July 22, 2003

A Letter to the Members of the House Appropriations Committee

The Governors Highway Safety Association (GHSA) is deeply disturbed by oversight language in the Committee report for the FY 2004 appropriations legislation for the Department of Transportation and related agencies. GHSA is a non-profit association that represents state highway safety agencies. Its members administer federal behavioral highway safety grant funds.

First, the report language alleges that since fatalities have been slowly increasing, states are not effectively spending their federal highway safety grant funding. In fact, since the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) was enacted, the fatality rate is the lowest on record, injuries have decreased substantially, fatalities for infants and young children have declined, and seat belt and child restraint usage is the highest on record. During the period of TEA-21, vehicle miles of travel, registered vehicles and licensed drivers have all increased. It can be expected that total fatalities would increase under those circumstances.

Further, progress has slowed because state governments are facing those drivers and road users who are more difficult to influence. State governments effectively used federal funding to convince those that are receptive to safety messages - the so-called "low hanging fruit." The remaining drivers and road users are much less receptive to traditional safety programs and messages, and it will take a more robust effort by all levels of government to influence this hard-to-reach group.

Second, the report language incorrectly characterizes the Government Accounting Office (GAO) report. The GAO report did not chastise NHTSA for failing to oversee state programs; rather, it criticized NHTSA for applying its oversight authority unevenly among the states. In fact, NHTSA reviews states plans in depth but does not sign off on them.

GHSA members are not opposed to a signoff since it would codify what is already happening in most states in practice. We would object, however, to NHTSA rescinding its 1998 performance- based policy as required by the Committee report language. That policy has encouraged states to move toward a more performance-based approach to planning and implementing state safety programs. States review their motor vehicle crash and other data, identify priority problems, set state goals based on performance measures, and select the most appropriate countermeasures that would help them reach their goals. The performance-based approach has helped states target their resources toward the most important highway safety problems in their state. If anything, the performance-based approach has helped states spend their federal funding more, not less, effectively.

Third, the Committee report directs NHTSA to "take the lead in providing guidance to states on how best to craft (state) plans." NHTSA is directed to report to Congress on how it will help facilitate states in the process of drafting their plans and "what the future funding requirements should be." GHSA members strongly object to this language since it invites NHTSA to micromanage state plans. State experience with NHTSA administration of the Section 157 innovative safety belt incentive grant program has been horrendous. For FY 2003, NHTSA dictated how much of the innovative funds should be used for paid media, what type of paid media each recipient state should use, how long the state's seat belt enforcement mobilizations should last, what slogan the state should use, etc.

The Highway Safety Act of 1966 required that the Governors of each state to receive federal grant funds and implement programs with those funds. The Act required states, not the federal government, to craft highway safety plans and then to implement those plans. The report language flies in the face of the original authorizing legislation and undermines states' ability to develop plans that best meet their needs, policies and resources.

In summary, GHSA believes that the report language goes considerably further than anything contemplated by the authorizing committees and changes the very basis of the federal highway safety grant program. If the Committee wants to ensure that there is sufficient oversight over state programs, then it should simply require that NHTSA sign off on state plans.

Thank you for considering GHSA's views.

Sincerely,

Kathryn R. Swanson
Director, Minnesota Office of Traffic Safety and
Chair, Governors Highway Safety Associatio