[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 173 (Thursday, September 5, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 46895-46897]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-22691]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Highway Administration
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
[NHTSA Docket No. 93-55, Notice 4]
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
extension of a pilot highway safety program for fiscal year 1997 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 5, 1996.
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; Raymond Cuprill, Office of the Chief
Counsel, 202-366-1377.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The Highway Safety Act of 1966 (23 U.S.C. 401 et seq.) established
a formula 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 administer the program in accordance with an
implementing regulation, Uniform Procedures for State Highway Safety
Programs (23 CFR Part 1200) (the Uniform Procedures 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 Federal 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 established a
pilot program for fiscal year 1996 highway safety programs. The details
of the pilot program were discussed at length with the States during
the planning stages, and published in the Federal Register on September
12, 1995 (60 F.R. 47418). In brief outline, the pilot program replaced
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 success of the fiscal year 1996 pilot program has brought about
increased State interest in participation. Consequently, the agencies
have decided to extend the pilot program through fiscal year 1997. The
pilot program procedures remain unchanged for fiscal year 1997, and
appear in the appendix to this notice.
The agencies have queried each Section 402 grantee about its
interest in participating in the pilot program for the fiscal year 1997
highway safety program. This notice lists those States and territories
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 1997. This waiver
does not affect any provisions specifically imposed by statute or by
publications of Government-wide applicability (e.g., 49 CFR Part 18,
OMB Circulars). Based on the success of the pilot program, the agencies
plan to revise the regulations governing the State highway safety
program to permanently accommodate the pilot procedures.
States Participating in the Fiscal Year 1997 Pilot Program
The following States and territories have elected to participate in
the pilot program for fiscal year 1997:
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
New Mexico
New Jersey
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Northern Marianas
Ohio
Pennsylvania
Puerto Rico
[[Page 46896]]
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Virgin Islands
Virginia
Washington
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 1997. 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: August 30, 1996.
Ricardo Martinez,
National Highway Traffic Safety Administrator.
Rodney E. Slater,
Federal Highway Administrator.
Appendix--Fiscal Year 1997 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 report and final voucher.
Prior to August 1, 1996, 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, 1996, 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 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, local, and grassroots 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 databases
from which States may 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 an effective 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.
[[Page 46897]]
Annual Report
Within 90 days after the end of the fiscal year, each State
shall submit an Annual 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 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 an effective 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
Number of drivers in fatal crashes with BACs > .00, .08, .10 (State
limit)
Number of drivers in fatal crashes, ages 15-20, with BACs> .00, .08,
.10 (State limit)
Number of alcohol-related fatal crashes
% alcohol-related fatal 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 (ages 15-20) restrained (35%)
Child Safety
% MVO fatalities age 0-4 restrained (70%)
% MVO injuries age 0-4 restrained
% 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 pedestrian 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. 96-22691 Filed 9-4-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P; 4910-22-P
