Retrospective Regulatory Review--State Safety Plan Development and Reporting |
|---|
|
Gregory G. Nadeau
Federal Highway Administration
Mark R. Rosekind
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
September 24, 2015
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 185 (Thursday, September 24, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 57564-57566]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-24154]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Highway Administration
23 CFR Part 924
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
23 CFR Part 1200
[FHWA Docket No. FHWA-2014-0032]
Retrospective Regulatory Review--State Safety Plan Development
and Reporting
AGENCY: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Notice of regulatory review.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Consistent with Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation
and Regulatory Review, and in particular its emphasis on burden-
reduction and on retrospective analysis of existing rules, a Request
for Comments was published on November 28, 2014, to solicit input on
State highway safety plan development and reporting requirements, which
specifically refers to the development of the State Highway Safety Plan
(HSP) and Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP), and the reporting
requirements of the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) and HSP.
Thirty-eight unique letters were received and this document provides a
summary of the input from these letters. Given the lack of support for
any significant changes in the highway safety plan development and
reporting requirements, neither the FHWA nor NHTSA will change the HSP
or SHSP development requirements nor change the HSIP or HSP reporting
requirements at this time. However, the FHWA and NHTSA will consider
the valuable information offered in the responses to inform the
agencies' decisions on their respective highway safety programs.
DATES: September 24, 2015.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about the program
discussed herein, contact Melonie Barrington, FHWA Office of Safety,
(202) 366-8029, or via email at Melonie.Barrington@dot.gov; or Barbara
Sauers, NHTSA Office of Regional Operations and Program Delivery, (202)
366-0144, or via email at Barbara.Sauers@dot.gov. For legal questions,
please contact Mr. William Winne, Attorney-Advisor, FHWA Office of the
Chief Counsel, (202) 366-1397, or via email at william.winne@dot.gov;
or Jin H. Kim, Attorney-Advisor, NHTSA Office of the Chief Counsel,
(202) 366-1834, or via email at Jin.Kim@dot.gov. Office hours are from
8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Electronic Access and Filing
This document, all comments, and the request for comments notice
may be viewed on line through the Federal eRulemaking portal at: http://www.regulations.gov. The docket identification number is FHWA-2014-
0032. The Web site is available 24 hours each day, 365 days each year.
Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments in any of
our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or
signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association,
business, or labor union). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act
Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR
19476), or you may visit http://DocketsInfo.dot.gov.
Request for Comments
On November 28, 2014, FHWA and NHTSA published a Request for
Comments at 79 FR 70914 soliciting input on actions FHWA and NHTSA
could take to address potentially duplicative State highway safety
planning and reporting requirements in order to streamline and
harmonize these programs, to the extent possible, in view of the
separate statutory authority and focus of the two programs.
The FHWA's HSIP and NHTSA's State Highway Safety Grant Programs
share a common goal--to save lives on our Nation's roadways--and have
three common performance measures. These programs have complementary
but distinctly different focus areas and administrative and operational
procedures and requirements. The FHWA's HSIP primarily addresses
infrastructure-related projects and strategies. The NHTSA's State
Highway Safety Grant Programs primarily focus on driver behavior
projects and strategies. One notable distinction is that the statute
governing the NHTSA grant program requires State highway safety
activities to be under the direct auspices of the Governor. In contrast
to the NHTSA grant program, the HSIP is administered by the State
Department of Transportation.
Both the HSIP projects and the HSP must be coordinated with the
SHSP and both programs contribute to the goals and objectives of the
SHSP, but they do so in different ways based on different statutory
authority.
The funding for individual project and strategy implementation is
contained in the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program for the
HSIP and the annual HSP for NHTSA's State Highway Safety Grant
Programs. Following the implementation period, the State then reports
on progress to implement the projects and strategies and the extent to
which they contribute to achieving the State's safety goals and
targets. The HSIP report is submitted to FHWA by August 31st each year,
while the HSP report is submitted to NHTSA by the end of each calendar
year.
Summary of Responses
The FHWA received comments from 28 State DOT representatives, 7
State Offices of Highway Safety (or similar-named agencies), and 5
associations. The following sections indicate the specific question as
stated in the Request for Comments and provide a summary of the
associated docket comments.
How do State offices currently collect and report data to FHWA and
NHTSA? Are any elements of those information collections or reports
duplicative? If yes, what are those duplicative requirements and are
there ways to streamline them?
The responses indicated that the means for collecting and reporting
data are unique and often tailored by each State. Several States use a
combination of national reporting databases, such as the Fatality
Analysis Reporting System (FARS), and their own database(s)
specifically developed for their State. According to the Governor's
Highway Safety Association (GHSA), most States have created
comprehensive, tailored, complex programs that capture the most
reliable, relevant data for their own requirements. Many States
indicated that data was collected by various departments, yet was
available to other
[[Page 57565]]
State agencies as part of the coordination efforts to use the same data
for reporting efforts. Michigan DOT, for example, stated that the
departments responsible for data collection and reporting have
structured themselves so efforts for FHWA and NHTSA are not
duplicative. Ten State DOTs (Arizona, Delaware, Kentucky, Missouri, New
Hampshire, North Dakota, Oregon, Tennessee, Vermont, and Wisconsin) and
the GHSA acknowledged that there is some duplication between the base
data and crash trend analysis requirements for HSIP and HSP reporting
purposes, yet they indicated that it was not significant and therefore
was not a reason to change the reporting requirements.
Connecticut, Maine, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island DOTs, as well as
the Minnesota and Washington State Highway Safety Offices stated that
reporting on three safety performance measures (number and rate of
fatalities, number of severe injuries) was potentially duplicative.
Those three performance measures are currently part of the HSP and are
proposed for inclusion in the HSIP as noted in NPRM RIN 2125-AF56.
Though there is some duplication in reporting, several States,
including Missouri and Oregon DOTs, the Arizona Governor's Office of
Highway Safety, the California Office of Traffic Safety, and the
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
(AASHTO) indicated that each report serves a different purpose, and
therefore should remain separate. While each report focuses on the
efforts of its program, these reports support the overall safety
efforts described in the SHSP.
Alaska and Washington State DOTs indicated that behavioral
questions on the HSIP online reporting tool are duplicative of HSP
reporting requirements. The FHWA would like to clarify that only funds
programed and obligated for HSIP projects should be reported in the
HSIP online reporting tool.
Regarding streamlining, Delaware, Kentucky, Montana, Oregon,
Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin DOT as well as the GHSA specifically stated
that streamlining efforts should not be pursued, because duplication is
minimal and efforts to change the reporting process would likely
increase costs and administrative burden. Some States did offer
suggestions for streamlining; the AASHTO, Maine, New Jersey, Rhode
Island, and Texas DOTs suggested aligning the reporting periods and
submission deadlines for HSIP and HSP reports. The HSP is by statute
due to NHTSA by July 1 of each year and a report due December 31. The
HSIP annual report is, by regulation, due August 31. The Connecticut
DOT, Utah Highway Safety Office, and Washington Traffic Safety
Commission suggested that there be a common performance measure
reporting tool for both agencies.
As indicated by the responses, data collection is unique to each
State. States have developed partnerships and working agreements that
allow the collection of data necessary for State highway safety
planning. Although a few States indicate there is some repetition in
reporting, the majority believe the reports should remain separate.
Changes to this process would not provide efficiencies or improve the
current practices.
Are there any changes FHWA and NHTSA should make to the HSIP and the
HSP reporting processes to reduce burdens from duplicative reporting
requirements, improve safety outcomes, and promote greater coordination
among State agencies responsible for highway safety, consistent with
the underlying statutory authority of these two grant programs?
Fourteen State DOTs, four State Offices of Highway Safety, and one
association suggested that the existing processes remain unchanged.
Only Vermont DOT supported consolidating the HSP for NHTSA and the HSIP
for FHWA into a single report. Although Vermont DOT's comment does not
specify, FHWA and NHTSA assume that Vermont is referring to the HSP
report and the HSIP report. The remainder of the comments on this
question suggested minor modifications to the existing processes. New
York's State DOT and Governor's Traffic Safety Committee suggested that
the plans be combined, yet the reporting remains separate. Eight
commenters, including AASHTO, GHSA, Connecticut, Montana, New Jersey,
North Dakota, Oregon, and Pennsylvania DOTs suggested that the reports
be submitted biannually (every 2 years) rather than annually. Alaska,
Rhode Island, Tennessee, and Texas DOTs suggested that the reporting
periods and deadlines be aligned between the two reports to reduce
burdens and conserve resources.
Rhode Island DOT further suggested that the submission requirements
for the HSIP report, HSP and HSP report be the same and that the HSP
and HSP report be consolidated. Wisconsin DOT also suggested
eliminating duplicate information between the previous fiscal year
report and the upcoming fiscal year application for the HSP and HSP
report. Rhode Island and Texas DOT suggested improvements related to
the HSIP online reporting tools, and creating an online reporting tool
for the HSP. Pennsylvania recommended a uniform online reporting format
for common performance measures.
To ensure that the HSIP and HSP are being implemented as intended
and their programs are achieving their purpose, FHWA and NHTSA will
continue to require yearly reporting. However, due to the limited
interest in aligning the deadlines of these two reports, the FHWA and
NHTSA will not pursue that action. The FHWA and NHTSA will continue to
identify opportunities to streamline the reporting and planning process
and explore providing additional guidance to assist States in
coordinating their safety plans. The FHWA realizes the importance of
the online reporting tool and will continue to solicit input on system
enhancements from users. The NHTSA is considering developing an online
tool for the HSP and HSP report in the future.
Would States prefer to combine plans and reports for the HSIP and HSP
into a single report for FHWA and NHTSA? Would States find a single
report useful for these complementary but distinctly different
programs?
Only Vermont suggested combining the HSIP and HSP reports. Twenty-
five State DOTs, five State offices of Highway Safety, and three
associations (92 percent of the responders) expressed disagreement with
combining the plans and reports for HSIP and HSP into a single report.
Commenters indicated that combining the reports would lead to
increasing the burdens on the States due to more layers of review and
approval, thus increasing cost and additional time requirements for
coordination above and beyond what is needed. Some States indicated
that a combined document would be more difficult to interpret by the
intended audiences and that it would also likely increase the review
time by FHWA and NHTSA thus potentially delaying program funding and
implementation. Based on the overwhelming response against combining
the plans and reports, the current planning and reporting structure
will be maintained.
[[Page 57566]]
Are there any State legal or organizational barriers to combining plans
and reports for the HSIP and HSP to FHWA and NHTSA? To what extent does
the location of the State recipient of the Federal funds from FHWA and
NHTSA, within the State's organizational structure, add to or reduce
the burdens of consolidated plan development or reporting?
While there was quite strong opposition to combining the HSIP and
HSP reports, only eight commenters (Michigan, Minnesota, and Washington
State DOTs and California, Minnesota, and Washington Offices of Highway
Safety, AASHTO and GHSA) indicated that there were organizational
barriers to combining the plans and reports. Washington Traffic Safety
Commission indicated that combining more reports with Washington State
DOT would be an additional burden due to the differences in
organizational structure between the two independent agencies.
California Office of Traffic Safety indicated that California's
organizational structure would make it difficult to combine the plans.
Five State DOTs and three State offices of Highway Safety did not
specifically state that there were legal or organizational barriers,
yet some provided comments indicating how the agencies within the State
already work together or comments against combining the plans due to
the additional coordination/approval process that would be required
beyond what is already being done. Wisconsin DOT stated that ``efforts
to combine reporting would be cumbersome, time-consuming, disruptive,
and costly.'' Fourteen State DOTs and one State Office of Highway
Safety specifically indicated that there were no legal or
organizational barriers to combining the plans and reports. However,
several commenters, including Alaska, New Hampshire, North Dakota, and
Missouri DOTs acknowledged combining plans or reports would be
burdensome and not add any efficiencies or improvements to the process.
Furthermore, combining plans would also be unproductive as the SHSP is
the State's comprehensive highway safety plan and already coordinates
highway safety efforts and builds consensus on safety goals and
strategies. These efforts are then implemented though the HSIP and HSP.
The responses on organizational or State legal barriers to combining
plans or reports further indicates there is not support or a strong
desire for a change to the current processes.
Are there SHSP requirements with higher costs than benefits? If so,
what are those requirements and are there ways to improve them or
should they be eliminated?
Nineteen State DOTs and 4 State Offices of Highway Safety indicated
that the SHSP costs do not outweigh the benefits. Responding to ways to
improve or eliminate requirements, the Arizona Governor's Office of
Highway Safety indicated that requirements related to data collection
in general have higher costs than benefits which can essentially reduce
the State's ability to satisfy other requirements under MAP-21.
Oregon DOT suggested that FHWA consider eliminating the individual
strategy evaluation requirement, and instead focus on data collection
to evaluate overall performance on key transportation safety metrics
such as fatal and injury crashes over an extended period. The FHWA
would like to clarify that evaluation of individual SHSP strategies is
not an SHSP requirement; rather State's should assess whether the
strategies are being implemented as planned, and review their progress
in meeting SHSP goals and objectives, such as reductions in the number
of fatalities and serious injuries. Both AASHTO, through its
discussions with member States, and GHSA indicated that over time the
SHSP principles and process have been embraced and integrated by the
State DOTs and Highway Safety Offices, resulting in a safety culture
through the planning and programming processes. The AASHTO cautioned
against the promulgation of additional guidance on reporting that could
disrupt the existing working arrangements and reporting systems
currently in place. Similarly, GHSA indicated that because the SHSP
process has been incorporated into the planning process already, there
were not likely to be improvements that would greatly reduce costs.
Are there changes FHWA should make to the SHSP guidance to promote
coordination among State agencies responsible for highway safety?
Very few commenters provided input related to changes that FHWA
should make to the SHSP guidance to promote coordination among State
agencies responsible for highway safety. The AASHTO indicated that it
would not object to guidance that may encourage State agencies to
collaborate and coordinate in the further development of their safety
plans, but that any additional mandates to require the collaboration
and coordination is unwarranted. Iowa DOT suggested FHWA provide a
template for a memorandum of understanding or other type of agreement
to institutionalize the collaborative process which outlines the shared
and separate responsibilities included in the development of a State's
SHSP. Oregon DOT indicated that the current requirements are
sufficient, yet there is no enforcement mechanism in place requiring
all parties to participate with the FHWA and NHTSA funded State
agencies, which are compelled by financing to work together. Rhode
Island DOT suggested that FHWA mandate States to designate a full-time
employee as the State's SHSP Program Coordinator. The FHWA in
coordination with NHTSA will promote noteworthy practices on
collaboration and coordination of safety stakeholders in the
development and implementation of the SHSP. The FHWA will continue to
endorse flexibility in how the States choose to develop their SHSP and
HSIP in accordance with MAP-21.
Conclusion
Given the lack of support from State DOTs and Offices of Highway
Safety for significant change in the highway safety plan development
and reporting requirements process, FHWA and NHTSA will retain the
current State highway safety plan development and reporting
requirements. The DOT will use the valuable information offered in the
responses to streamline and harmonize FHWA and NHTSA highway safety
programs.
Issued on: September 8, 2015.
Gregory G. Nadeau,
Administrator, Federal Highway Administration.
Mark R. Rosekind,
Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
[FR Doc. 2015-24154 Filed 9-23-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-22-P