[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 176 (Tuesday, September 12, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47418-47421]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-22598]



=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Highway Administration
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
[NHTSA Docket No. 93-55, Notice 3]
RIN 2127-AF94


Pilot State Highway Safety Program

agency: Federal Highway Administration and National Highway Traffic 
Safety Administration, DOT.

action: Notice of waiver.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

summary: The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the National 
Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) are announcing the 
creation of a pilot highway safety program for fiscal year 1996 State 
highway safety programs under 23 U.S.C. 402, and the waiver of certain 
procedures for States that have elected to participate in the pilot 
program.

effective date: September 12, 1995.

for further information contact: In NHTSA, Marlene Markison, Office of 
State and Community Services, 202-366-2121; John Donaldson, Office of 
the Chief Counsel, 202-366-1834. In FHWA, Mila Plosky, Office of 
Highway Safety, 202-366-6902; Paul Brennan, Office of the Chief 
Counsel, 202-366-0834.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The Highway Safety Act of 1966 (23 U.S.C. 401 et seq.) established 
a formula 

[[Page 47419]]
grant program to improve highway safety in the States. As a condition 
of the grant, the States must meet certain requirements contained in 23 
U.S.C. 402. Section 402(a) requires each State to have a highway safety 
program, approved by the Secretary of Transportation, which is designed 
to reduce traffic accidents and the deaths, injuries, and property 
damage resulting from those accidents. Section 402(b) sets forth the 
minimum requirements with which each State's highway safety program 
must comply. For example, the Secretary may not approve a program 
unless it provides that the Governor of the State is responsible for 
its administration through a State highway safety agency which has 
adequate powers and is suitably equipped and organized to carry out the 
program to the satisfaction of the Secretary. Additionally, the program 
must authorize political subdivisions of the State to carry out local 
highway safety programs and provide a certain minimum level of funding 
for these local programs each fiscal year. The enforcement of these and 
other requirements is entrusted to the Secretary and, by delegation, to 
FHWA and NHTSA (the agencies).
    The agencies currently administer the program in accordance with an 
implementing regulation, Uniform Procedures for State Highway Safety 
Programs (23 CFR Part 1200) (the Uniform Procedure Rule), which 
contains procedures for the submission, content, and approval of each 
State's Highway Safety Plan and requirements for implementation, 
management, and closeout of each year's Highway Safety Plan. A number 
of other requirements apply to the Section 402 program, including those 
generally appearing in Chapter II of Title 23 CFR and such government-
wide provisions as the Uniform Administrative Requirement for Grants 
and Cooperative Agreements to State and Local Governments (49 CFR Part 
18) and the various Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circulars 
containing cost principles and audit requirements (e.g., OMB Circulars 
A-21, A-87, A-122, A-128, and A-133).
    In the years since enactment of Section 402, States have developed 
and deployed the resources necessary to conduct mature and highly 
effective highway safety programs. The agencies have become aware of 
interest on the part of some States in assuming more responsibility for 
the planning and direction of their programs, with a decreased emphasis 
on detailed Foreign oversight. In response to that interest, and 
consistent with efforts to relieve burdens to the States under the 
President's regulatory reform initiative, the agencies have established 
a pilot program for fiscal year 1996 highway safety programs. The 
details of the pilot program have been discussed at length with the 
States during the planning stages, and appeared in the Appendix to this 
notice. In brief outline, the pilot program replaces the requirement 
for State submission and Federal approval of a Highway Safety Plan with 
a benchmarking process by which the State sets its own performance 
goals.
    The agencies have queried each State about its interest in 
participating in the pilot program for the fiscal year 1996 highway 
safety program. This notice lists those States that have chosen to 
become participants and waives existing procedures for these 
participants, to the extent that they are inconsistent with the pilot 
program, for the duration of fiscal year 1996. This wavier does not 
affect any provisions specifically imposed by statute or by 
publications of Government-wide applicability (e.g., 49 CFR Part 18, 
OMB Circulars). Assuming the pilot program is successful, the agencies 
expect to revise the regulations governing the State highway safety 
program to permanently accommodate the pilot procedures.
States Participating in the Fiscal Year 1996 Pilot Program

    The following States have elected to participate in the pilot 
program for fiscal year 1996:
Alaska
California
Colorado
Delaware
Illinois
Indiana
Maryland
Massachusetts
New York
North Dakota
Ohio
Pennsylvania
South Dakota
Utah
West Virginia
Wisconsin

Waiver

    Any provisions of 23 CFR Chapter II which conflict with the 
procedures of the pilot program are waived for the States listed above 
for fiscal year 1996. Pilot States will instead follow the procedures 
appearing in the Appendix. For example, pilot States will not have to 
seek approval for changes involving transfers of funds between program 
areas or for continuing projects beyond three years. Instead, these 
States may unilaterally move funds between program areas and extend 
projects in accordance with their program needs. However, pilot States 
will still have to submit an updated HS Form 217 reflecting the change, 
in the former case, and follow the increased cost-sharing requirements 
for projects exceeding three years, in the latter case.
    States following the pilot program procedures must continue to 
comply with all statutory requirements contained in 23 U.S.C. 402, and 
the Governor's Representative for Highway Safety shall sign a 
certification statement to that effect. In addition, Federal 
regulations having government-wide applicability will continue to 
apply, and are also referenced in the certification statement to be 
signed by the Governor's Representative for Highway Safety.

    Authority: 23 U.S.C. 315 and 402; 49 CFR 1.48 and 1.50.

    Issued on: September 7, 1995.
Ricardo Martinez,
National Highway Traffic Safety Administrator.
Rodney E. Slater,
Federal Highway Administrator.

Appendix--Fiscal year 1996 Pilot State Highway Safety Program

    A State participating in the pilot program must continue in that 
program through the completion of the highway safety program cycle, 
including submission of the annual evaluation report and final 
voucher.
    Prior to August 1, 1995, the States were advised to prepare a 
planning document describing how the Federal highway safety funds 
will be used consistent with the guidelines, priority areas, and 
other requirements established under Section 402. The planning 
document shall be formally approved and adopted by the Governor's 
Representative for Highway Safety (GR). It serves as the basis for 
the State's development of the financial elements identified in the 
HS Form 217 discussed below. Unlike the Highway Safety Plan, there 
is no requirement that this planning document be approved by NHTSA 
and FHWA. Instead, by August 1, the State planning document is to be 
sent to the NHTSA Regional Administrator (RA) and the FHWA Division 
Administrator (DA) for information. If the RA and/or DA observe 
elements of the plan that are not authorized by section 402 or 
otherwise not in accordance with law, they will notify the State, 
which shall take appropriate corrective action.
    As soon as practicable after August 1, 1995, and in any event 
prior to fund disbursement, the State shall submit (1) a 
certification statement and (2) a benchmark report to NHTSA/FHWA. 
(Note: At the State's option, the planning document, certification 
statement, and benchmark report may be combined into one document.)
    The certification statement, signed by the GR, shall provide 
formal assurances regarding the State's compliance with applicable 
laws and financial and 

[[Page 47420]]
programmatic requirements pertaining to the Federal grant. (To assure 
that States are well informed of their responsibilities, NHTSA and 
FHWA will provide every State with an up-to-date manual (the Highway 
Safety Grant Management Manual) containing pertinent Federal 
requirements and policies.)
    The benchmark report shall have three components:
    1. Process Description--This component shall contain a brief 
description of the process(es) used by the State to: (1) Identify 
its highway safety problems, (2) establish its proposed performance 
goals and (3) develop the programs/projects in its plan.
    The description shall specify the participants in the three 
processes (such as State and local organizations, Highway Safety 
Committees or Task Forces, SMS group, private entities), the data 
and information sources used (including how recent and why 
utilized), and the criteria and/or strategies for program and 
project selections (such as locations or groups targeted due to 
special needs or problems, ongoing activities, training needs). The 
description should focus on links between identified problems, 
performance goals, and activities selected. This Process Description 
need not be lengthy. An annotated flow chart may provide sufficient 
information.
    2. Performance goals--The heart of the benchmark report is the 
State's description of its highway safety performance goals. Each 
State shall establish performance goals (including target dates) and 
identify the performance measures it will use to track progress 
toward each goal and its current (baseline) status with regard to 
these measures.
    A State's selection of appropriate long- and short-term goals 
should evolve from the problem identification process and be 
consistent with guidelines and priority areas established under 
Section 402. It will not be necessary to address all national 
priority areas in the new benchmarking system. While NHTSA is 
required by statute to identify those programs most effective in 
addressing national highway safety priority program areas for the 
use of Section 402 funds, States have latitude to determine their 
own highway safety problems, goals, and program emphasis.
    A State might include goals as broad as ``decreasing alcohol-
related crashes in the State by X percent or X number by year 2010 
from X percent or X number (baseline).'' On the other hand, the 
State goal might be as specific as ``reducing alcohol-related 
deaths/injuries of youth ages 16-20 in the State by X percent of all 
State youth.'' When long-term goals are identified, the State should 
consider setting interim targets.
    Moving from a process to an outcome approach requires that a set 
of outcome measures be established that represent the status of key 
traffic safety programs at the State level, including those programs 
that are National Priority Program Areas which the State has chosen 
to address. There are many sources for these measures. The Fatal 
Accident Reporting System (FARS), restraint usage surveys, State 
emergency medical services and police enforcement systems, and Crash 
Outcome Data Evaluation System (CODES) are examples of the data 
bases from which to select appropriate performance measures. The 
types of data available will vary from State to State. In all cases, 
the measures used must be ones that are reliable, readily available, 
and reasonable in measuring the outcome of a good highway safety 
program.
    Not all items in a State's planning document will directly 
correlate to one specific goal. Certain programs and countermeasures 
have an impact on several goals or on an overall program area. For 
example, Standardized Field Sobriety Testing (SFST) training may 
affect all of a State's alcohol goals. Examples of performance 
measures are included in the final section of this appendix.
    3. HS Form 217, the ``Highway Safety Program Cost Summary''
    This form reflects the State's proposed allocation of funds, 
including carry-forward funds, by program area. The allocations 
shall be based on the State's identified performance goals and its 
planning document. The funding level used shall be an estimate of 
available funding in the upcoming fiscal year. After the exact 
amount of annual Federal funding has been determined, the State 
shall submit the revised or ``initial obligating'' HS Form 217. The 
amount of Federal funds reflected on the revised HS Form 217 shall 
not exceed the obligation limitation. A subsequent revised HS Form 
217 shall be submitted for any changes made by the State to those 
data elements appearing on the form (i.e., program area, P&A 
limitation, 40% local funding, matches).
    Federal approval of each State's highway safety program will be 
in the form of a letter from NHTSA and FHWA to the Governor and GR 
acknowledging the State's submission of a certification statement, 
benchmark report, and planning document that comply with all 
requirements described above.

Annual Evaluation Report

    Within 90 days after the end of the fiscal year, each State 
shall submit an Annual Evaluation Report. This report shall address:
    1. State progress toward performance goals, using performance 
measures identified in the initial fiscal year benchmark report.
    2. Steps taken toward meeting the State goals identified in the 
benchmark report, which may include administrative measures such as 
the number of training courses given and people trained, and the 
number of citations issued for not using child safety seats or 
safety belts; and
    3. Descriptions of State and community projects funded during 
the year.
    States are strongly encouraged to set ambitious goals and 
implement programs to achieve those goals. States will not be 
penalized or sanctioned for not meeting identified performance 
goals. However, where little or no progress toward goals is 
perceived, as described in the annual evaluation report or discussed 
in periodic meetings, NHTSA and FHWA staff will recommend changes in 
strategies, countermeasures, or goals.
    As under the current procedures, there can be no extensions for 
the annual report due date even though a State can request an 
extension of up to 90 days for submission of the final voucher.

Moving From a Process-Dominated to an Outcome-Based Approach

    Implementation of this new approach will establish new roles and 
relationships for both Federal and State participants. The 
involvement of the NHTSA and FHWA field staff in the operational 
aspects of a State highway safety program will entail a minimum of 
two formal strategic planning meetings per year to discuss 
implementation issues and needs that NHTSA/FHWA can meet. During 
these sessions, the regional, division and State representatives 
will review each State's progress toward identifying and meeting its 
goals and will discuss and negotiate strategies being used.
    The degree and level of technical assistance in functional 
matters provided by NHTSA and FHWA will be determined at these 
meetings. National and regional NHTSA and FHWA staff have special 
expertise and can provide a national perspective on outcome 
approaches (best practices, newest countermeasures), marketing, 
training, data analysis, evaluation, financial management, and 
program development. (Of course, these same regional services will 
be available to States choosing to continue working under the 
existing HSP procedures.)

Examples of Performance Measures

    This section contains examples of highway safety performance 
measures to assist States in formulating their goals. In addition to 
those identified below, other measures might include societal costs, 
CODES data, hospital head injury and similar injury data, etc. 
Measures must be reliable, readily available, and reasonable as 
representing the outcome of a good highway safety program. (The 
national FARS average or norm for each measure, if available, 
appears in parentheses.)

Overall Highway Safety Indices

State fatality rate per 100M vehicle miles (1.7)
% motor vehicle collisions with non-motor vehicle (17%)
Number of pedestrians or bicyclists injured or killed

Alcohol

Drivers in fatal crashes with BACs > .00, .08, .10 (State limit)
Drivers in fatal crashes, ages 15-20, with BACs> .00, .08, .10 
(State limit)
% alcohol-related crashes (42%)
% alcohol-related fatalities
% alcohol-related injuries
Conviction rates for DUI/DWI

Occupant Protection

% motor vehicle occupants (MVO) restrained (National State Survey 
67%)
% MVO fatalities restrained (35%)
% MVO injuries restrained
% MVO youth fatalities (age 15-20) restrained (35%)

Child Safety

% MVO fatalities age 0-4 restrained (70%)
% MVO injuries age 0-4 restrained

[[Page 47421]]

% MVO fatalities age 0-4 unrestrained

Emergency Medical Services

Time of crash to hospital treatment (60 min or less)
Time of crash to response time (arrival at crash site)

Motorcycle Safety

% motorcyclists helmeted (restraint survey)
% motorcycle fatalities helmeted (60%)
% motorcycle injuries helmeted
% motorcycle fatalities with properly licensed drivers (41%)
% motorcycle fatalities alcohol-involved (51%)
% motorcycle injuries alcohol-involved
Number of fatal or serious head injuries

Pedestrian Safety

Number/% urban predestrain fatalities at intersections or crossings 
(35%)
Number/% alcohol-impaired pedestrian fatalities 16 yrs and older 
(36%)
Number/% total fatalities or serious injuries that are pedestrian in 
given jurisdiction
Number/% urban pedestrian injuries
Number/% rural pedestrian injuries

Bicycle Safety

% pedacycle fatalities helmeted (no national norm)
% pedacycle fatalities ages 26-39 alcohol-impaired (26%)

Speed

% fatal crashes with speed as a contributing factor (31%)
Number of speed-related fatalities / fatal crashes
Monitoring changes in average speeds overall and on specific types 
of roadways (interstate, other 55-60 mph roads)

Youth

(National performance measures from above plus:)
% drivers ages 15-20 in fatal crashes with BACs >.01 (40%)
% drivers ages 15-20 injured in crashes with BACs >.01
Total fatalities per 100K involving registered drivers, ages 15-20
Total fatalities per 100 million VMT for youth, ages 15-20
Total injuries per 100K registered drivers, ages 15-20
Total injuries per 100 million VMT for youth, ages 15-20
% MVO fatalities, ages 15-20, restrained (35%)

Police Traffic Services

(See subject categories)

Roadway Safety

Work zone fatalities
Work zone injuries (included M.V. occupants, peds, & work personnel)
Number of Highway-railroad grade crossing crashes--number of 
injuries or fatalities
Number of flaggers injured or killed
Number of workers injured or killed

Traffic Records

Number of personnel trained in record collection, data input, and 
data analysis
Number of high accident locations identified and improved
Unknown % for occupant protection fatalities (10%)
Unknown/untested % for fatal driver BAC (30%)
Unknown % of time of crash to hospital arrival (50%)
Entering data within a specific time
Linking data systems

Injury Prevention Goals

(See subject categories)

[FR Doc. 95-22598 Filed 9-7-95; 2:03 pm]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-M