[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