Detailed Information on the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration - Operations and Research Assessment

Implement the Early Fatality Notification System (FastFARS), bringing the system operational with verified accurate data. FY 2008 ACTION PLAN: All 50 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico are entering (near 'real-time') data on the number of fatalities resulting from motor vehicle traffic crashes. NHTSA will begin to utilize these initial data to provide early estimates of fatalities in CY2008. NHTSA will continue evaluating, improving, assisting in reporting corrections and providing training as needed. NHTSA will continue to refine the statistical procedures for adjustments to the notification data using historical fatal count data for publication of fatality estimates. These early fatality estimates will enable the Agency to provide Congress and States with timely information, to report on progress toward meeting agency and Departmental goals, to assist States in their safety programs, and to inform the public about the State of highway safety, as well as to provide guidance to agency program offices in shaping effective countermeasures and communication plans. FUTURE ACTIONS: The ultimate goals for FastFARS are to achieve fatality counts with a lag-time of thirty days for all fatalities and within one week after National holidays. With this information, the agency will be able to provide states with important information in time that they can use to improve their highway safety programs within months, rather than over a year later. FastFARS is projected to be fully operational by the end of second quarter of FY 2009. As an evolutionary program, the estimations of fatalities and improvement of the FastFARS system will continue until 100% of all police reported crash fatalities are reported to FastFARS within the prescribed dates.

Implement its Motorcycle Safety Program Plan to identify methods and strategies for improving motorcycle safety (Ongoing, with new goals established for each FY). FY 2008 Action Plan: In FY 2008 NHTSA will evaluate European motorcycle helmet standard ECE 22.05 attenuation test procedure and compare it to the DOT FMVSS 218 test procedure. As part of this research the use of ISO head forms in FMVSS 218 will be evaluated. Additionally, the Agency will develop an NPRM to strengthen the motorcycle helmet labeling requirements (FMVSS No. 218), as well as vehicle safety approaches to reduce the number of fatalities associated with motorcycle crashes. The Agency will transmit a report to Congress on the findings of a study of educational and other activities targeted at reducing impaired riding as mandated by Section 2003 (g) of SAFETEA-LU (COMPLETED 12/26/07). NHTSA will develop and test communication campaigns to increase the awareness of motorcyclists and to reach older motorcyclists, begin the development of national standards for entry level motorcycle rider training, complete the development and testing of a law enforcement training program designed to educate police on efforts they can take to reduce motorcycle crashes, and continue to incorporate motorcycle operators in HVE impaired-driving crackdowns, as well as complete and distribute updated motorcycle licensing guidance to State Motor Vehicle Administrators. NHTSA will convene a meeting to examine different approaches for evaluating initial entry motorcycle training, will initiate data collection on the Motorcycle Crash Causation Pilot Study, and will initiate a research study using eye-tracking technology to explore sight distance among motorcycle operators with varying levels of experience. Additionally, the Agency will initiate an evaluation of the effectiveness of high visibility enforcement coupled with increased communications in reducing impaired motorcycle operation. Additionally, NHTSA has established a new intermediate measure to reduce the percentage of improperly licensed motorcyclists involved in fatal crashes which will be effective in FY 2008.

Increase funding for fatality data analysis to ensure that DOT has timely and accurate fatalities statistic. FY 2005 ACTION PLAN: The initial funding of FastFARS in FY2005 was used to document the current data notification systems in the field, to develop a case management system, perform two pilot tests, and establish and train the FARS analysts in the procedures to go from a reactive system (e.g. awaiting a police crash report submission to the FARS analyst) to a proactive system (the analyst seeks out fatal crashes). in all 50 States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. FUTURE ACTIONS: The ultimate goals for FastFARS are to achieve fatality counts with a lag-time of thirty days for all fatalities and within one week after National holidays. With this information, the agency will be able to provide states with important information in time that they can use to improve their highway safety programs within months, rather than over a year later. During the next FY (2006), NHTSA will design and establish the infrastructure for FastFARS, and initiate data collection from the providers of fatality data, the 50 States and territories.

INITIAL: Conduct a review of completed safety evaluations to determine the effectiveness of programs in contributing to safety goals (Compendium of NHTSA evaluations published 01/2005). FOLLOW-ON: Annually, conduct safety evaluations of new safety technologies and programs, and recently passed regulations (COMPLETED ANNUALLY). NHTSA uses evaluations to determine the program success, estimate costs and benefits to the public, and identify opportunities for new safety technologies to improve the effectiveness of programs and regulations. Electronic Stability Control (ESC), initially installed in SUVs and a few expensive passenger cars was evaluated and found to be highly effective. NHTSA initiated rulemaking actions, and ESC will now be a required feature in all passenger cars, multipurpose vehicles, trucks and buses with a gross vehicle weight of 10,000 pounds or less that are by manufactured by 9/1/2011. A recent study of side impact air bags (2007) showed them to be very effective. NHTSA issued the NPRM for the pole impact test in 2004, and issued the final rule 9/11/07. In FY 2007, NHTSA completed an analysis of ESC systems, side impact protection/side air bags (i.e. the upgrade of the side structure in passenger cars, the installation of energy absorbing padding within the door structure, torso air bags that provide a cushion between the occupant's torso and the vehicle side structure), and head-impact test performance before and after the 1999-2003 upgrade of Standard 201 (i.e. head-protection air bags that cushion head impacts with the vehicle's side structure). For FY 2008, the Agency will perform a national statistical analysis of impaired-driving trends; analyze the reasons for higher belt use in selected States; and evaluate daytime running lights. For FY 2009, NHTSA will evaluate State motorcycle safety programs and the adequacy of current vehicle interiors for older occupants.

Implement its Motorcycle Safety Program Plan to identify methods and strategies for improving motorcycle safety (Ongoing, with new goals established for each FY). FY 2005 Action Plan: During 2005, NHTSA implemented the 2003 Motorcycle Safety Plan and its various methods and strategies to reduce the motorcycle fatality rate. NHTSA evaluated the effects of the helmet repeal law in Florida (COMPLETED 08/2005).

Implement the Early Fatality Notification System (FastFARS), bringing the system operational with verified accurate data. FY 2006 ACTION PLAN: During FY 2006, NHTSA focused efforts on data collection, designing analytical approaches for data dissemination, and developing plans for continued operation of FastFARS. In January of FY 2006, all 50 states and the District of Columbia started entering basic data into the case management system. FUTURE ACTIONS: The ultimate goals for FastFARS are to achieve fatality counts with a lag-time of thirty days for all fatalities and within one week after National holidays. With this information, the agency will be able to provide states with important information in time that they can use to improve their highway safety programs within months, rather than over a year later. During the next FY (2007) NHTSA will collect data and institute improvements, as needed of the data and of the data collection tool and procedures.

Implement the Early Fatality Notification System (FastFARS), bringing the system operational with verified accurate data. FY 2007 ACTION PLAN: In FY2007, NHTSA used the initial data from the case management system to improve upon the reporting of fatalities. These tasks included: identifying causes of delay in law enforcement reporting; correcting identified gaps; developing new methodologies for faster data collection; designing analytical approaches for data dissemination; and, developing plans for continued operation of the program. The NHTSA regional offices began working with law enforcement agencies to refine the reporting of fatality count data where the lagtime in reporting fatal crashes has been identified as a problem across each of the 50 States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. FUTURE ACTIONS: The ultimate goals for FastFARS are to achieve fatality counts with a lag-time of thirty days for all fatalities and within one week after National holidays. With this information, the agency will be able to provide states with important information in time that they can use to improve their highway safety programs within months, rather than over a year later. During the next FY (2008), NHTSA will continue evaluating, improving, assisting in reporting corrections and providing training, as needed. NHTSA will continue to refine the statistical procedures for adjustments to the notification data using historical fatal count data for publication of fatality estimates.

Implement its Motorcycle Safety Program Plan to identify methods and strategies for improving motorcycle safety (Ongoing, with new goals established for each FY). FY 2006 Action Plan: The 2006 Motorcycle Safety Plan, which incorporates 2005 SAFETEA-LU mandates and new initiatives, was completed and can be found at http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/pedbimot/motorcycle/MotorcycleSafety.pdf. Additionally, in 2006, NHTSA implemented a motorcycle safety grant program aimed at making money available to the States that adopt and implement effective programs to reduce the number of single- and multi-vehicle crashes involving motorcyclists.

Implement its Motorcycle Safety Program Plan to identify methods and strategies for improving motorcycle safety (Ongoing, with new goals established for each FY). FY 2007 Action Plan: In FY 2007 NHTSA distributed the Implementation Guide for the National Agenda for Motorcycle Safety to assist States and communities in creating programs to improve motorcycle safety; incorporated motorcycle operators in HVE impaired-driving crackdowns; completed the Effects of Alcohol on Motorcycle Riding Skills, and completed the Riders Helping Riders instructional program to encourage motorcyclists to intervene to prevent drinking and riding by their peers. Additionally, the Agency initiated an update of motorcycle licensing guidance for State motor vehicle administrators. In FY 2007 NHTSA completed evaluation of biofidelity of the injury criteria used in FMVSS 218, Snell Memorial Foundation and ECE 22.05 (European standard) for testing safety of motorcycle helmets. The research produced a technical report that is undergoing Agency review (COMPLETED 08/01/2007).

Measure: Highway fatality rate per 100 million vehicle miles traveled (VMT) (CY).

Explanation:

The 2006 fatality rate of 1.41 equates to 42,642 lives lost from motor vehicle crashes. USDOT's original fatality goal began as a 1998 NHTSA and FHWA goal to reduce the number of transportation deaths by 20 percent, which equated to achieving an absolute number of 33,500 annual motor vehicle fatalities by 2008. The number was changed to an equivalent rate in 2002. The original goal was based on overly optimistic behavioral assumptions??a 90% seat belt usage rate and alcohol-related fatalities falling to 11,000 annually. Current figures indicate that the national seat belt usage rate is at 82% and that there are over 17,000 alcohol-related highway fatalities annually. Additionally, an unpredictable, and sustained spike in motorcycle rider fatalities began when the original goals were set??from a historic low of 2,116 in 1997 to 4,810 in 2006 (a 127% increase).

The Administration remains committed to reducing highway fatalities and fully supports the goal of reducing fatalities to a rate of 1.0 per 100 million VMT. DOT realizes it will not reach this goal by 2008 as originally planned, and has revised the target date from 2008 to 2011, to account for the dramatically changing nature of highway safety challenges. The Department has established four fatality sub-measures??passenger vehicles, nonoccupants, motorcycle riders, and large-truck- and bus-related fatalities??which represent the breadth of all highway users. This enables DOT to more closely examine the fatality rates of these different segments of highway users, in order to develop new strategies to combat sub-measure trends that are impeding progress to the overall 1.0 goal. These four fatality sub-measures have been raised from agency specific goals to Departmental metrics to highlight the overall commitment by the Department and the three respective surface transportation modes (NHTSA, FHWA, and FMCSA) that directly support the overall 1.0 fatality rate goal and the four supporting sub-measures.

Measure: Rate of passenger vehicle occupant fatalities per 100 M passenger VMT (CY).

Explanation:The fatality rate for 2005 was 1.14 per 100M passenger VMT. The rate for 2004 was 1.17. Since the implementation of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) in 1999, the passenger vehicle fatality rate has steadily improved, decreasing from 1.30 to 1.14 in 2005.

Measure: Rate of non-occupant highway fatalities per 100 M VMT (CY).

Explanation:The fatality rate for 2005 was 0.20 per 100M VMT. The rate for 2004 was 0.19. Since the implementation of TEA-21 in 1999, the non-occupant fatality rate has minimally improved, decreasing from 0.22 to 0.20 in 2005. This measure was re-baselined in FY 2007 to realign with current trends. This measure was re-baselined in 2008 when it became a DOT sub-metric. The nonoccupant fatality rate uses overall VMT data to calculate the rate since pedestrian, pedalcyclist, and other nonoccupant miles traveled are not available.

Measure: Rate of motorcycle rider highway fatalities per 100,000 motorcycle registrations (CY).

Explanation:Starting in FY 2008, this measure replaces motorcycle rider fatalities per 100M VMT. Since the implementation of TEA-21 in 1999, the motorcycle fatality rate has continued to rise in tandem with increasing motorcycle sales. According to the Motorcycle Industry Council (MIC), new unit motorcycle sales continued to climb in 2004 (latest data available), marking the 12th consecutive year of growth and resulting in the sale of 725,000 new-on-highway motorcycle units in 2004. As a result, State operator training programs continue to have difficulty meeting the increased demand for their services. Additionally, motorcycle ridership (i.e. State registration), is itself dependent on high oil prices and successful marketing. For FY 2008, the Department re-baselined this measure to reflect a change of focus from fatalities per 100 million VMT to fatalities per 100,000 registrations, setting the target motorcycle rider fatality rate for FY 2008 at 76. This measure was changed in 2008 when it became a DOT sub-metric to reflect a shift in focus from fatalities per 100 million VMT to fatalities per 100,000 registrations. Targets are ambitious and were set below actual projected fatality rates given recent significant increases in registrations and fatalities. Between 1997 and 2006, motorcycle registrations increased by 75 percent. However, fatalities have far outpaced the increase in registrations. Thus, the target reductions in this fatality rate remain ambitious, given this increase in exposure.

Measure: Percentage of front seat occupants using shoulder harness seat belts (CY).

Explanation:The seat belt usage in 2005 was 82%. The usage for 2004 was 80%. Since the implementation of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) in 1999, the use of seat belts has steadily improved, increasing from 67% to 82% in 2005.

Measure: Restraint use among 0 through 7 year olds (CY).

Explanation:Previously, the agency's child restraint goal was to reduce the number of child occupant fatalities, 0-4 years old. In 2002, child occupant fatalities dropped to 474, surpassing the agency's 2005 goal for 0-4 year olds. For this reason, the agency set a new annual target to increase restraint use among children 0-7 years of age. NHTSA adopted a target of 91 percent for restraint use 0-7 years old for 2005, based on the one (2002) data point available (this data point was not collected in 2003). Past targets were based on that one available data point. In subsequent years, additional data became available, allowing the agency to better forecast and project future restraint use in setting out-year targets. The agency re-baselined its restraint use target for 2007 after additional data showed a significant decline from 88 percent in 2002 to 82 percent in 2004. The use of restraints for 0-7 year olds for both 2004 and 2005 was 82%.

Measure: Rate of .08+ blood alcohol concentration (BAC) crashes per 100M VMT (CY).

Explanation:Recognizing fatalities in crashes with .08+ BAC (i.e. over the legal limit) make up 85 percent of the alcohol problem, NHTSA created a new goal to reduce the rate of fatalities in .08+ BAC crashes for 2006 and beyond. In 1996 the .08+ BAC crash fatality rate per 100M VMT amounted to 0.61 and decreased significantly to 0.49 in 2005. The fatality rate for both 2004 and 2005 was 0.49 per 100M VMT. Since the implementation of TEA-21 in 1999, the .08+ BAC fatality rate has improved, decreasing from 0.53 to 0.49 in 2005. It is the agency's hope that alcohol-related fatalities, specifically .08+ BAC crash fatalities, will continue to decline in the coming years, especially with the enactment of .08 BAC legislation in all 50 States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico.

Measure: Average time (in months) within the agency that it takes to complete significant rulemaking (CY)

Explanation:Measured time does not include review by the Office of the Secretary or OMB.

Measure: Average time (in months) it takes to complete a defect investigation.

Explanation:NHTSA will maintain the average completion time for a defect investigation at 8 months. The Defects Investigation Program conducts investigations of potential defects into the design, construction or performance of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment to ensure that safety recalls are performed to protect the public against unreasonable risk of death or injury. In CY 2007, over 8.6 million vehicles, and an additional 1.4 million pieces of equipment, were recalled for safety defects as a result of defects investigations. With new and integrated technology, increased use of non-mechanical systems, along with other factors, NHTSA's defect investigations are more complicated than ever. Their complexity makes it very ambitious to maintain an 8 month completion average.

Measure: Percentage of improperly licensed motorcyclists killed in fatal crashes (CY).

Explanation:The percentage of improperly licensed motorcycle operators killed was 25% for 2004 and 24% for 2005. Since the implementation of TEA-21 in 1999, the percentage had been slowly improving, decreasing from 28% to 24% in 2005. However, the increase to 26% in 2006 is consistent with the 12 year trend of an increase in motorcycle rider fatalities. With motorcycle rider fatalities now accounting for 11 percent of total fatalities, and dramatically affecting the overall highway fatality rate, in November 2007 DOT released a Motorcycle Action Plan. In addition, SAFETEA-LU created a dedicated motorcycle safety incentive grant program to assist States in combating current fatality trends.

Is the program purpose clear?

Explanation: NHTSA's mission is to save lives, prevent injuries, and reduce traffic-related health care and other economic costs. The agency develops promotes, and implements effective educational, engineering, and enforcement programs directed toward ending preventable tragedies and reducing safety-related ecomomic costs associated with vehicle use and highway travel. NHTSA's Operations and Research budget includes all programs except Highway Traffic Safety Grants.

Evidence: National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966. Highway Safety Act of 1966. Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act of 1972. Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21). NHTSA Strategic Plan (September 1998). NHTSA FY 2005 Budget Submission to Congress (February 2004)

Does the program address a specific and existing problem, interest or need?

Explanation: Traffic crashes continue to be a leading public health problem. In 2002, there were 42,815 fatalities on the Nation's roadways. NHTSA's Operations and Research program addresses this problem.

Evidence: Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) 2002 (www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-30/NCSA/TSFAnn/TSF2002Final.pdf)

Is the program designed so that it is not redundant or duplicative of any other Federal, state, local or private effort?

Explanation: NHTSA's mission is clear and does not duplicate other programs. The Department of Transportation's Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) also addresses highway safety, but through the improvement of roads and roadside barriers. The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) addresses heavy truck safety on the roadway, but NHTSA is responsible for the research and promulgation of standards for new heavy trucks. NHTSA also works with other Federal, State, local and private organizations dedicated to public health to promote safe behaviors, but NHTSA's mission is unique in that we are the only governmental body responsible for safety regulations of new motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment.

Evidence: DOT Strategic Plan (2003-2008) (www.dot.gov/stratplan2008/strategic_plan.htm)

Is the program design free of major flaws that would limit the program's effectiveness or efficiency?

Explanation: The design of the Operations and Research (O&R) program is free of major flaws. The agency's O&R budget is broken into research, rulemaking, enforcement, highway safety and general administration. This is an efficient, effective program design to help the agency reduce highway fatalities and injuries. Congress has recognized that this is the optimal design for the program.

Evidence: NHTSA FY 2005 Budget Submission to Congress (February 2004). Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21)

Is the program effectively targeted, so that resources will reach intended beneficiaries and/or otherwise address the program's purpose directly?

Explanation: NHTSA's Operations and Research program targets funding to advance: research of vehicle and safety countermeasure technologies; research of behavioral countermeasures; regulatory decisions; defects investigations; compliance testing; and evaluations of regulations and countermeasure programs.

Evidence: NHTSA FY 2005 Budget Submission to Congress (February 2004)

Does the program have a limited number of specific long-term performance measures that focus on outcomes and meaningfully reflect the purpose of the program?

Explanation: DOT has established an ambitious highway safety performance goal of reducing highway fatalities to 1.0 per 100 million vehicle miles traveled (VMT) by 2008. NHTSA's outcome measures support the overall DOT goal. NHTSA's outcome measures are to reduce the passenger vehicle occupant fatality rate, reduce the rate of increase in the motorcycle rider highway fatality rate, and reduce the non-occupant fatality rate.

Evidence: NHTSA FY 2005 Budget Submission to Congress (February 2004)

Does the program have ambitious targets and timeframes for its long-term measures?

Explanation: Reaching the DOT goal of 1.0 fatalities per 100 million VMT by 2008 is highly ambitious. If current trends continue, the rate in 2004 will be well above 1.0. NHTSA's outcome measures also will be difficult to achieve if current trends continue. NHTSA has ongoing programs to address its priorities, including programs to increase safety belt use, reduce alcohol-related crashes, improve compatibility between vehicles, enhance side impact prevention and protection, and mitigate rollover crashes.

Evidence: NHTSA FY 2005 Budget Submission to Congress (February 2004). Motor Vehicle and Highway Safety Priorities (December 2003). NHTSA Integrated Project Team (IPT) reports on Alcohol, Safety Belts, Rollover, and Vehicle Compatibility are available on the website (www.nhtsa.dot.gov/IPTReports.html).

Does the program have a limited number of specific annual performance measures that can demonstrate progress toward achieving the program's long-term goals?

Explanation: NHTSA's performance plan includes intermediate outcome measures of reducing the rate of alcohol-related fatalities per 100 million VMT, increase safety belt use, and increasing restraint use among 0-7-year-olds. The agency has also created an efficiency measure for rulemaking: reduce the time it takes to complete significant rulemaking actions. The agency also reviews all of its vehicle safety standards on a seven-year cycle to ensure that they are current, account for the latest technologies, address newly appearing problems, and most effectively address NHTSA's safety priorities.

Evidence: NHTSA FY 2005 Budget Submission to Congress (February 2004)

Does the program have baselines and ambitious targets for its annual measures?

Explanation: NHTSA's annual performance measures include baselines and ambitious targets for 2005. The alcohol-related fatality rate target is 0.53 per 100 million VMT, a reduction from the 2002 actual rate of 0.61. The safety belt target is 80 - 85 percent use for 2005 depending on the enactment of primary safety belt use laws in additional states. The child restraint target is for restraint use in infants through 7 year-olds to increase from 88 percent to 91 percent.

Evidence: Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) 2002 (www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-30/NCSA/TSFAnn/TSF2002Final.pdf); 2003 NOPUS (www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-30/NCSA/Rpts/2003/809646.pdf). NHTSA FY 2005 Budget Submission to Congress (February 2004)

Do all partners (including grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, and other government partners) commit to and work toward the annual and/or long-term goals of the program?

Explanation: NHTSA's partners are committed to reducing highway fatalities and injuries. NHTSA's contracts are used to increase the agency's knowledge of specific safety issues, both behavioral and vehicular. Other DOT partners, e.g., FHWA and FMCSA, share the DOT highway fatality rate goal. In addition, AASHTO, NHTSA, FMCSA, and FHWA coordinated the Safety Leadership Forum in June 2003 (part of AASHTO's Spring meeting) to emphasize the importance of highway safety. AASHTO agreed to support the DOT highway safety goal at the meeting. States are direct partners of NHTSA and develop strategic, data-driven goals and programs to reduce fatalities and injuries in their States. Their goals and successes reflect and contribute to national goals.

Evidence: DOT Strategic Plan (2003-2008) (www.dot.gov/stratplan2008/strategic_plan.htm). 23CFR Part 1200.10 - 1200.12. AASHTO: www.transportation.org/spring/ Colorado Performance Plan and Highway Safety Plan, FY 2004 (example State plan).

Are independent evaluations of sufficient scope and quality conducted on a regular basis or as needed to support program improvements and evaluate effectiveness and relevance to the problem, interest, or need?

Explanation: NHTSA has an evaluation division dedicated to conducting independent evaluations of both vehicle regulations and behavioral programs. NHTSA has published 44 outcome evaluations of programs, has 15 underway and 21 planned to start in 2004-2007. Results are used regularly in agency planning and development of regulations and programs, and informing the public of the effectiveness of safety equipment and programs. Major safety standards are typically evaluated 4-5 years after a final rule takes effect and all safety standards are reviewed on a seven-year cycle.

Evidence: NHTSA Evaluation Program Plan, CY 2004-2007 (DOT HS 809 699, 69 Federal Register 3992). GAO report on Program Evaluation, "An Evaluation Cultureand Collaborative Partnerships Help Build Agency Capacity, May 2003 (see www.gao.gov/new.items/d03454.pdf). NHTSA Regulatory Evaluations can be viewed in the DOT Docket (example - Final Regulatory Evaluation for Amendment to FMVSS No. 213, Frontal Test Procedure - dmses.dot.gov/docimages/pdf86/246658_web.pdf)

Are Budget requests explicitly tied to accomplishment of the annual and long-term performance goals, and are the resource needs presented in a complete and transparent manner in the program's budget?

Explanation: NHTSA's budget is performance based. The program outputs, intermediate outcomes and outcomes are clearly described in each line item. The resource needs are described completely and transparently for each line item.

Evidence: NHTSA FY 2005 Budget Submission to Congress (February 2004)

Has the program taken meaningful steps to correct its strategic planning deficiencies?

Explanation: NHTSA annually reviews its performance plan goals and makes revisions as necessary. The FY 2005 NHTSA performance plan was revised from the previous years by adding agency outcome goals for passenger occupant, motorcycle rider, and non-occupant fatality rates. States submit an annual Performance Plan to NHTSA, with measurable goals and performance measures to track progress in meeting data-driven State goals, and supporting National goals. An annual Highway Safety Plan is also submitted that describes the projects and activities the States will implement to reach the goals identified in the Performance Plan. NHTSA is developing data and evaluation training for States to enhance goal setting, programming and evaluation. NHTSA conducts regular evaluations of its countermeasure programs, which are aimed at achieving overall performance goals. These evaluations help fine-tune strategic planning objectives.

Evidence: NHTSA FY 2005 Budget Submission to Congress (February 2004) Colorado Performance Plan and Highway Safety Plan, FY 2004 (example State plan)

If applicable, does the program assess and compare the potential benefits of efforts within the program to other efforts that have similar goals?

Explanation: All projects are designed to address safety problems defined by the crash environments. NHTSA evaluates countermeasure benefits where there may be overlap of projects addressing related safety problems, including instances in which projects produce incidental benefits that may address additional safety problems. These evaluations are included in the rulemaking notices published in the Federal Register. NHTSA participates in International Harmonization Research Activities (IHRA), an outgrowth of the ESV conference, in which participants from around the world review each other's projects to develop common test procedures, conserve resources, share data and prevent duplication of effort. NHTSA also participates in annual SAE government-industry meetings to present and exchange information to foster a more unified approach to vehicle safety. The Agency also publishes on its website annual reports for certain research projects.

Evidence: IHRA-related papers published in public ESV conference proceedings, papers presented at SAE and other professional conferences and available on NHTSA's website (www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/#other), and notices published in the Federal Register.

Does the program use a prioritization process to guide budget requests and funding decisions?

Explanation: NHTSA conducted a prioritization exercise in which all rulemaking and related research projects were reviewed and prioritized. The resultant NHTSA Vehicle Safety Priority Rulemaking and Supporting Research Plan is used to determine the relative importance of the Agency's research projects for scheduling, resource allocation, and funding purposes. Building on that priority plan, which will be regularly updated, NHTSA has conducted a new project review of all current rulemaking and research projects. The basic criteria for all projects is the extent to which they contribute to achieving the Agency's goal of reducing highway fatalities.

Evidence: NHTSA Vehicle Safety Priority Rulemaking and Supporting Research Plan, which is available on NHTSA's website (www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/rulings/PriorityPlan/FinalVeh/Index.html) and on the DOT Docket.

Are all regulations issued by the program/agency necessary to meet the stated goals of the program, and do all regulations clearly indicate how the rules contribute to achievement of the goals?

Explanation: All regulations related to NHTSA's Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) must pass the test of contributing to the Agency's and nation's goals of improving highway safety and reducing highway deaths and the specific goals and milestones they encompass. NHTSA's proposed regulations are published in the Federal Register and include clear descriptions of the size and nature of the safety problems they address and the nature and amount of anticipated benefits.

Evidence: NHTSA's proposed regulations, including explanatory background material, are published in the Federal Register and in the publicly available DOT Docket. Regulatory analyses and evaluations also are accessible on NHTSA's website (www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/rulings/). These forums provide the public with the opportunity to review the regulations and see how they contribute to program goals.

Does the agency regularly collect timely and credible performance information, including information from key program partners, and use it to manage the program and improve performance?

Explanation: NHTSA's National Center for Statistics and Analysis (NCSA) is dedicated to collecting and analyzing highway safety data. The information is collected continually and annual reports are published. NHTSA uses information from key partners to analyze the data trends, e.g., FHWA VMT data, Census Bureau data, and R.L Polk & Co. registered vehicle data. The agency uses this information to refine, update and manage programs and regulations. In addition, the agency and the Department use this information in formulating annual and long term goals.

Evidence: Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) 2002 (www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-30/NCSA/TSFAnn/TSF2002Final.pdf). 2003 NOPUS (www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-30/NCSA/Rpts/2003/809646.pdf). NHTSA FY 2005 Budget Submission to Congress (February 2004).

Are Federal managers and program partners (including grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, and other government partners) held accountable for cost, schedule and performance results?

Explanation: NHTSA's managers are held accountable for performance results through their individual performance appraisals. Each manager's appraisal is tied to the goals of the Department. States are direct partners of NHTSA and develop strategic, data-driven goals and programs to reduce fatalities and injuries in their States. An annual Highway Safety Plan is also submitted that describes the projects and activities the States will implement to reach the goals identified in the Performance Plan.

Evidence: FY 2004 SES performance appraisal guidance. Colorado Performance Plan and Highway Safety Plan, FY 2004 (example State plan)

Are funds (Federal and partners') obligated in a timely manner and spent for the intended purpose?

Explanation: Federal funds are obligated on a planned basis as received. The agency employs various tracking systems, conferences, etc. to monitor how all funds are being used for behavioral and vehicular safety initiatives, including grants to States, as well as supporting research development and data collection.

Evidence: Delphi (DOT accounting system). Contract Coordinator Management Information System (CCMIS)

Does the program have procedures (e.g. competitive sourcing/cost comparisons, IT improvements, appropriate incentives) to measure and achieve efficiencies and cost effectiveness in program execution?

Explanation: The terms of the various contracting mechanisms require that procedures be established to measure cost effectiveness. NHTSA offices complete budget execution plans for contracts. The plans include information on specific aspects of the safety problem being addressed. Each Office has a coordinator who reviews the information for efficiency and cost effectiveness. NHTSA also conducts an agencywide review of the budget execution plans to ensure efficiency and eliminate redundancy.

Evidence: Traffic Injury Control (TIC) Budget Execution Plan document. Vehicle Safety Budget Execution Plan document.

Does the program collaborate and coordinate effectively with related programs?

Explanation: NHTSA collaborates with other DOT modes, especially FHWA and FMCSA for highway safety programs. NHTSA also collaborates with other Federal and international agencies such as DHHS on public health initiatives like Healthy People 2010 and World Health Organization's World Health Day. NHTSA's 10 Regional Offices coordinate directly with the State Highway Safety Offices on program activities and assist in collaborative efforts with other State and local highway safety partners. NHTSA develops countermeasure programs utilizing states and communities as demonstration sites. Periodic evaluations of the state programs help with the identification and implementation of proven countermeasures aimed at achieving performance goals and objectives.

Evidence: 2004 World Health Day (Road Safety) (www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/WHD/pages/index2.htm). Healthy People 2010 (www.healthypeople.gov/)

Does the program use strong financial management practices?

Explanation: The program offices have several tracking systems in place to ensure that sound financial management practices are followed.

Evidence: NHTSA's FY 2005 Budget Submission to Congress. Delphi (DOT accounting system). Contract Coordinator Management Information System (CCMIS)

Has the program taken meaningful steps to address its management deficiencies?

Explanation: NHTSA's programs are reviewed each year to assess management deficiencies as required by the Federal Managers Financial Integrity Act (FMFIA). If any deficiencies are found they are addressed through the process established by the FMFIA. NHTSA's current program priorities were established in 2002 by Adminstrator Runge. In 2003, NHTSA published plans for addressing four of the priorities. In 2004, NHTSA will publish an additional plan. The emphasis placed on the Administrator's priorities has helped minimize management deficiencies for the last two years. Program managers are held accountable for achieving the initiatives included in the plans.

Evidence: Federal Managers Financial Integrity Act (FMFIA). NHTSA Integrated Project Team (IPT) reports on Alcohol, Safety Belts, Rollover, and Vehicle Compatibility are available on the website (www.nhtsa.dot.gov/IPTReports.html).

For R&D programs other than competitive grants programs, does the program allocate funds and use management processes that maintain program quality?

Explanation: NHTSA's research project contract awards are competitive and geared toward engaging the most qualified contractors at the best price. Contracts have specific, set deadlines and deliverables, and are closely monitored by contract officers and contracting officer's technical representatives. NHTSA advertises the availability of all competitive solicitations for simplified acquisitions over $25,000.00 and contract actions in the Commerce Business Daily (CBD). NHTSA also announces in the CBD all contract awards where subcontracting opportunities exist. In addition, NHTSA participates in the Electronic Posting System currently operated by the General Services Administration.

Evidence: The CBD can be found on the Internet at cbdnet.access.gpo.gov/. The Electronic Posting System can be found at www.eps.gov/.

Did the program seek and take into account the views of all affected parties (e.g., consumers; large and small businesses; State, local and tribal governments; beneficiaries; and the general public) when developing significant regulations?

Explanation: The program engages both internal and external stakeholders to provide input and assessment of the program on a regular basis. NHTSA uses notice and comment rulemaking to fully include the public, including industry and public interest organizations, in the regulatory process. The Agency has held semi-annual meetings with the regulated industries to brief them and answer their questions on the status and direction of current and anticipated rulemaking and supporting research activities. When NHTSA developed its rulemaking priority planning document, the NHTSA Vehicle Safety Priority Rulemaking and Supporting Research Plan, it solicited input from the public, industry, public interest organizations, and other federal agencies whose jurisdictions or interests could overlap with NHTSA's for the areas covered by the plan.

Evidence: NHTSA Vehicle Safety Priority Rulemaking and Supporting Research Plan is available on NHTSA's website (http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/rulings/PriorityPlan/FinalVeh/Index.html) and in the DOT Docket. Regulatory analyses and evaluations are accessible on NHTSA's website (http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/rulings/) and the DOT Docket. Minutes of the regularly scheduled governmentindustry meetings are available on the DOT Docket (http://dmses.dot.gov/docimages/pdf84/210542_web.pdf).

Did the program prepare adequate regulatory impact analyses if required by Executive Order 12866, regulatory flexibility analyses if required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act and SBREFA, and cost-benefit analyses if required under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act; and did those analyses comply with OMB guidelines?

Explanation: NHTSA's Office of Regulatory Analysis and Evaluation, Regulatory Analysis Division is dedicated to conducting regulatory impact and cost benefit analyses adhering to Executive Order 12866 and both the Regulatory Flexibility Act and SBREFA.

Evidence: The Economic Impact of Motor Vehicle Crashes 2000 (see www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/economic/EconImpact2000/index.htm) NHTSA Economic Assessments can be viewed in the DOT Docket (example - Final Regulatory Evaluation for Amendment to FMVSS No. 213, Frontal Test Procedure - dmses.dot.gov/docimages/pdf86/246658_web.pdf)

Does the program systematically review its current regulations to ensure consistency among all regulations in accomplishing program goals?

Explanation: NHTSA has rigorously evaluated its major programs as a matter of policy since 1970. The evaluation of the effectiveness of the FMVSS began in 1975. GPRA and Executive Order 12866 now oblige all Federal agencies to evaluate their existing programs and regulations. Most of NHTSA's crashworthiness and several crash avoidance standards have been evaluated periodically since 1975. NHTSA has also evaluated a number of consumer-oriented regulations, such as bumpers, theft protection, fuel economy and the New Car Assessment Program (NCAP), as well as some promising safety technologies that were not mandatory under Federal regulations, such as antilock brake systems. In 2002, NHTSA initiated a new Regulatory Review Program. Under this program, the agency systematically reviews all of its vehicle safety related regulations (FMVSS) to assess the nature of and size of the safety problems addressed by the standard, consider safety problems related to but not explicitly addressed by the existing standard, look for new technological developments relevant to the standard, and recommend whether further, more detailed consideration should be given to modifying the standard. The program is designed to review 6-8 standards a year, with a complete review cycle of all FMVSS over a seven-year period.

Evidence: NHTSA Vehicle Safety Priority Rulemaking and Supporting Research Plan, which is available on NHTSA's website (http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/rulings/PriorityPlan/FinalVeh/Index.html) and in the DOT Docket. Regulatory analyses and evaluations are accessible on NHTSA's website (http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/rulings/).

Are the regulations designed to achieve program goals, to the extent practicable, by maximizing the net benefits of its regulatory activity?

Explanation: Regulations are enacted and revised fully considering the Agency's bottom line of reducing highway deaths. Regulatory activity is data driven and vehicle safety regulations are analyzed in terms of their costs and benefits. The Agency analyzes the potential costs of regulations, both to industry and to society as a whole. Benefits are measured in terms of lives or equivalent lives saved. In addition, regulations are examined in light of established Agency priorities which, in turn, have been established by considering societal costs and potential benefits. NHTSA Vehicle Safety Priority Rulemaking and Supporting Research Plan, which is available on NHTSA's website (http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/rulings/PriorityPlan/FinalVeh/Index.html) and in the DOT Docket. Regulatory analyses and evaluations are accessible on NHTSA's website (http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/rulings/).

Evidence: NHTSA Vehicle Safety Priority Rulemaking and Supporting Research Plan, which is available on NHTSA's website (http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/rulings/PriorityPlan/FinalVeh/Index.html) and in the DOT Docket. Regulatory analyses and evaluations are accessible on NHTSA's website (http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/rulings/).

Has the program demonstrated adequate progress in achieving its long-term performance goals?

Explanation: Over the long-term, the program has demonstrated progress toward achieving its long-term goals, as the highway fatality rate has decreased from 1.75 fatalities per 100 million VMT in 1992 to 1.50 in 2003. However, NHTSA has not shown significant progress and did not meet the targets over the past three years. For the past two years, the rate has stayed the same - 1.5 highway fatalities per 100 million VMT. NHTSA's goal for 2004 is 1.38 and it will be a challenge for the agency to accomplish the goal and decrease the fatality rate from 1.5 in one year. NHTSA's other long-term outcome measure is to reduce the passenger vehicle occupant fatality rate per 100 million passenger vehicle miles traveled (PVMT). The passenger vehicle occupant fatality rate has decreased from 1.42 in 1996 to 1.24 in 2002. This measure supports the overall DOT highway safety goal of 1.0 highway fatalities per 100 million VMT by 2008, which is challenging but the rate has continuously declined for several years.

Evidence: NHTSA's FY 2005 Budget Submission to Congress. Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) 2002 (www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-30/NCSA/TSFAnn/TSF2002Final.pdf). DOT FY 2004 Performance Plan (www.dot.gov/PerfPlan2004/index.html).

Does the program (including program partners) achieve its annual performance goals?

Explanation: While the baselines for the program's annual performance goals indicate progress and downward trends, most of the annual measures and targets are new or have been revised so that it is difficult to assess performance at this time. NHTSA exceeded the safety belt target in 2003 with a rate of 79% usage. NHTSA exceeded the child occupant fatality rate goal several years early so, for 2005 and beyond, the agency changed the measure to child restraint usage. NHTSA is on track to meet its non-occupant fatality rate target and its motorcycle rider fatality rate target. The alcohol rate, however, has not decreased as quickly as the agency had projected so that target was missed in 2002.

Evidence: NHTSA's FY 2005 Budget Submission to Congress. Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) 2002 (www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-30/NCSA/TSFAnn/TSF2002Final.pdf). 2003 NOPUS (www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-30/NCSA/Rpts/2003/809646.pdf).

Does the program demonstrate improved efficiencies or cost effectiveness in achieving program goals each year?

Explanation: NHTSA created an efficiency measure for the rulemaking process in its FY 2005 budget (reducing the time it takes to complete significant rulemaking actions). The agency is in the process of completing an A-76 competition which will demonstrate efficiency and cost effectiveness. NHTSA uses the Delphi tracking system to track finance information. Use of Delphi makes NHTSA program managers more efficient because the system is web-based and easy to monitor contract obligations and expenditures against office cuff records.

Evidence: NHTSA FY 2005 Budget Submission to Congress. Delphi (DOT accounting system).

Does the performance of this program compare favorably to other programs, including government, private, etc., with similar purpose and goals?

Explanation: NHTSA's programs work in concert with FHWA, FMCSA, and other DOT modes to achieve the DOT highway safety goal, and this program compares favorably to similar programs to a small extent. For example, FMCSA has made better progress toward achieving their similar safety goals. Safety organizations such as AASHTO, GHSA and others have adopted the DOT higway safety goal. NHTSA worked with the World Health Organization to prepare the World Report on Road Traffic Injury Prevention, in which the US approach for traffic safety is presented as a model for other countries to follow. GAO has conducted evaluations of NHTSA in comparison to others like ACF, HUD, NSF, and DOD in areas to include: GPRA and data quality where NHTSA has compared favorably.

Evidence: AASHTO: www.transportation.org/spring/. GHSA: www.ghsa.org/html/media/press_releases/printerfriendly/041304 World Report on Road Traffic Injury Prevention (www.who.int/world-health-day/2004/infomaterials/world_report/en/). GAO: An Evaluation Culture and Collaborative Partnerships Help Build Agency Capacity, May 2003 (www.gao.gov/new.items/d03454.pdf); Executive Guide: Effectively Implementing the Government Performance and Results Act, June 1996 (www.gao.gov/special.pubs/gg96118.pdf).

Do independent evaluations of sufficient scope and quality indicate that the program is effective and achieving results?

Explanation: NHTSA has an evaluation division dedicated to conducting independent evaluations of both vehicle regulations and behavioral programs. While some of these evaluations indicate that specific elements of the program are effective and achieving results, there is no comprehensive assessment of these evaluations indicating the extent of the program's effectiveness. NHTSA has published 44 outcome evaluations of programs, has 15 underway and 21 planned to start in 2004-2007. Results are used regularly in agency planning and development of regulations and programs, and informing the public of the effectiveness of safety equipment and programs. In addition, under NHTSA's Regulatory Review Program, the agency systematically reviews all of its vehicle safety related regulations (FMVSS). A recent GAO report indicated that the program has an effective evaluation program.

Evidence: NHTSA Evaluation Program Plan, CY 2004-2007 (DOT HS 809 699, 69 Federal Register 3992) (www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/regrev/evaluate/809699.html). GAO report on Program Evaluation, "An Evaluation Culture and Collaborative Partnerships Help Build Agency Capacity" (May 2003)

Were programmatic goals (and benefits) achieved at the least incremental societal cost and did the program maximize net benefits?

Explanation: While NHTSA has been analyzing the costs and benefits of its future rulemakings (proposed and final rules) since 1970, NHTSA did not achieve their fatality rate goal. There have been several Executive Orders since 1978 that require the analysis of proposed and final regulations. Executive Order 12866 (1993) is the current order. A regulatory analysis is written for all proposed and final rules that have identifiable costs and/or benefits. These analyses identify the problem that is addressed by the proposed rule, the alternative countermeasures, and the costs and benefits of those alternative countermeasures. NHTSA's analyses are considered among the best conducted by regulatory agencies. Regulatory analyses and evaluations are accessible on NHTSA's website (www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/regrev/evaluate/index.html). GAO report on Program Evaluation, "An Evaluation Culture and Collaborative Partnerships Help Build Agency Capacity" (May 2003)

Evidence: Regulatory analyses and evaluations are accessible on NHTSA's website (www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/regrev/evaluate/index.html). GAO report on Program Evaluation, "An Evaluation Culture and Collaborative Partnerships Help Build Agency Capacity" (May 2003)