National Performance Management Measures: Highway Safety Improvement Program; Final Rule |
|---|
|
Gregory G. Nadeau
Federal Highway Administration
15 March 2016
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 50 (Tuesday, March 15, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 13881-13916]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-05202]
[[Page 13881]]
Vol. 81
Tuesday,
No. 50
March 15, 2016
Part II
Department of Transportation
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Highway Administration
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
23 CFR Part 490
National Performance Management Measures: Highway Safety Improvement
Program; Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 81 , No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2016 / Rules
and Regulations
[[Page 13882]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Highway Administration
23 CFR Part 490
[Docket No. FHWA-2013-0020]
RIN 2125-AF49
National Performance Management Measures: Highway Safety
Improvement Program
AGENCY: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The purpose of this final rule is to establish performance
measures for State departments of transportation (State DOT) to use to
carry out the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) and to assess
the: Number of motor vehicle crash-related serious injuries and
fatalities; number of serious injuries and fatalities of non-motorized
users; and serious injuries and fatalities per vehicle miles traveled
(VMT).
The FHWA issues this final rule based on section 1203 of the Moving
Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21), which identifies
national transportation goals and requires the Secretary to promulgate
a rulemaking to establish performance measures and standards in
specified Federal-aid highway program areas. The FHWA also considered
the provisions in the Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act (FAST
Act) in the development of this final rule. The HSIP is a Federal-aid
highway program with the purpose of achieving a significant reduction
in fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads, including non-
State-owned public roads and roads on tribal lands.
DATES: This final rule is effective April 14, 2016. The incorporation
by reference of certain publications listed in the regulation is
approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of April 14, 2016.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Francine Shaw Whitson, Office of
Infrastructure, (202) 366-8028, or Anne Christenson, Office of the
Chief Counsel, (202) 366-0740, Federal Highway Administration, 1200 New
Jersey Ave. SE., Washington, DC 20590. Office hours are from 8:00 a.m.
to 4:30 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Electronic Access and Filing
The notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) published at 79 FR 13846
on March 11, 2014, and all comments received may be viewed online
through: http://www.regulations.gov. Electronic retrieval help and
guidelines are available on the Web site. It is available 24 hours each
day, 365 days each year. An electronic copy of this document may also
be downloaded from the Office of the Federal Register's home page at:
http://www.federalregister.gov and the Government Printing Office's Web
site at: http://www.gpo.gov.
Table of Contents for Supplementary Information
I. Executive Summary
A. Purpose of the Regulatory Action
B. Summary of Major Provisions
C. Costs and Benefits
II. Acronyms and Abbreviations
III. Background
IV. Summary of Comments
V. Section-by-Section Discussion of the General Information and
Highway Safety Improvement Program Measures
A. Subpart A--General Information
B. Subpart B--National Performance Management Measures for the
Highway Safety Improvement Program
VI. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
I. Executive Summary
A. Purpose of the Regulatory Action
The MAP-21 (Pub. L. 112-141) and the FAST Act (Pub. L. 114-94)
transform the Federal-aid highway program by establishing new
performance management requirements to ensure that State DOTs and
Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPO) choose the most efficient
investments for Federal transportation funds. Performance management
refocuses attention on national transportation goals, increases the
accountability and transparency of the Federal-aid highway program, and
improves project decisionmaking through performance-based planning and
programming. State DOTs will now be required to establish performance
targets and assess performance in 12 areas \1\ established by the MAP-
21, and FHWA will assess \2\ their progress toward meeting targets in
10 of these areas.\3\ State DOTs that fail to meet or make significant
progress toward meeting safety targets will be required to direct a
portion of their HSIP funding toward projects that will improve safety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ These areas are listed within 23 U.S.C. 150(c), which
requires the Secretary to establish measures to assess performance
or condition.
\2\ 23 U.S.C. 148(i) and 23 U.S.C. 119(e)(7).
\3\ Title 23, sections 119(e)(7), 148(i), and 167(j) require
USDOT to assess significant progress in 10 of the 12 performance
measure areas (5 for the NHPP, 4 for HSIP, and 1 for freight).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This rule establishes the performance measures to carry out the
HSIP and to assess serious injuries and fatalities on all public roads.
This is the first of 3 rules that will establish performance measures
for State DOTs and MPOs to use to carry out Federal-aid highway
programs and assess performance in each of 12 areas. In addition, this
rule establishes the process for State DOTs and MPOs to use to
establish and report their safety targets, the process for State DOTs
and MPOs to report on their progress for their safety targets, and the
process that FHWA will use to assess whether State DOTs have met or
made significant progress toward meeting safety targets.
This rule establishes regulations to more effectively evaluate and
report on surface transportation safety across the country. These
regulations will: Improve data by providing for greater consistency in
the reporting of serious injuries; improve transparency by requiring
reporting on serious injuries and fatalities through a public reporting
system; enable targets and progress to be aggregated at the national
level; require State DOTs to meet or make significant progress toward
meeting their targets; and establish requirements for State DOTs that
have not met or made significant progress toward meeting their targets.
State DOTs and MPOs will be expected to use the information and data
generated as a result of the new regulations to inform their
transportation planning and programming decisionmaking and directly
link investments to desired performance outcomes. In particular, FHWA
expects that the new performance measures outlined in this rule will
help State DOTs and MPOs make investment decisions that will result in
the greatest possible reduction in fatalities and serious injuries.
This regulation is also aligned with DOT support of the Toward Zero
Deaths (TZD) vision, which has also been adopted by many State DOTs.
While MAP-21 does not specify targets for agencies, per the authorizing
statute, this performance measures system is an important step in
measuring and holding accountable transportation agencies as they work
toward the goal of eliminating traffic deaths and serious injuries.
These regulations will also help provide FHWA the ability to better
communicate a national safety performance story.
B. Summary of Major Provisions
In this rule, FHWA establishes the measures to be used by State
DOTs to assess performance and carry out the HSIP; the process for
State DOTs and MPOs to establish their safety targets; the methodology
to determine whether State DOTs have met or made
[[Page 13883]]
significant progress toward meeting their safety targets; and the
process for State DOTs and MPOs to report on progress for their safety
targets.
This final rule retains the majority of the major provisions of the
NPRM but makes significant changes by (a) establishing a fifth
performance measure to assess the number of combined non-motorized
fatalities and non-motorized serious injuries and (b) revising the
methodology for assessing whether a State has met or made significant
progress toward meeting its targets. The FHWA updates these and other
elements of the NPRM based on the review and analysis of comments
received.
The FHWA establishes 5 performance measures to assess performance
and carry out the HSIP: (1) Number of fatalities, (2) rate of
fatalities per VMT, (3) number of serious injuries, (4) rate of serious
injuries per VMT, and (5) number of combined non-motorized fatalities
and non-motorized serious injuries. The FHWA sought comment on how a
non-motorized measure could be included in this rulemaking and, in
response to comments establishes the non-motorized measure included in
this final rule. The measures will be calculated based on a 5-year
rolling average.
In response to comments, FHWA has made changes to the process for
assessing whether a State met or made significant progress toward
meeting its targets based on whether the process would meet the
following criteria: (a) Holds States to a higher level of
accountability; (b) does not discourage aggressive targets; (c)
supports the national goal to achieve a significant reduction in
fatalities and serious injuries; (d) is fair and consistent/
quantitative; (e) is simple/understandable/transparent; (f) is not
based on historical trends; and (g) is associated with the targets. The
FHWA adopts in this final rule that a State is determined to meet or
make significant progress toward meeting its targets when four out of
five targets are met or the outcome for the performance measure is
better than the State's baseline safety performance for that measure.
This rule establishes the processes for State DOTs and MPOs to
establish their safety targets and to report on progress for their
safety targets. State DOT targets shall be identical to the targets
established by the State Highway Safety Office (SHSO) for common
performance measures reported in the State's Highway Safety Plan (HSP).
Targets established by the State DOTs will begin to be reported in the
first HSIP annual report that is due after 1 year from the effective
date of this final rule and then each year thereafter in subsequent
HSIP annual reports. Once submitted in an HSIP report, approval from
FHWA (and from the National Highway Transportation Safety
Administration (NHTSA) for the common performance measures in the HSP)
would be required to change a State's performance target for that year.
However, the State will be free to establish new targets for subsequent
years in the following year's HSIP report. States may choose to
establish separate targets for any urbanized area within the State and
may also choose to establish a single non-urbanized target for all of
the non-urbanized areas in a State. These optional targets will not be
included in assessing whether the State met or made significant
progress toward meeting its targets.
The MPOs may choose between programing projects in support of all
the State targets, establishing specific numeric targets for all of the
performance measures (number or rate), or establishing specific numeric
targets for one or more individual performance measures (number or
rate) and supporting the State target on other performance measures.
For MPOs with planning boundaries that cross State lines, the MPO must
plan and program projects to contribute toward separate sets of
targets--one set for each State in which the planning area boundary
extends.
State DOTs that have not met or made significant progress toward
meeting safety performance targets must: (1) Use a portion of their
obligation authority only for HSIP projects and (2) submit an annual
implementation plan that describes actions the State DOT will take to
meet their targets. Both of these provisions will facilitate
transportation safety initiatives and improvements and help focus
Federal resources in areas where Congress has deemed a national
priority.
State DOTs and MPOs are expected to use the information and data
generated as a result of this new regulation to better inform their
transportation planning and programming decisionmaking, and
specifically to use their resources in ways that will result in the
greatest possible reduction in fatalities and serious injuries.
The FHWA has decided to phase in the effective dates for the three
final rules for these performance measures so that each of the three
performance measures rules will have individual effective dates. This
allows FHWA and the States to begin implementing some of the
performance requirements much sooner than waiting for the rulemaking
process to be complete for all the rules.
The FHWA also updates several other elements of the NPRM based on
the review and analysis of comments received. Section references below
refer to sections of the regulatory text for title 23 of the Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR).
The FHWA adds a provision to incorporate by reference the Model
Minimum Uniform Crash Criteria (MMUCC) Guideline, 4th Edition, and the
ANSI D16.1-2007, Manual on Classification of Motor Vehicle Traffic
Accidents, 7th Edition, in Sec. 490.111 because MMUCC is used in the
definition of the number of serious injuries and ANSI D16.1-2007 is
used in the definition of non-motorized serious injuries. The FHWA also
extends the time period proposed in the NPRM for States to adopt the
MMUCC 4th Edition definition and attribute for ``Suspected Serious
Injury (A)'' from 18 months (as proposed in the NPRM) to 36 months. The
requirement to adopt revised future editions of MMUCC subsequent to the
4th Edition is removed.
The FHWA updates the list of definitions in Sec. 490.205 to remove
definitions no longer required and to add new definitions based on the
revised methodology for determining whether a State has met or made
significant progress toward meeting its performance targets. The FHWA
also adds definitions to define explicitly the terms used in the new
performance measures.
Section 490.207 establishes the safety performance measures State
DOTs and MPOs shall use to assess roadway safety. State DOTs and MPOs
shall measure serious injuries and fatalities per VMT, and the total
numbers of both serious injuries and fatalities. In addition to those
proposed in the NPRM, the FHWA adds a performance measure to assess the
number of combined non-motorized fatalities and non-motorized serious
injuries. Each of the performance measures use a 5-year rolling
average. The exposure rate measures are calculated annually per 100
million VMT. Data for the fatality-related measures are taken from the
Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) and data for the serious
injury-related measures are taken from the State motor vehicle crash
database. The VMT are derived from the Highway Performance Monitoring
System (HPMS). For MPOs that choose to establish a quantifiable rate
target, the exposure data for serious injury and fatality rates are
calculated annually per 100 million VMT from the MPO's
[[Page 13884]]
estimate of VMT that is consistent with other Federal reporting
requirements, if applicable. The FHWA added the provision for MPO VMT
estimates since the NPRM did not identify an appropriate source for MPO
VMT, as it does not exist in the HPMS.
Section 490.209 describes the process State DOTs and MPOs shall use
to establish their targets for each of the safety measures. The FHWA
reduces the number of years of historical data that must be included in
the HSIP report, consistent with changes to the methodology for
assessing significant progress. In addition, FHWA revises the option
for States to establish separate urbanized and non-urbanized area
targets. Rather than allowing States to establish one additional
urbanized area target for all urbanized areas within the State, the
final rule allows State DOTs to select any number and combination of
urbanized area boundaries and a single non-urbanized area for the
establishment of additional targets. This change provides flexibility
for States because the rule does not include optional urbanized and
non-urbanized targets in the assessment of whether a State has met or
made significant progress toward meeting its targets. The FHWA retains
the requirement that the performance measures common to the State's HSP
and the HSIP (number of fatalities, fatality rate, and number of
serious injuries) be defined identically, as coordinated through the
State Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP).\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The MAP-21 requires State Highway Safety Offices to use the
``Traffic Safety Performance Measures for States and Federal
Agencies'' (DOT HS 811 025) to establish performance measures and
targets in the HSP. The MAP-21 further requires NHTSA to coordinate
with GHSA in making revisions to the performance measures identified
in the report. Accordingly, any changes to the common performance
measures, such as changes to the 5-year rolling average, are subject
to the GHSA coordination requirement in MAP-21.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 490.211 establishes the method FHWA will use to assess
whether State DOTs have met or have made significant progress toward
meeting their safety performance targets in accordance with 23 U.S.C.
148(i). Based on review and analysis of comments, FHWA revises the
method proposed in the NPRM. In this final rule, a State DOT is
determined to have met or made significant progress toward meeting its
targets when at least four of the five required performance targets are
either met or the safety outcome for the performance measure has
improved (i.e., the number or rate of fatalities and/or serious
injuries is less than the 5-year rolling average data for the
performance measure for the year prior to the establishment of the
State's target). The FHWA also reduces the time lag between when the
State establishes the targets and when FHWA will assess whether the
State has met or made significant progress toward meeting its targets.
Instead of using Final FARS for all 5 years of data that comprise the
rolling average, FHWA adopts the use of the FARS Annual Report File
(ARF) if Final FARS data are not available. This approach allows FHWA
to assess whether States met or made significant progress toward
meeting their targets 1 year earlier than proposed in the NPRM.
However, FHWA recognizes the timeframe for this determination remains
lengthy. In order to accelerate the transparency that is one of the
goals of the MAP-21, FHWA is in the process of creating a new public
Web site to help communicate the national performance story. The Web
site will likely include infographics, tables, charts, and descriptions
of the performance data that the State DOTs would be reporting to FHWA.
The FHWA will make publicly available postings of State performance
statistics and other relevant data that relate to this performance
measurement system as soon as the data are available.
The method by which FHWA will review performance progress of MPOs
is discussed in the update to the Statewide and Metropolitan Planning
regulation as described in 23 CFR part 450.
Section 490.213 identifies safety performance reporting
requirements for State DOTs and MPOs. State DOTs establish and report
their safety targets and progress toward meeting their safety targets
in the annual HSIP report in accordance with 23 CFR part 924. As
proposed in the NPRM, targets established by an MPO would be reported
annually to their State DOT(s). The FHWA revises this section to
require MPOs to report their established targets to the relevant State
DOT(s) in a manner that is agreed upon and documented by both parties,
rather than requiring the procedure be documented in the Metropolitan
Planning Agreement. The MPOs report on progress toward the achievement
of their targets in their System Performance Report as part of their
transportation plan, in accordance with 23 CFR part 450.
C. Costs and Benefits
The FHWA estimated the incremental costs associated with the new
requirements in this rule that represent a change to current practices
for State DOTs and MPOs. The FHWA derived the costs of each of these
components by assessing the expected increase in level of effort from
labor to standardize and update data collection and reporting systems
of State DOTs, as well as the increase in level of effort from labor to
establish and report targets.
To estimate costs, FHWA multiplied the level of effort, expressed
in labor hours, with a corresponding loaded wage rate that varied by
the type of laborer needed to perform the activity. Following this
approach the 10-year undiscounted incremental cost to comply with this
rule is $87.5 million.
The final rule's 10-year undiscounted cost ($87.5 million in 2014
dollars) increased from the proposed rule ($66.7 million in 2012
dollars). The FHWA made several changes which affected cost. These
changes include updating costs to 2014 dollars from 2012 dollars and
updating labor costs to reflect current Bureau of Labor Statistics
(BLS) data. In addition, FHWA revised the final rule Regulatory Impact
Analysis (RIA) to reflect (1) updated local law enforcement census
data, (2) costs associated with establishing the new non-motorized
fatalities and non-motorized serious injuries performance measure, (3)
the removal of the proposed requirement for State DOTs to compile a 10-
year historical trend line, (4) the deferred implementation of MMUCC,
4th edition compliance, (5) added effort required for MPOs to estimate
MPO-specific VMT for performance targets, (6) a decrease in the number
of MPOs expected to establish quantifiable targets, (7) costs of
coordinating on the establishment of targets in accordance with 23 CFR
part 450, (8) an increase in the estimated number of States that might
not meet or make significant progress toward meeting their targets
using the new methodology included in the final rule, and (9) a
decrease in the number of years States that do not meet or make
significant progress toward meeting their targets will incur costs.
The FHWA expects that the rule will result in some significant
benefits, although they are not easily quantifiable. Specifically, FHWA
expects the rule will allow for more informed decisionmaking at a
regional, State, and Federal level on safety-related project, program,
and policy choices. The rule will increase focus on investments that
will help to reduce fatalities and serious injuries. The rule also will
yield greater accountability on how States and MPOs are using Federal-
aid highway funds because of the MAP-21 requirements for mandated
reporting that will increase visibility and transparency.
The FHWA could not directly quantify the expected benefits
discussed above due to data limitations and the
[[Page 13885]]
amorphous nature of the benefits from the rule. Therefore, FHWA used a
break-even analysis as the primary approach to quantify benefits. The
FHWA focused its break-even analysis on reduction in fatalities or
serious injuries needed in order for the benefits of the rule to
justify the costs. The results of the break-even analysis quantified
the dollar value of the benefits that the rule must generate to
outweigh the threshold value, the estimated cost of the rule, which is
$87.5 million in undiscounted dollars. The results show that the rule
must prevent approximately 10 fatalities, or 199 incapacitating
injuries, over 10 years to generate enough benefits to outweigh the
cost of the rule. The FHWA believes that the benefits of this rule will
surpass this threshold and, as a result, the benefits of the rule will
outweigh the costs.
Relative to the proposed rule, both of the break-even thresholds
increased in the final rule. For both fatalities and incapacitating
injuries, the break-even points were affected by the increase in the
undiscounted 10-year cost, as well as by an increase in the Value of
Statistical Life (VSL) for fatalities, currently valued at $9,200,000,
and the average cost per incapacitating injury, currently valued at
$440,000.
The table below displays the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
A-4 Accounting Statement as a summary of the cost and benefits
calculated for this rule.
OMB A-4 Accounting Statement
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimates Units
Category -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Source/citation
Primary Low High Year dollar Discount rate Period covered
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benefits
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annualized Monetized ($ None.......... None.......... None.......... NA............ 7%................ NA................ Not Quantified.
millions/year). None.......... None.......... None.......... NA............ 3%................ NA................
Annualized Quantified....... None.......... None.......... None.......... NA............ 7%................ NA................ Not Quantified.
None.......... None.......... None.......... NA............ 3%................ NA................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Qualitative................. The rule is cost-beneficial if over the 10-year analysis period it reduces the number of fatalities by Final Rule RIA.
9.5 or the number of incapacitating injuries by 198.8, which is equivalently 1.0 fatality or 19.9
incapacitating injuries per year in a 10-year study period, from its current base case projection.
Because of this low threshold, FHWA determines that the rule benefits outweigh the costs.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Costs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annualized Monetized ($/ $9,339,123.... .............. .............. 2014.......... 7%................ 10 Years.......... Final Rule RIA.
year). $9,015,871.... .............. .............. 2014.......... 3%................ 10 Years..........
Annualized Quantified....... None.......... None.......... None.......... 2014.......... 7%................ 10 Years.......... Not Quantified.
None.......... None.......... None.......... 2014.......... 3%................ 10 Years..........
Qualitative................. None.
Transfers................... None.
From/To..................... From: To:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Effects
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State, Local, and/or Tribal $9,339,123.... .............. .............. 2014.......... 7%................ 10 Years.......... Final Rule RIA.
Government. $9,015,871.... .............. .............. 2014.......... 3%................ 10 Years..........
------------------------------------------------
Small Business.............. Not expected to have a significant impact on a NA............ NA................ NA................ Final Rule RIA.
substantial number of small entities.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Acronyms and Abbreviations
Acronyms and Abbreviations Table
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AASHTO.............................. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
AMBAG............................... Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments.
AMPO................................ Association of Metropolitan Planning Organizations.
ARC................................. Atlanta Regional Commission.
ARF................................. Annual Report File.
ATSSA............................... American Traffic Safety Services Association.
BLS................................. Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Caltrans............................ California Department of Transportation.
CFR................................. Code of Federal Regulations.
CODES............................... Crash Outcome Data Evaluation System.
CY.................................. Calendar Year.
DOT................................. U.S. Department of Transportation.
DVRPC............................... Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission.
EO.................................. Executive Order.
FARS................................ Fatality Analysis Reporting System.
FAST Act............................ Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act.
FHWA................................ Federal Highway Administration.
[[Page 13886]]
FMCSA............................... Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration.
FR.................................. Federal Register.
FY.................................. Fiscal Year.
GHSA................................ Governor Highway Safety Association.
HIPPA............................... Health Insurance Privacy and Portability Act.
HPMS................................ Highway Performance Monitoring System.
HSIP................................ Highway Safety Improvement Program.
HSP................................. Highway Safety Plan.
IBR................................. Incorporation by reference.
IFR................................. Interim Final Rule.
KABCO............................... K, killed; A, disabling injury; B, evident injury; C, possible injury; O, no apparent injury.
LAB................................. League of American Bicyclists.
MAP-21.............................. Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act.
MARC................................ Mid-America Regional Council.
MIRE................................ Model Inventory of Roadway Elements.
MMUCC............................... Model Minimum Uniform Crash Criteria.
MPO................................. Metropolitan Planning Organizations.
NACCHO.............................. National Association of County and City Health Officials..
NARA................................ National Archives and Records Administration.
NHTSA............................... National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
NPRM................................ Notice of proposed rulemaking.
NTSB................................ National Transportation Safety Board.
NYMTC............................... New York Metropolitan Transportation Council.
NYSAMPO............................. New York State Association of Metropolitan Planning Organizations.
OMB................................. Office of Management and Budget.
PRA................................. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
RIA................................. Regulatory Impact Analysis.
RIN................................. Regulatory Identification Number.
SANDAG.............................. San Diego Association of Governments.
SBCAG............................... Santa Barbara County Association of Governments.
SCAG................................ Southern California Association of Governments.
SEMCOG.............................. Southeast Michigan Council of Governments.
SHSO................................ State Highway Safety Office.
SHSP................................ Strategic Highway Safety Plan.
SRTA................................ Shasta Regional Transportation Agency.
SRTS................................ Safe Routes to Schools National Partnership.
State DOT........................... State Department of Transportation.
STIP................................ State Transportation Improvement Program.
STP................................. Surface Transportation Program.
TMA................................. Transportation Management Area.
TPM................................. Transportation Performance Management.
U.S.C............................... United States Code.
VMT................................. Vehicle miles traveled.
VSL................................. Value of Statistical Life.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Background
On March 11, 2014, at 79 FR 13846, FHWA published an NPRM proposing
the following: the definitions that will be applicable to the new 23
CFR part 490; the process to be used by State DOTs and MPOs to
establish their safety-related performance targets that reflect the
measures proposed in the NPRM; a methodology to be used to assess State
DOTs' compliance with the target achievement provision specified under
23 U.S.C. 148(i); and the process State DOTs must follow to report on
progress toward meeting or making significant progress toward meeting
safety-related performance targets. The NPRM also included a discussion
of the collective rulemaking actions FHWA intends to take to implement
MAP-21 performance-related provisions. On May 28, 2014, at 79 FR 30507,
FHWA extended the comment period on the NPRM from June 9, 2014, to June
30, 2014.
IV. Summary of Comments
The FHWA received 13,269 letters to the docket, including letters
from 38 State DOTs, 27 local government agencies, more than 50
associations and advocacy groups, over 13,000 individuals and
consultants, various other government agencies as well as 1 letter
cosigned by 8 U.S. Senators. The FHWA has also reviewed and considered
the implications of the FAST Act on the Safety Performance Management
Final Rule.
Of all the letters to the docket, 99 percent specifically addressed
bicycle and pedestrian safety issues or the need for a non-motorized
performance measure. The FHWA received more than 11,000 verbatim
duplicates of a letter written by the League of American Bicyclists
(LAB) or a copy of the letter with additional commentary. Fifty-seven
additional letters endorsed the LAB letter and provided additional
comments. Smart Growth America submitted verbatim letters from 1,513
individuals and FHWA received 473 duplicate copies of letters
supporting the Safety Routes to Schools National Partnership (SRTS) and
6 letters in support of America Walks. Another 84 letters from
individuals provided comments focusing on bicycle/pedestrian issues
without reference to specific organization letters.
Of the State DOT letters, 27 either (a) specifically mentioned
their general or strong support for the first of two letters that the
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
(AASHTO) submitted to the docket, (b) identified that they assisted
with writing portions of the first AASHTO letter and were in general
agreement with AASHTO's letter; and/or (c) stated
[[Page 13887]]
that they agreed with the letter and had additional comments specific
to their State. Those included: Alaska, Arkansas, Colorado,
Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa,
Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, New
Jersey, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania,
Rhode Island, South Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming DOTs.
The FHWA carefully considered the comments received from the vast
array of stakeholders. The comments, and summaries of FHWA's analyses
and determinations, are discussed in the following sections.
Selected Topics for Which FHWA Requested Comments
In the NPRM, FHWA specifically requested comments or input
regarding certain topics related to the safety performance measures
rulemaking. Several of those have an overall impact on the regulatory
language in this final rule, so are discussed in this section. The
others are discussed in the Section-by-Section analysis.
Effective Date
In the NPRM, FHWA proposed to establish one common effective date
for all three final rules for the performance measures established
pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 150. The FHWA solicited comments on an
appropriate effective date. While there were no comments suggesting a
specific date, the American Traffic Safety Services Association (ATSSA)
and Delaware DOT disagreed with the proposal for one effective date for
all three rules for performance measures because fatalities and serious
injuries are measured already, well known, and used in practice by
virtually every State DOT. The commenters stated that especially with
no firm timetable for the subsequent performance measure rulemakings,
there is no reason to delay implementation of this congressional
mandate to more effectively plan to save lives on our roadways.
Michigan and Washington State DOTs and the Mid-America Regional Council
(MARC) expressed support for one common effective date in order to
reduce the burdens on States to manage multiple effective dates.
Virginia DOT suggested that without knowing more about the other
proposed performance measures it was premature to seek opinions on
effective dates. Finally, in an Explanatory Statement accompanying the
``Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015,''
published in the Congressional Record,\5\ Congress directs FHWA to
publish its final rule on safety performance measures no later than
September 30, 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Congressional Record, December 11, 2014, page H9978, https://www.congress.gov/crec/2014/12/11/CREC-2014-12-11-bk2.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While FHWA recognizes that one common effective date could be
easier for State DOTs and MPOs to implement, the process to develop and
implement all of the Federal-aid highway performance measures required
in MAP-21 has been lengthy. It is taking more than 3 years since the
enactment of MAP-21 to issue all three performance measure NPRMs (the
first performance management NPRM was published on March 11, 2014; the
second NPRM \6\ was published on January 5, 2015; and the third
performance management NPRM \7\ is expected to be published soon).
Rather than waiting for all three rules to be final before implementing
the MAP-21 performance measure requirements, FHWA has decided to phase
in the effective dates for the three final rules for these performance
measures so that each of the three performance measures rules will have
individual effective dates. This allows FHWA and the States to begin
implementing some of the performance requirements much sooner than
waiting for the rulemaking process to be complete for all the rules.
This approach would also implement the safety-related measures and
requirements in this rule before the requirements proposed in the other
two rules. Earlier implementation of the safety-related requirements in
this rule is consistent with a DOT priority to improve the safety
mission across the Department.\8\ The FHWA also believes that a
staggered approach to implementation (i.e., implementing one set of
requirements at the onset and adding on requirements over time) will
better help States and MPOs transition to a performance-based
framework.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ NPRM for the National Performance Management Measures;
Assessing Pavement Condition for the National Highway Performance
Program and Bridge Condition for the National Highway Performance
Program 80 FR 326 (proposed January 5, 2015) http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-01-05/pdf/2014-30085.pdf.
\7\ NPRM for the National Performance Management Measures;
Assessing Performance of the National Highway System, Freight
Movement on the Interstate System, and Congestion Mitigation and Air
Quality Improvement Program.
\8\ http://www.dot.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/docs/FY2016-DOT-BudgetHighlights-508.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FHWA believes that States are in a position to begin to
implement the safety Transportation Performance Management (TPM)
requirements now for several reasons. Since 2010, SHSO have been
establishing and reporting annual targets for safety performance
measures. Since MAP-21 was enacted, FHWA and the NHTSA have encouraged
State SHSOs to coordinate with State DOTs as their targets are
established. States are familiar with the safety data sources necessary
to establish their targets (FARS, State motor vehicle crash databases
and HPMS) as these have been in place for many years. The FHWA
documented in the NPRM its assessment that the safety measures were
appropriate for national use and that FHWA was ready to implement the
measures in an accurate, reliable, and credible manner, with a few gaps
that were addressed in the NPRM. There were no comments countering this
assessment. Although FHWA believes that individual implementation dates
will help States and MPOs transition to performance based planning, to
lessen any potential burden of staggered effective dates on States and
MPOs, FHWA will provide guidance to States and MPOs on how to carry out
the new performance requirements.
In addition to providing this guidance, FHWA is committed to
providing stewardship to State DOTs and MPOs to assist them as they
take steps to manage and improve the performance of the highway system.
As a Federal agency, FHWA is in a unique position to utilize resources
at a national level to capture and share strategies that can improve
performance. The FHWA will continue to dedicate resources at the
national level to provide technical assistance, technical tools, and
guidance to State DOTs and MPOs to assist them in making more effective
investment decisions. It is FHWA's intent to be engaged at a local and
national level to provide resources and assistance from the onset to
identify opportunities to improve performance and to increase the
chances for full State DOT and MPO compliance of new performance
related regulations. The FHWA technical assistance activities include
conducting national research studies, improving analytical modeling
tools, identifying and promoting best practices, preparing guidance
materials, and developing data quality assurance tools.
Principles Considered in the Development of the Regulations for
National Performance Management Measures Under 23 U.S.C. 150(c)
The FHWA listed nine principles in the NPRM preamble that were
considered in the development of the
[[Page 13888]]
proposed regulation \9\. The FHWA encouraged comments on the extent to
which the approach to performance measures set forth in the NPRM
supported these principles. Commenters were supportive of both the
principles and the approach to establishing the performance measures.
The AASHTO, Connecticut DOT, and Tennessee DOT expressed support for
the nine guiding principles, stating that they are appropriate and that
the approaches set forth in the NPRM supported these guiding
principles. The AASHTO suggested revisions seeking to clarify and
underscore several of these principles, particularly providing
flexibility to States in target establishment and ensuring adequate
time to phase in requirements. Connecticut DOT echoed the need for
flexibility in target establishment and phase in time. The New York
State Association of Metropolitan Planning Organizations (NYSAMPO)
expressed overall agreement with the principles and indicated that the
proposed safety performance measure rule generally meets the intent of
these principles. This commenter did, however, suggest that the NPRM
did not fully realize the opportunity for ``increased accountability
and transparency'' as it relates to the proposed methodology for
determining whether States are making significant progress toward their
performance targets and suggested this could be a ``black box''
analysis meant to obscure rather than inform. In addition, the NYSAMPO
stated that it was not clear how the NPRM demonstrates an
``understanding that priorities differ.'' For example, improving safety
in terms of reducing deaths and injuries for all users should be a high
priority of both State DOTs and MPOs, but priorities may differ on
modal issues, and trade-offs may need to be made with other national
goals in a highly constrained funding environment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Nine principles used in the development of proposed
regulations for national performance management measures under 23
U.S.C. 150(c), www.regulatons.gov, Docket FHWA-2013-0020:
Provide for a National Focus--focus the performance
requirements on outcomes that can be reported at a national level.
Minimize the Number of Measures--identify only the most
necessary measures that will be required for target establishment
and progress reporting. Limit the number of measures to no more than
two per area specified under 23 U.S.C. 150(c).
Ensure for Consistency--provide a sufficient level of
consistency, nationally, in the establishment of measures, the
process to set targets and report expectations, and the approach to
assess progress so that transportation performance can be presented
in a credible manner at a national level.
Phase in Requirements--allow for sufficient time to
comply with new requirements and consider approaches to phase in new
approaches to measuring, target establishment, and reporting
performance.
Increase Accountability and Transparency--consider an
approach that will provide the public and decisionmakers a better
understanding of Federal transportation investment needs and return
on investments.
Consider Risk--recognize that risks in the target
establishment process are inherent, and that performance can be
impacted by many factors outside the control of the entity required
to establish the targets.
Understand that Priorities Differ--recognize that State
DOTs and MPOs must establish targets across a wide range of
performance areas, and that they will need to make performance
trade-offs to establish priorities, which can be influenced by local
and regional needs.
Recognize Fiscal Constraints--provide for an approach
that encourages the optimal investment of Federal funds to maximize
performance but recognize that, when operating with scarce
resources, performance cannot always be improved.
Provide for Flexibility--recognize that the MAP-21
requirements are the first steps that will transform the Federal-aid
highway program to a performance-based program and that State DOTs,
MPOs, and other stakeholders will be learning a great deal as
implementation occurs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Letters organized by Smart Growth America suggested that the
proposed rulemaking did not meet the congressional intent of MAP-21.
The commenters stated that without real targets and clearly defined
measures of success, the proposed rules do not provide the necessary
motivation to improve safety and reduce the number of fatalities and
serious injuries suffered by motorized and non-motorized users.
The FHWA appreciates the comments on the guiding principles. Based
on the general support of the principles, FHWA retains the principles
in the development of this final rule. As outlined in the section-by-
section discussion below, FHWA has made revisions to portions of the
regulation to more closely match the principles, including adding an
additional performance measure and the timing and methodology of the
assessment of whether a State has met or made significant progress
toward meeting its targets. The FHWA addresses AASHTO and Connecticut
DOT concerns about providing flexibility to States in target
establishment in the Sec. 490.209 discussion of identical targets. In
response to the NYSAMPO's comment on the principle of ``understanding
that priorities differ'' and that States and MPOs need to make trade-
offs, FHWA believes that this issue applies to the entire performance
management program, not just this rule. The FHWA provides State DOTs
and MPOs flexibilities to make performance trade-offs as they make
target establishment and programming decisions in FHWA proposals for 23
CFR part 490.\10\ The ``Statewide and Nonmetropolitan Transportation
Planning; Metropolitan Transportation Planning'' NPRM (Planning NPRM)
\11\ further supports this principle because, as described in that
proposal, the planning process brings all of the elements of a
performance management framework (such as establishment of performance
measures and targets and reporting requirements) together by linking
decisionmaking and investment priorities to performance targets in
areas like safety, infrastructure condition, traffic congestion, system
reliability, emissions and freight movement. Trade-offs and
establishing local and regional priorities are key elements of the TPM
framework and a performance based planning process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ NPRM for the National Performance Management Measures;
Assessing Pavement Condition for the National Highway Performance
Program and Bridge Condition for the National Highway Performance
Program 80 FR 326, http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-01-05/pdf/2014-30085.pdf and future proposed rulemaking regarding National
Performance Management Measures; Assessing Performance of the
National Highway System, Freight Movement on the Interstate System,
and Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program.
\11\ The Statewide and Nonmetropolitan Transportation Planning;
Metropolitan Transportation Planning NPRM: http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FHWA-2013-0037-0001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Separate Non-Motorized Performance Measures
In developing the NPRM, FHWA considered input from numerous sources
in selecting the proposed measures to carry out the HSIP and for State
DOTs and MPOs to use to assess safety performance. In the NPRM, FHWA
explained that it received information from stakeholders before
publishing the NPRM through listening sessions and letters, in which
the stakeholders suggested that: FHWA account for the safety of all
road users by including separate measures for motorized and non-
motorized (e.g., pedestrian, bicycle) transportation; that FHWA should
define performance measures that specifically evaluate the number of
fatalities and serious injuries for pedestrian and bicycle crashes; and
that FHWA should require that bicycle and pedestrian crashes and
fatalities be reported nationally and by States and MPOs. In addition,
following the passage of MAP-21 and before the issuance of the NPRM, 15
Senators and 77 Members of the House of Representatives submitted
letters to the Secretary of Transportation that expressed concern over
rising bicyclist and pedestrian fatalities and suggested separate
measures for motorized and non-motorized transportation should be
established.
[[Page 13889]]
The FHWA did not propose separate motorized and non-motorized
performance measures in the NPRM, but requested comments on how DOT
could address non-motorized performance measures in the final rule. In
addition, FHWA requested input on the extent to which States and MPOs
currently collect and report non-motorized data and the reliability and
accuracy of such data, and how States and MPOs consider such data in
their safety programs and in making their investment decisions. The
FHWA desired to hear from stakeholders how non-motorized performance
measures could be included in the final rule to better improve safety
for all users.
The majority of the comment letters submitted to the docket can be
directly attributed to the question of whether to include a non-
motorized performance measure. The AASHTO and 23 State DOTs objected to
creating a separate performance measure for non-motorized users. The
AASHTO commented that safety measures should focus on all fatalities
and serious injuries and not on emphasis areas, such as those for
separate non-motorized users. Twenty-three States submitted letters to
the docket either supporting AASHTO's comments or expressing individual
objections to the separate inclusion of non-motorized measures: Alaska,
California, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa,
Kentucky, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, New Jersey,
North Dakota, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee,
Texas, Vermont, and Utah. The AASHTO and these States suggested that
focusing performance measures on a particular group, such as non-
motorized users, would limit States' ability to use a comprehensive
evaluation strategy and data-driven approach to determine where the
investment of limited resources can most effectively save lives and
reduce serious injuries. The AASHTO and Delaware, Iowa, Kentucky,
Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, and Vermont DOTs, as well as the
California State Association of Counties, objected to a separate
performance measure because non-motorized users are already addressed
in the HSP that SHSOs submit to NHTSA and which includes analyses of
non-motorized (pedestrian and bicyclists) fatalities. They indicated
that the emphasis on non-motorized safety should remain in the HSP,
which allows each State to focus on its individual safety problems,
while minimizing the number of performance measures in the HSIP that
require target establishment, measurement, and reporting. Delaware and
Minnesota DOTs noted that introducing additional performance measures
would conflict with the second principle used to develop the proposed
performance management regulations (i.e., to minimize the number of
measures). The AASHTO also noted that the option to require a non-
motorized performance measure would be counter to several of the
principles used to develop the performance measures, namely, to
minimize the number of measures, understand that priorities differ, and
provide for flexibility. The AASHTO, along with the Florida, Michigan,
Montana, North Dakota, and Vermont DOTs argued that expanding
performance measures by segregating specific types of fatalities and
serious injuries at the national level would be inappropriate and
contrary to MAP-21 and against States' desire to focus national
performance efforts on a limited number of measures to implement 23
U.S.C. 150. Finally, many of these same commenters, as well as Texas
DOT, pointed out that non-motorized exposure data are not sufficient to
support these measures.
The Michigan DOT and AASHTO each submitted a letter after the close
of the comment period, in reaction to the Explanatory Statement
accompanying the ``Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations
Act, 2015.'' These letters re-iterated earlier AASHTO comments,
emphasizing that performance measures should not focus on particular
issues, which would limit States' ability to use a comprehensive, data
driven approach to improving safety; any non-motorized performance
measure should be based on currently available data-counts of non-
motorist fatalities and serious injuries that occur on public roadways
and involve a motor vehicle; and non-motorized performance measures
should not be included in the assessment of whether a State has met or
made significant progress toward meeting its performance targets.
Michigan DOT also suggested that if a non-motorized performance measure
were required, fatality data should be combined with serious injury
data to reduce the volatility of small data sets.
However, 99 percent of the letters submitted to the docket
supported a non-motorized performance measure. Commenters who expressed
support included letters organized by the LAB (11,175 commenters in
general agreement), Smart Growth America (1,513 identical letters), and
the SRTS (467 letters); as well as letters from Transportation for
America, ATSSA, AARP, the American Heart Association, and 3 State DOTs
(Oregon, Virginia, and Washington State). The Regional Transportation
Council and the North Central Texas Council of Governments, Puget Sound
MPO, Metropolitan Planning Organization for Portland, Oregon, and
Fairbanks Metropolitan Area Transportation System all expressed support
for a process to establish performance measures for non-motorized
travel. These commenters expressed concern that while total roadway
fatalities have been in decline over the past decade, non-motorized
fatalities have been on the rise. Moreover, supporters of a non-
motorized performance measure noted in their comments to the docket,
that in 2012, 16 percent of all national roadway fatalities were non-
motorized users and claim that less than 2 percent of HSIP funds were
obligated on non-motorized projects. Specifically, the LAB, Smart
Growth America, SRTS, Transportation Choices Coalition, Idaho Walks,
Adventure Cycling, Washington Bikes, the National Association of
Realtors, AARP, the National Association of County and City Health
Officials (NACCHO), other advocacy groups and their supporters, and
Nashville MPO believe Congress amended the HSIP in MAP-21 to clearly
support projects, activities, plans, and reports for non-motorized
safety. They state, for example, the HSIP was amended in MAP-21, in 23
U.S.C. 148(c)(2)(A)(vi) to improve the collection of data on non-
motorized crashes, and 23 U.S.C. 148(d)(1)(B) requires that States
address motor vehicle crashes that involve a bicyclist or pedestrian.
The commenters concluded that HSIP funding is explicitly eligible for
projects addressing the safety needs of bicyclists and pedestrians. The
LAB comments addressed the concern in the NPRM that there may be ``too
few'' recorded non-motorized fatalities to make a performance measure
statistically valid or useful by noting that in 3 out of 5 States, non-
motorized fatalities already make up more than 10 percent of their
total fatalities.
Supporters of SRTS letters note that children and families should
have the option to safely walk or bicycle to and from school, yet too
many communities lack the basic infrastructure necessary to make that
choice safe or possible. They argue that non-motorized measures would
lead to improvements in this area, and, without this change, States
will continue to overlook bicycle and pedestrian deaths, continue to
spend HSIP funds nearly exclusively on motorized safety issues, and
bicycle and
[[Page 13890]]
pedestrian deaths will continue to rise year after year. The Smart
Growth America comments suggest that although data are not perfect,
States already track non-motorized crashes and establishing targets
would support significant safety improvements in the coming years.
A group of eight U.S. Senators also submitted a letter to the
Secretary of Transportation expressing concern that the NPRM did not
propose a measure for non-motorized users and encouraging the DOT to
reevaluate the NPRM to address the safety of all public road users in
the final rule by creating separate measures for motorized and non-
motorized road users. Finally, the Explanatory Statement accompanying
the ``Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015,''
published in the Congressional Record,\12\ directs FHWA to ``establish
separate, non-motorized safety performance measures for the [HSIP],
define performance measures for fatalities and serious injuries from
pedestrian and bicycle crashes, and publish its final rule on safety
performance measures no later than September 30, 2015.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Congressional Record, December 11, 2014, page H9978,
https://www.congress.gov/crec/2014/12/11/CREC-2014-12-11-bk2.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FHWA includes in this final rule a non-motorized safety
performance measure. This measure is established after considering a
broad range of alternatives to address non-motorized safety, while
maintaining the data-driven nature of the HSIP and the TPM program
overall.
For example, FHWA considered a requirement for States to simply
report on non-motorized safety without further comment or evaluation.
This requirement would meet the concerns of AASHTO and many State DOTs
by not adding another performance measure and has the advantage of
keeping the regulatory requirement for non-motorized transportation
safety simple. The FHWA concluded, however, that requiring States only
to report would not improve non-motorized transportation safety,
particularly since, beginning with the Fiscal Year (FY) 2015 HSPs,
States must include an additional core outcome measure and establish
targets for bicycle fatalities \13\ (complementing the core outcome
measure and targets for the number of pedestrian fatalities measure,
which has been included in the HSPs since FY 2010). Reporting non-
motorized performance data in the HSIP reports would provide a visible,
publicly accessible platform to demonstrate the progress States are
making in improving non-motorized transportation safety. However,
reporting alone will not result in the same level of accountability as
performance targets. The FHWA believes any requirement should go beyond
reporting, particularly since much of the information is already
available in HSP reports, to have an impact on how infrastructure
investment decisions are made in this performance area. As a result, a
requirement for States to only report non-motorized performance data,
without further comment or evaluation, is not adopted in the final
rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ An additional core outcome measure for bicycle fatalities
was added after NHTSA's publication of the Interim Final Rule
(Uniform Procedures for State Highway Safety Grant Programs, Interim
final rule, 78 FR 4986 (January 23, 2013) (to be codified at 23 CFR
part 1200)), and is available at http://www.ghsa.org/html/resources/planning/index.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FHWA is aware that the magnitude and characteristics of non-
motorized safety performance varies from State to State. Each State
uses a data-driven approach to consider and account for its particular
safety issues in its SHSP. Twenty-five States included pedestrians,
bicyclists and/or vulnerable road users as emphasis areas in their
SHSPs as of 2014. Therefore, FHWA contemplated establishing a threshold
to identify only those States where non-motorized safety performance
supports requiring a State to focus additional attention and action on
non-motorized safety. The FHWA considered how to make the threshold
data-driven so that a State in which non-motorized safety problems are
not particularly high could focus attention and resources on aspects of
safety that its data indicate is most important, but would require some
States to establish targets for non-motorized safety. The FHWA
considered a number of methodologies for establishing the threshold,
including: (a) The national average of non-motorized fatalities, (b)
the percent of a State's total fatalities and serious injuries, and (c)
the non-motorized fatality rate by population. The FHWA also considered
exempting States that demonstrated improvements in past non-motorized
safety performance from assessment of the measure. Ultimately, FHWA
determined that each methodology for establishing a threshold could be
subject to criticism because the threshold is either too high--so not
enough States are required to take action--or too low--including too
many States. In keeping with FHWA's principle articulated in the NPRM
to ``ensure for consistency,'' FHWA does not include a threshold to
avoid different requirements for different States.
After reviewing the comments and information received that
addressed the questions in the NPRM on how DOT could address a non-
motorized performance measure, FHWA establishes in this final rule an
additional safety performance measure: the number of combined non-
motorized fatalities and non-motorized serious injuries in a State.
This performance measure is not identical to the measures in the HSP,
as the HSP includes separate measures for the number of pedestrian
fatalities and the number of bicycle fatalities. The single non-
motorized performance measure included in this final rule will be
treated equal to the other 4 measures proposed in the NPRM and included
in this final rule: (1) Total number of fatalities; (2) rate of all
fatalities per 100 million VMT; (3) total number of serious injuries;
and (4) rate of all serious injuries per 100 million VMT. All five
safety performance measures are subject to the requirements of this
rule, including establishing targets, reporting, and FHWA's assessment
of whether a State has met or made significant progress toward meeting
its targets.
The FHWA establishes the additional non-motorized performance
measure to accomplish a number of objectives:
1. Encourage all States to address pedestrian and bicycle
safety;
2. Recognize that walking and biking are modes of transportation
with unique crash countermeasures distinct from motor vehicles; and
3. Address the increasing trend in the total number of
pedestrian and bicyclist fatalities in the United States. These
fatalities have shown a 15.6 percent increase from 4,737 in 2009 to
5,478 in 2013. In addition, the percentage of total fatalities
involving non-motorists has increased from 13.3 percent in 2005 to
17.1 percent in 2013.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ http://www.nhtsa.gov/FARS.
Furthermore, establishing an additional non-motorized performance
measure supports President Obama's `Ladders of Opportunity'\15\
priority. The Ladders of Opportunity program at DOT helps ensure that
the transportation system provides reliable, safe, and affordable
options for reaching jobs, education, and other essential services.\16\
As part of DOT's program, the Secretary of Transportation has an
initiative that focuses on making streets and communities safer for
residents that do not or cannot drive. Through this
[[Page 13891]]
initiative, DOT encourages transportation agencies to consider the
needs and safety of pedestrians and bicyclists when planning highways.
Establishing a non-motorized performance measure is consistent with
these priorities and initiatives as it focuses more attention on
transportation safety problems for some of those residents that do not
or cannot drive.\17\ It is also consistent with the Explanatory
Statement accompanying the ``Consolidated and Further Continuing
Appropriations Act, 2015.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/urban-and-economic-mobility.
\16\ http://www.dot.gov/briefing-room/secretary-foxx-announces-ladderstep-technical-assistance-program.
\17\ Safer People, Safer Streets: Summary of U.S. Department of
Transportation Action Plan to Increase Walking and Biking and Reduce
Pedestrian and Bicyclist Fatalities, September 2014, http://www.dot.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/docs/safer_people_safer_streets_summary_doc_acc_v1-11-9.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The addition of a non-motorized performance measure addresses the
concerns of the majority of comments to the NPRM by requiring all
States and MPOs to establish targets for non-motorized safety. It adds
only one additional performance measure to the required set of safety
measures, thereby still limiting the overall total number of measures,
addressing a concern of AASHTO and some State DOTs. As part of the
overall TPM framework, this additional performance measure increases
the accountability and transparency of the Federal-aid highway program
and allows for improved project decisionmaking with respect to non-
motorized safety. The data used for this additional measure address
State DOTs' and FHWA's concern about small numbers of non-motorized
fatalities in some States by combining non-motorized fatalities and
serious injuries together in one measure. The combined total of non-
motorized fatalities and serious injuries is not insignificant in any
State. This approach is supported by Michigan DOT's comments submitted
after the close of the comment period. A single combined non-motorized
fatality and serious injury performance measure reduces the additional
burden for States and MPOs compared to two separate non-motorized
performance measures.
The AASHTO and supporters of AASHTO's comments on this issue
indicated that adding non-motorized performance measures to the overall
safety performance measures could limit a State's ability to use a
data-driven approach to decide where to invest limited resources and
could distort the analysis of whether a State met or made significant
progress toward meeting its non-motorized safety targets, since these
fatalities and serious injuries would be counted in both sets of
performance measures. The FHWA disagrees. The additional combined non-
motorized fatality and serious injury performance measure will not
``double count'' non-motorized fatalities and serious injuries or
distort the assessment of whether a State has met or made significant
progress toward meeting its targets. Because this performance measure
combines fatalities and serious injuries, it is different from the
other safety performance measures. For example, when the number of non-
motorized serious injuries increases in a State, the total number and
rate of serious injuries may or may not increase as well. The impact of
the increase in non-motorized serious injuries will be different on
each of the three performance measures that include serious injuries:
The number of serious injuries; the rate of serious injuries; and, the
number of non-motorized fatalities and non-motorized serious injuries.
The example below illustrates this point using data from Kansas (Table
1). The Kansas data are drawn from FARS, NHTSA's State Data System \18\
(for serious injury data), and HPMS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ http://www.nhtsa.gov/Data/State+Data+Programs/SDS+Overview.
Table 1--Kansas Fatality and Serious Injury Data
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual data 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-Motorized Serious Injuries.................................. 105 98 91 79 88 95 97 104
Non-Motorized Fatalities........................................ 28 29 22 25 27 16 16 33
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Non-Motorized Fatalities & Serious Injuries........... 133 127 113 104 115 111 113 137
Total Serious Injuries.......................................... 1,874 1,746 1,811 1,709 1,670 1,717 1,581 1,592
Total Serious Injury Rate....................................... 6.33 5.78 6.03 5.75 5.66 5.74 5.27 5.21
VMT (per 100 Million)........................................... 296.21 302.15 300.48 297.27 294.97 299.00 300.21 305.72
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5-Year rolling average data 2005-2009 2006-2010 2007-2011 2008-2012
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-Motorized Fatalities & Serious Injuries..... 118.4 114.0 111.2 116.0
% Change.................................... .............. -3.72% -2.46% 4.32%
Total Serious Injuries.......................... 1,762.0 1,730.6 1,697.6 1,653.8
% Change.................................... .............. -1.78% -1.91% -2.58%
Total Serious Injuries Rate..................... 6.327 5.779 6.027 5.749
% Change.................................... .............. -8.66% 4.30% -4.61%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this example, the number of combined non-motorized fatalities and
non-motorized serious injuries increases from the 2007-2011 5-year
rolling average to the 2008-2012 average. In the same time frame, the
serious injury number and serious injury rate measures both decrease.
States will need to consider how their programs, projects, and
strategies will impact the number of non-motorized serious injuries and
factor that impact into their methodology for establishing their safety
performance targets each year.
As noted in the comments by AASHTO and supporters of the AASHTO
comments, FHWA recognizes that fatal and serious injury crashes
involving only non-motorists (e.g., a bicyclist crashing into a
pedestrian) are not included in FARS or many State motor vehicle crash
databases. There is no single national or State-by-State data source
that includes fatal or serious injury crashes only involving non-
motorists. Because FARS and the State motor vehicle crash databases
already exist and are the data sources for the other safety performance
measures, FHWA uses them as the data sources for the non-motorized
performance measure. The FHWA recognizes that the calculation for the
non-motorized performance measure may not include a small number of
fatal and serious injury crashes involving only non-motorists
[[Page 13892]]
because FHWA is relying on these data sources. The AASHTO comments
submitted after the close of the comment period support using FARS and
State motor vehicle crash databases as the source for any potential
non-motorized safety performance measure data, since other crashes may
not be recorded. The AASHTO's position on this issue is thus consistent
with the requirement in this rule.
The FHWA recognizes that non-motorized fatalities and non-motorized
serious injuries will now be accounted for in more than one performance
measure; however, FHWA believes that establishing this separate
performance measure for the number of non-motorized fatalities and
serious injuries will help States focus greater attention on the safety
needs of these transportation users, can be accounted for in how the
States and MPOs evaluate their data and select their investment
priorities, and will contribute to decreases in the total number of
fatalities and serious injuries.
The Consortium for People with Disabilities and America Walks
suggested that FHWA consider including non-motorized and motorized
wheelchairs and other mobility devices such as scooters in a
performance measure. The FHWA agrees and defines the non-motorized
performance measure to include the categories of persons classified as
pedestrians and bicyclists as well as those using motorized and non-
motorized wheelchairs and personal conveyances. The definition of the
non-motorized performance measure is also consistent with 23 U.S.C.
217(j) which defines `pedestrian' as ``. . . any person traveling by
foot and any mobility impaired person using a wheelchair'' and defines
`wheelchair' as ``a mobility aid, usable indoors, and designed for and
used by individuals with mobility impairments, whether operated
manually or motorized.''
The 23 U.S.C. 150 stipulates that the Secretary establish
``measures for States to use to assess serious injuries and fatalities
per VMT.'' The Atlanta Regional Commission (ARC), State of New York
Department of Transportation, NYSAMPO, and several individuals
commented that VMT is the wrong exposure variable for a rate-based
measure for non-motorized modes. The New York agencies suggested that
FHWA commence a research effort to determine the most appropriate
method for calculating non-motorized based crash rates. Tennessee DOT
indicated that it does not collect miles traveled for non-motorized
users; however, some MPOs in Tennessee collect this information.
Tennessee cautioned that this could cause unbalanced and nonmatching
targets or goals. The MARC commented that it disaggregates crash data
by non-motorized type through work with its regional transportation
safety coalition. The MARC also indicated that it currently works with
its State DOTs to collect and report non-motorized fatality and serious
injury data and to obtain motorized VMT, but do not have similar rate
data for non-motorized travel. Oregon and New York City DOT expressed
support for creation of a non-motorized safety performance measure that
would count the rate of fatalities for bicyclists and pedestrians
compared to population, not VMT. The LAB, Smart Growth America, and
other supporters of a non-motorized performance measure recognize that
there is no national dataset for a non-motorized rate measure. These
commenters argued that adopting a non-motorized safety performance
measure would create the expectation and incentive to collect this
data. The Michigan DOT and AASHTO, in comments submitted after the
close of the comment period, reiterated that a rate-based measure for
non-motorized users is not appropriate at this time.
The FHWA agrees that VMT is not an appropriate exposure metric for
a non-motorized performance measure and that there is no consensus on a
national or State-by-State data source for bicycling and walking
activity upon which to determine a rate in this rule. As a result, FHWA
does not include a rate-based non-motorized measure at this time. The
DOT is committed to improving the quality of data on non-motorist
transportation and is engaged in a broad range of data-related
activities concerning non-motorist transportation.\19\ This work, such
as including guidance for collecting pedestrian and bicyclist count
information in the most recent FHWA Traffic Monitoring Guide,\20\
should help pave the way for better methods to estimate exposure to
risk for pedestrians and bicyclists. The FHWA encourages States and
MPOs to use these resources in order to develop and use exposure
measures for non-motorized travel that will inform pedestrian and
bicycle safety initiatives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ Information about on-going USDOT activities is available at
http://www.dot.gov/bicycles-pedestrians.
\20\ FHWA ``Traffic Monitoring Guide'': http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/tmguide/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Met or Made Significant Progress Toward Meeting Targets Evaluation
In the NPRM, FHWA proposed a two-step process for determining
whether a State met or made significant progress toward meeting its
performance targets. The first step was to determine if each
performance target had been met or if a State had made significant
progress toward meeting each target based on a prediction interval
around the projection of a historical trend line. The second step
determined if a State had met or made significant progress toward
meeting at least 50 percent of its performance targets, including
optional targets. If they did, a State would be determined to have made
``overall significant progress.'' The FHWA specifically asked
stakeholders to comment on the appropriateness of the trend line and
prediction interval methodologies and whether 50 percent is the
appropriate threshold for determining if a State had ``overall made
significant progress'' toward meeting its performance targets.
The FHWA has evaluated the arguments made by commenters regarding
the methodology for assessing whether a State DOT made significant
progress, including the comment discussed earlier that the proposed
methodology conflicted with the ``increased accountability and
transparency'' principle, and has concluded that it is necessary and
appropriate to revise this part of the regulation. The following
summarizes the comments regarding the proposed significant progress
methodology. In response to the comments below, FHWA developed a set of
criteria to help develop and evaluate the methodology for assessing
whether a State DOT made significant progress toward meeting its
targets.
The AASHTO, New York Metropolitan Transportation Council, NYSAMPO,
ARC, and Transportation for America expressed disagreement with what
they considered to be a complex method for determining significant
progress. Eight U.S. Senators, AARP, Adventure Cycling, ATSSA, America
Walks, Boston Public Health Commission, California Walks, Living
Streets Alliance, Rails-to-Trails Conservancy, Smart Growth America and
SRTS and their supporters, Transportation for America, Tri[hyphen]State
Transportation Campaign (New York, New Jersey and Connecticut), and
Walk Austin were among the commenters who suggested that States should
be held to a higher level of accountability than meeting 50 percent of
their targets for the ``overall significant progress'' determination
proposed in the NPRM. The AASHTO, Delaware Valley Regional Planning
Commission (DVRPC), NYSAMPO, Shasta Regional Transportation Agency
(SRTA), and Delaware, Connecticut, Iowa, Kentucky,
[[Page 13893]]
Missouri, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Vermont State DOTs
agreed with the 50 percent threshold; while MARC and Arkansas,
Illinois, Louisiana, New York, Pennsylvania, and South Dakota DOTs
specifically expressed a desire to account for unique or extenuating
circumstances. The ATSSA, NACCHO, Smart Growth America, Transportation
Choices Coalition, and Transportation for America argued that meeting
only 50 percent of targets is not stringent enough and expressed strong
support for significant progress to be defined as meeting at least 75
percent of targets. Further, this group of commenters called for a
methodology that is simplified, not based on historical trend lines,
and that holds States more accountable for reducing fatalities and
serious injuries by not including a cushion for States that fail to
meet or make significant progress toward meeting their targets. The
AARP, America Walks, BikeWalkLee, Boston Public Health Commission,
Idaho Walk Bike Alliance, LAB, Lebanon Valley Bicycle Coalition, Living
Streets Alliance, Rails-to-Trails Conservancy, SRTS, Trailnet, Trust
for America's Health, Walk Austin, and their supporters also argued
that significant progress should not include outcomes that result in an
increase in the number or rate of fatalities or of serious injuries.
The FHWA agrees that the methodology should hold States to a high level
of accountability. The methodology should also avoid determining that
significant progress was made when the number or rate of fatalities or
of serious injuries increased. The methodology must also support the
national safety goal to achieve a significant reduction in fatalities
and serious injuries.
The AASHTO, Arkansas, Colorado, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, New
York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, Texas, Utah State DOTs,
Fairbanks Metropolitan Area Transportation System, Nashville MPO,
NACCHO, and NYSAMPO, as well as the Association of Metropolitan
Planning Organizations (AMPO), Smart Growth America and Transportation
Choices Coalition commented that the determination of significant
progress should not be based on historical trends. The FHWA agrees that
the methodology should not be based on historical trends and should be
associated with the targets the State establishes.
The AASHTO and Kentucky, Ohio, Oregon, and Rhode Island DOTs also
advocated that the significant progress methodology should not
discourage States from establishing aggressive targets and that the
process should be flexible so as to not unduly impose the ``penalty.''
The FHWA agrees that the methodology should not discourage aggressive
targets.
The ATSSA, Delaware, Kentucky, and Washington State DOTs expressed
support for the prediction interval, with Washington State DOT citing
that it is necessary and appropriate to account for the normal variance
in crashes. The AARP, ARC, Trust for America's Health, several
bicycling and walking organizations including America Walks, LAB,
Lebanon Valley Bicycle Coalition, BikeWalkLee, Trailnet, and Idaho Walk
Bike, the Tri[hyphen]State Transportation Campaign Alliance (New York,
New Jersey and Connecticut), and New York, Oregon, and Virginia DOTs
expressed opposition to the prediction interval analysis proposed in
the NPRM, stating that it was too complex, too confusing, or provided
too great a cushion for States to not meet a target. The FHWA agrees
that the prediction interval is too complex and that the methodology
should be simple, understandable, and transparent.
Based on these comments, FHWA developed criteria to evaluate
methodologies to assess whether a State met or made significant
progress toward meeting its targets. The methodology should: (a) Hold
States to a higher level of accountability; (b) not discourage
aggressive targets; (c) support the national goal to achieve a
significant reduction in fatalities and serious injuries; (d) be fair
and consistent/quantitative; (e) be simple, understandable, and
transparent; (f) not be based on historical trends; and (g) be
associated with the targets. The FHWA believes that using these
criteria to develop a revised methodology to assess whether a State has
met or made significant progress toward meeting its targets results in
an approach that addresses the commenters' concerns.
With these criteria in mind, FHWA considered several options to
determine whether a State has met or made significant progress toward
meeting its targets: (1) State meets a defined range around each
target; (2) State meets a range around a trend line for the performance
measure; (3) State uses their own pre-determined and approved
methodology; (4) State meets some percentage of all targets; and (5)
State performs better than a baseline for a performance measure. Some
of these methodologies were submitted to the docket.
First, FHWA eliminated the first and second options that would
allow a State to meet a range around a target or a range around a trend
line. Developing a range around targets or a trend line, as was
proposed in the NPRM, would require FHWA to define the range and
evaluate States using complex mathematical analyses. Such an effort was
strongly criticized and would not be consistent with the preference for
a simpler methodology.
Arkansas, Colorado, and Michigan State DOTs suggested that they
should be able to develop their own methodology for assessing whether a
target was met or significant progress was made. To meet the principle
``to ensure for consistency,'' FHWA did not consider the third option
where it would use a different methodology for each State. However,
FHWA did evaluate a variation of the third option that would allow
States to select a methodology from a suite of options approved by
FHWA. The State's selected methodology would be approved by FHWA in
much the same manner as FHWA approves a State's definition for ``high
risk rural roads'' in the High Risk Rural Roads Special Rule (23 U.S.C.
148(g)). The FHWA carefully weighed this option against the criteria.
This option does not seem to dis-incentivize States from setting
aggressive targets and could incentivize some States to establish even
more aggressive targets if the methodology were to reduce the risk of
States failing to make significant progress. This option, however, does
not necessarily further the national goal to significantly reduce
traffic fatalities and serious injuries. This option also does not meet
the criteria for being simple/understandable/transparent since it would
be difficult, if not impossible, for the general public to follow the
different methodologies and related assessments for each State. Lastly,
it would not be possible for FHWA to tell a ``national story'' if
States were to use different significant progress methodologies--
contrary to one of FHWA's principles considered in the development of
these regulations.\21\ For these reasons, FHWA did not adopt this
option in the final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ NPRM for the National Performance Management Measures;
Highway Safety Improvement Program 79 FR 13846, 13852 (proposed
March 11, 2014) http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2014-03-11/pdf/2014-05152.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FHWA considered the fourth option--State meets some percentage
of all targets--to be viable. This option is simple and was recommended
by several commenters, including AASHTO, nine State DOTs, DVRPC, SRTA,
NYSAMPO, ATSSA, NACCHO, Smart Growth America, and Transportation for
America. This option is easy to understand and implement, does not
require a complex
[[Page 13894]]
mathematical analysis, and does not require 10 years of historical data
(which some States commented would be difficult to obtain). Further,
this option is clearly associated with the targets the State
establishes and is not based on the historical trend in the State.
Accordingly, FHWA concluded that it is appropriate to assess whether a
State has met or made significant progress toward achieving its targets
based on the State meeting or making significant progress toward
meeting a defined percentage of its targets.
In further considering the fourth option, FHWA evaluated the
responses to the NPRM request for comments on whether 50 percent is the
appropriate threshold for determining whether a State has overall
achieved or made significant progress toward achieving its performance
targets. The FHWA agrees with the commenters who stated that the 50
percent threshold is too low. The AARP suggested that States be
required to meet all targets. Transportation for America, Nashville
MPO, NACCHO, Smart Growth America, Transportation Choices Coalition,
and Ryan Snyder Associates also suggested that 100 percent of targets
should be met, but recognized that some flexibility should be provided.
The MAP-21 requires the Secretary to make a determination whether a
State has ``met or made significant progress toward meeting'' its
targets.\22\ To satisfy this mandate, FHWA has determined that States
must meet or make significant progress toward meeting four out of five
targets. (The addition of the non-motorized performance measure in this
final rule expands the number of required performance targets from the
four proposed in the NPRM to five.) Requiring States to meet 100
percent of targets is not consistent with the ``or made significant
progress toward meeting'' targets provision in 23 U.S.C. 148(i). Four
out of five targets (80 percent) is more than the AASHTO and State DOT
supported NPRM proposal to meet 50 percent of targets and similar to
the 75 percent recommendation advocated by many commenters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ 23 U.S.C. 148(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The AASHTO and Michigan DOT, in comments submitted after the close
of the comment period, argued that non-motorized performance measures
should not be considered in the determination of whether a State has
met or made significant progress toward meeting targets because
including them would limit a State's ability to use a comprehensive,
data-driven approach to determine the best set of safety investments to
achieve performance targets and because MAP-21 does not require such
measures. As explained earlier, FHWA agrees with many commenters that
it is important to hold States accountable to improve non-motorized
safety. Including non-motorized performance in the assessment of
whether a State met or made significant progress toward meeting targets
will ensure that these measures have an impact on how investment
decisions are made in this performance area, will improve non-motorized
transportation safety, and will provide a publicly available platform
to show whether the progress States are making in non-motorized
transportation safety. Further, including non-motorized performance
targets in FHWA's assessment of significant progress is consistent with
the statutory requirements in 23 U.S.C. 150 and 148(i). The FHWA is
establishing the non-motorized measure as part of its mandate in 23
U.S.C. 150(c)(4) to establish measures for States to use to assess the
number of serious injuries and fatalities. For measures established by
FHWA, including those identified in 23 U.S.C. 150(c)(4), States are
required to establish targets reflecting these measures. 23 U.S.C.
150(d). Where States are required to establish targets, those targets
are subject to the assessment under 23 U.S.C. 148(i) (requiring a
determination of whether a State has ``met or made significant progress
toward meeting the performance targets of the State established under
section 150(d)''). Therefore, FHWA includes the non-motorized
performance measure in the assessment of whether a State met or made
significant progress toward meeting targets.
Finally, FHWA also considered the fifth option: Whether significant
progress should be defined as an outcome that is better than the
State's performance for some year or years prior to when the target was
established. This option supports several of FHWA's evaluation
criteria, as it is simple and encourages States to establish aggressive
targets, while not subjecting them to additional requirements if they
fail to meet the aggressive target when their performance still
improves. It also supports the national goal to reduce traffic
fatalities and serious injuries.\23\ Although this option does not
associate the significant progress determination with the target the
State establishes, it does further the national goal and the purpose of
the HSIP, encourages aggressive targets, and acknowledges States that
have achieved safety improvement. Therefore, FHWA includes this option
in this final rule. This final rule allows States that do not meet a
target to be considered as having made significant progress toward
meeting the target if the outcome for that performance measure is
better than the State's performance for the year prior to the year in
which target was established (i.e., baseline safety performance).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ 23 U.S.C. 150(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For example, Table 2 presents a fictitious State's historical data,
its Calendar Year (CY) 2018 targets, and FHWA's assessment of those
targets. As targets are established for CY 2018 in the HSIP report that
is due in August 2017, ``baseline safety performance'' is the
performance data for CY2016. That is, the 5-year rolling average ending
in CY2016 for each performance measure. (As the baseline performance
year changes with the target year, if the example were for CY 2019
targets, ``baseline safety performance'' would be the performance data
for CY 2017).
In this example, the only target the State met is its non-motorized
safety performance target. This target is not evaluated further. The
FHWA then assesses whether the State made significant progress for the
other four performance measures, meaning whether the actual outcome for
2014-2018 was better than the baseline performance--2012-2016--for the
Number of Fatalities, Number of Serious Injuries, Fatality Rate and
Serious Injuries Rate performance measures. State performance did not
improve for the Fatality Rate measure, but did improve for the other
three. Therefore, for this example, FHWA would determine that the State
met or made significant progress toward meeting its CY 2018 targets
since 4 of the 5 targets were either met or were better than the
baseline safety performance.
[[Page 13895]]
Table 2--Example of the Data and Target Assessment Methodology
[For illustrative purposes]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5 Year rolling averages
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Met or made
Performance measures 2012-2016 2018 Target achieved? Better than significant
2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 baseline 2013-2017 2014-2018 target baseline? progress?
performance
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Fatalities................ 501.2 486.6 478.0 476.0 474.0 473.0 472.4 468.0 No.................. Yes................. Yes.
Fatality Rate....................... 1.052 1.018 1.000 0.994 0.988 0.990 0.990 0.980 No.................. No.
Number of Serious Injuries.......... 2,740.8 2,613.6 2,517.0 2,447.8 2,310.4 2,219.2 2,185.6 2,160.0 No.................. Yes.
Serious Injury Rate................. 5.764 5.476 5.272 5.116 4.822 4.644 4.584 4.572 No.................. Yes.
Number of Non-motorized Fatalities 126.2 118.0 116.8 115.2 113.2 110.0 109.4 110.0 Yes................. N/A.
and Serious Injuries.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This option is similar to the significant progress methodology that
FHWA proposed to assess pavement and bridge condition targets where an
improvement above baseline is considered significant progress.\24\
\24\ Assessing Pavement Conditions and Bridge Conditions for the
Second National Highway Performance Program Management Measures;
NPRM 80 FR 326 (proposed January 5, 2015) http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-01-05/pdf/2014-30085.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to the five options discussed above, FHWA considered
three alternative methodologies that were suggested in public comments.
These include: (1) Providing additional flexibility for top performing
States; (2) allowing a State to submit evidence of extenuating
circumstances outside the State DOT's control that contributed to the
State not meeting its targets; and (3) assessing significant progress
based on performance over a number of years, rather than annually.
The AASHTO suggested FHWA consider allowing certain top performing
States to be exempt from the assessment regarding meeting or making
significant progress toward meeting a target if a condition was met.
Idaho, North Dakota, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, North
Dakota, Oregon, Virginia, and Wyoming DOTs specifically stated that the
proposed NPRM methodology may not be appropriate for all States,
especially those that have already made large gains in reducing fatal
and serious injury crashes. To address these comments, FHWA considered
exempting a certain number of top performing States or States that had
made large gains, a certain percentage of the States that had performed
best in the past, or exempting the States that contribute the most
toward the national goal (e.g. those States that reduce the largest
number of fatalities or serious injuries). The FHWA determined that
such options would be difficult to implement and would not meet the
evaluation criteria. Excluding some top performing States would not
relate the target achievement and significant progress determination to
the State's target, since the top performing States would not be
assessed at all. In addition, this option would not be simple,
understandable, or transparent. Further, this option could place States
in competition with each other since only the ``top performing'' States
would benefit from this provision. This option could also be unfair to
States with smaller overall numbers of fatalities or serious injuries.
The purpose of implementing a transformational national performance
management program is to measure performance by and within each State,
not to assess performance by States against other States.
The AASHTO and States who supported AASHTO, along with individual
comments from Arkansas, Illinois, Louisiana, New York, Pennsylvania,
and South Dakota DOTs, and MARC specifically requested FHWA provide
flexibility in the evaluation of meeting or making significant progress
toward meeting targets for unforeseen circumstances or events outside
of the State DOT's control. In addition, the Santa Barbara County
Association of Governments (SBCAG) commented that many improvements to
highway safety are outside the control of State DOTs and MPOs and
depend on factors other than transportation infrastructure. The FHWA
recognizes these concerns but emphasizes that State DOTs and MPOs are
provided with HSIP funds annually to reduce fatalities and serious
injuries on all public roads. The FHWA accounts for unforeseen events
and factors outside of a State DOT's control in this rule in several
ways. First, the 5-year rolling average provides a smoothing effect for
variations in data that account, to a large degree, for such
circumstances. Second, States that do not meet their target are
considered as having made significant progress toward meeting the
target if performance for that measure is better than performance for
the year prior to the year in which the target was established. Third,
only requiring a State to meet four out of five targets allows a State
not to meet or make significant progress toward meeting an individual
target for a performance measure or even be worse than the baseline,
yet still result in a determination that the State has met or made
significant progress toward meeting its performance targets. Fourth,
States are encouraged to include the risk of unforeseen events and
circumstances outside their control as part of their considerations as
they establish targets. Because unforeseen events and factors outside
of State DOT control are already considered as described above, FHWA
has decided not to include an option for a State DOT to indicate that
unforeseen circumstances should allow it or one of its targets to be
exempt from target assessment.
The SBCAG and the Transportation Agency for Monterey County also
advocated for HSIP funds to be available for activities beyond HSIP
projects, specifically to include projects that address driver
behavior. Eligible use of HSIP funds is addressed in the HSIP
regulation at 23 CFR part 924. Under 23 U.S.C. 148, an HSIP project is
defined as strategies, activities, or projects on a public road that
are consistent with a State SHSP and that either corrects or improves a
hazardous road segment, location, or feature, or addresses a highway
safety problem. Examples of projects are described in 23 U.S.C. 148(a).
(See 23 CFR part 924).
The FHWA also evaluated an option that would apply the target
achievement and significant progress assessment after a certain number
of years, rather than annually. Missouri and Rhode Island State DOTs
commented that it would be difficult to adjust their State
[[Page 13896]]
Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) annually to implement a
different set of safety improvements if they are determined to not have
met or made significant progress toward meeting targets annually. They
state that more time between assessment periods could improve a State's
ability to determine what is working in its STIP and what is not, and
to program/implement projects that have more impact to drive down
fatality and serious injury numbers and rates. The FHWA did not pursue
this approach because safety reporting is already required annually.
For example, the HSIP reports submitted by States which include the
fatality and serious injury data commensurate with the safety
performance measures are transmitted on an annual basis. States
establish targets and report on safety performance measures to NHTSA as
part of their HSP and Highway Safety Annual Reports. Conducting an
annual assessment is also consistent with the requirement to submit an
annual implementation plan if the State fails to meet or make
significant progress toward meeting its targets. If target achievement
and significant progress were evaluated over a longer time period, the
assessment would no longer align with the other safety reporting. In
addition, waiting longer to assess whether States met or made
significant progress toward meeting targets would not necessarily
address the concerns about modifying the STIP, since the requirement
for States subject to the 23 U.S.C. 148 provisions to obligate funds
within the subsequent fiscal year is not based on how much time elapses
between target assessments. In its analysis of docket comments and
deliberations regarding changes to the methodology for assessing
whether a State has met or made significant progress toward meeting its
targets, FHWA was mindful of the provisions States must follow if FHWA
determines they have not met or made significant progress toward
meeting their performance targets. The 23 U.S.C. 148(i) requires States
to: (1) Use a portion of their obligation authority only for HSIP
projects and (2) submit an annual implementation plan that describes
actions the State DOT will take to meet their targets. Both of these
provisions apply each year after FHWA determines that the State has not
met or made significant progress toward meeting its performance
targets.
The Virginia DOT interprets the statute to say that States have 2
years to meet their targets, since FHWA must make a determination
whether States have met or made significant progress toward meeting
their targets by the date that is 2 years after the date of the
establishment of the performance targets. As a result, Virginia DOT
asked how FHWA could apply the provisions of 23 U.S.C. 148(i) if the
determination were not made within 2 years of the date the target was
established. In MAP-21, the 23 U.S.C. 148(i) stated ``If the Secretary
determines that a State has not met or made significant progress toward
meeting the performance targets of the State established under section
150(d) by the date that is 2 years after the date of the establishment
of the performance targets, . . .'' However, the FAST Act changed 23
U.S.C. 148(i) to state, ``If the Secretary determines that a State has
not met or made significant progress toward meeting the safety
performance targets of the State established under section 150(d).''
Since the FAST Act removed the 2 year reference that Virginia DOT
commented on, the statute can no longer be interpreted the way the
Virginia DOT suggests. The FHWA believes that its interpretation is
consistent with the plain language of the statute. Similar to what was
proposed in the NPRM, FHWA establishes the safety performance measures
as annual measures for a single performance year. The FHWA will
determine whether a State has met or made significant progress toward
meeting its targets when the outcome data for that calendar year is
available and expects to notify States of its determination within 3
months. As described earlier in the document, FHWA has been able to
shorten its evaluation of State targets by 1 year. The proposed and
final approach to assessing significant progress, including the timing,
is consistent with the revised language under the FAST Act.
V. Section-by-Section Discussion of the General Information and Highway
Safety Improvement Program Measures
1. Subpart A--General Information
Section 490.101 General Definitions
In the NPRM, FHWA proposed several definitions for terms used in
this regulation and in subsequent performance management regulations.
The FHWA received only one substantive comment on this section: The
County of Marin, CA Department of Public Works, supported including the
definition for ``non-urbanized area'' to include rural areas as well as
other areas that do not meet the conditions of an urbanized area. To
ensure consistency with revised Sec. 490.209(b) specifying a single,
collective non-urbanized area target, FHWA revises the definition for
``non-urbanized area'' to clearly indicate that a non-urbanized area is
a single, collective area comprising all of the areas in the State that
are not ``urbanized areas'' defined under 23 U.S.C. 101(a)(34). The
FHWA also removed the reference to 23 CFR 450.104 from the definition
for clarity. The statutory definition provides for a State or local
adjusted urbanized boundary based on the area designated by the Bureau
of the Census, which is what FHWA intended for States to use when
establishing the additional urbanized and/or non-urbanized targets,
whereas 23 CFR 450.104 only references the Bureau of Census designated
area.
Section 490.111 Incorporation by Reference
The FHWA incorporates by reference the ``Model Minimum Uniform
Crash Criteria (MMUCC) Guideline, 4th Edition (2012)'' for the
definition of serious injuries, as described in Sec. 490.207(c). This
guide presents a model minimum set of uniform variables or data
elements for describing a motor vehicle crash. The Guide is available
at: http://mmucc.us/sites/default/files/MMUCC_4th_Ed.pdf. In the NPRM,
FHWA proposed the use of MMUCC, latest edition as part of Sec.
490.207(c). Because the regulations now refer to a specific edition of
MMUCC, rather than the ``latest edition,'' FHWA determined it was
appropriate to incorporate by reference the specific edition. The
MMUCC, 4th Edition was included on the NPRM docket.
The FHWA also incorporates by reference the ``ANSI D16.1-2007,
Manual on Classification of Motor Vehicle Traffic Accidents, 7th
Edition'' for the definition of non-motorized serious injuries, as
described in Sec. 490.205. The document is available from the National
Safety Council, 1121 Spring Lake Drive, Itasca, Illinois 60143-3201,
(http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/07D16.pdf). As discussed above, a
non-motorized fatalities and non-motorized serious injuries performance
measure has been added for this final rule.
2. Subpart B--National Performance Management Measures for the Highway
Safety Improvement Program
Section 490.201 Purpose
The FHWA includes a statement describing the general purpose of the
subpart: To implement certain sections of title 23 U.S.C. that require
FHWA to establish measures for State DOTs to use to assess the rate of
serious injuries and fatalities and the number of serious injuries and
fatalities. The Colorado
[[Page 13897]]
DOT suggested that FHWA reverse the order of the measures, thus listing
the number of serious injuries and fatalities followed by the rate of
each, in order to show first the importance of each person. The FHWA
adopts the language, as proposed in the NPRM, stating the rate first
followed by the number, in order to reflect the order of the
performance measures as listed in MAP-21.
Section 490.203 Applicability
As proposed in the NPRM, FHWA specifies that the safety performance
measures are applicable to all public roads covered by the HSIP under
23 U.S.C. 130 and 23 U.S.C. 148. The FHWA did not receive any
substantive comments regarding this section and adopts the language in
the final rule.
Section 490.205 Definitions
In the NPRM, FHWA proposed several definitions for terms used in
the regulation. The FHWA revises the final rule in several respects,
resulting in the elimination of some terms and the addition of new
terms. These changes are reflected in the definitions section and
described below. In addition, FHWA revises some of the definitions to
provide clarity based on docket comments.
The FHWA adopts a definition for ``5-year rolling average'' because
it is used to define the performance measures in this final rule. In
the NPRM, FHWA noted that the 5-year rolling average is the average of
five individual, consecutive annual points of data for each proposed
performance measure (e.g., 5-year rolling average of the annual
fatality rate). Using a multiyear average approach does not eliminate
years with significant increases or decreases. Instead, it provides a
better understanding of the overall fatality and serious injury data
over time. The 5-year rolling average also provides a mechanism for
accounting for regression to the mean. If a particularly high or low
number of fatalities and/or serious injuries occur in 1 year, a return
to a level consistent with the average in the previous year may occur.
Additionally, FHWA requested stakeholder comment on whether a 3-, 4-,
or 5-year rolling average should be required for the HSIP performance
measures and also encouraged comment on whether the use of moving
averages is appropriate to predict future metrics. The AASHTO and 15
State DOTs, ATSSA, and local agencies including the Association of
Monterey Bay Area Governments (AMBAG), ARC, DVRPC, MARC, Metropolitan
Transportation Commission (California), SBCAG, and SRTA explicitly
expressed support for the adoption of a 5-year rolling average for the
performance measures. Commenters agreed that a 5-year rolling average
allows for the smoothing out of statistical anomalies and provides a
means to evaluate progress from year to year in a more consistent
fashion than one based on single year peaks and valleys. The AASHTO
suggested that the 5-year rolling average is consistent with most
States' current approach to evaluating many of their safety efforts and
is an effective way to predict future performance over time and help
account for fluctuations in annual data. Several agencies within
California including the California State Association of Counties,
California Highway Patrol, California Walks, and Nevada County, as well
as the NYSAMPO expressed concern that the 5-year rolling average may be
too long, recommending that a 3-year rolling average be used instead.
The NYSAMPO stated that a rolling average is the proper methodology for
documenting trends in safety performance, because it smooths out the
propensity for random crash events, but suggested that the 5-year
period may be too long, since it uses historical data that looks
backward when the intent of MAP-21 is to measure the outcomes of
current State and MPO investment choices. Washington State DOT
expressed a preference for a 7-year rolling average, but agreed that 5
years is an acceptable mid-point, and indicated that the 5-year rolling
average is much preferred to a 1-, 3-, or 4-year period, as it better
controls for regression to the mean and associated randomness of crash
data. The FHWA maintains that a 5-year rolling average provides the
appropriate balance between the stability of the data (by averaging
multiple years) and providing an accurate trend of the data (by
minimizing how far back in time to consider data). Five years is the
best compromise for States with a small number of fatalities that may
see wide fluctuations in the number of fatalities from year to year and
the desire to minimize the use of historical data. The FHWA adopts a
definition for ``5-year rolling average'' as proposed in the NPRM.
Example calculations for all of the performance measures are provided
in the discussion of Sec. 490.207.
In the NPRM, FHWA solicited comments on whether the approximate 24-
month time lag before FHWA assesses whether a State met or made
significant progress toward meeting its targets (time period between
the end of the calendar year in which the data were collected and the
date the data are available in the Final FARS and HPMS) is an issue and
any impacts it may have on a State DOT's ability to establish targets.
Several commenters expressed concern that this time lag would create
difficulties in establishing targets and reporting on meeting or making
significant progress toward meeting targets. The AASHTO and several
State DOTs recommended that States be allowed to use their own State
crash databases for the fatality measures, as they would for the
serious injury measures, since the fatality data would be available
much earlier in the State databases.
The FHWA agrees that the data lag proposed in the NPRM is a
concern. However, FHWA believes it is important to preserve the
integrity of the national data wherever possible, and therefore does
not believe it is appropriate to use State-certified fatality data if
national data exist, due to the variability that could be introduced.
To address concerns about the data time lag, FHWA revises the final
rule regarding the use of FARS data and adds a definition for ``Annual
Report File (ARF),'' modifies the definition for ``Fatality Analysis
Reporting System (FARS)'' and adds a definition for ``Final FARS.'' The
added and changed definitions clarify the data contained in each FARS
file--Final FARS and FARS ARF--and that FARS ARF is available
approximately 1 year earlier than Final FARS. These changes will allow
FHWA to make the determination of whether a State has met or made
significant progress toward meeting its targets approximately 1 year
earlier than what was proposed in the NPRM. Further discussion
regarding the use of these terms is provided in Sec. 490.211.
As discussed above, in this final rule FHWA revises the methodology
for determining whether a State has met or made significant progress
toward meeting its performance targets to reflect numerous comments
suggesting such changes. The FHWA deletes the definitions for ``made
significant progress,'' ``historical trend line,'' ``prediction
interval,'' and ``projection point'' proposed in the NPRM, as these are
no longer used.
The FHWA adds a non-motorized performance measure to those proposed
in the NPRM and adds definitions for the terms ``number of non-
motorized fatalities'' and ``number of non-motorized serious injuries''
to explicitly define those terms and the associated data sources.
Consistent with comments received on this issue, FHWA is broad and
inclusive in defining the non-motorized performance measure. The FHWA
considers non-motorists,
[[Page 13898]]
consistent with 23 U.S.C. 217(j), to be those transportation system
users who are not in or on traditional motor vehicles on public
roadways. The FHWA intends to include in the non-motorized performance
measure people using many non-motorized forms of transportation
including: Persons traveling by foot, children in strollers,
skateboarders, persons in wheelchairs (both non-motorized and
motorized), persons riding bicycles or pedalcycles, etc.
The FHWA recognizes that FARS uses slightly different coding
conventions to input person types in its database from that used in
State motor vehicle crash databases. Therefore, FHWA includes different
non-motorist person-types in its definitions and coding conventions for
the number of non-motorized fatalities and the definition of number of
non-motorized serious injuries. For non-motorist fatalities, FHWA
defines the fatally injured non-motorist person, i.e. the ``person
type,'' defined in FARS,\25\ to include the person level attribute
codes for (5) Pedestrians, (6) Bicyclists, (7) Other Cyclists, and (8)
Persons on Personal Conveyances. For non-motorist serious injuries,
FHWA defines the seriously injured person type as the codes and
definitions for a (2.2.36) pedestrian or (2.2.39) pedalcyclist in the
American National Standard (ANSI) D16.1-2007 Manual on Classification
of Motor Vehicle Traffic Accidents.\26\ The FHWA recognizes that not
all State crash databases use the ANSI D16.1 standard. Therefore, FHWA
includes in the number of non-motorized serious injuries definition
that States may use definitions that are equivalent to those in ANSI.
Pedestrian and pedalcyclist person types, or an equivalent, are
universally used in State motor vehicle crash databases and are
consistent with the FARS person types included in the definition of
non-motorized fatalities. For those State motor vehicle crash databases
where the person type definitions do not conform to the ANSI D16.1
standard, FHWA will provide guidance on which person types should be
included in the non-motorized performance measure data report to FHWA.
The FHWA revises the definition for ``number of serious injuries'' to
specifically require compliance with the 4th Edition of MMUCC, rather
than the latest edition, as proposed in the NPRM. The AASHTO and the
Alaska, Arkansas, Delaware, Iowa, and Maine DOTs expressed concern with
MMUCC compliance if there are changes to the definition in subsequent
editions of MMUCC. Additional information regarding the change to
specifically require the 4th Edition of MMUCC is contained in the
discussion of Sec. 490.207.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ FARS/NAS GES Coding and Validation Manual http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/CATS/listpublications.aspx?Id=J&ShowBy=DocType.
\26\ ANSI D 16 (2007): http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/07D16.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FHWA also clarifies the definition for ``number of serious
injuries'' to specify that the crash must involve a motor vehicle
traveling on a public road, which is consistent with FARS and State
motor vehicle crash databases as discussed previously. Specifically,
FARS only includes fatalities where a motor vehicle is involved in the
crash. State crash databases may contain serious injury crashes that
did not involve a motor vehicle. In order to make the data consistent
for the performance measures in this rule, States will only report
serious injury crashes that involved a motor vehicle. This
clarification is particularly important when considering the non-
motorized performance measure. Non-motorized fatalities and non-
motorized serious injuries will only be considered in the performance
measure if the crash involves a non-motorist and a motor vehicle. As
AASHTO and the Michigan DOT noted in comments submitted after the close
of the comment period, fatal and serious injury crashes involving only
non-motorists (e.g., a bicyclist crashing into a pedestrian) are not
included in FARS or many State motor vehicle crash databases. There is
not a single national or State-by-State data source that includes these
types of non-motorized fatal or serious injury crashes.
Finally, FHWA revises the definition of ``serious injury'' to
reflect that agencies may use injuries classified as ``A'' on the KABCO
scale through use of the conversion tables developed by NHTSA for the
first 36 months after the effective date of this rule, and that after
36 months from the effective date of this rule agencies shall use,
``suspected serious injury'' (A) as defined in the MMUCC, 4th Edition.
The AASHTO and Alaska, California, Georgia, Florida, Missouri, Oregon,
Pennsylvania, and Washington State DOTs commented that the 18-month
time frame to adopt MMUCC proposed in the NPRM was too aggressive and
feared that they or other State DOTs would not be able to comply with
the requirement. The Oregon and Washington State DOTs commented that
while they could meet the 18-month timeframe, other States may have a
hard time meeting it. The AASHTO and the States that generally agree
with AASHTO's comments on this issue suggested that 36 months to adopt
MMUCC would give States that have not planned or are early in the
process of converting to MMUCC more time to make the change without
placing an undue burden on States already facing limited resources. The
FHWA adopts these revisions to extend the timeframe States have to
comply with the definition in MMUCC, 4th Edition. Together, these
requirements will provide for greater consistency in the reporting of
serious injuries, allow for better communication of serious injury data
at the national level and help provide FHWA the ability to better
communicate a national safety performance story.
The FHWA retains definitions for ``KABCO,'' ``number of
fatalities,'' ``rate of fatalities,'' and ``rate of serious injuries''
as proposed in the NPRM. There were no substantive comments regarding
these definitions as proposed, therefore FHWA adopts these definitions
in the final rule. Finally, FHWA adds a definition for ``public road''
to clarify that this rule uses the same definition as is used in the
HSIP regulation at 23 CFR part 924.
Section 490.207 National Performance Management Measures for the
Highway Safety Improvement Program
In Sec. 490.207(a), FHWA describes the performance measures
required under 23 U.S.C. 150 for the purpose of carrying out the HSIP.
Upon consideration of docket comments and FHWA's belief that it is
important to hold States accountable to improve non-motorized safety,
FHWA revises the final rule to include a performance measure to assess
the number of combined non-motorized fatalities and non-motorized
serious injuries in a State. New paragraph (a)(5), number of non-
motorized fatalities and non-motorized serious injuries, is in addition
to the four measures proposed in the NPRM: (1) Number of fatalities;
(2) rate of fatalities; (3) number of serious injuries; and (4) rate of
serious injuries.
In Sec. 490.207(b), FHWA adopts a methodology for calculating each
performance measure based on a 5-year rolling average. The AASHTO as
well as Maine, Michigan, and Pennsylvania DOTs suggested that more
clarity was needed and suggested the potential to revise the
calculation of 5-year rolling average to better define how it is
calculated and the years to be included in the calculation. The FHWA
clarifies that the 5-year rolling average covers the 5-year period that
ends in the year for which targets are established. For
[[Page 13899]]
example, the measures for target year 2018 would cover the years 2014,
2015, 2016, 2017, and 2018. Further, FHWA reviewed the performance
measure calculations and recognized potential ambiguity in identifying
changes from one 5-year rolling average to another. To rectify that
ambiguity, for those performance measures calculated using annual data
expressed as integers (i.e., number of fatalities or serious injuries),
FHWA adopts a calculation of a 5-year rolling average that rounds to
the tenths place; similarly, for those performance measures calculated
using annual data that was initially rounded to the hundredths place
(i.e., fatality rate per 100 million VMT), FHWA adopts a calculation of
a 5-year rolling average that rounds to the thousandths place. Applying
an additional place value to the numbers that are being used to produce
a 5-year rolling average more accurately reveals the change from one 5-
year rolling average to another that might be obscured if the 5-year
rolling averages were rounded to the same place value, and alleviates
some of the confusion about the methodology pointed out in the
comments.
The following items describe the calculation for each of the five
performance measures. In paragraph (b)(1), FHWA states that the
performance measure for the number of fatalities is the 5-year rolling
average of the total number of fatalities for each State and is
calculated by adding the number of fatalities for the most recent 5
consecutive calendar years ending in the year for which the targets are
established. The FARS ARF is used if Final FARS is not available. The
sum of the fatalities is divided by five and then rounded to the tenth
decimal place. The following example illustrates this calculation:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Fatalities............................................... 694 739 593 533 * 514
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* From FARS ARF, if Final FARS is not available.
1. Add the number of fatalities for the most recent 5 consecutive
calendar years ending in the year for which the targets are
established:
694 + 739 + 593 + 533 + 514 = 3073
2. Divide by five and round to the nearest tenth decimal place:
3073/5 = 614.6
The additional place value (the tenths place) in Step 2 reveals change
from one 5-year rolling average to another that might be obscured if
the 5-year rolling averages were rounded to the same place value. As
proposed in the NPRM, FHWA adopts the data reported by the FARS
database for each calendar year (FARS ARF if Final FARS is not
available) as the number of fatalities for each State.
In paragraph (b)(2), FHWA adopts the calculation for the rate of
fatalities performance measure as the 5-year rolling average of the
State's fatality rate per VMT as first calculating the fatality rate
per 100 million VMT, rounded to the hundredths decimal place, for each
of the most recent 5 consecutive years ending in the year for which the
targets are established. The FARS ARF is used if Final FARS is not
available. The FHWA also clarifies the different data sources for the
VMT used to calculate the rate measures. State VMT data are derived
from the HPMS. The MPO VMT is estimated by the MPO. The FHWA added the
provision for MPO VMT estimates since the NPRM did not identify an
appropriate source for MPO VMT, as it does not exist in the HPMS. For
more information on MPO VMT, see the discussion of Sec. 490.213. The
sum of the fatality rates is divided by five and rounded to the
thousandth decimal place. The AASHTO asked for clarification whether
the same years of data must be used to calculate a rate for any one
calendar year. The FHWA clarifies that rates are calculated using the
same year of data (e.g. CY 2017 rates are calculated using CY 2017 FARS
data and CY 2017 VMT data). The following example illustrates this
calculation:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fatality Rate per 100 million VMT.................................. 0.91 0.89 0.88 0.86 * 0.98
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Based on FARS ARF, if Final FARS is not available.
1. Add the fatality rate, rounded to the hundredths decimal place,
for the most recent 5 consecutive calendar years ending in the year for
which the targets are established:
0.91 + 0.89 + 0.88 + 0.86 + 0.98 = 4.52
2. Divide by 5 and round to the nearest thousandths decimal place:
4.52/5 = 0.904
The additional place value (the thousandths place) in Step 2 reveals
change from one 5-year rolling average to another that might be
obscured if the 5-year rolling averages were rounded to the same place
value.
In the NPRM, FHWA proposed that the VMT reported in the HPMS be
used for the fatality and the serious injury rate measures. The New
York Metropolitan Transportation Council (NYMTC), ARC, AMBAG, NYSAMPO,
San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG), and the Southern
California Association of Governments (SCAG) commented that there are
gaps in the quality and availability of safety, roadway, and volume
data on roads off of the State system, including local and tribal
roads. The FHWA acknowledges there are some data gaps, so includes
provisions in this and the HSIP rule (23 CFR part 924) to address those
gaps.
First, regarding safety data, FARS is a nationwide census providing
NHTSA, Congress, and the American public yearly data regarding fatal
injuries suffered in motor vehicle traffic crashes.\27\ The NHTSA
administers FARS and works with States, as well as State and tribal
governments, to improve crash reporting on all public roads including:
A grant program under 23 U.S.C. 405(c), which supports State efforts to
improve crash data systems; the Traffic Records Assessments programs
which support peer evaluations and recommendations to improve State
traffic records system capabilities; and the Crash Data Improvement
Program, which examines the quality of each State's crash data and
provides States with specific recommendations to improve the quality,
management and use of the data to support safety decisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ http://www.nhtsa.gov/FARS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second, regarding roadway data, the HSIP rule requires States to
collect and use a subset of Model Inventory of
[[Page 13900]]
Roadway Elements (MIRE) for all public roadways, including local roads.
These data elements will improve States' and MPO's ability to estimate
expected number of crashes at roadway locations.
Third, regarding volume data, FHWA acknowledges that while the HPMS
derives VMT for all public roads within the entire State boundary, it
cannot provide VMT estimates for all public roads within a metropolitan
planning area because it may not contain volume data on enough local
roads within these areas. In the final rule, FHWA identifies the HPMS
as the data source for the State VMT and the MPO VMT estimate as the
source for MPO VMT. The FHWA added the provision for MPO VMT estimates
since the NPRM did not identify an appropriate source for MPO VMT, as
it does not exist in the HPMS. For more information on MPO VMT, see the
discussion of Sec. 490.213.
In paragraph (b)(3), FHWA adopts a calculation for the number of
serious injuries performance measure as the 5-year rolling average of
the total number of serious injuries for each State, to be calculated
by adding the number of serious injuries for the most recent 5
consecutive calendar years ending in the year for which the targets are
established. The sum of the serious injuries is divided by five and
then rounded to the tenth decimal place.
In paragraph (b)(4), FHWA adopts the calculation for the rate of
serious injuries performance measure as the 5-year rolling average of
the State's serious injuries rate per VMT as first calculating the rate
of serious injuries per 100 million VMT, rounded to the hundredths
decimal place, for each of the most recent 5 consecutive years ending
in the year for which the targets are established. The sum of the
serious injury rates is divided by five and rounded to the thousandths
decimal place. The FHWA also clarifies the different data sources for
the VMT used to calculate the rate measures. State VMT data is derived
from the HPMS. The MPO VMT is estimated by the MPO. The FHWA will
provide technical guidance to support local computation of VMT-based
safety performance targets.
The FHWA adds a new paragraph (b)(5) in the final rule to describe
the calculation for the non-motorized fatalities and non-motorized
serious injury performance measure as the 5-year rolling average of the
total number of non-motorized fatalities and the total number of non-
motorized serious injuries for each State. It is calculated by adding
the number of non-motorized fatalities to the number of non-motorized
serious injuries for each year for the most recent 5 consecutive years
ending in the year for which the targets are established (FARS ARF is
used if Final FARS is not available), dividing by five and rounding to
the tenths decimal place.
As proposed in the NPRM, in Sec. 490.207(c), FHWA requires that by
the effective date of this rule, serious injuries shall be coded (A) on
the KABCO injury classification scale through the use of the NHTSA
serious injuries conversion tables. These serious injury conversion
tables were available in the docket for review. Virginia DOT commented
that their serious injury definition has changed over the time period
of the conversion tables. The NHTSA State Data Systems team has
reviewed the comment and notes that some changes were made over the
years in Virginia State crash data, but these changes will not affect
the serious injury crash counts that the State would report in
compliance with this rule. Therefore, no change is needed to the
conversion table.
In response to requests for comment on whether some other injury
classification and coding system would be more appropriate, Kentucky,
Missouri, and Washington State DOTs and the NYSAMPO supported the use
of KABCO. Two professors from the University of Michigan commented that
usage of the KABCO scale is known to vary from State to State and even
locality to locality. As stated in the NPRM, FHWA recognizes that there
is some variability in the injury assessments as well as the
implementation of the KABCO reporting system across and within States.
The FHWA believes that the KABCO injury classification scale, through
the use of the NHTSA serious injury conversion tables, is the best
option for documenting uniform serious injury coding for all motor
vehicle crashes across all States until all States report serious
injuries in accordance with MMUCC, 4th Edition. After MMUCC is fully
instituted in all States, these variabilities will be resolved and the
conversion tables will no longer be required. The ATSSA, Oregon, and
Washington State DOTs suggested that some States do not currently
include the KABCO scale in their crash reporting, so the type ``A''
crash type from that scale would not be available in those States. The
FHWA addresses this concern by requiring States that are not using
KABCO to use the NHTSA serious injury conversion tables to convert
crash reporting to type ``A'' on the KABCO scale.
The National Association of State Emergency Medical Service
Officials indicated that it does not believe that even the most well-
intended law enforcement officers can be expected to accurately make
medical diagnoses at the scene of a crash and that research has
confirmed that use of KABCO for this purpose is very unreliable and
inaccurate. As a result, it suggested that FHWA move away from KABCO
and accelerate the date for expecting States to determine serious
injury by linking medical records. While FHWA understands that it is
difficult for law enforcement officers to make medical diagnoses at
crash scenes and that there may be some variability in the diagnoses as
well as the implementation of the KABCO reporting system across and
within States, FHWA believes that the KABCO injury classification
scale, through the use of the NHTSA serious injury conversion tables,
is an appropriate step toward providing greater consistency in defining
serious injuries. The FHWA does not believe there is a way to implement
a national medical records linkage system in time for the
implementation of this rule.
In the NPRM, FHWA also proposed that within 18 months of the
effective date of this rule, serious injuries were to have been
determined using the latest edition of MMUCC. The FHWA received
comments from AASHTO and eight State DOTs (see discussion above in
Sec. 490.205) regarding the 18-month timeframe suggesting that such a
timeframe would be difficult to meet. The AASHTO indicated that if a
State is not currently using this definition, it will require a lengthy
and resource-intensive process to work with law enforcement to change
reporting processes, update manuals and training materials, and then
train every law enforcement agency that reports crashes within each
State. The AASHTO, and 7 of the 8 State DOTs, recommended that States
need 36 months to complete this process, while Alaska DOT recommended
48 months. Washington State DOT and Oregon DOT agreed that 18 months is
sufficient time for most agencies.
The FHWA understands that some States will need more than 18 months
to come into compliance with MMUCC. The FHWA revises the timeframe for
coming into compliance to 36 months based on the estimate provided by
AASHTO and the majority of States that commented on this provision.
Further, FHWA recognizes State DOT concerns that specifying ``the
latest edition of MMUCC'' in the regulation could cause States to be in
noncompliance as soon as a new edition of MMUCC is adopted. Therefore,
as recommended by AASHTO and State DOTs that
[[Page 13901]]
supported AASHTO comments, FHWA specifies the 4th Edition of MMUCC in
this final rule. Should subsequent editions of MMUCC change the serious
injury definition, FHWA would consider whether changes are required to
this regulation.
The Texas DOT commented that whatever definition is used may not
correspond with its pre-2009 crash data. As described in the NPRM, FHWA
also recognizes that as serious injury data are migrated to the MMUCC
definition, variances may occur in the data collected and reported by
States. For example, a State may not be currently coding an injury
attribute that is included in the MMUCC and this could cause an over-
counting or under-counting that would not occur once MMUCC is adopted.
States should make necessary adjustments in establishing their targets
to accommodate these potential changes.
In the NPRM, FHWA recommended, but did not require, in Sec.
490.207(d) that States prepare themselves, no later than calendar year
2020, for serious injury data to be collected through and reported by a
hospital records injury outcome reporting system that links injury
outcomes from hospital inpatient and emergency discharge databases to
crash reports. In the NPRM, FHWA gave the NHTSA Crash Outcome Data
Evaluation System (CODES) as an example of a crash outcome data linkage
system. The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) and the
Northeast Ohio Areawide Coordinating Agency supported this approach.
The AASHTO suggested that the use of a system like CODES that links
collision and medical records to identify serious crash injury data has
both benefits and drawbacks. The AASHTO indicated that the benefits
will likely be better data, but the drawback is likely a longer delay
in reporting (up to 3 years) and possibly a loss of some data due to
records not matching or Health Insurance Privacy and Portability Act
limitations. Both AASHTO and NTSB stated that there is no dedicated
funding for CODES or a similar system. As a result, AASHTO suggested
that the CODES program needs serious work before being rolled out and
becoming part of the core requirement. Massachusetts DOT expressed
concern that in smaller geographic States, where it is fairly common to
cross State lines between place of incident and place of treatment, it
would be extremely difficult to reconcile the two datasets. Minnesota
DOT suggested that the current lag between medical data and crash
reporting is unacceptable for analysis and for developing
countermeasures and as a result, the 2020 timeframe described in the
NPRM is not feasible or appropriate. Florida, Louisiana, Maine,
Michigan, Missouri, New York, Oklahoma, Texas, and Utah DOTs expressed
similar concerns with the problematic nature of medical linkage systems
due to lack of funding and associated expenses, privacy laws, and time
lag and suggested that FHWA withhold recommending or requiring an
implementation date for such linkage systems until such issues could be
resolved.
Due to the unresolved issues associated with medical linkage
systems and the docket comments suggesting that an implementation
timeframe be omitted from the regulation, FHWA removes the
recommendation from the rule. The FHWA believes that medical linkage
systems are important and encourages States to embrace a framework to
perform comprehensive linkage of records related to motor vehicle
crashes resulting in serious injuries by collecting and analyzing data
in a manner that will not preclude the use of such systems in their
State in the future. As mentioned in the NPRM, DOT is an active liaison
to the National Cooperative Highway Research Program Project 17-57
Development of a Comprehensive Approach for Serious Traffic Crash
Injury Measurement and Reporting Systems.\28\ The DOT is awaiting
completion of this project. The recommendations could then be
effectively implemented in all States. This final rule does not
prohibit a State from using a data linkage system like CODES, but
requires States to use the MMUCC definition of ``suspected serious
injury'' and the KABCO system, through use of the NHTSA conversion
tables, for reporting serious injuries data for purposes of this rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ http://apps.trb.org/cmsfeed/TRBNetProjectDisplay.asp?ProjectID=3179.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 490.209 Establishment of Performance Targets
As proposed in the NPRM, FHWA adopts Sec. 490.209(a), which
requires State DOTs to establish quantifiable targets for each
performance measure identified in Sec. 490.207(a). In paragraph
(a)(1), FHWA adopts, as proposed in the NPRM, that State DOT targets
shall be identical to the targets established by the SHSO for common
performance measures reported in the State's HSP, as required under 23
U.S.C. 402 and NHTSA's regulations at 23 CFR part 1200. The three
common performance measures are: (1) fatality number; (2) fatality
rate; and (3) serious injury number.
The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), Texas, and
New York DOTs submitted comments in support of this requirement. Rhode
Island and Washington State DOTs supported consistent measures and
efforts to coordinate them. However, AASHTO opposed the requirement for
identical targets. Thirty-six State DOTs submitted letters indicating
overall support for AASHTO's comments. Delaware, Florida, Idaho, Maine,
Missouri, Montana, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, and Wyoming
State DOTs submitted individual letters opposing this requirement.
The AASHTO stated that the regulation should more clearly vest
target establishment authority in States. One of AASHTO's concerns with
establishing identical targets is the resulting effect of the
requirement under 23 U.S.C. 402(k)(4) that a State's HSP be approved by
NHTSA. In effect, AASHTO's argument is that requiring identical targets
in paragraph (a)(1) results in HSIP targets needing NHTSA's approval,
notwithstanding 23 U.S.C. 150(d)(1), which provides States with target
establishment authority not subject to FHWA approval. Another one of
AASHTO's concerns is that it believes there are fundamental differences
between NHTSA and FHWA's approaches to transportation safety. The
AASHTO stated that State DOTs should be able to implement innovative
safety projects and establish aggressive performance targets in their
HSPs without fear of ``MAP-21 penalties that are imposed'' when States
do not meet or make significant progress toward meeting these targets.
The AASHTO stated that State DOTs should have flexibility to establish
safety targets ``that have performance holding steady, or in some
situations declining, and are consistent with the [political and
economic] realities present in their state,'' not subject to DOT
approval.
In MAP-21, Congress ordered FHWA to ``promulgate a rulemaking that
establishes performance measures and standards.'' 23 U.S.C. 150(c)(1).
While 23 U.S.C. 150(d) provides that States establish performance
targets, FHWA was given the authority to determine the corresponding
performance measures. The FHWA understands AASHTO's concerns but, for
the reasons discussed below, believes that it is consistent with FHWA's
statutory mandate to require that performance measures in a State's
HSIP be identical to those in a State's HSP where common.
While there are fundamental differences between FHWA's and NHTSA's
approaches to transportation safety, the connection between the HSIP
[[Page 13902]]
and HSP has increased in recent years. In MAP-21, Congress required
that the performance measures included in an HSP be those developed by
NHTSA and the Governor's Highway Safety Association (GHSA), as
described in the report, ``Traffic Safety Performance Measures for
States and Federal Agencies'' (DOT HS 811 025). 23 U.S.C. 402(k)(4). In
this report, States are required to establish goals for and report
progress on 11 core outcome measures, agreed upon by NHTSA and GHSA,
which include: the number of traffic fatalities, the number of serious
injuries in traffic crashes, and fatalities per VMT (i.e., fatalities
per mile of travel). Similarly, in MAP-21, Congress required that
States' HSIPs include these three performance measures: the number of
fatalities, the number of serious injuries, and fatalities per vehicle
mile traveled (i.e., fatalities per VMT). 23 U.S.C. 150(c)(4).
Not only did Congress require in MAP-21 the three common
performance measures be included in State HSIPs and HSPs, Congress
desired that the two programs work together. The MAP-21 amended 23
U.S.C. 402(b)(1)(F)(v) to require that each State coordinate its HSP,
data collection, and information systems with the SHSP, as defined in
23 U.S.C. 148(a). The MAP-21 also amended 23 U.S.C. 148(c)(2)(D)(i) to
require that as part of a State's HSIP, each State ``advance the
capabilities of the State for safety data, collection, analysis, and
integration in a manner that complements the State [HSP] . . .''
Moreover, a State's SHSP is to be developed after consultation with a
highway safety representative of the State's Governor, who is in fact
the SHSO. 23 U.S.C. 148(a)(11)(i). The new and existing performance
management linkages connecting the HSIP and HSP to the SHSP promote a
coordinated relationship for common performance measures, resulting in
comprehensive transportation and safety planning. The FHWA's
requirement for identical targets also is consistent with the
requirement in NHTSA's regulations at 23 CFR part 1200 \29\ to have
common performance measures that are defined identically. See 23 CFR
1200.11(b)(2). If the measures are defined identically, any associated
targets should also be identical. Requiring identical targets,
therefore, takes advantage of and reinforces the linkages in MAP-21
between the HSIP and HSP and is consistent with NHTSA's regulations. If
States focus and apply Federal funds and requirements under both
programs toward the same safety targets and goals, the opportunity to
reduce traffic fatalities and serious injuries is maximized.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ In the IFR NHTSA published, titled ``Uniform Procedures for
State Highway Safety Grant Programs,'' on January 23, 2013. 78 FR
4986 (Jan. 23, 2013), NHTSA stated that due to the linkages between
NHTSA-administered programs and other U.S. DOT programs under MAP-
21, ``[t]he Department will harmonize performance measures that are
common across programs of [U.S. DOT] agencies (e.g., fatalities and
serious injuries) to ensure that the highway safety community is
provided uniform measures of progress. . . . NHTSA intends to
collaborate with other [U.S.] DOT agencies to ensure there are not
multiple measures and targets for the performance measures common
across the various Federal safety programs.'' 78 FR 4986-87.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notably, this approach is consistent with the national safety goals
Congress established for the Federal-aid highway program and NHTSA's
mission: To reduce traffic fatalities and serious injuries (in the case
of FHWA) and to reduce traffic accidents and the resulting deaths,
injuries, and property damage (in the case of NHTSA) (23 U.S.C.
150(b)(1) and 23 U.S.C. 402(a)). To further these goals, FHWA strongly
encourages State DOTs establish targets that represent improved safety
performance.
In addition, allowing a State to establish two safety targets for
common performance measures would be inefficient and could lead to
public confusion, which is not what Congress intended. See 23 U.S.C.
150(a). Public transparency is vital to ensure that an effective
performance management framework exists so that the public can
encourage and hold accountable State decisionmakers to achieve
aggressive safety targets. If there are two distinct and possibly
competing safety targets for common performance measures, the public
may have difficulty understanding or assessing a State's overall
performance in those safety areas. Separate targets could also be a
burden on States by possibly requiring the collecting and reporting of
two different sets of data for common performance measures in an HSIP
and an HSP.
The FHWA believes States retain the authority and flexibility to
establish safety targets for the common performance measures. The
FHWA's adoption of Sec. 490.209(a)(1) will not interfere with State
discretion, because FHWA will not control, supplant, or make it more
difficult for States to have their targets approved by NHTSA. Through
collaborative discussions, both FHWA Division Offices and NHTSA
Regional Offices work closely with each State as the State drafts its
HSP targets. The FHWA anticipates that this increased coordination
among the State behavioral and infrastructure safety offices during the
target establishment process could result in better communication and
working relationships in the States and could reduce the burden of
collecting and submitting multiple sets of data.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ Part of NHTSA's HSP evaluation process includes ensuring
that SHSO-submitted targets are coordinated with the State DOT.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regardless of the DOT entity receiving the target from the State
(NHTSA or FHWA), the data used to establish the performance measures
and targets would be the same. The overlap between the HSP and this
rule is in a single area--target establishment for three common
performance measures--as NHTSA's review of a State HSP includes target
establishment. Under 23 U.S.C. 402(k)(5), disapproval of a State's
plan, with respect to targets, may occur if ``. . . the performance
targets contained in the plan are not evidence-based or supported by
data.'' Under NHTSA's Uniform Procedures for State Highway Safety Grant
Programs, the State identifies its highway safety problems, describes
its performance measures, defines its performance targets, and develops
evidence based countermeasure strategies to address the problems and
achieve the targets (23 CFR 1200.11(a)(1)). The State provides
``quantifiable annual performance targets'' and ``justification for
each performance target that explains why the target is appropriate and
data driven'' (23 CFR 1200.11(b)(2)). The NHTSA Regional Offices work
closely with States while the HSPs are being developed, and may request
additional information from the State to ensure compliance with these
requirements. While NHTSA must ensure that performance targets under
the HSP are appropriate and data-driven, it does so only through
extensive coordination with the State. This collaborative process
should ameliorate any concerns that States will be deprived of needed
flexibility in establishing targets.
The FHWA adopts paragraph (a)(2) as proposed in the NPRM, which
requires that the performance targets established by the State
represent the safety performance outcomes anticipated for the calendar
year following each HSIP annual report. As discussed in the NPRM, FHWA
recognizes that the State DOT would use the most current data available
to it when establishing targets required by this rule; that there are
differences in the FARS ARF, Final FARS, and HPMS data bases and the
State's most current data; and that there is a time lag between the
availability of FARS and HPMS data and the date by which the State
needs to establish performance targets. For the serious
[[Page 13903]]
injuries number measure, this lag is not an issue because the serious
injury measures and reported outcomes are based on data contained in
the State's motor vehicle crash database. The NPRM solicited comments
specific to the time lag for the fatality measures, any impacts the
time lag may have on a State DOT's ability to establish its targets,
and any suggestions that could help address the time lag. The AASHTO
expressed support for the use of the FARS database but noted concern
with the timely availability of FARS data. Caltrans, Connecticut,
Florida, Missouri, Oregon, and Rhode Island DOTs, as well as the DVRPC,
New York Metropolitan Transportation Council (NYMTC), Santa Cruz County
Regional Transportation Commission, SRTA, Southeast Michigan Council of
Governments (SEMCOG), and the Tri[hyphen]State Transportation Campaign
(New York, New Jersey, Connecticut) also raised this concern. Many of
these agencies indicated that without an improvement in the time lag it
would be difficult for States and MPOs to develop reasonable targets.
The AASHTO and several States who supported AASHTO suggested that to
reduce the time lag, States should be allowed to self-certify their
fatality and serious injury data. The FHWA believes that it is
important to preserve the integrity of the national data wherever
possible. Therefore, FHWA does not believe it is appropriate to allow
States to use State-certified fatality data, because such an approach
would introduce variability.
The SEMCOG and Pennsylvania DOT also expressed concern that a 3-
year time lag between a given fiscal year and when the FARS and HPMS
data are available for assessment of performance from that fiscal year,
might result in the State being penalized in the future for something
that may have already been corrected, even with the 5-year rolling
average. They also suggested that the time lag may be such that
projects may already have been implemented that correct the safety
issue before the evaluation of significant progress. Finally, there is
a perception by some State and local agencies, such as Caltrans and
NYSAMPO, that because the data being assessed reflect past performance,
the regulation does not meet the intent of MAP-21. Of the comments
submitted, only Washington State DOT indicated that the lag time
between establishing a target and reporting would not specifically be a
problem.
The FHWA agrees that the time lag is an issue and has added the use
of FARS ARF if Final FARS is not available to significantly reduce the
time lag to assess whether States have met or made significant progress
toward meeting their targets. Regardless, any performance management
program relies on an evaluation step that must ``look back'' after
programs and policies are applied and an outcome has occurred. Given
the cyclical nature of a performance management framework (establish
targets, implement policies and programs, document performance), target
evaluation will always occur during or after the time States establish
the next target. Each new opportunity to document and evaluate
performance will allow States, MPOs, and FHWA to understand the impact
of different policies, programs, and strategies on achieving targets
and on attaining the national goal. This improved understanding can be
applied in future performance management cycles. In this rule, FHWA has
reduced the time lag by 1 year from what was proposed in the NPRM, so
lessons from past performance can be applied sooner. This change is
discussed further in Sec. 490.211(a).
Paragraph (a)(3) requires that State DOTs establish targets that
represent the anticipated performance outcome for all public roadways
within the State regardless of ownership or functional classification.
Rhode Island and Washington State expressed that there may be
differences between the requirements to report fatalities on ``all
public roads'' and the data available in FARS. For example, drive
aisles and circulating roads in parking lots are included in FARS data.
The FHWA acknowledges that FARS may include a very limited number of
fatal crashes that do not occur on ``public roads'' as defined in the
HSIP,\31\ since FARS includes all crashes occurring on ``trafficways,''
\32\ which does include drive aisles and circulating roads. The slight
differences between the two terms could result in FARS including a
fatal crash that did not occur on a ``public road'' as defined in the
HSIP. In the definitions section (Sec. 490.205), FHWA modified the
definition of FARS to account for this difference. The NHTSA believes
such occurrences are extremely small. However, NHTSA has never
quantified the number of such occurrences, since information on whether
the trafficway meets the HSIP definition of ``public road'' is not
collected in FARS. Nonetheless, since FARS is the recognized standard
as a nationwide census of fatal injuries suffered in motor vehicle
traffic crashes and is already used by the States for reporting
fatalities, FHWA retains FARS as the data source for assessing whether
a State has met or made significant progress toward meeting its
fatality and fatality rate performance targets and the non-motorized
fatality number portion of the non-motorized fatality and non-motorized
serious injury performance target. States should be aware that FHWA
will use FARS as the data source for these assessments and factor that
knowledge, including the potential including of a fatal crash that does
not occur on a ``public road,'' into their process for establishing
targets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ 23 CFR 924.3.
\32\ 2013 FARS/NASS GES Coding and Validation Manual, December
2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Virginia DOT recommended that the definition of ``public roadways''
be further clarified in this rulemaking, FHWA guidance, and in the
MIRE. Virginia DOT suggested that by requiring performance targets to
represent performance outcomes for all ``public roadways within the
State,'' the proposed regulation would seem to require reporting and
including fatality and serious injury data from and performance of
Federal lands roadways, which may not be available to all State
agencies. The FHWA confirms that ``all public roads'' includes Federal
lands roadways within the State, per 23 CFR part 924. Virginia DOT also
indicated that it is unclear as to whether the definition of ``public
road'' includes public alleys and other service type laneways, typical
in cities, and that inclusion of roadway inventory, traffic volumes and
crashes for all public alleys would place additional compliance burdens
on States. The FHWA confirms that the definition of a ``public road''
in 23 CFR part 924 includes crashes occurring on these facilities and
that because States already collect crash data on these facilities, no
additional burden will be realized in carrying out this requirement.
The MAP-21 legislation requires that the safety performance targets
apply to all public roads, since 23 U.S.C. 150(c)(4) requires
performance measures for the purpose of carrying out the HSIP and the
purpose of the HSIP is to ``achieve a significant reduction in traffic
fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads, including non-
State owned public roads and roads on tribal land'' (See 23 U.S.C.
148(b)(2)). In addition, 23 U.S.C. 150(b)(1) established the national
safety goal ``to achieve a significant reduction in traffic fatalities
and serious injuries on all public roads.'' In addition to this final
rule, FHWA is issuing a final rule for the HSIP (23 CFR part 924) that
requires all public roads to be included in the HSIP. The types and
ownership of roads
[[Page 13904]]
included in the term ``public road'' are defined in that rule. To
clarify that this rule uses the same definition, FHWA adds to this rule
in Sec. 490.205 the definition of public road as it is defined in 23
CFR part 924.
The ARC, AMBAG, and the NYSAMPO suggested that the quality,
accuracy, and availability of serious injury data for roadways owned
and maintained by local agencies present several challenges in the
measurement and target establishment process. As discussed in the NPRM,
FHWA recognizes that there is a limit to the quality, accuracy, and
availability of some data, as well as to the direct impact the State
DOT can have on the safety outcomes on all public roadways. State DOTs
and MPOs need to consider this uncertainty in the establishment of
their targets.
As proposed in the NPRM, paragraph (a)(4) requires that targets
established by the State DOTs begin to be reported in the first HSIP
annual report that is due after 1 year from the effective date of this
final rule and in each subsequent HSIP annual report thereafter. The
AASHTO and the Arizona, Missouri, and Tennessee DOTs, as well as
NYSAMPO were in general agreement with the reporting requirements. The
FHWA adopts this language in the final rule.
The FHWA revises paragraph (a)(5) from the proposal in the NPRM to
require that for the purpose of evaluating the serious injury and non-
motorized serious injury targets States are to report at a minimum the
most recent 5 years of serious injury and non-motorized serious injury
data, as compared to the 10 years proposed in the NPRM, in their annual
HSIP report (See 23 CFR part 924). The FHWA reduces the number of years
of data required to reflect comments from State DOTs, such as Texas
DOT, which reported that the State does not archive data back as far as
the 10 years proposed in the NPRM, as well as a comment from ATSSA that
many States have not archived their data for the last 10 years and that
a 5-year archive is common for many States. In addition, 5 years of
data will be sufficient for FHWA to assess whether States met or made
significant progress toward meeting targets using the new methodology
in that portion of the regulation. As part of this change, FHWA removes
proposed paragraph (a)(5)(i) regarding the years required for the 10
years of data. However, FHWA encourages States to report as many years
of additional crash data as they find appropriate for carrying out the
HSIP. The FHWA adds the requirement for non-motorized serious injuries
to correspond to the added performance target for non-motorized
fatalities and serious injuries. The FHWA includes in paragraph (a)(5)
(paragraph (a)(5)(ii) in the NPRM) the requirement that serious injury
data be either MMUCC compliant or converted to KABCO system (A) to
provide consistency throughout the regulation.
In response to comments from AASHTO, FHWA revises paragraph (a)(6)
to clarify that, unless approved by FHWA, a State DOT shall not change
one or more of its targets for a given year once it has submitted its
target in the HSIP annual report. The AASHTO indicated that the
regulation needs to clearly state that a State does not need FHWA
approval to change its target in a subsequent year and that the
restriction precluding a State from modifying its HSIP targets ``unless
approved by FHWA'' once the target is submitted in the State's HSIP
annual report applies only for a given year. The FHWA agrees with
AASHTO that an important part of a performance management approach is
to periodically evaluate targets and adjust them to reflect risks,
revenue expectations, and strategic priorities. Since this rule
requires States to establish safety performance targets each year, FHWA
does not believe any changes are necessary to the regulation to allow
States to change targets in subsequent years. If a State submits a
target for CY 2017 in its 2016 HSIP report, it cannot change that CY
2017 target without approval from FHWA and from NHTSA for the common
performance measures in the HSP because these targets are identical.
The State will establish a new target for CY 2018 in its 2017 HSIP
report.
The FHWA revises Sec. 490.209(b) to clarify that in addition to
targets described in Sec. 490.209(a) (statewide targets), State DOTs
may establish additional targets for portions of the State to give the
State flexibility when establishing targets and to aid the State in
accounting for differences in urbanized and non-urbanized areas
consistent with 23 U.S.C. 150(d)(2). Nevada County, CA suggested that
while additional measures may be appropriate, depending on the unique
circumstance in a jurisdiction, all areas should be required to monitor
the same four basic measures. It was FHWA's intention in the NPRM to
require State DOTs to establish targets for each of the performance
measures proposed, yet allow States to choose to also establish
different performance targets for urbanized and non-urbanized areas.
The revised language in this final rule is meant to clarify that
intent. The FHWA believes that this approach appropriately implements
23 U.S.C. 150(d)(2), providing that States may choose to establish
different performance targets for urbanized and non-urbanized areas.
The MARC and the Rails-to-Trails Conservancy supported the concept of
separating urbanized and non-urbanized areas for the purpose of
performance measures, whereas the Tennessee DOT did not believe it is
appropriate to create separate performance measures. Texas DOT
requested clarification on how population growth would be accommodated.
The SEMCOG requested clarification about how a change in the functional
classification could affect the performance measure outcomes. As
discussed in the NPRM, the U.S. Census Bureau defines urbanized area
boundaries based on population after each decennial census. After the
U.S. Census Bureau designates urbanized area boundaries, each State may
adjust those Census-defined urbanized areas. While FHWA requests that
States complete the process to adjust urbanized area boundaries within
2 years after the Census-defined boundaries are published, urbanized
area boundaries could change on varying schedules. Designation of new
urbanized areas or changes to the boundary of existing urbanized areas
may lead to changes in the functional classification of the roads
within those areas. Therefore, changes to the urbanized area boundaries
affect the scope of the urbanized and non-urbanized targets.
Each performance measure in this rule is based on calendar year
data. Section 490.209(b)(1) requires States, if they choose to
establish additional targets, to identify the urbanized areas and non-
urbanized area boundaries for each calendar year used for these
targets. States must declare and describe these boundaries in the State
HSIP annual report required by 23 CFR part 924. States should consider
the risk for urbanized area boundary changes when establishing any
urbanized area or non-urbanized areas target.
For example, the U.S. Census Bureau is expected to release new
urbanized area boundaries in 2022, as a result of the 2020 census. A
State may opt to establish an urbanized area fatality number target for
the 5-year rolling average ending in 2023 in its HSIP report due August
2022. The State must establish its 2023 target using the number of
fatalities in the urbanized area as that urbanized area was defined for
each year in the 5-year rolling average. So, in the 5-year rolling
average ending in CY 2023, the urbanized area
[[Page 13905]]
boundary for years 2019, 2020, and 2021 is the one based on, or
adjusted from, the 2010 census. For years 2022 and 2023, the urbanized
area boundary is the one based on, or adjusted from, the 2020 census.
The FHWA intends to issue additional guidance regarding the voluntary
establishment of performance targets for urbanized and non-urbanized
areas.
The FHWA adds four paragraphs to the final rule to provide States
that decide to establish these targets with more specific information
regarding requirements for these additional targets. Generally, a State
DOT could establish additional targets for any number and combination
of urbanized areas and could establish a target for the non-urbanized
area for any or all of the measures described in paragraph (a).
Paragraph (b)(1) requires States to declare and describe the boundaries
used to establish each additional target in the State HSIP annual
report (23 CFR part 924).
Paragraph (b)(2) indicates that States may select any number and
combination of urbanized area boundaries and may also select a single
non-urbanized area boundary for the establishment of additional
targets. This provision is different from that proposed in the NPRM,
which allowed only one aggregated urbanized area target for all
urbanized areas in the State. The NPRM limited States to one urbanized
target for all urbanized areas in the State so that a State could not
establish an unmanageable number of urbanized area targets, nor could
it use success in meeting those targets to overall make significant
progress even if the State did not meet its statewide safety targets.
Smart Growth America and Transportation for America suggested that the
additional, optional targets for portions of the State to account for
urbanized and non-urbanized areas be treated differently from the
statewide targets. Similarly, AASHTO, Iowa, Maine, Missouri, New York,
Vermont, and Washington State DOTs preferred that only the statewide
targets be included in the significant progress assessment.
The FHWA agrees and is not including assessment of the optional
targets in determining whether the State met or made significant
progress toward meeting its targets, as was proposed in the NPRM.
Removing the optional targets from the significant progress assessment
results in greater nationwide consistency in both the process of
conducting the assessment and the transparency of the results. Because
the optional targets are now not included in assessing whether the
State met or made significant progress toward meeting its targets, FHWA
is able to provide States the flexibility to establish separate targets
for each urbanized area, as States determine appropriate. The FHWA also
believes that this approach may encourage States to establish these
additional targets. For States that want to establish a non-urbanized
target, they are still restricted to a single non-urbanized target
because there is no national standard for sub-dividing non-urbanized
areas in a State. Establishing these additional targets could provide
for additional transparency and accountability in a State's performance
management program, and they could aid the State in accounting for
differences in performance in urbanized areas and the non-urbanized
area.
In paragraph (b)(3), FHWA requires that boundaries used by the
State DOT for additional targets be contained within the geographic
boundary of the State. Finally, in paragraph (b)(4), FHWA requires that
State DOTs separately evaluate the progress of each additional target
and report progress for each in the State HSIP annual report (23 CFR
part 924). This provision would meet the requirements of 23 U.S.C.
150(e)(3).
As proposed in the NPRM, FHWA establishes in Sec. 490.209(c) that
MPOs shall establish their performance targets for each of the measures
established in Sec. 490.207(a), where applicable, in a manner that is
consistent with elements defined in paragraphs (c)(1) through (5).
Paragraph (c)(1) requires that MPOs establish their targets not later
than 180 days after the State submits its annual HSIP report in which
the State's annual targets are established and reported. Washington
State DOT, the AMPO, and the Puget Sound MPO supported the 180-day
timeframe for MPOs to establish targets either through supporting the
State target or by establishing targets unique to a metropolitan area.
Caltrans did not support the 180-day timeframe because their experience
shows that MPOs and Tribal governments will need resources, data
expertise, and substantial coordination to establish targets, which
cannot be accomplished within 180 days. The SCAG indicated that it is
reasonable to require States to report annual targets, because State
DOTs are already responsible for issuing the HSIP on an annual basis,
yet most MPOs do not administer safety improvement plans on an annual
basis, nor do they receive funding to do so. The statute (23 U.S.C.
134(h)(2)(C)) requires MPOs to establish targets not later than 180
days of State DOTs establishing their targets. Therefore, FHWA retains
that requirement in this final rule.
In the NPRM, FHWA requested stakeholder comment on alternative
approaches to the required coordination with the long range
metropolitan and statewide and nonmetropolitan transportation planning
processes. The SCAG recommended that the MPO reporting requirements be
aligned with the respective metropolitan transportation planning cycle
of each MPO, which SCAG stated is consistent with the ``Statewide and
Nonmetropolitan Transportation Planning; Metropolitan Transportation
Planning'' NPRM released by FHWA and FTA on June 2, 2014 (FHWA-2013-
0037).\33\ That NPRM for 23 CFR part 450 proposed that MPOs reflect
performance targets required by MAP-21 in their metropolitan
transportation plans. The NYSAMPO also suggested that establishing
targets annually does not fit in with the time horizon of long range
plans and that the time frame for target reporting in this rule is far
more frequent than currently required on anything similar. They also
questioned why MPOs should establish their targets if they are not held
accountable and indicated this requirement may force the MPOs to choose
to support the State target each year (due to time and resource
limitations) and align project and program funds to State supported
initiatives at the expense of the regional/local context at each MPO.
The MARC expressed similar concern that annual target establishment
would be overly burdensome and inconsistent with long-range planning.
Washington State DOT commented that there should be an emphasis on MPO
participation in development of the SHSP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ The Statewide and Nonmetropolitan Transportation Planning;
Metropolitan Transportation Planning NPRM: http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FHWA-2013-0037-0001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FHWA emphasizes that targets established under this final rule
should be considered as interim condition/performance levels that lead
toward the accomplishment of longer-term performance expectations in
the State DOT's and MPO's long-range transportation plan. Furthermore,
under 23 U.S.C. 148(a)(11)(A)(ii), States are required to consult with
MPOs in the development of the State SHSP, and both should recognize
that the annual targets should logically support, as interim levels of
performance, the safety goals in that plan. Finally, 23 U.S.C.
134(h)(2)(D) and 135(d)(2)(C) require States and MPOs to integrate into
the transportation planning process the goals, objectives, performance
measures
[[Page 13906]]
and targets described in other State transportation plans and processes
required as part of a performance based program. In addition, the
Planning NPRM proposed to require States to consider the performance
measures and its performance targets when developing its planning
documents and making investment priorities. State DOTs and MPOs will be
expected to use the information and data generated as a result of this
new regulation to better inform their transportation planning and
programming decisionmaking. In particular, FHWA expects that these new
performance requirements will help State DOTs and MPOs make better
decisions on how to use their resources in ways that will result in the
greatest possible reduction in fatalities and serious injuries, as well
as to achieve their other performance targets. The FHWA acknowledges
that we received several comments related to the planning process. For
additional information on how the new performance management
requirements fit into the statewide and metropolitan planning process,
please review the Planning NPRM.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ The Statewide and Nonmetropolitan Transportation Planning;
Metropolitan Transportation Planning NPRM: http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FHWA-2013-0037-0001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FHWA adds paragraph (c)(2) to clarify that the MPO targets are
established annually for the same calendar year period that the State
targets are established. In paragraph (c)(3), FHWA clarifies the
language in this final rule from what was proposed in paragraph (c)(2)
in the NPRM to indicate that after the MPOs within the State establish
the targets, FHWA expects that upon request, the State DOT can provide
the MPOs targets to FHWA.
The AMPO and individual MPOs, including ARC, Hampton Roads
Transportation Planning Organization, Puget Sound and Tennessee MPOs,
as well as Iowa, Michigan, Tennessee, and Vermont State DOTs submitted
comments regarding paragraph (c)(4) (paragraph (c)(3) in the NPRM). The
AMPO expressed concern that the expectation of this requirement, as
written in the NPRM, was that MPOs would program the very limited,
regionally allocated, Surface Transportation Program (STP) \35\ funds
toward additional specific projects in support of the State's targets.
The AMPO suggested that MPOs be allowed to establish a numerical target
for individual performance measures and support the State target on
remaining targets. Recognizing the often limited STP funds allocated to
MPOs and the desire of some MPOs to have flexibility to establish their
own targets, FHWA modifies paragraph (c)(4) to indicate that MPO
targets shall be addressed by either (i) agreeing to plan and program
projects so that they contribute toward the accomplishment of the State
DOT safety targets or (ii) committing to quantifiable targets for the
metropolitan planning area. To provide MPOs with flexibility and to be
respectful of the potential burden of establishing individual targets,
FHWA allows MPOs to support all the State targets, establish specific
numeric targets for all of the performance measures, or establish
specific numeric targets for one or more individual performance
measures and support the State target on other performance measures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ Section 1109 of the FAST Act (Pub. L. 114-94) converts the
Surface Transportation Program found at 23 U.S.C. 133 into the
Surface Transportation Block Grant Program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Caltrans and Washington State DOTs indicated that some MPOs do not
have the capability or the finances to collect volume data; therefore
it is difficult for them to have appropriate data for all public roads.
To address this comment, in this final rule, FHWA adds paragraph (c)(5)
that requires MPOs that establish targets for rates (fatality rate or
serious injury rate) to report the VMT estimate used for such targets
and the methodology used to develop the estimate. The methodology
should be consistent with that used to satisfy other Federal reporting
requirements, if applicable. In the NPRM, FHWA proposed that MPO VMT be
derived from the HPMS. However, the HPMS does not provide sufficient
information to derive complete VMT in an MPO planning area, since local
roadway travel is only reported to HPMS in aggregate for the State and
for Census urbanized areas. Therefore, consistent with the overall
goals of performance management identified in 23 U.S.C. 150(a) to
increase transparency and accountability, FHWA requires MPOs that
establish rate targets to report the methodology used to estimate the
MPO VMT. Many MPOs collect VMT data within their planning area and
estimate VMT for the transportation planning process or for
transportation conformity required under the Clean Air Act. The MPO VMT
estimate used for rate targets for this rule should be consistent with
these or other Federal reporting requirements, if applicable.
Consistency with other Federal reporting requirements and existing MPO
efforts will minimize the burden on MPOs that choose to establish rate
targets and increase the transparency of the MPO target establishment
process. The FHWA will provide technical assistance to those MPOs that
estimate their VMT and will review MPO VMT estimates as part of the MPO
target achievement review process established in 23 CFR part 450.
As proposed in the NPRM, FHWA adopts paragraph (c)(6) that requires
MPO targets established under paragraph (c)(4) to represent all public
roadways within the metropolitan planning area boundary regardless of
ownership or functional classification. Washington State DOT requested
additional clarification in the language to clarify that the intention
is not to have different targets based on functional class. The
Washington State DOT further explained that most MPOs are interested in
having the targets applied to all public roads within the MPO boundary
regardless of functional class and that it does not support different
targets for different functional classes of roadways. The FHWA agrees.
An MPO is not expected to establish separate targets for each
functional classification. It is required to support the State's target
or establish its own targets only for the five performance measures for
which the State is required to establish targets under Sec.
490.209(a). The MPO targets must include all public roads within the
planning area, regardless of their functional classification. The FHWA
retains the language, as proposed, in the final rule.
In paragraph (d), FHWA requires State DOTs and MPOs to coordinate
on the establishment of the State targets or the MPO's decision to
either agree to plan or program projects so that they contribute toward
meeting the State targets or commit to their own quantifiable targets.
The Washington State DOT suggested that the NPRM was unclear as to
whether it would be appropriate for either the State target or the MPO
target to have different boundaries and noted that the NPRM did not
require coordination and agreement on target establishment. The FHWA
believes it is appropriate for the State target and the MPO target to
have different boundaries, since the metropolitan planning area does
not necessarily coincide with State lines or urbanized area boundaries.
As proposed in the NPRM, and consistent with 23 U.S.C.
134(h)(2)(B)(i)(II) and 23 U.S.C. 135(d)(2)(B)(i)(II), FHWA requires
coordination between the State DOT and relevant MPOs on target
establishment in this rule in paragraph (d)(1) to ensure consistency,
to the maximum extent practicable, but this
[[Page 13907]]
rule does not require the MPO and State to reach a consensus agreement
on their targets. The FHWA expects that States and MPOs will establish
a process by which they will meet the coordination requirements in this
rule. States and MPOs are expected to follow their established
processes, as part of the on-going coordination that occurs during the
statewide and metropolitan transportation planning processes. The
Planning NPRM \36\ proposed requiring coordination, to the maximum
extent practicable, among MPOs and State DOTs on their target setting
efforts. The FHWA asked a series of questions in the Planning NPRM
related to coordination among MPOs and State DOTs relating to target
setting. As a result, FHWA expects to provide information in the
preamble to the Planning Final Rule that will further describe how MPOs
and States DOTs could coordinate on target setting efforts. Further,
FHWA is conducting research and developing guidance documents and
training courses to implement the new performance management
requirements. In these materials, FHWA will emphasize the importance of
MPO and State DOT coordination during target setting; provide examples
of noteworthy target setting coordination efforts, and reference tools
that States and MPOs can use to improve coordination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ www.regulations.gov (FHWA-2013-0037).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the NPRM, FHWA specified that ``relevant'' MPOs coordinate with
the State because that is the requirement in 23 U.S.C.
135(d)(2)(B)(i)(II). Michigan and Washington State DOTs, Puget Sound
MPO, NYSAMPO, and AMPO all requested clarification of the word
``relevant.'' For the measures in this rule, relevant MPOs are any MPO
where all or any portion of the MPO planning area boundary is within
the State boundary. The AMPO also expressed concern for potential
issues with how multi-State MPOs establish targets, coordinate and
report them. Tennessee DOT also questioned how MPOs should coordinate
one target for the urbanized area while addressing performance targets
for two or more State DOTs. The FHWA adds paragraph (d)(2) to address
situations where metropolitan planning areas extend across multiple
States. This addition clarifies that MPOs with multi-State boundaries
that agree to plan or program projects so that they contribute toward
State targets are to plan and program safety projects in support of the
State DOT targets for each State that their metropolitan planning area
covers. For example, MPOs that extend into two States are to contribute
toward two separate sets of targets--one for each State. Through
coordination with the State (or States for multi-State MPOs), MPOs that
elect to establish quantifiable targets for their metropolitan planning
area should consider each State's target and ensure consistency, to the
maximum extent practicable, when establishing the MPO targets. An MPO
with a planning area that crosses into two States may choose to agree
to plan and program projects so that they contribute toward the State
target for one State and establish a quantifiable target for the
planning area in the other State.
Section 490.211 Determining Whether a State Department of
Transportation Has Met or Made Significant Progress Toward Meeting
Performance Targets
The FHWA changes the title and language within this section to
provide consistency with legislative language regarding determining
whether a State has met or made significant progress toward meeting its
targets. Specifically, FHWA revises the terminology to reflect ``met or
made significant progress toward meeting performance targets'' rather
than ``achieving'' targets. The FHWA also adds paragraph numbering to
improve readability of this section.
As proposed in the NPRM, in paragraph (a), FHWA lists the data
sources that will be used in the determination whether a State has met
or made significant progress toward meeting its targets. Based on a
review of the comments related to data lag and FHWA's own desire to
decrease the lag, FHWA revises Sec. 490.211(a) to reflect that meeting
or making significant progress toward meeting targets will be
determined based on the most recent available Final and FARS ARF data
for the fatality number, fatality rate, and for the non-motorized
fatality number. Final FARS will be used for all years for which it is
available when FHWA makes an assessment of whether a State has met or
made significant progress toward meeting its targets. If Final FARS is
not available--usually the last year of the 5-year rolling average for
the target being assessed--FARS ARF will be used. The FARS ARF is
published approximately 1 year before the Final FARs report, and as a
result, using FARS ARF data reduces the data time lag by approximately
1 year. The FHWA believes that improvements in data systems will also
enable the HPMS data to be available in this timeframe. As a result,
FHWA is confident that Final FARS, FARS ARF, and HPMS data can be
available within 12 months of the end of the calendar year for which
the targets are being assessed. The FHWA believes this change addresses
the concern over the time lag for assessing whether a State has met or
made significant progress toward meeting its targets to the maximum
extent possible.
As an example to illustrate the time between establishment of State
targets and national and State data source availability to assess
whether the State met or made significant progress toward meeting its
targets, targets that represent anticipated safety performance measures
outcomes for CY 2018 would need to be established by the State DOT and
reported in its HSIP annual report due August 31, 2017. For the
purposes of establishing targets, States are encouraged to use any and
all data available, including data that go beyond traditional datasets,
such as FARS, HPMS, and State crash databases to include current and
pending legislation, political factors, available resources, etc. The
FHWA will assess the targets established by the State for CY 2018 when
the CY 2018 FARS and HPMS data become available in approximately
December of 2019, 1 year earlier than proposed in the NPRM. The FARS
ARF will be used for CY 2018 fatality data if Final FARS is not
available. Final FARS data for CY 2014 to CY 2017 is expected to be
available, as is CY 2014 to CY 2018 HPMS data. The State serious injury
number and rate data used to evaluate the CY 2018 targets will be
reported in the HSIP report due August 31, 2019. The FHWA will assess
whether States met or made significant progress toward meeting their CY
2018 targets and report findings to the States by March 31, 2020.
Paragraphs (a)(3) and (6) are added to indicate that FHWA will use
the most recent available Final and FARS ARF data for the non-motorized
fatality number and State reported data for the non-motorized serious
injuries number, to evaluate the non-motorized performance target that
FHWA adds in this final rule. To also address the non-motorized
performance target, FHWA adds in paragraph (b) that non-motorized
serious injury data will be taken from the HSIP report.
Paragraph (c) of the final rule (paragraph (b) of the NPRM)
describes the process by which FHWA will evaluate whether a State DOT
has met or made significant progress toward meeting performance
targets. As discussed earlier in the Met or Made Significant Progress
Toward Meeting Targets Evaluation section, FHWA adopts a revised
methodology from what was proposed in the NPRM to address a wide
variety of comments. In paragraph (c)(1), FHWA indicates that optional
additional targets (urbanized and non-urbanized targets) established
[[Page 13908]]
under Sec. 490.209(b) will not be evaluated for whether the State met
or made significant progress toward meeting its targets. The FHWA
believes that excluding these additional targets from the significant
progress assessment provides an opportunity for some flexibility with
respect to these targets and may encourage State DOTs to establish
these additional targets. In paragraph (c)(2) FHWA indicates that a
State DOT is determined to have met or made significant progress toward
meeting its targets when at least four of the five performance targets
are met or the outcome for the performance measure is better than the
5-year rolling average data for the performance measure for the year
prior to the establishment of the State's target (i.e., baseline safety
performance), as described previously in the example for Table 2.
In paragraph (d) of the final rule (paragraph (c) of the NPRM),
FHWA adopts the NPRM language with a clarification to specify that if
it determines that a State has not met or made significant progress
toward meeting its safety targets, the State would need to comply with
23 U.S.C. 148(i) for the subsequent fiscal year. Missouri and Rhode
Island DOTs objected to this ``penalty,'' because their STIP will
already have been fully committed by the time the significant progress
evaluation occurs and the State is notified that the provisions of 23
U.S.C. 148(i) apply. The FHWA recognizes that the STIP is a commitment
to the public regarding the projects and activities the State will
implement. The FHWA also considers the targets the State establishes as
a commitment to the public regarding the performance that will be
achieved from those projects and activities and expects that State DOTs
already maximize the efficacy of the STIP to reduce fatalities and
serious injuries for all road users. The FHWA considers it reasonable
to expect States to reconsider and make any necessary changes to how
funds will be spent if the State fails its commitment to meet or make
significant progress toward meeting its targets. The implementation
plan and funding obligation requirements would further optimize safety
projects in the STIP so that the State will meet or make significant
progress in a following year. The FHWA added language to paragraph (d)
to clarify that the 23 U.S.C. 148(i) provisions apply for the
subsequent fiscal year after FHWA determines a State has not met or
made significant progress toward meeting its targets. States will have
several months after they are informed that the 23 U.S.C. 148(i)
provisions will apply to make any necessary adjustments to the STIP to
accommodate the HSIP funding requirements and to prepare and carry out
their implementation plan.
As explained in the NPRM, the performance provisions in 23 U.S.C.
148(i) require that a State DOT that has not met or made significant
progress toward meeting safety performance targets must: (1) Use
obligation authority equal to the HSIP apportionment only for HSIP
projects for the fiscal year prior to the year for which the safety
performance targets were not met or significant progress was not made,
and (2) submit an annual implementation plan that describes actions the
State DOT will take to meet or make significant progress toward meeting
its safety performance targets based on a detailed analysis, including
analysis of crash types. Both of these provisions will facilitate
transportation safety initiatives and improvements and help focus
Federal resources in areas where Congress has deemed a national
priority. In addition, these provisions help serve one of the overall
goals of performance management--to improve accountability of the
Federal-aid highway program (23 U.S.C. 150(a)). The implementation plan
must: (a) Identify roadway features that constitute a hazard to road
users; (b) identify highway safety improvement projects on the basis of
crash experience, crash potential, or other data-supported means; (c)
describe how HSIP funds will be allocated, including projects,
activities, and strategies to be implemented; (d) describe how the
proposed projects, activities, and strategies funded under the State
HSIP will allow the State DOT to make progress toward achieving the
safety performance targets; and (e) describe the actions the State DOT
will undertake to meet or make significant progress toward meeting its
performance targets.
The AASHTO and the States that supported AASHTO expressed concern
that 23 U.S.C. 148(i) be implemented consistently and asked for
clarification on several issues, including whether States subject to
the 23 U.S.C. 148(i) provisions must obligate the funds in a single
fiscal year or can program the funds over several years. The 23 U.S.C.
148(i)(1) states that ``[the State shall] use obligation authority
equal to the apportionment of the State for the prior year under
section 104(b)(3) only for highway safety improvement projects. . . .''
The FHWA believes that, under this provision, States must obligate such
HSIP funds during the next fiscal year after the State is notified that
FHWA determined it did not meet or make significant progress toward
meeting its targets. This provision reduces flexibility associated with
a States' HSIP funds \37\ and requires that those funds be focused on
safety projects. In addition, this interpretation is consistent with
how FHWA has proposed to implement the requirements related to the
bridge and pavement minimum condition.\38\ The FHWA will require the
funds to be obligated in the next fiscal year, rather than the fiscal
year when the State is notified, to allow the State time to plan and
program projects so that the required obligation authority can be used
on HSIP projects. Likewise, when FHWA notifies a State that it has met
or made significant progress toward meeting its performance targets,
that determination will be applied to the State's obligation authority
for the upcoming fiscal year, and the implementation plan will be due
by the beginning of that fiscal year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ 23 U.S.C. 148(i)(1) requires States to ``use obligation
authority equal to the apportionment of the State for the prior year
under section 104(b)(3) only for highway safety improvement projects
under this section until the Secretary determines that the State has
met or made significant progress towards meeting the safety
performance targets of the State.''
\38\ NPRM for the National Performance Management Measures;
Assessing Pavement Condition for the National Highway Performance
Program and Bridge Condition for the National Highway Performance
Program 80 FR 326 (proposed January 5, 2015) http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-01-05/pdf/2014-30085.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The AASHTO and Minnesota DOT expressed concern that States may have
difficulty delivering a full year's apportionment in these
circumstances. The FHWA appreciates that concern and will work with
affected States to expedite any necessary changes or project approvals.
In order to give effect and meaning to 23 U.S.C. 148(i), which holds
States accountable for making performance targets, FHWA believes it is
appropriate to require that the obligation authority be used within the
next fiscal year. As discussed earlier, FHWA believes this approach is
consistent with the national goal of significantly reducing traffic
fatalities and serious injuries. It would result in reducing
flexibility associated with a State's HSIP funds and provide that the
State focus those funds on safety projects. However, FHWA notes that
while a State will be required to use obligation authority equal to a
prior year HSIP apportionment on HSIP projects, the State retains
flexibility on the remainder of its obligation authority.
The DVRPC asked for clarification on whether the 23 U.S.C. 148(i)
provisions only apply to States that are determined
[[Page 13909]]
to not meet or make significant progress toward meeting their targets,
and if the obligation authority restrictions are only for existing
safety funds. The Oklahoma DOT asked for clarification on the intent of
the provisions. As stated above, only States that do not meet or make
significant progress toward meeting their targets are subject to the 23
U.S.C. 148(i) provisions in the subsequent fiscal year. In that year,
such States must use obligation authority equal to the HSIP
apportionment only for HSIP projects for the fiscal year prior to the
year targets were established. States retain the authority to decide
which HSIP projects will be obligated. The implementation plan should
guide the State's project decisions so that the combined 23 U.S.C.
148(i) provisions lead to the State meeting or making significant
progress toward meeting its safety performance targets in subsequent
years.
The AASHTO commented that the implementation plan could lead to
redundant, onerous reporting that adds no value to improving safety.
The FHWA intends to issue additional guidance to States to meet the
legislative requirements for the implementation plan while limiting
redundancy and maximizing the opportunity to improve safety performance
and States' ability to meet their targets.
The AASHTO and Missouri DOT also recommended that States be granted
a waiver if a State can demonstrate that it is using all its obligation
authority under 23 U.S.C. 104(b)(3), and that obligating additional
amounts up to the apportioned amount will negatively affect the State's
ability to meet or make significant progress toward meeting other
required performance targets. The FHWA believes that both the plain
language and intent of the statute (as this is one of the provisions
where States are accountable for their targets) do not authorize FHWA
to issue such waivers.
While Missouri DOT commented that the ``penalties'' imposed by the
23 U.S.C. 148(i) provisions are significant; many others, including the
LAB and its supporters, the Tri-State Transportation Campaign, Smart
Growth America and its supporters, and one citizen, commented that the
provisions are meaningless and offer no real incentive for States to
take the process seriously. The FHWA expects States and MPOs to be
sincere in their efforts to implement performance management and to
contribute to the national safety goal, and FHWA will implement these
regulations to that end. This rule includes the maximum incentive
provided for in the statute for States to support the national safety
goal.
The following example illustrates how these provisions would be
carried out. A State DOT establishes targets for performance measures
for CY 2018 and reports them in its 2017 HSIP annual report due by
August 31, 2017. The targets established by the State for CY 2018 will
be evaluated by FHWA when the CY 2018 FARS and HPMS data become
available in approximately December of 2019, 1 year earlier than
proposed in the NPRM. The FARS ARF will be used if Final FARS is not
available. The serious injury data used for determining whether the
State met or made significant progress toward meeting its serious
injury targets will be taken from the State's 2019 HSIP report due by
August 31, 2019. The FHWA will make a determination, inform the State
DOT if it met or made significant progress toward meeting its CY 2018
safety performance targets, and send results to the State by March 31,
2020. If FHWA determines that the State did not meet or make
significant progress toward meeting its CY 2018 safety performance
targets, 23 U.S.C. 148(i) will apply for FY 2021. For FY 2021, the
State would need to use obligation authority equal to the HSIP
apportionment only for HSIP projects for FY 2017 (the fiscal year prior
to the year for which the target was established) and submit an annual
implementation plan that describes actions the State DOT will take to
meet or make significant progress toward meeting targets based on a
detailed analysis, including analysis of crash types. The
implementation plan is due to FHWA before October 1, 2020, the
beginning of FY 2021. Similarly, by March 31, 2021, FHWA will make a
determination and inform the State DOT if it met or made significant
progress toward meeting its CY 2019 safety performance targets. If the
State has met or made significant progress toward meeting its targets,
the State will still be required to use its FY 2021 obligation
authority equal to the HSIP apportionment only for HSIP projects for FY
2017. For FY 2022, FHWA would not place any restrictions on the State's
use of obligation authority since the State met or made significant
progress toward meeting its CY 2019 safety performance targets.
For any year FHWA determines that a State DOT has met or made
significant progress toward meeting its safety performance targets,
that State DOT would not be required to use obligation authority or
submit an implementation plan for the subsequent year. If, in some
future year, FHWA determines that a State DOT does not meet or make
significant progress toward meeting performance targets, the State DOT
would at that time need to submit an implementation plan as well as use
obligation authority as described above.
In paragraph (e) of the final rule (paragraph (d) of the NPRM),
FHWA indicates that it will first evaluate whether States have met or
made significant progress toward meeting their targets when the
performance data are available for the year for which the first targets
are established--the end of the following calendar year. For example,
data to evaluate CY 2018 targets will be available at the end of CY
2019. (FARS ARF will be used if Final FARS is not available.) The FHWA
will make a determination and inform the State DOT if it met or made
significant progress toward meeting its CY 2018 safety performance
targets and send results to the State by March 31, 2020. The FHWA will
make determinations annually thereafter. The language in the final rule
is slightly different from what was proposed in the NPRM to provide
consistency with statutory language regarding determining whether a
State has met or made significant progress toward meeting its targets
and because FHWA can make the evaluation earlier by using FARS ARF data
if Final FARS is not available.
Section 490.213 Reporting of Targets for the Highway Safety Improvement
Program
As proposed in the NPRM, FHWA adopts in Sec. 490.213(a) reporting
requirements, such that the State DOT reports its safety performance
measures and targets in accordance with 23 CFR 924.15(a)(1)(iii) in the
HSIP final rule published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal
Register. The information in the HSIP reports, which are published on
FHWA's Web site,\39\ will improve the visibility and transparency of
State fatal and serious injury data. In addition, FHWA is in the
process of creating a new public Web site to help communicate the
national performance story. The Web site will likely include
infographics, tables, charts, and descriptions of the performance data
that the State DOTs would be reporting to FHWA. The FHWA acknowledges
that we received several comments related to the HSIP rule. For
additional information on the new HSIP requirements, please review the
HSIP
[[Page 13910]]
final rule published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal
Register.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/hsip/reports/.
\40\ Highway Safety Improvement Program; Subchapter J--Highway
Safety Rulemaking: http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FHWA-
2013-0019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the NPRM, FHWA proposed that the manner in which MPOs report
their established safety targets be documented in the Metropolitan
Planning Agreement, which is regulated under 23 CFR part 450. The
AASHTO, Iowa, and New York State DOTs suggested that the language
regarding targets and Metropolitan Planning Agreements be changed to
specify that State DOTs and MPOs agree to a reporting methodology,
working within the intent of the established Metropolitan Planning
Agreement, without requiring a modification to the Agreement. Those
agencies did not support explicitly addressing a reporting methodology
within the planning agreement itself, but suggested instead that each
State should be able to develop a reporting system for its MPOs within
the framework of the agreement. The NYSAMPO indicated that the
mechanics of how targets are to be reported to the State need to be
worked out with each MPO through its metropolitan planning agreement.
New York State DOT indicated that because Metropolitan Planning
Agreements are formal legal documents, modifying such documents would
require the approval of all signatories, including executive and legal
review at the State DOT level. The FHWA understands these concerns and
revises Sec. 490.213(b) to indicate that MPOs shall annually report
their established safety targets to their respective State DOT, in a
manner that is documented and mutually agreed upon by both parties.
While the process needs to be documented, it does not need to be
incorporated into the Metropolitan Planning Agreement.
In paragraph (c), as proposed in the NPRM, FHWA requires MPOs to
report baseline safety performance and progress toward achievement of
their targets in the system performance report in the metropolitan
transportation plan, as provided in 23 U.S.C. 134(i)(2)(c). In the
final rule, FHWA adds a listing of data sources upon which the safety
performance measures and progress for MPOs are to be based, since the
MPO VMT data source differs from the State VMT data source. The FHWA
intends to issue guidance on estimating MPO VMT. The list of data
sources includes the use of Final and FARS ARF data for fatalities
(FARS ARF is used if Final FARS is not available), including non-
motorized fatalities, the MPO VMT estimate for rates, and State
reported data for serious injuries, including non-motorized serious
injuries.
VI. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
The FHWA considered all comments received before the close of
business on the extended comment closing date indicated above, and the
comments are available for examination in the docket (FHWA-2013-0020)
at Regulations.gov. The FHWA also considered comments received after
the comment closing date to the extent practicable. The FHWA also
considered the HSIP provisions of the FAST Act in the development of
this final rule. The FAST Act did not require additional provisions
beyond those discussed in the NPRM.
Rulemaking Analysis and Notices Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory
Planning and Review), Executive Order 13563 (Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review), and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures
The FHWA has determined that this action is a significant
regulatory action within the meaning of Executive Order (EO) 12866 and
within the meaning of DOT regulatory policies and procedures due to the
significant public interest in regulations related to traffic safety.
It is anticipated that the economic impact of this rulemaking will not
be economically significant within the meaning of EO 12866 as discussed
below. This action complies with EOs 12866 and 13563 to improve
regulation. This action is considered significant because of widespread
public interest in the transformation of the Federal-aid highway
program to be performance-based, although it is not economically
significant within the meaning of EO 12866. The FHWA is presenting an
RIA (or regulatory analysis) in support of the final rule on Safety
Performance Measures for the HSIP. The regulatory analysis evaluates
the economic impact, in terms of costs and benefits, on Federal, State,
and local governments, as well as private entities regulated under this
action, as required by EO 12866 and EO 13563. The estimated costs are
measured on an incremental basis, relative to current safety
performance reporting practices.
This section of the final rule identifies the estimated costs
resulting from the final rule--and how many serious injuries and
fatalities would need to be avoided to justify this rule--in order to
inform policymakers and the public of the relative value of the final
rule. The complete RIA may be accessed from the rulemaking's docket
(FHWA-2013-0020). Each of the three performance measure final
rulemakings will include a discussion on the costs and benefits
resulting from the requirements contained in each respective
rulemaking; however, the third performance measure rule will provide a
comprehensive discussion on the costs and benefits associated with all
three performance measure rules for informational purposes.
The cornerstone of MAP-21's highway program transformation is the
transition to a performance-based program. In accordance with the law,
State DOTs will invest resources in projects to meet or make
significant progress toward meeting performance targets that will make
progress toward national goals. Safety is one goal area where MAP-21
establishes national performance goals for Federal-aid highway
programs. The MAP-21 requires FHWA to promulgate a rule to establish
safety performance measures.
Estimated Costs of the Final Rule
To estimate costs for the final rule, FHWA assessed the level of
effort, expressed in labor hours and the labor categories, needed for
State and local transportation and law enforcement agencies to comply
with each component of the final rule. Level of effort by labor
category is monetized with loaded wage rates to estimate total costs.
Table 3 displays the total cost of the final rule for the 10-year
study period (2015-2024). Total costs are estimated to be $87.5 million
undiscounted, $65.6 million discounted at 7 percent, and $76.9 million
discounted at 3 percent. Costs associated with the establishment of
performance targets make up 57 percent of the total costs of the final
rule. This is an increase of 4 percent from the NPRM estimates
resulting from costs associated with the new non-motorized fatalities
and non-motorized serious injuries performance measure, added effort
required for MPOs to estimate MPO-specific VMT for performance targets,
a decrease in the number of MPOs expected to establish targets, and
costs associated with coordination between State DOTs and MPOs. The
costs in the tables assume 201 MPOs would establish their own targets,
and the remaining portion would adopt State DOT targets. It is assumed
that State DOTs and MPOs serving Transportation Management Areas (TMA)
\41\ will use staff to analyze safety trends and establish performance
targets on an annual basis, and MPOs
[[Page 13911]]
not serving a TMA will adopt State DOT targets rather than establish
their own safety performance targets and will therefore not incur any
incremental costs. The FHWA made this assumption because larger MPOs
may have more resources available to develop performance targets. The
FHWA believes that this is a conservative estimate, as larger MPOs may
elect not to establish their own targets for any variety of reasons,
including resource availability.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ A TMA is an urbanized area having a population of over
200,000 or otherwise requested by the Governor and the MPO and
officially designated by FHWA or FTA. 23 U.S.C. 134(k).
Table 3--Total Cost of the Final Rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10-year total cost
Cost components -----------------------------------------------
Undiscounted 7% 3%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 490.205--Definitions.................................... $28,227,162 $23,206,606 $25,907,994
KABCO Compliance............................................ 373,324 373,324 373,324
Minor Revisions to Database............................. 307,828 307,828 307,828
Convert Non-KABCO Data.................................. 65,495 65,495 65,495
MMUCC Compliance............................................ 27,329,875 22,309,319 25,010,707
Modifications to Database Platform...................... 668,053 545,330 611,363
Modifications to PAR Report............................. 1,128,776 921,418 1,032,990
Training for Law Enforcement............................ 25,533,045 20,842,571 23,366,353
Establish 5-Year Rolling Average............................ 523,963 523,963 523,963
Section 490.209--Establishment of Performance Targets........... 50,085,525 36,440,371 43,421,875
Coordination Between State DOTs and MPOs.................... 867,367 810,623 842,103
Establish Performance Targets............................... 49,218,159 35,629,748 42,579,772
Section 490.211--Determining Whether a State DOT has Met or Made 9,170,764 5,947,112 7,577,340
Significant Progress Toward Meeting Performance Targets........
Develop an Implementation Plan.............................. 9,170,764 5,947,112 7,577,340
-----------------------------------------------
Total Cost of Final Rule................................ 87,483,450 65,594,089 76,907,209
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Totals may not sum due to rounding.
The final rule's 10-year undiscounted cost ($87.5 million in 2014
dollars) increased relative to the proposed rule ($66.7 million in 2012
dollars). As discussed below, FHWA made a number of changes which
affected cost.
General Updates
In the final rule RIA, FHWA updated all costs to 2014 dollars from
2012 dollars in the proposed rule. In addition, FHWA updated labor
costs to reflect current BLS data. These general updates increased the
estimated cost of the final rule relative to the proposed rule.
The FHWA also updated the estimated total number of MPOs to 409,
which is less than the 420 MPOs used at the time that the NPRM was
published. The estimated number of MPOs serving TMAs is now 201, less
than the estimate of 210 in the NPRM, and the number of non-TMA MPOs is
208, less than the estimate of 210 in the NPRM. At the time the RIA was
prepared for the NPRM, FHWA assumed that the 36 new urbanized areas
resulting from the 2010 census would have MPOs designated for them. In
reality, some of the newly designated urbanized areas merged with
existing MPOs, resulting in the designation of fewer new MPOs than
expected. The FHWA estimates that, on average, only the 201 larger MPOs
serving TMAs will establish their own quantifiable performance targets
and that the 208 smaller MPOs serving non-TMAs will choose to agree to
plan and program projects so that they contribute toward the
accomplishment of the State DOT safety targets. The reduction in the
number of MPOs decreased the estimated costs MPOs incur to comply with
the requirements of this final rule relative to the proposed rule.
Section 490.205 Definitions
The RIA estimates the cost of Sec. 490.205 resulting from the
requirements for KABCO compliance, MMUCC, 4th edition compliance, and
5-year rolling average calculations. The cost associated with these
rule requirements increased from $26.3 million in the proposed rule to
$28.2 million in the final rule. In addition to the general updates
described above, FHWA revised the final rule RIA to reflect updated
local law enforcement census data, costs associated with the new non-
motorized fatalities and non-motorized serious injuries performance
measure, the removal of the proposed requirement for State DOTs to
compile a 10-year historical trend line, and the deferred
implementation of MMUCC, 4th edition compliance (required by 36 months
after the effective date of the final rule, rather than the proposed 18
months).
Section 490.209 Establishment of Performance Targets
The RIA estimates the cost of coordination between State DOTs and
MPOs as well as establishing performance targets under Sec. 490.209.
The cost of this section increased from $35.3 million for the proposed
rule to $50.1 million for the final rule. In addition to the general
updates described above, the increase in cost is attributable to the
additional costs associated with establishing the new non-motorized
fatalities and non-motorized serious injuries performance measure
(which added a one-time cost of approximately $180,000, and
approximately $8 million over the 10 year period of analysis), the
added effort required for MPOs to estimate MPO-specific VMT for
performance targets (which is partially offset by a decrease in the
number of MPOs expected to establish quantifiable targets), and costs
of coordinating on the establishment of targets in accordance with 23
CFR part 450.
Section 490.211 Determining Whether a State DOT Has Met or Made
Significant Progress Toward Meeting Performance Targets
In the RIA, FHWA estimates the cost associated with failing to meet
or make significant progress toward meeting targets, as described in
Sec. 490.211. The cost of this section of the rule increased from $5.1
million in the proposed rule to $9.2 million in the final rule. In
addition to the general updates described above, the increase in cost
results from an increase in the estimated number of States that might
not meet or make significant progress toward
[[Page 13912]]
meeting their targets using the new methodology included in the final
rule. Based on the new methodology, FHWA conservatively assumed that 26
State DOTs will fail to meet or make significant progress toward
meeting their targets, which is more than double the assumption used in
the NPRM's RIA (10 State DOTs would fail to meet or make significant
progress toward meeting their targets). The cost was partially offset
by a reduction in the number of years the costs accrued.
In the RIA, FHWA recognizes that States will not incur incremental
costs for using obligation authority equal to the HSIP apportionment
only for HSIP projects for the prior year because programming decisions
are already realized as part of the State's overall management of the
Federal aid program.
Break-Even Analysis
Currently, there are many differences in the way State DOTs code
and define safety performance measures (e.g., serious injuries). The
rule will result in regulations that will: Improve data by providing
for greater consistency in the reporting of serious injuries; require
reporting on serious injuries and fatalities through a more visible and
transparent reporting system; require the establishment and reporting
of targets that can be aggregated at the national level; require State
DOTs to meet or make significant progress toward meeting their targets,
and establish requirements for State DOTs that have not met or made
significant progress toward meeting their targets.
Upon implementation, FHWA expects that the final rule will result
in certain benefits. Specifically, FHWA expects safety investment
decisionmaking to be more informed through the use of consistent and
uniform measures; State DOTs and MPOs will be expected to use the
information and data generated as a result of the new regulations to
better inform their transportation planning and programming
decisionmaking and more directly link investments to desired
performance outcomes. In particular, FHWA expects that these new
performance aspects of the Federal-aid program will help State DOTs and
MPOs make better decisions on how to use resources in ways that will
result in the greatest possible reduction in fatalities and serious
injuries. These regulations will also help provide FHWA the ability to
better communicate a national safety performance story. Each of these
benefits is discussed in further detail in the RIA, available in the
docket.
These benefits resulting from the rule (i.e., more informed
decisionmaking, greater accountability, and greater focus on making
progress toward the national goal for safety) will lead to improved
safety outcomes. However, the benefits from the rule, while real and
substantial are difficult to monetize. Therefore, FHWA quantified these
benefits of the rule by performing a break-even analysis, as described
in OMB Circular A-4, that estimates the number of fatalities and
incapacitating injuries \42\ the rule will need to prevent for the
benefits of the rule to justify the costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ The FHWA used crash statistics from NHTSA's Traffic Safety
Facts 2012 to perform the break-even analysis. Because crash types
are categorized using a KABCO scale in that report (i.e., fatality,
incapacitating injury, non-incapacitating injury, or other injury),
the results of the break-even analysis are expressed in terms of
incapacitating injury, and not serious injury.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 4 displays the results from a break-even analysis using
fatalities and incapacitating injuries as its reduction metric. The
results show that the rule must prevent approximately 10 fatalities
over 10 years to generate enough benefits to outweigh the cost of the
rule. This translates to one fatality per year nationwide.\43\ When the
break-even analysis uses incapacitating injuries as the reduction
metric, it shows that the rule must prevent 199 incapacitating injuries
over 10 years, or approximately 20 a year, for benefits to outweigh the
cost.\44\ In other words, the rule will need to prevent approximately
10 fatalities or approximately 199 incapacitating injuries over 10
years nationwide for the rule to be cost-beneficial. Due to the
relatively small break-even number of fatalities and incapacitating
injuries, FHWA believes that the rule will surpass this threshold and
that the benefits of the rule will outweigh the costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ For reference, according to ``NHTSA Traffic Safety Facts
2012,'' there were 33,561 fatalities in 2012.
\44\ For reference, according to ``NHTSA Traffic Safety Facts
2012,'' there were 182,000 incapacitating injuries in 2012.
Table 4--Break-Even Analysis Using Fatalities and Incapacitating Injuries Reduction Metric
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average annual reduction
Reduction in fatalities Average annual reduction Reduction in in incapacitating
Undiscounted 10-year costs required for rule to be in fatalities required incapacitating injuries injuries required for
cost-beneficial for rule to be cost- required for rule to be rule to be cost-
beneficial cost-beneficial beneficial
a b = a / $9,200,000 c = b / 10 years d = a / $439,990 d = c / 10 years
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$87,483,450..................................... 9.5 1.0 198.8 19.9
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Both of the thresholds in the break-even analysis increased in the
final rule relative to the proposed rule. Specifically, the reduction
in fatalities required for the rule to be cost-beneficial increased
from 7 in the NPRM to 10 in the final rule, while the reduction in
incapacitating injuries required for the rule to be cost-beneficial
increased from 153 in the NPRM to 199 in the final rule. In both cases,
the break-even points were affected by the increase in the undiscounted
10-year cost (which increased from $66.7 million to $87.5 million). In
addition, the break-even points were affected by increases to both the
VSL for fatalities and the average cost per incapacitating injury (the
VSL for fatalities increased from $9.1 million to $9.2 million, while
the average cost per incapacitating injury increased from $435,000 to
$440,000).
Regulatory Flexibility Act
In compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (Pub. L. 96-354,
5 U.S.C. 601-612), FHWA has evaluated the effects of this final rule on
small entities and anticipates that this action would not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The rule affects three types of entities: State governments, MPOs, and
local law enforcement agencies. State governments do not meet the
definition of a small entity.
The MPOs are considered governmental jurisdictions, so the small
entity standard for these entities is whether the affected MPOs serve
less than 50,000 people. The MPOs serve urbanized areas with
populations of more than 50,000. Therefore, MPOs that incur economic
impacts under this rule
[[Page 13913]]
do not meet the definition of a small entity.
Local law enforcement agencies, however, may be subsets of small
governmental jurisdictions. Nonetheless, the RIA estimates minimal one-
time costs to local law enforcement agencies, as discussed above, and
these costs represent a fraction of a percent of revenues of a small
government. Therefore, I hereby certify that this regulatory action
would not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
The FHWA has determined that this final rule would not impose
unfunded mandates as defined by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of
1995 (Pub. L. 104-4, March 22, 1995, 109 Stat. 48). This rule does not
contain a Federal mandate that may result in expenditures by State,
local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private
sector, of greater than $151 million or more in any 1 year (2 U.S.C.
1532). Additionally, the definition of ``Federal mandate'' in the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act excludes financial assistance of the type
in which State, local, or tribal governments have authority to adjust
their participation in the program in accordance with changes made in
the program by the Federal Government. The Federal-aid highway program
permits this type of flexibility.
Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
The FHWA has analyzed this final rule in accordance with the
principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13132 dated August
4, 1999. The FHWA has determined that this action would not have
sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a
federalism assessment. The FHWA has also determined that this
rulemaking would not preempt any State law or State regulation or
affect the States' ability to discharge traditional State governmental
functions.
Executive Order 12372 (Intergovernmental Review) Catalog of Federal
Domestic Assistance Program Number 20.205, Highway Planning and
Construction
The regulations implementing EO 12372 regarding intergovernmental
consultation on Federal programs and activities apply to this program.
This EO applies because State and local governments would be directly
affected by the proposed regulation, which is a condition on Federal
highway funding. Local entities should refer to the Catalog of Federal
Domestic Assistance Program Number 20.205, Highway Planning and
Construction, for further information.
Paperwork Reduction Act
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501, et
seq.), Federal agencies must obtain approval from OMB prior to
conducing or sponsoring a collection of information. Details and
burdens in this final rule would be realized in Planning and HSIP
reporting. The PRA activities are already covered by existing OMB
Clearances. The reference numbers for those clearances are OMB: 2132-
0529 (Planning) and 2125-0025 (HSIP), both with expiration date of May
31, 2017. Any increases in PRA burdens caused by MAP-21 in these areas
were addressed in PRA approval requests associated with those
rulemakings.
National Environmental Policy Act
The FHWA has analyzed this action for the purpose of the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.),
and has determined that this action would not have any effect on the
quality of the environment and meets the criteria for the categorical
exclusion at 23 CFR 771.117(c)(20).
Executive Order 12630 (Taking of Private Property)
The FHWA has analyzed this rule under EO 12630, Governmental
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights. The FHWA does not anticipate that this action would affect a
taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under
EO 12630.
Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)
This action meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2)
of EO 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate
ambiguity, and reduce burden.
Executive Order 13045 (Protection of Children)
The FHWA has analyzed this rule under EO 13045, Protection of
Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. The FHWA
certifies that this action would not cause an environmental risk to
health or safety that might disproportionately affect children.
Executive Order 13175 (Tribal Consultation)
The FHWA has analyzed this action under EO 13175, dated November 6,
2000, and believes that the action would not have substantial direct
effects on one or more Indian tribes; would not impose substantial
direct compliance costs on Indian tribal governments; and would not
preempt tribal laws. The final rule addresses obligations of Federal
funds to States for Federal-aid highway projects and would not impose
any direct compliance requirements on Indian tribal governments.
Therefore, a tribal summary impact statement is not required.
Executive Order 13211 (Energy Effects)
The FHWA has analyzed this action under EO 13211, Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use. The FHWA has determined that this is not a
significant energy action under that order and is not likely to have a
significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of
energy. Therefore, a Statement of Energy Effects is not required.
Executive Order 12898 (Environmental Justice)
The EO 12898 requires that each Federal agency make achieving
environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and
addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human
health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and
activities on minorities and low-income populations. The FHWA has
determined that this rule does not raise any environmental justice
issues.
Regulation Identifier Number
A RIN is assigned to each regulatory action listed in the Unified
Agenda of Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service
Center publishes the Unified Agenda in April and October of each year.
The RIN contained in the heading of this document can be used to cross-
reference this action with the Unified Agenda.
List of Subjects in 23 CFR Part 490
Bridges, Highway safety, Highways and roads, Incorporation by
reference, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Issued on March 2, 2016 under authority delegated in 49 CFR
1.85.
Gregory G. Nadeau,
Administrator, Federal Highway Administration.
0
In consideration of the foregoing, FHWA amends title 23, Code of
Federal Regulations, by adding part 490 to read as follows:
[[Page 13914]]
PART 490--NATIONAL PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT MEASURES
Subpart A--General Information
Sec.
490.101 Definitions.
490.103 [Reserved]
490.105 [Reserved]
490.107 [Reserved]
490.109 [Reserved]
490.111 Incorporation by reference.
Subpart B--National Performance Management Measures for the Highway
Safety Improvement Program
490.201 Purpose.
490.203 Applicability.
490.205 Definitions.
490.207 National performance management measures for the Highway
Safety Improvement Program.
490.209 Establishment of performance targets.
490.211 Determining whether a State department of transportation has
met or made significant progress toward meeting performance targets.
490.213 Reporting of targets for the Highway Safety Improvement
Program.
Authority: 23 U.S.C. 134, 135, 148(i) and 150; 49 CFR 1.85.
Subpart A--General Information
Sec. 490.101 Definitions.
Unless otherwise specified, the following definitions apply to this
part:
Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS) is a national level
highway information system that includes data on the extent, condition,
performance, use, and operating characteristics of the Nation's
highways.
Measure means an expression based on a metric that is used to
establish targets and to assess progress toward meeting the established
targets (e.g., a measure for flight on-time performance is percent of
flights that arrive on time, and a corresponding metric is an
arithmetic difference between scheduled and actual arrival time for
each flight).
Metric means a quantifiable indicator of performance or condition.
Non-urbanized area means a single geographic area that comprises
all of the areas in the State that are not ``urbanized areas'' under 23
U.S.C. 101(a)(34).
Target means a quantifiable level of performance or condition,
expressed as a value for the measure, to be achieved within a time
period required by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA).
Sec. 490.103 [Reserved]
Sec. 490.105 [Reserved]
Sec. 490.107 [Reserved]
Sec. 490.109 [Reserved]
Sec. 490.111 Incorporation by reference.
(a) Certain material is incorporated by reference into this part
with the approval of the Director of the Federal Register under 5
U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. To enforce any edition other than that
specified in this section, FHWA must publish a notice of change in the
Federal Register and the material must be available to the public. All
approved material is available for inspection at the Federal Highway
Administration, Office of Highway Policy Information (202-366-4631) and
is available from the sources listed below. It is also available for
inspection at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA).
For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-
741-6030 or go to http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.
(b) [Reserved]
(c) [Reserved]
(d) American National Standards Institute, Inc., 1899 L Street NW.,
11th Floor, Washington, DC 20036, (202) 293-8020, www.ansi.org.
(1) ANSI D16.1-2007, Manual on Classification of Motor Vehicle
Traffic Accidents. 7th Edition, approved August 2, 2007 (also available
from National Safety Council, 1121 Spring Lake Drive, Itasca, Illinois
60143-3201, (http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/07D16.pdf) IBR approved
for Sec. 490.205.
(2) [Reserved]
(e) The U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue
SE., Washington, DC 20590, www.dot.gov.
(1) DOT HS 811 631, Model Minimum Uniform Crash Criteria (MMUCC)
Guideline, 4th Edition, July 2012 (also available at http://mmucc.us/sites/default/files/MMUCC_4th_Ed.pdf) IBR approved for Sec. Sec.
490.205 and 490.207(c).
(2) [Reserved]
Subpart B--National Performance Management Measures for the Highway
Safety Improvement Program
Sec. 490.201 Purpose.
The purpose of this subpart is to implement the requirements of 23
U.S.C. 150(c)(4), which requires the Secretary of Transportation to
establish performance measures for the purpose of carrying out the
Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) and for State departments of
transportation (State DOTs) to use in assessing:
(a) Serious injuries and fatalities per vehicle miles traveled
(VMT); and
(b) Number of serious injuries and fatalities.
Sec. 490.203 Applicability.
The performance measures are applicable to all public roads covered
by the HSIP carried out under 23 U.S.C. 130 and 148.
Sec. 490.205 Definitions.
Unless otherwise specified, the following definitions apply in this
subpart:
5-year rolling average means the average of 5 individual,
consecutive annual points of data (e.g., the 5-year rolling average of
the annual fatality rate).
Annual Report File (ARF) means FARS data that are published
annually, but prior to Final FARS data.
Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) means a nationwide census
providing public yearly data regarding fatal injuries suffered in motor
vehicle traffic crashes.
Final FARS means the FARS data that replace the ARF file and
contain additional cases or updates to cases that became available
after the ARF was released, and which are no longer subject to future
changes.
KABCO means the coding convention system for injury classification
established by the National Safety Council.
Number of fatalities means the total number of persons suffering
fatal injuries in a motor vehicle traffic crash during a calendar year,
based on the data reported by the FARS database.
Number of non-motorized fatalities means the total number of
fatalities (as defined in this section) with the FARS person attribute
codes: (5) Pedestrian, (6) Bicyclist, (7) Other Cyclist, and (8) Person
on Personal Conveyance.
Number of non-motorized serious injuries means the total number of
serious injuries (as defined in this section) where the injured person
is, or is equivalent to, a pedestrian (2.2.36) or a pedalcylcist
(2.2.39) as defined in the ANSI D16.1-2007 (incorporated by reference,
see Sec. 490.111).
Number of serious injuries means the total number of persons
suffering at least one serious injury for each separate motor vehicle
traffic crash during a calendar year, as reported by the State, where
the crash involves a motor vehicle traveling on a public road, and the
injury status is ``suspected serious injury (A)'' as described in
MMUCC, (incorporated by reference, see
[[Page 13915]]
Sec. 490.111). For serious injury classifications that are not MMUCC
compliant, the number of serious injuries means serious injuries that
are converted to KABCO by use of conversion tables developed by the
NHTSA.
Public road is as defined in 23 CFR 924.3.
Rate of fatalities means the ratio of the total number of
fatalities (as defined in this section) to the number of vehicle miles
traveled (VMT) (expressed in 100 million VMT) in a calendar year.
Rate of serious injuries means the ratio of the total number of
serious injuries (as defined in this section) to the number of VMT
(expressed in 100 million vehicle miles of travel) in a calendar year.
Serious injuries means:
(1) From April 14, 2016 to April 15, 2019, injuries classified as
``A'' on the KABCO scale through use of the conversion tables developed
by NHTSA; and
(2) After April 15, 2019, ``suspected serious injury (A)'' as
defined in the MMUCC.
Sec. 490.207 National performance management measures for the Highway
Safety Improvement Program.
(a) There are five performance measures for the purpose of carrying
out the HSIP. They are:
(1) Number of fatalities;
(2) Rate of fatalities;
(3) Number of serious injuries;
(4) Rate of serious injuries; and,
(5) Number of non-motorized fatalities and non-motorized serious
injuries.
(b) Each performance measure is based on a 5-year rolling average.
The performance measures are calculated as follows:
(1) The performance measure for the number of fatalities is the 5-
year rolling average of the total number of fatalities for each State
and shall be calculated by adding the number of fatalities for each of
the most recent 5 consecutive years ending in the year for which the
targets are established, dividing by 5, and rounding to the tenth
decimal place. FARS ARF may be used if Final FARS is not available.
(2) The performance measure for the rate of fatalities is the 5-
year rolling average of the State's fatality rate per VMT and shall be
calculated by first calculating the number of fatalities per 100
million VMT for each of the most recent 5 consecutive years ending in
the year for which the targets are established, adding the results,
dividing by 5, and rounding to the thousandth decimal place. The FARS
ARF may be used if Final FARS is not available. State VMT data are
derived from the HPMS. The Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPO)
VMT is estimated by the MPO. The sum of the fatality rates is divided
by five and then rounded to the thousandth decimal place.
(3) The performance measure for the number of serious injuries is
the 5-year rolling average of the total number of serious injuries for
each State and shall be calculated by adding the number of serious
injuries for each of the most recent 5 consecutive years ending in the
year for which the targets are established, dividing by five, and
rounding to the tenth decimal place.
(4) The performance measure for the rate of serious injuries is the
5-year rolling average of the State's serious injuries rate per VMT and
shall be calculated by first calculating the number of serious injuries
per 100 million VMT for each of the most recent 5 consecutive years
ending in the year for which the targets are established, adding the
results, dividing by five, and rounding to the thousandth decimal
place. State VMT data are derived from the HPMS. The MPO VMT is
estimated by the MPO.
(5) The performance measure for the number of Non-motorized
Fatalities and Non-motorized Serious Injuries is the 5-year rolling
average of the total number of non-motorized fatalities and non-
motorized serious injuries for each State and shall be calculated by
adding the number of non-motorized fatalities to the number non-
motorized serious injuries for each of the most recent 5 consecutive
years ending in the year for which the targets are established,
dividing by five, and rounding to the tenth decimal place. FARS ARF may
be used if Final FARS is not available.
(c) For purposes of calculating serious injuries in paragraphs
(b)(3), (4), and (5) of this section:
(1) Before April 15, 2019, serious injuries may be determined by
either of the following:
(i) Serious injuries coded (A) in the KABCO injury classification
scale through use of the NHTSA serious injuries conversion tables; or
(ii) Using MMUCC (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 490.111).
(2) By April 15, 2019, serious injuries shall be determined using
MMUCC.
Sec. 490.209 Establishment of performance targets.
(a) State DOTs shall establish targets annually for each
performance measure identified in Sec. 490.207(a) in a manner that is
consistent with the following:
(1) State DOT targets shall be identical to the targets established
by the State Highway Safety Office for common performance measures
reported in the State's Highway Safety Plan, subject to the
requirements of 23 U.S.C. 402(k)(4), and as coordinated through the
State Strategic Highway Safety Plan.
(2) State DOT targets shall represent performance outcomes
anticipated for the calendar year following the HSIP annual report
date, as provided in 23 CFR 924.15.
(3) State DOT performance targets shall represent the anticipated
performance outcome for all public roadways within the State regardless
of ownership or functional class.
(4) State DOT targets shall be reported in the HSIP annual report
that is due after April 14, 2017, and in each subsequent HSIP annual
report thereafter.
(5) The State DOT shall include, in the HSIP Report (see 23 CFR
part 924), at a minimum, the most recent 5 years of serious injury data
and non-motorized serious injury data. The serious injury data shall be
either MMUCC compliant or converted to the KABCO system (A) for injury
classification through use of the NHTSA conversion tables as required
by Sec. 490.207(c).
(6) Unless approved by FHWA and subject to Sec. 490.209(a)(1), a
State DOT shall not change one or more of its targets for a given year
once it is submitted in the HSIP annual report.
(b) In addition to targets described in paragraph (a) of this
section, State DOTs may, as appropriate, for each target in paragraph
(a) establish additional targets for portions of the State.
(1) A State DOT shall declare and describe in the State HSIP annual
report required by Sec. 490.213 the boundaries used to establish each
additional target.
(2) State DOTs may select any number and combination of urbanized
area boundaries and may also select a single non-urbanized area
boundary for the establishment of additional targets.
(3) The boundaries used by the State DOT for additional targets
shall be contained within the geographic boundary of the State.
(4) State DOTs shall evaluate separately the progress of each
additional target and report that progress in the State HSIP annual
report (see 23 CFR part 924).
(c) The Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPO) shall establish
performance targets for each of the measures identified in Sec.
490.207(a), where applicable, in a manner that is consistent with the
following:
(1) The MPOs shall establish targets not later than 180 days after
the respective State DOT establishes and
[[Page 13916]]
reports targets in the State HSIP annual report.
(2) The MPO target shall represent performance outcomes anticipated
for the same calendar year as the State target.
(3) After the MPOs within each State establish the targets, the
State DOT must be able to provide those targets to FHWA, upon request.
(4) For each performance measure, the MPOs shall establish a target
by either:
(i) Agreeing to plan and program projects so that they contribute
toward the accomplishment of the State DOT safety target for that
performance measure; or
(ii) Committing to a quantifiable target for that performance
measure for their metropolitan planning area.
(5) The MPOs that establish quantifiable fatality rate or serious
injury rate targets shall report the VMT estimate used for such targets
and the methodology used to develop the estimate. The methodology
should be consistent with other Federal reporting requirements, if
applicable.
(6) The MPO targets established under paragraph (c)(4) of this
section specific to the metropolitan planning area shall represent the
anticipated performance outcome for all public roadways within the
metropolitan planning boundary regardless of ownership or functional
class.
(d)(1) The State DOT and relevant MPOs shall coordinate on the
establishment of targets in accordance with 23 CFR part 450 to ensure
consistency, to the maximum extent practicable.
(2) The MPOs with multi-State boundaries that agree to plan and
program projects to contribute toward State targets in accordance with
paragraph (c)(4)(i) of this section shall plan and program safety
projects in support of the State DOT targets for each area within each
State (e.g., MPOs that extend into two States shall agree to plan and
program projects to contribute toward two separate sets of targets (one
set for each State)).
Sec. 490.211 Determining whether a State department of transportation
has met or made significant progress toward meeting performance
targets.
(a) The determination for having met or made significant progress
toward meeting the performance targets under 23 U.S.C. 148(i) will be
determined based on:
(1) The most recent available Final FARS data for the fatality
number. The FARS ARF may be used if Final FARS is not available;
(2) The most recent available Final FARS and HPMS data for the
fatality rate. The FARS ARF may be used if Final FARS is not available;
(3) The most recent available Final FARS data for the non-motorized
fatality number. The FARS ARF may be used if Final FARS is not
available;
(4) State reported data for the serious injuries number;
(5) State reported data and HPMS data for the serious injuries
rate; and
(6) State reported data for the non-motorized serious injuries
number.
(b) The State-reported serious injury data and non-motorized
serious injury data will be taken from the HSIP report in accordance
with 23 CFR part 924.
(c) The FHWA will evaluate whether a State DOT has met or made
significant progress toward meeting performance targets.
(1) The FHWA will not evaluate any additional targets a State DOT
may establish under Sec. 490.209(b).
(2) A State DOT is determined to have met or made significant
progress toward meeting its targets when at least four of the
performance targets established under Sec. 490.207(a) are:
(i) Met; or
(ii) The outcome for a performance measure is less than the 5-year
rolling average data for the performance measure for the year prior to
the establishment of the State's target. For example, of the State
DOT's five performance targets, the State DOT is determined to have met
or made significant progress toward meeting its targets if it met two
targets and the outcome is less than the measure for the year prior to
the establishment of the target for two other targets.
(d) If a State DOT has not met or made significant progress toward
meeting performance targets in accordance with paragraph (c) of this
section, the State DOT must comply with 23 U.S.C. 148(i) for the
subsequent fiscal year.
(e) The FHWA will first evaluate whether a State DOT has met or
made significant progress toward meeting performance targets after the
calendar year following the year for which the first targets are
established, and then annually thereafter.
Sec. 490.213 Reporting of targets for the Highway Safety Improvement
Program.
(a) The targets established by the State DOT shall be reported to
FHWA in the State's HSIP annual report in accordance with 23 CFR part
924.
(b) The MPOs shall annually report their established safety targets
to their respective State DOT, in a manner that is documented and
mutually agreed upon by both parties.
(c) The MPOs shall report baseline safety performance, VMT estimate
and methodology if a quantifiable rate target was established, and
progress toward the achievement of their targets in the system
performance report in the metropolitan transportation plan in
accordance with 23 CFR part 450. Safety performance and progress shall
be reported based on the following data sources:
(1) The most recent available Final FARS data for the fatality
number. The FARS ARF may be used if Final FARS is not available;
(2) The most recent available Final FARS and MPO VMT estimate for
the fatality rate. The FARS ARF may be used if Final FARS is not
available;
(3) The most recent available Final FARS data for the non-motorized
fatality number. The FARS ARF may be used if Final FARS is not
available;
(4) State reported data for the serious injuries number;
(5) State reported data and MPO VMT estimate for the serious
injuries rate; and
(6) State reported data for the non-motorized serious injuries
number.
[FR Doc. 2016-05202 Filed 3-14-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-22-P