```

[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
```