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


This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.