National Performance Management Measures; Highway Safety Improvement Program, 13845-13871 [2014-05152]

Agencies

• Federal Highway Administration
• DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 47 (Tuesday, March 11, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 13845-13871]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-05152]



[[Page 13845]]

Vol. 79

Tuesday,

No. 47

March 11, 2014

Part III





Department of Transportation





-----------------------------------------------------------------------





 Federal Highway Administration





-----------------------------------------------------------------------





23 CFR Part 490





National Performance Management Measures; Highway Safety Improvement 
Program; Proposed Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 79 , No. 47 / Tuesday, March 11, 2014 / 
Proposed Rules

[[Page 13846]]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Highway Administration

23 CFR Part 490

[Docket No. FHWA-2013-0020]
RIN 2125-AF49


National Performance Management Measures; Highway Safety 
Improvement Program

AGENCY: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: Section 1203 of the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st 
Century Act (MAP-21) declared that performance management will 
transform the Federal-aid highway program and refocus it on national 
transportation goals, increase accountability and transparency of the 
Federal-aid highway program, and improve project decision making 
through performance-based planning and programming. Section 1203 of 
MAP-21 identifies national transportation goals and requires the 
Secretary to promulgate a rulemaking to establish performance measures 
and standards in specified Federal-aid highway program areas. This NPRM 
proposes to establish measures for State departments of transportation 
(State DOT) to use to carry out the Highway Safety Improvement Program 
(HSIP) and to assess serious injuries and fatalities per vehicle mile 
traveled, and the number of serious injuries and fatalities. The HSIP 
is a core Federal-aid highway program with the purpose of achieving a 
significant reduction in fatalities and serious injuries on all public 
roads, including non-State-owned public roads and roads on tribal 
lands.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before June 9, 2014. Late 
comments will be considered to the extent practicable.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by the docket number 
FHWA-2013-0020 by any one of the following methods:
    Fax: 1-202-493-2251;
    Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, 
West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., 
Washington, DC 20590; Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, 
Docket Operations, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New 
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., 
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays; or Electronically 
through the Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name, docket 
name and docket number or Regulatory Identification Number (RIN) for 
this rulemaking (2125-AF49). Note that all comments received will be 
posted without change to https://www.regulations.gov, including any 
personal information provided.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or 
comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov at any time or to 
U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West 
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., 
Washington, DC 20950, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, 
except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Francine Shaw Whitson, Office of 
Infrastructure, (202) 366-8028, or Anne Christenson, Office of Chief 
Counsel, (202) 366-1356, Federal Highway Administration, 1200 New 
Jersey Avenue 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: The FHWA will be publishing two additional 
NPRMs to establish the remaining measures required under 23 U.S.C. 
150(c). The second NPRM focuses on the measures to assess the condition 
of pavements and bridges. The third performance-measure NPRM focuses on 
measures for the performance of the National Highway System (NHS), the 
Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) program, and freight 
movement on the Interstate. This last NPRM will also include a 
discussion that summarizes all three of the proposed rules to establish 
the measures required under 23 U.S.C. 150(c).
    This NPRM also proposes the following: the definitions that will be 
applicable to the new 23 CFR 490; the process to be used by State DOTs 
and Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) to establish safety-
related performance targets that reflect the measures proposed in this 
rulemaking; a methodology to be used to assess State DOTs compliance 
with the target achievement provision specified under 23 U.S.C. 148(i); 
and the process State DOTs must follow to report on progress towards 
the achievement of safety-related performance targets. Finally, this 
NPRM includes a discussion on the collective rulemaking actions FHWA 
intends to take to implement MAP-21 performance-related provisions.

Table of Contents for Supplementary Information

I. Executive Summary
II. Discussion of Stakeholder Engagement and Outreach
    A. Consultation With State Departments of Transportation, 
Metropolitan Planning Organizations, and Other Stakeholders
    B. Broader Public Consultation
    C. Summary of Viewpoints Received
III. Rulemaking Authority and Background
IV. Performance Measure Analysis
    A. Selection of Measures for the Highway Safety Improvement 
Program
    B. Assessment of Selected Measures for the Highway Safety 
Improvement Program
V. Section-by-Section Discussion of the General Information and 
Proposed Highway Safety Improvement Program Performance Measures
VI. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

I. Executive Summary

a. Purpose of the Regulatory Action

    The MAP-21 (Pub. L. 112-141) transforms the Federal-aid highway 
program by establishing new requirements for performance management to 
ensure the most efficient investment of Federal transportation funds. 
Performance management refocuses attention on national transportation 
goals, increases the accountability and transparency of the Federal-aid 
highway program, and improves project decision making through 
performance-based planning and programming. The FHWA is required to 
establish measures through a rulemaking to assess performance in 12 
areas \1\ generalized as follows: (1) serious injuries per Vehicle 
Miles Traveled (VMT); (2) fatalities per VMT; (3) number of serious 
injuries; (4) number of fatalities; (5) pavement condition on the 
Interstate system; (6) pavement condition on the non-Interstate NHS; 
(7) bridge condition on the NHS; (8) traffic congestion; (9) on-road 
mobile source emissions; (10) freight movement on the Interstate 
system; (11) performance of the Interstate system; and (12) performance 
of the non-Interstate NHS. This rulemaking is the first of 3 NPRMs that 
propose the establishment of performance measures for State DOTs and 
MPOs to use to carry out Federal-aid highway programs and to assess 
performance in each of these 12 areas. This rulemaking seeks to 
establish

[[Page 13847]]

measures for the first four areas in the above list.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ These areas are listed within 23 U.S.C. 150(c), which 
requires the Secretary to establish measures to assess performance 
or condition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This NPRM proposes to establish performance measures to carry out 
the HSIP and to assess serious injuries and fatalities, both in number 
and expressed as a rate, on all public roads. In addition, this NPRM 
proposes to establish the process for State DOTs and MPOs to use to 
establish and report safety targets, and the process that FHWA will use 
to assess progress State DOTs have made in achieving safety targets.

b. Summary of the Major Provisions of the Regulatory Action in Question

    The FHWA proposes the establishment of measures to be used by State 
DOTs to assess performance and carry out the HSIP; the process for 
State DOTs and MPOs to use to establish safety targets; the methodology 
to determine whether State DOTs have achieved their safety targets; and 
the process for State DOTs to report on progress for their safety 
targets. Section references below refer to sections of proposed 
regulatory text for title 23 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
    Section 490.205 proposes to define serious injuries in a manner 
that would provide for a uniform definition for national reporting in 
this performance area. The FHWA proposes to allow States 18 months from 
the effective date of this rule to adopt the latest edition Model 
Minimum Uniform Crash Criteria (MMUCC) definition and attribute for 
``Suspected Serious Injury (A).'' The DOT also recommends that, by 
2020, States prepare to determine serious injuries using a hospital 
records injury outcome reporting system that links injury outcomes from 
medical records to crash reports.
    Section 490.207 proposes four measures to be used by State DOTs to 
assess serious injuries and fatalities per VMT, and the number of 
serious injuries and fatalities. Each of the four measures would be 
representative of a 5-year rolling average (rather than a single year 
period), where fatality-related measures would be derived from the 
Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) and serious injury-related 
measures would be derived from the State motor vehicle crash database. 
State DOTs would calculate serious injury and fatality rates per one 
hundred million VMT as documented in the Highway Performance Monitoring 
System (HPMS).
    Section 490.209 proposes the process to be used by State DOTs and 
MPOs to establish targets for each of the four safety measures. DOT 
believes that, to the extent practicable, the performance measures 
common to the State's Highway Safety Plan (HSP) and the State Highway 
Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) (fatalities, fatality rate, and 
serious injuries) should be defined identically, as coordinated through 
the State Strategic Highway Safety Plan. While common performance 
measures are proposed in this NPRM, NHTSA is subject to a statutory 
requirement under MAP-21 that revisions to performance measures be 
coordinated with the Governors Highway Safety Association. The DOT also 
proposes that States would establish targets identical to those for 
common performance measures.
    This NPRM proposes that State DOTs will establish the targets for 
these measures in the annual HSIP report while State Highway Safety 
Offices (SHSO) will establish the targets for measures in the HSP. For 
this reason, State DOTs and SHSOs should coordinate the targets so they 
are able to report identical targets for the common measures. The SHSOs 
established these targets beginning with HSPs for fiscal year 2014. The 
MAP-21 requires State DOTs to establish statewide targets not later 
than 1 year after the effective date of this rule. This rule proposes 
to require State DOTs to begin reporting this target information in the 
HSIP annual report due August 31 following the effective date of this 
rule. State DOTs would have the flexibility to also establish one 
aggregate target for urbanized areas and one aggregate target for non-
urbanized areas for each performance measure. In accordance with MAP-
21, MPOs would be required to establish targets for their entire 
Metropolitan Planning Area in coordination with the State DOT not later 
than 180 days after the date the respective State DOT establishes their 
safety targets. It is proposed in this rule that MPOs would establish 
targets for their Metropolitan Planning Area by either supporting the 
State DOT target or defining a target unique to its metropolitan area. 
The MPOs would be required to take this target establishing action each 
time the State DOT establishes a safety target.
    Section 490.211 proposes the method FHWA will use to assess whether 
State DOTs have achieved or have made significant progress toward the 
achievement of their safety targets in accordance with 23 U.S.C. 
148(i). State DOTs that have overall achieved their safety targets 
would not need to demonstrate significant progress. The FHWA would 
determine significant progress from FARS data for the number of 
fatalities, FARS and HPMS data for the fatality rate, State reported 
data for the number of serious injuries, and State reported data and 
HPMS data for the serious injury rate. The FHWA would consider a State 
DOT to have made significant progress toward achieving each target if 
the actual outcome for each target is at or below the upper bound of a 
70 percent prediction interval, which would be set based on the 
projection point from a 10-year historical trend line. The FHWA would 
only consider a State DOT to have made overall significant progress if 
that State DOT achieved or made significant progress for at least 50 
percent of their safety targets. State DOTs that the FHWA determine not 
to have achieved overall significant progress for their safety targets 
would need to comply with 23 U.S.C. 148(i). Although this provision is 
directed at State DOTs, MPOs could also be indirectly impacted by 
consequences to the State DOT for non-compliance. The method by which 
the FHWA will review performance progress of MPOs is discussed in the 
updates to the Statewide and Metropolitan Planning regulations.
    Section 490.213 proposes safety performance reporting for State 
DOTs and MPOs. State DOTs would establish and report their safety 
targets and progress toward their safety targets in the annual HSIP 
report in accordance with 23 CFR 924. Targets established by the MPO 
would be reported to their State DOTs on an annual basis in a manner 
that is agreed upon by both parties. The MPOs would report on progress 
toward the achievement of their targets in their System Performance 
Report as part of their transportation plan, in accordance with 23 CFR 
450. In addition, State DOTs should include similar information in 
their transportation plans.

c. Costs and Benefits

    The FHWA estimated the incremental costs associated with eight new 
requirements \2\ proposed in this NPRM that represent a change to 
current practices for State DOTs and MPOs. The FHWA derived the costs 
of all eight components by assessing the expected increase in level of 
effort from labor to standardize and update data collection and 
reporting systems of State DOTs, as well as the increase in level of 
effort from labor to establish and report targets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See Table 1 in Section VI. Rulemaking Analysis and Notices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To estimate costs, the FHWA multiplied the level of effort, 
expressed in labor hours, with a corresponding

[[Page 13848]]

loaded wage rate \3\ that varied by the type of laborer needed to 
perform the activity. Following this approach the 10-year undiscounted 
incremental costs to comply with this rule is $66.7 million. 
Approximately 39 percent of these costs represent one time costs to 
implement this rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Employee Cost Index, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FHWA expects that, upon implementation, the proposed rule would 
result in some significant benefits, although they are not easily 
quantifiable. Specifically,
     the FHWA expects safety investment decision making to be 
more informed through the use of consistent and uniform measures,
     a greater level of accountability for the use of Federal 
funds to reduce fatalities and serious injuries on all public roadways,
     and the achievement of progress toward the MAP-21 national 
goal for safety.
    The FHWA could not directly quantify the expected benefits 
discussed above due to data limitations and the amorphous nature of the 
benefits from the proposed rule. Therefore, in order to evaluate 
benefits, the FHWA used a break-even analysis as the primary approach 
to quantify benefits. Following this approach, the FHWA used the break-
even analysis to assess the level of reduction in fatalities or 
incapacitating injuries needed for the benefits to justify the costs of 
the proposed rule. The results of the break-even analysis showed that 
the proposed rule would need to prevent approximately 7 fatalities or 
an equivalent 153 incapacitating injuries nationwide over 10 years to 
generate enough benefits to outweigh the cost of the proposed rule. 
This translates to approximately 1 avoided fatality or 15 equivalent 
incapacitating injuries respectively per year nationwide (compared to 
33,561 fatalities and an estimated 2.36 million injuries as reported by 
NHTSA for 2012 \4\). The FHWA believes that the proposed rule would 
surpass this threshold and, as a result, the benefits of the rule would 
outweigh the costs. The following table summarizes the costs and 
identifies the breakeven benefits of the proposed rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Traffic Safety Facts Research Note. 2012 Motor Vehicle 
Crashes: Overview. DOT HS 811 856.

                                                         Summary of Estimated Costs and Benefits
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                   Units
                                                             ------------------------------------------------
                  Category                    Cost  estimate                                      Period                    Source/citation
                                                               Year  dollar   Discount  rate      covered
                                                                                 (percent)        (years)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Costs:
Annualized Monetized ($/year)...............      $7,670,390            2012               7              10  Proposed Rule RIA.
                                                   7,092,939            2012               3              10
State, Local, and/or Tribal Government......      $7,670,390            2012               7              10  Proposed Rule RIA.
                                                   7,092,939            2012               3              10
Small Business..............................  No substantial  ..............  ..............  ..............  Proposed Rule RIA.
                                                      impact
Benefits:
                                             -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Qualitative.............................  The rule is cost-beneficial if over the 10-year analysis period if it reduces the number of fatalities by
                                              7.3 or the number of incapacitating injuries by 153.2, which is equivalently .7 fatalities or 15.3
                                              incapacitating injuries per year in a 10-year study period, from its current base case projection. Because
                                              of this low threshold, FHWA determines that the proposed rule benefits outweigh the costs.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Discussion of Stakeholder Engagement and Outreach

    In developing the NPRMs required by 23 U.S.C. 150(c), including 
this NPRM, the DOT conducted outreach efforts to obtain technical 
information as well as information on operational and economic impacts 
from stakeholders and the public. State DOTs, MPOs, transit agencies, 
and private/non-profit constituents across the country participated in 
the outreach efforts. A listing of each contact or series of contacts 
influencing the agency's position may be found in the docket.

A. Consultation With State Departments of Transportation, Metropolitan 
Planning Organizations, and Other Stakeholders

    In accordance with 23 U.S.C. 150(c)(1), DOT consulted regularly 
with affected stakeholders (State DOTs, MPOs, industry, advocacy 
organizations, etc.) to better understand the operational and economic 
impact of this proposed rule. In general, these consultations included:
     Conducted Listening sessions and workshops to clarify 
stakeholder sentiment and capture diverse opinions on the 
interpretation of technical information on the potential economic and 
operational impacts of implementing 23 U.S.C. 150;
     Conducted Listening sessions and workshops to better 
understand the state-of-the-practice on the economic and operational 
impacts of implementing various noteworthy practices, emerging 
technologies, and data reporting, collection, and analysis frameworks;
     Hosted Webinars with targeted stakeholder audiences 
through a chat pod or conference call; and
     Attended meetings with non-DOT subject matter experts, 
including task forces, advocacy groups, private industry, non-DOT 
Federal employees, academia, etc. to discuss timelines, priorities, and 
the most effective methods for implementing 23 U.S.C. 150; discuss and 
collect information on the impact of conceptual frameworks of guidance 
and the issues that need to be addressed in the NPRMs or the questions 
that need to be answered to facilitate efficient implementation; and 
collect factual information about the issues that need to be addressed 
or the questions that need to be answered in the NRPMs.

B. Broader Public Consultation

    It is the DOT's policy to provide for and encourage public 
participation in the rulemaking process. In addition to the public 
participation that was coordinated in conjunction with the stakeholder 
consultation discussed above, the DOT provided opportunities

[[Page 13849]]

for broader public participation. Those opportunities included 
facilitating opportunities for the public to provide technical and 
economic information to improve the agency's understanding of a subject 
and the potential impacts of rulemaking. This was done by providing an 
email address (performancemeasuresrulemaking@dot.gov) feature on FHWA's 
MAP-21 Web site to allow the public to provide comments and suggestions 
about the development of the performance measures and by holding 
national online dialogues and listening sessions to ask the public to 
post their ideas on national performance measures, standards, and 
policies. The FHWA also conducted educational outreach to inform the 
public about transportation-related performance measures and standards, 
and solicited comments on them.
    In accordance with 23 U.S.C. 150(c)(2)(A), the FHWA will ``provide 
States, metropolitan planning organizations, and other stakeholders not 
less than 90 days to comment on any regulation proposed by the 
Secretary. . .'' During the notice and comment period, the FHWA plans 
to hold public meetings to explain the provisions contained in these 
NPRMs, including this NPRM. All such meetings will be open to the 
public and announced in the Federal Register. However, all comments 
regarding the NPRM must be submitted in writing to the rulemaking 
docket.

C. Summary of Viewpoints Received

    A summary of the common themes expressed and trends that emerged 
based on all stakeholder engagements and feedback, related to this 
rulemaking, are as follows:
    The FHWA should account for the safety of all road users by 
including separate measures for motorized and non-motorized (e.g., 
pedestrian, bicycle) transportation. Having separate measures will 
allow State DOTs to utilize some HSIP funds on non-motorized 
transportation without any detriment to safety efforts for other road 
users.
    The FHWA should define performance measures that specifically 
evaluate the number of fatalities and serious injuries for pedestrian 
and bicycles crashes. The FHWA should require that bicycle and 
pedestrian crashes and fatalities be reported nationally and by State 
and MPO.
    The FHWA should be careful in making changes in the definitions of 
urbanized and rural areas to avoid adversely impacting the reporting of 
fatality and serious injury rates.
    The FHWA should define the safety measures described in 23 U.S.C. 
150(c) to include the use of a 5-year to 7-year moving average and the 
use of actual numbers (i.e., number of fatalities, number of serious 
injuries) versus rates (i.e., number of fatalities per 100 million VMT, 
number of serious injures per 100 million VMT).
    There is a need for a consistent definition for serious injury. 
Establishment of uniform data sets, sources, and standards is also 
necessary to ensure there is consistency in the determination of 
metrics, the reporting of results, and the analysis of data. The FHWA 
should move toward using the actual number of fatalities and serious 
injuries instead of the number of collisions that involve fatalities 
and serious injuries.
    The FHWA should determine how State DOTs demonstrate they have made 
significant progress toward achieving performance targets and whether 
the assessment for having made significant progress should be base-
lined and determined according to a State-by-State/MPO-by-MPO method. 
Significant or substantial progress could be linked to the reversing of 
negative trends or moving of trends in a positive direction.
    The administrative burden of target establishment and reporting 
should not become an onerous, unfunded mandate. The FHWA should ensure 
that timelines are set in a reasonable fashion that can be achieved by 
the State DOTs.
    Lastly, while performance targets need to be consistent with 
performance goals, they need to be flexible with possible use of a 
target range or multiple targets for the same measure. The FHWA should 
be careful not to infringe upon what is already working at the State 
DOT and MPO level.

III. Rulemaking Authority and Background

    The cornerstone of MAP-21's Federal-aid highway program 
transformation is the transition to a performance and outcome-based 
program. As part of this program, recipients of Federal-aid highway 
funds make transportation investments to achieve individual targets 
that collectively make progress toward national goals.
    The MAP-21 provisions that focus on the achievement of performance 
outcomes are contained in a number of sections of the law that are 
administered by different DOT agencies. Consequently, these provisions 
may require an implementation approach that includes a number of 
separate but related rulemakings, some from other modes within the DOT. 
This NPRM is focused on FHWA's implementation of performance provisions 
related to the HSIP. A rulemaking to update the HSIP regulations at 23 
CFR 924 is also underway (RIN 2125-AF56). Interested persons should 
refer to both rulemakings. Additional rulemakings are underway to 
implement other MAP-21 requirements. A summary of these rulemakings, as 
they relate to this proposed rule, is provided in this section, and 
additional information regarding related implementation actions is 
available on the FHWA Web site.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/map21/qandas/qapm.cfm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Summary of Related Rulemakings

    The DOT's proposal regarding MAP-21's performance requirements will 
be presented through several rulemakings, some of which were referenced 
in the above discussions. As a summary, these rulemaking actions are 
listed below and should be referenced for a complete picture of 
performance management implementation. The summary below describes the 
main provisions that DOT plans to propose for each rulemaking. The DOT 
plans to seek comment on each of these rulemakings.

1. First Federal-aid Highway Performance Measures Rulemaking (this 
NPRM)
    a. Propose and define national measures for the HSIP
    b. Coordinated State and MPO target establishment requirements for 
the Federal-aid highway program
    c. Determination of significant progress toward the achievement of 
targets
    d. Performance progress reporting requirements and timing
    e. Discuss how FHWA intends to implement MAP-21 performance-related 
provisions
2. Second Federal-aid Highway Performance Measures Rulemaking (RIN: 
2125-AF53)
    a. Propose and define national measures for the condition of NHS 
pavements and bridges
    b. Coordinated State and MPO target establishment requirements for 
the Federal-aid highway program
    c. Determination of significant progress toward the achievement of 
targets for National Highway Performance Program (NHPP)
    d. Performance progress reporting requirements and timing
    e. Minimum standards for Interstate pavement conditions
3. Third Federal-aid Highway Performance Measures Rulemaking (RIN: 
2125-AF54)
    a. Propose and define national

[[Page 13850]]

measures for the remaining areas under 23 U.S.C. 150(c).
    b. Coordinated State and MPO target establishment requirements for 
the Federal-aid highway program
    c. Performance progress reporting requirements and timing
    d. Provide a summary of all three performance measure proposed 
rules
4. Update to the Metropolitan and Statewide Planning Regulations (RIN: 
2125-AF52)
    a. Supporting national goals in the scope of the planning process
    b. Coordination between States, MPOs, and public transportation 
providers in selecting performance targets
    c. Integration of elements of other performance-based plans into 
the metropolitan and statewide planning process.
    d. Discussion in Metropolitan and Statewide Transportation 
Improvement Programs documenting how the programs are designed to 
achieve targets
    e. New performance reporting in the Metropolitan and the Statewide 
transportation plans
5. Updates to the Highway Safety Improvement Program Regulations (RIN: 
2125-AF56)
    a. Integration of performance measures and targets into the HSIP
    b. Strategic Highway Safety Plan updates
    c. Establishment of Model Inventory of Roadway Element--Fundamental 
Data Elements
    d. HSIP reporting requirements
6. Federal-aid Highway Asset Management Plan Process Rule (RIN: 2125-
AF57)
    a. Contents of asset management plan
    b. Certification of process to develop plan
    c. Transition period to develop plan
    d. Minimum standards for pavement and bridge management systems
7. Transit State of Good Repair Rule (RIN: 2132-AB07)
    a. Define state of good repair and establish measures
    b. Transit asset management plan content and reporting requirements
    c. Target establishment requirements for public transportation 
agencies and MPOs
8. Transit Safety Plan Rule (RIN: 2132-AB20)
    a. Define transit safety standards
    b. Transit safety plan content and reporting requirements
9. Highway Safety Grant Programs Rule (NHTSA Interim Final Rule (IFR) 
\6\ (RIN: 2127-AL30, 2127-AL29)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 23 U.S.C. 402(k); Uniform Procedures for State Highway 
Safety Grant Programs, Interim final rule, 78 FR 4986 (January 23, 
2013) (to be codified at 23 CFR Part 1200).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    a. Highway safety plan contents, including establishment of 
performance measures, targets, and reporting requirements
    b. Review and approval of highway safety plans

Organization of MAP-21 Performance-Related Provisions

    The FHWA organized the many performance-related provisions within 
MAP-21 into six elements as defined below:
     National Goals--Goals or program purpose established in 
MAP-21 to focus the Federal-aid highway program on specific areas of 
performance.
     Measures--Establishment of measures by FHWA to assess 
performance and condition in order to carry out performance-based 
Federal-aid highway programs.
     Targets--Establishment of targets by recipients of 
Federal-aid highway funding for each of the measures to document 
expectations of future performance.
     Plans--Development of strategic and/or tactical plans by 
recipients of Federal funding to identify strategies and investments 
that will address performance needs.
     Reports--Development of reports by recipients of Federal 
funding that would document progress toward the achievement of targets, 
including the effectiveness of Federal-aid highway investments.
     Accountability--Requirements developed by FHWA for 
recipients of Federal funding to use to achieve or make significant 
progress toward achieving targets established for performance.
    The following provides a summary of MAP-21 provisions, as they 
relate to the six elements listed above, including a reference to other 
related rulemakings that should be considered for a more comprehensive 
view of MAP-21 performance management implementation.
a. National Goals
    The MAP-21 section 1203 establishes national goals to focus the 
Federal-aid highway program. The following national goals are codified 
at 23 U.S.C. 150(b):
     Safety--To achieve a significant reduction in traffic 
fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads, including non-
State-owned public roads and roads on tribal lands.
     Infrastructure condition--To maintain the highway 
infrastructure asset system in a state of good repair.
     Congestion reduction--To achieve a significant reduction 
in congestion on the NHS.
     System reliability--To improve the efficiency of the 
surface transportation system.
     Freight movement and economic vitality--To improve the 
national freight network, strengthen the ability of rural communities 
to access national and international trade markets, and support 
regional economic development.
     Environmental sustainability--To enhance the performance 
of the transportation system while protecting and enhancing the natural 
environment.
     Reduced project delivery delays--To reduce project costs, 
promote jobs and the economy, and expedite the movement of people and 
goods by accelerating project completion through eliminating delays in 
the project development and delivery process, including reducing 
regulatory burdens and improving agencies' work practices.
    These national goals will largely be supported through the 
metropolitan and statewide planning process, which is discussed under a 
separate rulemaking (2125-AF52) to update the Metropolitan and 
Statewide Planning Regulations at 23 CFR 450.
b. Measures
    The MAP-21 requires the establishment of performance measures \7\, 
in consultation with State DOTs, MPOs, and other stakeholders, that 
would do the following: carry out the NHPP and assess pavement 
conditions for the Interstate and NHS (excluding Interstate), NHS 
bridge condition, and performance of the Interstate and NHS (excluding 
Interstate); carry out the HSIP and assess serious injuries and 
fatalities per VMT and the number of serious injuries and fatalities; 
carry out the CMAQ program and assess traffic congestion and on-road 
mobile source emissions; and assess freight movement on the Interstate 
system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 23 U.S.C. 150(c)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FHWA will issue three NPRMs in sequence to propose the measures 
for the areas listed above. This NPRM focuses on the performance 
measures, for the purpose of carrying out the HSIP, to assess the 
number of serious injuries and fatalities and serious injuries and 
fatalities per VMT. A second NPRM will be issued by FHWA that will 
propose the measures to assess the condition of pavements and bridges, 
and a third NPRM will be issued that will propose the remaining areas 
under 23 U.S.C. 150(c) that require the establishment of measures. We 
anticipate issuing these

[[Page 13851]]

three rulemakings in staggered sequence. The FHWA proposes to establish 
one common effective date for all three final rules for these 
performance measures, but we seek comment from the public on what an 
appropriate effective date would be. Additional information on the 
approach to establish performance measures for the Federal-aid highway 
program can be found on the FHWA's Transportation Performance 
Management Web site.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/tpm/about/schedule.cfm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The MAP-21 also requires the FHWA to establish minimum standards 
for State DOTs to use in developing and operating bridge and pavement 
management systems,\9\ which the FHWA will propose in a separate 
rulemaking to establish a Risk Based Asset Management Plan for the NHS. 
In addition, MAP-21 requires the FHWA to establish minimum levels for 
the condition of pavements for the Interstate \10\ necessary to carry 
out the NHPP. The FHWA will propose these levels in the second 
rulemaking to establish measures that focus on pavement and bridge 
condition for the NHS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 23 U.S.C. 150(c)(3)(A)(i).
    \10\ 23 U.S.C. 150(c)(3)(A)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Separate sections of MAP-21 require the establishment of additional 
measures to assess public transportation performance.\11\ These 
measures, which will be used to monitor the state of good repair of 
transit facilities and to establish transit safety criteria, will be 
addressed in two separate rulemakings, led by the Federal Transit 
Administration (FTA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 49 U.S.C. 5326 and 49 U.S.C. 5329.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. Targets
    The MAP-21 requires State DOTs to establish performance targets 
reflecting measures established for the Federal-aid highway program 
\12\ and requires MPOs to establish performance targets for these 
measures where applicable.\13\ This NPRM proposes the process for State 
DOTs and MPOs to follow in the establishment of safety performance 
targets. The second and third Federal-aid highway performance measure 
NPRMs will discuss similar target establishment requirements for State 
DOTs and MPOs as they relate to the measures discussed in the 
respective proposed rules. Additionally, State DOTs and MPOs are 
required to coordinate when selecting targets for the areas specified 
under 23 U.S.C. 150(c) in order to ensure consistency in the 
establishment of targets, to the maximum extent practical.\14\ A 
separate rulemaking to update the Metropolitan and Statewide Planning 
Regulations at 23 CFR 450 discusses this coordination requirement. The 
FHWA will discuss those target establishment requirements in the 
subsequent rulemakings to implement these respective provisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 23 U.S.C. 150(d).
    \13\ 23 U.S.C. 134(h)(2)(B).
    \14\ 23 U.S.C. 134(h)(2), 23 U.S.C. 135(d)(2), 49 U.S.C. 
5303(h)(2), and 49 U.S.C. 5304(d)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, MAP-21 requires SHSOs to establish targets for 10 core 
highway safety program measures in the State Highway Safety Plan, which 
NHTSA has implemented through an Interim Final Rule (NHTSA IFR),\15\ 
and for recipients of public transportation Federal funding and MPOs to 
establish state of good repair and safety targets.\16\ Discussions on 
these target establishment requirements are not included in this NPRM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 23 U.S.C. 402(k); Uniform Procedures for State Highway 
Safety Grant Programs, Interim final rule, 78 FR 4986 (January 23, 
2013) (to be codified at 23 CFR Part 1200.
    \16\ 49 U.S.C. 5326(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

d. Plans
    A number of provisions within MAP-21 require States and MPOs to 
develop plans that provide strategic direction for addressing 
performance needs. For the Federal-aid highway program these provisions 
require: State DOTs to develop an NHS Asset Management Plan; \17\ State 
DOTs to update their Strategic Highway Safety Plan; \18\ MPOs serving a 
large transportation management area in areas of non-attainment or 
maintenance to develop a CMAQ Performance Plan; \19\ MPOs to include a 
System Performance Report in the Metropolitan Transportation Plan; \20\ 
and State DOTs and MPOs to include a discussion, to the maximum extent 
practical, in their Transportation Improvement Program as to how the 
program will achieve the performance targets they have established for 
the area.\21\ In addition, State DOTs are encouraged to develop a State 
Freight Plan \22\ to document planned activities and investments with 
respect to freight. This rulemaking does not discuss any requirements 
to develop or use plans. Rather, a discussion on the development and 
use of these plans will be included in the respective rulemakings to 
implement these provisions. More information on the required plans and 
the actions to implement the statutory provisions related to plans can 
be found on FHWA's MAP-21 Web site.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 23 U.S.C. 119(e)(2).
    \18\ 23 U.S.C. 148(d).
    \19\ 23 U.S.C. 149(l).
    \20\ 23 U.S.C. 134(i)(2)(C).
    \21\ 23 U.S.C. 134(j)(2)(D) and 23 U.S.C. 135(g)(4).
    \22\ MAP-21 Section 1118.
    \23\ https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/map21/qandas/qapm.cfm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

e. Reports
    The MAP-21 section 1203 requires State DOTs to submit biennial 
reports to the FHWA on the condition and performance of the NHS, the 
effectiveness of the investment strategy documented in the State DOT's 
asset management plan for the NHS, progress in achieving targets, and 
ways in which the State DOT is addressing congestion at freight 
bottlenecks.\24\ The FHWA is proposing in this NPRM that State DOTs 
report safety progress through the HSIP annual report, rather than the 
biennial report required under 23 U.S.C. 150(e). Accordingly, this NPRM 
does not discuss this biennial report. Rather, the FHWA will discuss 
the biennial report in the second and third performance measures NPRMs, 
which will propose the establishment of non-safety measures for the 
Federal-aid highway program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ 23 U.S.C. 150(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additional progress reporting is required under the CMAQ program, 
metropolitan transportation planning, elements of the Public 
Transportation Act of 2012, and the Motor Vehicle and Highway Safety 
Improvement Act of 2012. Also, State DOTs should include a system 
performance report in their Statewide transportation plan. These 
reporting provisions are discussed in separate rulemakings and guidance 
and are not discussed in this rulemaking.
f. Accountability
    Two provisions within MAP-21, specifically 23 U.S.C. 119(e)(7) 
under the NHPP and 23 U.S.C. 148(i) under the HSIP, require the State 
DOT to undertake actions if significant progress is not made toward the 
achievement of State DOT targets established for these respective 
programs. For the NHPP, if a State DOT does not achieve or make 
significant progress toward the achievement of its NHS performance 
targets for two consecutive reporting periods, then the State DOT must 
document in its next report the actions it will take to achieve the 
targets.\25\ The FHWA will discuss this provision in the second NPRM, 
which will propose pavement and bridge performance measures for the 
NHS. For the HSIP, if the State DOT does not achieve or has not made 
significant progress toward the achievement of its HSIP safety targets, 
then the State DOT must dedicate a specified amount of its

[[Page 13852]]

obligation limitation to safety projects and prepare an annual 
implementation plan.\26\ The regulatory definition and discussion below 
of ``made significant progress'' applies only for the purpose of 
carrying out the HSIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ 23 U.S.C. 119(e)(7).
    \26\ 23 U.S.C. 148(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, MAP-21 requires that each State DOT maintain minimum 
standards for Interstate pavement and NHS bridge conditions. If a State 
DOT falls below either standard, then the State DOT must spend a 
specified portion of its funds for that purpose until the minimum 
standard is exceeded.\27\ The FHWA will discuss this provision in the 
second NPRM, which will propose pavement and bridge performance 
measures for the NHS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ 23 U.S.C. 119(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, MAP-21 includes special safety rules \28\ to require each 
State DOT to maintain or improve safety performance on high risk rural 
roads and for older drivers and pedestrians. If the State DOT does not 
meet these special rules, which contain minimum performance standards, 
then it must dedicate a portion of HSIP funding (in the case of the 
high risk rural road special rule) or document in their Strategic 
Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) actions it intends to take to improve 
performance (in the case of the older driver and pedestrian special 
rule). Guidance on how FHWA will administer these two special rules is 
provided on the FHWA MAP-21 Web site.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ 23 U.S.C. 148(g).
    \29\ https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/map21/guidance/guidehrrr.cfm. and 
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/map21/guidance/guideolder.cfm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Implementation of MAP-21 Performance Requirements

    The FHWA will implement the performance requirements within section 
1203 of MAP-21 in a manner that results in a transformation of the 
Federal-aid highway program so that the program focuses on national 
goals, provides for a greater level of accountability and transparency, 
and provides a means for the most efficient investment of Federal 
transportation funds. The FHWA plans to implement these new 
requirements in a manner that will provide Federal-aid highway fund 
recipients the greatest opportunity to fully embrace a performance-
based approach to transportation investment decision making that does 
not hinder performance improvement. In this regard, FHWA carefully 
considered the following principles in the development of proposed 
regulations for national performance management measures under 23 
U.S.C. 150(c):
     Provide for a National Focus--focus the performance 
requirements on outcomes that can be reported at a national level.
     Minimize the Number of Measures--identify only the most 
necessary measures that will be required for target establishment and 
progress reporting. Limit the number of measures to no more than two 
per area specified under 23 U.S.C. 150(c).
     Ensure for Consistency--provide a sufficient level of 
consistency, nationally, in the establishment of measures, the process 
to set targets and report expectations, and the approach to assess 
progress so that transportation performance can be presented in a 
credible manner at a national level.
     Phase in Requirements--allow for sufficient time to comply 
with new requirements and consider approaches to phase in new 
approaches to measuring, target establishment, and reporting 
performance.
     Increase Accountability and Transparency--consider an 
approach that will provide the public and decision makers a better 
understanding of Federal transportation investment needs and return on 
investments.
     Consider Risk--recognize that risks in the target 
establishment process are inherent, and that performance can be 
impacted by many factors outside the control of the entity required to 
establish the targets.
     Understand that Priorities Differ--recognize that State 
DOTs and MPOs must establish targets across a wide range of performance 
areas, and that they will need to make performance trade-offs to 
establish priorities, which can be influenced by local and regional 
needs.
     Recognize Fiscal Constraints--provide for an approach that 
encourages the optimal investment of Federal funds to maximize 
performance but recognize that, when operating with scarce resources, 
performance cannot always be improved.
     Provide for Flexibility--recognize that the MAP-21 
requirements are the first steps that will transform the Federal-aid 
highway program to a performance-based program and that State DOTs, 
MPOs, and other stakeholders will be learning a great deal as 
implementation occurs.
    The FHWA considered these principles in this NPRM and encourages 
comments on the extent to which the approach to performance measures 
set forth in this NPRM supports the principles discussed above.

IV. Performance Measure Analysis

    The FHWA, in consultation with State DOTs, MPOs, and other 
stakeholders, selected for this proposed rule measures to carry out the 
HSIP and for State DOTs and MPOs to use to assess safety performance. 
The FHWA assessed the selected measures, using a common methodology, to 
identify gaps that could impact successful implementation and to better 
inform the FHWA on the issues that the FHWA will address in this 
proposed rule. This section discusses why the FHWA selected the 
proposed measures and the results of FHWA's assessment to identify 
implementation gaps.

A. Selection of Measures for the Highway Safety Improvement Program

    The FHWA considered input from the following sources in selecting 
proposed measures to carry out the HSIP and for State DOTs and MPOs to 
use to assess safety performance:
     Knowledge of technical experts within the DOT on the 
current state of practice to monitor highway safety performance;
     Information provided by external stakeholders received 
directly or captured as part of organized stakeholder listening 
sessions;
     Information provided by external stakeholders received 
indirectly through informal contact such as telephone calls, email, or 
letters; and
     Measures that have been recommended and documented in 
nationally recognized reports such as the assessment of measurement 
readiness documented in the 2011 final report for National Cooperation 
Highway Research Program (NCHRP) 20-24(37)G, ``Technical Guidance for 
Deploying National Level Performance Measurements,'' and the 2008 NHTSA 
publication, ``Traffic Safety Performance Measures for States and 
Federal Agencies,'' which contains an initial minimum set of 14 
performance measures agreed upon by NHTSA and the Governors Highway 
Safety Association (GHSA).
    A listing of each contact or series of contacts influencing the 
agency's proposals may be found in the docket.
    The DOT believes that a unified State approach to highway safety 
promotes comprehensive transportation and safety planning and program 
efficiency in the States. For this reason, the DOT proposes that 
performance measures common to the State's HSP and the HSIP 
(fatalities, fatality rate, and serious injuries) would be defined 
identically, as coordinated through the SHSP and subject to the GHSA 
coordination

[[Page 13853]]

process NHTSA must follow under MAP-21.
    The FHWA considered the need to align measures used to carry out 
highway safety grant programs administered by NHTSA with measures that 
are proposed to be established through this regulatory action. The MAP-
21 restructured and made various substantive changes to the HSIP that 
is administered by the FHWA under 23 U.S.C. 148. These changes provide 
for additional consistency between the HSIP and the highway safety 
grant programs administered by NHTSA, including key outcome performance 
measures that are consistent between these two programs and for which 
State DOTs and SHSOs will establish targets. Specifically, MAP-21 
modified the existing HSIP at 23 U.S.C. 148 by requiring State DOTs to 
develop and implement the HSIP by establishing targets that reflect the 
defined safety performance measures being promulgated in this NRPM.
    As stated in NHTSA's IFR, SHSOs have been moving in the direction 
of using performance measures, such as the number of fatalities and 
serious injuries and fatality rate, in the State HSP for a number of 
years. Since 2010, all SHSOs have voluntarily established targets for 
these performance measures, as described in the report, Traffic Safety 
Performance Measures for States and Federal Agencies (DOT HS 811 025), 
developed as a cooperative effort between NHTSA and the GHSA. The MAP-
21 requires SHSOs to use the Traffic Safety Performance Measures report 
for establishing performance measures and targets in the HSP beginning 
in fiscal year 2014.\30\ The MAP-21 further requires NHTSA to 
coordinate with GHSA in making revisions to the performance measures 
identified in the report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ 23 U.S.C. 402(f)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This NRPM includes performance measures that are common to both 
FHWA and NHTSA. The FHWA has been working with NHTSA and other DOT 
agencies to align those performance measures that are common across 
those agencies (i.e. fatality rate, fatality number, serious injury 
number) to ensure that the highway safety community is provided uniform 
measures of progress. The safety performance measures in this NPRM that 
are common to all agencies would be defined identically, as coordinated 
through the SHSP.
    The FHWA is proposing HSIP measures for State DOTs to use in 
assessing safety performance in the four areas mandated in 23 U.S.C. 
150(c)(4): (1) number of fatalities; (2) rate of fatalities; (3) number 
of serious injuries; and (4) rate of serious injuries. The FHWA is 
proposing the establishment of one consistent measure for each of the 
four areas mandated under 23 U.S.C. 150(c)(4) to focus on aggregate 
outcome performance for the reasons noted below:
    The FHWA proposes that safety for all users of public roads will be 
improved by focusing the safety measures on all fatalities and serious 
injuries. Focusing the measures on all fatalities and all serious 
injuries, regardless of vehicle type, influencing behavior, or roadway 
characteristics, provides for a view of overall safety performance that 
includes all users on all public roads and limits the extent of data 
collection and analysis.
    The aggregation of all fatalities and serious injuries into single 
measures to carry out the HSIP will provide for more stable trends, 
allowing for more reliable predictions of future performance on which 
to base the selection of targets. At the State or MPO level, separating 
specific types of fatalities and serious injuries for a range of 
disaggregated measures by vehicle type (including passenger vehicles, 
trucks, motorcycles, and bicycles); by influencing behavior (e.g., 
distracted driving, impaired driving, speeding); or by roadway 
characteristics (e.g., intersections, roadway departure) leads to 
numbers too statistically small to provide sufficient validity for 
developing targets to carry out the HSIP.
    The performance requirements within MAP-21 are the first 
foundational steps that will focus the Federal-aid highway program on 
performance outcomes. It is expected, in this foundational stage, that 
State DOTs and MPOs will be learning how to manage performance by 
balancing investment trade-offs across multiple performance measures; 
many State DOTs and MPOs will be establishing targets to carry out the 
HSIP for the first time as a result of this new requirement. Therefore, 
FHWA desires to establish a minimal number of measures to implement 23 
U.S.C. 150(c) considering the requirement for State DOTs \31\ and MPOs 
\32\ to establish targets for each of these measures (a minimum of 12 
measures will be established).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ 23 U.S.C. 134(h)(2)(B).
    \32\ 23 U.S.C. 150(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The more detailed analysis of separating specific types of 
fatalities and serious injuries for a range of disaggregated measures 
takes place in the creation of the SHSP. The MAP-21 requires that 
States take into consideration all vehicle and user needs when 
establishing goals, objectives, and emphasis areas, and describe a 
program of strategies to reduce or eliminate safety hazards through the 
SHSP. Each State DOT identifies emphasis areas based on the analysis of 
all the available safety data after consultation with and input from 
the safety stakeholders representing the four E's from safety.\33\ This 
analysis and collaboration helps identify the causes of safety hazards, 
and helps to develop successful improvement strategies to address those 
hazards and is used in decision making for FHWA's HSIP and NHTSA's 
highway safety programs. It is the development of the SHSP through a 
data-driven, coordinated process that includes the State DOTs, MPOs, 
and other safety stakeholders that ensures specific vehicle and user 
needs are addressed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ The four E's include: Engineering, Education, Enforcement, 
and Emergency Medical Services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The HSIP safety performance measures should be viewed in the 
context of other DOT performance measures. As amended by MAP-21, 23 
U.S.C. 402(k)(4) specifies that for the NHTSA HSP, traffic safety 
performance measures, developed in a cooperative effort between NHTSA 
and GHSA, are to be used by SHSOs in the development and implementation 
of behavioral highway safety plans and programs. Although limited in 
fiscal year (FY) 2014 to an initial set of 10 core outcome measures, 1 
core behavior measure, and 3 activity measures, MAP-21 allows the NHTSA 
in subsequent fiscal years to make revisions to the set of performance 
measures required in the HSP through a coordinated process with 
GHSA.\34\ The FHWA will continue to work with NHTSA toward a consistent 
application of traffic safety performance measures through a consensus 
process, subject to the GHSA coordination process NHTSA must follow 
under MAP-21.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ Currently targets are required to be established through 
the HSP for only the 10 core outcome measures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The DOT received input through stakeholder listening sessions and 
in letters sent to the DOT suggesting that two measures be established 
for each of the four safety areas: (1) All ``motorized'' fatalities and 
serious injuries; and (2) all ``non-motorized'' fatalities and serious 
injuries.
    The DOT requests comments on how the Department could address 
separate non-motorized performance measures. The DOT requests input on 
the extent to which States and MPOs currently collect and report non-
motorized data (fatality, serious injury, miles traveled)

[[Page 13854]]

and the reliability and accuracy of such data, and how States and MPOs 
consider such data in their safety programs and in selecting 
investments. The DOT also invites the public to suggest ways to most 
efficiently track, report, and use performance measures to improve 
safety.

B. Assessment of Selected Measures for the Highway Safety Improvement 
Program

    The FHWA used a common methodology to assess whether the candidate 
measure was appropriate for national use and whether the FHWA was ready 
to implement the measure in an accurate, reliable, and credible manner. 
This methodology included 12 criteria that the FHWA used to assess both 
the appropriateness and readiness of each measure. The FHWA conducted 
an assessment to rate the extent to which the measure, as used in 
current practice, met each of the 12 criteria. As a result of the 
assessment, FHWA assigned one of the following three ratings to each 
criterion.
     Green Rating--Criterion is fully met for the candidate 
measure.
     Yellow Rating--Criterion is partially met for the 
candidate measure and work is underway to fully meet the criterion.
     Red Rating--Criterion is not fully met or no work is 
underway or planned that would allow the criterion to be met.
    The FHWA used the results of this assessment to identify gaps that 
the FHWA could address through this rulemaking to improve the 
effectiveness of the measure to be used to carry out the HSIP and to 
assess safety performance. A description of the methodology used for 
this assessment is provided in the rulemaking docket.
    The FHWA evaluated the four safety measures that it is proposing in 
this NPRM based on existing state-of-practice, using the assessment 
process described earlier in this section. The following table includes 
a summary of this assessment:
BILLING CODE 4910-22-P

[[Page 13855]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11MR14.009

BILLING CODE 4910-22-C
    The proposal outlined in this NPRM attempts to address some of the 
gaps that exist today for lower rated factors so that, as a result of 
the implementation of these new requirements, the measures would result 
in an improved assessment rating and thereby better support national 
programs. In particular, FHWA considered the following factors:
     Criterion A2--recognize that a common approach to define 
serious injuries is still being discussed by stakeholders and allow for 
time to transition to a measure that is based on a more consistent 
definition.
     Criterion A3--consider an approach that will allow for 
more consistent definitions of serious injury to be phased in over a 
period of time.
     Criterion B1--recognize the time lag of data available in 
national data sources compared to the availability of data in State-
maintained sources in establishing requirements associated with 
proposed safety measures.
     Criterion B2--consider an approach to defining serious 
injuries that would

[[Page 13856]]

improve consistency in application across the country and recognize 
that consistency improvements can take time to implement.
     Criteria A6, B5, and B6--recognize that a comprehensive 
national data source does not exist today for serious injuries and that 
there could be a cost to Federal, State and local governments to create 
such a data source.
    The FHWA is proposing an approach to define the safety measures in 
a manner that is more consistent with input received from stakeholders 
and addresses the various methods used today to define serious 
injuries. The specifics of these proposals are described in the 
Section-by-Section portion of this proposed rule.

V. Section-by-Section Discussion of the General Information and 
Proposed Highway Safety Improvement Program Performance Measures

Section 490.101 General Definitions

    This subpart provides definitions of the following terms: Highway 
Performance Monitoring System, measure, metric, non-urbanized areas, 
and target.
    The FHWA proposes to include a definition for ``Highway Performance 
Monitoring System (HPMS)'' because it will be one of the data sources 
used in establishing a measure and establishing a target. The HPMS is 
an FHWA-maintained, national level highway information system that 
includes State DOT-submitted data on the extent, condition, 
performance, use and operating characteristics of the Nation's 
highways. The HPMS database was jointly developed and implemented by 
FHWA and State DOTs beginning in 1974 and it is a continuous data 
collection system serving as the primary source of information for the 
Federal government about the Nation's highway system. Additionally, the 
data in the HPMS is used for the analysis of highway system condition, 
performance, and investment needs that make up the biennial Condition 
and Performance Reports to Congress. These Reports are used by the 
Congress in establishing both authorization and appropriation 
legislation, activities that ultimately determine the scope and size of 
the Federal-aid highway program, and determine the level of Federal 
highway taxation. Increasingly, State DOTs, as well as the MPOs, have 
utilized the HPMS as they have addressed a wide variety of concerns 
about their highway systems.\35\ Numerous State DOTs and the MPOs use 
HPMS data and its analytical capabilities for supporting their 
condition/performance assessment, investment requirement analysis, 
strategic and state planning efforts, etc.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ Highway Performance Monitoring System, FHWA Office of 
Policy Information. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/hpms/nahpms.cfm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FHWA proposes to include a definition for ``measure'' because 
establishing measures is a critical element of an overall performance 
management approach and it is important to have a common definition 
that the FHWA can use throughout the Part. To have a consistent 
definition for ``measure,'' the FHWA proposes to make a distinction 
between ``measure'' and ``metric.'' Hence, the FHWA proposes to define 
``metric'' as a quantifiable indicator of performance or condition and 
to define ``measure'' as an expression based on a metric that is used 
to establish targets and to assess progress toward achieving the 
established targets. For illustrative purposes, a metric for fatalities 
is the annual number of fatalities and the corresponding measure to 
establish targets is the 5-year rolling average of the metric.
    In addition, the FHWA proposes to include a definition for ``non-
urbanized areas'' to provide clarity in the implementation of the 
provision in 23 U.S.C. 150(d)(2) that allows the State DOTs the option 
of selecting different targets for ``urbanized and rural areas.'' As 
written, the statute is silent regarding the small urban areas that 
fall between ``rural'' and ``urbanized'' areas. Instead of only giving 
the State DOTs the option of establishing targets for ``rural'' and 
``urbanized'' areas, FHWA proposes to define ``non-urbanized'' areas to 
include both ``rural'' areas and the small urban areas that are larger 
than ``rural'' areas but do not meet the criteria of an ``urbanized 
area.'' This would then allow State DOTs to establish different targets 
throughout the entire State for urbanized and non-urbanized areas. For 
target-setting purposes, the FHWA believes that these small urban areas 
are best treated with the ``rural'' areas, as non-urbanized areas, 
because both of these areas do not have the same complexities that come 
with having the population and density of urbanized areas and are 
generally more rural in characteristic. In addition, neither of these 
areas are treated as MPOs in the transportation planning process or 
given the authority under MAP-21 to establish their own targets.
    Finally, the FHWA proposes to include a definition for ``target'' 
to indicate how measures will be used for target establishment by State 
DOTs and MPOs to assess performance or condition.

Subpart B: National Performance Measures for the Highway Safety 
Improvement Program

Section 490.201 Purpose

    The FHWA proposes to include a statement describing the general 
purpose of the proposed subpart: to implement certain sections of Title 
23, U.S.C. that require FHWA to establish measures for State DOTs to 
use to assess the number of serious injuries and fatalities and the 
rate of serious injuries and fatalities.

Section 490.203 Applicability

    The FHWA proposes to specify that the safety performance measures 
are applicable to all public roads covered under 23 U.S.C. 130 and the 
HSIP under 23 U.S.C. 148. While 23 U.S.C. 148 specifically addresses 
the HSIP, projects that improve railway-highway crossings, consistent 
with 23 U.S.C. 130, are eligible as highway safety improvement projects 
under 23 U.S.C. 148. In addition, 23 U.S.C. 148 requires State DOTs to 
report on the occurrence of fatalities and serious injuries on railway-
highway crossings. Because of the connection between 23 U.S.C. 130 and 
148, it is important that any developed measures consider public roads 
covered under both of these provisions. Therefore, the FHWA includes 
this language to reiterate that the data used for the performance 
measures needs to include all public roads in the State regardless of 
ownership or functional classification.

Section 490.205 Definitions

    The FHWA proposes to include a definition for ``5-year rolling 
average,'' because the FHWA proposes that State DOTs and MPOs use this 
information in calculating the performance measures for carrying out 
the HSIP. The 5-year rolling average is the average of five individual, 
consecutive annual points of data for each proposed performance measure 
(e.g., 5-year rolling average of the annual fatality rate). Using a 
multiyear average approach does not eliminate years with significant 
increases or decreases. Instead, it provides a better understanding of 
the overall fatality and serious injury data over time. The 5-year 
rolling average also provides a mechanism for accounting for regression 
to the mean. If a particularly high or low number of fatalities and/or 
serious injuries occur in 1 year, a return to a level consistent with 
the average in the previous year may occur.

[[Page 13857]]

    The FHWA considered annual data, and 3-, 4-, and 5-year rolling 
averages, evaluating each of these options against the data currently 
available for all States. States with a small number of fatalities may 
see wide fluctuations in the number of fatalities from year to year. 
For those States, a rolling average would reduce short term 
fluctuations and highlight long term trends. A 5-year rolling average 
provides a balance between the stability of the data (by averaging 
multiple years) and providing an accurate trend of the data (by 
minimizing how far back in time to consider data).
    The SHSOs have voluntarily been using a 3- to 5-year rolling 
average for fatalities, fatality rate, and serious injuries since 2010. 
Currently in NHTSA's HSP, SHSOs are required to establish performance 
measures for fatalities, fatality rate, and serious injuries using a 3- 
to 5-year rolling average. The SHSOs select the rolling average that is 
appropriate for their State depending on factors unique to each State. 
This NPRM proposes that all State DOTs use the same 5-year rolling 
average time period in the HSIP. In proposing that performance measures 
common to the State's HSP and the HSIP be aligned, SHSOs and State DOTs 
would be required to use the same rolling average period for common 
performance measures. Such a requirement in the HSP would be subject to 
the GHSA coordination process NHTSA must follow under MAP-21.
    Stakeholders are encouraged to comment on whether a 3-, 4- or 5-
year rolling average should be required for the HSIP performance 
measures. Stakeholders are also encouraged to comment on whether the 
use of moving averages is appropriate to predict future metrics.
    The FHWA's objective is for State DOTs to establish achievable 
performance targets that focus on improving safety results. State DOTs 
that do not achieve or have not made significant progress toward 
achieving their targets would be subject to restricted obligation 
authority for use only on HSIP projects and the establishment of an 
implementation plan pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 148(i) and implemented under 
section 490.211(c).
    The FHWA proposes to add a definition of ``Fatality Analysis 
Reporting System (FARS)'' because it would be used to determine if a 
State has achieved its target and, if necessary, as part of the 
evaluation of whether a State DOT has made significant progress toward 
achieving its target. The proposed definition clarifies that final FARS 
data will be used.
    The FHWA is proposing a definition of ``historical trend line'' 
because it would be an element of FHWA's evaluation of whether a State 
DOT has made significant progress toward achieving its target. The FHWA 
proposes the use of 10 years of data in order to provide sufficient 
historical context for the analysis and projection. Including more 
years of data would inappropriately impact the analysis by 
incorporating factors that are no longer relevant. Including fewer 
years of data would provide an insufficient foundation upon which to 
conduct the analysis.
    The FHWA proposes a definition for ``KABCO'' because FHWA would be 
requiring States to begin reporting serious injuries by using the `(A)' 
coding convention on the KABCO injury classification scale. For serious 
injuries reported prior to adoption of MMUCC, latest edition, States 
would use a set of conversion tables to convert data to a consistent 
serious injury `(A)' coding classification on the KABCO scale. For data 
reported in compliance with MMUCC, latest edition, States would report 
data according to the ``Suspected Serious Injury (A)'' definition and 
attribute. The conversion tables, developed by NHTSA, are included in 
the docket and would be used to convert State serious injury crash data 
to a consistent KABCO coding convention.
    Developed by the National Safety Council in 1976, the KABCO is a 
system used to standardize the coding for the level of the injury 
severity for any person involved in a crash as determined by law 
enforcement at the scene. The KABCO is a coding and classification 
scale that used, or in some cases still uses, the following 
classifications for the injury codes: K-fatality, A-incapacitating 
injury, B-non-incapacitating injury, C-possible injury, O-no injury. 
However, different agencies may use different classifications for 
injury codes (e.g., ``A'' for incapacitating injury or ``A'' for 
suspected serious injury) and different definitions for each injury 
code (e.g. in one agency a serious injury is defined as ``an injury 
other than a fatal injury which results in broken bones, dislocated or 
distorted limbs, severe lacerations, or unconsciousness'' and in 
another agency a serious injury is defined as ``an injury, other than a 
fatal, which prevents the injured person from walking, driving or 
normally continuing the activities which he was capable of performing 
prior to the motor vehicle traffic accident.'' Still, KABCO is an 
effective tool used to standardize injury severity across jurisdictions 
by law enforcement officers investigating and reporting on crashes at 
the scene.
    The FHWA recognizes that States currently use a wide variety of 
coding conventions and associated definitions to report on injury 
severity. In order to collect and use the most consistent data to 
support the National Goals, the FHWA proposes that the highest severity 
injury category in the State's motor vehicle crash database would 
conform to the KABCO injury code `(A)'. To conform, the State would 
convert the injury crash data using the conversion tables developed by 
the NHTSA. The NHTSA developed an initial set of KABCO conversion 
tables to enable sampling in areas of the State where NHTSA collects 
injury crash data for the National Automotive Sampling System (NASS). 
For the purposes of this rulemaking, NHTSA has created similar tables, 
using the NASS methodology, for all States, and FHWA will make the 
tables available for States to use to report serious injury data. The 
FHWA recognizes that the conversion tables cannot account for all past 
and current differences between State definitions of injury levels. 
However, they will provide the most consistent available data for 
serious injuries for the States' past and current crash data until all 
States comply with the MMUCC requirement proposed in this rule.
    The FHWA proposes a definition for ``made significant progress'' to 
distinguish that the FHWA would not use the statistical definition of 
the term ``significant'' to determine whether a State has made 
significant progress toward achieving their safety performance targets 
under 23 U.S.C. 148(i). Recognizing that there is a limit to the direct 
impact the State can have on safety outcomes, the risk in setting 
targets, and the resultant difficulty in determining a projected 
appropriate level of progress for the State DOT, the FHWA is proposing 
to use a specific set of calculations to determine whether a State DOT 
has made significant progress. Those calculations are described in 
Section 490.211, Determining Whether a State DOT has Made Significant 
Progress Towards Achieving Performance Targets.
    The FHWA proposes a definition for the ``number of fatalities'' 
because it would be used to establish one of the measures for State 
DOTs and MPOs to use to assess safety performance related to fatalities 
and for the purpose of carrying out the HSIP. The FHWA also proposes a 
definition for the ``number of serious injuries'' because it would be 
used to establish one of the measures for State DOTs and MPOs to use to 
assess

[[Page 13858]]

safety performance related to serious injuries for the purpose of 
carrying out the HSIP.
    The FHWA is proposing a definition of ``prediction interval'' 
because it would be an element of the evaluation of whether a State DOT 
has made significant progress toward achieving its target. The FHWA 
proposes to use the term prediction interval as it is applied for 
statistical evaluation.
    The FHWA proposes a definition for ``projection point'' because it 
would be an element of FHWA's evaluation of whether a State DOT has 
made significant progress toward achieving its target.
    The FHWA proposes a definition for the ``rate of fatalities'' 
because it would be used to establish one of the measures for State 
DOTs and MPOs to use to assess safety performance related to fatalities 
for the purpose of carrying out the HSIP. The FHWA also proposes a 
definition for the ``rate of serious injuries'' because it would be 
used to establish one of the measures for State DOTs and MPOs to assess 
as a measure for safety performance related to serious injuries for the 
purpose of carrying out the HSIP.
    The FHWA also proposes a definition of ``serious injuries.'' In 
defining the term ``serious injuries,'' the FHWA recognizes there are 
many disparities between States' definitions of serious injuries and 
the coding convention used to report them. These discrepancies have 
long been recognized as a problem in collecting and analyzing data at 
the national level, and may be a problem in measuring progress toward 
the national goal of ``significantly reducing fatalities and serious 
injuries on all public roads.'' \36\ The proposed definition would 
result in a consistent definition of ``serious injuries,'' which would 
standardize and improve the quality of data, and improve the ability to 
evaluate State DOT and national progress in achieving safety on the 
Nation's roads.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ 23 U.S.C. 150(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FHWA proposes that the definition and attribute for ``serious 
injuries'' is a ```suspected serious injury' (A)'' as identified in the 
latest edition of the MMUCC.\37\ The MMUCC definition of a suspected 
serious injury (A) is any injury, other than fatal, which results in 
one or more of the following:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ The Model Minimum Uniform Crash Criteria, available at: 
https://www.mmucc.us/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Severe laceration resulting in exposure of underlying 
tissues, muscle, organs, or resulting in significant loss of blood;
     Broken or distorted extremity (arm or leg);
     Crush injuries;
     Suspected skull, chest, or abdominal injury other than 
bruises or minor lacerations;
     Significant burns (second and third degree burns over 10 
percent or more of the body);
     Unconsciousness when taken from the crash scene; or
     Paralysis.
    The FHWA proposes that States would convert to KABCO, through use 
of the NHTSA conversion tables, only the serious injury crash data 
necessary to comply with the reporting requirements under 23 CFR 924 
that are not compliant with the proposed serious injury definition 
within 18 months of the effective date of this rule. The FHWA also 
proposes that States must use the MMUCC, latest edition, definition and 
attribute for ``suspected serious injury'' within 18 months of the 
effective date of this rule. Depending on the effective date of this 
rule, the date requirements may be modified in order to align with the 
HSIP reporting cycle. As the MMUCC definition uses the KABCO scale, a 
State DOT would be in compliance with this definition if a State 
converts to the MMUCC definition for ``suspected serious injury'' prior 
to the 18-month requirement.
    However, for data in the State crash database that was not MMUCC 
compliant, the State would convert its serious injury data to KABCO 
through use of the NHTSA serious injury conversion tables.
    The FHWA considered the Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS), the Maximum 
Abbreviated Injury Scale (MAIS), the International Statistical 
Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (ICD), and the 
Injury Severity Score (ISS) as potential coding conventions and 
definitions for reporting Serious Injuries data to replace MMUCC and 
KABCO. These injury classification systems are not being proposed 
because they would not offer the ease and opportunity to convert 
historical and future data into a consistent framework such as is 
available in using KABCO, NHTSA conversion tables, and MMUCC.
    Those agencies that would need to comply with this requirement 
(e.g., State DOTs, SHSOs, law enforcement agencies) would not be 
expected to have the ability to use systems such as AIS, ICD, or ISS at 
the crash scene. Use of each of these systems would require either 
individual medical follow-up for each person injured in a crash, or 
some sort of manual or electronic linkage of crash records to hospital 
inpatient and emergency department records with injury diagnoses. The 
FHWA expects the burden and time to set up such systems would be 
considerably greater than it would be for States to comply with the 
latest edition MMUCC's Suspected Serious Injury definition as proposed 
in this rulemaking. Therefore, under this rulemaking, the FHWA would 
not require States to gather level of injury assessments from hospitals 
or other emergency medical service providers. As the MMUCC is a 
recommended standard for law enforcement crash reports and uses the 
KABCO scale, its definition was determined to be most appropriate for 
the immediate purposes of this proposed rule. The FHWA solicits comment 
on whether some other injury classification and coding system would be 
more appropriate.

Section 490.207 National Performance Measures for the Highway Safety 
Improvement Program

    In section 490.207(a), FHWA proposes to describe the four 
performance measures for the purpose of carrying out the HSIP under 23 
U.S.C. 150. The four performance measures would include: 1) number of 
fatalities, 2) rate of fatalities, 3) number of serious injuries, and 
4) rate of serious injuries. The FHWA also proposes to specify that 
each performance measure would be based on the calendar year, rather 
than a State's fiscal year or the Federal fiscal year, because safety 
statistics are already reported by calendar year.
    In section 490.207(b), FHWA proposes the use of a rolling average 
for each of the performance measures and specifies that only the total 
number be rounded to the hundredth decimal place. The FHWA proposes the 
use of the hundredth decimal place because the industry standard in 
FARS for reporting fatality crash rates is to the hundredth decimal 
place. As FARS reports fatality rates by 100 million VMT, the FHWA 
proposes that the term ``VMT'' used in the calculation of fatality and 
serious injury rates also refer to 100 million VMT, rather than ``per 
vehicle mile traveled'' as expressed in 23 U.S.C. 150(c)(4).
    The following items describe the calculation for each of the four 
performance measures. In subparagraph (1), the FHWA proposes that the 
performance measure for the number of fatalities would be the 5-year 
rolling average of the total number of fatalities for each State and 
would be calculated by adding the number of fatalities for the most 
recent 5 consecutive calendar years in which data are available and 
dividing by 5. As stated in the definitions section, the total number 
of fatalities for each State would be based

[[Page 13859]]

on the data reported by the FARS database for each calendar year. The 
FARS database is recognized as the standard for reporting fatalities 
and is already used by the State DOTs and the DOT.
    In subparagraph (2), the FHWA proposes that the performance measure 
for fatalities per VMT would be the 5-year rolling average of the 
State's fatality rate per VMT and would be calculated by first 
calculating the number of fatalities per 100 million VMT for each of 
the most recent 5 consecutive years in which data are available, adding 
the results, and dividing by 5. As stated in the definitions, the VMT 
is as reported by a State DOT to the HPMS (expressed in 100 million 
vehicle miles) in a calendar year.
    In subparagraph (3), the FHWA proposes that the performance measure 
for the number of serious injuries would be the 5-year rolling average 
of the total number of serious injuries for each State, and would be 
calculated by adding the number of serious injuries for the most recent 
5 consecutive years in which data are available and dividing by 5.
    In subparagraph (4), the FHWA proposes the performance measure for 
the number of serious injuries per VMT would be the 5-year rolling 
average of the total number of serious injuries per VMT, and would be 
calculated by first calculating the number of serious injuries per 100 
million VMT for each of the most recent 5 consecutive years in which 
data are available, adding the results, and dividing by 5. The number 
of serious injuries would be equivalent to that in subparagraph (3) and 
the rate would be determined by VMT as reported by HPMS (expressed in 
100 million vehicle miles) in a calendar year.
    In section 490.207(c), the FHWA proposes that by the effective date 
of this rule, serious injuries shall be coded (A) in the KABCO injury 
classification scale through use of the NHTSA serious injuries 
conversion tables; and that within 18 months of the effective date of 
this rule, serious injuries must be determined using the latest edition 
of MMUCC.
    Finally, in section 490.207(d), the FHWA recommends, but would not 
require, that States prepare themselves so that no later than calendar 
year 2020, serious injuries data is collected through and reported by a 
hospital records injury outcome reporting system that links injury 
outcomes from hospital inpatient and emergency discharge databases to 
crash reports. An example of a crash outcome data linkage system is the 
NHTSA Crash Outcome Data Evaluation System (CODES).
    The DOT is an active liaison to the NCHRP Project 17-57 Development 
of a Comprehensive Approach for Serious Traffic Crash Injury 
Measurement and Reporting Systems. The project's goals are to identify 
an injury scoring system for further consideration, develop a roadmap 
to assist States in developing and implementing an interim system, and 
ultimately develop a State-based framework to perform comprehensive 
linkage of records related to motor vehicle crashes resulting in 
serious injuries, and incremental steps and priorities for achieving 
the linkage (https://apps.trb.org/cmsfeed/TRBNetProjectDisplay.asp?ProjectID=3179). The DOT anticipates that this 
project will be completed by 2014, and the recommendations could then 
be effectively implemented in all States. To the extent possible, DOT 
would work with States that implement a data linkage system prior to 
the recommended date. This rulemaking would not prohibit a State from 
using a data linkage system like CODES, but this rulemaking would 
require States to use the MMUCC definition of ``suspected serious 
injury'' and the KABCO system, through use of the NHTSA conversion 
tables, for reporting serious injuries data.
    In summary, defining serious injuries in a manner that would 
provide for greater consistency requires:
    (1) a common coding convention;
    (2) a consistent definition of a serious injury; and
    (3) a method to accurately determine the severity level of an 
injury.
    This rulemaking proposes, with reference to the above list, the 
establishment of items 1 and 2, and a recommended approach for item 3. 
More specifically, this rulemaking proposes: (1) KABCO as the required 
convention to code a serious injury as ``A'' using conversion tables 
developed by NHTSA; and (2) a requirement to use the MMUCC definition 
of a ``suspected serious injury'' to define what injuries qualify as a 
serious injury. This rulemaking would not propose a required use of a 
single method to accurately determine the level of injury but 
recommends that States prepare to use a crash to medical outcome data 
linkage methodology. This rulemaking would not prohibit a State from 
using such an approach before or after the effective date of this rule 
to determine the severity of injuries.
    The DOT also recognizes that as serious injury data is migrated to 
the MMUCC definition, variances may occur in the data collected and 
reported by States and that States should make necessary adjustments in 
establishing targets to accommodate these changes.

Section 490.209 Establishment of Performance Targets

    The FHWA proposes in section 490.209(a) for State DOTs to establish 
quantifiable targets for each performance measure identified in section 
490.207(a). The declared policy under 23 U.S.C. 150(a) is to transform 
the Federal-aid highway program by refocusing on national 
transportation goals and increasing accountability. Furthermore, the 
first national goal under 23 U.S.C. 150(b)(1) is to ``achieve a 
significant reduction in traffic fatalities and serious injuries on all 
public roads.'' To this end, the FHWA strongly encourages State DOTs to 
establish targets that represent improved safety performance in order 
to support the national goals.
    Consistent with the objectives in the NHTSA IFR, the FHWA is 
proposing in subparagraph (1) that the targets under this section be 
identical to the targets established for common measures reported in 
the States HSP, subject to the GHSA coordination process NHTSA must 
follow under MAP-21. The FHWA proposes in subparagraph (2) that the 
performance targets established by the State represent the safety 
outcomes anticipated for the calendar year following each HSIP annual 
report.
    The FHWA recognizes that State DOTs would use the most current data 
available to them in order to establish targets required in this rule. 
However, as specified in section 490.211(a), the FHWA proposes to use 
the data in the final FARS database and HPMS to assess the State DOTs' 
performance targets for the fatality measures. State DOTs should 
recognize there are differences in the final FARS and HPMS databases 
and their most current data, in particular the potential time lag in 
the data needed for establishing targets.
    For the serious injuries number measure, this lag is not an issue 
as this measure and reported outcomes are based on data contained in 
the State's motor vehicle crash database. However, there is a time lag 
for the remaining proposed safety measures.
    The current time lag (time period between the end of the calendar 
year in which the data were collected to the date the data is available 
in the national system for the final FARS and HPMS data) is 
approximately 24 months. The FHWA recognizes the challenges to State 
DOTs in dealing with the uncertainty of data available in national data 
sources and how this uncertainty

[[Page 13860]]

would need to be considered in the target establishment process.
    The following scenario is provided as an example to illustrate the 
potential time lag between State and national data sources for the 
fatality number measure and the fatality and serious injury rate 
measures. Targets that represent anticipated fatality outcomes for 
Calendar Year (CY) 2017 would need to be established by the State DOT 
and reported in its 2016 HSIP annual report by August 31, 2016. The 
State DOT may have current fatality data available through its motor 
vehicle crash database to develop targets. However, the fatality data 
reported by FARS, which would be used to assess fatality outcomes, 
would not be current due to the time lag needed to process, review, and 
validate data in FARS. Likewise, the VMT data available to calculate 
rate-based measures in the HPMS would face similar time lag issues. For 
this example, the most current information available in FARS and HPMS 
in August 2016 would be based on CY 2013 data. Therefore, the most 
current reported performance outcome for fatalities for the State would 
represent the data reported from 2009-2013 (data needed to calculate 
the 2013 5-year rolling average for fatalities). The FHWA recognizes 
the challenge this time lag would present to State DOTs as the State 
DOT would need to establish a target that represents a 5-year rolling 
average for the period from 2013-2017. The DOT seeks comments on 
whether this time lag is an issue, any impacts it may have on a State 
DOT's ability to establish targets, and any suggestions that can help 
address this issue.
    The FHWA proposes in subparagraph (3) that State DOTs establish 
targets that represent the safety performance of all public roadways 
within the State boundary regardless of ownership and functional 
classification. The FHWA recognizes that there is a limit to the direct 
impact the State DOT can have on the safety outcomes resulting on all 
public roadways and that the State DOT would need to consider this 
uncertainty in their establishment of targets.
    The FHWA proposes in subparagraph (4) that State DOTs begin 
reporting targets in the HSIP annual report that is due on or after 1 
year from the effective date of this final rule and then each year 
thereafter in subsequent HSIP annual reports.
    The FHWA recognizes that in its determination of targets, the State 
DOT would need to consider a wide range of factors that may either 
constrain its ability to impact outcomes or may adversely impact 
outcomes (such as the population growth of an area). State DOTs should 
consider these factors in establishing targets and should provide an 
explanation as to how the factors were addressed in reporting their 
targets in the HSIP annual report.
    In subparagraph (5), the FHWA proposes that for the purpose of 
evaluating serious injury measures targets, the State DOT would report 
each year, in their HSIP Report, 10 years of serious injury data for 
the equivalent years that final FARS data were available at the time 
the target was established.
    As proposed in subparagraph (6), the FHWA believes that an annual 
target establishment frequency would not present a need for State DOTs 
to adjust or modify their targets during the year. It is anticipated 
that adjustments would be made through the establishment of new targets 
each year as State DOTs would be required to establish new targets 
incorporating the next year of performance.
    In section 490.209(b), the FHWA proposes that State DOTs may, as 
appropriate, establish one additional performance target for all 
urbanized areas and one additional performance target for all non-
urbanized areas within the State for each performance measure. Thus, 
the established urbanized target and non-urbanized targets would cover 
the entire State boundary. The FHWA proposes that State DOTs may use 
different performance targets for urbanized and non-urbanized areas to 
implement 23 U.S.C. 150(d)(2). For example, in accordance with section 
490.209(a), a State DOT would be required to establish four performance 
targets for: (1) number of fatalities; (2) rate of fatalities; (3) 
number of serious injuries; and (4) rate of serious injuries. In 
addition to these four performance targets, the State DOT may elect to 
also establish different performance targets for urbanized and non-
urbanized areas. Should the State elect to do so, the State would be 
required to establish both urbanized and non-urbanized performance 
targets. As a result, while a State DOT will establish a minimum of 
four safety performance targets, it could choose to establish 6, 8, 10, 
or 12 safety performance targets, depending on which, if any, 
performance measures it chooses to establish urbanized and non-
urbanized targets.
    Historically, the Census has defined urbanized areas every 10 
years. The FHWA recognizes that each Census defined urbanized area can 
be adjusted to facilitate the planning process, and this could be done 
on varying schedules. Designation of new urbanized areas or changes to 
the boundary of existing urbanized areas may lead to changes in the 
functional classification of the roads, which in turn may affect 
measures and the target achievement or making significant progress 
toward achieving targets. The FHWA intends to issue guidance regarding 
the voluntary establishment of performance targets for urbanized and 
non-urbanized areas. If a State DOT chooses to establish separate 
urbanized and non-urbanized performance targets, it would increase the 
number of performance targets that it reports. At a minimum, State DOTs 
would be required to establish four performance targets each year (one 
for each performance measure). State DOTs can increase the number of 
targets that are established if they elect to break out urbanized and 
non-urbanized areas. Some State DOTs may find it beneficial to 
establish separate performance targets for urbanized and non-urbanized 
areas to highlight the different nature of, causes of, and 
countermeasures for crash types in those areas.
    In section 490.209(c), the FHWA proposes that MPOs establish 
targets to address the performance measures established in section 
490.207(a), where applicable, each time the State DOT reports targets 
in their HSIP annual report. The FHWA proposes in subparagraph (1) that 
not later than 180 days after issuance of the State's HSIP annual 
report, which establishes the State DOT targets (section 490.213(a)), 
the MPO establish targets. The FHWA anticipates that State DOTs and 
MPOs would coordinate on the establishment of targets as required under 
23 U.S.C. 134(h)(2)(B)(i)(II) and 23 U.S.C. 135(d)(2)(B)(i)(II). The 
MPO and State DOT should agree on how they would coordinate on the 
reporting of targets. The FHWA recognizes the need for State DOTs and 
MPOs to have a shared vision on expectations for future safety 
performance in order for there to be a jointly owned target 
establishment process. It is anticipated that State DOTs and MPOs would 
collectively identify strategies to reduce or eliminate safety hazards 
and would jointly decide how these strategies would impact performance 
outcomes across the State DOTs and within different areas of the State. 
The FHWA proposes in subparagraph (2) that after the MPO reports these 
targets to the State, the FHWA expects that, upon request, the State 
DOT can provide the MPO's most recently submitted targets to the FHWA 
in accordance with the Metropolitan Planning Agreement, developed under 
23 CFR 450.
    The FHWA recognizes the burden on MPOs to establish their own 
performance targets, especially where

[[Page 13861]]

the targets are annual targets. As such, the FHWA proposes in 
subparagraph (3) that MPOs establish targets by either agreeing to plan 
and program safety projects so that they contribute toward the 
accomplishment of 1 year safety targets established by the State DOT, 
or committing to a quantifiable 1 year safety target specific to the 
roadways within the metropolitan planning area.
    Recognizing that the resource level and capability of some MPOs to 
reliably predict safety performance outcomes varies across the country, 
the FHWA is proposing an approach that would give flexibility for MPOs 
to establish targets by supporting the State DOT targets for 
performance through their investment decision making. Further, the FHWA 
recognizes that MPOs may need to work jointly with relevant State DOTs 
to access and analyze crash records for their planning area. 
Consequently, the MPOs may establish their targets using either of the 
proposed options in proposed subparagraph (3). The FHWA proposes in 
subparagraph (4) that, the established MPO targets under subparagraph 
(3) represent all public roadways within the metropolitan planning area 
boundary regardless of ownership or functional classification.
    Annual target establishment for safety performance is being 
proposed to align the target establishment requirements of 23 U.S.C. 
150 with those of 23 U.S.C. 402(k), subject to the GHSA coordination 
process NHTSA must follow under MAP-21. The FHWA recognizes that an 
annual frequency for target establishment is not consistent with 
typical planning cycles for MPOs and, as such, expects the State DOT to 
closely coordinate with their partner MPOs to make the target 
establishment decision. The FHWA will propose to provide for a longer 
target establishment time horizon, which is more aligned with the 
typical metropolitan planning cycle, for the other measures in which 
targets are required to be established under 23 CFR 450.
    Pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 134(h)(2)(B)(i)(II) and 23 U.S.C. 
135(d)(2)(B)(i)(II), the FHWA proposes in section 490.209(d) that State 
DOTs coordinate with relevant MPOs in the selection of targets to 
ensure consistency, to the maximum extent practical. The requirements 
to consider this coordination in the planning process should be 
addressed as State DOTs and MPOs work together to jointly identify 
performance expectations for the State and, if appropriate, specific 
areas of the State. The DOT recognizes the challenges associated with 
the coordination of quantifiable targets between the State and relevant 
MPOs due to the differences in the geographical boundaries of areas in 
which targets would be established. The State DOT, as discussed 
previously in this section, would be required to establish a 
quantifiable target for the entire State boundary and would have the 
option of establishing 2 additional quantifiable targets: 1 for all 
urbanized areas, and 1 for all non-urbanized areas within the State. 
Additionally, an MPO would have the option to establish a quantifiable 
target for their metropolitan planning area. One of the coordination 
challenges facing States and MPOs would be how they consider the 
different geographical boundaries of urbanized areas and metropolitan 
planning areas, especially in cases where urbanized and metropolitan 
planning areas cross multiple State boundaries. To illustrate these 
differences the following is provided regarding the target 
establishment boundary differences that could exist in the State of 
Maryland today.
     Urbanized Areas: Based on the 2010 Census, 11 urbanized 
areas intersect or are contained within the geographic boundary of the 
State of Maryland. Of these areas, 5 extend into neighboring States.
     Metropolitan Planning Areas: Currently, 6 metropolitan 
planning areas intersect or are contained within the geographic 
boundary of the State. Of these areas, 4 extend into neighboring 
States.
     Statewide Urbanized Area Target Extent: A State DOT target 
for urbanized areas would represent the anticipated safety outcome of 
all public roads in those 11 urbanized areas within the geographic 
boundary of the State of Maryland.
     MPO Target Extent: Each of the 6 MPOs would establish 
targets for representing the anticipated safety outcome of relevant 
metropolitan planning area regardless of State boundary. In the case of 
Maryland, the metropolitan planning area boundaries used by MPOs to 
establish targets will represent an area that is larger than the area 
used by the State DOT to establish an urbanized target and will 
represent areas in several adjoining States.
    As illustrated above, many differences in target setting boundaries 
could exist that would require State DOTs and MPOs to coordinate on 
quantifiable targets between them using the proposed target setting 
requirements in this section. As part of the coordination process, 
State DOTs and MPOs are encouraged to consider how the data will be 
reported. The FHWA is seeking comment on alternative approaches that 
could be considered to effectively implement 23 U.S.C. 
134(h)(2)(B)(i)(I) and 23 U.S.C. 150(d)(2) considering the need for 
coordination required under 23 U.S.C. 134(h)(2)(B)(i)(II) and 23 U.S.C. 
135(d)(2)(B)(i)(II).

Section 490.211 Determining Whether a State DOT Has Made Significant 
Progress Toward Achieving Performance Targets

    In section 490.211, the FHWA proposes the method in which the FHWA 
would determine whether a State DOT has met or made significant 
progress toward the achievement of its HSIP performance targets. 
Although this determination could directly impact State DOTs, as 
discussed in this section, MPOs could also be indirectly impacted as a 
result of the link between metropolitan and statewide planning and 
programming decision making. This rulemaking discusses the approach 
that would be taken by the FHWA to assess State DOT safety performance 
progress, but it does not include a discussion on the method that may 
be used by the FHWA to assess the safety performance progress of MPOs. 
Interested persons should refer to the updates to the Statewide and 
Metropolitan Planning regulations for any discussions on the review of 
MPO performance progress.
    In section 490.211(a), the FHWA proposes that the determination for 
having achieved or made significant progress toward achieving the 
performance targets would be based on FARS data for the fatality 
number, FARS and HPMS data for the fatality rate, State reported data 
for the serious injuries number, and State reported data and HPMS data 
for the serious injury rate. The HSIP report, as proposed in 23 CFR 
924, would require State DOTs to report general highway safety trends 
for the number and rate of fatalities and serious injuries. The State 
reported serious injury data would be taken from the HSIP report. The 
FHWA also proposes that reporting of safety performance targets be done 
as part of the HSIP report.
    In section 490.211(b), the FHWA proposes that it would evaluate 
achievement of each performance target. The FHWA considered a number of 
different approaches to implement the State DOT performance targets 
provision specified in 23 U.S.C. 148(i). This provision requires State 
DOTs that have not achieved or made significant progress toward 
achieving the State DOT performance targets obligate a portion of their 
HSIP funding in accordance with 23 U.S.C. 148(i)(1) only for highway 
safety improvement projects, and to develop and submit an

[[Page 13862]]

annual implementation plan to document how State DOTs intend to improve 
performance using HSIP funds. The FHWA recognizes the risks associated 
with target establishment and the factors that could impact the ability 
to achieve a target that could be outside of a State DOT's control. The 
FHWA considered these risks and factors in its evaluation of different 
approaches to implement this provision. For example, a number of 
factors were raised as part of the performance management stakeholder 
outreach sessions regarding target establishment and progress 
assessment, such as the impact of funding availability on performance 
outcomes, the reliability of the current state-of-practice to predict 
outcomes resulting from investments at a system level, the impact of 
uncertain events or events outside the control of a State DOT on 
performance outcomes, the need to consider multiple performance 
priorities in making investment trade-off decisions, and the challenges 
associated with balancing local and national objectives.
    The FHWA wants to implement an approach that considers the risks to 
a State DOT in achieving a target while meeting the need to provide for 
a fair and consistent process to determine compliance with this 
statutory provision. The FHWA realizes that there are some factors 
outside of a State's control (e.g. natural disaster, weather, 
technological safety improvements) that could impact the ability to 
achieve a target. The use of a rolling average as the basis for all of 
the measures will smooth the impacts of those factors that could result 
in any single year period.
    Basing the assessment on quantifiable results would ensure a fair 
and consistent approach to making the determination. The FHWA believes 
that this principle is particularly important as the consequence for 
non-compliance will further restrict how a State DOT can use its HSIP 
funding. In developing the criteria for evaluating significant progress 
toward achieving performance targets, the FHWA considered how output 
measures (e.g., miles of rumble strips, number of impaired driving 
arrests) could be used in the determination. Although output measures 
are important in delivering the Federal-aid highway program, they do 
not sufficiently reflect the purpose of the HSIP as provided in 23 
U.S.C. 148(c), or the ``National Goals'' in 23 U.S.C. 150(b)(1), which 
is to achieve a significant reduction in traffic fatalities and serious 
injuries. Output measures were therefore excluded from the proposed 
metric.
    Following the principles above, the FHWA is proposing the following 
approach to assess if a State DOT has achieved or has made significant 
progress toward the achievement of their targets. The FHWA would 
evaluate each State DOT's progress toward achieving their performance 
targets based on the final FARS data for fatality performance targets, 
the State DOT's reported results in the HSIP annual report for serious 
injury performance targets, and the HPMS for performance targets for 
rate-based measures.
    The FHWA proposes to use national datasets that are considered 
standards for statistics to base the determination of a State DOT's 
progress toward the achievement of targets so the process is conducted 
uniformly using a consistent and credible data set.
    The FHWA recognizes that there is a time lag in receiving the final 
data from FARS and HPMS. Consequently, the FHWA would make appropriate 
timing adjustments to comply with the requirements of 23 U.S.C. 148(i). 
As an example, when a State DOT establishes their target in August 2016 
for CY 2017, the latest available FARS and HPMS data would be for CY 
2013, since that data becomes available in December 2015. The final 
FARS and HPMS data for CY 2017 would be available in December 2019. The 
FHWA would review and evaluate this data and notify State DOTs if they 
achieved or made significant progress toward achieving their 
performance targets by March 1, 2020. This time frame is necessary to 
ensure that the assessment of whether a State achieved or made 
significant progress toward achieving targets is conducted based on a 
final data set (final FARS) for the fatality number, fatality rate, and 
serious injury rate measures. The FHWA proposes the use of this data to 
ensure that the requirements in 23 U.S.C. 148(i) are applied 
consistently and to ensure that the requirements are not imposed on 
States in error.
    As proposed in section 490.211(b), the FHWA would review each 
performance measure to determine if each target was achieved. Targets 
that have been achieved would not undergo any additional review or 
evaluation. As proposed in subparagraph (1), the FHWA would only 
evaluate performance targets not achieved to determine if the State DOT 
made significant progress toward achieving the target.
    The FHWA proposes in subparagraph (2) to evaluate significant 
progress \38\ for each performance target not achieved. First, the FHWA 
would determine a historical trend line based on FARS, State reported 
serious injury, and HPMS data for the State. In determining the 
historical trend line, the FHWA would plot 5-year rolling averages for 
10 consecutive years using the most recent data available at the time 
the State sets the target. For example, the historical trend line for 
the first assessment of significant progress under this regulation 
would consist of six data points from the following 5-year rolling 
averages: 2004-2008, 2005-2009, 2006-2010, 2007-2011, 2008-2012, 2009-
2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ The methodology is based on Chapter 3 in Neter, Wasserman, 
and Kutner (Applied Linear Statistical Models, 3rd Edition, 1990).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Trend lines are used to chart the prevailing direction of an event 
or events (e.g., fatalities or serious injuries by number or rates) and 
can be projected forward to predict future events. The historical trend 
line proposed to evaluate significant progress is a linear regression 
trend line. The FHWA considered different options for the historical 
trend line as well as time series analysis. We identified challenges 
with each option, particularly related to the use of rolling average 
data and the number of data points required to obtain meaningful 
results. Since FHWA must establish a uniform procedure to use for all 
States to assess, if necessary, whether the State made significant 
progress, the FHWA proposes to use a linear regression trend line. 
Stakeholders are encouraged to comment on the appropriateness of the 
trend line methodology proposed for the significant progress analysis.
    The FHWA proposes that 10 years of serious injury data, for 
equivalent years that final FARS data were available at the time the 
target was established, be made available for purposes of determining a 
historical trend line. Ten years of historical data would provide a 
sufficient set of data points for the purposes of projecting out for 
future years while balancing the need to use recent data.
    After the FHWA determines the historical trend line, the FHWA would 
then plot a projection point based on the historical trend line data 
and calculate the prediction interval for the projection point.
    When predicting a future point (projection) or estimate, there is 
an element of uncertainty. A prediction interval acknowledges these 
uncertainties and provides a range in

[[Page 13863]]

which the actual point should fall. The prediction percentage describes 
the probability that the actual point will fall within the given range. 
The determination of the interval size is a statistical process that 
includes consideration of several factors including previous years of 
actual data.
    There are any number of variables that impact safety performance, 
many of which are outside the control of the State DOT. For the 
``rate'' measures, the FHWA further recognizes that it is a projection 
(e.g., number of fatalities) divided by a projection (i.e., VMT), and 
as such, there is even less certainty in the projection. Recognizing 
the uncertainty in setting the projection point, the FHWA proposes that 
a 70 percent prediction interval be used and that the actual outcome 
fall at or below the upper bound of that interval for significant 
progress to be achieved. If the actual outcome is above the upper bound 
of the prediction interval for the projection point, significant 
progress was not achieved. The FHWA proposes a 70 percent prediction 
interval to assess significant progress because a prediction interval 
below 70 percent would be too small to allow for the uncertainty in the 
prediction. Similarly, prediction intervals above 70 percent belie the 
fact that a projection point is merely a projection. The FHWA seeks 
comment on whether the underlying methodology of the prediction 
interval is appropriate. An Example Application describing how the 
historical trend line, projection point, and prediction interval are 
developed to assess achievement of significant progress is presented at 
the end of this section.
    In subparagraph (3), the FHWA proposes to specify that a State DOT 
is determined to overall have achieved or made significant progress 
toward achieving its performance targets when at least 50 percent of 
the total number of performance targets the State DOT established for 
the respective reporting year are achieved or the FHWA has determined 
the State DOT has made significant progress toward achieving its 
targets under proposed section 490.211(b). This means that if a State 
DOT has four performance targets, then the State DOT would need to 
achieve or make significant progress toward achieving at least two of 
those targets in order for the State DOT to be evaluated as overall 
having achieved its targets or made significant progress toward 
achieving its targets in carrying out the HSIP. As an example, if a 
State DOT chooses to establish urbanized and non-urbanized performance 
targets for the number of fatalities and for the rate of serious 
injuries, it would have established eight performance targets. The 
State DOT would need to have achieved or made significant progress 
toward achieving at least four of those targets for the FHWA to 
determine a State has overall achieved its targets or made significant 
progress toward achieving its targets. The FHWA proposes at least 50 
percent for the achievement of overall significant progress because it 
would provide a meaningful way to evaluate progress while providing 
State DOTs the flexibility to establish aggressive targets to achieve 
the national goals defined in 23 U.S.C. 150. The FHWA seeks comment on 
whether 50 percent is the appropriate threshold for determining if a 
State has overall achieved or made significant progress toward 
achieving its performance targets.
    In section 490.211(c), the FHWA proposes that if it determines that 
a State has not overall achieved or made significant progress toward 
achieving safety performance targets, the State DOT would need to 
comply with 23 U.S.C. 148(i). The provisions in 23 U.S.C. 148(i) 
require that State DOTs that have not achieved or made significant 
progress toward achieving safety performance targets must: (1) Use 
obligation authority only for HSIP projects equal to the HSIP 
apportionment for the fiscal year prior to the year for which the 
overall performance targets were not achieved or significant progress 
was not made, and (2) submit an annual implementation plan that 
describes actions the State DOT will take to achieve targets based on a 
detailed analysis, including analysis of crash types. The 
implementation plan must: (a) Identify roadway features that constitute 
a hazard to road users; (b) identify highway safety improvement 
projects on the basis of crash experience, crash potential, or other 
data-supported means; (c) describe how HSIP funds will be allocated, 
including projects, activities, and strategies to be implemented; (d) 
describe how the proposed projects, activities, and strategies funded 
under the State HSIP will allow the State DOT to make progress toward 
achieving the safety performance targets; and (e) describe the actions 
the State DOT will undertake to achieve the performance targets.
    The following example illustrates how these provisions could be 
carried out. A State DOT establishes targets for performance measures 
for CY 2017. The FHWA would make a determination and inform the State 
DOT if it achieved or made significant progress toward achieving CY 
2017 performance targets by March 1, 2020. This schedule takes into 
account the time delay in obtaining final FARS and HPMS data, which in 
this example would not be available until December 2019. State DOTs 
would have the result of FHWA's evaluation for preparing their HSIP 
reports for the 2021 reporting cycles, which would be due to the FHWA 
by August 31, 2020. If a State had not achieved or made significant 
progress toward its overall 2017 performance targets, then that State 
DOT would need to use obligation authority in FY 2021 equal to its FY 
2016 HSIP apportionment (1 year prior to 2017) for use only on HSIP 
projects. The State DOT would also need to submit an implementation 
plan describing the actions that the State DOT will take to achieve its 
targets.
    For any year the FHWA determines that a State DOT has overall 
achieved or made significant progress toward achieving the performance 
targets of the State DOT, that State DOT would not be required to use 
obligation authority or submit an implementation plan for the 
subsequent year. If, in some future year, the FHWA determines that a 
State DOT does not overall achieve or make significant progress toward 
achieving its performance targets, the State DOT would at that time 
need to submit an implementation plan as well as use obligation 
authority as required in section 23 U.S.C. 148(i).
    In section 490.211(d), as required by 23 U.S.C. 148(i), the FHWA 
proposes that it will evaluate progress within 3 months of the date 
that final FARS data is available for the first year State DOTs set 
performance targets. Because of the delay in availability of final FARS 
data, the FHWA can conduct the evaluation 3 years after the State DOT 
establishes the target. The FHWA would continue to evaluate achievement 
of each performance target every year thereafter.

Section 490.213 Reporting of Targets for the Highway Safety Improvement 
Program

    In section 490.213(a), the FHWA proposes that State DOT reporting 
of the safety performance measures and targets be done in accordance 
with 23 CFR part 924. State DOT targets would be reported in accordance 
with 23 CFR 924.15(a)(1)(iii) in the proposed HSIP regulation (RIN 
2125-AF56).
    In section 490.213(b), the FHWA proposes that the manner in which 
MPOs report their established targets be documented within the 
Metropolitan Planning Agreement, which is regulated under 23 CFR part 
450. The MPOs would report their established safety targets to the 
relevant State DOTs in a manner that is agreed upon by both

[[Page 13864]]

parties and documented in the Metropolitan Planning Agreement.
    In paragraph (c), the FHWA also proposes that MPOs report baseline 
safety performance and progress toward the achievement of their safety 
targets in the system performance report in the metropolitan 
transportation plan, as provided in 23 U.S.C. 134(i)(2)(C).

Example Application of Proposed Target Assessment and Significant 
Progress Determination

    This fictional example demonstrates the State DOT process for 
establishing targets and the FHWA process to evaluate whether a State 
DOT has achieved or made significant progress toward achieving the 
performance targets of the State DOT in accordance with 23 U.S.C. 
148(i). The example explains how the historical trend line, projection 
point, and prediction interval are developed by the FHWA to assess 
achievement of significant progress in cases where State performance 
targets are not achieved. The example assumes an effective date for the 
rule in the spring of 2015.
    Step 1: The State establishes targets and reports them to FHWA.
    The State DOT submits its targets for each of the performance 
measures for CY 2017 in the HSIP report due by August 31, 2016. The 
targets would be identical for equivalent measures in the HSP, in 
keeping with section 490.209 and the NHTSA IFR, subject to the MAP-21 
requirement that the performance measures in the HSP are coordinated 
with the GHSA.
    The FHWA recognizes that there are numerous methods for developing 
and establishing performance targets to comply with this subpart. In 
this example, consistent with 23 U.S.C. 148 and 23 U.S.C. 402, the 
State DOT uses an evidence-based, data-driven approach to establish its 
targets for all measures. In doing so, the State DOT recognizes that a 
new primary seat belt law takes effect in CY 2016 and calibrates its 
fatality targets by reducing the anticipated number of fatalities for 
CY 2017. The State DOT makes this calibration to its trend line by 
using evidentiary data contained in the NHTSA Research Note ``States 
With Primary Enforcement Laws Have Lower Fatality Rates.'' \39\ Based 
on the passage of the law and information in the Research Note, the 
State estimates a 10 percent increase in seat belt use rate, which 
equates to an anticipated reduction of 59 fatalities. The State DOT 
does not believe other external factors beyond a State's control (e.g. 
economic conditions, weather patterns, technological safety 
improvements) will have a significant effect on the crash numbers 
during the year and did not use these factors to calibrate the trend 
line further. The State DOT does not elect to set urbanized and non-
urbanized targets for any of the performance measures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ States With Primary Enforcement Laws Have Lower Fatality 
Rates, DOT HS 810 923, February 2008, https://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/810921.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table 1 shows the data available to the State DOT and the targets 
established for the 2013-2017 period. Note that the target for the 
fatality number performance measure is less than the projection point 
to account for the estimated reduction in fatalities in CY 2017 
attributable to the passage of a primary seat belt law. The small 
change in the fatality number, however, did not affect the fatality 
rate target. For this example, the State DOT had CY 2013 final FARS 
data available to calculate the 2009-2013 5-year rolling average for 
the subject measures.
    The FHWA recognizes that a State DOT may have partial data to 
calculate the 2010-2014, 2011-2015 and 2012-2016 5-year rolling 
averages and thereby estimate a stronger target. For this example, the 
2010-2014 and 2011-2015 data is estimated and the 2012-2016 data were 
not available. Figure 1 shows graphs of the trend lines developed by 
the State DOT when establishing its targets. In this example, the State 
DOT does not elect to separate urbanized and non-urbanized measures.

                            Table 1--An Example of the Data Available to a State DOT and the Targets Established for CY 2017
                                                               [For Illustration Purposes]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          State data for setting CY2017 targets
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Dates for 5-year rolling      2006-2010    2007-2011    2008-2012    2009-2013    2010-2014    2011-2015       2012-2016      2013-2017    2013-2007
            average            ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------  Projection     Target
-------------------------------                                                                                                -------------------------
         Calendar year              2010         2011         2012         2013         2014         2015           2016            2017         2017
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Fatalities..........          629          834          836          829          808          773  Unavailable.....          770          759
Rate of Fatalities............         1.50         1.49         1.47         1.44         1.39         1.33  Unavailable.....         1.29         1.29
Number of Serious Injuries....         4584         4612         4623         4584         4468         4275  Unavailable.....         4265         4625
Rate of Serious injuries......         8.31         8.22         8.12         7.95         7.71         7.38  Unavailable.....         7.05         7.05
VMT (in millions).............        55183        56112        56960        57640        57974        57941  Unavailable.....          N/A          N/A
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 13865]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11MR14.010

    Step 2: FHWA assessment of targets and, if necessary, significant 
progress.
    The FHWA will assess target achievement by the State for CY 2017 
beginning in CY 2020 by:
    1. Assessing the target for each performance measure.
    2. Assessing both the urbanized and the non-urbanized target for 
each performance measure, if the State elected to establish such 
targets.
    3. If any target is not achieved, assessing whether the State made 
significant progress for the target.
    4. Making an overall assessment for achieving targets and/or made 
significant progress.
    5. Completing the assessment report on progress and submitting it 
to the State DOT by March 31, 2020.
    The FHWA must wait 3 years, until CY 2020, to assess whether CY 
2017 targets were achieved because the FARS and HPMS data are not 
available until that time as explained in the discussion of section 
490.211. Note that although the time lag for assessment will remain 
constant, target achievement will be assessed annually.
    Each target will be evaluated through the use of: Final FARS data 
for the fatality number measure; State DOT data for the serious 
injuries number measure; final FARS data and HPMS data for the fatality 
rate measure; and State DOT and HPMS data for the serious injury rate 
measure. The State data for the serious injury measures will be taken 
from the serious injury crash data submitted in the State HSIP report, 
in accordance with section 490.213, in this example, due August 31, 
2018. For purposes of evaluating whether the State DOT made significant 
progress for the serious injury measures, FHWA will use 10 years of 
serious injuries data for equivalent years that final FARS data were 
available at the time the target was established.
    Table 2 provides the actual final FARS, HPMS, and State data used 
in this example to assess having achieved or made significant progress 
toward achieving targets. The FHWA will only use final FARS and HPMS 
data that was available to the State at the time of target 
establishment. Similarly, FHWA will use serious injury data for this 
analysis from the same period of time.

          Table 2--Final Data for Assessing Target Achievement
                       [For Illustration Purposes]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CY2017 Final 5-year Rolling Average FARS, HPMS and Serious Injuries Data
                    for Assessing Target Achievement
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Target          Actual
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Fatalities....................             759             769
Rate of Fatalities......................            1.29            1.29
Number of Serious Injuries..............            4625            4599
Rate of Serious Injuries................            7.05            7.05
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The results are as follows:
    1. Fatality Number Measure Target--The State DOT target for this 
measure was 759 and the actual number was 769, so the State DOT did not 
achieve this

[[Page 13866]]

target. The FHWA will evaluate significant progress.
    2. Fatality Rate Measure Target--The State DOT target for this 
measure was 1.29 and the actual rate was 1.29, so the State DOT 
achieved this target.
    3. Serious Injuries Number Measure Target--The State DOT target for 
this measure was 4625 and the actual number was 4599, so the State DOT 
achieved this target.
    4. Serious Injury Rate Measure Target--The State DOT target for 
this measure was 7.05 and the actual rate was 7.05, so the State DOT 
achieved this target.
    5. If the State DOT had elected to establish urbanized and non-
urbanized targets for any of the performance measures, the FHWA would 
next evaluate whether each of these targets were achieved.
    In this case, the State DOT did not achieve its fatality number 
measure target, so an evaluation of significant progress for that 
measure is presented below. Although the State DOT has already achieved 
50 percent of its targets, the significant progress evaluation is 
included for illustrative purposes. Note that if the State DOT had 
elected to establish urbanized and non-urbanized targets for any of the 
performance measures, the determination of whether the State DOT had 
already achieved 50 percent of its targets would be based on the total 
number of safety performance targets set.
    The FHWA will develop a historical trend line, projection point, 
and prediction interval for this analysis. The historical trend line, 
as provided in section 490.211(b), requires 10 consecutive years of 
data. This results in six data points derived from consecutive 5-year 
rolling averages of the final FARS data that were available at the time 
the target was established. Table 3 provides the data for the 
assessment of the fatality number target in this example. Figure 2 
provides this information as a graph.

                                         Table 3--An Example of the Data for the Fatality Number Measure Target
                                                               [For Illustrative Purposes]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        Final FARS 5-year rolling average fatalities, projection, target and upper bound prediction interval data
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                      2017                                   2017 70% PI
   2008       2009       2010       2011       2012       2013       2014       2015      2016     Projection    2017 Target   2017 Actual   Upper Bound
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
     852        850        829        834        836        829         NA         NA        NA        810.10           759           769        825.66
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                                                                                                            [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11MR14.011
                                                                                                                                            
    The FHWA calculated the 70 percent prediction interval for this 
analysis to be  15.56.\40\ Therefore, the upper bound for 
the prediction interval for the fatality number measure in this 
analysis is 825.66. The actual number of fatalities for 2013-2017 5-
year rolling average was 769. In this case, the actual number is at or 
below the upper bound for the prediction interval, so the State DOT 
made significant progress for this measure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ A document summarizing the steps used to calculate the 
prediction interval using Applied Linear Statistical Models, 3rd 
Edition, 1990 may be found in the docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the FHWA will evaluate overall achievement or having made 
significant progress toward achieving performance targets. As required 
in section 490.211(b)(3), at least 50 percent of the targets must 
achieve or make significant progress toward achieving the targets, in 
order for the State DOT to overall achieve or make significant progress 
toward achieving targets. In this case, all four performance measures 
achieved or made significant progress toward achieving targets. The 
FHWA will report this finding to the State DOT by March 31, 2020. If, 
however, 50 percent of the targets were not achieved or made 
significant progress, the requirements in section 490.211(c) would need 
to be applied. The FHWA would also notify the State DOT of such action 
on or before March 31, 2020.

VI. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

    All comments received before the close of business on the comment 
closing date indicated above will be considered and will be available 
for examination in the docket at the above address. Comments received 
after the comment closing date will be filed in the docket and will be 
considered to the extent practicable. In addition to late comments, the 
FHWA will also continue to file relevant information in the docket as 
it becomes available after the comment period closing date, and 
interested persons should continue to

[[Page 13867]]

examine the docket for new material. A final rule may be published at 
any time after close of the comment period and after DOT has had the 
opportunity to review the comments submitted.

Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), Executive Order 
13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review), and DOT Regulatory 
Policies and Procedures

    The DOT has determined that this proposed rule constitutes a 
significant regulatory action within the meaning of Executive Order 
(EO) 12866 and is significant within the meaning of the DOT regulatory 
policies and procedures. This action complies with EO 12866 and 13563 
to improve regulation. This action is considered significant because of 
widespread public interest in the transformation of the Federal-aid 
highway program to be performance-based, although it is not 
economically significant within the meaning of EO 12866. The FHWA is 
presenting a Regulatory Impact Analysis (regulatory analysis or RIA) in 
support of the NPRM on Safety Performance Measures for the Highway 
Safety Improvement Program. The regulatory analysis analyzes the 
economic impact, in terms of costs and benefits, on Federal, State, and 
local governments, as well as private entities regulated under this 
action, as required by EO 12866 and EO 13563. The estimated costs are 
measured on an incremental basis, relative to current safety 
performance reporting practices.
    This section of the NPRM identifies the estimated costs resulting 
from the proposed rule--and how many serious injuries and fatalities 
would need to be avoided to justify this rule--in order to inform 
policy makers and the public of the relative value of the current 
proposal. The complete RIA may be accessed from the rulemaking's docket 
(FHWA-2013-0020). Each of the three performance measure rulemakings 
will include a discussion on the costs and benefits resulting from the 
proposed rules contained in each respective rulemaking; however, the 
third performance measure rule will provide a comprehensive discussion 
on the costs and benefits associated with all three performance measure 
rules for informational purposes.
    The cornerstone of MAP-21's highway program transformation is the 
transition to a performance-based program. In accordance with the law, 
State DOTs will invest resources in projects to achieve performance 
targets that will make progress toward national goals. Safety is one 
goal area where MAP-21 establishes national performance goals for 
Federal-aid highway programs. The law requires State DOTs to achieve a 
significant reduction in traffic fatalities and serious injuries on all 
public roads. The MAP-21 requires the FHWA to promulgate a rule to 
establish safety performance measures.

Estimated Cost of the Proposed Rule

    To estimate costs of the proposed rule, the FHWA assessed the level 
of effort, expressed in labor hours and the labor categories, needed to 
comply with each component of the proposed rule. Level of effort by 
labor category is monetized with loaded wage rates to estimate total 
costs. Table 1 displays the total cost of the proposed rule for the 10-
year study period (2015-2024). Total costs are estimated to be $66.7 
million undiscounted, $53.9 million discounted at 7 percent, and $60.5 
million discounted at 3 percent. Costs associated with the 
establishment of performance targets make up 53 percent of the total 
costs of the proposed rule. The costs in the tables assume a portion of 
MPOs, approximately half, would establish their own targets and a 
portion would adopt State DOT targets. It is assumed that State DOTs 
and MPOs serving populations greater than 200,000 would use staff to 
analyze safety trends and establish performance targets on an annual 
basis and MPOs serving a population less than 200,000 would adopt State 
DOT targets rather than establish their own safety performance targets 
and would therefore not incur any incremental costs. The FHWA made this 
assumption because larger MPOs may have more resources available to 
develop performance targets. The FHWA believes that this is a 
conservative estimate as larger MPOs may elect not to set their own 
targets for any variety of reasons, including resource availability.
    In addition, costs associated with the training of law enforcement 
personnel make up 36 percent of the total costs of the proposed rule. 
This is estimated to be a one-time incremental cost occurring in 2016 
impacting law enforcement agencies ($58,490 per State law enforcement 
agency, $1,207 per local law enforcement agency, and $1,697 per 
sheriff's department incurred in 2016 only). These amounts represents 
less than 3 percent of the unloaded mean wage of a local government law 
enforcement officer ($57,670 in May 2012); further, law enforcement 
officers represent about 10 percent of all local government 
employees.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ BLS data for local governments (May 2012), https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/naics4_999300.htm#33-0000.

                               Table 1--Total Estimated Cost of the Proposed Rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                 10-yr total cost
                         Cost components                         -----------------------------------------------
                                                                   Undiscounted         7%              3%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost of Section 490.205**.......................................     $26,336,977     $24,657,655     $25,589,318
KABCO Compliance................................................         348,983         348,983         348,983
Minor Revisions to Database.....................................         287,758         287,758         287,758
Convert non-KABCO data..........................................          61,225          61,225          61,225
MMUCC Compliance................................................      25,669,624      23,990,303      24,921,965
Modifications to Database Platform..............................         624,495         583,640         606,306
Modifications to PAR Report.....................................       1,070,213       1,000,199       1,039,042
Law Enforcement Training........................................      23,974,916      22,406,464      23,276,617
Establish 5-Year Rolling Average................................         318,370         318,370         318,370
Cost of Section 490.209.........................................      35,278,769      25,538,819      30,520,482
Establish and Update Performance Targets........................      35,278,769      25,538,819      30,520,482
Cost of Section 490.211.........................................       5,079,514       3,677,135       4,394,406
Develop an Implementation Plan..................................       5,079,514       3,677,135       4,394,406
    Total Cost of Proposed Rule.................................      66,695,260      53,873,609      60,504,205
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Totals may not sum due to rounding.
** Costs of Section 490.205 Represent one-time start up costs.


[[Page 13868]]

Break-Even Analysis

    Currently, there are many disparities in the way State DOTs code 
and define safety performance measures (e.g., serious injuries). The 
definitions and terminology (i.e. ``incapacitating injury'' vs. 
``severe injury'') that States use can differ greatly. Below are the 
terminology and definitions that two different States use to code their 
most serious injury:
     ``Incapacitating Injury'': This means that the victim must 
be carried or otherwise helped from the scene. If the victim needs no 
help, then either a code 3 or 4 applies even though medical assistance 
may have been administered at the scene.
     ``Severe Injury'': An injury other than a fatal injury 
which results in broken bones, dislocated or distorted limbs, severe 
lacerations, or unconsciousness at or when taken from the collision 
scene. It does not include minor laceration.
    These discrepancies have long been recognized as a problem in 
collecting and analyzing data at the national level. The proposed 
rulemaking would establish a single terminology and definition for the 
performance measures for the purpose of carrying out the HSIP to assess 
serious injuries and fatalities on all public roads. In addition, the 
rule would establish the processes that (1) State DOTs and MPOs would 
use to establish and report safety targets and (2) FHWA would use to 
assess progress that State DOTs have made toward achieving safety 
targets. Upon implementation, the FHWA expects that the proposed rule 
would result in some significant benefits. Specifically, the FHWA 
expects safety investment decision making to be more informed through 
the use of consistent and uniform measures, State DOTs to be more 
accountable to the public for the use of Federal funds to achieve their 
targets for performance and to reduce fatalities and serious injuries 
on all public roadways, in the HSIP, and for progress to be made toward 
the overall achievement of the MAP-21 national goal for safety. Each of 
these benefits is discussed in further detail in the Regulatory Impact 
Analysis, which we have placed in the docket. Although these 
improvements may lead to more effective policies, it is not appropriate 
to assume that any reductions in fatalities and serious injuries (post-
rule implementation) are solely a result of this rule. Decisions 
regarding use of highway funding are the result of a multitude of 
factors (e.g. politics, project priorities, or other studies). In 
addition, these benefits are amorphous and difficult to quantify. 
Therefore, for this proposed rulemaking, the FHWA performed a break-
even analysis as described in Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 
Circular A-4 that estimates the number of fatalities and incapacitating 
injuries the rule would need to prevent for the benefits of the rule to 
justify the costs. Table 2 displays the results from a break-even 
analysis using fatalities and incapacitating injuries as the reduction 
metric. The results show that the proposed rule must prevent 
approximately 7 fatalities or an equivalent 153 incapacitating 
injuries, nationwide, over 10 years to generate enough benefits to 
outweigh the cost of the proposed rule. This translates to 
approximately 1 avoided fatality or an equivalent 15.3 incapacitating 
injuries per year nationwide.\42\ The FHWA believes that the 
requirements proposed in this rule would result in the achievement of 
this break-even threshold based on the actual performance improvements 
realized after the implementation of strategic highway safety plans 
which were first required to be developed as part of the previous 
surface transportation authorization. The FHWA further believes that 
the proposed requirements in this rule build on the plan requirements 
and, as a result, the benefits of the rule would be realized such that 
they outweigh the costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ For reference, according to ``NHTSA Traffic Safety Facts 
2009,'' there were 250,808 severe crashes in 2009.

                               Table 2--Break-Even Analysis Using Fatalities and Incapacitating Injuries Reduction Metric
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                               Average annual
                                                         Reduction in           reduction in            Reduction in         Average annual reduction in
            Undiscounted 10-year  costs              fatalities  required   fatalities  required   incapacitating injuries     incapacitating injuries
                                                    for rule to be  cost-  for rule to be  cost-  required for rule to  be  required for rule to be cost-
                                                          beneficial             beneficial            cost-beneficial               beneficial
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a                                                     b = a / $9,100,000       c = b / 10 years          d = a / $435,208              e = d / 10 years
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$66,695,260.......................................                   7.3                    0.7                     153.2                          15.3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    In compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (Pub. L. 96-354, 
5 U.S.C. 601-612), FHWA has evaluated the effects of this NPRM on small 
entities and anticipates that this action would not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The proposed 
rule affects three types of entities: State governments, MPOs, and 
local law enforcement agencies. State governments do not meet the 
definition of a small entity.
    The MPOs are considered governmental jurisdictions, so the small 
entity standard for these entities is whether the affected MPOs serve 
less than 50,000 people. As discussed in the RIA, the proposed rule is 
expected to impose costs on MPOs that serve populations exceeding 
200,000. Further, MPOs serve urbanized areas with populations of more 
than 50,000. Therefore, the MPOs that incur economic impacts under this 
proposed rule do not meet the definition of a small entity.
    Local law enforcement agencies, however, may be subsets of small 
governmental jurisdictions. Nonetheless, the RIA estimates minimal one-
time costs to local law enforcement agencies, as discussed above, and 
these costs represent a fraction of a percent of revenues of a small 
government. Therefore, I hereby certify that this regulatory action 
would not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small 
entities.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    The FHWA has determined that this NPRM would not impose unfunded 
mandates as defined by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. 
L. 104-4, March 22, 1995, 109 Stat. 48). This rule does not contain a 
Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $143.1 million or 
more in any one year (when adjusted for inflation) in 2012 dollars for 
either State, local, and tribal governments in the aggregate, or by the 
private sector. The FHWA will publish a final analysis, including its

[[Page 13869]]

response to public comments, when it publishes a final rule. 
Additionally, the definition of ``Federal mandate'' in the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act excludes financial assistance of the type in which 
State, local, or tribal governments have authority to adjust their 
participation in the program in accordance with changes made in the 
program by the Federal Government. The Federal-aid highway program 
permits this type of flexibility.

Executive Order 13132 (Federalism Assessment)

    The FHWA has analyzed this NPRM in accordance with the principles 
and criteria contained in EO 13132. 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 action would not preempt any State law or State regulation or 
affect the States' ability to discharge traditional State governmental 
functions.

Executive Order 12372 (Intergovernmental Review)

    The regulations implementing EO 12372 regarding intergovernmental 
consultation on Federal programs and activities apply to this program. 
This EO applies because State and local governments would be directly 
affected by the proposed regulation, which is a condition on Federal 
highway funding. Local entities should refer to the Catalog of Federal 
Domestic Assistance Program Number 20.205, Highway Planning and 
Construction, for further information.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501, et 
seq.), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the OMB prior to 
conducing or sponsoring a collection of information. Details and 
burdens in this proposed rule would be realized in Planning and HSIP 
reporting. The PRA activities are already covered by existing OMB 
Clearances. The reference numbers for those clearances are OMB: 2132-
0529 and 2125-0025 with expiration dates of May 20, 2016. Any increase 
in PRA burdens caused by MAP-21 in these areas were addressed in PRA 
approval requests associated with those rulemakings.

National Environmental Policy Act

    The FHWA has analyzed this action for the purpose of the National 
Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), 
and has determined that this action would not have any effect on the 
quality of the environment and meets the criteria for the categorical 
exclusion at 23 CFR 771.117(c)(20).

Executive Order 12630 (Taking of Private Property)

    The FHWA has analyzed this proposed rule under EO 12630, 
Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected 
Property Rights. The FHWA does not anticipate that this proposed action 
would affect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking 
implications under EO 12630.

Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)

    This action meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) 
of EO 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate 
ambiguity, and reduce burden.

Executive Order 13045 (Protection of Children)

    We have analyzed this rule under EO 13045, Protection of Children 
from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. The FHWA certifies 
that this action would not cause an environmental risk to health or 
safety that might disproportionately affect children.

Executive Order 13175 (Tribal Consultation)

    The FHWA has analyzed this action under EO 13175, dated November 6, 
2000, and believes that the proposed action would not have substantial 
direct effects on one or more Indian tribes; would not impose 
substantial direct compliance costs on Indian tribal governments; and 
would not preempt tribal laws. The proposed rulemaking addresses 
obligations of Federal funds to States for Federal-aid highway projects 
and would not impose any direct compliance requirements on Indian 
tribal governments. Therefore, a tribal summary impact statement is not 
required.

Executive Order 13211 (Energy Effects)

    The FHWA has analyzed this action under EO 13211, Actions 
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 
Distribution, or Use. The FHWA has determined that this is not a 
significant energy action under that order and is not likely to have a 
significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of 
energy. Therefore, a Statement of Energy Effects is not required.

Executive Order 12898 (Environmental Justice)

    The EO 12898 requires that each Federal agency make achieving 
environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and 
addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human 
health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and 
activities on minorities and low-income populations. The FHWA has 
determined that this rule does not raise any environmental justice 
issues.

Regulation Identification Number

    A RIN is assigned to each regulatory action listed in the Unified 
Agenda of Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service 
Center publishes the Unified Agenda in April and October of each year. 
The RIN number contained in the heading of this document can be used to 
cross-reference this action with the Unified Agenda.

List of Subjects in 23 CFR Part 490

    Bridges, Highway safety, Highways and roads, Reporting and record 
keeping requirements.

    Issued on: February 28, 2014.
Gregory G. Nadeau,
Deputy Administrator, Federal Highway Administration.

    In consideration of the foregoing, the FHWA proposes to amend title 
23, Code of Federal Regulations, by adding part 490 to read as follows:

PART 490--NATIONAL PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT MEASURES

Subpart A--General Information
Sec.
490.101 Definitions.
Subpart B--National Performance Measures for the Highway Safety 
Improvement Program
490.201 Purpose.
490.203 Applicability.
490.205 Definitions.
490.207 National performance measures for the Highway Safety 
Improvement Program.
490.209 Establishment of performance targets.
490.211 Determining whether a State DOT has made significant 
progress toward achieving performance targets.
490.213 Reporting of targets for the Highway Safety Improvement 
Program.


    Authority:  23 U.S.C. 134, 135, 148(i) and 150; 49 CFR 1.85.

[[Page 13870]]

Subpart A--General Information


Sec.  490.101  Definitions.

    Unless otherwise specified, the following definitions apply to this 
part: Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS) is a national level 
highway information system that includes data on the extent, condition, 
performance, use, and operating characteristics of the Nation's 
highways.
    Measure means an expression based on a metric that is used to 
establish targets and to assess progress toward achieving the 
established targets (e.g., a measure for flight on-time performance is 
percent of flights that arrive on time, and a corresponding metric is 
an arithmetic difference between scheduled and actual arrival time for 
each flight).
    Metric means a quantifiable indicator of performance or condition.
    Non-Urbanized Area means any geographic area that is not an 
``urbanized area'' under either 23 U.S.C. 101(a)(34) or 23 CFR 450.104.
    Target means a quantifiable level of performance or condition, 
expressed as a value for the measure, to be achieved within a time 
period required by FHWA.

Subpart B--National Performance Measures for the Highway Safety 
Improvement Program


Sec.  490.201  Purpose.

    The purpose of this subpart is to implement the requirements of 23 
U.S.C. 150(c)(4), which requires the Secretary of Transportation to 
establish performance measures for the purpose of carrying out the 
Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) and for State Departments of 
Transportation to use in assessing:
    (a) Serious injuries and fatalities per vehicle miles traveled; and
    (b) The number of serious injuries and fatalities.


Sec.  490.203  Applicability.

    The performance measures are applicable to all public roads covered 
by the HSIP carried out under 23 U.S.C. 130 and 148.


Sec.  490.205  Definitions.

    Unless otherwise specified, the following definitions apply in this 
subpart:
    5-year rolling average means the average of 5 individual, 
consecutive annual points of data (e.g. the 5-year rolling average of 
the annual fatality rate).
    Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) means the final FARS data 
and is a nationwide census providing public yearly data regarding all 
road user fatalities.
    Historical trend line means a trend line, developed by FHWA from 10 
years of data, used to plot a projection point for future numbers and 
rates of serious injuries and fatalities.
    KABCO means the coding convention system for injury classification 
established by the National Safety Council.
    Made significant progress means, in accordance with 23 U.S.C. 
148(i), an outcome at or below the upper bound of a prediction 
interval.
    Number of Fatalities means the total number of persons suffering 
fatal injuries in a motor vehicle traffic crash during a calendar year, 
based on the data reported by the Fatality Analysis Reporting System 
(FARS) database.
    Number of Serious Injuries means the total number of persons 
suffering at least one serious injury for each separate motor vehicle 
traffic crash during a calendar year, as reported by the State, where 
the injury status is MMUCC, latest edition, compliant. For serious 
injuries that are not MMUCC compliant, the number of serious injuries 
means serious injuries that are converted to KABCO by use of conversion 
tables developed by NHTSA.
    Prediction Interval means an estimate of the upper and lower bounds 
within which a future observation will fall, given a specific 
probability.
    Projection point means a future point based on historical trend 
line data.
    Rate of Fatalities means the ratio of the total number of 
fatalities (as defined above) to the number of vehicle miles of travel 
(VMT) as reported by the Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS) 
(expressed in 100 million VMT) in a calendar year.
    Rate of Serious Injuries means the ratio of the total number of 
serious injuries (as defined above) to the number of VMT as reported by 
the HPMS (expressed in 100 million vehicle miles of travel) in a 
calendar year.
    Serious Injuries means in the first 18 months of the effective date 
of this rule, injuries classified as ``A'' on the KABCO scale through 
use of the conversion tables developed by NHTSA; after 18 months of the 
effective date of this rule, ``suspected serious injury'' (A) as 
defined in the Model Minimum Uniform Crash Criteria (MMUCC), latest 
edition.


Sec.  490.207  National performance measures for The Highway Safety 
Improvement Program.

    (a) There are four performance measures for the purpose of carrying 
out the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP). They are:
    (1) Number of fatalities;
    (2) Rate of fatalities;
    (3) Number of serious injuries; and
    (4) Rate of serious injuries.
    (b) Each performance measure is based on a 5-year rolling average. 
The performance measures are calculated as follows, rounding the total 
to the hundredth decimal place:
    (1) The performance measure for the number of fatalities is the 5-
year rolling average of the total number of fatalities for each State 
and shall be calculated by adding the number of fatalities for the most 
recent 5 consecutive years for which data are available and dividing by 
five.
    (2) The performance measure for the rate of fatalities is the 5-
year rolling average of the State's fatality rate per VMT and shall be 
calculated by first calculating the number of fatalities per 100 
million VMT as reported in HPMS for the most recent 5 consecutive years 
for which data are available, adding the results, and dividing by five.
    (3) The performance measure for the number of serious injuries is 
the 5-year rolling average of the total number of serious injuries for 
each State and shall be calculated by adding the number of serious 
injuries for the most recent 5 consecutive years for which data are 
available and dividing by five.
    (4) The performance measure for the rate of serious injuries is the 
5-year rolling average of the total number of serious injuries per VMT 
and shall be calculated by first calculating the number of serious 
injuries per 100 million VMT as reported in HPMS for each of the most 
recent 5 consecutive years for which data are available, adding the 
results, and divided by five.
    (c) For purposes of calculating serious injuries performance 
measures in Sec.  490.207(b)(3) and (4):
    (1) By the effective date of this rule, serious injuries shall be 
coded (A) in the KABCO injury classification scale through use of the 
NHTSA serious injuries conversion tables.
    (2) Within 18 months of the effective date of this rule, serious 
injuries must be determined using MMUCC, latest edition.
    (d) FHWA recommends that States prepare themselves so that no later 
than January 1, 2020, all States use a medical record injury outcome 
reporting system that links injury outcomes from medical records to 
crash reports.


Sec.  490.209  Establishment of performance targets.

    (a) State DOTs shall establish targets annually for each 
performance measure identified in Sec.  490.207(a) in a manner that is 
consistent with the following:

[[Page 13871]]

    (1) The State DOT targets shall be identical to the targets 
established by the State Highway Safety Office for common performance 
measures reported in the State's Highway Safety Plan, subject to the 
requirements of 23 U.S.C. 402(k)(4), and as coordinated through the 
State Strategic highway safety plan.
    (2) State DOT targets shall represent performance outcomes 
anticipated for the calendar year following the HSIP annual report 
date, as provided in 23 CFR 924.15.
    (3) State DOT performance targets shall represent the anticipated 
performance outcome for all public roadways within the State regardless 
of ownership or functional class.
    (4) State DOT targets shall be reported in the HSIP annual report 
that is due after one year from the effective date of this rule and in 
each subsequent HSIP annual report thereafter.
    (5) The State DOT shall include in the HSIP Report 10 years of 
serious injury data.
    (i) The 10 years of data shall be the same years that final FARS 
data were available at the time the target was established.
    (ii) The serious injury data shall be either MMUCC compliant or 
converted to the KABCO system (A) for injury classification through use 
of the NHTSA conversion tables.
    (6) Unless approved by FHWA, State DOTs shall not change their 
target once it is submitted in the HSIP annual report.
    (b) State DOTs may, as appropriate, establish one additional 
performance target for all urbanized areas and one additional 
performance target for all non-urbanized areas within the State for 
each performance measure.
    (c) The Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) shall establish 
performance targets for each of the measures identified in Sec.  . 
490.207(a), where applicable, in a manner that is consistent with the 
following:
    (1) The MPOs shall establish targets not later than 180 days after 
the respective State DOT establishes and reports targets in the State 
HSIP annual report.
    (2) After the MPOs establish the targets, the State DOT must be 
able to provide those targets to FHWA, upon request.
    (3) The MPO targets shall be established by either:
    (i) Planning and programming safety projects so that they 
contribute toward the accomplishment of the State DOT targets, or
    (ii) Committing to quantifiable targets.
    (4) The MPO targets established under paragraph (c)(3) of this 
section specific to the metropolitan planning area shall represent the 
anticipated performance outcome for all public roadways within the 
metropolitan planning boundary regardless of ownership or functional 
class.
    (d) The State DOT and relevant MPOs shall coordinate on the 
selection of targets in accordance with 23 CFR 450 to ensure 
consistency, to the maximum extent practicable.


Sec.  490.211  Determining whether a State DOT has made significant 
progress toward achieving performance targets.

    (a) The determination for having made significant progress toward 
achieving the performance targets under 23 U.S.C. 148(i) will be 
determined based on final FARS data for the fatality number, final FARS 
and HPMS data for the fatality rate, State reported data for the 
serious injuries number, and State reported data and HPMS data for the 
serious injuries rate. The State-reported serious injury data will be 
taken from the HSIP report in accordance with 23 CFR 924.15.
    (b) FHWA will evaluate whether a State DOT has achieved or made 
significant progress toward achievement of each performance target.
    (1) Only those performance targets not achieved will be evaluated 
for having made significant progress.
    (2) FHWA will evaluate whether a State DOT has made significant 
progress toward achieving a target by:
    (i) Determining a historical trend line, based on 5-year rolling 
averages, using 10 consecutive years of the most recent FARS, HPMS, and 
the equivalent serious injury data available at the time the target is 
established.
    (ii) Using that historical trend line, determining a projection 
point (which is also based on the rolling average) for the target year.
    (iii) Determining from that projection point, a prediction interval 
bounded by a 70 percent upper and lower bound.
    (iv) Determining if the outcome is at or below the 70 percent upper 
bound of the prediction interval.
    (3) A State DOT is determined to have overall achieved its targets 
or made significant progress toward achieving its targets when at least 
50 percent of the total number of performance targets is achieved or 
the State DOT has made significant progress as provided in paragraph 
(b)(2) of this section (e.g. if a State DOT has four performance 
targets, then the State DOT is determined to overall achieve its 
targets or made significant progress toward achieving its targets if it 
met one target and made significant progress on one target).
    (c) If a State DOT has not overall achieved or made significant 
progress toward achieving safety performance targets in accordance with 
paragraph (b) of this section, the State DOT must comply with 23 U.S.C. 
148(i).
    (d) FHWA will evaluate whether a State DOT has overall achieved or 
made significant progress toward achievement of performance targets 
annually. The first evaluation will occur within 3 months of the date 
that final FARS data are available for the first year State DOTs set 
performance targets.


Sec.  490.213  Reporting of targets for the Highway Safety Improvement 
Program

    (a) The targets established by the State DOT shall be reported to 
the FHWA in the State's HSIP annual report in accordance with 23 CFR 
part 924.
    (b) The MPOs shall report their established safety targets to their 
respective State DOT in a manner that is agreed upon by both parties 
and documented in the Metropolitan Planning Agreement in accordance 
with 23 CFR part 450.
    (c) The MPOs shall report baseline safety performance and progress 
toward the achievement of their targets in the system performance 
report in the metropolitan transportation plan in accordance with 23 
CFR part 450.
[FR Doc. 2014-05152 Filed 3-10-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-22-P