Highway Safety Improvement Program |
|---|
|
Gregory G. Nadeau
Federal Highway Administration
15 March 2016
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 50 (Tuesday, March 15, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 13722-13742]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-05190]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Highway Administration
23 CFR Part 924
[Docket No. FHWA-2013-0019]
RIN 2125-AF56
Highway Safety Improvement Program
AGENCY: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The purpose of this final rule is to incorporate changes to
the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) regulations to address
provisions in the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act
(MAP-21) as well as to incorporate clarifications to better explain
existing regulatory language. The DOT also considered the HSIP
provisions in the Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act (FAST
Act) in the development of the HSIP final rule. Specifically, this rule
removes the requirement for States to prepare a Transparency Report
that describes not less than 5 percent of locations that exhibit the
most severe safety needs, removes the High Risk Rural Roads (HRRR) set-
aside, and removes the 10
[[Page 13723]]
percent flexibility provision for States to use safety funding in
accordance with Federal law. This rule also establishes a subset of
roadway data elements, and creates procedures to ensure that States
adopt and use the subset. Finally, this rule adds State Strategic
Highway Safety Plan update requirements and requires States to report
HSIP performance targets.
DATES: This final rule is effective April 14, 2016.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Karen Scurry, Office of Safety,
karen.scurry@dot.gov; or William Winne, Office of the Chief Counsel
william.winne@dot.gov, 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
This document, the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), and all
comments received may be viewed online through: http://www.regulations.gov. Electronic submission and 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.ofr.gov and the Government Printing Office's Web page at:
http://www.gpo.gov.
Executive Summary
I. Purpose of the Regulatory Action
The Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21)
(Pub. L. 112-141) and the Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act
(FAST Act) (Pub. L. 114-94) continue the Highway Safety Improvement
Program (HSIP) under section 148, title 23 of the United States Code
(U.S.C.) as a core Federal-aid program with the purpose to achieve a
significant reduction in fatalities and serious injuries on all public
roads. The MAP-21 amended the HSIP by requiring the DOT to establish
several new requirements and removes several provisions that were
introduced under the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient
Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU). A revision
to 23 CFR part 924 is necessary to align with the MAP-21 and FAST
provisions and clarify existing program requirements. A key component
of this rule is the requirement for States to collect and use a set of
roadway data elements for all public roadways, including local roads.
Data elements include elements to classify and delineate roadway
segments (e.g., beginning and end point descriptors), elements to
identify roadway physical characteristics (e.g., median type and ramp
length), and elements to identify traffic volume. The purpose of this
requirement, in addition to satisfying a statutory requirement, is to
improve States' ability to estimate expected number of crashes at
roadway locations, with the ultimate goal to improve States' allocation
of safety resources.
II. Summary of the Major Provisions of the Regulatory Action in
Question
This final rule retains most of the major NPRM provisions without
change, with the exception of the Model Inventory of Roadway Elements
(MIRE) fundamental data elements (FDE). The MAP-21 requires DOT to
establish a subset of model roadway elements (a.k.a. MIRE) FDE (23
U.S.C. 148(e)(2)(A)). Based on the review and analysis of comments
received in response to the NPRM, FHWA revised the required MIRE FDE in
this final rule to clarify where the data elements shall be collected
(i.e. based on functional classification, rather than volume). The MIRE
FDE are the minimum roadway data elements an agency would need to
conduct system-wide network screening and can be divided into the
following categories: (1) MIRE FDE that define roadway segments,
intersections and interchanges/ramps, (2) MIRE FDE that delineate basic
information needed to characterize the roadway type and exposure, and
(3) MIRE FDE that identify governmental ownership and functional
classification consistent with the HSIP reporting requirements. The
FHWA believes that the roadway data elements are the fundamental set of
data elements that an agency would need in order to conduct enhanced
safety analyses to improve safety investment decisionmaking through the
HSIP. The MIRE FDE also has the potential to support other safety and
infrastructure programs in addition to the HSIP.
The MAP-21 also requires the DOT to establish the update cycle for
Strategic Highway Safety Plans (SHSP) (23 U.S.C. 148(d)(1)(A)) and the
content and schedule for the HSIP report (23 U.S.C. 148(h)(2)). An SHSP
is a statewide-coordinated safety plan that identifies a State's key
safety needs and guides investment decisions toward strategies and
countermeasures with the most potential to save lives and prevent
injuries. This final rule establishes an SHSP update cycle of at least
every 5 years, consistent with the NPRM and current practice in most
States. For example, 45 States updated their SHSP or had an SHSP update
underway within a 5-year timeframe. A number of those States are on the
third version of their SHSP. Of those States that have not delivered an
SHSP update, they have an update planned or well underway. The final
rule also maintains the requirement that States submit their HSIP
reports on an annual basis, by August 31 each year. In addition to
existing reporting requirements, DOT requires that State DOTs document
their safety performance targets required under 23 U.S.C. 150(d) and
the basis on which those targets were established in their annual HSIP
report, and describe progress to achieve those safety performance
targets in future HSIP reports. The DOT also requires States to use the
HSIP online reporting tool to submit their annual HSIP reports,
consistent with the NPRM and the Office of the Inspector General's
recommendations in the 2013 HSIP Audit.\1\ Currently, a majority of
States use the HSIP online reporting tool to submit their annual HSIP
reports. All HSIP reports are publicly available on the FHWA Web
site.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Office of the Inspector General, Audit Report: FHWA Provides
Sufficient Guidance and Assistance to Implement the Highway Safety
Improvement Program but Could Do More to Assess Program Results,
Report Number: MH-2013-055, March 26, 2013, is available at the
following Internet Web site: https://www.oig.dot.gov/sites/default/files/FHWA's%20Highway%20Safety%20Improvement%20Program%5E3-26-
13.pdf.
\2\ HSIP reports can be found at the following Internet Web
site: http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/hsip/reports
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While the MAP-21 allowed HSIP funds to be eligible for any type of
highway safety improvement project (i.e., infrastructure or non-
infrastructure); the FAST Act limits this flexibility. In response to
the FAST Act provisions and comments received on the NPRM, FHWA removes
the provision that required FHWA to assess the extent to which other
eligible funding programs are programmed for non-infrastructure
projects prior to using HSIP funds for these purposes in this final
rule. The DOT also adopts language throughout the final rule to be
consistent with the performance management requirements under 23 U.S.C.
150.
Lastly, as described in the NPRM, this final rule removes all
existing references to the HRRR Program, 10 percent flexibility
provisions, and transparency reports since MAP-21 eliminated these
provisions.
III. Costs and Benefits
Of the three requirements mandated by MAP-21 and addressed in this
rule (MIRE FDE, SHSP update cycle, and
[[Page 13724]]
HSIP Report Content and Schedule), FHWA believes that only the
requirement regarding the MIRE FDE would result in additional costs.
The SAFETEA-LU and the existing regulation already require States to
update their SHSP on a regular basis; the final rule establishes a
cycle of at least every 5 years for States to update their SHSP. The
final rule does not change the existing schedule for the HSIP report.
The MAP-21 results in only minimal proposed changes to the HSIP report
content related to reporting safety performance targets required under
23 U.S.C. 150(d); however, additional costs as a result of this new
content are negligible and the removal of the transparency report
requirements reduces existing reporting costs. The costs to establish
the safety performance targets required under 23 U.S.C. 150(d) are
considered under the concurrent rulemaking for safety performances
measures (Docket number FHWA-2013-020). There were no comments to the
docket indicating that any of the changes listed above, other than
those relating to MIRE FDE, would result in increased costs to the
States. Therefore, FHWA bases its cost-benefit analysis on the MIRE FDE
component only and uses the ``MIRE Fundamental Data Elements Cost-
Benefit Estimation'' Report \3\ for this purpose.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ ``MIRE Fundamental Data Element Cost-Benefit Estimation,''
dated May 13, 2015, is available on the docket for this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 1 displays the estimated total net present value cost of the
requirements for States to collect, maintain, and use the proposed MIRE
FDE for all public roadways.
Total costs are estimated to be $659.1 million undiscounted, $508.0
million discounted at 3 percent, and $378.7 million discounted at 7
percent. Although not a specific requirement of this final rule, the
cost estimate also includes an estimate of the cost for States to
extend their statewide linear referencing system (LRS) to all public
roads, since an all-public-roads LRS is a prerequisite to realizing the
full benefits from collecting and using the MIRE FDE. This cost is
estimated to be $32,897,622 nationally (discounted at 7 percent). The
cost estimates reflect the additional costs that a State would incur
based on what is not being collected through the Highway Performance
Monitoring System (HPMS) or not already being collected through other
efforts. In order for the rule to have net safety benefits, States
would need to analyze the collected data, use it to identify locations
with road safety improvement potential, shift project funding to those
locations, and those projects would need to have more safety benefits
than the projects invested in using current methods which do not
incorporate the proposed MIRE FDE. Additional costs for data quality
control, local agency coordination, and data analysis are also included
in the MIRE FDE Cost-Benefit Estimation Report.
Table 1--Total Estimated Net Present Value National Costs for MIRE FDE
[2015-2035 Analysis period]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total national costs (net present value)
Cost components -----------------------------------------------
Undiscounted 3% 7%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost of Section 924.17:
Linear Referencing System (LRS)............................. $34,010,102 $33,514,809 $32,897,622
Initial Data Collection..................................... 113,395,680 96,253,460 78,854,599
Roadway Segments........................................ 68,879,288 57,899,768 46,795,474
Intersections........................................... 2,161,256 1,816,747 1,468,323
Interchange/Ramp locations.............................. 1,057,984 889,339 718,777
Volume Collection....................................... 41,297,152 35,657,606 29,872,025
Maintenance of data system...................................... 65,683,740 45,319,305 28,907,829
Management & administration..................................... 6,410,685 5,388,807 4,355,316
Miscellaneous................................................... 499,585,598 327,522,078 233,726,851
-----------------------------------------------
Total Cost.......................................... 659,085,805 508,008,459 378,742,217
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The cost for developing a statewide LRS would equate to on average
$645,051 for each State and the District of Columbia. The cost for data
collection for an average State is estimated to be $1,546,169 for the
initial data collection and $85,398 for management and administration
costs,\4\ $566,820 for maintenance costs \5\ and $4,582,879 for
miscellaneous costs \6\ over the analysis period of 2015-2035 (2014
U.S. dollars).\7\ These estimates are net present value average costs
on a per average State basis discounted at 7 percent. As such, across
the 50 States and the District of Columbia, it is possible that the
aggregate cost for the initial data collection would be approximately
$79 million over 10 years and the total maintenance, management, and
administration and miscellaneous costs would approach $267 million over
the 20 year analysis period.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ DOT defines management and administration costs as the costs
to administer contracts for data collection. The analysis estimates
management and administration costs at 5 percent of the estimated
initial MIRE FDE collection costs. The analysis assumes management
and administration costs would not exceed $260,000 per State.
\5\ DOT defines maintenance costs as the costs to update the
data as conditions change. The analysis assumes that 2 percent of
roadway mileage would need to be updated annually.
\6\ DOT defines miscellaneous costs include the one-time cost of
developing an implementation plan and cost of data collection
mobilization and annual ongoing costs of local agency partner
liaison, formatting and analyzing enhanced data and desktop and web
application.
\7\ ``MIRE Fundamental Data Element Cost-Benefit Estimation,''
dated May 13, 2015 is available on the docket for this rulemaking.
\8\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The MIRE FDE are beneficial because collecting this roadway and
traffic data and integrating those data into the safety analysis
process would improve an agency's ability to locate problem areas and
apply appropriate countermeasures, hence improving safety. The FHWA did
not estimate the benefits of this rule. Instead, FHWA has conducted a
breakeven analysis. There were no comments to the docket indicating
that a different type of analysis should be performed, except that the
cost-benefit analysis should also consider a benefit/cost ratio of 10:1
since this is the average benefit/cost ratio for a typical highway
safety improvement project. Table 2 shows the reduction in fatalities
and injuries due to improvements in
[[Page 13725]]
safety investment decisionmaking with the use of the MIRE FDE that
would be needed for the costs of the data collection to equal the
benefits and for the benefits to exceed the cost 10 times.
Table 2--Estimated Benefits Needed To Achieve Cost-Benefit Ratios of 1:1
and 10:1
[2015-2035 Analysis period]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of lives saved/injuries
avoided nationally
Benefits -------------------------------
Benefit/Cost Benefit/Cost
ratio of 1:1 ratio of 10:1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
# of lives saved (fatalities)........... 76 763
# of injuries avoided................... 5,020 50,201
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Using the 2014 comprehensive cost of a fatality of $9,300,000 and
$109,800 for an average injury,\9\ results in an estimated reduction of
one fatality and 98 injuries per average State over the 2015-2035
analysis period would be needed to result in a benefit-cost ratio
greater than 1:1.\10\ To achieve a benefit/cost ratio of 10:1, each
State would need to reduce fatalities by 15 and injuries by 984 over
the same analysis period.\11\ The FHWA believes this is possible
because the MIRE FDE, in combination with crash data, will support more
cost-effective safety investment decisions and ultimately yield greater
reductions in fatalities and serious injuries per dollar invested.
Further, the experiences to date in States that are already collecting
and using roadway data comparable to the MIRE FDE suggests there is a
very high likelihood that the benefits of collecting and using the
proposed MIRE FDE will outweigh the costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ ``Guidance on Treatment of the Economic Value of a
Statistical Life (VSL) in U.S. Department of Transportation
Analyses, 2014 Update. www.dot.gov/regulations/economic-values-used-in-analysis.
\10\ Ibid.
\11\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Background
On March 28, 2014, at 79 FR 17464, the FHWA published a NPRM
proposing to revise the regulations in 23 CFR part 924 Highway Safety
Improvement Program. The HSIP is a core Federal-aid program with the
purpose to achieve a significant reduction in fatalities and serious
injuries on all public roads. The HSIP requires a data-driven,
strategic approach to improving highway safety on all public roads that
focuses on performance. The NPRM was published to incorporate the new
statutory requirements of MAP-21 and the FAST Act, as well as general
updates to provide consistency with 23 U.S.C. 148 and to provide State
and local safety partners with clarity on the purpose, definitions,
policy, program structure, planning, implementation, evaluation, and
reporting of the HSIP. Specifically, MAP-21 removed the requirement for
States to prepare a Transparency Report, removed the HRRR set-aside,
and removed the 10 percent flexibility provision for States to use
safety funding in accordance with 23 U.S.C. 148(e) [as it existed under
SAFETEA-LU]. The MAP-21 also adds data system and improvement
requirements, State SHSP update requirements, and requirements for
States to develop HSIP performance targets. The DOT is addressing
specific requirements related to HSIP performance target requirements
through a separate, but concurrent, rulemaking effort (FHWA-2013-0020).
Stakeholder Outreach
As discussed above, the MAP-21 required the Secretary of
Transportation to establish a subset of the model inventory of roadway
elements, or the MIRE FDE, that are useful for the inventory of roadway
safety. The U. S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) supported
collection of FDEs on the progress made toward accomplishing the HSIP
goals in a November 2008, report entitled ``Highway Safety Improvement
Program: Further Efforts Needed to Address Data Limitations and Better
Align Funding with States' Top Safety Priorities.'' As discussed in the
NPRM, the GAO report recommended that the Secretary of Transportation
direct the FHWA Administrator to take specific actions and FHWA
published, ``Guidance Memorandum on Fundamental Roadway and Traffic
Data Elements to Improve the Highway Safety Improvement Program.'' \12\
As part of addressing GAO's recommendations, FHWA engaged in efforts to
obtain public input. The FHWA hosted a peer exchange at the 2009 Asset
Management Conference, two Webinars in December 2009, and one listening
session at the January 2010 Transportation Research Board meeting to
obtain input on possible approaches to address the GAO's
recommendations. During the Webinars and the listening session, FHWA
listened carefully to the comments and concerns expressed by the
stakeholders and used that information when developing the August 1,
2011, Guidance Memorandum. The August 1 Guidance Memorandum formed the
basis for the State Safety Data System guidance published on December
27, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Guidance Memorandum on Fundamental Roadway and Traffic Data
Elements to Improve the Highway Safety Improvement Program, issued
August 1, 2011 can be viewed at the following Internet Web site:
http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/tools/data_tools/memohsip072911/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Summary of Comments
The FHWA received 62 letters submitted to the docket containing
approximately 425 individual comments. Comments were received from 41
State departments of transportation (State DOT), 4 local government
agencies, 10 associations (e.g. the American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), American Transportation
Safety Services Association (ATSSA), and Geospatial Transportation
Mapping Association (GTMA)), and 7 private citizens. The FHWA has
reviewed and analyzed all the comments received. The FHWA has also
reviewed and considered the implications of the FAST Act on the HSIP
Final Rule. The significant issues raised in the comments and summaries
of the FHWA's analyses and determinations are discussed below.
Section 924.1 Purpose
The FHWA did not receive any substantive comments regarding the
proposed change to clarify that the purpose of this regulation is to
prescribe requirements for the HSIP, rather than to set forth policy
and therefore revises the regulation as proposed.
[[Page 13726]]
Section 924.3 Definitions
As proposed in the NPRM, FHWA removes the following definitions
because they are no longer used in the regulation: ``integrated
interoperable emergency communication equipment,'' ``interoperable
emergency communications system,'' ``operational improvements,''
``safety projects under any other section,'' ``State,'' and
``transparency report.'' There were no substantive comments to the
docket regarding the proposed removal of these definitions; therefore
FHWA removes them in this final rule.
In the NPRM, FHWA also proposed to remove the definition of ``high
risk rural road'' (HRRR) because this term is no longer used in the
regulation. The Delaware DOT supported the removal of the term.
However, ATSSA and the American Highway Users Alliance suggested
retaining the definition of the term ``high risk rural road'' because
there is still a special rule that links to HRRRs in MAP-21. The
Arizona DOT suggested that, if an HRRR is considered a public road, it
should be treated like any other public road, rather than as part of a
special rule, and HSIP funds should be used to target locations of high
frequency of fatalities or serious injuries. As a result, Arizona DOT
suggested that a consistent definition for HRRR should be established
that applies to all States. Under 23 U.S.C. 148(a)(1), States have the
flexibility to define high risk rural road in accordance with their
updated SHSP. Because the definitions portion of the regulation is
meant to define specific terms used in the regulation, the FHWA deletes
the definition in the final rule, since the term is not used in the
regulation.
In the NPRM, the FHWA proposed to remove the definition of
``highway-rail grade crossing protective devices'' from the regulation.
The ATSSA, the Railway Supply Institute, and the American Highway Users
Alliance all opposed the removal of the definition. The Railway Supply
Institute and the American Highway Users Alliance cited the provisions
in 23 U.S.C. 130 that allow funds to be available for the installation
of protective devices at railway-highway crossings. The commenters
suggested that given that statutory requirement, it is important to
provide a clear definition of the type of devices eligible for funding
under this section of law, and that the existing definition of
protective devices in 23 CFR 924.3 does that and should be retained. In
addition, commenters noted that a version of this term was retained in
23 CFR 924.11. The FHWA agrees and retains the definition in the final
rule with a slight modification to the term, revising it to ``railway-
highway crossing protective device.'' The FHWA uses the term
``railway'' rather than railroad throughout the regulation for
consistency with the program title under 23 U.S.C. 130.
Although FHWA did not propose a change to the term ``hazard index
formula'' the FHWA received a comment from Washington State DOT
suggesting the term implies an unsafe condition. The AASHTO and Georgia
DOT commented that the term ``hazard,'' which is used throughout the
regulation, implies an unsafe condition on a roadway. The commenters
suggested that the use of the term ``hazard'' creates a liability for
many State DOTs since it implies that an unsafe condition does exist
when it does not. The commenters requested that the term ``risk'' or
``relative risk'' be used, because it would be more accurate and not
inadvertently create potential liability for State DOTs, and would be
more in keeping with the state of the practice. Because ``hazard index
formula'' is an industry standard term and changing it would cause
confusion, FHWA retains the existing term. The FHWA agrees with the
commenter that the hazard index formula is used for determining the
relative risks at a railway-highway crossing and therefore revised the
definition to refer to ``relative risk.'' Because the term ``hazard''
is used throughout the legislation, FHWA retains the term for
consistency between the legislation and the regulation.
In the NPRM, FHWA proposed to revise the definition for the term
``highway'' to clarify the definition of 23 U.S.C. 101(a) and the
provision that HSIP funds can be used for highway safety improvement
projects on any facility that serves pedestrians and bicyclists
pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 148(a)(4)(B)(v) and (e)(1)(A). The GTMA suggested
that, given the role of roadway pavement markings in supporting
advanced lane detection vehicle technologies, the term ``markings'' be
included as one of the associated elements of a road, street, or
parkway in the definition of the term ``highway.'' The FHWA agrees and
includes ``markings'' in the definition of the term ``highway.''
The FHWA proposed to revise the definition of ``highway safety
improvement program'' in the NPRM by adding the acronym ``HSIP'' to
indicate that when the acronym HSIP is used in the regulation it is
referring to the program carried out under 23 U.S.C. 130 and 148, and
not the program of highway safety improvement projects. The FHWA
proposed to include a listing of the HSIP components--Strategic Highway
Safety Plan (SHSP), Railway-Highway Crossings program, and program of
highway safety improvement projects--in the definition. The GTMA
suggested that the definition indicate that the program is designed to
significantly reduce traffic fatalities and serious injuries on all
public roads through the implementation of the provisions in 23 U.S.C.
130 and 148. The FHWA agrees and revises the definition to indicate
that the purpose of the HSIP is to reduce fatalities and serious
injuries on all public roads through the implementation of the
provisions of 23 U.S.C. 130, 148, and 150. The FHWA adds a reference to
23 U.S.C. 150 in the final rule to be inclusive of all applicable
legislation. The FHWA also adds the term ``data-driven,'' as suggested
by the Rhode Island DOT, to describe the SHSP and to clarify that it is
developed from a data-driven approach.
In the NPRM, FHWA proposed to revise the definition of ``highway
safety improvement project'' to specify that it includes strategies,
activities, and projects and that such projects can include both
infrastructure and non-infrastructure projects under 23 U.S.C.
148(a)(4)(A) and (c)(2)(C)(i). The ATSSA disagreed with the expansion
of the definition to include both infrastructure and non-infrastructure
projects, stating that the HSIP was created to focus on safety
infrastructure investments. The FAST Act limits HSIP eligibility to the
inclusions list in 23 U.S.C. 148(a)(4)(B). Therefore, FHWA removes the
general reference to non-infrastructure projects as proposed in the
NPRM. The ATSSA also disagreed with the removal of the listing of
example projects from the regulation. The ATSSA reasoned that the list
was created for a reason to serve as a guidepost and to direct States
in their investment decisions, and that while it is not an exhaustive
list, it does reiterate the types of infrastructure projects that funds
should be focused on in the States. Because it is not an exhaustive
list, FHWA believes it is best to refer readers to 23 U.S.C. 148(a) for
the most current list of example projects.
The FHWA replaces the term ``public grade crossing'' with ``public
railway-highway crossing'' because the term public grade crossing is no
longer used in the regulation. It was replaced with public railway
highway crossing in section 924.9 in the NPRM. In addition, consistent
with the NPRM, FHWA revises the definition of this term to clarify that
associated sidewalks, pathways, and shared use paths are also
[[Page 13727]]
elements of a public grade crossing pursuant to 23 U.S.C.
130(l)(4)(A)(i) and (ii). There were no substantive comments regarding
this change.
The ATSSA, GTMA, and Maine DOT supported the proposed addition to
the definition of ``public road'' that non-State-owned public roads and
roads on tribal lands are considered public roads pursuant to 23 U.S.C.
148(a)(12)(D), (b)(2), (c)(2)(A)(i), (c)(2)(D)(ii), and (d)(1)(B)(viii)
in the NPRM. Virginia DOT suggested clarification regarding Federal
roadways as well as alleys and service roads maintained by a public
agency. The FHWA reiterates that Federal roadways are included in the
definition of public road, unless otherwise noted, and that a public
road is any road open to public travel, which includes alleys and
service roads. The purpose of the HSIP is to reduce fatalities and
serious injuries on all public roads. Therefore, FHWA encourages State
DOTs to coordinate with all relevant stakeholders to meet the
requirements of the program. Comments from Alaska and Arizona DOTs
regarding data collection on public roads and roads open to public
travel are addressed in section 924.17.
Although FHWA did not propose changes to the term ``road safety
audit'' in the NPRM, ATSSA suggested that FHWA clarify that the purpose
of the ``road safety audit'' is to improve road safety for all users.
The FHWA agrees and makes this change in the final rule.
The FHWA removes ``vehicle data'' from the listing of safety data
components in the definition of ``safety data'' to be consistent with
MAP-21, 23 U.S.C. 148(a)(9)(A), as proposed in the NPRM. As suggested
by the GTMA, FHWA adds the term ``characteristics'' to reinforce that
``roadway'' refers to the physical attributes of the road segment.
In the NPRM, FHWA proposed to expand the definition of ``safety
stakeholder'' to include a list of stakeholders. Although the list is
not exhaustive, FHWA proposed including this list to ensure that States
are aware of the range of stakeholders that are, at a minimum, required
to be involved in SHSP development and implementation efforts. While
the Mid-America Regional Council (the Metropolitan Planning
Organization (MPO) for the bi-state Kansas City region) supported the
inclusion of MPOs in the list of safety stakeholders, the GTMA
suggested that FHWA add State and local emergency medical response
officials and private sector representatives involved with roadway
safety and data collection because they could provide valuable
perspectives on the impacts of crashes. The FHWA agrees that these
entities could provide meaningful information and States are encouraged
to include such entities, as well as others that are not listed, in
their safety planning efforts. The FHWA retains the definition as
proposed in the NPRM to be consistent with MAP-21.
Although FHWA proposed to revise the definition of ``serious
injury'' in the NPRM, FHWA deletes the definition of ``serious injury''
in the final rule due to the concurrent rulemaking for safety
performance measures (FHWA-2013-0020 at 79 FR 13846). A specific
definition of serious injury is not necessary for this regulation.
States have effectively managed the HSIP using their own definition for
serious injury since the inception of the HSIP. The MAP-21 or FAST did
not make any changes to how the HSIP is managed or administered
regarding serious injury. Not including a serious injury definition in
this regulation gives States the flexibility to consider their own
definition of serious injuries for problem identification. However,
since it is necessary for all States to use the same definition of
``serious injury'' for safety performance measures, the term will be
defined exclusively in 23 CFR part 490.
In the NPRM, FHWA proposed to revise the definition of ``strategic
highway safety plan'' to indicate that the SHSP is a multidisciplinary
plan, rather than a data-driven one to be consistent with MAP-21.
Wisconsin DOT supported the concept that the SHSP is a
multidisciplinary plan and that the multidisciplinary component is an
important part of the plan. The Rhode Island DOT indicated that they
view the SHSP as a multidisciplinary plan that is developed from a
data-driven approach, and therefore felt that removing data-driven
requirement from SHSP seems to contradict with the objective of HSIP.
Delaware DOT and ATSSA also disagreed with removing the term ``data-
driven'' and suggested it be retained due to the importance of linking
investments of HSIP funds to data in MAP-21. The FHWA agrees that the
SHSP should be developed based on data and revises the definition in
the final rule to reflect that the SHSP is a comprehensive, data-driven
plan consistent with the definition in 23 U.S.C. 148. The term
comprehensive as used here means multidisciplinary. Additional
clarification will be provided in guidance.
In the NPRM, FHWA proposed to add definitions for ``spot safety
improvement'' and ``systemic safety improvement'' to clarify the
difference between these types of improvements. The Minnesota DOT
suggested further clarification to the definition of ``systemic safety
improvement,'' since it goes beyond a countermeasure that is being
widely installed. Minnesota DOT suggested further definition is needed
so States can confidently deploy systemic safety projects in small
quantities when needed, and prohibit large quantity deployments of
unproven countermeasures under the guise of a systemic safety project.
The FWHA agrees and revises the definition in the final rule to
indicate that systemic safety improvements are proven safety
countermeasures. The FHWA adopts the definition for ``spot safety
improvement'' as proposed in the NPRM.
As proposed in the NPRM, FHWA adds two definitions of terms used in
the regulation: ``Model Inventory of Roadway Elements (MIRE)
Fundamental Data Elements'' and ``reporting year.'' There were no
significant comments to the docket regarding these definitions;
however, FHWA incorporates minor editorial changes to the definition of
``Model Inventory of Roadway Elements (MIRE) Fundamental Data
Elements'' in the final rule.
Section 924.5 Policy
As proposed in the NPRM, FHWA incorporates minor editorial
modifications in paragraph (a) to explicitly state that the HSIP's
objective is to significantly reduce fatalities and serious injuries,
rather than ``the occurrence of and potential for fatalities and
serious injuries'' as written in the existing regulation.
In the NPRM, FHWA proposed to delete from paragraph (b) the
provisions related to 10 percent flex funds, due to the removal of the
flex fund provisions in MAP-21. The AASHTO and Georgia DOT supported
the elimination of the 10 percent flex funds provision in exchange for
being able to use the funds to maximize the potential safety benefit of
HSIP expenditures. The FHWA also proposed to add language that funding
shall be used for highway safety improvement projects that maximize
opportunities to advance safety consistent with the State's SHSP and
have the greatest potential to reduce the State's fatalities and
serious injuries. The AASHTO and Minnesota DOT suggested that the
language, as proposed, appeared to be unduly detailed or prescriptive
and would not allow a State the flexibility and ability to program
safety projects that might act to curtail State programming flexibility
beyond any statutory requirement. Georgia DOT also expressed concern
that the proposed language implies that all projects can be compared
side-by-
[[Page 13728]]
side to one another, which is not possible or practicable. Montana DOT
expressed similar concerns. As a result, the FHWA revises the language
in the final rule to state that HSIP funds shall be used for highway
safety improvement projects that are consistent with the State's SHSP,
and that HSIP funds should be used to maximize the opportunities to
advance highway safety improvement projects that have the greatest
potential to reduce the State's roadway fatalities and serious
injuries.
In the NPRM, FHWA further proposed to clarify that prior to using
HSIP funds for non-infrastructure related safety projects, other
Federal funds provided to the State for non-infrastructure safety
programs (including but not limited to those administered by the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and Federal
Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA)) should be fully
programmed. The FHWA's intent in the NPRM was for States to use all
available resources to support their highway safety needs and make
progress toward a significant reduction in fatalities and serious
injuries on all public roads. The NPRM further stated that in the case
of non-infrastructure projects involving NHTSA grant funds, State DOTs
should consult State Highway Safety Offices about the project
eligibility under 23 U.S.C. 402.
The AASHTO expressed concern that a lack of flexibility by the
Federal agencies will impact any opportunities that States may have to
be innovative in using such funds to address non-infrastructure types
of safety projects. The AASHTO, virtually all of the States that
commented on this provision, California Walks, and a private citizen
supported the ability to use HSIP funds for non-infrastructure
projects, but expressed concern that the added requirement of ``all
other eligible funding for non-infrastructure projects must be used
prior to using HSIP funds'' may be limiting and a detriment. Michigan
DOT stated that non-HSIP funding for non-infrastructure based safety
solutions may not be under the direction of the State DOT and,
therefore, the flexibility of State DOTs in the use of HSIP funding
should not be restricted by the decisions made on how non-HSIP funds
are used by other entities. The AASHTO stated that if a non-
infrastructure project/program meets the HSIP approved criteria, the
State DOT should be able to utilize the funds as needed. The Michigan
DOT also suggested that the Federal-aid highway program is a State-
administered, federally funded program, and the proposed language
appears to exceed the boundaries of the Federal role in project
selection. The ATSSA expressed disagreement with the use of HSIP funds
for non-infrastructure projects. The GTMA expressed support for the use
of HSIP funds to integrate FMCSA and NHTSA crash data into a basemap
designed to develop a more comprehensive and strategic approach to
safety, including training and other data initiatives to assist in
using basemap data to assist in the enforcement of behavioral and
FMCSA-related laws. They also expressed their support for the use of
HSIP funds for the collection of mobile imaging, LiDAR,
retroreflectivity, friction and 3D pavement and bridge deck imaging
data. Understanding the need to strike a balance, GTMA encouraged FHWA
to put in place strong accounting measures to ensure that any funds
transferred from HSIP to other safety or non-safety programs be
traceable and that a justification be provided prior to approval. The
GTMA strongly supported the proposed provision to require other
eligible funding to be used for non-infrastructure projects in order to
help maintain programmatic integrity and transparency among the various
safety programs. Georgia, Kentucky, Idaho, Montana, North Dakota, South
Dakota, and Wyoming DOTs suggested there be a stronger tie to fund
projects and programs that are supported by the SHSP. The FAST Act
limits HSIP eligibility to the inclusions list in 23 U.S.C.
148(a)(4)(B); accordingly, the FHWA removes this provision in the final
rule.
As proposed in the NPRM, FHWA removes the first sentence of
existing paragraph (c) regarding the use of other Federal-aid funds,
since this information is repeated in Sec. 924.11 (Implementation) and
is better suited for that section. The FHWA also incorporates minor
edits to the paragraph to provide more accurate references to the
National Highway Performance Program (NHPP) and the Surface
Transportation Program (STP) Federal-aid programs, and removes
references to the Interstate Maintenance (IM), National Highway System
(NHS), and Equity Bonus funding sources, since these funding programs
have been consolidated into other program areas. The California State
Association of Counties (CSAC) expressed concerns with the policy that
safety improvements that are provided as part of a broader Federal-aid
project should be funded from the same source as the broader project.
The CSAC expressed support for the principle that safety should be
considered in all Federal-aid projects, yet cautioned that there may be
circumstances when a smaller agency would need to use HSIP funding in
addition to other funding sources in order to deliver a complete
project. Alaska DOT suggested that the proposed changes are less clear
and limit flexibility by limiting funding to one type of Federal-aid
per project.
The FHWA's intent is not to limit flexibility, rather to promote
the use of all available funding sources to implement safety
improvements. In general, it is FHWA's policy that safety improvements/
features should be funded with the same source of funds as the primary
project. However, FHWA realizes there are some exceptions that may
occur on a limited basis, such as when a programmed highway safety
improvement project(s) overlaps with a standard road project, or for a
designated period of time when a State wishes to advance implementation
of an innovative safety countermeasure. The FHWA reiterates that the
intent of this provision remains unchanged from the existing HSIP
regulation and retains the proposed language.
Section 924.7 Program Structure
In paragraph (a), FHWA clarifies the structure of the HSIP, as
proposed in the NPRM, by specifying that the HSIP is to include a SHSP,
a Railway-Highway Crossings Program, and a program of highway safety
improvement projects. As discussed in the NPRM, FHWA believes that
listing the three main components will help States better understand
the program structure. The GTMA expressed support for this change.
In the NPRM, FHWA proposed to clarify in paragraph (b) that the
HSIP shall include a separate process for planning, implementation, and
evaluation of the HSIP components described in Sec. 924.7(a) for all
public roads in the State. The North Carolina DOT suggested that the
language needed to be clarified if the intent of the revision is to
require the HSIP process to cover all public roads versus develop
different processes for State maintained and non-State maintained
public roads. As a result, FHWA revises the final rule to clarify that
the HSIP process shall address all public roads in the State. The FHWA
also incorporates minor revisions, as proposed in the NPRM, to require
that the processes be developed in cooperation (rather than
consultation) with the FHWA Division Administrator and be developed in
consultation (rather than cooperatively) with officials of the various
units of local and tribal governments; it further adds that other
safety stakeholders shall also be consulted, as appropriate. In
addition,
[[Page 13729]]
FHWA clarifies that the processes developed are in accordance with the
requirements of 23 U.S.C. 148. Finally, FHWA removes the existing last
sentence of the regulation that references what the processes may
include, since that language is more appropriate for guidance
documents, rather than regulation.
The GTMA supported the revisions in this section with the
suggestion that additional stakeholders be included in the definition
of ``safety stakeholder'' in Sec. 924.3.
Section 924.9 Planning
As discussed in the NPRM, FHWA reorganizes and revises paragraph
(a) so that it reflects the sequence of actions that States should take
in the HSIP planning process. As a result of this reorganization, the
HSIP planning process now includes six distinct elements, including a
separate element for updates to the SHSP, which currently exists under
the safety data analysis process. The FHWA also removes existing
paragraph (a)(3)(iii) regarding the HRRR program to reflect the change
in statute. While there were no public comments regarding the proposed
reorganization of paragraph (a), there were comments related to several
individual items, which are included in the discussion below along with
key revisions to each element of Sec. 924.9(a).
The FHWA revises paragraph (a)(1) to group data as ``safety data,''
rather than specifying individual data components and specifies that
roadway data shall include MIRE FDE as defined in Sec. 924.17 and
railway-highway crossing data shall include all fields from the DOT
National Highway-Rail Crossing Inventory. As discussed in the NPRM,
MIRE FDE are a basic set of elements an agency would need to conduct
enhanced safety analyses regardless of the specific analysis tools used
or methods applied and they have the potential to support other safety
and infrastructure programs in addition to the HSIP. While Washington
State DOT supported including safety data on all public roads, the
Wyoming, South Dakota, North Dakota, Indiana, Vermont, Massachusetts,
Utah, Montana, Oklahoma, Illinois, Kentucky, Arizona, North Carolina,
California, and Virginia DOTs all expressed concern with collecting
MIRE FDE on all public roads. These DOTs expressed concerns related to
collecting data on low volume, unpaved, and tribal lands roads where
there are not significant numbers of crashes or safety concerns
compared to other roads. The commenters suggested that the time
required to collect such data, as well as the associated costs, creates
extra burden and resource investments. The GTMA supported the efforts
to create a nationwide base map of all public roads and suggested that
the MIRE FDE are in line with MAP-21 requirements. The FHWA retains the
language for paragraph (a)(1) as proposed in the NPRM, but incorporates
substantial changes to the MIRE FDE as discussed below in Sec. 924.17
to address comments expressing concern for the increased cost and
burden for collecting data on all public roads.
As proposed in the NPRM, FHWA revises paragraph (a)(2) to clarify
that safety data includes all public roads. The FHWA retains the
language for paragraph (a)(2) as proposed in the NPRM, with minor
editorial changes.
As proposed in the NPRM, FHWA reorders and combines some of the
items formerly in paragraph (a)(3)(ii) to reflect the sequence of
actions States should take in HSIP planning. The revisions highlight
the importance of the SHSP in the HSIP planning process and that it is
a separate element. Key revisions, as well as those for which there
were significant comments, are discussed herein. The MAP-21 requires
FHWA to establish a SHSP update cycle, so FHWA proposed a maximum 5-
year update cycle in paragraph (a)(3)(i) to reflect current practice in
some States. The FHWA received support for the 5-year update cycle from
most of the State DOTs who commented about the update cycle. Washington
State DOT supported the 5-year update cycle, but also suggested that
some States may desire a shorter update cycle. Therefore, Washington
State DOT suggested FHWA provide flexibility to allow States to update
their SHSP more frequently. Missouri DOT updates their SHSPs every 4
years and requested similar flexibility in the update requirement. The
GTMA suggested that States be required to submit their first SHSP 7
years from the date of enactment of MAP-21 and that subsequent plans be
updated every 5 years. The MAP-21 requires States to update their SHSP
by August 1st of the fiscal year following the establishment of the
update requirements. The FHWA retains the language as proposed in the
NPRM noting that the regulation also states, ``A SHSP update shall be
completed no later than five years from the previous date.'' This
language allows States to update their SHSPs more frequently than every
5 years, providing flexibility for States who choose more frequent
updates.
Paragraph (a)(3)(iii) proposed the FHWA Division Administrator to
approve the update process. Virginia DOT suggested that the requirement
for a ``process'' description and approval should be clarified and
recommended that language be added to specify when documentation must
be submitted to FHWA for review and approval of a State's SHSP update
process. The GTMA suggested that any process review be conducted by the
FHWA Administrator's office, not the Division Administrator. Their
recommendation is that FHWA Division Administrators should provide
guidance in the SHSP development process, and since they are involved
in the development then someone else should have responsibility for
providing approval. The FHWA retains the language as proposed because
the FHWA Division Administrators have been delegated the authority to
act on behalf of the Administrator. Further, since the Divisions are
involved in the update process, they are in the best position to
determine if that process is consistent with MAP-21 requirements.
To address comments from AASHTO, Idaho, Montana, North Dakota,
South Dakota, Wyoming, and Georgia DOTs, as well as GTMA, FHWA revises
paragraph (a)(3)(vii) to reflect that the SHSP update shall identify
key emphasis areas and strategies that have the greatest potential to
reduce highway fatalities and serious injuries and focus resources on
areas of greatest need. The FHWA removes the phrase ``greatest
potential for a rate of return on safety investments,'' to address
comments suggesting that such language implies preparing project-level
cost benefit analyses which are not appropriate at the planning level.
The use of the term ``rate of return'' was not intended to reference a
statistical methodology. The GTMA suggested changing the phrase ``key
features when determining SHSP strategies'' in paragraph (a)(3)(vii) to
mirror the legislation to read ``key factors . . .'' The FHWA retains
the phrase ``key features,'' as proposed in the NPRM, because FHWA
feels this language to be consistent with the level of detail
appropriate for the SHSP.
To respond to a comment from GTMA requesting clarification on the
process and potential resources for implementing strategies in the
emphasis areas described in paragraph (a)(3)(xi), FHWA reiterates that
this item serves as a basic, high-level description of the process
covered in paragraph (a)(4) and does not require a validation process
for each project at this level of SHSP planning. For example, some
States (such as Louisiana, Maryland and Pennsylvania) include in their
SHSP a section that explains how they plan to
[[Page 13730]]
successfully implement the SHSP. They describe the process for ongoing
communication and feedback from SHSP partners, which action items have
been identified for each partner, and how the plan will be tracked and
monitored. Other States (such as Virginia and Rhode Island) have also
included emphasis area plans in their SHSPs, which outline the
strategies, related action steps, and the agency responsible for
implementing the strategies/steps. States can also discuss potential
funding sources to implement the SHSP, such as the HSIP, NHTSA's
Section 402 funds, etc. There were no comments regarding the remaining
paragraphs within paragraph (a)(3), therefore they are revised as
proposed in the NPRM.
The FHWA revises this item, as proposed in the NPRM, incorporating
a suggestion from Kentucky DOT to phrase paragraph (a)(4)(i) to reflect
that the purpose of HSIP is to ``reduce fatalities and serious
injuries'' to provide consistent language throughout the regulation. To
correspond with changes made in Sec. 924.3, FHWA incorporates minor
editorial edits in paragraph (a)(4)(ii) to remove the term ``hazard,''
replacing it with the term ``risk'' and deleting the word ``grade''
from ``railway-highway crossings.''
As stated in the NPRM, paragraph (a)(5) contains no substantial
edits.
The FHWA incorporates minor edits in the final rule to reflect
comments from Virginia DOT suggesting that the process for establishing
priorities for implementing highway safety improvement projects
``considers'' (rather than ``includes'') the sub-items listed. The FHWA
believes this revision will provide States with more flexibility in
establishing their processes. Given this flexibility, it is important
that States conduct a periodic review of their HSIP practices and
procedures to identify noteworthy practices and opportunities to
advance HSIP implementation efforts.
As proposed in the NPRM, FHWA revises paragraph (b) by changing,
adding, and removing references to various legislation for consistency
with other sections in this regulation. The FHWA revises the language
proposed in the NPRM that clarifies the use of these funding categories
is subject to the individual program's eligibility criteria and the
allocation of costs based on the benefit to each funding category, to
be consistent with Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) revised
administrative requirements and cost principles under 2 CFR part 200.
In paragraph (c), as proposed in the NPRM, FHWA clarifies that
HSIP-funded non-infrastructure safety projects (e.g. transportation
safety planning; collection, analysis, and improvement of safety data)
shall also be carried out as part of the Statewide and Metropolitan
Transportation Improvement Planning (STIP) processes consistent with
the requirements of 23 U.S.C. 134 and 135 and 23 CFR part 450. In the
NPRM, the FHWA also proposed to add a requirement that States
distinguish between infrastructure and non-infrastructure projects in
the STIP in order to assist in formalizing the required tracking of the
funds programmed on infrastructure and non-infrastructure projects for
State and FHWA reporting purposes. Similar to the comments regarding
the use of funds for non-infrastructure projects in Sec. 924.5, ATSSA
expressed disagreement with the use of HSIP funds for non-
infrastructure projects, as did GTMA. The FAST Act limits HSIP
eligibility to the inclusions list in 23 U.S.C. 148(a)(4)(B);
accordingly, FHWA removes the proposed language requiring States to
distinguish between infrastructure and non-infrastructure projects in
the STIP.
Section 924.11 Implementation
As proposed in the NPRM, FHWA removes former paragraph (b)
describing the 10 percent flex funds and former paragraph (c)
describing funding set asides for improvements on high risk rural roads
to reflect changes associated with MAP-21.
In the NPRM, FHWA proposed adding new paragraph (b) to require
States to incorporate an implementation plan by July 1, 2015, for
collecting MIRE FDE in their State's Traffic Records Strategic Plan and
that they shall complete collection of the MIRE FDE on all public roads
by September 30, 2020. The preamble for the NPRM also stated that due
to the uncertainty in time periods for publishing rulemakings, it is
possible that the dates will be changed to reflect a specific time
period based upon the effective date of a final rule for this NPRM.
While the Missouri DOT acknowledged that it could have an
implementation plan in place by July 1, 2015, many State DOTs and the
Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments stated that the both the
July 2015 deadline for an implementation plan and the 5-year deadline
for complete collection of MIRE FDE were too aggressive. The AASHTO and
California, Maine, Massachusetts, and Missouri DOTs suggested that the
proposed September 2020 timeframe for collecting data on all public
roads was aggressive and likely not achievable; however, Delaware DOT
indicated that they could meet the deadline. The AASHTO, Georgia,
Oklahoma, South Dakota, and Vermont DOTs suggested a 10-year timeframe
for collecting data would be more appropriate. The GTMA suggested that
FHWA amend the language to require complete collection of MIRE FDE on
all NHS routes by September 30, 2018, and all public roads by September
30, 2022. The AASHTO suggested that the regulation be modified to allow
States to develop an implementation plan that prioritizes the
collection of MIRE FDE as resources are made available. Georgia DOT
submitted a similar comment.
The FHWA understands concerns expressed by the commenters. As a
result, FHWA revises the final rule language to require States to
incorporate specific quantifiable and measureable anticipated
improvements for the collection of MIRE FDE into their Traffic Records
Strategic Plan by July 1, 2017. The additional 2 years provided in this
final rule will give States additional time to coordinate with all
relevant entities, including local and tribal agencies, to identify and
prioritize MIRE FDE collection efforts. The FHWA also revises the final
rule to specify that States shall have access to a complete collection
of the MIRE FDE on all public roads by September 30, 2026. This change
clarifies that States only need to have access to data, rather than to
actually collect the data themselves. It also extends the deadline for
complete collection of the MIRE FDE on all public roads by 6 years from
what was proposed in the NPRM. Based on the NPRM comments described
above, FHWA believes that 10 years is adequate to complete collection
of the MIRE FDE as revised in this final rule in section 924.17.
As proposed in the NPRM, FHWA adopts new paragraph (c) requiring
the SHSP to include actions that address how the SHSP emphasis area
strategies will be implemented.
In paragraph (d), FHWA removes language regarding specific use of
23 U.S.C. 130(f) funds for railway-highway crossings, because reference
to 23 U.S.C. 130 as a whole is more appropriate than specifying just
section (f). The FHWA retains language about the Special Rule under 23
U.S.C. 130(e)(2) authorizing use of funds made available under 23
U.S.C. 130 for HSIP purposes if a State demonstrates it has met its
needs for installation of railway-highway crossing protective devices
to the satisfaction of the FHWA Division Administrator, in order to
ensure that all States are aware of this provision.
As proposed in the NPRM, FHWA revises paragraph (g) [formerly
paragraph (h)] regarding the Federal
[[Page 13731]]
share of the cost of a highway safety improvement project carried out
with funds apportioned to a State under section 23 U.S.C. 104(b)(3) to
reflect 23 U.S.C. 148(j). The GTMA expressed support for allowing 23
U.S.C. 120 and 130 reimbursement exceptions to be made available for
the HSIP. The FHWA removes existing paragraphs (g) and (i) because the
regulations are covered elsewhere and therefore do not need to be in
this regulation. In particular, existing paragraph (g) is addressed in
23 CFR 450.216, which documents the requirements for the development
and content of the STIP, including accounting for safety projects. In
addition, existing paragraph (i) regarding implementation of safety
projects in accordance with 23 CFR part 630, subpart A, applies to all
Federal-aid projects, not just HSIP, and is therefore not necessary in
the HSIP regulation.
The FHWA retains existing paragraphs (a), (e), and (f) with minimal
editorial changes. The ATSSA expressed support for paragraph (e) that
highway safety improvement projects be implemented with other funds and
suggested that care should be taken to ensure that highway safety
improvement projects funded with other programs are in addition to
projects funded by the HSIP, not instead of. The ATSSA disagreed with
the existing provision in paragraph (f) that again allows HSIP funds to
be used for non-highway construction projects. These are existing
provisions for which FHWA does not adopt any changes, except revisions
to be consistent with OMB's revised administrative requirements and
cost principles under 2 CFR part 200.
Section 924.13 Evaluation
The FHWA incorporates the following changes to paragraph (a)
regarding the evaluation of the HSIP and SHSP:
The FHWA proposed to revise paragraph (a)(1) to clarify that the
process is to analyze and assess the results achieved by highway safety
improvement projects and the Railway-Highway Crossing Program, and not
the HSIP as stated in the existing regulation. As stated in the NPRM,
this change is consistent with the clarifications to Program Structure,
as described in Sec. 924.7. The Delaware and Virginia DOTs and GTMA
expressed concern that the evaluation of individual projects could be
time intensive without achieving the goal of understanding the overall
impact of safety programs. The FHWA revises paragraph (a)(1) to
reference the program of highway safety improvement projects, rather
than individual projects. Texas DOT requested further details regarding
the evaluation process. The FHWA will provide further clarification in
guidance, but in general States are required to develop evaluation
processes to best meet their individual program needs. Evaluation
processes might include an inventory of previously implemented HSIP
projects to support safety performance evaluations of individual
projects, countermeasures, and the program as a whole. These processes
might also specify specific methodologies and available resources to
support evaluation. As stated in the NPRM, States currently evaluate
highway safety improvement projects to support the evaluation of the
HSIP; therefore this clarification does not require States to change
their evaluation practices or the way they report their evaluations to
FHWA. The FHWA also proposed to revise the outcome of this process to
align with the performance targets established under 23 U.S.C. 150 as a
requirement in section 1203 of MAP-21, which is the subject of a
concurrent rulemaking for safety performance measures (FHWA-2013-0020
at 79 FR 13846). The FHWA revises the language in the final rule to
reflect that contributions to improved safety outcomes are important,
as well as attaining performance targets, based on a comment from
AASHTO and several State DOTs to emphasize long-term, outcome-oriented
focus as well as short-term targets. The process for evaluating
achievement toward performance targets is described in more detail in
the concurrent rulemaking for safety performance measures (FHWA-2013-
0020 at 79 FR 13846).
The FHWA revises paragraph (a)(2), as proposed in the NPRM, to
clarify that the evaluation of the SHSP is part of the regularly
recurring update process that is already required under the current
regulations. As part of this change, FHWA removes existing paragraph
(a)(2)(i) because ensuring the accuracy and currency of the safety data
is part of regular monitoring and tracking efforts. The FHWA revises
new paragraph (a)(2)(i) [formerly paragraph (a)(2)(ii)] to reflect that
evaluation of the SHSP includes confirming the validity of the emphasis
areas and strategies based on analysis of current safety data.
Finally, in new paragraph (a)(2)(ii) [formerly paragraph
(a)(2)(iii)] FHWA clarifies that the SHSP evaluation must identify
issues related to the SHSP's implementation and progress that should be
considered during each subsequent SHSP update. Subsequent SHSP updates
will need to take into consideration the issues experienced in
implementing the previous plan and identify methods to overcome those
issues. Washington DOT commented that while it recognizes the value in
reporting the lessons learned from implementation, it was unsure what
was meant in the NPRM preamble by ``issues experienced'' and ``steps
taken to overcome,'' and suggested that examples would provide greater
clarity to what is meant by ``issues.'' The FHWA will provide further
clarification in guidance, but an example of an ``issue experienced''
could be not meeting a SHSP goal or objective. For instance, if a SHSP
emphasis area objective is not met, this may suggest a strategy is
ineffective, or in some cases, the strategy may not have been
implemented as planned. The State should try to identify why the
objective was not met and consider alternatives in their SHSP update.
As proposed in the NPRM, FHWA incorporates a minor revision to
paragraph (b)(1) to specify that safety data used in the planning
process is to be updated based on the results of the evaluation under
Sec. 924.13(a)(1).
Finally, FHWA incorporates minor revisions to paragraph (c) to
remove references to the STP and NHS [now NHPP], as well as 23 U.S.C.
402 since this is not the primary intent of these programs; removed the
reference to 23 U.S.C. 105 since this program was repealed under MAP-
21; and replaces the reference to 23 U.S.C. 104(f) with 104(d) to
reflect the change in legislation numbering. There were no substantial
comments to these revisions in the NPRM.
The FHWA revises the language in the final rule that clarifies that
the use of these funding categories is subject to the individual
program's eligibility criteria and the allocation of costs based on the
benefit to each funding category to be consistent with OMB's revised
administrative requirements and cost principles under 2 CFR part 200.
Section 924.15 Reporting
The FHWA removes the requirements for reporting on the HRRR program
and the transparency report, as proposed in the NPRM, because MAP-21
removes these reporting requirements.
The FHWA revises the HSIP report requirements to specify what
should be contained in these reports. In paragraph (a), FHWA requires
that the report be submitted via the HSIP online reporting tool. The
AASHTO, Arizona, Delaware, Georgia, Indiana, Michigan, New York,
Oklahoma, Rhode Island, Utah, and Texas DOTs all suggested that
improvements be made to the online reporting tool. While many supported
[[Page 13732]]
the principle of submitting reports online, several State DOTs
expressed concern with the current functionality of the online
reporting tool and suggested that it be improved before use of the tool
was mandatory. The State DOTs indicated that there are usability issues
with the current tool making it cumbersome to use. Some expressed
concern that the tool is error-prone. In addition, States suggested
that the security features be improved so that all reviewers and
contributors could obtain access.
The FHWA understands that there have been difficulties with the
online reporting tool and will continue to host user group discussions
to identify and prioritize future enhancements. The FHWA will also
continue training and technical assistance activities to support States
HSIP reporting efforts. To respond to comments regarding access to and
security of the online report tool, FHWA issued a Memorandum of User
Profile and Access Control System (UPACS) Credentials on October 4,
2009,\13\ to provide States with information regarding FHWA's
implementation of e-Authentication as a part of the e-Government
initiative to enable trust and confidence in e-Government transactions.
In this memorandum, FHWA indicated that, in adherence to the DOT
Information Assurance guidance, all State DOT users and MPO users
accessing FHWA web-based applications would be required to obtain a
Level-2 credential by April 1, 2010. The intent for submitting online
reports is to ensure consistent reporting across all States and support
national HSIP evaluation efforts. Forty-seven States currently use the
HSIP online reporting tool to support the HSIP reporting efforts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ The Memorandum of User Profile and Access Control System
(UPACS) Credentials, issued October 4, 2009 can be viewed on the
docket for this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As proposed in the NPRM, FHWA replaces paragraphs (a)(1)(i) and
(ii) in their entirety. In paragraph (a)(1)(i), FHWA indicates that the
report needs to describe the structure of the HSIP, including how HSIP
funds are administered in the State, and a summary of the methodology
used to develop the programs and projects being implemented under the
HSIP on all public roads. In paragraph (a)(1)(ii), FHWA requires that
the report describe the process in implementing the highway safety
improvement projects and compare the funds programmed in the State
transportation improvement program for highway safety improvement
projects with those obligated during the reporting year. The FHWA also
requires that the report include a list of highway safety improvement
projects (and how each relates to the State SHSP) that were obligated
during the reporting year, including non-infrastructure projects. There
were no substantive comments regarding these changes. The FHWA retains
the reference to non-infrastructure projects here since States would
still be required to report on HSIP expenditures for those non-
infrastructure activities that remain on the inclusions list in 23
U.S.C. 148(a)(4)(B) (e.g. transportation safety planning; collection,
analysis, and improvement of safety data).
The FHWA reorganizes new paragraph (a)(1)(iii) to emphasize the
importance of long-term safety outcomes and to clarify safety
performance target documentation requirements, consistent with comments
received on the NPRM. The AASHTO, Vermont, and Arkansas DOTs suggested
that FHWA emphasize the long-term outcome-oriented focus, in addition
to annual targets. Virginia DOT commented that the language and
requirements of regulations 23 CFR parts 490, 924, and 1200 should be
consistent with respect to SHSP and HSIP/HSP target setting. The ATSSA
suggested that it might be helpful to clarify the details expected
related to safety performance targets. As a result, FHWA separates
paragraph (a)(1)(iii) into three parts in the final rule. Paragraph
(a)(1)(iii)(A) focuses on long-term safety outcomes and requires States
to describe general highway safety trends. The FHWA moves all language
regarding safety trends to paragraph (a)(1)(iii)(A) of the final rule
in order to group similar information together. In addition, FHWA adds
a requirement in paragraph (a)(1)(iii)(A) that general highway safety
trends for the total number of fatalities and serious injuries for non-
motorized users shall be provided in order to reflect the importance of
safety for this user group. Paragraph (a)(1)(iii)(B) focuses on
documenting the safety performance targets and clarifies that
documentation of the safety performance targets shall include a
discussion of the basis for each established target, how the
established target supports the long-term goals in the SHSP, and for
future HSIP reports, any reasons for differences in the actual outcomes
and targets. As proposed in the NPRM for paragraph (a)(1)(iii), the
safety performance targets required by 23 U.S.C. 150(d) shall be
presented for all public roads by calendar year. Paragraph
(a)(1)(iii)(C) focuses on the applicability of the special rules and
does not change from the NPRM.
As proposed in the NPRM, paragraph (a)(1)(iv) requires that the
report assess improvements accomplished by describing the effectiveness
of highway safety improvement projects implemented under the HSIP.
Virginia DOT suggested that this item describe the evaluation and
reporting of individual projects and their type grouping based on
outcome frequencies because, for example, intersection crash rates are
calculated differently from road crash rates. The FHWA does not specify
how the States assess or report on the effectiveness of highway safety
improvements. States are required to have an evaluation process under
23 CFR 924.13, but have the flexibility to develop that process to best
meet their needs.
Finally, as proposed in the NPRM, FHWA adds a new paragraph
(a)(1)(v) to require that the HSIP report be compatible with the
requirements of 29 U.S.C. 794(d) (Section 508 of the Rehabilitation
Act) whereas previously only the transparency report was required to be
compatible. Washington State DOT expressed concern that some States and
local agencies may have difficulty in complying with 29 U.S.C. 794(d),
Section 508, and that the burden of meeting this requirement may shift
to the reporting agency. As a result, they suggested that FHWA consider
providing examples of Section 508 compliant reports on the Web site.
The HSIP reports are currently available on FHWA's Web site \14\ and
are 508 compliant. The HSIP MAP-21 Reporting Guidance \15\ describes in
detail the DOT Web site requirements. Also, reporting into the HSIP
Online Reporting Tool meets all report requirements and DOT Web site
requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ HSIP reports can be found at the following weblink: http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/hsip/reports.
\15\ HSIP MAP-21 Reporting Guidance can be found at the
following weblink: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/map21/guidance/guidehsipreport.cfm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are no changes to the existing regulation regarding the
report describing progress to implement railway-highway crossing
improvements.
Section 924.17 MIRE Fundamental Data Elements
In the NPRM, FHWA proposed to add a new Sec. 924.17 containing the
MIRE FDE for the collection of roadway data. The proposed section
consisted of two tables of MIRE FDE listing the MIRE name and number
for roadway segments, intersections, and
[[Page 13733]]
interchanges or ramps as appropriate. The tables differentiated the
required MIRE FDE for roads with Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT)
greater than or equal to 400 vehicles per day (Table 1) and roads with
AADT less than 400 vehicles per day (Table 2). The FHWA received a
significant number of comments regarding the MIRE Fundamental Data
Requirements, particularly related to the cost and burden of collecting
the data, the required data elements, the requirement to collect data
on low-volume roads, and the implementation timeline. Comments related
to the implementation timeline are discussed in Sec. 924.11 and
comments regarding costs to collect and maintain the data, including
comments on FHWA's cost assumptions, are discussed in the Regulatory
Analysis section. The following paragraphs describe the remaining
docket comments regarding the MIRE FDE. Following the discussion of the
docket comments is a description of the changes FHWA adopted in this
final rule to address the comments where appropriate.
Required Data Elements: North Dakota suggested that States should
be allowed to determine what data is appropriate for their analysis and
how it should be collected. Massachusetts DOT indicated that they had
previously attempted a program to define and identify distinct
intersections and interchanges and found it to be significantly more
challenging than anticipated. Ohio DOT supported the data elements to
classify and delineate roadway segments, elements to identify roadway
physical characteristics, and elements to identify traffic volume,
indicating that these requirements will ensure that States have the
necessary data to better target roadway investments with the greatest
potential to reduce crashes. Delaware DOT and Delaware Valley Regional
Planning Commission also supported the required data elements. Arizona,
New York, and Texas DOTs, as well as GTMA, suggested additional data
elements may be useful such as median/shoulder width, horizontal curve
data, speed limit, roadway paved width, median barrier type, shoulder
texturing, and centerline texturing, while the League of American
Bicyclists and California Walks and Massachusetts DOT suggested that
bicycle and pedestrian count information or elements along roadways
(bike lanes) or intersections (pedestrian accommodations) be included
to help States address crashes associated with non-motorized users. The
Virginia DOT echoed those comments, stating that presence/type of
bicycle facility (40) and sidewalk presence (51) should be included as
data elements that must be collected for urban roadways, stating that
this is critical as non-motorized fatalities represent more than 10
percent of all traffic fatalities in Virginia and this information will
be important to help analyze and identify safety needs of non-motorized
users of the transportation system.
Local, low volume, and unpaved, gravel, and dirt roads: AASHTO,
Arizona, Delaware, Montana, Texas, Utah, and Washington State DOTs
expressed concern with the requirement to collect data on all public
roads, particularly as it related to local, low volume, and unpaved,
gravel, and dirt roads. Arizona DOT and GTMA expressed support for
exempting unpaved, gravel, or dirt roads from MIRE FDE requirements.
The Idaho, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wyoming DOTs stated
that there is not sufficient justification for rules that would require
expenditure of considerable funds on data collection, particularly data
regarding dirt and gravel roads and other low volume rural roads. They
commented that scarce funds would be better directed to actual safety
projects. Those DOTs suggested that it is unlikely that data elements
related to unpaved roads are ``critical'' to overall safety management;
therefore, FHWA should exclude them from the MIRE requirements. Arizona
and Georgia DOTs and the Kansas Association of Counties suggested that
States be allowed to develop their own methodologies to estimate AADT
on local roads.
As discussed in the NPRM, FHWA includes this section on MIRE FDE to
comply with section 1112 of MAP-21 that amends 23 U.S.C. 148 to require
model inventory of roadway elements as part of data improvement. As
mandated under 23 U.S.C. 148(f)(2), the Secretary of Transportation
shall (1) establish a subset of the model inventory of roadway elements
that are useful for the inventory of roadway safety; and (2) ensure
that States adopt and use the subset to improve data collection.
Considering this requirement in conjunction with the other requirements
in 23 U.S.C. 148, FHWA cannot exempt certain roads entirely from the
MIRE FDE requirements. Section 148(f)(1) of Title 23 U.S.C. defines a
data improvement activity to include a project or activity to develop a
basemap of all public roads, as well as safety data collection,
including data identified as part of the model inventory of roadway
elements, for creating or using on a highway basemap of all public
roads in a State. In addition, there is frequent mention of safety data
for all public roads throughout section 148 (e.g., 23 U.S.C. 148(a)(2),
(a)(9), (c)(2)). If all public roads are to be included in the
identification and analysis of highway safety problems and
opportunities as required by 23 U.S.C. 148(c)(2), FHWA believes that
States should be able to at least locate all crashes on all public
roads with an LRS. Lastly, the general purpose of the HSIP program is
to achieve a significant reduction in traffic fatalities and serious
injuries on all public roads (23 U.S.C. 148(b)(2)). Because the
collection of these inventory elements ultimately supports
implementation of the HSIP, it is important that MIRE FDE be collected
for all of the roads eligible under the HSIP. To address comments
raised during the rulemaking process, FHWA adds a definition for the
term ``open to public travel'' for the purpose of MIRE FDE; changes the
categorization of MIRE FDE from AADT to functional classification and
surface type; further reduces the MIRE FDE for unpaved roads; and
eliminates intersection data elements for local paved roads in the
final rule. A brief description of each of these changes is provided
below.
Categorize MIRE FDE requirements for paved roads based on
functional classification and surface type, rather than AADT: Several
commenters expressed concern about not having AADT (or a good method to
estimate AADT) for all public roads, which would make it difficult to
determine the applicability of the MIRE FDE requirements using the AADT
thresholds proposed in the NPRM. Based on data from a sample of 3
States, FHWA estimates that roughly 72 percent (or 2,941,375 miles) of
all public roads have an AADT of less than 400 and would therefore be
subject to the FDE requirements proposed in Table 2 of the NPRM. In
general, the roads with less than 400 AADT are lower functionally
classified roads. According to FHWA Highway Statistics, there were
2,821,867 million miles of roads functionally classified as local roads
in the United States in 2011 and 2012. This estimate equates very
closely with the estimated miles of roadways subject to the NPRM Table
2 requirements, which were based on AADT estimates. Given the
relatively low frequency that actual AADT counts are collected on low
volume roads, FHWA changes the criteria for determining if a road is
subject to MIRE FDE requirements to the functional classification of
the roadway. Functional classification is the process
[[Page 13734]]
by which streets and highways are grouped into classes, or systems,
according to the character of traffic service that they are intended to
provide. There are three major highway functional classifications:
arterial, collector, and local roads. Non-local paved roads (e.g.,
arterials and collectors) would be subject to Table 1 in this final
rule; whereas, local functionally classified roads would be subject to
the Table 2 MIRE FDE requirements. As illustrated in the Table 3 below,
this maintains the approximate proportion of roads that would fall into
each category as compared to using a threshold of 400 AADT and will
address nearly the same amount of fatalities. As an added advantage,
this should be easier for the States to administer. The Table 1 and
Table 2 MIRE FDE tables are suggested only for use on paved roads.
Table 3--Comparison of Mileage and % Total Fatalities on <400 AADT Roads
and Roads Classified as Local Roads
------------------------------------------------------------------------
% Total
Roadway classification Mileage fatalities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
<400 AADT *............................. 72% 17.7
Local Road Functional Classification.... 69% 19.7
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Estimates are based on data from a sample of three States.
Create an Unpaved Roads Category: Several commenters expressed
concerns with collecting the reduced set of the FDEs proposed in Table
2 of the NPRM on unpaved roads. Their concerns centered around the
relative lack of a safety problem on these roads and the difficulty in
collecting the information. The AASHTO and many State DOTs suggested
that FHWA create a third roadway category for MIRE FDE data collection
on unpaved roads. Based on 2011 and 2012 data, unpaved roads accounted
for an average of 34.7 percent of U.S. roadway miles (1,395,888
miles).\16\ Fatality data from the same years indicate that only 2.0
percent of fatalities (655) occurred on these unpaved roads.\17\
Therefore, the FHWA creates a separate, reduced set of FDEs in Table 3
of the final rule that would be required for any unpaved public road.
Table 3 MIRE FDE for unpaved roads in the final rule will require
States to locate and identify these roads within the State's LRS per
HPMS and to provide the functional classification and roadway
ownership, which was required in MAP-21. While the FAST Act includes a
provision that would allow States to elect not to collect fundamental
data elements for the model inventory of roadway elements on public
roads that are gravel roads or otherwise unpaved, the MIRE FDE as
defined in this regulation are the minimum subset of the roadway and
traffic data elements from FHWA's MIRE that are used to support a
State's data-driven safety program. States will still be expected to
geospatially locate crashes and the reduced FDEs to these unpaved
roadway segments to monitor their safety if they intend to use HSIP
funds on these roads.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ http://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/rita.dot.gov.bts/files/publications/national_transportation_statistics/html/table_01_04.html.
\17\ http://www.nhtsa.gov/FARS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eliminate Intersection FDEs for Local Roads: Some commenters
suggested that the burden to collect local road intersection data was
greater than the benefit, since they would likely not use the
predictive analysis methods for these facilities. From 2011-2012 there
was an average of 1,117 intersection or intersection-related fatalities
on roads functionally classified as ``local.'' \18\ This constitutes
approximately 3.4 percent of the annual average total (32,739) for all
fatalities during this time period. Network screening for these low
traffic volume roads can be performed using system-wide or corridor
level analyses that combine (but do not distinguish) roadway segment,
intersection, and ramp crashes. Corridor-level network screening would
identify ``intersection'' hot spots, as well, and then an agency could
collect specific roadway data relative to that location as needed.
Therefore, given the ability to identify intersection problems through
corridor-level analysis, FHWA eliminates the MIRE FDE requirement for
local intersections, reducing the number of required data elements in
Table 2 of the final rule from 14 to 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ http://www.nhtsa.gov/FARS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed changes discussed above will significantly reduce the
data collection burden on States as summarized in Table 4 below. The
number of miles of non-local roads for which Table 1 in the final rule
applies is approximately 8,000 miles less than proposed in the NPRM.
Table 2 of the final rule applies to nearly 1.5 million fewer miles of
roads and the number of data elements for those roadway miles is
reduced from 14 elements to 9 elements. Table 3, which was not included
in the NPRM, includes approximately 1.4 million miles of unpaved roads
with only 5 data elements, comprised of name, classification, ownership
and length, which does not require additional collection of data. As a
result, the final rule includes three tables: Table 1--MIRE FDE for
Non-Local (based on functional classification) Paved Roads, Table 2--
MIRE FDE for Local (based on functional classification) Paved Roads,
and Table 3--MIRE FDE for Unpaved Roads. The FHWA incorporates these
changes to address comments regarding the need to reduce the burden on
States while maintaining the minimum roadway data needed to make better
safety investment decisions.
Table 4--Comparison of NPRM and Final Rule--Required MIRE FDE and Roadway Mileage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Variable Rulemaking phase Table 1 Table 2 Table 3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table Categorization............ NPRM.............. >400 AADT......... <400 AADT......... N/A.
Final Rule........ Non-local Paved Local Paved Roads. Unpaved Roads.
Roads.
MIRE FDE elements............... NRPM.............. 37................ 14................ N/A.
Final Rule........ 37................ 9................. 5.
Roadway Mileage................. NPRM.............. 1,143,868......... 2,941,375......... N/A.
[[Page 13735]]
Final Rule........ 1,135,751......... 1,553,604......... 1,395,888.
-----------------------------------------------------
Summary of changes from NPRM to Final Rule.......... Changed Changed Created a separate
categorization categorization category of MIRE
from >400 AADT to from <400 AADT to FDE for unpaved
Non-Local Paved local paved roads roads.
Roads. and eliminated
intersection
elements.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To address the comments suggesting additional data elements, FHWA
suggests that the MIRE FDE included in this final rule are the minimum
roadway elements required to conduct system-wide network screening.
States may choose to collect additional elements as needed to support
system-wide or site-specific analysis. In addition, FHWA does not
require a specific method for traffic volume data collection. Agencies
may use a methodology that best meets the needs of the State.
Rulemaking Analysis and Notices
The FHWA considered all comments received before the close of
business on the comment closing date indicated above, and the comments
are available for examination in the docket (FHWA-2013-0019) at
Regulations.gov. The FHWA also considered comments received after the
comment closing date and filed in the docket prior to the publication
of this final rule. The FHWA also considered the HSIP provisions of the
FAST Act in the development of this final rule. The FHWA finds good
cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B) to incorporate the provisions of the
FAST Act without the need for further notice and comment. The FHWA
believes additional public comment would be unnecessary as the FAST Act
provisions are not discretionary and update the regulation to reflect
current law. Specifically, FHWA removes the provision that required
FHWA to assess the extent to which other eligible funding programs are
programmed for non-infrastructure projects prior to using HSIP funds
for these purposes in this final rule since FAST limited eligibility to
those items specifically listed in 23 U.S.C. 148(a)(4)(B).
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 proposed action is a significant
regulatory action within the meaning of Executive Order 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 Executive Order 12866
as discussed below. This action complies with Executive Orders 12866
and 13563 to improve regulation.
While MAP-21 resulted in requiring the Secretary to establish three
requirements (i.e., MIRE FDE, SHSP update cycle and HSIP report content
and schedule), FHWA based the economic analysis in the NPRM on the
costs associated with the MIRE FDE only. Because States are already
required to update their SHSP on a regular basis, and the proposal for
States to update their SHSP at least every 5 years is consistent with
current practice, FHWA expects any costs associated with updating the
SHSP will be minimal. Alaska, Delaware, Indiana, Maine, North Carolina,
and Washington State DOTs agreed that at least a 5-year SHSP update
cycle is appropriate and will not create an undue financial burden on
the State. Therefore, this assumption remains valid. The FHWA did not
propose any changes to the report schedule or frequency in the NPRM.
There were only minor changes to the report content related to safety
performance targets required under 23 U.S.C. 150(d) and FHWA believed
that any associated costs would be offset by the elimination of the
transparency report requirements. Further, the actual cost to establish
the safety performance target is accounted for in the concurrent
rulemaking for safety performance measures (Docket number FHWA-13-
0020). There were no comments related to the HSIP report content or
associated costs. Since the SHSP update schedule and report content and
schedule requirements do not change from the NPRM to the final rule and
the comments did not suggest otherwise, the economic analysis for the
final rule is based on the MIRE FDE costs only.
The MIRE FDE costs in the NPRM were based on the ``MIRE Fundamental
Data Elements Cost Estimation Report'' dated March 2013.\19\ The cost
estimates developed as part of that report reflected the additional
costs that a State would incur based on what is not being collected
through HPMS or not already being collected for other purposes. The
cost estimate used in the NRPM did not include the cost of analyzing
the MIRE FDE and performance measure data. The FHWA received comments
from AASHTO, California, Georgia, Idaho, Maine, Massachusetts,
Michigan, Missouri, Montana, North Carolina, North Dakota,
Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Texas, Washington State, and
Wyoming DOTs as well as the CSAC, Shasta (California) Regional
Transportation Agency, and the Mid-America Regional Council MPO
suggesting that the costs for collecting the required data would place
a burden on their agencies. While many of the commenters expressed
general support for the need for data to enhance safety programs,
Massachusetts, Montana, and Washington State DOT, commented that the
expenditures in collecting this data at the statewide level for all
public roads would not be offset by the benefits and would divert
funding away from other critical elements of their programs. Arizona
DOT suggested that there is potentially more benefit by implementing
systemic safety measures on many of the low volume public roads than in
MIRE FDE data collection. Arizona, California, Illinois, Indiana,
Kentucky, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, New York, Rhode Island,
Vermont, and Wyoming DOTs all suggested that the costs to collect MIRE
FDE would be extensive and likely exceed the cost estimated by FHWA.
However, only Washington State DOT provided actual cost information.
The cost information the commenters provided was used as additional
input to the revised ``MIRE Fundamental Data
[[Page 13736]]
Elements Cost-Benefit Estimation Report'' dated March 2015.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ ``MIRE Fundamental Data Element Cost-Benefit Estimation,''
FHWA Report number: FHWA-SA-13-018, published March 2013 is
available on the docket for this rulemaking and at the following
Internet Web site: http://safety.fhwa.fhwa.dot.gov/rsdp/downloads/mire_fde_%20cbe_finalreport_032913.pdf.
\20\ ``MIRE Fundamental Data Element Cost-Benefit Estimation,''
dated May 13, 2015, is available on the docket for this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on the comments received in the NPRM, FHWA updated the cost-
benefit estimation to reflect: (1) the revisions to the category of
roadways and the respective MIRE FDEs to be collected on those
roadways, (2) a greater period of time for States to collect the
information on those three categories of roadway, and (3) additional
cost considerations (e.g., formatting and analyzing MIRE FDE data). The
``MIRE Fundamental Data Elements Cost-Benefit Estimation'' report dated
March 2015,\21\ reflects these updates and estimates the potential cost
to States in developing a statewide LRS and collecting the MIRE FDE for
the purposes of implementing the HSIP on all public roadways. The cost
estimates developed as part of this report reflect the additional costs
that a State would incur based on what is not being collected through
the HPMS or not already being collected through other efforts. The MIRE
FDE Cost-Benefit Estimation Report reflects the total cost for States
to collect the MIRE FDE on all public roads, including unpaved roads.
While the FAST Act includes a provision that would allow States to
elect not to collect fundamental data elements for the model inventory
of roadway elements on public roads that are gravel roads or otherwise
unpaved, this report includes the cost to collect the MIRE FDE on
unpaved roads because they would still be required to meet the full
needs of the States' HSIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With the passage of MAP-21, States are required to collect data on
all public roads, including non-Federal-aid roads. To initiate this
process, States need to develop a common statewide relational LRS on
all public roads that is linkable with crash data, as required by 23
CFR 1.5 and described in recent FHWA guidance \22\ issued on August 7,
2012. Based on this criterion, the report estimated that the cost of
developing a statewide LRS beginning in June 2015 and concluding in
June 2016 would be $32,897,622 nationally over this time period. This
would equate to a cost of approximately $645,051 for each State and the
District of Columbia to develop a relational LRS over the 12-month
period. The data collection for an average State is $1,546,169 for the
initial collection and $5,235,097 for the management, administration,
maintenance and miscellaneous costs over the analysis period of 2015-
2035 (in 2014 U.S. dollars). These are average costs on a per State
basis discounted at 7 percent. As such, across the 50 States and the
District of Columbia, it is possible that the aggregate cost for
initial data collection would be approximately $79 million over 10
years and the total maintenance, management, administration and
miscellaneous costs would approach $267 million over the 20-year
analysis period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ Guidance Memorandum on Geospatial Network for all Public
Roads, issued August 7, 2012, can be viewed at the following
Internet Web site: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/hpms/arnold.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 5 displays the comparison of estimated total national costs
between the estimates provided in the NPRM and updated based on the
revised analysis for the final rule. The analysis period for the NPRM
assumed a 16-year analysis period (2013-2029). Based on the comments
received, FHWA revised the data collection time period and extended the
analysis over a 20-year period (2015-2035). Even though States are
required to collect fewer data elements as compared to those proposed
in the NPRM, the MIRE FDE costs for the final rule are higher than the
NPRM, as illustrated in Table 5 below. Based on the comments received,
FHWA revised the LRS cost to include a sliding scale based on roadway
mileage, revised the baseline data collection assumptions to reflect
the most recent HPMS data, added costs to develop a model to estimate
traffic volumes, added costs for data quality assurance and control,
and added costs for other miscellaneous activities including developing
an implementation plan, using a local partner liaison, formatting and
analyzing data, and supporting desktop and Web applications. In
addition, baseline costs were inflated to 2014 dollars and the analysis
period was extended from 16 to 20 years to accommodate the extended
timeframe for data collection. The FHWA believes that this is a more
accurate representation of the costs States can expect to incur to
successfully collect and use the MIRE FDE.
Table 5--Comparison of NPRM and Final Rule Total Estimated National
Costs for MIRE FDE
[2014 dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total national costs (2014
dollars)
Cost components -------------------------------
NRPM * Final rule **
undiscounted undiscounted
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost of Section 924.17:
Linear Referencing System (LRS)..... $17,614,763 $34,010,102
Initial Data Collection............. 54,330,783 113,395,680
Roadway Segments................ 38,767,525 68,879,288
Intersections................... 8,465,017 2,161,256
Interchange/Ramp locations...... 850,872 1,057,984
Volume Collection............... 6,247,369 41,297,152
Maintenance of data system.......... 158,320,508 65,683,740
Management & administration of data 3,524,952 6,410,685
system.............................
Miscellaneous Costs................. N/A 439,585,598
-------------------------------
Total Cost.................. 233,791,005 659,085,805
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* NRPM analysis period--2013 through 2029.
** Final rule analysis period--2015 through 2035.
The MAP-21 and FAST provides States the framework to achieve
significant reductions in traffic fatalities and serious injuries on
all public roads. Furthermore, MAP-21 required States to report on
their safety performance in
[[Page 13737]]
relation to the national safety performance measures in 23 U.S.C.
150(e). The collection of the MIRE FDE information will enhance States
ability to:
Develop quantifiable annual performance targets.
Develop a strategy for identifying and programming
projects and activities that allow the State to meet the performance
targets.
Conduct data analyses supporting the identification and
evaluation of proposed countermeasures.
The benefits of this rulemaking can have a significant impact on
improving safety on our Nation's roads, because collecting this roadway
and traffic data and integrating those data into the safety analysis
process will improve an agency's ability to locate problem areas and
apply appropriate countermeasures, hence improving safety. More
effective safety investments yield more lives saved and injuries
avoided per dollar invested.
The benefits of this rule would be the monetized value of the
crashes, fatalities, serious injuries, and property damage avoided by
the projects identified and implemented using the proposed MIRE FDE
minus the forgone monetized value of the crashes, fatalities, serious
injuries, and property damage avoided by the projects identified and
implemented using the current data and methods used by the States to
allocate safety resources. The FHWA did not endeavor to estimate the
benefits in this way for the NPRM, and did not receive any comments on
how such benefits could be estimated. Therefore, FHWA continued use of
a break-even analysis for the final rule cost estimate.
The ``MIRE Fundamental Data Elements Cost-Benefit Estimation'' \23\
dated May 13, 2013, report calculated the benefits by estimating the
reduction in fatalities and injuries needed to exceed a 1:1 ratio and a
10:1 ratio of benefits to costs. The 10:1 ratio was added following the
NPRM since North Carolina DOT commented that the break-even analysis
using a 1:1 or 2:1 ratio was too low to show the benefits of the added
data collection efforts. Table 6 summarizes these needed benefits. The
report used the 2014 comprehensive cost of a fatality of $9,300,000 and
$109,800 for an injury, based on the value of a statistical life.\24\
The injury costs used in the report reflects the average injury costs
based on the national distribution of injuries in the General Estimate
System (GES) using a Maximum Abbreviated Injury Scale.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ ``MIRE Fundamental Data Elements Cost-Benefit Estimation,''
dated May 13, 2015, is available on the docket for this rulemaking.
\24\ ``Guidance on Treatment of the Economic Value of a
Statistical Life (VSL) in U.S. Department of Transportation
Analyses, 2014 Update. http://www.dot.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/docs/VSL_Guidance_2014.pdf.
Table 6--Estimated Benefits Needed To Achieve Cost-Benefit Ratios of 1:1
and 10:1
[2015-2035 Analysis period, discounted at 7%]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of lives saved/injuries
avoided nationally
Benefits -------------------------------
Benefit/Cost Benefit/Cost
ratio of 1:1 ratio of 10:1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
# of lives saved (fatalities)........... 76 763
# of injuries avoided................... 5,020 50,201
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The report estimates that a reduction of 1 fatality and 98 injuries
by each State over the 2015-2035 analysis period would be needed to
result in a benefit/cost ratio of 1:1. To achieve a benefit/cost ratio
of 10:1, each State would need to reduce fatalities by 15 and injuries
by 984 over the same analysis period. The experiences to date in States
that are already collecting and using roadway data comparable to the
MIRE FDE suggests there is a very high likelihood that the benefits of
collecting and using the proposed MIRE FDE will outweigh the costs.
For example, one study on the effectiveness of the HSIP found: \25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ Wu, K.-F., Himes, S.C., and Pietrucha, M.T., ``Evaluation
of Effectiveness of the Federal Highway Safety Improvement
Program,'' Transportation Research Record, Vol. 2318, pp. 23-34,
2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The magnitude of States' fatal crash reduction was highly
associated with the years of available crash data, prioritizing method,
and use of roadway inventory data. Moreover, States that prioritized
hazardous sites by using more detailed roadway inventory data and the
empirical Bayes method had the greatest reductions; all of those States
relied heavily on the quality of crash data system.''
For example, this study cites Colorado's safety improvements,
noting ``Deployment of advanced methods on all projects and acquisition
of high-quality data may explain why Colorado outperformed the rest of
the country in reduction of fatal crashes.'' \26\ Illinois was also
high on this study's list of States with the highest percentage
reduction in fatalities. In a case study of Illinois' use of AASHTO
Highway Safety Manual methods, an Illinois DOT official noted that use
of these methods ``requires additional roadway data, but has improved
the sophistication of safety analyses in Illinois resulting in better
decisions to allocate limited safety resources.'' \27\ Another case
study of Ohio's adoption of a tool to apply the roadway safety
management methods described in the AASHTO Highway Safety Manual
concluded, ``In Ohio, one of the benefits of applying various HSM
screening methods was identifying ways to overcome some of the
limitations of existing practices. For example, the previous mainframe
methodology typically over-emphasized urban ``sites of promise''--
locations identified for further investigation and potential
countermeasure implementation. These locations were usually in the
largest urban areas, often with a high frequency of crashes that were
low in severity. Now, several screening methods can be used in the
network screening process resulting in greater identification of rural
corridors and projects. This identification enables Ohio's safety
program to address more factors contributing to fatal and injury
crashes across the State, instead of being limited to high-crash
locations in urban areas, where crashes often result in minor or no
injuries.'' \28\ Another document quantified these benefits, indicating
that the number of fatalities per identified
[[Page 13738]]
mile is 67 percent higher, the number of serious injuries per mile is
151 percent higher, and the number of total crashes is 105 percent
higher with these new methods than with their former methods.\29\ In
summary, all three States experienced benefits to the effectiveness of
safety investment decisionmaking through the use of methods that
included roadway data akin to the MIRE FDE and crash data in their
highway safety analyses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ Ibid.
\27\ Highway Safety Manual Case Study 4: Development of Safety
Performance Functions for Network Screening in Illinois. http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/hsm/casestudies/il_cstd.cfm.
\28\ Highway Safety Manual Case Study 2: Implementing a New
Roadway Safety Management Process with SafetyAnalyst in Ohio. http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/hsm/casestudies/oh_cstd.cfm.
\29\ Hughes, J. and Council, F.M., ``How Good Data Lead to
Better Safety Decisions,'' ITE Journal, April 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Between 2008 and 2012, on average 35,157 people died in motor
vehicle traffic crashes in the United States, and an estimated 2.23
million people were injured.30 31 The decrease in fatalities
needed to achieve a 1:1 cost-benefit ratio would represent a 0.2
percent reduction of annual fatalities using the average 2008-2012
statistics. These statistics and the experiences to date in States
already collecting and using roadway data comparable to MIRE FDE as
cited above suggest that the benefits of collecting and using the MIRE
will far outweigh the costs. For example, if each State and the
District of Columbia reduced fatalities by two each because of improved
decisionmaking due to enhanced data capabilities, the economic impact
(savings) would approach $938,400,000. The FHWA believes that the MIRE
FDE, in combination with crash data, will support more cost-effective
safety investment decisions and ultimately yield greater reductions in
fatalities and serious injuries per dollar invested.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ National Highway Traffic Safety Administration--Fatality
Analysis Reporting System: can be accessed at the following Internet
Web site: http://www.nhtsa.gov/FARS.
\31\ National Highway Traffic Safety Administration--National
Automotive Sampling System (NASS) General Estimates System (GES):
can be accessed at the following Internet Web site: http://www.nhtsa.gov/NASS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Act
In compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (Pub. L.
96-354, 5 U.S.C. 601-612), FHWA has evaluated the effects of these
changes on small entities and anticipates that this action will not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. The final rule addresses the HSIP. As such, it affects only
States, and States are not included in the definition of small entity
set forth in 5 U.S.C. 601. Therefore, the RFA does not apply, and I
hereby certify that this action would not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
The FHWA has evaluated this final rule for unfunded mandates as
defined by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4, 109
Stat. 48, March 22, 1995). As part of this evaluation, FHWA has
determined that this action will not result in the expenditure by
State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the
private sector, of greater than $128.1 million or more in any one year
(2 U.S.C. 1532). The FHWA bases their analysis on the ``MIRE
Fundamental Data Elements Cost-Benefit Estimation'' report.\32\ The
objective of this report was to estimate the potential cost to States
in developing a statewide LRS and collecting the MIRE FDE for the
purposes of implementing the HSIP on all public roadways. The cost
estimates developed as part of this report reflect the additional costs
that a State would incur based on what is not being collected through
the HPMS, or not already being collected through other efforts. The
funds used to establish a data collection system, collect initial data,
and maintain annual data collection are reimbursable to the States
through the HSIP program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ ``MIRE Fundamental Data Elements Cost-Benefit Estimation,''
dated May 13, 2015, is available on the docket for this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further, the definition of ``Federal Mandate'' in the Unfunded
Mandate 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)
This action has been analyzed 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 13175 (Tribal Consultation)
The FHWA has analyzed this action under Executive Order 13175,
dated November 6, 2000, and believes that it 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 law. Therefore, a tribal summary impact
statement is not required.
Executive Order 13211 (Energy Effects)
The FHWA has analyzed this action under Executive Order 13211,
Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use. The FHWA has determined that it is not a
significant energy action under that order because it is not likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy. Therefore, a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive
Order 13211 is not required.
Executive Order 12372 (Intergovernmental Review) Catalog of Federal
Domestic Assistance Program Number 20.205, Highway Planning and
Construction
The regulations implementing Executive Order 12372 regarding
intergovernmental consultation on Federal programs and activities apply
to this program.
Paperwork Reduction Act
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501, et
seq.), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the OMB prior to
conducting or sponsoring a ``collection of information.'' The FHWA has
OMB approval under ``Highway Safety Improvement Programs'' (OMB Control
No: 2125-0025) to collect the information required by State's annual
HSIP reports. The FHWA recently received an extension to the
Information Collection Request, with a new expiration date of May 31,
2017,\33\ in order to reflect the MAP-21 requirements reflected in this
final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ The Information Collection Request can be viewed at the
following weblink: http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAViewICR?ref_nbr=201308-2125-002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)
This action meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2)
of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation,
eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
Executive Order 13045 (Protection of Children)
The FHWA has analyzed this action under Executive Order 13045,
Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks. The FHWA certifies that this
[[Page 13739]]
action would not concern an environmental risk to health or safety that
might disproportionately affect children.
Executive Order 12630 (Taking of Private Property)
The FHWA does not anticipate that this action would affect a taking
of private property or otherwise have taking implications under
Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with
Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.
National Environmental Policy Act
The agency has analyzed this action for the purpose of the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4347) and has
determined that it 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 12898 (Environmental Justice)
Executive Order 12898 requires that each Federal agency make
achieving environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and
addressing, as appropriate, disproportionally 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 and environmental justice
issues.
Regulation Identifier Number
A regulation identifier number (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 924
Highway safety, Highways and roads, Motor vehicles, Railroads,
Railroad safety, Safety, Transportation.
Issued on: March 2, 2016.
Gregory G. Nadeau,
Acting Administrator, Federal Highway Administration.
0
In consideration of the foregoing, the FHWA revises title 23, Code of
Federal Regulations, part 924 to read as follows:
PART 924--HIGHWAY SAFETY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
Sec.
924.1 Purpose.
924.3 Definitions.
924.5 Policy.
924.7 Program structure.
924.9 Planning.
924.11 Implementation.
924.13 Evaluation.
924.15 Reporting.
924.17 MIRE fundamental data elements.
Authority: 23 U.S.C. 104(b)(3), 130, 148, 150, and 315; 49 CFR
1.85.
Sec. 924.1 Purpose.
The purpose of this regulation is to prescribe requirements for the
development, implementation, and evaluation of a highway safety
improvement program (HSIP) in each State.
Sec. 924.3 Definitions.
Unless otherwise specified in this part, the definitions in 23
U.S.C. 101(a) are applicable to this part. In addition, the following
definitions apply:
Hazard index formula means any safety or crash prediction formula
used for determining the relative risk at railway-highway crossings,
taking into consideration weighted factors, and severity of crashes.
Highway means:
(1) A road, street, or parkway and all associated elements such as
a right-of-way, bridge, railway-highway crossing, tunnel, drainage
structure, sign, markings, guardrail, protective structure, etc.;
(2) A roadway facility as may be required by the United States
Customs and Immigration Services in connection with the operation of an
international bridge or tunnel; and
(3) A facility that serves pedestrians and bicyclists pursuant to
23 U.S.C. 148(e)(1)(A).
Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) means a State safety
program with the purpose to reduce fatalities and serious injuries on
all public roads through the implementation of the provisions of 23
U.S.C. 130, 148, and 150, including the development of a data-driven
Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP), Railway-Highway Crossings
Program, and program of highway safety improvement projects.
Highway safety improvement project means strategies, activities, or
projects on a public road that are consistent with a State SHSP and
that either correct or improve 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).
MIRE Fundamental data elements mean the minimum subset of the
roadway and traffic data elements from the FHWA's Model Inventory of
Roadway Elements (MIRE) that are used to support a State's data-driven
safety program.
Public railway-highway crossing means a railway-highway crossing
where the roadway (including associated sidewalks, pathways, and shared
use paths) is under the jurisdiction of and maintained by a public
authority and open to public travel, including non-motorized users. All
roadway approaches must be under the jurisdiction of a public roadway
authority, and no roadway approach may be on private property.
Public road means any highway, road, or street under the
jurisdiction of and maintained by a public authority and open to public
travel, including non-State-owned public roads and roads on tribal
land.
Reporting year means a 1-year period defined by the State, unless
noted otherwise in this section. It may be the Federal fiscal year,
State fiscal year, or calendar year.
Railway-highway crossing protective devices means those traffic
control devices in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices
(MUTCD) specified for use at such crossings; and system components
associated with such traffic control devices, such as track circuit
improvements and interconnections with highway traffic signals.
Road safety audit means a formal safety performance examination of
an existing or future road or intersection by an independent
multidisciplinary audit team for improving road safety for all users.
Safety data includes, but are not limited to, crash, roadway
characteristics, and traffic data on all public roads. For railway-
highway crossings, safety data also includes the characteristics of
highway and train traffic, licensing, and vehicle data.
Safety stakeholder means, but is not limited to:
(1) A highway safety representative of the Governor of the State;
(2) Regional transportation planning organizations and metropolitan
planning organizations, if any;
(3) Representatives of major modes of transportation;
(4) State and local traffic enforcement officials;
(5) A highway-rail grade crossing safety representative of the
Governor of the State;
(6) Representatives conducting a motor carrier safety program under
section 31102, 31106, or 31309 of title 49, U.S.C.;
(7) Motor vehicle administration agencies;
(8) County transportation officials;
[[Page 13740]]
(9) State representatives of non-motorized users; and
(10) Other Federal, State, tribal, and local safety stakeholders.
Spot safety improvement means an improvement or set of improvements
that is implemented at a specific location on the basis of location-
specific crash experience or other data-driven means.
Strategic highway safety plan (SHSP) means a comprehensive,
multiyear, data-driven plan developed by a State department of
transportation (DOT) in accordance with 23 U.S.C. 148.
Systemic safety improvement means a proven safety countermeasure(s)
that is widely implemented based on high-risk roadway features that are
correlated with particular severe crash types.
Sec. 924.5 Policy.
(a) Each State shall develop, implement, and evaluate on an annual
basis a HSIP that has the objective to significantly reduce fatalities
and serious injuries resulting from crashes on all public roads.
(b) HSIP funds shall be used for highway safety improvement
projects that are consistent with the State's SHSP. HSIP funds should
be used to maximize opportunities to advance highway safety improvement
projects that have the greatest potential to reduce the State's roadway
fatalities and serious injuries.
(c) Safety improvements should also be incorporated into projects
funded by other Federal-aid programs, such as the National Highway
Performance Program (NHPP) and the Surface Transportation Program
(STP). Safety improvements that are provided as part of a broader
Federal-aid project should be funded from the same source as the
broader project.
(d) Eligibility for Federal funding of projects for traffic control
devices under this part is subject to a State or local/tribal
jurisdiction's substantial conformance with the National MUTCD or FHWA-
approved State MUTCDs and supplements in accordance with part 655,
subpart F, of this chapter.
Sec. 924.7 Program structure.
(a) The HSIP shall include:
(1) A SHSP;
(2) A Railway-Highway Crossing Program; and
(3) A program of highway safety improvement projects.
(b) The HSIP shall address all public roads in the State and
include separate processes for the planning, implementation, and
evaluation of the HSIP components described in paragraph (a) of this
section. These processes shall be developed by the States in
cooperation with the FHWA Division Administrator in accordance with
this section and the requirements of 23 U.S.C. 148. Where appropriate,
the processes shall be developed in consultation with other safety
stakeholders and officials of the various units of local and Tribal
governments.
Sec. 924.9 Planning.
(a) The HSIP planning process shall incorporate:
(1) A process for collecting and maintaining safety data on all
public roads. Roadway data shall include, at a minimum, the MIRE
Fundamental Data Elements as established in Sec. 924.17. Railway-
highway crossing data shall include all fields from the U.S. DOT
National Highway-Rail Crossing Inventory.
(2) A process for advancing the State's capabilities for safety
data collection and analysis by improving the timeliness, accuracy,
completeness, uniformity, integration, and accessibility of their
safety data on all public roads.
(3) A process for updating the SHSP that identifies and analyzes
highway safety problems and opportunities in accordance with 23
U.S.C.148. A SHSP update shall:
(i) Be completed no later than 5 years from the date of the
previous approved version;
(ii) Be developed by the State DOT in consultation with safety
stakeholders;
(iii) Provide a detailed description of the update process. The
update process must be approved by the FHWA Division Administrator;
(iv) Be approved by the Governor of the State or a responsible
State agency official that is delegated by the Governor;
(v) Adopt performance-based goals that:
(A) Are consistent with safety performance measures established by
FHWA in accordance with 23 U.S.C. 150; and
(B) Are coordinated with other State highway safety programs;
(vi) Analyze and make effective use of safety data to address
safety problems and opportunities on all public roads and for all road
users;
(vii) Identify key emphasis areas and strategies that have the
greatest potential to reduce highway fatalities and serious injuries
and focus resources on areas of greatest need;
(viii) Address engineering, management, operations, education,
enforcement, and emergency services elements of highway safety as key
features when determining SHSP strategies;
(ix) Consider the results of State, regional, local, and tribal
transportation and highway safety planning processes and demonstrate
mutual consultation among partners in the development of transportation
safety plans;
(x) Provide strategic direction for other State and local/tribal
transportation plans, such as the HSIP, the Highway Safety Plan, and
the Commercial Vehicle Safety Plan; and
(xi) Describe the process and potential resources for implementing
strategies in the emphasis areas.
(4) A process for analyzing safety data to:
(i) Develop a program of highway safety improvement projects, in
accordance with 23 U.S.C. 148(c)(2), to reduce fatalities and serious
injuries on all public roads through the implementation of a
comprehensive program of systemic and spot safety improvement projects.
(ii) Develop a Railway-Highway Crossings program that:
(A) Considers the relative risk of public railway-highway crossings
based on a hazard index formula;
(B) Includes onsite inspection of public railway-highway crossings;
and
(C) Results in a program of highway safety improvement projects at
railway-highway crossings giving special emphasis to the statutory
requirement that all public crossings be provided with standard signing
and markings.
(5) A process for conducting engineering studies (such as road
safety audits and other safety assessments or reviews) to develop
highway safety improvement projects.
(6) A process for establishing priorities for implementing highway
safety improvement projects that considers:
(i) The potential reduction in fatalities and serious injuries;
(ii) The cost effectiveness of the projects and the resources
available; and
(iii) The priorities in the SHSP.
(b) The planning process of the HSIP may be financed with funds
made available through 23 U.S.C. 104(b)(3) and 505, and, where
applicable in metropolitan planning areas, 23 U.S.C. 104(d). The
eligible use of the program funding categories listed for HSIP planning
efforts is subject to that program's eligibility requirements and cost
allocation procedures as per 2 CFR part 200.
(c) Highway safety improvement projects, including non-
infrastructure safety projects, to be funded under 23 U.S.C. 104(b)(3)
shall be carried out as part of the Statewide and Metropolitan
Transportation Planning Process consistent with the requirements of 23
[[Page 13741]]
U.S.C. 134 and 135 and 23 CFR part 450.
Sec. 924.11 Implementation.
(a) The HSIP shall be implemented in accordance with the
requirements of Sec. 924.9.
(b) States shall incorporate specific quantifiable and measurable
anticipated improvements for the collection of MIRE fundamental data
elements into their Traffic Records Strategic Plan by July 1, 2017.
States shall have access to a complete collection of the MIRE
fundamental data elements on all public roads by September 30, 2026.
(c) The SHSP shall include or be accompanied by actions that
address how the SHSP emphasis area strategies will be implemented.
(d) Funds set-aside for the Railway-Highway Crossings Program under
23 U.S.C. 130 shall be used to implement railway-highway crossing
safety projects on any public road. If a State demonstrates that it has
met its needs for the installation of railway-highway crossing
protective devices to the satisfaction of the FHWA Division
Administrator, the State may use funds made available under 23 U.S.C.
130 for other types of highway safety improvement projects pursuant to
the special rule in 23 U.S.C. 130(e)(2).
(e) Highway safety improvement projects may also be implemented
with other funds apportioned under 23 U.S.C. 104(b) subject to the
eligibility requirements applicable to each program.
(f) Award of contracts for highway safety improvement projects
shall be in accordance with 23 CFR parts 635 and 636, where applicable,
for highway construction projects, 23 CFR part 172 for engineering and
design services contracts related to highway construction projects, or
2 CFR part 200 for non-highway construction projects.
(g) Except as provided in 23 U.S.C. 120 and 130, the Federal share
of the cost of a highway safety improvement project carried out with
funds apportioned to a State under 23 U.S.C. 104(b)(3) shall be 90
percent.
Sec. 924.13 Evaluation.
(a) The HSIP evaluation process shall include:
(1) A process to analyze and assess the results achieved by the
program of highway safety improvement projects in terms of
contributions to improved safety outcomes and the attainment of safety
performance targets established as per 23 U.S.C. 150.
(2) An evaluation of the SHSP as part of the regularly recurring
update process to:
(i) Confirm the validity of the emphasis areas and strategies based
on analysis of current safety data; and
(ii) Identify issues related to the SHSP's process, implementation,
and progress that should be considered during each subsequent SHSP
update.
(b) The information resulting from paragraph (a)(1) of this section
shall be used:
(1) To update safety data used in the planning process in
accordance with Sec. 924.9;
(2) For setting priorities for highway safety improvement projects;
(3) For assessing the overall effectiveness of the HSIP; and
(4) For reporting required by Sec. 924.15.
(c) The evaluation process may be financed with funds made
available under 23 U.S.C. 104(b)(3) and 505, and, for metropolitan
planning areas, 23 U.S.C. 104(d). The eligible use of the program
funding categories listed for HSIP evaluation efforts is subject to
that program's eligibility requirements and cost allocation procedures
as per 2 CFR part 200.
Sec. 924.15 Reporting.
(a) For the period of the previous reporting year, each State shall
submit, via FHWA's HSIP online reporting tool, to the FHWA Division
Administrator no later than August 31 of each year, the following
reports related to the HSIP in accordance with 23 U.S.C. 148(h) and
130(g):
(1) A report describing the progress being made to implement the
HSIP that:
(i) Describes the structure of the HSIP. This section shall:
(A) Describe how HSIP funds are administered in the State; and
(B) Provide a summary of the methodology used to develop the
programs and projects being implemented under the HSIP on all public
roads.
(ii) Describes the progress in implementing highway safety
improvement projects. This section shall:
(A) Compare the funds programmed in the STIP for highway safety
improvement projects and those obligated during the reporting year; and
(B) Provide a list of highway safety improvement projects that were
obligated during the reporting year, including non-infrastructure
projects. Each project listed shall identify how it relates to the
State SHSP.
(iii) Describes the progress in achieving safety outcomes and
performance targets. This section shall:
(A) Provide an overview of general highway safety trends. General
highway safety trends shall be presented by number and rate of
fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads by calendar year,
and to the maximum extent practicable, shall also be presented by
functional classification and roadway ownership. General highway safety
trends shall also be presented for the total number of fatalities and
serious injuries for non-motorized users;
(B) Document the safety performance targets established in
accordance with 23 U.S.C. 150 for the following calendar year.
Documentation shall also include a discussion of the basis for each
established target, and how the established target supports SHSP goals.
In future years, documentation shall also include a discussion of any
reasons for differences in the actual outcomes and targets; and
(C) Present information related to the applicability of the special
rules defined in 23 U.S.C. 148(g).
(iv) Assesses the effectiveness of the improvements. This section
shall describe the effectiveness of groupings or similar types of
highway safety improvement projects previously implemented under the
HSIP.
(v) Is compatible with the requirements of 29 U.S.C. 794(d),
Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act.
(2) A report describing progress being made to implement railway-
highway crossing improvements in accordance with 23 U.S.C. 130(g) and
the effectiveness of these improvements.
(b) The preparation of the State's annual reports may be financed
with funds made available through 23 U.S.C. 104(b)(3).
Sec. 924.17 MIRE fundamental data elements.
The MIRE fundamental data elements shall be collected on all public
roads, as listed in Tables 1, 2, and 3 of this section. For the purpose
of MIRE fundamental data elements applicability, the term open to
public travel is consistent with 23 CFR 460.2(c).
[[Page 13742]]
Table 1--MIRE Fundamental Data Elements for Non-Local (Based on
Functional Classification) Paved Roads
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MIRE name (MIRE No.) \1\
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roadway segment Intersection
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Segment Identifier (12)................ Unique Junction Identifier
(120).
Route Number (8) \2\................... Location Identifier for Road 1
Crossing Point (122).
Route/street Name (9) \2\.............. Location Identifier for Road 2
Crossing Point (123).
Federal Aid/Route Type (21) \2\........ Intersection/Junction Geometry
(126).
Rural/Urban Designation (20) \2\....... Intersection/Junction Traffic
Control (131).
Surface Type (23) \2\.................. AADT (79) [for Each
Intersecting Road].
Begin Point Segment Descriptor (10) \2\ AADT Year (80) [for Each
Intersecting Road].
End Point Segment Descriptor (11) \2\ ...............................
Segment Length (13) \2\ ...............................
Direction of Inventory (18)............ Unique Approach Identifier
(139).
Functional Class (19) \2\ ...............................
Median Type (54) ...............................
Access Control (22) \2\ ...............................
One/Two-Way Operations (91) \2\........ Interchange/Ramp.
Number of Through Lanes (31) \2\....... Unique Interchange Identifier
(178).
Average Annual Daily Traffic (79) \2\.. Location Identifier for Roadway
at Beginning Ramp Terminal
(197).
AADT Year (80) \2\..................... Location Identifier for Roadway
at Ending Ramp Terminal (201).
Type of Governmental Ownership (4) \2\. Ramp Length (187).
Roadway Type at Beginning Ramp
Terminal (195).
Roadway Type at Ending Ramp
Terminal (199).
Interchange Type (182).
Ramp AADT (191).\2\
Year of Ramp AADT (192).\2\
Functional Class (19).\2\
Type of Governmental Ownership
(4).\2\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Model Inventory of Roadway Elements--MIRE, Version 1.0, Report No.
FHWA-SA-10-018, October 2010, http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/tools/data_tools/mirereport/mirereport.pdf.
\2\ Highway Performance Monitoring System full extent elements are
required on all Federal-aid highways and ramps located within grade-
separated interchanges, i.e., National Highway System (NHS) and all
functional systems excluding rural minor collectors and locals.
Table 2--MIRE Fundamental Data Elements for Local (Based on Functional
Classification) Paved Roads
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MIRE name (MIRE No.) \1\
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roadway segment:
Segment Identifier (12).
Functional Class (19).\2\
Surface Type (23).\2\
Type of Governmental Ownership (4).\2\
Number of Through Lanes (31).\2\
Average Annual Daily Traffic (79).\2\
Begin Point Segment Descriptor (10).\2\
End Point Segment Descriptor (11).\2\
Rural/Urban Designation (20).\2\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Model Inventory of Roadway Elements--MIRE, Version 1.0, Report No.
FHWA-SA-10-018, October 2010, http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/tools/data_tools/mirereport/mirereport.pdf.
\2\ Highway Performance Monitoring System full extent elements are
required on all Federal-aid highways and ramps located within grade-
separated interchanges, i.e., National Highway System (NHS) and all
functional systems excluding rural minor collectors and locals.
Table 3--MIRE Fundamental Data Elements for Unpaved Roads
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MIRE name (MIRE No.) \1\
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roadway segment:
Segment Identifier (12).
Functional Class (19).\2\
Type of Governmental Ownership (4).\2\
Begin Point Segment Descriptor (10).\2\
End Point Segment Descriptor (11).\2\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Model Inventory of Roadway Elements--MIRE, Version 1.0, Report No.
FHWA-SA-10-018, October 2010, http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/tools/data_tools/mirereport/mirereport.pdf.
\2\ Highway Performance Monitoring System full extent elements are
required on all Federal-aid highways and ramps located within grade-
separated interchanges, i.e., National Highway System (NHS) and all
functional systems excluding rural minor collectors and locals.
[FR Doc. 2016-05190 Filed 3-14-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-22-P