Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 3 / Monday, January 6, 2025 / Notices 731 

4See Morgan 3 Wheeler Limited; Denial of 

Petition for Decision of Inconsequential 

Noncompliance, 81 FR 21663, 21666 (Apr. 12, 

2016); see also United States v. Gen. Motors Corp., 

565 F.2d 754, 759 (D.C. Cir. 1977) (finding defect 

poses an unreasonable risk when it ‘‘results in 

hazards as potentially dangerous as sudden engine 

fire, and where there is no dispute that at least some 

such hazards, in this case fires, can definitely be 

expected to occur in the future’’). 

1 23 U.S.C. 402(k)(4)(A). 

2 Id. 

3 ‘‘Traffic Safety Performance Measures for States 

and Federal Agencies’’ (DOT HS 811 025) (August 

2008). 

not mean vehicle occupants have not 

experienced a safety issue, nor does it 

mean that there will not be safety issues 

in the future.4 Further, because each 

inconsequential noncompliance petition 

must be evaluated on its own facts and 

determinations are highly factdependent, NHTSA does not consider 

prior determinations as binding 

precedent. Petitioners have the burden 

of persuading NHTSA that the 

noncompliance is inconsequential to 

safety. 

NHTSA has evaluated the merits of 

the inconsequential noncompliance 

petition submitted by Transamerica and 

grants the petitioner’s request for an 

exemption from the notification and 

remedy requirements of 49 U.S.C. 30118 

and 49 U.S.C. 30120 based on the 

following: 

1. NHTSA believes, based on 

information provided by the 

manufacturer, that the tires otherwise 

meet the performance criteria of FMVSS 

No. 119 and that the subject labeling 

noncompliance likely has no effect on 

the operational safety and performance 

of the affected tires. 

2. NHTSA agrees that the additional 

characters in the TIN do not affect the 

ability of the manufacturer or consumer 

to identify the affected tires in the event 

of a recall. The agency has also verified 

with the manufacturer that the affected 

tires with additional characters in the 

TIN may be registered. Transamerica 

has also ensured that any future safety 

related recalls will include the 

incorrectly marked TIN numbers if 

needed. 

This grant exempts Transamerica 

from its obligations under 49 U.S.C. 

30118 and 30120 to provide notification 

of, and a free remedy for, the 

noncompliance with FMVSS No. 119. 

However, erroneous TIN marking is also 

a violation of 49 CFR part 574. Grants 

of petitions for inconsequential 

noncompliance do not absolve entities 

subject to regulations other than the 

FMVSS from their obligations under 

those regulations. Although NHTSA has 

chosen not to do so in this instance, 

NHTSA may consider seeking civil 

penalties in the future for violations of 

part 574 by tire manufacturers and 

importers. 

VII. NHTSA’s Decision 

In consideration of the foregoing, 

NHTSA finds that Transamerica has met 

its burden of persuasion that the subject 

FMVSS No. 119 noncompliance in the 

affected tires is inconsequential to 

motor vehicle safety. Accordingly, 

Transamerica’s petition is hereby 

granted and Transamerica is 

consequently exempted from the 

obligation of providing notification of, 

and a free remedy for, that 

noncompliance under 49 U.S.C. 30118 

and 30120. 

NHTSA notes that the statutory 

provisions (49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 

30120(h)) that permit manufacturers to 

file petitions for a determination of 

inconsequentiality allow NHTSA to 

exempt manufacturers only from the 

duties found in sections 30118 and 

30120, respectively, to notify owners, 

purchasers, and dealers of a defect or 

noncompliance and to remedy the 

defect or noncompliance. Therefore, this 

decision only applies to the subject tires 

that Transamerica no longer controlled 

at the time it determined that the 

noncompliance existed. However, the 

granting of this petition does not relieve 

tire distributors and dealers of the 

prohibitions on the sale, offer for sale, 

or introduction or delivery for 

introduction into interstate commerce of 

the noncompliant tires under their 

control after Transamerica notified them 

that the subject noncompliance existed. 

(Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120; 

delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.95 and 

501.8) 

Otto G. Matheke III, 

Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance. 

[FR Doc. 2024–31753 Filed 1–3–25; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

[Docket No. NHTSA–2024–0037] 

Uniform Procedures for State Highway 

Safety Grant Programs 

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: barbara.sauers@

dot.gov. 

For legal issues: Megan Brown, 

Attorney Advisor, Litigation & General 

Law, Office of the Chief Counsel, 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590; 

Telephone number: (202) 366–1834; 

Email: Megan.Brown@dot.gov 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

II. Performance Measure Development 

III. Comment Response 

IV. Performance Measure Framework 

V. Best Practices for Performance 

Management 

VI. Applicability Date 

I. Background 

Roadway deaths are unacceptable and 

preventable and State Highway Safety 

Office (SHSO) officials have a critical 

role in eliminating crashes that result in 

deaths and serious injuries. Performance 

management is a vital tool for States to 

use in developing and implementing 

their highway traffic safety programs. 

Performance measures increase 

transparency and can help improve 

program outcomes by providing a 

greater understanding of how safety 

issues are being addressed with 

highway safety grant funds. This notice 

sets forth the revised minimum 

performance measures that SHSO will 

use in their triennial Highway Safety 

Plans (3HSP) to develop and implement 

their programs. 

The highway safety grant program 

statute 1 requires States to submit 

performance measures to support State 

safety goals and for each 

countermeasure strategy for 

programming funds that a State includes 

in its 3HSP. These performance 

measures must demonstrate constant or 

improved performance and provide 

documentation of the current safety 

levels for each performance measure, 

quantifiable performance targets for 

each performance measure, and a 

justification for each performance 

target.2

NHTSA first established minimum 

performance measures in coordination 

with the Governor’s Highway Safety 

Association (GHSA) in 2008.3 Congress 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with NOTICES
732 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 3 / Monday, January 6, 2025 / Notices 

4 23 U.S.C. 402(k)(4)(A). 

5www.regulations.gov/document/NHTSA–2024– 

0037–0001/comment. 

6AAMVA; 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. 

7AASHTO; Fines and Fees Justice Center; GHSA; 

Idaho Office of Highway Safety; The League of 

American Bicyclists; National Safety Council; 

Vision Zero Network. 

8AASHTO; Georgia Governor’s Office of Highway 

Safety; GHSA. 

9 87 FR 56756, 56767 (Sept. 15, 2022); 88 FR 

7780, 7788 (Feb. 6, 2023). 

mandated the use of performance 

measures for all States in MAP–21 and 

continued the requirements under the 

FAST Act and BIL. Under statute, 

NHTSA must develop minimum 

performance measures in consultation 

with GHSA.4 Beginning with fiscal year 

(FY) 2010 HSPs, submitted to NHTSA in 

July 2009, all States and territories 

voluntarily agreed to include fourteen 

minimum performance measures. States 

were required to report targets 

beginning with their FY 2014 HSPs. In 

2014, NHTSA and GHSA added a 

fifteenth measure addressing bicyclist 

fatalities. 

This year, NHTSA, in consultation 

with GHSA, undertook the first 

comprehensive update of the minimum 

performance measures since they were 

originally published in 2008. This 

notice contains a description of that 

process and the resulting updated 

minimum performance measures. 

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

Several commenters 6 submitted 

comments about NHTSA’s programs 

and activities that fall outside the scope 

of this performance measure effort and 

will not be addressed further in this 

document. NHTSA appreciates those 

comments and will consider them 

where appropriate. 

Many commenters submitted broad 

comments about the nature of NHTSA’s 

performance measure program and how 

performance measures should be used. 

Several commenters 7 recommended 

that NHTSA ensure that the Safe System 

Approach is integrated into DOT grants. 

NHTSA encourages States to adopt the 

Safe System approach and incorporate 

its principles into their performance 

management framework. AASHTO 

requested that the revisions to the 

minimum performance measures 

decrease associated burdens and costs 

on the State. The performance measure 

framework developed and laid out in 

this notice was developed to provide 

States with increased flexibility to use 

performance measures that are most 

useful to their program. That increased 

flexibility should decrease burden. In 

addition, NHTSA plans to deploy an 

electronic grants management system 

(eGrants) that SHSOs will use to submit 

the 3HSPs due on July 1, 2026. NHTSA 

expects that eGrants will further 

streamline the process for submitting 

and reporting on performance measure 

information provided to NHTSA. 

Finally, GHSA recommended that 

NHTSA create resources and provide 

technical assistance to States to 

empower States in better programspecific evaluations. NHTSA currently 

offers training to States through the 

Transportation Safety Institute (TSI) on 

program evaluation and NHTSA’s 

Regional Offices are available to provide 

technical assistance. 

Many commenters 8 stressed the 

diversity and unique safety needs and 

priorities across States, and asked 

NHTSA to allow flexibility. The 

proposed framework allows States to 

select strategic core measures specific to 

their problem identification and to set 

other State-developed performance 

measures specific to their needs. 

Healthy by Design argued that States 

should not be allowed to establish 

targets that anticipate an increase in 

fatalities. Conversely, AAMVA, the 

Georgia Governor’s Office of Highway 

Safety, and GHSA all argued that the 

BIL’s requirement for constant and 

improved performance has divorced 

performance targets from the data and 

has imposed penalties, such as 

increased oversight, on States that fail to 

meet their targets. AAMVA, AASHTO, 

and GHSA also argued that performance 

measures should be limited to areas 

where SHSOs have direct control over 

outcomes. As NHTSA has previously 

emphasized, 9 NHTSA strongly 

disagrees that constant or improved 

performance targets are contrary to the 

data or that States lack the ability to 

influence safety numbers. Targets 

should reflect the outcomes that States 

expect to achieve after implementing 

their planned programs. If a projected 

outcome shows worsening safety levels, 

the State needs to change its planned 

program. Further, BIL requires States to 

submit only constant or improved 

performance measures, so NHTSA does 

not have the discretion to allow States 

to set worsening targets. 

Some commenters suggested various 

combinations of required measures 

based on measures currently required by 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 3 / Monday, January 6, 2025 / Notices 733 

10Separately, the Idaho Office of Highway Safety 

also said that States should only be required to 

submit four of the five measures required by 

FHWA. 

11AASHTO; 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. 

12 Detroit Greenways Coalition; Healthy by 

Design; League of American Bicyclists; Vizion Zero 

Network. 

13See 23 U.S.C. 402(k)(4)(A). 

both NHTSA and FHWA. GHSA and the 

Idaho Office of Highway Safety said that 

States should only be required to submit 

to NHTSA the five measures already 

required by FHWA.10 In this new 

framework, NHTSA requires three of the 

FHWA measures (number of fatalities, 

rate of fatalities, and number of serious 

injuries) as universal core performance 

measures. Healthy by Design requested 

that the rate of serious injuries and 

number of non-motorized injuries be 

classified as core performance measures. 

Those two measures are programdependent, and their use will vary by 

State. As such, they are classified as 

State-developed performance measures 

that States can include if they have 

relevant programs and countermeasures. 

Six commenters 11 requested that 

NHTSA remove the activity measures 

that were included in the minimum 

performance measures established in 

2008, and that NHTSA not include any 

measures that incentivize law 

enforcement quota systems. Center for 

Policing Equity requested that NHTSA 

not include any measures that 

incentivize law enforcement quota 

systems but asked that NHTSA include 

new activity measures specific to law 

enforcement activities, including nontraditional enforcement actions. The 

League of American Bicyclists requested 

that NHTSA add an activity measure 

related to interagency collaboration on 

priority issues. NHTSA has removed all 

activity measures requirements from 

this new performance measure 

framework. However, State-developed 

performance measures may include 

activity measures. 

Various commenters requested 

specific performance measures. The 

Georgia Governor’s Office of Highway 

Safety recommended that NHTSA 

include performance measures for all 

nationally prioritized program areas. 

Both the Policing Project at New York 

University School of Law and the joint 

comment of Vera Institute of Justice, 

Color of Change, and the Center for 

American Progress recommended that 

NHTSA include performance measures 

specific to details of pursuit by law 

enforcement and traffic stops. Healthy 

by Design recommended that NHTSA 

consider adding a measure related to 

geographic location and post-crash care 

injury severity and treatment. The 

League of American Bicyclists and 

Vision Zero Network both 

recommended a performance measure 

related to observed speeding behavior. 

The Georgia Governor’s Office of 

Highway Safety recommended a 

measure of ‘‘suspected: distracted 

driving crashes.’’ In this update of the 

performance measure framework, 

NHTSA was guided in large part by a 

desire to provide States with flexibility 

to implement programs in response to 

their unique safety problems, while also 

maintaining a discrete set of universal 

and strategic core performance measures 

that prioritize national-level issues that 

are addressed by States. As a result, 

NHTSA did not create performance 

measures at the level of detail requested 

by these commenters. However, States 

may choose to create these and other 

performance measures as a Statedeveloped performance measure. 

Four commenters 12 recommended 

that NHTSA add expanded measures 

relating to pedestrian and bicyclist 

safety, including separate non-motorist 

fatalities and serious injuries 

performance measures. The Idaho Office 

of Highway Safety, however, 

recommended that NHTSA remove the 

combined fatality and serious injury 

performance measure. In order to allow 

States flexibility to address the 

demonstrated safety problems in their 

State, NHTSA has identified nonmotorist fatalities as a strategic core 

performance measure that is required 

for any State that has an identified nonmotorist safety problem and 

countermeasure strategy. In addition, 

States may create a State-developed 

performance measure for other, more 

specific, non-motorist issues. 

GHSA noted that if NHTSA opts to 

create a performance measure related to 

the grant program’s statutory public 

participation and engagement 

requirements, that performance measure 

should be tied to the State’s efforts to 

reach underrepresented communities, 

not how much funding those 

communities receive. The joint 

comment from Vera Institute of Justice, 

Color of Change, and the Center for 

American Progress recommended that 

NHTSA develop operational metrics of 

community engagement to assess level 

and type of engagement that went into 

the State’s highway safety planning 

process. Section 402 places performance 

measures within the context of a State’s 

safety levels.13 As a result, NHTSA does 

not have authority to require States to 

provide performance measures related 

to public participation. That said, 

NHTSA notes that NHTSA assesses 

State efforts in public participation and 

engagement as part of the 3HSP review 

process and through the Annual Report. 

AAMVA, AASHTO, and the Georgia 

Governor’s Office of Highway Safety 

requested that NHTSA allow States to 

consider additional target-setting 

methods beyond the rolling average. 

The Georgia Governor’s Office of 

Highway Safety and Idaho Office of 

Public Safety requested that States be 

allowed to choose whether to express a 

target in terms of annual totals, or a 

three-or five-year rolling average. Under 

the new framework, States have the 

flexibility to choose the time period that 

is most appropriate for their State 

provided the target covers the 3HSP 

period. See the ‘‘Additional 

Requirements’’ section for additional 

information. The Georgia Governor’s 

Office of Highway Safety and Vision 

Zero Network argued that measures 

should be normalized by the 

appropriate denominator to show true 

progress (e.g., population, licensed 

drivers, or VMT), especially for States 

with significant population changes. 

This can be addressed by States in their 

development of State-developed 

performance measures. 

IV. Performance Measure Framework 

Program-Driven Performance Measure 

Framework 

In this document, NHTSA establishes 

an updated behavioral highway safety 

program-driven performance measure 

framework. This updated framework 

creates three categories of performance 

measures. Each of these categories are 

equally important and identifies 

required or recommended measures 

based on the State’s program and the 

availability of standardized data. The 

three categories are: 

(1) Universal core performance 

measures—measures required for all 

States. These universal core 

performance measures cover problem 

areas for which all recipients currently 

include countermeasure strategies. 

(2) Strategic core performance 

measures—measures required for all 

States that have a corresponding 

countermeasure strategy in their 3HSP. 

These measures are required based on 

State-specific problem identification 

tied to countermeasure strategies. 

(3) State-developed performance 

measures—additional measures 

developed by States based on their 

specific problem identification and tied 

to their countermeasure strategies. 

As described in more detail, above, 

there was a general consensus among 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with NOTICES
734 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 3 / Monday, January 6, 2025 / Notices 

14 23 CFR 1300.11(b)(3)(ii)(B). 

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 Statedeveloped performance measures in 

their 3HSP. These measures will derive 

from State problem identification. They 

will be necessary to support 

countermeasure strategies for which 

there is no standardized measure of 

performance across all States and for 

which standardized datasets for all 

States do not yet exist. By incorporating 

these metrics, States can address 

localized challenges and enhance their 

overall traffic safety strategies. These are 

typically for program areas, 

countermeasure strategies, and topics 

that do not have a universal or strategic 

core measure that all States must track 

but may also be used in addition to 

existing measures. In these cases, a 

universal core measure is not sufficient 

on its own. This notice does not contain 

any required State-developed 

performance measures, but the 

examples below illustrate the types of 

performance measures that a State may 

choose to develop: 

• Rate of serious injuries per 100 

million VMT 

• Rate of combined fatalities and 

serious injuries per 100 million VMT 

• Child Passenger Safety, e.g., the 

number of improperly restrained 

child fatalities 

• Emergency Medical Services (EMS), 

e.g., median response time for 

severely injured motor vehicle crash 

patient 

• Drugged Driving, e.g., toxicology 

results, percent of DUI cases tested for 

drugs other than alcohol 

• Distracted driving, e.g., observed cell 

phone/handheld electronic use for 

passenger vehicles, driver 

• Traffic Records, e.g., completeness, 

accuracy 

Additional Requirements 

All performance measures must 

include a baseline documenting current 

safety levels, and a performance target 

that demonstrates constant or improved 

performance over the three-year period 

covered by the 3HSP with annual 

benchmarks to assist States in tracking 

performance.14

A SHSO may express a target in terms 

of annual totals or three- or five-year 

rolling averages, depending on what is 

appropriate for their State. Below are 

examples of what this could look like 

using different time periods in the FY 

2027–2029 3HSP. 

Total fatalities Current safety level 2027 Benchmark 2028 Benchmark 2029 Target 

Annual ............................... 150 (2025 total) ................. 145 (2027 total) ................. 140 (2028 total) ................. 135 (2029 total). 

3-year average .................. 155 (2023–2025 average) 150 (2025–2027 average) 145 (2026–2028 average) 140 (2027–2029 average). 

5-year average .................. 160 (2021–2025 average) 155 (2023–2027 average) 150 (2024–2028 average) 145 (2025–2029 average). 

For all fatality-based measures, FARS 

data will be used to determine if 

fatality-based targets are ultimately met. 

However, a SHSO may use State or 

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 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 3 / Monday, January 6, 2025 / Notices 735 

15For 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. 

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 drugimpaired driving countermeasure 

strategy within the Impaired Driving 

program area. In that case, the State may 

not rely on the number of fatalities 

involving a driver or motorcycle 

operator with a BAC of .08 and above 

universal core performance measure as 

that measure is specific to alcoholimpaired driving. Instead, the SHSO 

must include a State-developed 

performance measure related to drugged 

driving. Other examples include if the 

SHSO has a Police Traffic Services 

program area that includes multiple 

topics such as speeding and distracted 

driving. In this example, the SHSO may 

not rely solely on the number of 

speeding-related fatalities performance 

measure. Rather, the SHSO may need to 

use a State-developed performance 

measure such as observed cell phone/ 

handheld electronic, distracted driving 

fatalities, or another measure specific to 

the State’s countermeasure strategies. 

Countermeasure strategies for topics 

such as traffic records may not rely on 

the universal core measures because 

none are relevant to traffic records. 

Instead, SHSOs will need to create a 

State-developed performance measure 

such as improvement in accuracy.15

Further, even for program areas and 

countermeasure strategies for which 

there is a universal or strategic core 

performance measure, SHSOs are 

strongly encouraged to also develop 

additional State-developed performance 

measures to more specifically address 

their problem ID when appropriate. For 

example: 

• In addition to UC–7 (number of 

pedestrian fatalities), a State could 

develop a separate measure for 

pedestrian fatalities for ages 18–34. 

• In addition to number of motorcyclist 

fatalities, a State could develop a 

separate measure for number of 

unhelmeted fatalities. 

• In addition to UC–4 (number of 

unrestrained passenger vehicle 

occupant fatalities, all seat positions), 

a State could develop a separate 

measure for observed seat belt use for 

passenger vehicles, front seat 

outboard passengers. 

• In addition to UC–5 (number of 

fatalities involving a driver or 

motorcycle operator with a BAC over 

your State’s legal limit), a State could 

develop a separate measure for 

Number of fatalities in crashes 

involving a driver or motorcycle 

operator with a blood alcohol 

concentration (BAC) of .05 and above. 

VI. Applicability Date 

SHSOs will submit performance 

measures aligning with this framework 

beginning with the 3HSP due to NHTSA 

on July 1, 2026, covering fiscal years 

2027, 2028 and 2029. 

Authority: 49 CFR 1.95 and 501.8(i). 

Issued in Washington, DC. 

Barbara Sauers, 

Associate Administrator, Regional Operations 

and Program Delivery. 

[FR Doc. 2024–31487 Filed 1–3–25; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

[Docket No. NHTSA–2019–0042; Notice 2] 

Gillig, LLC, Grant of Petition for 

Decision of Inconsequential 

Noncompliance 

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA), 

Department of Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Grant of petition. 

SUMMARY: Gillig LLC, determined that 

certain model year (MY) 2013–2019 

Gillig Low Floor buses do not fully 

comply with Federal Motor Vehicle 

Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 102, 

Transmission Shift Position Sequence, 

Starter Interlock, and Transmission 

Braking Effect. Gillig filed a 

noncompliance report dated April 1, 

2019, and later amended the report on 

April 23, 2019. Gillig subsequently 

petitioned NHTSA on May 8, 2019, for 

a decision that the subject 

noncompliance is inconsequential as it 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with NOTICES