety problems, while also
maintaining a discrete set of universal
and strategic core performance measures
that prioritize national-level issues that
are addressed by States. As a result,
NHTSA did not create performance
measures at the level of detail requested
by these commenters. However, States
may choose to create these and other
performance measures as a Statedeveloped performance measure.
Four commenters 12 recommended
that NHTSA add expanded measures
relating to pedestrian and bicyclist
safety, including separate non-motorist
fatalities and serious injuries
performance measures. The Idaho Office
of Highway Safety, however,
recommended that NHTSA remove the
combined fatality and serious injury
performance measure. In order to allow
States flexibility to address the
demonstrated safety problems in their
State, NHTSA has identified nonmotorist fatalities as a strategic core
performance measure that is required
for any State that has an identified nonmotorist safety problem and
countermeasure strategy. In addition,
States may create a State-developed
performance measure for other, more
specific, non-motorist issues.
GHSA noted that if NHTSA opts to
create a performance measure related to
the grant program’s statutory public
participation and engagement
requirements, that performance measure
should be tied to the State’s efforts to
reach underrepresented communities,
not how much funding those
communities receive. The joint
comment from Vera Institute of Justice,
Color of Change, and the Center for
American Progress recommended that
NHTSA develop operational metrics of
community engagement to assess level
and type of engagement that went into
the State’s highway safety planning
process. Section 402 places performance
measures within the context of a State’s
safety levels.13 As a result, NHTSA does
not have authority to require States to
provide performance measures related
12 Detroit Greenways Coalition; Healthy by
Design; League of American Bicyclists; Vizion Zero
Network.
13 See 23 U.S.C. 402(k)(4)(A).
PO 00000
Frm 00151
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
733
to public participation. That said,
NHTSA notes that NHTSA assesses
State efforts in public participation and
engagement as part of the 3HSP review
process and through the Annual Report.
AAMVA, AASHTO, and the Georgia
Governor’s Office of Highway Safety
requested that NHTSA allow States to
consider additional target-setting
methods beyond the rolling average.
The Georgia Governor’s Office of
Highway Safety and Idaho Office of
Public Safety requested that States be
allowed to choose whether to express a
target in terms of annual totals, or a
three-or five-year rolling average. Under
the new framework, States have the
flexibility to choose the time period that
is most appropriate for their State
provided the target covers the 3HSP
period. See the ‘‘Additional
Requirements’’ section for additional
information. The Georgia Governor’s
Office of Highway Safety and Vision
Zero Network argued that measures
should be normalized by the
appropriate denominator to show true
progress (e.g., population, licensed
drivers, or VMT), especially for States
with significant population changes.
This can be addressed by States in their
development of State-developed
performance measures.
IV. Performance Measure Framework
Program-Driven Performance Measure
Framework
In this document, NHTSA establishes
an updated behavioral highway safety
program-driven performance measure
framework. This updated framework
creates three categories of performance
measures. Each of these categories are
equally important and identifies
required or recommended measures
based on the State’s program and the
availability of standardized data. The
three categories are:
(1) Universal core performance
measures—measures required for all
States. These universal core
performance measures cover problem
areas for which all recipients currently
include countermeasure strategies.
(2) Strategic core performance
measures—measures required for all
States that have a corresponding
countermeasure strategy in their 3HSP.
These measures are required based on
State-specific problem identification
tied to countermeasure strategies.
(3) State-developed performance
measures—additional measures
developed by States based on their
specific problem identification and tied
to their countermeasure strategies.
As described in more detail, above,
there was a general consensus among
E:\FR\FM\06JAN1.SGM
06JAN1
734
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 3 / Monday, January 6, 2025 / Notices
stakeholders for fewer required
measures. However, some stakeholders
sought specific additional measures to
address emerging traffic safety issues
within States. This program-driven
performance measure framework system
allows for both goals. Additionally,
some performance measures are more
(or less) relevant for some States than
for others. For example, a State with
large metropolitan areas may prioritize
bicycle safety, while low-population
rural States may have few bicyclist
fatalities. This framework emphasizes a
small set of universal performance
measures that address problems faced
by all States, while also including a set
of strategic core performance measures
that are required based on State-specific
problem identification. It also offers
increased flexibility and autonomy in
programming State-specific priorities
through the State-developed
performance measures, as opposed to a
one-size-fits-all approach. This
framework lessens reporting burden by
reducing the total number of measures
required of all States while allowing the
addition of measures relating to
emerging issues specific to individual
States. Flexibility and efficiency are
increased by allowing States to focus on
high-priority program areas to deploy
resources to achieve the most significant
reduction in fatalities and serious
injuries.
The new performance management
framework is described below. Note that
this does not change the underlying
performance plan and reporting
requirements in NHTSA’s Uniform
Procedures for State Highway Safety
Grant Programs (23 CFR part 1300). The
highway safety grant program statute (23
U.S.C. 402(k)(4)(A)) requires States to
submit performance measures to
support State safety goals and for each
countermeasure strategy for
programming funds that a State includes
in its 3HSP.
khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with NOTICES
Universal Core Performance Measures
The universal core performance
measures (UC) are required for all
States. These measures include:
UC–1 Number of fatalities
UC–2 Number of serious injuries
UC–3 Fatalities per vehicle miles
travelled (VMT)
UC–4 Number of unrestrained
passenger vehicle occupant fatalities,
all seat positions
UC–5 Number of fatalities involving a
driver or motorcycle operator with a
BAC over your State’s legal limit
UC–6 Number of speeding-related
fatalities
UC–7 Number of pedestrian fatalities
Strategic Core Performance Measures
Next, States must select strategic core
performance measures from the below
pre-set list if the State includes a
corresponding countermeasure strategy
in its 3HSP. These measures are based
on State-specific problem identification
tied to countermeasure strategies and
were identified, in part, because
relevant data sources are generally
maintained across all states. These
measures aim to reduce fatalities
through problem identification and
selected program areas tailored to
address State needs. These measures
include:
• Number of bicyclist and other cyclist
fatalities
• Number of motorcyclist fatalities
• Number of drivers aged 20 or younger
involved in fatal crashes
• Number of drivers aged 65 and older
involved in fatal crashes
• Number of fatalities and serious
injuries on rural roads
• Number of roadside fatalities (first
responders, tow-truck drivers,
roadway crew)
State-Developed Performance Measures
Lastly, States will include Statedeveloped performance measures in
their 3HSP. These measures will derive
from State problem identification. They
will be necessary to support
countermeasure strategies for which
there is no standardized measure of
performance across all States and for
which standardized datasets for all
States do not yet exist. By incorporating
these metrics, States can address
localized challenges and enhance their
overall traffic safety strategies. These are
typically for program areas,
countermeasure strategies, and topics
that do not have a universal or strategic
core measure that all States must track
but may also be used in addition to
existing measures. In these cases, a
universal core measure is not sufficient
on its own. This notice does not contain
any required State-developed
performance measures, but the
examples below illustrate the types of
performance measures that a State may
choose to develop:
• Rate of serious injuries per 100
million VMT
• Rate of combined fatalities and
serious injuries per 100 million VMT
• Child Passenger Safety, e.g., the
number of improperly restrained
child fatalities
• Emergency Medical Services (EMS),
e.g., median response time for
severely injured motor vehicle crash
patient
• Drugged Driving, e.g., toxicology
results, percent of DUI cases tested for
drugs other than alcohol
• Distracted driving, e.g., observed cell
phone/handheld electronic use for
passenger vehicles, driver
• Traffic Records, e.g., completeness,
accuracy
Additional Requirements
All performance measures must
include a baseline documenting current
safety levels, and a performance target
that demonstrates constant or improved
performance over the three-year period
covered by the 3HSP with annual
benchmarks to assist States in tracking
performance.14
A SHSO may express a target in terms
of annual totals or three- or five-year
rolling averages, depending on what is
appropriate for their State. Below are
examples of what this could look like
using different time periods in the FY
2027–2029 3HSP.
Total fatalities
Current safety level
2027 Benchmark
2028 Benchmark
2029 Target
Annual ...............................
3-year average ..................
5-year average ..................
150 (2025 total) .................
155 (2023–2025 average)
160 (2021–2025 average)
145 (2027 total) .................
150 (2025–2027 average)
155 (2023–2027 average)
140 (2028 total) .................
145 (2026–2028 average)
150 (2024–2028 average)
135 (2029 total).
140 (2027–2029 average).
145 (2025–2029 average).
For all fatality-based measures, FARS
data will be used to determine if
fatality-based targets are ultimately met.
However, a SHSO may use State or
14 23
FARS data to set the current safety level.
And a SHSO may also use State data for
the Performance Report section of the
3HSP and the Annual Report.
V. Best Practices for Performance
Management
NHTSA encourages SHSOs to adopt a
Safe System Approach and use robust
CFR 1300.11(b)(3)(ii)(B).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:04 Jan 03, 2025
Jkt 265001
PO 00000
Frm 00152
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\06JAN1.SGM
06JAN1
khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 3 / Monday, January 6, 2025 / Notices
procedures to set performance targets.
Performance measures set the stage for
an informed discussion of State
performance, barriers to improvement,
potential countermeasure strategies, and
the expected benefits of safety activities.
SHSOs should expand and engage more
diverse stakeholders when establishing
performance targets. Considering the
viewpoints of underserved and
overrepresented communities is critical
for setting performance targets.
SHSOs should ensure that
performance targets and measures are
developed in cooperative partnerships
based on data and objective information.
The SHSO should use the most current
available data to perform a trend
analysis to help predict what is likely to
happen. Using a data-driven decision
process that accounts for the SHSO’s
programming and interventions helps
maintain a focus on improvement. This
approach helps make investment and
policy decisions to achieve performance
targets.
NHTSA acknowledges that States face
many other considerations when setting
performance targets. Each performance
target must be treated individually
instead of applying the same formula or
giving a blanket statement about what
factors were considered for the entire
process. For example, suppose a
primary seat belt law was recently
enacted in your State. In that case, the
State could expect to have a higher
decrease in unbelted fatalities compared
to other types of fatalities.
When setting targets, SHSOs should
consider the following as part of their
justification:
• Problem identification and trend
analysis
• What data sources were considered?
• Which sociodemographic sources are
considered?
• How will the program,
countermeasure strategy, and project
selections adjustments help meet the
target?
• How were underserved and
overrepresented communities
considered?
• How has the SHSO engaged with
stakeholders?
• Anticipated levels of effort
• Economic conditions
• Legislative changes
• Political support
• Has the State adopted the Safe System
approach?
• Other local considerations such as
other transportation efforts,
employment patterns, weather,
demographic changes, and travel
patterns
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:04 Jan 03, 2025
Jkt 265001
Illustrative Examples
As a reminder, States are required to
provide performance measures for every
countermeasure strategy for
programming funds in the 3HSP.
Projects do not require specific
performance measures but are instead
associated with performance measures
through their corresponding
countermeasure strategy. This section
provides context for when a State may
need to submit a State-developed
performance measure. For example,
drugged or poly-substance impaired
driving is listed as a State-developed
performance measure because data is
not consistently collected across States
and territories, and State programs vary.
NHTSA encourages States to look at
ways to improve data collection related
to drug impairment and testing.
Suppose an SHSO includes a drugimpaired driving countermeasure
strategy within the Impaired Driving
program area. In that case, the State may
not rely on the number of fatalities
involving a driver or motorcycle
operator with a BAC of .08 and above
universal core performance measure as
that measure is specific to alcoholimpaired driving. Instead, the SHSO
must include a State-developed
performance measure related to drugged
driving. Other examples include if the
SHSO has a Police Traffic Services
program area that includes multiple
topics such as speeding and distracted
driving. In this example, the SHSO may
not rely solely on the number of
speeding-related fatalities performance
measure. Rather, the SHSO may need to
use a State-developed performance
measure such as observed cell phone/
handheld electronic, distracted driving
fatalities, or another measure specific to
the State’s countermeasure strategies.
Countermeasure strategies for topics
such as traffic records may not rely on
the universal core measures because
none are relevant to traffic records.
Instead, SHSOs will need to create a
State-developed performance measure
such as improvement in accuracy.15
Further, even for program areas and
countermeasure strategies for which
there is a universal or strategic core
performance measure, SHSOs are
strongly encouraged to also develop
additional State-developed performance
measures to more specifically address
their problem ID when appropriate. For
example:
15 For additional guidance in setting performance
measures related to traffic records system, see
Traffic Records Data Quality Management Guide:
Update to the Model Performance Measures for
State Traffic Records Systems, DOT HS 813 544
(Mar 2024). Available online at https://crashstats.
nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/813544.
PO 00000
Frm 00153
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
735
• In addition to UC–7 (number of
pedestrian fatalities), a State could
develop a separate measure for
pedestrian fatalities for ages 18–34.
• In addition to number of motorcyclist
fatalities, a State could develop a
separate measure for number of
unhelmeted fatalities.
• In addition to UC–4 (number of
unrestrained passenger vehicle
occupant fatalities, all seat positions),
a State could develop a separate
measure for observed seat belt use for
passenger vehicles, front seat
outboard passengers.
• In addition to UC–5 (number of
fatalities involving a driver or
motorcycle operator with a BAC over
your State’s legal limit), a State could
develop a separate measure for
Number of fatalities in crashes
involving a driver or motorcycle
operator with a blood alcohol
concentration (BAC) of .05 and above.
VI. Applicability Date
SHSOs will submit performance
measures aligning with this framework
beginning with the 3HSP due to NHTSA
on July 1, 2026, covering fiscal years
2027, 2028 and 2029.
Authority: 49 CFR 1.95 and 501.8(i).
Issued in Washington, DC.
Barbara Sauers,
Associate Administrator, Regional Operations
and Program Delivery.
[FR Doc. 2024–31487 Filed 1–3–25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA–2019–0042; Notice 2]
Gillig, LLC, Grant of Petition for
Decision of Inconsequential
Noncompliance
National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Grant of petition.
AGENCY:
Gillig LLC, determined that
certain model year (MY) 2013–2019
Gillig Low Floor buses do not fully
comply with Federal Motor Vehicle
Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 102,
Transmission Shift Position Sequence,
Starter Interlock, and Transmission
Braking Effect. Gillig filed a
noncompliance report dated April 1,
2019, and later amended the report on
April 23, 2019. Gillig subsequently
petitioned NHTSA on May 8, 2019, for
a decision that the subject
noncompliance is inconsequential as it
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\06JAN1.SGM
06JAN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 3 (Monday, January 6, 2025)]
[Notices]
[Pages 731-735]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-31487]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA-2024-0037]
Uniform Procedures for State Highway Safety Grant Programs
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Notice of availability.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This notice transmits the revised minimum performance measures
that State Highway Safety Offices use in their triennial Highway Safety
Plans.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
For program issues: Barbara Sauers, Associate Administrator,
Regional Operations and Program Delivery, National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration; Telephone number: (202) 366-0144; Email:
[email protected].
For legal issues: Megan Brown, Attorney Advisor, Litigation &
General Law, Office of the Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590;
Telephone number: (202) 366-1834; Email: [email protected]
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Background
II. Performance Measure Development
III. Comment Response
IV. Performance Measure Framework
V. Best Practices for Performance Management
VI. Applicability Date
I. Background
Roadway deaths are unacceptable and preventable and State Highway
Safety Office (SHSO) officials have a critical role in eliminating
crashes that result in deaths and serious injuries. Performance
management is a vital tool for States to use in developing and
implementing their highway traffic safety programs. Performance
measures increase transparency and can help improve program outcomes by
providing a greater understanding of how safety issues are being
addressed with highway safety grant funds. This notice sets forth the
revised minimum performance measures that SHSO will use in their
triennial Highway Safety Plans (3HSP) to develop and implement their
programs.
The highway safety grant program statute \1\ requires States to
submit performance measures to support State safety goals and for each
countermeasure strategy for programming funds that a State includes in
its 3HSP. These performance measures must demonstrate constant or
improved performance and provide documentation of the current safety
levels for each performance measure, quantifiable performance targets
for each performance measure, and a justification for each performance
target.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 23 U.S.C. 402(k)(4)(A).
\2\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA first established minimum performance measures in
coordination with the Governor's Highway Safety Association (GHSA) in
2008.\3\ Congress
[[Page 732]]
mandated the use of performance measures for all States in MAP-21 and
continued the requirements under the FAST Act and BIL. Under statute,
NHTSA must develop minimum performance measures in consultation with
GHSA.\4\ Beginning with fiscal year (FY) 2010 HSPs, submitted to NHTSA
in July 2009, all States and territories voluntarily agreed to include
fourteen minimum performance measures. States were required to report
targets beginning with their FY 2014 HSPs. In 2014, NHTSA and GHSA
added a fifteenth measure addressing bicyclist fatalities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ ``Traffic Safety Performance Measures for States and Federal
Agencies'' (DOT HS 811 025) (August 2008).
\4\ 23 U.S.C. 402(k)(4)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This year, NHTSA, in consultation with GHSA, undertook the first
comprehensive update of the minimum performance measures since they
were originally published in 2008. This notice contains a description
of that process and the resulting updated minimum performance measures.
II. Performance Measure Development
NHTSA, in consultation with GHSA, identified a diverse and
representative list of stakeholders from NHTSA, SHSOs, and other
organizations. This step was crucial to ensuring that the engagement
process included perspectives from various sectors and individuals who
could offer valuable insights into the performance measures.
Additionally, an expert panel consisting of members of GHSA and NHTSA
provided input and direction to the overall process. The expert panel
regularly met to discuss feedback from the stakeholders and to help
develop this framework.
Once stakeholders were identified, 57 listening sessions were held.
There were 78 participants, comprised of representatives from NHTSA,
GHSA, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), National EMS Quality
Alliance (NEMSQA), and additional State university research officials.
Stakeholders shared their views on the effectiveness of the current
core performance measures while suggesting opportunities for
improvements.
On August 21, 2024, NHTSA hosted a virtual public listening
session, allowing all interested parties to share their insights both
orally and through written submissions to the online docket. A summary
of the comments and NHTSA's responses are below. NHTSA used the results
of the stakeholder and public listening sessions to develop this
updated performance measure framework.
III. Comment Response
On August 21, 2024, NHTSA hosted a virtual public listening
session, allowing all interested parties to share their insights both
orally and through written submissions to the online docket. Several
speakers delivered remarks during the session. A total of eighteen
written comments representing seventeen organizations were submitted
online by GHSA, the American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials (AAHSTO), the American Association of Motor
Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA), Center for Policing Equity, Coalition
for Cyclist, Detroit Greenways Coalition, Driving School Associations
of the Americas, Georgia Governor's Office of Highway Safety, Health by
Design, Fines and Fees Justice Center, Idaho Office of Highway Safety,
National Safety Council, The League of American Bicyclists, The
Policing Project at New York University School of Law, Who Poo App, and
a joint comment by Vera Institute of Justice, Color of Change, and
Center for American Progress. Complete comments may be viewed at
regulations.gov.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ www.regulations.gov/document/NHTSA-2024-0037-0001/comment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Several commenters \6\ submitted comments about NHTSA's programs
and activities that fall outside the scope of this performance measure
effort and will not be addressed further in this document. NHTSA
appreciates those comments and will consider them where appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ AAMVA; Center for Policing Equity; Coalitions 4 Cyclists;
Driving School Associations of the Americas; Fines and Fees Justice
Center; Georgia Governor's Office of Highway Safety; Healthy By
Design; National Safety Council; Policing Project at New York
University School of Law; Vision Zero Network; Who Poo App; joint
comment by Vera Institute of Justice, Color of Change, and the
Center for American Progress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Many commenters submitted broad comments about the nature of
NHTSA's performance measure program and how performance measures should
be used. Several commenters \7\ recommended that NHTSA ensure that the
Safe System Approach is integrated into DOT grants. NHTSA encourages
States to adopt the Safe System approach and incorporate its principles
into their performance management framework. AASHTO requested that the
revisions to the minimum performance measures decrease associated
burdens and costs on the State. The performance measure framework
developed and laid out in this notice was developed to provide States
with increased flexibility to use performance measures that are most
useful to their program. That increased flexibility should decrease
burden. In addition, NHTSA plans to deploy an electronic grants
management system (eGrants) that SHSOs will use to submit the 3HSPs due
on July 1, 2026. NHTSA expects that eGrants will further streamline the
process for submitting and reporting on performance measure information
provided to NHTSA. Finally, GHSA recommended that NHTSA create
resources and provide technical assistance to States to empower States
in better program-specific evaluations. NHTSA currently offers training
to States through the Transportation Safety Institute (TSI) on program
evaluation and NHTSA's Regional Offices are available to provide
technical assistance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ AASHTO; Fines and Fees Justice Center; GHSA; Idaho Office of
Highway Safety; The League of American Bicyclists; National Safety
Council; Vision Zero Network.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Many commenters \8\ stressed the diversity and unique safety needs
and priorities across States, and asked NHTSA to allow flexibility. The
proposed framework allows States to select strategic core measures
specific to their problem identification and to set other State-
developed performance measures specific to their needs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ AASHTO; Georgia Governor's Office of Highway Safety; GHSA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Healthy by Design argued that States should not be allowed to
establish targets that anticipate an increase in fatalities.
Conversely, AAMVA, the Georgia Governor's Office of Highway Safety, and
GHSA all argued that the BIL's requirement for constant and improved
performance has divorced performance targets from the data and has
imposed penalties, such as increased oversight, on States that fail to
meet their targets. AAMVA, AASHTO, and GHSA also argued that
performance measures should be limited to areas where SHSOs have direct
control over outcomes. As NHTSA has previously emphasized, \9\ NHTSA
strongly disagrees that constant or improved performance targets are
contrary to the data or that States lack the ability to influence
safety numbers. Targets should reflect the outcomes that States expect
to achieve after implementing their planned programs. If a projected
outcome shows worsening safety levels, the State needs to change its
planned program. Further, BIL requires States to submit only constant
or improved performance measures, so NHTSA does not have the discretion
to allow States to set worsening targets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ 87 FR 56756, 56767 (Sept. 15, 2022); 88 FR 7780, 7788 (Feb.
6, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some commenters suggested various combinations of required measures
based on measures currently required by
[[Page 733]]
both NHTSA and FHWA. GHSA and the Idaho Office of Highway Safety said
that States should only be required to submit to NHTSA the five
measures already required by FHWA.\10\ In this new framework, NHTSA
requires three of the FHWA measures (number of fatalities, rate of
fatalities, and number of serious injuries) as universal core
performance measures. Healthy by Design requested that the rate of
serious injuries and number of non-motorized injuries be classified as
core performance measures. Those two measures are program-dependent,
and their use will vary by State. As such, they are classified as
State-developed performance measures that States can include if they
have relevant programs and countermeasures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Separately, the Idaho Office of Highway Safety also said
that States should only be required to submit four of the five
measures required by FHWA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Six commenters \11\ requested that NHTSA remove the activity
measures that were included in the minimum performance measures
established in 2008, and that NHTSA not include any measures that
incentivize law enforcement quota systems. Center for Policing Equity
requested that NHTSA not include any measures that incentivize law
enforcement quota systems but asked that NHTSA include new activity
measures specific to law enforcement activities, including non-
traditional enforcement actions. The League of American Bicyclists
requested that NHTSA add an activity measure related to interagency
collaboration on priority issues. NHTSA has removed all activity
measures requirements from this new performance measure framework.
However, State-developed performance measures may include activity
measures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ AASHTO; Center for Policing Equity Fines and Fees Justice
Center; Healthy by Design; League of American Bicyclists; Policing
Project at New York University School of Law.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Various commenters requested specific performance measures. The
Georgia Governor's Office of Highway Safety recommended that NHTSA
include performance measures for all nationally prioritized program
areas. Both the Policing Project at New York University School of Law
and the joint comment of Vera Institute of Justice, Color of Change,
and the Center for American Progress recommended that NHTSA include
performance measures specific to details of pursuit by law enforcement
and traffic stops. Healthy by Design recommended that NHTSA consider
adding a measure related to geographic location and post-crash care
injury severity and treatment. The League of American Bicyclists and
Vision Zero Network both recommended a performance measure related to
observed speeding behavior. The Georgia Governor's Office of Highway
Safety recommended a measure of ``suspected: distracted driving
crashes.'' In this update of the performance measure framework, NHTSA
was guided in large part by a desire to provide States with flexibility
to implement programs in response to their unique safety problems,
while also maintaining a discrete set of universal and strategic core
performance measures that prioritize national-level issues that are
addressed by States. As a result, NHTSA did not create performance
measures at the level of detail requested by these commenters. However,
States may choose to create these and other performance measures as a
State-developed performance measure.
Four commenters \12\ recommended that NHTSA add expanded measures
relating to pedestrian and bicyclist safety, including separate non-
motorist fatalities and serious injuries performance measures. The
Idaho Office of Highway Safety, however, recommended that NHTSA remove
the combined fatality and serious injury performance measure. In order
to allow States flexibility to address the demonstrated safety problems
in their State, NHTSA has identified non-motorist fatalities as a
strategic core performance measure that is required for any State that
has an identified non-motorist safety problem and countermeasure
strategy. In addition, States may create a State-developed performance
measure for other, more specific, non-motorist issues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Detroit Greenways Coalition; Healthy by Design; League of
American Bicyclists; Vizion Zero Network.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
GHSA noted that if NHTSA opts to create a performance measure
related to the grant program's statutory public participation and
engagement requirements, that performance measure should be tied to the
State's efforts to reach underrepresented communities, not how much
funding those communities receive. The joint comment from Vera
Institute of Justice, Color of Change, and the Center for American
Progress recommended that NHTSA develop operational metrics of
community engagement to assess level and type of engagement that went
into the State's highway safety planning process. Section 402 places
performance measures within the context of a State's safety levels.\13\
As a result, NHTSA does not have authority to require States to provide
performance measures related to public participation. That said, NHTSA
notes that NHTSA assesses State efforts in public participation and
engagement as part of the 3HSP review process and through the Annual
Report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ See 23 U.S.C. 402(k)(4)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
AAMVA, AASHTO, and the Georgia Governor's Office of Highway Safety
requested that NHTSA allow States to consider additional target-setting
methods beyond the rolling average. The Georgia Governor's Office of
Highway Safety and Idaho Office of Public Safety requested that States
be allowed to choose whether to express a target in terms of annual
totals, or a three-or five-year rolling average. Under the new
framework, States have the flexibility to choose the time period that
is most appropriate for their State provided the target covers the 3HSP
period. See the ``Additional Requirements'' section for additional
information. The Georgia Governor's Office of Highway Safety and Vision
Zero Network argued that measures should be normalized by the
appropriate denominator to show true progress (e.g., population,
licensed drivers, or VMT), especially for States with significant
population changes. This can be addressed by States in their
development of State-developed performance measures.
IV. Performance Measure Framework
Program-Driven Performance Measure Framework
In this document, NHTSA establishes an updated behavioral highway
safety program-driven performance measure framework. This updated
framework creates three categories of performance measures. Each of
these categories are equally important and identifies required or
recommended measures based on the State's program and the availability
of standardized data. The three categories are:
(1) Universal core performance measures--measures required for all
States. These universal core performance measures cover problem areas
for which all recipients currently include countermeasure strategies.
(2) Strategic core performance measures--measures required for all
States that have a corresponding countermeasure strategy in their 3HSP.
These measures are required based on State-specific problem
identification tied to countermeasure strategies.
(3) State-developed performance measures--additional measures
developed by States based on their specific problem identification and
tied to their countermeasure strategies.
As described in more detail, above, there was a general consensus
among
[[Page 734]]
stakeholders for fewer required measures. However, some stakeholders
sought specific additional measures to address emerging traffic safety
issues within States. This program-driven performance measure framework
system allows for both goals. Additionally, some performance measures
are more (or less) relevant for some States than for others. For
example, a State with large metropolitan areas may prioritize bicycle
safety, while low-population rural States may have few bicyclist
fatalities. This framework emphasizes a small set of universal
performance measures that address problems faced by all States, while
also including a set of strategic core performance measures that are
required based on State-specific problem identification. It also offers
increased flexibility and autonomy in programming State-specific
priorities through the State-developed performance measures, as opposed
to a one-size-fits-all approach. This framework lessens reporting
burden by reducing the total number of measures required of all States
while allowing the addition of measures relating to emerging issues
specific to individual States. Flexibility and efficiency are increased
by allowing States to focus on high-priority program areas to deploy
resources to achieve the most significant reduction in fatalities and
serious injuries.
The new performance management framework is described below. Note
that this does not change the underlying performance plan and reporting
requirements in NHTSA's Uniform Procedures for State Highway Safety
Grant Programs (23 CFR part 1300). The highway safety grant program
statute (23 U.S.C. 402(k)(4)(A)) requires States to submit performance
measures to support State safety goals and for each countermeasure
strategy for programming funds that a State includes in its 3HSP.
Universal Core Performance Measures
The universal core performance measures (UC) are required for all
States. These measures include:
UC-1 Number of fatalities
UC-2 Number of serious injuries
UC-3 Fatalities per vehicle miles travelled (VMT)
UC-4 Number of unrestrained passenger vehicle occupant fatalities, all
seat positions
UC-5 Number of fatalities involving a driver or motorcycle operator
with a BAC over your State's legal limit
UC-6 Number of speeding-related fatalities
UC-7 Number of pedestrian fatalities
Strategic Core Performance Measures
Next, States must select strategic core performance measures from
the below pre-set list if the State includes a corresponding
countermeasure strategy in its 3HSP. These measures are based on State-
specific problem identification tied to countermeasure strategies and
were identified, in part, because relevant data sources are generally
maintained across all states. These measures aim to reduce fatalities
through problem identification and selected program areas tailored to
address State needs. These measures include:
Number of bicyclist and other cyclist fatalities
Number of motorcyclist fatalities
Number of drivers aged 20 or younger involved in fatal crashes
Number of drivers aged 65 and older involved in fatal crashes
Number of fatalities and serious injuries on rural roads
Number of roadside fatalities (first responders, tow-truck
drivers, roadway crew)
State-Developed Performance Measures
Lastly, States will include State-developed performance measures in
their 3HSP. These measures will derive from State problem
identification. They will be necessary to support countermeasure
strategies for which there is no standardized measure of performance
across all States and for which standardized datasets for all States do
not yet exist. By incorporating these metrics, States can address
localized challenges and enhance their overall traffic safety
strategies. These are typically for program areas, countermeasure
strategies, and topics that do not have a universal or strategic core
measure that all States must track but may also be used in addition to
existing measures. In these cases, a universal core measure is not
sufficient on its own. This notice does not contain any required State-
developed performance measures, but the examples below illustrate the
types of performance measures that a State may choose to develop:
Rate of serious injuries per 100 million VMT
Rate of combined fatalities and serious injuries per 100
million VMT
Child Passenger Safety, e.g., the number of improperly
restrained child fatalities
Emergency Medical Services (EMS), e.g., median response time
for severely injured motor vehicle crash patient
Drugged Driving, e.g., toxicology results, percent of DUI
cases tested for drugs other than alcohol
Distracted driving, e.g., observed cell phone/handheld
electronic use for passenger vehicles, driver
Traffic Records, e.g., completeness, accuracy
Additional Requirements
All performance measures must include a baseline documenting
current safety levels, and a performance target that demonstrates
constant or improved performance over the three-year period covered by
the 3HSP with annual benchmarks to assist States in tracking
performance.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ 23 CFR 1300.11(b)(3)(ii)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A SHSO may express a target in terms of annual totals or three- or
five-year rolling averages, depending on what is appropriate for their
State. Below are examples of what this could look like using different
time periods in the FY 2027-2029 3HSP.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current safety
Total fatalities level 2027 Benchmark 2028 Benchmark 2029 Target
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual.......................... 150 (2025 total).. 145 (2027 total).. 140 (2028 total).. 135 (2029 total).
3-year average.................. 155 (2023-2025 150 (2025-2027 145 (2026-2028 140 (2027-2029
average). average). average). average).
5-year average.................. 160 (2021-2025 155 (2023-2027 150 (2024-2028 145 (2025-2029
average). average). average). average).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For all fatality-based measures, FARS data will be used to
determine if fatality-based targets are ultimately met. However, a SHSO
may use State or FARS data to set the current safety level. And a SHSO
may also use State data for the Performance Report section of the 3HSP
and the Annual Report.
V. Best Practices for Performance Management
NHTSA encourages SHSOs to adopt a Safe System Approach and use
robust
[[Page 735]]
procedures to set performance targets. Performance measures set the
stage for an informed discussion of State performance, barriers to
improvement, potential countermeasure strategies, and the expected
benefits of safety activities. SHSOs should expand and engage more
diverse stakeholders when establishing performance targets. Considering
the viewpoints of underserved and overrepresented communities is
critical for setting performance targets.
SHSOs should ensure that performance targets and measures are
developed in cooperative partnerships based on data and objective
information. The SHSO should use the most current available data to
perform a trend analysis to help predict what is likely to happen.
Using a data-driven decision process that accounts for the SHSO's
programming and interventions helps maintain a focus on improvement.
This approach helps make investment and policy decisions to achieve
performance targets.
NHTSA acknowledges that States face many other considerations when
setting performance targets. Each performance target must be treated
individually instead of applying the same formula or giving a blanket
statement about what factors were considered for the entire process.
For example, suppose a primary seat belt law was recently enacted in
your State. In that case, the State could expect to have a higher
decrease in unbelted fatalities compared to other types of fatalities.
When setting targets, SHSOs should consider the following as part
of their justification:
Problem identification and trend analysis
What data sources were considered?
Which sociodemographic sources are considered?
How will the program, countermeasure strategy, and project
selections adjustments help meet the target?
How were underserved and overrepresented communities
considered?
How has the SHSO engaged with stakeholders?
Anticipated levels of effort
Economic conditions
Legislative changes
Political support
Has the State adopted the Safe System approach?
Other local considerations such as other transportation
efforts, employment patterns, weather, demographic changes, and travel
patterns
Illustrative Examples
As a reminder, States are required to provide performance measures
for every countermeasure strategy for programming funds in the 3HSP.
Projects do not require specific performance measures but are instead
associated with performance measures through their corresponding
countermeasure strategy. This section provides context for when a State
may need to submit a State-developed performance measure. For example,
drugged or poly-substance impaired driving is listed as a State-
developed performance measure because data is not consistently
collected across States and territories, and State programs vary. NHTSA
encourages States to look at ways to improve data collection related to
drug impairment and testing. Suppose an SHSO includes a drug-impaired
driving countermeasure strategy within the Impaired Driving program
area. In that case, the State may not rely on the number of fatalities
involving a driver or motorcycle operator with a BAC of .08 and above
universal core performance measure as that measure is specific to
alcohol-impaired driving. Instead, the SHSO must include a State-
developed performance measure related to drugged driving. Other
examples include if the SHSO has a Police Traffic Services program area
that includes multiple topics such as speeding and distracted driving.
In this example, the SHSO may not rely solely on the number of
speeding-related fatalities performance measure. Rather, the SHSO may
need to use a State-developed performance measure such as observed cell
phone/handheld electronic, distracted driving fatalities, or another
measure specific to the State's countermeasure strategies.
Countermeasure strategies for topics such as traffic records may not
rely on the universal core measures because none are relevant to
traffic records. Instead, SHSOs will need to create a State-developed
performance measure such as improvement in accuracy.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ For additional guidance in setting performance measures
related to traffic records system, see Traffic Records Data Quality
Management Guide: Update to the Model Performance Measures for State
Traffic Records Systems, DOT HS 813 544 (Mar 2024). Available online
at https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/813544.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further, even for program areas and countermeasure strategies for
which there is a universal or strategic core performance measure, SHSOs
are strongly encouraged to also develop additional State-developed
performance measures to more specifically address their problem ID when
appropriate. For example:
In addition to UC-7 (number of pedestrian fatalities), a State
could develop a separate measure for pedestrian fatalities for ages 18-
34.
In addition to number of motorcyclist fatalities, a State
could develop a separate measure for number of unhelmeted fatalities.
In addition to UC-4 (number of unrestrained passenger vehicle
occupant fatalities, all seat positions), a State could develop a
separate measure for observed seat belt use for passenger vehicles,
front seat outboard passengers.
In addition to UC-5 (number of fatalities involving a driver
or motorcycle operator with a BAC over your State's legal limit), a
State could develop a separate measure for Number of fatalities in
crashes involving a driver or motorcycle operator with a blood alcohol
concentration (BAC) of .05 and above.
VI. Applicability Date
SHSOs will submit performance measures aligning with this framework
beginning with the 3HSP due to NHTSA on July 1, 2026, covering fiscal
years 2027, 2028 and 2029.
Authority: 49 CFR 1.95 and 501.8(i).
Issued in Washington, DC.
Barbara Sauers,
Associate Administrator, Regional Operations and Program Delivery.
[FR Doc. 2024-31487 Filed 1-3-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P